President Bush condemned the surge in violence and said Iraqis must make a choice between “a free society or a society dictated … by evil people who will kill innocents.'’

Uh, George? I think they’re making the choice, for anything but the latter.

This is the problem with someone who lacks critical thinking skills. He says “You’re either with us or against us,” and defines two choices for Iraqis. Everything is viewed as “you must choose A or suffer B”. As if Bush has the divine right to limit the options simplistically, to two.

The reality, George, is there’s a whole lotta choices. Which you might get a glimmer of understanding of, if you ever learn there’s another 23 letters in the alphabet, besides ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘W’.

We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country’s good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world’s evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation’s wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal�€”known to be armed and shown to be dangerous.

[link]

His parents raised a sociopath, used their pals to counsel him all the way to the White House, and his actions since have proven my diagnosis. A president can be removed for mental incapacity and it’s clear the man is truly sick.

He’s fallen below the threshold in popularity ratings and nears the final dive. Cheney, with lower ratings, is as popular as toenail fungus, and serves as the only rationale against Bush’s impeachment.

Leaving behind all the greatest tools of a modern tyrant, from the Peeping Tom that peers into our boudoirs to the retinue of Marquis de Sade, this tag team from Hell has one sole achievement that analysts would have thought impossible. They took a country that most of humanity admired and grieved with on September 11, 2001 and turned it into a grotesque gargoyle so hideous that it made many pause and ponder whether Osama Bin Laden had a point after all. There’s just too much blood on the hands of all three.

I may be early, but let me be the first to say “Good riddance George and Dick.” Without our twin tinpot dictators, I just hope we can find enough stalwarts to bring democracy back to America.

Just when I thought everything has been said about abortion rights, along comes Barbara and August with two new viewpoints that reign as the most perceptive I’ve ever seen.

The Fox That Cried Wolf

Karl Roverer, the so-called “genius” behind the so-called “successful” Bush residency, is still with the use of the hindbrain, from which he now predicts a stunning Republican victory in 2008, according to infamous catamite to the Reich, Matt Drudge, and slick Fox-fed opportunist, Bill Sammon — neither of whom bear the least resemblance to Nostrodamus.

Mr. Sammon is hawking his new book, which is running with the title, “Strategery”, which, for all we know, is but a vain attempt to legitimate one of Bush’s copious blunders, in much the same way that Bush’s whipping boys keep repeating “nucular” — a move which only moves the speaker down into the sub-cerebral bushosphere.

Drudge, Rove & Sammons. Foxes that cry wolf. On cue. Pavlov’s foxes. Ring the bell and turds as words begin to flow into a sort of cloaca of consciousness, or unconsciousness, the aggregate of which we refer to collectively as simply BushWorld.

BushWorld! Where the Tao fears to tread, and Nature knows no Reason.
BushWorld! The darkening of the Light.
BushWorld! Where the world is an oyster for the Topnazis to molest with their mouths, and spit up on the poor.

It’s a stratragedy. Written by a shakespoon.

Lewis Lapham, in Harper’s Magazine, makes the case against George of the Bungle.

… you better open your eyes.

Sounding a lot like Hillary Clinton, Newsweek and a host of other mainstream media manage to analyze the morality of abortion without ever touching on the morality of mandating forced motherhood in a nation that flaunts an anti-family, anti-life policy so harsh that it results in 46 million Americans without healthcare and the highest child poverty rate in the developed world.

And the leaders of this nation insist that it is the pro-choice women of America who are morally bankrupt? Hello?

Every time you start your car, you’re choosing to cause the deaths of US soldiers in the Middle East. Do you buy that reason? Did you open your door anyway? Should you be punished for murdering US soldiers?

Of course not. You opened the door and drove because you had to go someplace. You likely didn’t even think of the global consequences your drive contributed to. It’s good to be aware and smart and to set limits to your driving to minimize the potential negatives.

Women who open their legs are trying to go someplace, too. They don’t always think of every consequence, either, though they likely do so more than the average driver. So why should they be punished? Why should they be enslaved by mandatory motherhood? Because they took a short drive to love or pleasure? Because in that one moment, they wanted or needed something important that happened to contain semen?

Men and women participate in sex. Women face more of the potential unhappy consequences. How did states assume the right to limit half the population from choices to deal with those consequences? It will always be hypocrisy, always be unequal, always be enslavement when states do so.

I think we should force every driver to support the parents, spouse and kids of every dead soldier in Iraq. And of every dead Iraqi’s family, too. Let’s make that mandatory. It’s only fair, because you knew the consequences when you stuck your key in that wanton ignition, you slut. But we should exempt blondes from having to pay. That’s fair, right?

I just hope some state like Nebraska kicks South Dakota in the nuts.

George Bush could say “I’m president!” and half the country would immediately doubt it. But when a comet strikes Jupiter and a chunk of space rock splashes into the ocean and floods Atlantic City, if this guy issued a video saying he was responsible, 80% of the country would believe it.

It’s quite a sad commentary. We have an enemy who’s far more credible than the guy elected as our Defender-In-Chief. But the observation of reality has a way of defining the truth that surpasses every master of spin.

Which conflicts with the definition of ‘master’ in the form of Karl Rove. He’s now the 98 pound weakling of spin, and his chief talking head, Scotty McClellan, has become as relevant as a Chatty Cathy doll.

Kelly�€™s Heroes, the Clint Eastwood war movie we watched for family movie night this weekend, is a strange film�€”strange because it�€™s more intelligent and subtler than it needed to be.

In barebones outline it�€™s basically a caper movie that happens to be set in occupied France in World War II. Mastermind Clint Eastwood, as Kelly, hatches a plan to steal 16 million dollars worth of Nazi gold from a bank behind enemy lines. He enlists Telly Savalas, Don Rickles, Donald Sutherland, and a gang of misfits to help him with the heist. For added fun, setting up the caper and assembling the gang allows the filmmakers to include elements of a typical service company. And pretty much this is what Kelly�€™s Heroes is—a Chinese menu of a genre movie with a little from Column A, a little from Column B, plus some Chef�€™s Specials. It�€™s a war movie/caper movie/service comedy. Well-made, diverting, funny in spots, exciting in others. Nothing special. Except…

Kelly�€™s Heroes came out in 1970, the same year as M*A*S*H and the two movies share thematic similarities, character types, and attitudes. M*A*S*H began life as just a service comedy, Sergeant Bilko with doctors and sexy nurses. Kelly�€™s Heroes has some of the same service comedy elements: Soldiers as wisecracking wheeler-dealers and con men pitted against brass that�€™s out of it, lost in their own pet projects, schemes, vanities, ambitions, or delusions of military grandeur. Kelly�€™s Heroes is missing the authoritarian types who are in love with rules for the rules, own sakes or for the opportunities rules provide them to boss others around. Carroll O�€™Connor is in there as a general who is a borderline crackpot, but his role isn�€™t to get in Kelly�€™s way; it�€™s to cheer him on, although without knowing what he�€™s really rooting for Kelly to do. So the movie doesn�€™t share M*A*S*H�€™s anti-authoritarian streak, exactly. Its view is that authority is an illusion. The brass�€”the ruling class, the bosses�€”only think they�€™re in charge.

What�€™s in charge is chaos and death in the form of War. And all that opposes it is the individual�€™s determination to survive and make enough order for himself as he can manage. The fight isn�€™t to end Nazism. Nazism is just another face of War. The fight is to get to Berlin alive so that the War will end and the good guys can get a good meal, a good bed, and a good lay. Telly Savalas, as Big Joe, the sergeant, is the hero, which surprised me. I didn�€™t remember that from when I first saw the movie as a kid or even from the second time when I was in college. When I was a kid I identified with Eastwood the Cowboy. When I was in college I identified with Donald Sutherland as the artist and professional survivor. Now that I�€™m a father I guess I�€™m finally smart enough not to take what Savalas is doing in the movie for granted.

Eastwood�€™s character is more ambiguous than I�€™d noticed. Kelly�€™s a loner, but unlike in Westerns, the loner here is admired only up to a point. Kelly�€™s in this thing for himself, this thing being the caper, but it may be the war too. Kelly sees all the other characters as his business partners. He�€™s fair to them, but he isn�€™t bound to them. He doesn�€™t love them, that�€™s for sure. Savalas loves them all, even Kelly and the Don Rickles character, whom Big Joe disapproves of, distrusts, and even disdains�€”but he�€™s still one of his. His responsibility. His son.

Big Joe is the only character in the movie who is not motivated by money or self-interest. (Except for Carroll O�€™Connor�€™s general whose motivations are a mixture of vanity, bloodlust, and patriotism, and as lunatic as he is.) Big Joe goes along with the plot to steal the gold in order to be there to take care of his men and see they get out alive.

Through Savalas�€™ character, Kelly�€™s Heroes becomes not a war movie or an anti-war movie but a movie about heroism in an unheroic reality. And in that way it�€™s very much a product of its time.

Which brings us back to its similarities to M*A*S*H.

What the two movies have in common, besides the presence of Donald Sutherland in their casts, is an unglorious definition of heroism. Heroism is staying alive and helping others stay alive�€”which is to say, stay human�€”in the face of unspeakable inhumanness. The enemy in both movies is Death. And War equals Death. Any justification of war, any justifier of it, whatever uniform he wears, is on the side of Death.

Watching Donald Sutherland play his character as the first hippie is a clue. The movie may be set during World War II but don�€™t let that fool you. Kelly�€™s Heroes and M*A*S*H are both anti-Vietnam War, anti-Johnson, anti-Nixon.

What�€™s different between them is that Kelly�€™s Heroes has no equivalent to Frank Burns while M*A*S*H has no equivalent to Big Joe.

Hawkeye, Trapper, and Duke are basically compassionate men. They care about their patients and look out for each other and their friends. But they are also anti-social types and more often than not pretty darn selfish. They are like Kelly. They don�€™t want to be where they are, they didn�€™t volunteer, they don�€™t feel called upon to do anything over and beyond the call of duty, and they are on the lookout for a way to get something for themselves out of the awful messes they�€™ve been stuck in�€”they want some kind of payback.

Big Joe talks tough, comes on like a cynic. He dismisses any outbreak of idealism�€”but the only idealism that appears in the movie is inside his own head and we only know it’s there from his spoken rejection of it. He says that all he wants for his men is decent �€œbeds, booze, and broads.�€� But under the circumstances that�€™s an awful lot to ask.

Essentially, it�€™s to ask for their lives and their humanity. And he sets out to get those for them. He�€™s not an anti-war protester. He�€™s a social activist.

I don�€™t mean to suggest that Kelly�€™s Heroes is the better movie. I just think it has the better heart, and that makes it a better movie than it has any business being.

I’m sure some are Dubai-is about my initial post about the Dubai port deal, so a little clarity is in order. First, it’s noteworthy that any tme you scratch the surface of anything Dubya has ever done, oily residues appear as something ugly comes seeping through. Someone could challenge George’s kindergarten grades, I’d say “c’mon! no way!” and I’d likely discover that he indeed graduated only because one of his parents’ friends threatened the teacher with an IRS audit and a transfer to a Mississippi school.

So on the Dubai deal, I’m not surprised that laws were broken, that cronyism is evident, etc. I was fully aware it would become a fresh mine of seedy revelations of how low this creep could go.

What I also recognized was that our port security sucks, that the creep has invested poorly in our national security, and that, relative to security, we’d be no worse off with Dubai pretending to maintain our safety as we would with any other option Bush might choose. If a Sudan war criminal or Stalin was chosen, I’d only be surprised that Bush was giving up the pretense that he cares about the country. I’d not find shock that Anything For A Buck George has done anything properly called depraved, illegal or damaging to the national interest.

My remaining concern, my mentions of xenophobia and racism, were not intended to tar bloggers and journalists mining the scandal. My concern was for the impact on public discourse and perception.

Sadly, our country is full of racists and xenophobes. I don’t think we’re exceptional in that regard. I think most countries are even more bigoted than ours in race relations and attitudes towards immigrants. But being better is hardly reassuring; we should become more better.

I readily saw that mining the port deal would undercut Bush’s base, because a significant number are more loyal to their biases than to any politician. But in that mining process, triggering a fresh wave of bigotry, I shuddered at the potential for longer term consequences, superceding our current Commode-In-Chief. I’ve already seen much commentary from the extremists on the right that all Muslims or Arabs can’t be trusted. That’s not a new thought, but it’s still a lie, still abhorrent to suggest or believe, and still dangerous to many millions of innocent lives.

It’s incredibly easy, like shooting lawyers on a quail hunt, to tap sentiment like that for political advantage, even if your intent is not to fan the flames of bigotry at all.

I think the majority of Arabs in every Arab country and the majority of Muslims in every majority Muslim country, are basically decent people, ethical and not at all interested in the power games and pandemonium of their extremists. Just because a number of them have corrupt governments or evangelical hate-promoters is no more reason to attack their faith than it would be to attack all Christians because of our own Commode In Chief or the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells who milk the Mighty Milkcow of Misery & Hate.

I just think we need to maintain extreme care that we not slip into the mode of the ends justifying the means, of deposing George at the cost of innocent lives caught in the emotional crossfire.

Reflecting that concern, I issue this appeal: I’d like to add one or more Muslim or Arab-American bloggers to our blogging team at American Street. It’s the only way I feel I can demonstrate beyond most doubters that I value the opinions and contributions and lives of people whose principal differences from me are found only in their faith or the ‘accident of birth’ that allowed them to be born elsewhere.

These are dangerous times. They are made dangerous by extremists in every nation and every faith who display any penchant towards the promotion of hate towards any group defined by country of origin, skin color or major religious faith.

I’m not suggesting I’m completely pure and free of bias either. I just prefer to limit the potential harm I can do to others, to those individuals I think of as enemies of humanity. Especially those in leadership positions, who tend to escape the barbarities their followers endure. I’m not absolving all followers by that statement; I’m just saying the worst punishments should always be reserved for leaders.

Are there any Arab-American or Muslim writers reading this who’d like to add to the discourse we dish here? Please get in touch and I’ll consider your words and reason above all else.

Finally, let me be explicit about certain points. Because two 9-11 hijackers came from the UAE doesn’t mean I pin the blame on the UAE government. Because Al Qaida funds were laundered in that country doesn’t mean I think all UAE citizens or its government are complicit. Certainly, the actions of its government must be weighed in any determination that might affect our nation’s security.

I do consider it risky to outsource national security matters to other countries…. ANY other countries. But that concern has no bearing on the faith of others. It’s simply in discerning that the loyalty of foreign governments to our national interest must be evident if any outsourcing is to occur. The potential risks must be weighed, but weighed for the right reasons.

A long history of mutual supportiveness - as has been established with the UK, Canada and Australia, for examples - may be the only right reason to take that risk at all.

Addendum: My link to Mark Steyn’s anti-Islam screed was based on his generalization about Islam as a whole because of the acts of extremist criminals targeting Jews. Jews are neither all good nor all bad. The same is true of Muslims. And the overwhelming majority of each are innocents.

The actions of criminals deserve swift condemnation. But so does the condemnation of the mass of innocents for the actions of the few, whose only likeness is found in their faith instead of their deeds.

That’s right, there’ll be one less in the blogosphere now. I think we may have lost the best one.

Just a thought…but you know, my town isn’t far from the South Dakota border, and there really isn’t that much difference between my neighborhood and that of some small South Dakota town 50 miles away. I think the piggish prigs who are pushing the legislation to criminalize abortion are contemptible, but does that mean we people of the progressive state of Minnesota are any better? That got me wondering—I’m a fully entitled, blissfully unaware, card-carrying member of the Patriarchy, after all, so I’ve never had to consider what it would be like to be female, 17, and worried that I might be pregnant.

I tried to imagine it.

I can get a pregnancy test kit from the Pamida down the road. I’d feel a bit weird about it, though: this is a small town. We know everyone and they know us, and those are high school and college kids working the cash registers there. Everyone is going to know about it if I buy one…I suppose I could try shoplifting it, but jeez, if I got caught shoplifting a pregnancy test, I might as well just die.

If I somehow got the test and it were positive, the next step would be difficult. There is a sign on the edge of town here that purports to be helpful— it says “Pregnant? Need advice?” with a phone number on it—but it’s put up by some of the local religious wackos, and all they’ll do is tell you to keep the baby and slap you upside the head with a Bible, so they certainly aren’t to be trusted.

The phone book isn’t much help. I wouldn’t trust the Morris hospital either…locals again, and they have a reputation for being very conservative. They don’t do abortions anyway. The
nearest Planned Parenthood clinic is 45 minutes away, they don’t do abortions either, but they do provide emergency contraception…except that they’re only open on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons. WTF? Do a lot of people get knocked up on Monday and Tuesday nights or something?

As it turns out, the only abortion providers in Minnesota are all in Minneapolis. Three hours away, by car; to get there by bus requires a shuttle to Alexandria, then taking Greyhound the rest of the way. It isn’t easy, and it isn’t cheap. Once there, though, there’s more. Minnesota has a parental notification law, so at least one parent has to come along, and the other has to send along a notarized letter granting permission. Then there is a state-mandated 24 hour waiting period: at the first appointment, they have to counsel the person against getting an abortion, and can only do the procedure the following day…as if a young lady who has had to struggle that much just to get there hasn’t already thought things through thoroughly. Spending a night in the Big City is going to cost.

Did I mention that the procedure itself is going to cost $500+?

I’m beginning to realize that the only young women who will be able to get abortions in my part of the state are the ones with a supportive family, or who are old enough and prosperous enough that they can afford the rigamarole and hassle. The ones who are going to be most distressed by a pregnancy, who are least able to cope with it, are the ones who are going to be excluded.

I’m feeling a bit ashamed of being a male and not having thought much about this before. That little Y chromosome does confer some privilege in this regard, and it seems petty and cruel that we should so unthinkingly impose a greater pain on those who have already had more than their share.

Right now, a few scrofulous boars in South Dakota have raised their snouts and squealed loudly, asserting their selfish rule over women, and it’s easy to condemn them. But there are only about 750,000 South Dakotans, so most of us don’t live there anyway; it seems to me that maybe what we ought to be doing is also looking to our own states’ laws on abortion. Our pigs might be a little more muted, but they’ve been busy for years, planting a lot of little restrictions that add up to a substantial hurdle.

“I think the stars are aligned,” said House Speaker Matthew Michels, a Republican. “Simply put, now is the time.”

Maybe he’s right. Maybe now is the time to wake up and do something about this everywhere, not just South Dakota.

When Augusto Pinochet was repatriated to Chile from England amidst claims that Chile could take care of prosecuting him, I was skeptical to say the last. Pinochet had created an amnesty for himself and his cohorts and had the post of senator-for-life created for himself with parliamentary immunity.

At the time, however, I was not aware of Judge Juan Guzmán. Larry Rohter profiles him in Saturday’s New York Times. Here’s the key paragraph:

About 4,000 people were killed or disappeared during the Pinochet dictatorship, and thousands more were jailed, tortured or forced into exile. The military had sought to protect itself from being held accountable by declaring an amnesty in 1978, but Mr. Guzmán paved the way for prosecution by ruling that the disappearances were a form of "permanent kidnapping" not covered by the amnesty. [my emphasis]

What is even more amazing is that Chile’s Supreme Court upheld this argument and paved the way for the end of impunity in Chile. Guzmán sums it up well here:

"They see me as part of the fight against injustice, and that is more important than those who consider me a traitor to our class," he said. "The important thing is what we leave to our children, and here they are going to be able to say, ‘Look, here a dictator was judged.’

Amen to that.

What I learned from Blitzer yesterday:

Bob Dole says his job is to help the American people understand the facts about the port deal. He may have a tough time convincing the Teamsters Union though. It’s holding rallies in 20 U.S. cities today protesting the outsourcing of port management to an Arab firm.

How nice of the President to help organized labor get back on its feet again.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: How you doing?

Is it still Bush’s government? Remember in the cabinet meeting he said don’t worry about security. My government has taken a look at this and everything’s all right.

BLITZER: It’s still his government.

CAFFERTY: That’s unbelievable.

So they say there’s a timeout and the White House is calling it a slight delay. And the Press Secretary Scott McClellan says it’s not up to us. It’s up to the company to decide how long the delay lasts.

And that means of course the United Arab Emirates own company, Dubai Ports World, will decide how long to wait before they start controlling major U.S. ports.

What is wrong with this picture? Critics on Capitol Hill are still talking tough although I sense that some of them are beginning to move away from the strong positions they took the day this came out. They say that a delay isn’t good enough. They are vowing to block the deal.

The administration is still standing by its veto threat. Let’s have a vote. Let’s put some legislation on the table to block the deal and send it to the White House and have it vetoed. And then let’s vote again. And then let’s see whose government it is.

MY government? Shhhh, don’t say that so loud. All the cool kids will shoot spitballs at me and give me wedgies if they think this is my retarded government.

Paul Begala on the civil war in Iraq:

BEGALA: Well of course we are for the country. The president needs — you know what he needs to do? He needs to read. I know he doesn’t like to. He should read Winston Churchill. Churchill led his country through a very difficult war, much of which they were losing, and he didn’t give us this Howdy Doody happy horse manure.

You know, he needs to be Winston Churchill not Bobby McFerrin. Remember that song in the 80s, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy?” That’s all we get from him. And it is not leadership, and it is not working for Mr. Bush.

And then there’s Bill Schneider, predicting a civil war could happen. Not in Iraq. Right here in the US of A:

SCHNEIDER: Republicans in Congress have had their differences with President Bush before. Remember the controversy over Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court? But the split over U.S. port operations is different. It’s about the most serious issue of all, national security.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: I’m troubled by the national security implications. I am very worried about this proposed sale because of the security implications.

SCHNEIDER: Some felt the president’s reassurances sounded a bit, well, patronizing.

BUSH: People don’t need to worry about security. This deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.

SCHNEIDER: In other words, “Trust me.” One or two Republicans said they do.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I think we ought to trust the president.

SCHNEIDER: Astonishingly, many Republicans don’t. At least not on this issue.

REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I’ve asked the president to put a moratorium on this decision.

SCHNEIDER: Et tu, DeLay?

REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), FORMER HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Surrendering any control of any of our ports to any foreign nation strikes me as more than just a bad idea. It’s a national security risk.

SCHNEIDER: They’re members of Congress, and they’re upset by the president’s apparent disdain for Congress.

REP. CURT WELDON (R), PENNSYLVANIA: It almost smacks of an arrogance, like it doesn’t matter what the Congress says.

SCHNEIDER: Voter outrage is also a factor. The administration’s decision to allow an Arab-owned company to operate U.S. ports seems to defy common sense.

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: I’ve never had a situation like this where so many calls come in and everyone just cannot understand what’s happening. SCHNEIDER: This week, congressional Republicans issued a declaration of independence and won the play of the week.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: The first Declaration of Independence was followed by a war. That’s exactly what could happen now if Congress passes legislation to stop the deal and the president carries out his threat to veto it — Wolf.

Feel lucky, punk?

Or How I quit worrying and learned to love the bum… Norbizness deciphers the Latest Bushspeak to the American Legion.

From the Things That Befuddle Me Dept.:

1) When it comes to the acts of foreigners that use or fund terror, our Commander In Jest responds by claiming he couldn’t see it coming because of “an intelligence failure”, or - as with the UAE port contract - that he didn’t know about it in advance. Yet, in the first instance, the passage of time reveals numerous intelligence sources warned him of every adverse event. And in the second instance, his lack of prior knowledge is coupled with a never-used veto threat to anyone who dares oppose the thing he was supposedly unaware of.

And in another parallel to the second instance, he claimed torture was never officially sanctioned, yet threatened to veto bills put forth to renounce officially sanctioned torture.

2) With the FISA court system already a betrayal of the Constitution, it provides an eager, panting lapdog eagerly doing the bidding of the Commander In Jest as the fastest rubberstamp in US history. Yet Bush, offering no convincing evidence, claims he needs to bypass that system and the Constitution completely. And so afraid of being investigated and found guilty, he pulls out all of the lobbying stops to prevent such an investigation from taking place.

So if he succeeds, he’ll illegally obtain even more intelligence that he’ll continue to ignore. Which is just like having an Adolescent In Chief who selectively listens to what he wants to hear and denies being told anything else.

And when he says White House lawyers told him his illegal wiretap plan was perfectly legal, I have to wonder if they told him this AFTER his operation was discovered by the NY Times a year ago. And were the lawyers unanimous in that opinion, or is he selectively listening to one lawyer while the others object?

3) For years, we’ve heard the GOP opposing the appointment of activist judges. But the evidence indicates they oppose judicial activism that includes rulings they dislike, but they like activist judges who put forth rulings that support their ideological opinions.

But, taking no chances with jurists of either stripe, Bush now hands the power of the judicial branch to White House lawyers as the final arbiters, arguing that Congress handed him a blank check to go after Saddam with all means necessary, so he has the right to supercede the Judicial Branch and Constitution even long after Saddam’s been deposed.

And with that argument, he effectively negates both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government in perpetuity, achieving a record power grab that exceeds that of the Confederacy both in scope and in unconstitutionality. And by claiming ‘national security’ or ‘executive privilege’ or ‘lawyer-client confidentiality’ can thwart our capacity to even know if one or more lawyers ever said what he says they said or what arguments were used to support their quasi-judicial opinions.

4) And all this power rests now on one guy without majority support from most states in the country. Even if you account for a margin of polling error, only eight states would be split evenly and another half a dozen provide majority support for Bush. Thirty six states have a majority disapproving Bush’s performance now.

And the most notable places where he’s fallen furthest out of favor coincidentally were in swing states in 2004, some of which he won by comfortable margins, like Arkansas and Missouri. The most troubling of these is the one where he’s fallen the furthest, which was the state that won him the election in 2004, the state riddled with voting irregularities, as Glenn Greenwald notes:

Most revealing is Bush’s intense and pervasive unpopularity in Ohio, the state which swung the election in his favor. People in Ohio disapprove of Bush’s performance by an amazingly lopsided margin of 37-60%. Apparently, they’re not happy that they have no jobs, their kids have no health insurance, their neighbors have been stuck and are being killed in an increasingly unpopular, endless and senseless war in Iraq, and the President is surrounded by cronyism and corruption and thinks he has the power to break the law. But at least gay couples can’t get married, so that’s good.

While large numbers of Ohioans became convinced in 2004 that the all-consuming, paramount gay marriage issue compensated for all of the corruption and ineptitude of the Administration, it looks like they — along with the rest of the country — have changed their minds and have realized that this Presidency is a disaster for our country in every way that matters.

I question whether so many Ohioans have changed their minds in 15 months - an almost unheard of percentage change - or whether that vote was really rigged, with Ohio’s Secretary of State and vote machine manufacturers conspiring to thwart the majority. Further, by checking the tracking poll numbers for Ohio on that survey chart, the greatest drop in the percentage supporting Bush occurred in occasional churchgoers and people who call themselves ‘pro-life’, which flies in the face of the claim that ‘values voters’ decided that election (if so, are they saying now that people of faith who are anti-abortion have suddenly and inexplicably changed their values??!!??)

So much stretches credulity now, that the only way to find the truth requires extensive investigations, not more secrecy and coverups. And an overwhelming number of Americans now think Bush is acting illegally that a thorough investigation cannot be denied without great risk to the Congressional GOP members doing just that.

(And kudos to Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, John d’Amato and other bloggers trying to organize a populist resistance lobbying effort in key states those Congresspeople represent)

5) Jesus, speaking of investigating actions of the executive, who can deny that the longer a real investigation goes on, the more incredible things keep coming to light?

This investigation, into what I call an act of treason for its damage to our national security, has yielded so much unreal stuff that I fully expect Bush will be ten years gone from office before the depths of his underhandedness and law violations reaches public light. And the only thing opinion polls demonstrate to me now is that there’s still ten millions of Americans who’d rather stick to pathetic party partisanship than to know the facts about the now obvious biggest crooks in US history. What kind of liberty hating America-destroying pathetic cowards those folks must be!

6) This is just an aside to everything else in Bizarro World, but while considering how the gay marriage issue has become so paramount to people who claim to be religious. (So much so, that they can overlook the lying, cheating, vengeful, cruel and death-dealing of this dirty little man and his equally filthy minions, while focusing on the proclivities of gay Americans with an OCD intensity). And I came to an obvious conclusion.

It’s not the religious morality driving the concern as Christ was silent on the subject of gays completely. It’s gotta be more of a fetish that fundamentalists share. It’s not even anti-gay. It’s just that they like to have the gay people in their communities be promiscuous as all get out. That’s right. Fundamentalists aren’t anti-anything. They’re just pro-gay promiscuity. Why? Well, let’s just leave that to your imaginations. But I, for one, support the right of fundamentalists to be so kinky.

And that’s the latest from Bizarro World, the only place where things are even more bizarre at every fresh visit.

Hi, I’m a blogger. But more importantly, who are you?

Yes, as a political blogger, I’m similar to politicians, activists and lobbyists because I seek ways to persuade you. I’m different than them because my motivation’s not for personal power nor monetary gain. After blogging for more than three years, I’ve worked with some of the most articulate and interesting people online, some well-known and successful bloggers, and some lesser known, but no less interesting. My work’s drawn the attention of mainstream media outlets and the biggest names in the blogging world, but as far as money goes, it’s basically a breakeven activity at best, for me, financially.

What motivates me is rooted in my long experience as a citizen in a fairly free country, and a deep, thorough understanding of our history. I anticipate change as a necessary thing in our evolution. But when I see that change creating a society less open, with shrinking liberties, with a government operating with much more secrecy and promoting actions that should make decent people feel ashamed, I feel compelled to resist. And I feel I should urge you to resist such changes, as well.

So, who are you?

I don’t really believe, as some say, that you’re a sheep easily led astray. If you have a distaste for politics that limits what you know, I certainly feel some empathy with that view. Politics is ugly stuff to look at, and can be confusing. Trying to see who’s ethical and well-motivated is no easy task. But on the other hand, it’s not rocket science to figure out what’s really going on, either.

I don’t think you’re uncaring, nor brutal. Are you? I have a hunch that, like many Americans, you’re busy with the pursuit of the elements of life, like an income, a home, a love life, friends, and some R&R time and toys. Am I close?

Then maybe you should know that I’d be perfectly okay with you having all of those, or at least, the good health and other attributes that will help you reach a fair share of those things. In fact, I’d hate it if your chance at having or acquiring those elements were blocked needlessly by the actions of others, like thieves and liars and criminals.

Which is precisely why I chose to be a political blogger. Because among those in the political and business world are some of the biggest thieves, liars and criminals. They’re so ruthless in pursuit of money and power that they’ll destroy everything and everyone they come across. Even you. And your family. And your neighborhood. And your freedom. And your health. And even our country.

Sometimes, I’ve felt like I’m Chicken Little, warning that the sky is falling. Except I’m no spring chicken, easily mistaking one dark cloud as a piece of falling sky. I know what the history of democracies is, that they rarely last 200 years, and how quickly self-centered men have turned a democracy into a dictatorship. I’ve studied how that happens, why it happens, and all the common tricks they use to make it happen.

I wasn’t so discerning when I was young. I could easily raise an alarm on the thinnest of evidence and often was completely wrong. But those Chicken Little days are past. No, I have no delusions that I’m perfect, nor am I psychic. But I can easily see that now, I’m usually right, or at least close in my predictions.

I blog, because I think you deserve to be warned. And because I believe that if enough people sense what’s happening, there’s a chance we can save the kind of life you want and the kind of society you need to get there.

Do you even care? Will you permit me the time to discuss what I see and believe can harm you and the future your family is likely to face?

There are people who won’t permit me to do that. Because my arguments don’t fit their preconceptions and biases. Because they think I’m under the spell of some ideology they disagree with. Because they’ve fitted me neatly with some label that let’s them easily dismiss me.

But not because they can produce any clear evidence to prove me wrong.

There are powerful people who’d willingly eliminate or overrule laws that protect my right to think and speak and publish. Such people represent one of the highest dangers, to me and to you, that we can possibly face. They can’t steal our power to dream, but they can destroy completely the paths that may get us to our dreams.

I don’t blog because I think all Republicans are evil and all Democrats good. That’s a pretty infantile world view for anyone to fall for. But I believe that most people pursue most of the elements of life I’ve mentioned, and do so without meaning to cause pain to others in the process. I believe in the goodness of a majority of people - in this country and the world - because people like you have demonstrated that to me.

I don’t believe a majority of politicians in any political party has demonstrated that basic decency to me. That doesn’t mean they are automatically evil or out to harm us. But it means they bear added scrutiny, especially in times like these.

These times are precarious precisely because so many professional politicians and businesspeople try to bypass the paths of logic that honesty travels on. They shroud their purposes in pitches that manipulate emotions and bypass rational thought. And they shroud the facts of what they’re really doing behind wall after wall of secrecy.

There’s no clearer sign that’s ever existed that a government is acting in ways harmful to the lot of a nation than a government that’s demanding increased secrecy. They always claim that secrecy is necessary to our safety, but secrecy is always the greatest enemy to our safety.

And there, in a nutshell, is why I blog. Because I still can, for awhile. Though I know some people in government and business would like to shut off my ability and freedom to tell you what I see and think. And I believe they are closer to achieving that dream, while the kind of dreams you and I pursue grow ever more distant.

I can’t risk you and I losing that, without calling out to you and saying “Beware!”

I’m a blogger. I’m not the most popular, best-looking, nor most articulate. Hell, with the technical problems this blog’s had that have befuddled several experts this past year, the financial and family crisises I’ve endured, the misfortunes several teammates on this blog have experienced, it’s a wonder this blog still persists. I had grand designs a year ago that have been put on hold since last Spring, because sometimes life throws so many challenges that all you can do is tread water and look for a break in the tide.

Despite all that, nothing has lessened about the urgency I feel about the national crisis we face. Our freedoms are in danger. Our way of life is at risk. Our country is threatened from within and without by people we should recognize as our real enemies. The sky is NOT falling, but we still may soon find our path crushed.

I don’t want you to endure that. I want your kids and my kids to have all the possibilities and paths to a good and right life full of positive outcomes. That’s what my blogging’s about. I’ve found that my teammates on this blog share that similar purpose. It may sound simplistic to say we see everything in terms of good vs. evil, and it would be simplistic, but I’m not saying that. But I am saying we see just enough actual evil to sense there’s a long, hard and necessary struggle ahead, just to hold off the major threat that evil poses.

I’m no God. I don’t have the corner on all that is right and wrong. But some wrong is so evident that it demands us to resist it or surrender.

So who are you? Will you resist or surrender? After all, our future doesn’t depend on my blogging. It depends on how many people choose resistance and how many choose surrender. Which means the tipping point really depends on YOU.

So most importantly, who are you?