What's on your iPod?

Music is intensely personal. What connects with one person goes often times unnoticed or uncared for by another.

Accordingly then, musical tastes differ. As iPods have become more prevalent, the question of who is listening to what becomes a window into the listener.

Slow to move as I am, I've only just this last year entered this magical world of portable music pleasures when my wife gave me an iPod for my birthday, right before Christmastime. Living up to my reputation as a technical blunder, I'm still learning my way around the thing though I use it near-daily.

Only in the last week have I started in earnest the chore of building play lists and importing tracks. To date I've relied on what iTunes found floating around on my hard drive when I first installed it and initially set up the iPod.

There was an eclectic (to say the least) and unusual mix of audio files that found it's way onto the iPod, things I would never have consciously thought to import over. Among those sundries is an instrumental piece from Michael W. Smith. Written in 1998 in memory of fellow Christian artist and friend Rich Mullins--killed the previous September in a car accident--Smith wrote simply in the liner notes to the album on which it appeared, "This piece of music is dedicated to my friend Rich Mullins. I continue to miss him greatly."

It speaks of pain and conveys a sense of sorrow that all who have experienced loss readily understand. To me it is the musical embodiment of melancholy.

At the same time it is hopeful and speaks to the Christian's hope of life beyond what we live now. I have loved it for all these reasons since the moment I first heard it. It reminds at times of just how much I miss my mom.

Though I know that it is right that children should bury parents and never the other way around and that such is a natural part of this life, it still rankles. She should still be here after all, still sharing life, still my father's wife and mother to her only son.

Over the last week or two as I've pressed 'Play' and this tune has started up, unexpectedly most of those times, I'm reminded of this and of her. And I continue to miss her greatly.

Closing Arguments

Closing statements are scheduled for today in the Libby trial. I wonder if anyone established an over/under on deliberations by the jury? My guess is about 10 minutes but I'm a hyper-partisan digital brown-shirt so I'm probably not seeing things too clearly...

Meanwhile, JustOneMinute will be it's usual useful place for clear-eyed, conservative and most importantly, correct commentary on the legal proceedings of the day.

Eerily familiar

This all sounds eerily familiar to me (not on the same scale of course):

But when anger is the sole motivating factor behind a person's writing, when he offers little but dismissive rage of those who have the temerity to think differently, one almost feels embarrassed for the writer in question because, after a while, the anger seems less righteous and more self-righteous. And after decades, the anger begins to seem less like a passionate response and more like an automatic response.

Britney Spears Freak Out

I generally like to post about 'high politics' but I do take the occassional plunge into the gutter. it being Sunday and all, I thought it was a perfect time for a gutter ball. I give you: Britney Spears.

I don't much keep up with Britney's comings and goings but after her breakup with her husband it seems like every day there's some new story about bizarre behavior. This article pretty much takes the cake:

Britney checked into an Antigua rehab clinic last Thursday after hitting rock bottom during a four-day booze bender in New York. But she stayed less than 24 hours before returning to California, where she briefly visited her sons in Malibu before shaving off her hair, getting tattooed and dashing to a hospital in the early hours and asking for help...Emily Wynne-Hughes, who was in the tattoo shop, said: “After she left, we said to each other, ‘We just saw a huge celebrity on the verge of a nervous breakdown.’

It would seem so. Wow.

Spanking Murtha

Sundays in our house means a couple of things. First and foremost of course, we will be in church. Secondly, most weeks any way, it means that Brit Hume will at some point in that week's Fox News Sunday broadcast, be spanking Juan Williams for saying something silly. Well, this week Juan gets a respite.

No, the recipient of today's spanking is Democratic Congressman John Murtha. During the panel discussion, Chris Wallace played a short blurb of Murtha's comments to MoveCongress.org last week. In a clip that doesn't look much better than it reads, Murtha quotes some suspect numbers and continues his now-routine over-generalizations of Iraq. Of it, Brit had this to say:

That sound bite from John Murtha suggests that it’s time a few things be said about him. Even the “Washington Post” noted he didn’t seem particularly well informed about what’s going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cachet among House Democrats, but he is not — this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.

And that sound bite is naivete at large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk, and the fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what’s really going on over there.

What is it that Jack has wrong? From the Post: Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

Murtha is the point-man on the House effort to derail the war. Too bad he doesn't have much of a clue as to what the surge truly is or why and how it might actually work.

From the "Do I look that Stupid" department...

Also from today's FNS broadcast, we give you Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. Levin continues pressing the point that in whatever world it is that Congressional Dems now inhabit, up is down, down is up and criticism is support:

WALLACE: Senator, there are several ideas out there about how to change course — either cut off funding — Congressman Murtha, as you know, has come up with the idea of setting benchmarks for how troops that could be sent over that he knows the Pentagon can't meet.
Senator Biden is talking about repealing the 2002 authorization to go to war. What approach do you favor?

LEVIN: Well, hopefully, we can come up with a bipartisan approach. We got seven Republicans who voted with us yesterday. We hope to pick up at least that many and maybe a few more.
I think probably the best approach would be to modify the authorization to the president to go to war in Iraq. That was a wide-open authorization which allowed him to do just about anything and put us now deep into combat in Iraq, and now into the neighborhoods of Baghdad.
We, I think, will be looking at a modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission, and that is very different from cutting off funds.

I don't think there's support to cut off funds. I think that sends the wrong message to our troops. We're going to support our troops. And one way to support them is to find a way out of Iraq earlier rather than later.

Host Chris Wallace voiced my own confusion at precisely what it was the Senator was saying in his follow up:

WALLACE: So you're saying that the idea would be to restate what the authorization Congress gave the president is and to say that it doesn't include combat? I'm not quite sure what you're saying this modified authorization would do.

It's all clear now. What he said was, "We're going to support our troops. And one way to support them is to find a way out of Iraq earlier rather than later." What he might as well have said was, "We support the troops. So much so, we're going to keep them from doing their job."

Good Day: Bad Week

A bad week ends on a good note:

The United States Senate conducted a procedural vote today involving a nonbinding resolution identical to one approved yesterday by the House of Representatives. The procedural motion supported by Senate leadership failed.

And while it was disheartening to see even 17 House Republicans boarding the S.S. Pelosi, there was some fun to be had at the expense of the analogically-challenged Congressman Ric Keller (R-FL):

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine that you have a next door neighbor who refuses to mow his lawn, and the weeds are up to his waist. You mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you, and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots at you.

Under these circumstances, would you keep mowing his lawn forever? Would you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn? Or, would you say to him, you better start mowing your own lawn or there’s going to be serious consequences for you?

Maybe Ric should have kept his term-limit promise...

Congressman Keller is bearing a disproportionate amount of base-anger after this week, but again, he pretty much deserves it. His sound-byte analysis of the Surge was the worst kind of tripe that does nothing to help serious debate in the House or anywhere else:

Rep. Ric Keller (Fla.), a reliable conservative vote, prefaced his statement with an affirmation of support for Bush personally. But, he said, a "surge" of troops had already been attempted in Baghdad. "The benefits were temporary," he said. "The body bags were permanent."

A gentle reminder for the Congressman; bad quotes are semi-permanent and you've strapped an election-year target on your back.

Deja Vu all over the place!

From Glenn Reynolds yesterday:

It seems clear that this really is about a change in tactics more than additional U.S. troops, which I think is a good thing.

It's an Inspector Clouseau moment: "Yes...that is what I have been saying..."

Your Wish

Is my command.

Something to think about

The House GOP is a mess:

I had assumed that after the November elections the GOP on the Hill would hear what everyone was saying to them. But it turns out they got the slogans down, but internalized nothing of the need to engage in a completely different approach to the debates ahead. They are almost completely powerless in the House, and thus are only a rhetorical force. They have nothing but arguments to make to the public, but they are getting rolled in debate after debate because there is no party position that hasn’t been undercut by backbenchers, and there is not anything approaching a communications strategy.

And like I said yesterday, they're not going to get points in '08 from Democrats and Independents for having sided with the new majority on Iraq. So is it just a plain, ordinary, run-of-the-mill deathwish?

The Military is Political

Rich Lowry talks about that Ralph Peters column:

That’s a hoary anti-surge cliché. If Sadr is hiding, it shows just how false it is. The military and political fronts are in constant interaction. It is in response to a military tactic–the surge—that Sadr has apparently taken an action that, as Peters explains today, will have political consequences. It is true that there is no purely military solution in Iraq, but neither is there a purely political solution.

Run Mookie, Run!

Ralph Peters' encourages a propaganda victory in today's column. In a departure from form, Peters’ form borders on snarky, but that’s kind of the point:

The game ain't over until the fat mullah's scared. No matter how he tries to explain it away, Muqtada's public cowardice is going to hurt him - after he encouraged his followers to martyr themselves. There already had been rumors of mutinies in the Mahdi Army that threatened Mookie himself.

One more reason to run.

It's going to be hard for him to maintain his image as an Iraqi nationalist after running to mommy back in Qom or Tehran. To be fair, the Mookster hasn't always done Iran's bidding in the past - but now he's going to owe the Shiraz Sopranos.

Oh, and that trusted source tells me that Mookie's not the only bad actor who's fled the country - he's the marquee act, but the supporting cast took off, too. Leaving the chumps with the push-brooms to deal with the mess.

We and the Free Iraqis shouldn't miss a chance to portray that melon-bellied bigmouth as a wuss. He's always been glad to deliver fiery sermons, but whenever we delivered firepower he disappeared - letting others do the fighting for him.

In the past he at least went to ground on his home turf, hunkering down while his underlings fought and died. This time, his nerve failed him so badly that he jumped the border.

We ought to milk this for all it’s worth, along with whatever else comes after. As Peters later points out, we have a golden opportunity in a part of this fight in which success has eluded us: In addition to taunting Mookie in public, we need to hit his organization even harder - while he's hiding and his courage is in doubt. Nobody wants to die for a braggart who bails out when the flak starts.

Not only does the effectiveness of leaders-in-hiding plummet, but it makes an obvious case - which we've failed to exploit - that the demagogues who order in the suicide bombers and the AK-armed "martyrs" are personally in no rush to enter paradise.
Yes, leaders in any organization have different responsibilities than their line doggies. But real leaders lead from the front sufficiently often to inspire the troops and stay grounded in reality.
What Mookie's hasty hejira to Hamadan tells us is that our fanatical enemies, Sunni and Shia, face a leadership crisis. The dons of terror are afraid.
If we can't take advantage of that, shame on us.

With Mookie on a leave of absence, it behooves us to beat up his thugs (read: “Army”) while ratcheting up the rhetoric about their scaredy-cat leader. We need to make the Mahdi Army a non-player and the propaganda victory would be a welcome change.

Rework 2.0

I finally gave in. Not sure what I think, but we'll see if it grows on me.

Throwing in the Towel

The House GOP gives up:

With Republicans speaking out against President Bush's war policy on the House floor yesterday, GOP leaders and the White House conceded defeat on a resolution opposing sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq and began looking toward the coming battle over the war's funding.

On the second day of a four-day showdown over the nonbinding resolution, Democrats looked on as Republican dissidents denounced what they called Bush's ill-conceived plan to put 21,500 more combat troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war.

They will lose in '08 and they will deserve to. The base will punish them in the primaries and they will get no credit in a General Election for siding with Democrats.

Happy Valentine's Day

Borderline

The Politico reported earlier today of the Democrat's new 'strategy' in the House:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

Later in the day The Victory Caucus posted this, taken from a MoveCongress.org release on the subject: Join us tomorrow at 11:00 AM EST when Congressman Jack Murtha will outline new details of a strategy to use his Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to oppose the Bush war in Iraq. Congressman Jim Moran, another Committee member, predicts the Committee action will be the “bite” that follows this week’s Congressional “bark” – the three-day debate on a non-binding Congressional resolution.

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has begun consideration of the president’s $93 billion supplemental appropriations request for Iraq. Action on the request will be the first opportunity for the new Congress to exercise its “power-of-the-purse” over the Iraq war.
Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy. Chairman Murtha discusses these steps in a videotaped conversation with former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME), the National Director of the Win Without War coalition, sponsor of MoveCongress.org.

Join us here tomorrow for this exclusive interview.

My old and faithful copy of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary offers the following as the first definition of treason:

The betrayal of a trust.

I don't know that Congress' stated goal here is treason or treasonous. As a legal matter, for certain this is a question beyond any expertise I own. I do know that it is as obvious a political ploy as I've seen maybe...ever. And it's as incredibly serious an attempt at undermining the President's authority as has been undertaken by another branch of government in my memory.

And it's disgusting.

Victory is not an Option?

Or so they say. In the meantime, what exactly is the Surge designed to do? In part, it's intention is to pacify Baghdad and impose a workable security in the capital and far-flung Anbar province both.

Who has caused the largest problem in Baghdad in the last twelve-months? Hint: It's the militia's, stupid. The Godfather of the Shiite militia's is of course none-other than Moqtada Al-Sadr.

Personally, I thought a stray bullet in 2004 would have gone a long way to solving the problem he and his Mahdi Army present. Al-Sadr walked the line at that point and lived to wreak havoc another day.

As the Surge begins, we get word that Al-Sadr has apparently slunk out of sight...all the way out of the country for that matter:

According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

So what does this mean? Well, I can almost see CQ laughing: "This couldn't have come at a better time. Congress has tied itself in knots trying to opine on what a disaster the surge will be, and before they can vote on a resolution scolding George Bush for wasting resources, he's already chased one of the worst actors out of Baghdad. Nancy Pelosi will be holding a debate to disapprove of a strategy that has already demonstrated success."

The Democrats are so convinced that their "Can't work" rhetoric is true and correct that they risk looking awfully foolish if the situation improves markedly. And should it, I will point and laugh, only after thanking God for the change in fortune.

Onion-esque

No, it's not something from The Onion or a little something Scott Ott threw togeher...

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM

Derrrrrr!

For all their "smarts" it's still apparent that most Congressmen and women haven't a clue when it comes to economics:


The minimum wage increase that took effect in Arizona last month has brought with it some unintended consequences--many teenagers are losing their jobs. The Arizona Republic reports some employers say payroll budgets have risen so much since the minimum wage went from $5.15 per hour to $6.75--they have had to cut jobs and hours.

The owner of one Phoenix pizza restaurant says his payroll has shot up 13 percent and he's had to lay off three teenagers and cut hours for others. Another shop owner said expenses rose by $2,000 a month.

A Federal Reserve study showed that for every ten percent increase in the minimum wage--there is a corresponding two to three percent decrease in employment.

No kiddin'...

Ridicule and Scorn

No wonder Dave Spritz walks through life in a haze...

All last week our own Dave told us repeatedly of the rain we should expect nearly every day. And boy, when we get to the weekend...LOOK OUT! Up to 2 inches in some places!

All of which was a crock! The only rain we saw in northern Santa Barbara County came on Saturday night and it was anything but heavy.

How is it possible to take data and forecast out 24-48 hours and be so ridiculously wrong? And I'm supposed to believe that these same folks who put the "ack" in inaccurate have developed models that accurately forecast out the next 100 years?

UPDATE: I'm not the only one...though I feel kinda silly about the whole thing. Not five minutes after hitting the publish button I let the dogs outside. Upon opening the back door it was obvious that my timing was way off. The patio, the grass, the flowerbeds all showed the tell-tale signs of--yes you guessed it...rain.

Gloom, Despair, Agony on Me

Deep, dark depression, excessive misery!:

The U.S. federal budget surplus widened by 82% in January to $38.2 billion from $21 billion a year earlier, the Treasury Department reported Monday.
The surplus is slightly below the Congressional Budget Office estimate of about $40 billion. Read more.

January usually as a surplus month because many individuals must make estimated tax payments, analysts said.

Receipts rose 13% year-over-year to a record $260.6 billion, while outlays increased 6% to $222.4 billion, the Treasury said.

Individual income tax receipts totaled $154.5 billion in January. Corporate income tax receipts were $10.9 billion.

For the first four months of the 2007 fiscal year, the deficit was $42.2 billion, about 57.2% lower than the $98.4 billion deficit in the same period in the previous fiscal year.

For all of 2007, the CBO estimates a shortfall of about $200 billion, narrower than the $248 billion deficit in fiscal 2006.

But analysts at RBS Greenwich Capital believe this forecast is too pessimistic. They look for a drop in the deficit to around $155 billion in the fiscal year.

Those durn tax cuts...killing us all, they are!

If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all...Gloom, despair and agony on me!

Only in Washington

That's the only place where blocking a vote to end debate--thereby keeping debate open--can be construed as...ending debate and it made for interesting discussion this morning:

WALLACE: Senator, I want to show you something that you said back in 2005 when you and the Republicans were in charge, and you were being sometimes stymied by Democratic efforts from the minority.

Let's put it up on the screen. This is you talking. "I don't think obstructionism sells very well to the American people. It's not a great political tactic, in my judgment."

Fair or not, Senator? Doesn't it hurt your party, and especially the candidates who are up for re-election in 2008, to be portrayed as blocking a vote on a resolution a lot of the American public cares about?

Silly question alert. How is "blocking"--assuming for a second that that's what actually happened (which it is not)--a meaningless resolution, obstructionism?

The Democrats and like-minded Republicans don't need a resolution to make their positions on Iraq or the Surge known. Anybody with a working television knows what they think.

A resolution with no authority to cause or accomplish anything is simply grandstanding. If these men are serious about what they say, they need to step up and act like it. I'm with Chris Wallace on this point:

If you really disapprove of the policy, if you really think it's wrong to send the troops in, you're in the majority in the Senate. You're in the majority in the House. Pass binding legislation to stop it.

My good Senators, it's time to put up or shut up.

Geek Alert

After pulling carpet all day we finally limped back home about eight this evening after a low-key dinner at the in-laws. We're both exhausted and ready to pass out but alas, duty still calls.

My wife, after a hot shower, spent some time wrapping some things up in the office while I sat and baby-sat the puppies, both manic after spending all day and half the evening without mom and dad. As is customary, the boob tube came on. It's perfectly suited for such duty, especially on a night where my mental exhaustion matches the physical.

A few minutes of channel surfing brought me to the local CBS affiliate who was airing not the network's prime-time offering but the still-venerable Star Trek. And not just any Star Trek...

The remastered digital episodes are amazing. Having seen every episode about 100 times since I was about eight years old, I know where each shows it's age and it's 60's sensibilities and technological limitations. These remastered episodes may still show their age but the digital imagery rivals anything that Paramount has done in the last twenty years since launching ST:TNG.

Now I understand just how fully bitter and upset I should have been when my wife refused to buy me the boxed set of the original series for Christmas.

Yeah you...

How hard really is it to calculate property taxes correctly? For you, apparently very hard...

Exploding Heads

I got about halfway through the podcast and ran smack into it. The argument that, were it widely heard in some corners would cause heads to spontaneously explode.

In hour 5 of Hugh Hewitt's ongoing series of interviews with Thomas P.M. Barnett this week, we get a discussion of "System Pertubations." And in the course of that discussion came this:

HH: Now to the core and the controversial section of Chapter 5, your argument that the United States needs to be a perturber, that it needs to, and Bush did embrace, the big bang strategy, that the Middle East simply does not work for the vast bulk of people who live there, that that therefore, we went in and turned over all the tables as a response to 9/11. We changed the rules.

TB: Right. And you know, we have that history. I mean, the birth of our country was a rules set reset for the planet. I mean, it sort of said this is a new possibility, this kind of democracy, this kind of government, this kind of new expression of political and economic union. And so we have a history of doing that, and we really did it, I would argue, in enjoining the effort in the Second World War and coming out of it, and creating all those international organizations under Truman, and creating the whole sort of structure for the Cold War, and we were kind of called upon again by 9/11 to say you know, here’s the new package. And we’ve gotten some of the rules out there. I mean, the preemption concept with Bush, I think, is a necessary rule set change. The trick has been how do we get it acceptance among a wide enough array of countries in the world that it becomes not just a perceived unilateralist act by America, but instead becomes a sort of logical expression of the will of a majority of countries on the planet.

HH: Now I want to quote you, I’m sure it’s a line that strikes some of your audience as absurd, and others stand up and cheer. “Not only is the United States government the greatest force for good the world has ever known, but the U.S. military is the single greatest instrument of that good as well.” Now I know that as a matter of statistics, you’ve proven that, just in terms of mission days spent bringing relief to the world where suffering is occurring.

TB: Right.

HH: But nevertheless, that still posits positive good to the U.S. military’s operations in the world, and that must strike some as far-fetched.

TB: Well, I mean, I think you’ve got to look at it in terms of the grand sweep of history. When we saved Europe in terms of a very disastrous civil war in the first World War, we came back and stopped the threat of fascism in the Second World War, and basically have engaged in a long term babysitting operation in Europe that, you know, gave birth to the EU over the long haul. We stood down the threat of the communist socialist bloc, and on that basis, helped liberate 3 billion people in the direction of markets and economic freedom, and hopefully over time, political freedom. We’ve become a huge glue in Asia, and participated in that section of the world’s rise. Yes, there were things we did along the way that were great missteps, Vietnam being one of them. But you have to look at these mistakes in terms of the larger stories that don’t get told, which is when Americans come and stay with their forces, typically, stability ensues, economic integration ensues, and you get prosperity over time and lasting peace. We’re down to the tougher nuts now with sub-Saharan Africa and the announcement today by Bush that there will be an Africa command, which is something I predicted in the second book, Blueprint For Action, and we’re stuck in the Middle East for quite some time. But these are no longer challenges, and no greater challenges than what we faced in the past. We just have to remember our role in history, and I argue that that’s a very, very, very positive role that no other country has aspired to, to the degree that we have.

The Titanic Turns

It's been announced that the Ford Motor Company will re-introduce the Taurus for 2008:

Ford Motor Co. today said it will bring back the Taurus and Sable nameplates, rechristening the Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego sedans for the 2008 model year.Ford also is renaming the Ford Freestyle crossover the Taurus X. The renamed vehicles will go on sale at the end of summer, Ford said.

For still-inexplicable reasons, Ford eliminated it's number-one seller in the domestic market to much consternation. One of those asking the most questions now runs the company:

One of those asking about the Taurus' last year was Alan Mulally, who questioned ending production when he took over as chief executive last fall.

The Taurus' replacement, the Ford Five Hundred was actually introduced several years back and was to fill the gap after the Taurus' departure. Only it's sales plummeted to under 100,000 units last year.

Credit to Mulally for seeing the iceberg. In an environment where the company is losing it's shirt (and it's pants and almost everything but the kitchen sink) the decision to eliminate it's top brand made no business sense whatsoever.

Where others might have held to the decision, Mulally is hoping (and rightly so IMHO) that a return to the successful nameplate with vehicle improvements will cost his firm less than establishing the replacement brand. In this instance, I think it's the right decision.

The only better decision of course was keeping the brand in production in the first place. Now Mullaly-much like the lookout in the Crow's Nest did--waits to see if the Titanic can turn fast enough.

...nothing the United States might have done...

John Burns of the NY Times: “And my guess is that history will say that the forces that we liberated by invading Iraq were so powerful and so uncontrollable that virtually nothing the United States might have done, except to impose its own repressive state with half a million troops, which might have had to last ten years or more, nothing we could have done would have effectively prevented this disintegration that is now occurring.”

Refreshing. Even the self-absorbed pity-party commentary about the Times' role in the pre-invasion build up is worth hearing.

Watch and read the whole thing.

'Heh' of the Day

Air America goes for the bargain-basement price of $4.25 Million. Contrast that with say Salem Communications, the home of Right WingNuts Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved and Christianists Janet Parshall and Al Mohler.

A travesty I say, a travesty!

Sinking boats and post-dated Memos

Clarice Feldman doesn't think much of the Russert testimony today. To be more specific, it's the cross that sinks the boat in her opinion:

Even the most skillful of reporters in the court like Matt Apuzzo have filing deadlines which usually means that they get the direct testimony but not the cross examination in their first stories. But in this case the cross examination is the story.

Tim Russert, who is a key prosecution witness, took the stand for about 11 minutes today to say that he had not mentioned the name of Wilson's wife in his call to Libby. (Libby's grand jury testimony is that he called Russert to complain about the coverage Chris Matthews was giving the Wilson claims, that the conversation was rather heated and was at one point broken off and resumed later or the following day.)

Then cross examination began, and Russert's credibility as a witness was deeply shaken.

...

In sum, Wells established that (a) the FBI report of his conversations (they say he had two, he only recalls one) made far closer in time to the event indicate he conceded that Ms. Wilson's name may have come up in their conversation though he earlier discounted that as "impossible" (b) In a heated matter involving the Buffalo News, his own memory was faulty. He'd made two angry calls to a critical reporter, denied that he had, and then, after checking his phone records, apologized, asserting he had no memory whatsoever of the calls, and (c) while making an impassioned plea for the right of reporters to protect the confidentiality of sources, he'd already twice discussed the Libby exchanges with the FBI and failed to disclose that to the Court or the public.

From a filing by the prosecutor last evening trying to block inquiry into the accommodations made to Russert for his (total of 22 minutes) deposition testimony in his lawyer's offices, it appears that while this last point was not specifically noted in any pleadings I can see, the defense was provided with the FBI notes which provided some notice to them of the discrepancies in the NBC public pleading and that it contained a false suggestion that Russert had not already cooperated with the government. It is not clear that this Court, or the Court which determined the related case on the reporters' obligation to testify, was ever informed that the Russert filing was false.

I cannot believe that tonight is a good night for Russert or for his colleagues Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory, whom I also expect to be on the stand.

The prosecution filed a motion to block Libby from calling her to the stand. I'd be surprised if that succeeds. The prosecution has also signaled it intends to argue that all reporters were treated gingerly because of the constraints of the Department of Justice regulations. In fact, many reporters who clearly were aware of the Wilson/Plame connection were - like Andrea Mitchell (Russert's colleague who famously indicated they all knew) - never questioned by the prosecution or the investigators. I'll be very surprised if in a case risibly claiming the defendant obstructed the investigation, the defense is precluded from showing that, blinded by his nonsensical view of what happened, the special prosecutor obstructed the investigation himself. We know he granted immunity to the two people who admitted they deliberately leaked Plame's identity (Ari Fleischer and Richard Armitage) and steered clear of so many journalists who obviously knew more about the Mission to Niger and its participants than anyone in the White House did.

I predicted at the outset, the media would regret what they asked for. I was right.

Meanwhile earlier in the day at NRO, Byron York speculated that the round may yet still shift under the entire narrative of Valerie Plame. Absurd no longer describes the circus this has become.

More Profiles in Courage

The lack of resolute resolve for passing resolutions in the Senate is now a moot point. Hugh Hewitt is reporting that the Dems have run away from his fight:

The whole sorry circus has now pulled up stakes and left town, and NRSC Pledge signers are free to resume contributions to the NRSC though, I suspect, they will wait a while to see if the new signs of spine in the Republicans on the Hill carry over until March, April, and beyond.

I interviewed John Thune on the program today and he relayed that while some cordial relations within the GOP caucus have been strained, nevertheless the caucus movement in favor of resolute support of victory in Iraq has been noticeable and sustained.

Frankly, I wasn't sure they had it in 'em. But I'm glad they did.

Doing the Math

In the wake of Monday's failed cloture vote in the Senate, I ran the numbers. The final tally was 49-47, well short of the now-necessary 60-vote threshold. It doesn't add up.

Astute Instapundit reader Charlie Banks noticed as well and brought it to attention:

Regarding the filibuster of the Biden-Hagel and Levin-Warner resolutions:

One thing that I almost never read or hear is that all 49 of the Senate Republicans are maintaining the filibuster and keeping debate open. That includes Sens. Hagel and Warner, essentially aiding in the blocking of votes on their own resolutions.

It certainly says something about the vaunted "bipartisanship" of the resolutions when the Democrats manage to drive off even token Republican support when they move past the committee stage.

Such courage. Given the way this shook out, there is no other explanation; the numbers don't lie and they make sense no other way.

Hagel and Warner voted to keep debate open thereby keeping either of their anti-surge resolutions from coming to a vote. Talk about profiles in courage...

The Soul of the Senate is an empty, decrepit place.

Are they that bad?

Zogby attributes declining movie viewing to poor quality:


High ticket prices (30%) and a dislike for the movie selections (30%) are the top reasons given for falling movie attendance – 13% said they don’t like the crowds in the theater. Those age 18-24 are most likely to complain about costly tickets – nearly half (46%) said high ticket prices have kept them away from the theater. Among older adults, dissatisfaction with the film selections is the main deterrent – 46% of those age 65 or older said this.

More than a third (37%) of respondents said they go to the movies fewer than six times per year – 21% said they don’t even make it to the movies once a year. Overall, 10% said they never go at all.

Lets not forget also that for the better part of 10-plus years we've been fed a steady diet of remakes and rip-offs. The problem is, not only does the movie stink, but we've already seen it!

I thought that was your job?

Expect The Worst In Iraq--

In this bleak situation -- where, as everyone keeps repeating, "there are no good options'' -- what's the right course for U.S. policy? A useful approach may be to start planning, not for the best, but for the worst. Congress and the administration should begin thinking about potential catastrophes in Iraq -- and about how to protect the core national interests of the United States and its allies.

Firing up

The Surge has started, at least in one Baghdad neighborhood. As reported yesterday morning by Pajamas Media correspondet, Omar of Iraq the Model.

Like Swiss Cheese

TM has outdone himself today over at JustOneMinute. First up, another shot aimed at the would-be media coverage of the Libby trial:

Neil Lewis of the Times continues to cover the Libby trial and he continues to deliver his version of the old George Carlin joke, which I paraphrase: "In baseball action, we have some partial scores; it's Detroit 2. Now for the weather..."

My plea to Mr. Lewis - this trial has involved defense attorneys responding to the presentation offered by Special Counsel Fitzgerald; feel free to feature both.

Lewis' piece in yesterday's Times argued that the 'surety' in Libby's voice would be heard wafting through the courtroom and as the jury listened to tapes of his Grand Jury testimony. When they heard said testimony, they would plainly see the contrast between the certainty on-tape and the implausibility of the bad-memory defense.

Of that TM writes:

A parade? I love a parade! But what witnesses did Mr. Lewis have in mind?

Marc Grossman of the State Dept., who told the FBI that he spoke with Libby on the phone about Ms. Plame but told the jury they spoke face to face?

Bob Grenier of the CIA, who told the FBI and the grand jury that he was not sure whether he mentioned Ms. Plame to Libby, but had finally remembered in 2005 that he had?

Craig Schmall of the CIA, who told the jury that he must have mentioned Plame because it was in his notes, but he that he does not actually remember having done so?

Cathie Martin of Cheny's press relations office, who told the jury she briefly mentioned Plame to Libby sometime in June or July; eventually that was dated to June 11 and (my guess) is the Cheney-Plame reference Libby does remember from that period.

And Ari Fleischer and David Addington joined the parade as well.

So, three out of six had a credible memory of discussing Plame with Libby. Three out of six did not.

You can live with .500 if we were talking baseball. While trying for a conviction, I'm not sure that's a resounding case.

Later in the day, there was more (there always is!). Surprise of surprises, it's yet more on the shabby state of coverage and involvement in this mess on the part of journalists, this time Nick Kristof:

A few questions for Mr. Kristof and the Times:

1. Did you meet with both Joe and Valerie Wilson in May 2003 at breakfast when Wilson told you his story, as reported in Vanity Fair?

2. Did you guess, suspect, or know, prior to the Novak column in July, that Ms. Plame had a CIA affiliation? Your Oct 11, 2003 "denial" was overly specific:

I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her CIA career and hadn't realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47,'' as a classmates at the CIA training "farm,'' Jim Marcinkowski, recalls.
Well, I know Nick Kristof is a columnist at the Times but I would not claim to be knowledgable about his entire career. Can we try for a simple yes or no to my much easier question - did you know, suspect, or have reason to believe that she was with the CIA?

3. These other points were covered to my dissatisfaction a while back, but...

Any chance that in a public column, rather than hidden away on your blog, you will acknowledge that your use of the word "behest" in your June 13, 2003 column was an error? In the secret places of the Times website you offered this:

One of the criticisms from the right is that I say that the vice president dispatched Wilson to Niger, but that's incorrect. The wording in the column is simply that Cheney asked for more information about the uranium deal, and then the former ambassador was dispatched. And that’s what happened.

In fairness, though, it is true that Cheney apparently didn’t know that Wilson had been dispatched. If I’d known that I would have said so. And in a later column I said Wilson had been dispatched "at the behest" of Cheney's office; it's true that he was sent in response to Cheney's prodding, but that wording wasn't choice because it can easily be read to mean that Cheney asked for the trip.

4. As to the notion that Wilson debunked the Niger forgeries, you wrote this on June 13 2003:
Officials now claim that the C.I.A. inexplicably did not report back to the White House with this envoy's findings and reasoning, or with an assessment of its own that the information was false. I hear something different. My understanding is that while Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet may not have told Mr. Bush that the Niger documents were forged, lower C.I.A. officials did tell both the vice president's office and National Security Council staff members.
Do you want to stand by the claim that lower level officials were told about the forgeries in March 2002? From your secret confessions post we find this:

The better objection is that the references to the documents themselves make it sound as if the envoy may have had the documents in possession, while in fact he didn’t. The U.S. didn’t obtain the documents themselves until the fall of that year. But we did then have the information in them, including the full text and the names of the ministers who signed the contracts. And Wilson was briefed on the details of the contracts in his meeting with C.I.A. and State Department experts on Feb. 19, 2003.

...So could Wilson have debunked documents that he hadn't seen? Well, yes. If he knew details of the contract and reported back that it was implausible, sure. Did he? By the spring of 2003, the problems in the signatures of the documents had been pointed out, but I don't see much evidence that they had been noted in 2002 by Wilson or anybody else. Rather, the debunking of the contract was based mostly on the implausibility of obtaining uranium in Niger because of the way the industry was structured.

So Wilson has said that he misspoke when he made references to the documents to me and to two other journalists.

So Wilson "misspoke". Is it OK with you if Libby tried to get that error acknowledged?

5. You also write this:

But it does seem to be true that Wilson claims to have debunked the Niger deal more firmly than some people remember him debunking it.

Let's recap - Libby was pushing back against a Kristof column that claimed, in error, that Wilson had gone at the behest of the VP; that Wilson had debunked forgeries he had not seen; and that Wilson's report was definitive. And pushing back against that pile of rubbish amounted to an attempt to "discredit" Wilson.

6. Almost done - were you or anyone at the Times aware that Wilson was an adviser to the Kerry campaign as of May 2003? Shouldn't his partisan affiliation have been noted?

We wait anxiously for Mr. Kristof's explanation. Or should I say, we will be waiting...and waiting...and waiting.

Saving the best for last, TM calmly skewers "former prosecutor and current Bush-loather" Christy Hardin-Smith: In Ms. Hardin-Smith's world Special Counsel Fitzgerald walks on water except on those occasions when he elects to spread his angel wings and fly. So let's open the time vault and have Ms. Hardin-Smith tell us how Fitzgerald cracked the cover-up of the June 23 meeting:

The beauty of being a Federal Prosecutor with a mind like a steel trap and a loyal staff of lawyers and investigators is that you have all the means at your disposal to try and track down every single piece of evidence: every scrap of paper, every note, every receipt, every entry log every photo, everything you can get your hands on, before ever asking a question of anyone on the record in court.
...
In this particular matter, what Judy and Scooter forgot is that they are dealing with a professional. Not some slackass, just out of law school, wet behind the ears kid. Not some political social climber who would sell his mother for a Senate seat or a nomination to the Federal bench. Not some guy who was going to phone it in because he didn’t want to piss off the high and mighty and powerful. This guy is a professional prosecutor, who does his job.

Period.

You don’t prosecute the Gambinos, Sheik Omar Abdel Rachman, Osama Bin Laden and former Governor Ryan of Illinois just for kicks. Those cases are all long, hard slogs, and potentially very deadly to your career as well as your person.

And when you do your job, you find things like this: all government buildings after 9/11 (and even before 9/11 in a lot of cases) require that you sign in and out. That goes double for buildings where you have the potential for someone being around national security documents or highly placed government officials, because you don’t want something disappearing without some written record of who has had access to the building. You follow the paper trail, the evidence in hand, the usual patterns of behavior, and sometimes even your gut — but it is the little details that nail someone to the wall.

During her first go at her testimony, Judy was evasive and could not recall whether or not she had ever met with Scooter on June 23rd, when asked specifically about this by the Special Prosecutor. (Note to witnesses: If the prosecutor is asking you about a date certain, he has something that he will nail your ass with unless you are completely truthful. Keep that in mind in the future.)

Yeah, yeah, my daughters swoon for Orlando Bloom, so I am familiar with the sentiment.

Anyway, the defense has introduced an exhibit highlighting Fitzgerald's monumentally insightful detective work, to wit, Libby's calendar for June 23, 2003. Ms. Miller was scheduled for a half hour at 3:00.

Evidently Mr. Steel Trap was able to infer from that subtle clue that Libby had a meeting set up with Judy, and well done!

Too bad Mr. Steel Trap had not asked for Armitage's calendar for June - he would have noticed Bob Woodward's name, and maybe even asked a few useful questions.

Mr. Steel Trap made me laugh out loud. Mr. Steel Trap's case is getting hole-ier by the day. We've got reporters misremembering their muddled recollections, contradicting their own notes and otherwise shooting the prosecution in the foot nearly every day so far.

Posers

"The new majority has pledged fiscal restraint and laments the coming entitlement crisis. This budget puts their words to a test."

Laments the coming entitlement crisis? Maybe they could have stood up and helped the effort to change things two years ago...

A Decidedly Mixed-Bag

Jules Crittenden yesterday did what I can only dream other media would do; he posted the high- and low-lights in Iraq. I only the rest of the media could do their job that way...

Where Dreams go to Die

TM, as only he can do, warms up the Fat Lady at the Libby trial:

WHY I'M YAWNING: TRex, posting at firedoglake, unwittingly delivers a "how dreams die" pre-epitaph to the Plame investigation:

Why It Matters (Plame edition)
...
In the Antarctic, when scientists want to study the air, water, and weather of ancient times, they drill down into the ice and take a core sample, which provides them with a perfect cross-section of each epoch. The Libby case is like an ice core sample of the Bush Administration's incestuous, manipulative, and deeply disingenuous relationship to the media and how they played the press like a concert violin in the run up to the catastrophic set of errors that is the War in Iraq.

We may or may not ever see Karl Rove in leg-irons and an orange jumpsuit, although that would be a delightful cherry on the cake, but what we are learning through testimony about the catty, back-stabbing world inhabited by our major media pundits is not only highly entertaining, but it should serve as a valuable lesson to reporters, writers, and editors who may ever be tempted to let their desire for access cloud their judgement in the future.

We needed a Special Counsel to conduct a two year investigation in order to demonstrate that Administration officials leak to favored reporters and that reporter's notes can look like spaghetti?

I'm an educated man and I could have spoken intelligently to the habits of White House officials and the press which covers them long before this Administration even took office. Now, are these really the questions Special Counsel Fitzgerald was called here to answer? Judy Miller's shopping bags and Matt Cooper's notes? Please tell me that he has something more. Please tell me that the prosecutor has not pinned his hopes to a phone log.

Ahh, well. A quick trip down memory lane should revive memories of the real spirit of Fitzmas - little cherubs smiling as Fitzgerald indicted twenty-two members of BushCo, Rove in chains, Cheney in chains - those were happier, headier days.

Now, Fitzgerald has successfully demonstrated that government officials leak to and attempt to manipulate the press. Who knew?

I'm hard pressed to believe that Hollywood could have come up with a funnier caper...

Name from the Past

Here's one that kind of flew under the radar: Former teenage tennis phenom Andrea Jaeger has admitted she tanked matches during her heyday in the 1980s, including a 1983 Wimbledon final loss to Martina Navratilova.

Bush and Grand Strategy

Thomas P.M. Barnett addresses the failure of Bushian grand strategy. Essential takeaway:

George Bush likes being compared to Harry Truman. Both presidents were challenged by history to define a long struggle and America's purpose in pursuing it, and both became awfully unpopular as a result. But here's where history does not repeat itself: Truman successfully institutionalized his grand strategy internationally. Bush consistently cites America's exceptionalism to justify his own ... Not surprisingly, no new "breakthrough" international organizations or treaties or alliances have arisen from this ongoing struggle, save for the International Criminal Court long ignored by this administration. That's too bad, because history indeed handed George Bush the same opportunity Harry Truman received: to reshape the global security landscape for the struggle ahead.

As Barnett points out, we find ourselves 52 months removed from 9 / 11 with no discernible, coherent foreign policy mission. And as I have written before, the question as to America's role in the world remains unanswered.

Good, Better or Best

It was early but I was convinced that I'd not find something more amusing today than this at Instapundit. Well, I did. And from the same place.

Glenn strikes again with this witty little gem:

"You know, if you study hard and get good grades, you can do well in life. Otherwise you might end up in the Senate." Heh.

I've long contemplated a "'Heh' Post of the Day," but forsaken the idea for the paucity of true witticism in the blogosphere at large. Aside from a few regulars, there's not a lot of good material on a daily basis. Today has me re-thinking the idea.

Alternative Resolution

From Jim Geraghty:

"We, the Senate, like all the good parts of the war and disapprove of all the bad parts. We demand all credit for anything that goes right, and reject any blame for anything that goes wrong"...

Jim has captured the essence of this nonsense in two short yet direct sentences. Well played!

'Heh' of the Day

And it's still early...courtesy of Glenn Reynolds:

I think Ralph would bring something to the election that no one else will.

If a Nader falls in the forest but no one was there, did it really make a sound?

The other Extreme

Hugh makes some interesting points in the post-Super Bowl ad frenzy this morning. What he describes here is the opposite extreme of what I deal with near weekly:

Advertising, like journalism, is a craft, not a profession, and advertising execs, like journalists, has to figure out that distributed across the population are some extraordinary talents who could easily do what they do and sometimes choose to do so for free.

The costs to entry are much higher for advertising than journalism, though, and thus advertising execs are not nearly as imperiled as journalists by the rise of distributed networks of independents. Still, every producer of consumer goods has to be asking themselves this morning why they have been paying all that money for ads that haven't connected.

Then you have me. I see near weekly one potential advertiser convinced that he's unlocked the secret of successful advertising, only to shoot his promotional wad of cash and get not-much in return.

Every coin is two-sided.

Trends in Blogging

Found this snippet from Taylor Owen over at OxBlog to be worthwhile.

"Magazines increasingly drive mainstream political blogging. A venture capitalist friend tells me that ads are not the future of professional blogging. Maybe so, but one model that is clearly emerging is the magazine hosted hub. Sullivan's move first to Time and now to the Atlantic is a prime example. The magic combination seems to be a couple of full time big name bloggers, a few staff journalists with stand alone blogs, and a group blog with approximately 10 regular contributors. The NRO, The New Republic and Macleans in Canada are all good examples of this model. As a big Atlantic fan, I look forward to seeing where they go with their new online push. With Fallows writing regular posts, and Sullivan moving tomorrow, look for an Atlantic group blog in the near future)."

Owen's VC friend may be right. Then again, maybe not. Every meeting I sit in with major advertisers, someone (who generally has nothing else of merit to say) will ask "Yeah, but what about blogs? How can we make money there? What should we be doing to leverage the space?"

It's true that the magazine-sponsorship model is currently en vogue. Name bloggers like Sullivan have established not only a blog "brand," but they also have credibility in academic circles and as talking heads on the pundit shows. But whither the rest of us? Strikes me that the subsidized model may be aspirational, but sooner or later a paradigm that includes paid search, multimedia, heightened interactivity, etc. will emerge. There's simply too many bloggers out there coupled with too many advertisers wanting to leverage their medium and content.

Stay tuned.

200 Calories in Pictures

I thought this photo representation of various foods in quantities that equal 200 calories was kind of interesting. Surprisingly, you get more bang for your pleasure-center buck on Smarties candy than, say, peanut butter. Then again, I don't feel much better that I can get away with 226 g of Ketchup. I can't even imagine consuming 226 g of Ketchup over a two week period. But that's just me.

Certainly makes you think twice about some of your choices. Well, at least as long as you're on the site.

Hat tip, Virgina Postrel.

Ridiculous

As if we needed any proof that members of the MSM will go to outrageous lengths to assert causal relationships for which there is nary a shred of evidence, I present you with Stuart Elliot of the NYT:

"No commercial that appeared last night during Super Bowl XLI directly addressed Iraq, unlike a patriotic spot for Budweiser beer that ran during the game two years ago. But the ongoing war seemed to linger just below the surface of many of this year’s commercials. More than a dozen spots celebrated violence in an exaggerated, cartoonlike vein that was intended to be humorous, but often came across as cruel or callous. For instance, in a commercial for Bud Light beer, sold by Anheuser-Busch, one man beat the other at a game of rock, paper, scissors by throwing a rock at his opponent’s head. In another Bud Light spot, face-slapping replaced fist-bumping as the cool way for people to show affection for one another. In a FedEx commercial, set on the moon, an astronaut was wiped out by a meteor. In a spot for Snickers candy, sold by Mars, two co-workers sought to prove their masculinity by tearing off patches of chest hair."

Someone's had too many Appletinis and had to beat a deadline. It almost rivals global warming in terms of assumptive overreach.

The Reason I didn't win a FF title...

is pretty much the same reason the Bears couldn't win a SB title:

This was the Rex Grossman that the Chicago Bears and their fans feared. When the Bears needed a clutch throw to catch up in the fourth quarter, their quarterback couldn't connect.

Instead, Grossman threw a pair of interceptions, one that Kelvin Hayden returned for a touchdown, all but ending Chicago's chance to win the Super Bowl at rainy Dolphin Stadium.
"A frustrating loss," Grossman said. "There were definitely opportunities for us to take that game and we didn't do it."

Criticized all season for his erratic play and questioned all week before the biggest game about his up-and-down season, Grossman did little to quiet his detractors Sunday night in a 29-17 loss to the Indianapolis Colts.

Two fumbled snaps -- one he lost, one he didn't -- and then the two underthrown fourth-quarter picks. Two throws that were pretty gross.

In a game that was mostly discombobulated from the get-go, Rex was the most discombobulated of all it seemed, though his individual stats weren't horrific (there have been worse SB performances). Sadly though, this is the guy who scored -2 for me twice during the season and -5 once, all in losses.

While I can't argue that had he performed like a star in the four of my losses in which he started, I most certainly am sure that you don't win in fantasy football with such a bad showing at such an important position.

So are the Bears.

Too sloppy

All that rain, like 20 fumbles and a few interceptions...I want to enjoy the game but this is making it way too difficult.

It's a theme

It's Econ 101 here at My Dogs this weekend. Keeping to the theme, I provide you this little tidbit from growth champion Larry Kudlow:

(Here are some new factoids to sink your teeth into concerning all the nonsense about wage inequality -- a subject that the brilliant Washington economist Alan Reynolds has debunked voluminously):

At $16.76, average hourly earnings are nearly 20 percent above year 2000 levels, and 44 percent above the $11.65 level in the fifth year of the Papa Bush/Clinton business expansion cycle.This is the fifth year of the GWB cycle.

Even in inflation adjusted terms, real average hourly earnings are slightly higher than the 2000 peak, and nine percent above the 1995 fifth year average level.

By the way, since President Bush’s supply side tax cuts in 2003, adjusted household jobs (a BLS combination of non-farm payrolls and the civilian employment household survey) have grown nearly 3 million per year over the past three years.

Incidentally, looking at strong profits and productivity, economist Mike Darda thinks the unemployment rate will fall below 4 percent.

It's still a theme:

His incredulity is not surprising, but it is wrong. The historical average for tax revenues as a percentage of GDP for the last 45 years—roughly, the span of the modern taxation era—is 18.2%; in 2006, the government collected 18.4% of GDP as tax revenues. Even if you throw out the Bush budgets of 2002-2006, the average rises only a tenth of a percent, meaning that America is still above its historical average. The same holds true for budget deficits. The historical average is 1.6% with the Bush years, 1.5% without, making last year's 1.8% budget deficit look less than outlandishly out of line.

The interesting thing is that no one knows these happy facts. Democrats are still harping on budget deficits as if (a cynic would say "because") they were a gigantic mess, rather than a shrinking problem. This is not an excuse for running deficits, of course; there is no reason that a prosperous nation should be borrowing money to run its government when the economy is booming. But America's budget deficit is small enough that it is now unlikely to be having any sort of measurable effect on the economy, and inflation and economic growth will quickly erode the value of recently accumulated debt. Mr Bush may leave a large number of problematic legacies for future generations, but the revenue shortfalls of recent years will not be noticed among them.

There's hope!

There's still hope that Republicans won't wilfully and excitedly drive over the edge:

Senate Republican leaders today vowed to block consideration of Senator John Warner’s compromise resolution against a troop increase in Iraq unless their alternatives are offered up as well.

At a press conference this afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said all 49 Republican senators would stand together against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to try to put Mr. Warner’s resolution on the floor for debate on Monday.

Say it Here and it happens There

TM wondered aloud yesterday about the state of the Libby trial. In the course of his musings he asked an innocent enough question:

if anyone has a link to a tormented dead-ender conspiracist still explaining how (a) Plame's CIA affiliation was a big deal, (b) Fitzgerald's investigation is ongoing, and (c) Libby and Cheney led a massive conspiracy to punish Joe Wilson and make him cry by outing the wife, then I would love to see it.

As if on cue, former Clinton flack Sidney Blumenthal steps up:

Cheney knew that the intelligence for the war had been cooked. He was not obsessed with Wilson because he was angry that Wilson was allegedly falsifying information. Cheney was not seized with a feeling of injustice or a need to inform the public of the truth. Cheney is not a fool. "Cheney knows how to read intelligence reports. He knows how to read classified information," Richard Clarke, former director of counterterrorism on the National Security Council, told me. Of course, Clarke said, "Cheney had read the reports" that disproved the administration's line. "Cheney knew it was false," said Clarke. What worried Cheney was that he was keenly aware that the so-called intelligence the administration propagated was phony, shabby and shaky. What also peeved him was that Wilson had said that his mission had been triggered by a request from the Office of the Vice President.

In the aftermath of the invasion, as President Bush swaggered in a fighter pilot's flight suit on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, the administration's sway in Washington was at its zenith. The president's poll ratings were sky-high, the Republican control of the Congress airtight and the press corps embedded. Wilson was targeted as an enemy of the state. The same methods that had been used to whip up support for the war were now deployed against the straggler. Cheney's overbearing intensity was transmitted through his chief of staff. Once again, a compliant press would be exploited to do their bidding.

And it's only downhill from there.

It wouldn't be a critical piece of course without the obligatory neo-con reference: Despite these numerous red flags, President Bush uttered his infamous 16 words in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." A neoconservative member of the NSC, Robert Joseph, had contrived to sneak the falsehood into the speech by attributing it to British intelligence. (Never minding that the Brits still stand behind that assessment.)

For me the most amusing aspect of this is Blumenthal's gushing reliance on things that by the Feb 1 pub date were hardly rock-solid. First off:

Cheney was briefed on the CIA report immediately before or after his portentous remarks on television. (The CIA briefer, Craig Schmall, testified in the Libby trial that Cheney "did ask" for and "received" the report in "early 2002."

This Craig Schmall? (courtesy of TM again): My picks: Helping the defense, the biggest surprise was the absurd weakness of Grenier, Grossman, and Schmall. None of these three were at all convincing that they ever discussed Plame with Libby or took the news to be important, which reinforces Libby's implicit contention that she just was not that big a deal.

...

"More than a half dozen officials have said they passed along the same information earlier than that."

Yeah, we heard four of them (Grossman, Grenier, Schmall and Martin) last week at the trial, and not one had a firm handle on when and where they told him, nor mentioned a reference longer than about 30 seconds. Fitzgerald's theory is that these remarks were so consequential Libby could not have forgotten this information. But the trial testimony shows this is preposterous and the prosecution's own witnesses have been demonstrating that claim is preposterous.

...

We skip the undisputed VP reference, and go straight to Craig Schmall:

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger.

The "displeasure" is obviously a different subject, perfectly valid, and Schmall tracks it down and finds the leaks are disinformation. Further, the only indication of "Valerie Wilson" are Schmall's handwritten notes . . . and he has no recollection of discussing it with Libby (or of much else).

Yes, that Craig Schmall.

Fast-forwarding to his concluding paragraph, Sid anxiously awaits Dick Cheney's appearance in court:

Cheney is scheduled to testify soon at the federal courthouse as a defense witness, where he will be questioned about his direction of the operation in which Libby acted as his pawn. Meanwhile, a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue, Congress debates resolutions against Bush's escalation of the war, haunted by the original "Authorization for Use of Military Force," which was approved with a naive trust that on a matter of war the president and the vice president would tell the truth.

From the link (damn deadlines anyway!): Left unmentioned by Mr. Corn - Fitzgerald interviewed Cheney during his investigation; Fitzgerald also announced that he won't be calling Cheney as a witness.

Oops. Certitude is a wonderful thing but only when the ground isn't moving beneath your feet. Too much certainty and not enough 'right' is a bad combo.

Economics 2, Politicians 0

While we're on the subject of brilliant economic experts, lets mention California Attorney General Jerry Brown's news conference today in which he announced he is seeking a settlement to an utterly ridiculous lawsuit filed by his predecessor, the inimitable Bill Lockyer:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced in San Francisco today that he has asked six automobile makers to discuss a possible settlement of an unusual public nuisance lawsuit aimed at addressing global warming.

At the same time, Brown said, his office will "vigorously" pursue the lawsuit even while seeking a settlement.

Brown said at a news conference at the State Building that global warming is "a gigantic problem" and the lawsuit filed by the state last fall is "an opportunity to get to some solutions."
He said, "The point of the lawsuit is, the sooner we get at it, the better."

The lawsuit against the American and Japanese auto makers was filed in federal court in San Francisco in September by Brown's predecessor, former state Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
The suit is based on the legal theory that carbon dioxide sent into the air through automobile tailpipes creates an environmental public nuisance by contributing to global warming.

The defendants are General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Motors Corp., Toyota Motor North America Inc., Honda North America and Nissan North America.

Brown released a letter he sent to the auto makers' chief lawyer, Theodore Boutrous of Los Angeles, on Wednesday, asking for a meeting with the chief executive of each of the companies "to discuss resolution of our pending litigation."

Jerry appeared tonight on Kudlow & Company. I caught the tail end of Larry's appearance on the Hugh Hewitt show where he described the interview and couldn't help but laugh (Larry, not me). Of course he made the obvious point that any sort of resolution here that penalizes the Auto makers will cause far more problems as a practical matter than it could conceivably solve.

I imagine though that Jerry doesn't really care...he's got a planet to save.

Looks good on you though

Not the best of the bunch but Farley's chops are SWEEEEEET!

Grab Your Wallets...

Hillary Clinton wants to "take those profits..." Under what authority would she do so? In what way would the energy companies be compensated? Will she be equally willing to subsidize these companies during market downturns like we saw during the 1980s and 90s?

I recognize that it's easy to beat up on "Big Oil." When they are returning strong profits, everyone wants a piece of the pie and seems to think they are owed it. But when the market turns south, I rarely hear anyone offering to bail the oil companies out. Since they weathered the bad times and made the investments responsible for the current profits, why are they somehow less entitled to them? Isn't the notion that the government has a right to corporate profits inherently anti-capitalistic? What signal would that send to entrepreneurs and the markets?

Just keep on talking, Hillary. You're not going anywhere with this kind of agenda.

What We Are Dealing With: The History of German Anti-Americanism

A truly sensational post by Benjamin Duffy over at David's Medienkritik. I consider it essential reading and won't subvert its value with my own commentary other than to say that the thesis and research resonated deeply with my own experience in Germany. Here's a little sample:

Nonetheless, there exists a compulsion on the part of Germans to find parallels to the Holocaust in American history. If they could only prove that die Amis were just as bad, it would have a therapeutic effect on the German national soul. In a way, finding an American sin as great as their own might even negate the Holocaust.

Maybe it depends on which General is speaking

The Senate last week dismissed the testimony of the new Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, on the point of reaction to their promised anti-surge resolutions. In his testimony that day during his confirmation hearing, he gave a direct answer to a direct question about the effects of any such resolution on the enemy in Iraq: It helps them, the General offered.

Fast-forward another week and we find General Casey sitting in front of the same committee yesterday getting grilled as part of the confirmation process for his new post as Army Chief of Staff. During the hearing Casey made interesting comments on that same point:

During his Senate testimony today, General Casey said, "It certainly strengthens the enemy. . . I've already seen it start to come out — the Americans are being beaten, they're being defeated. Come to Iraq now if you want to be involved in beating the Americans. . . I've seen it in the Al Qaeda propaganda."

Now if we hit the rewind button we can explain why--logically speaking--the Senate ought to care about Casey's assessment on this after having ignored Petraeus' similar statements. Back in December as the President worked to form this new strategy, Generals Casey and Abizaid both testified to the effect that the surge was a bad idea (something obviously not lost on headline-writing copy editors across America).

Maybe Petraeus was too straight-forward about it, maybe the Senate can appreciate Casey's statement somewhat more. But then again, probably not since he's now in favor of the whole idea:

But now, Casey said he supports the president's decision to deploy 21,500 additional troops, or five brigades, because it would give the incoming commander of coalition troops, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the flexibility he would need to help quiet the situation."In my mind, the other three brigades should be called forward after an assessment has been made on the ground," Casey said.

Everybody's changing their minds it seems, but the Senate. It appears we're getting a resolution whether we want it or not. The only question is, which one?

Those Senators sure can accomplish a lot when they put their minds to it!

Milestone Moment

Somehow overlooked, February 1 marks the two year anniversary of My Dogs Are Smarter. Congrats to the proprietor and his sidekick. Through some ups and downs, we've managed to keep this thing going with a cult-ish following.

Stick with us in 2007. I forsee some exciting developments.

In the meantime, Happy Belated Birthday to us.

Does anyone use discretion anymore?

I'd be embarrassed if it were me:

A photograph and videotape of a Texas soldier dying in Iraq published by the New York Times have triggered anger from his relatives and Army colleagues and revived a long-standing debate about which images of war are proper to show.

The journalists involved, Times reporter Damien Cave and Getty Images photographer Robert Nickelsberg, working for the Times, had their status as so-called embedded journalists suspended Tuesday by the Army corps in Baghdad, military officials said, because they violated a signed agreement not to publish photos or video of any wounded soldiers without official consent.

New York Times foreign editor Susan Chira said Tuesday night that the newspaper initially did not contact the family of Army Staff Sgt. Hector Leija about the images because of a specific request from the Army to avoid such a direct contact.

"The Times is extremely sensitive to the loss suffered by families when loved ones are killed in Iraq," Chira said. "We have tried to write about the inevitable loss with extreme compassion."
She said that after the newspaper account, with a photograph of the soldier, was published Monday, a Times reporter in Baghdad made indirect efforts to tell the family of the video release later that day. The video was still available for viewing on the Times' Web site Tuesday night, when the newspaper notified clients of its photo service that the photograph at issue was no longer available and should be eliminated from any archives.

And at least one report indicated that as of mid-day yesterday the video was still available on-line.

***Shakes head***

And don't even get me started on the whole question of decency...

The Movers love him

If yesterday's reaction to a surprise visit from the President at the NYSE trading floor is any indication, the economic movers and shakers love the man. From their perspective, what's not to love?

Frankly, for anyone involved with investments in America--from the traders to the venture capitalists to the corporate officers and work forces of the thousands of publicly traded companies to the folks whose only contact with the markets is their professionally managed 401(k)/IRA's...what's not to love?

Slanderous

I'm not the only one offended by William Arkin's "Support the People" nonsense over at the WaPo. The most offensive passage in the piece, IMHO, is this:

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

Mercenaries? Arkin refers to the concept of "watching the parapet" in his screed. Perhaps Arkin could answer his own question...what exactly is Mr. Arkin protecting us from with his vain-glorious rhetoric?

Anyone, including Arkin, who truly thinks they're living in a Fascist America where George Bush and his brownshirts have trampled their rights is an idiot. Truly an idiot.