Bush gets tough. Why now???

Kevin Drum thinks the UAE/Port deal may be much ado about nothing, at least from a substantive perspective. And he makes a fairly convincing case for it.

But what I don't get is why Bush picked this issue to stand firm? He's threatening to pull out his veto pen for the first time in five plus years on something where the downside risk to cancel the deal seems minimal.

And, just a cursory review of Bush policy - particularly involving Homeland Security/War on Terra issues - provides a litany of purely political decisions. Remember the big one - Bush was against the Department of Homeland Security before he was for it.

It took some clear polling evidence to get him on board so he could beat Tom Daschle and the rest of the Democrats about the head with it in the mid-terms in 2002.

Surely it can't be something as simple as a threat to his post Presidency seat on the Carlisle Group Board? Not money - he'll be able to rake in unlimited cash mangling our language around the globe. So what is it? The usual arrogance?

It beats me, but I say bring it on.

"Bodman? Rove here. About those budget cuts..."

You can just imagine the phone call that went out when Karl Rove figured out that the next stop on the "Alternative to Oil in Under 500 Years" tour was a site where reseach staff had been cut because...well, because those are the kind of programs that have suffered in this administration.

I'm sure the Energy Secretary was appopriately confused. "But Karl," he would protest, "you told us to cut every program that didn't somehow increase the bottom line at the oil companies. Hell, Karl, they write our policy and they don't like this alternative fuel stuff."

"Reinstate 'em," Rove said, "or you'll end up on the lecture circuit with Brownie. We've got a photo op to get through."

I think I might have mentioned this

It seems pollsters of both parties have been reading here. This article in the NY Times catalogues the problems Republican stategists see with the debacle of the Medicare Presciption Drug scam. Compounded on top of the Social Security Privatization - er, harumph, um, personal thingamajigs - rollout and retreat, it appears that seniors will be re-thinking their rightward trend come November. And their power in mid-terms, where they show up in much higher numbers than voters in Presidential years, is huge.

Just a month ago, I ruminated on this very concept (scroll down to #4).

It's early yet, but seniors don't dig people messing with their medicine (which they can barely afford already) or their Social Security.

It really is poetic that a piece of legislation designed around winning the 2004 election (with the value added bonus of lining the pockets of Big Pharma) could end up sinking the Republicans in 2006. I can hear Denny Hastert now - "We never should have kept that 15 minute vote open for 6 hours. Why, oh, why did we threaten those wavering Republicans?"

Justice served.

Pat Robertson faces Evangelical Wrath - Will he condemn himself?

Even his evangelical brethren are starting to turn on Pat Robertson. As good Christians, I guess they have had enough. It's one thing to attribute 9/11 to God's wrath against the US for tolerating gay people - you know, something you can get behind - but apparently calling for the assasination of a democratically elected leader and claiming God is dissing Ariel Sharon is just too much.

Some observers say Robertson, who'll turn 76 next month, courts controversy as a strategy to stay recognizable and keep his followers mobilized. Others say he remains important to the evangelical movement that he helped create when he established the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network in 1960 — but he needs to stop damaging it with his words.

Still others say he's a lunatic who is full of nothing but greed and hate. I wonder who that might be?

A billion here, a billion there...

It doesn't seem real, so why worry about it? Congress raised the debt ceiling by $800 billion in November of 2004 and we're $25 million away from it 15 months later.

So, we just borrowed almost one third of the annual US budget from my kids in less a year and a half.

Ah, conservatives. Maybe their campaign slogan for this year could be, "Vote for us. We may be corrupt, but we spend more than anyone in history."

All Joking Aside

This AP story is the best summary I've seen to date about the lies, manipulation, coverup and other foolishness that went on after Dick Cheney shot his hunting buddy in the face. And although the jokes are easy - and the story even more pathetic as the victim comes out of the hospital and apologizes to the lying public official who shot him - underneath it all is a microcosm of Bush White House principles in action.

• Don't tell anyone anything unless you have to
• When caught, lie
• When caught lying, blame the media
• When you screw up, blame the victim

And it's clear from even a cursory glance through the chain of events that this is really a Cheney/Rove administration. Although most people who aren't in a coma have long thought this to be the case, the evidence is laid right before us this time.

And for the country, that is no joke.

Jim Talent and the leap from faith

As I wrote about earlier, Missouri Senator Jim Talent was trying to have it both ways on the issue of stem cell research, co-sponsoring a bill that would criminalize embryonic research while advocating other forms. His tight rope walk is purely political, of course, as Missouri struggles to build a high tech business base that focuses on life sciences.

Replacing the disappearing manufacturing jobs with high paying, hi-tech positions is good politics, especially when you're in a tight race for re-election in a state that covers the the entire political spectrum. Venture too far right to get the outstate crowd and you'll lose the blue cities of St. Louis and Kansas City so badly you'll never get elected.

But Talent's religious keepers have no time or money for wafflers - on this issue or any other. As Eleanor Clift writes in Newsweek, Talent tried to finesse his position by finding some science that makes the research "non-embryonic". But people on the right - especially down around Springfield, MO and in the offices of the St. Louis Catholic Archdiocese, don't much care for parsing and they've practically condemned Talent.

Interestingly, the science guy he relied on doesn't really agree with his position, but he makes a great argument for no limitations on stem cell research, embryonic or otherwise.

And people on the left never liked Talent anyway. There isn't much he could do within the rather strict confines of today's Republican party that would sway Missouri's Democrats.

Tough choice, Jim. Welcome to Washington, Senator McCaskill.

Hearthrob

Ok. I admit it. I like George Clooney. Actually, I like George Clooney alot. I didn't hear his apparently off-color joke about Jack Abramoff at the Golden Globes, but it seems to me you'd be hard pressed to say anything - to anyone - that could be more offensive than Abramoff's behavior.

And, unlike Congressional Democrats, Clooney isn't backing down. Everytime he says something that riles up some right wing yahoo, the corporate media just begs him to apologize. "Get right with O'Reilly, son," they tell him. "Don't you feel bad about insulting the thugs, crooks, liars and whores of the Republican party? Repent, young man. Repent."

And every time he tells them, politely and calmly, to jam it.

Be still, my beating heart.

Welcome to the dark ages

Unbelievable. I wouldn't even expect this kind of insanity from our own crudely constructed Supreme Court - at least not until they get one more Scalia/Thomas clone on the bench.

Italy's Supreme Court issued a ruling today that essentially created a sliding scale of sexual abuse depending on the sexual experience of the victim. Yes, you read that correctly. The particular case involved a 14 year old girl whose stepfather forced to perform oral sex - after she refused intercourse. The court agreed with the man's claim that since the girl had already engaged in sexual acts (not with him, but in her life), his offense should be at least partially mitigated.

The first thing that popped into my head was the profoundly evil defense lawyer tactic of blaming the victim. It's the "She dressed like a slut so she deserved it/was asking for it/how could my guy have known when she screamed stop that she meant stop - she was wearing a short skirt" defense.

And, as it turns out, the Italian high court has already ruled on that very topic, and others:

The supreme court is no stranger to controversial judgments.

In recent years it has ruled that "an isolated and impulsive" pat on a woman's buttocks at work did not constitute sexual harassment, and returned a verdict that a woman could not have been raped because she was wearing skin-tight jeans.

Sounds like open season on women in Italy. I never thought I'd be grateful for the misogynist, racist, homophobic, corporately sponsored bastards that rule our fine land, but given the alternative...

Doctors for Death - Thinking out loud

There is a debate going on in California about whether doctors should participate in executions. It's an interesting argument, with the pro-doctor side (and with the backing of a court ruling) claiming the presence of a doctor (anesthesiologist in this case) assures that the execution is humane. In short, get the gas passer to make sure the executee is out cold before you shoot him up with the good stuff.

It seems like an odd argument, though. If you want the guy (or gal, if you live in Texas) executed, it seems strange to be so concerned about humane treatment that you want to drag in a doctor. Is it so important- or so difficult - to get the dosage right just before you administer a lethal injection?

The AMA and other organizations object on grounds that participating in executions is a violation of the oath to "first, do no harm." And I guess that's right. I started out thinking this somehow conflicts with the case for physician assisted suicide, but there are huge differences between mercifully granting the wish of a terminally ill person and the state deciding someone has to die.

I guess if you are going to execute people - and I'm against it for a whole variety of reasons - it's best to do it as humanely as possible. Not executing them at all seems like the most human thing to do.

Wal-Mart and women's health - 2 out of 50 aint' bad

The Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy smacked the moralizers at Wal- Mart around today, ordering them to stock the "morning after" pill in all of their pharmacies in the state. The ruling is in reponse to a lawsuit filed by three women a few weeks ago.

The ruling will bring the number of states where Wal-Mart will dispense the pill to a whopping two. Illinois requires all pharmacies to stock and dispense any prescription.

But give Wal-Mart credit - they're at 4% due to the power of the state, which obviously explains this comment:

"Clearly women's health is a high priority for Wal-Mart," spokesman Dan Fogleman said. "We are actively thinking through the issue."

Clearly.

Strange Bedfellows

Some Republicans joined forces with Democrats today to kill off - at least for the moment - the asbestos liability bill in the Senate. The Democrats oppose the bill because:

• If you're a Democrat, they oppose the bill because it will limit liability for bad acts by big corporations and there can be no doubt that some legitimate claimants will be screwed.
• If you're a Republican, the Democrats oppose the bill because they are in the pocket of the trial lawyers.

The truth is likely somewhere in between, although I think hanging around with asbestos lawyers probably isn't good, let alone good politics.

But the Republicans, who fought off the measure with a procedural move, object because they are concerned that W.R. Grace (probably best known as the polluter in the John Travolta movie, "A Civil Action") and USG and the rest of the asbestos companies will somehow sluff off the $140 billion dollar price tag on the taxpayers.

And they are probably right, but what is it about this particular piece of corporate welfare that they object to? Big pharma needs liability protection? Call the Republicans. Big oil needs bigger tax and land rights giveaways? Call the Republicans. Defense contractors running a little low? Call the Republicans.

Exposed workers with death sentences want a few bucks? Not on the taxpayers nickel. Not one dime.

Maybe strange bedfellows is the wrong description.

Waiting for the Frog March

For those of you who share Joe Wilson's dream of Karl Rove being "frog marched out of the White House" (and I consider myself a charter member of the group), more good news out of Washington tonight.

First, we've got the humor. Comedian and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid chimed in with this tidbit (compliments of Tapped via Daily Kos)about fear tactics in the mid-term elections:

"I don't think Karl Rove's message, if he's still out of jail, will have the same sound as it did."

And, more importantly, this lovely piece on the legal front:

Abramoff Said to Claim Close Ties to Rove

The piece has three former associates quoting Abramoff as frequently mentioning his close ties to Rove and even receiving a call from Rove's office claiming a meeting for one of Abramoff's clients had been set.

The White House dances around it, but Abramoff's former assistant has been working for Rove for years. Even the idiots in the press should be able to figure out that's no coincidence.

So, even if Fitzgerald somehow misses Rove, he should probably keep that lawyer's number handy.

How to tell if it's an election year

Frist plans June vote on gay marriage

Just a quick glance at the headlines, as inside trading maven/Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tosses some dripping red meat to the base. Let's see:

• Republicans mired in scandal
• Economic insecurity abounds
• Iraq a failure on so many levels
• Tax cuts and social program cuts to explain
• Increasing numbers uninsured, in poverty
• Agenda geared entirely to corporate sponsors instead of constituents
• Medicare drug benefit, last election year ploy, total disaster

I'm guessing there was a meeting. Picture Karl Rove, Bill Frist, Denny Hastert and a few lackeys kicking around ideas on how to work with all of the issues mentioned above in election year. What to do? What to do? What to do?

And then, like a vision, Karl gets it..."Call Novak and Judy Miller...oh, shit, she's gone. Get Russert and Wolf on the phone, boys. We're going after gay marriage. It kills in the midwest."

Your government. Addressing the real problems facing America.

Joey

This column recounts the life and death of a "regular" guy from southern Missouri who went crazy sometime in his twenties and was shot to death by a local policeman. It's a sad story that illustrates the confusing world of mental illness and the lack of cohesive care that plagues those who suffer from it.

My friend Joey died about three years ago after suffering from paranoid schizophrenia for almost twenty years. Although he took his own life, his behavior was much like the guy in this story, described by columnist Bill McClellan:

He said he could control the clouds with a stick. He said he worked for the FBI. He wanted customers to shake hands with him because he could transfer luck to them. The best description of Heberlie's behavior comes from an account in the local paper, the Ste. Genevieve Herald. "There are few discrepancies in the report regarding Heberlie's actual behavior prior to the onset of the police chase, and while it is characterized as unusual, annoying, and unwanted, the statements describing his actions indicate that his behavior was generally non-threatening in any legal sense."

That was Joey - goofy, periodically annoying, but always non-threatening. The column seems to link the incident to a change in medication that altered Heberlie's behavior, and I wouldn't doubt it. He had a rather stable situation - a place to live, consistent medical and psychiatric care, a family - and still the slightest upset creates havoc and death.

Joey had none of those things. He spent much of his time homeless, and his medication was constantly changing - depending on which doctor he saw and how they were being paid and what he thought was best - and the impact of that was severe. Even in his longest periods of stability he was constantly getting different opinions on medication and treatment.

Both stories illustrate the huge dilemna that we have in this country with mental illness. Since the mid-eighties, when patients suffering mental illness were cast out en masse to appease the need for budget cuts, comprehensive care is a luxury afforded to a tiny fraction of those needing it.

You don't hear about them very often - Joey had a three or four sentence article in the local paper that didn't even recognize what drove him to suicide - and, without McClellan, not many people would know about Heberlie. But they're out there, suffering and dying everyday.

Hey, Scooter. Got something to say?

I realize everyone in the universe is writing about this, but take a look at this photo of Dick Cheney that accompanies the article about him shooting his hunting buddy.

It seems like the only question, beyond the obvious implications for Scooter Libby if he doesn't shut up, is why anyone is surprised that this man would shoot someone. Hell, I'm surprised he doesn't shoot someone once a day, just to get the juices flowing.

"Good morning, Lynne. Go fuck yourself." Bam.

Sunday Dog Blogging

Better late than never, the creature makes an appearance.

If you've got to explain it...

Clarence Page takes the right wing noise machine to task in this column about Coretta Scott King's funeral and the "controversial" comments by Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery. Of course, the comments weren't controversial at all, unless you find yourself on the responsible end of lies that start wars and wiretaps that break the law.

If you know a little bit about the Kings (like me - just enough to be dangerous), you know that they would've penned much harsher words, given the opportunity to create their own eulogies.

Page is right, of course, in explaining the tradition of the black church as a vehicle for politics and social change. And he's also right in asking the obvious question:

"We weren't burying a rap artist [or] a famous cook," Lowery said in a National Public Radio interview. "We were burying a woman who gave her life to world peace, racial justice, human dignity. ... What did they expect us to talk about?"

What, indeed?

But here's what he's missing. For all the right wing blather about what's "appropriate" for the funeral and Limbaugh's assertion that the Kings would be frowning on such a "spectacle", he skips right by the evidence that the blowhards of complaint know not of what they speak.

If they claim that funerals aren't places for politics, and that Carter and Lowery (and, by extension, the Clintons) were disrespectful and rude and...well, downright Democratic, it's clear they know nothing of the subject matter.

Nothing, indeed.

This is what we get

For all the conservative blowhards howling up and down the radio and TV dials and soiling the Op-Ed pages of papers across the country, there are at least a few left-leaning, right thinking folks out there competing. Unfortunately, they lack both the killer instinct and the...well, balls to go toe to toe and fight back.

And then, of course, you've got Nick Kristof, who is appropriately pilloried in this Slate column by Jack Schafer. His crime, this time? He picks a foolish fight with Bill O'Reilly, placing himself on the same level as the "loudmouth who knows no truth" (that's his Indian name).

Read it yourself, but I want a new team for the battle. Most of our guys are done before they started, relying on the "we're not perfect, but we're certainly better than those guys" argument that only lends credibility to "those guys" and hands them ammunition.

It's a painful read, short of this gem about O'Reilly:

Don't get me wrong. Bill O'Reilly deserves it in the shins—or even higher—at least two times a week. His bullying, grandstanding, and modern know-nothingism make him a plump target.

Modern know-nothingism. I like the sound of that.

Three Headlines

You can read the stories if you wish, but the headlines say it all.

Bush waged Iraq war by "cherry pircking" intelligence: Former CIA official - 6 hours ago
Libby claims Cheney approved classified media leaks - 10 hours ago
LA skyscraper plot never got beyond talk: analysts - 6 hours ago

Those are from the French news service AFP, although the stories appear in other wire services in slightly different formats. So why isn't there widespread calls - screams, really - for accountability? Little Russ? Chris? Joe? Where's the outrage? Why isn't every editorial page in the country in a full throated fury?

What Liberal Media?

Post hoc ergo procter hoc

That's my favorite logical fallacy. I must admit my source was an episode of The West Wing, but I never cease to find people using it. The literal translation - after this therefore because of this - is probably posted in every office in the White House.

We've had another litany of deflection, half-truths, mis-direction and - I haven't been looking very hard but I'm sure I could come up with some - bald faced lies.

The latest in the series - Bush gives a speech crediting intelligence for saving a building in LA from a terrorist plane attack. The message, of course, is to leave him alone and let him illegally wiretap any damn person he wants to. If you object, you obviously want Americans to die horrible deaths at the hands of our sworn enemy - an enemy you help every time you ask me to follow the law.

Of course, if the NSA program that has Bush in hot water had actually been the source of this intelligence, we would have heard about it in massive waves the day after the NY Times story broke. But it's not, so the best they can do is resort to the usual rhetorical trickery and hope the masses only read the headlines.

Don't buy it, not for one second. Every morning I get out of bed and every morning the sun rises. Damn, I'm good.

The Miracle Fiber

The Senate today voted to consider an asbestos liability bill that, in rough terms, would end liability for asbestos manufacturers and their insurance companies in return for the establishment of a $140 billion fund to compensate victims of asbestos exposure. Most victim advocates oppose the measure, but former government employees and veterans, who are barred from suing their former employer, are begging for it.

I have mixed feelings about the bill. The manufacturers clearly knew the adverse health effects of exposure to asbestos for years (I recall seeing correspondence from as early as the 1930s recognizing it) but continued to use the "miracle fiber" because it was cheap, effective, and practically indestructible. Like their brethren in the tobacco business (the smoking of which, in conjunction with exposure to asbestos, increases the likelihood of contracting an asbestos related disease by about 90 times- how's that for a partnership forged in hell), the asbestos manufacturers made a business decision that ultimately ruined thousands of lives.

But asbestos litigation has become a cottage industry where, it seems, anyone and everyone is sued regardless of the logic behind their role as defendant, and many "victims" are compensated for exposure when they don't seem to actually have a disease. And the asbestos lawyers collect big bucks. I have a friend who runs a small business that once purchased some asbestos gaskets for use in manufacturing and he has to keep a big box in his office to store the constant flow of legal documents. No one who worked for him has a claim and no one who worked for him is sick. But, he's on the list and the legal fees to extract himself from the suits are killing him.

Of course, it's way more complicated than that. Asbestos related diseases can appear up to 30 years after the exposure that caused them, and they can kill quickly. A common one, mesothelioma, is a death sentence almost always carried out within six months of diagnosis.

So what's the answer? I think some form of fund with clear, fair definitions of what constitutes a compensable disease is about the only answer. The courts are truly clogged with the volume of asbestos related litigation, and not enough of the money makes it to the victims and their families. But, if you've ever been to a VA Hospital you know how these things work, and that's not a comforting thought for someone who is facing massive respiratory impairment and an early grave.

Corrupt corporations first. Corrupt lawyers later. Lots of death and destruction along the way. It's the American Dream.

Maybe Bush has a time machine...

I swiped this directly from TPM, but it's too good to pass up:

From Senator Russ Feingold today:

Quote of the day: "This administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms somehow has a pre-9/11 world view. In fact, the President has a pre-1776 world view. Our government has three branches, not one. And no one, not even the President, is above the law."

You can read the rest of his opinion of Al Gonzales' testimony about NSA wiretapping here.

Plowshares into swords/Everyone else left behind

This is just one of dozens of stories on the budget Bush just submitted to Congress, and I'm sure there will be lots of analysis and hand wringing between now and November, but you've got to give them credit for nerve. Of course, defense spending goes way up and everything else - particularly programs aimed at the neediest among us - gets cut.

There is so much smoke and mirrors and just plain lies coming out of the White House about the budget it's truly astonishing. Even for them, the masters of up is downism. And not one thing they say is actually true, in the sense that true means based in fact and not intended to mislead or misdirect.

This Knight-Ridder article, which the St. Louis Post Dispatch headlined, "Defense, debt continue to grow", really lays bare the essence of the budget: 7% bump in defense spending, 8% in homeland security (perhaps for better wiretapping equipment or torture equipment for leakers) and everything else gets a cut.

Education (Lots of Children Left Behind), Army Corps of Engineers (because who needs a those pesky flood control things, anyway), food stamps (because those people should be living on faith based programs) and, of course, everyone's favorite, Medicare (old people are really sucking the life out this country) and Medicaid (because poor people shouldn't be healthy).

Meanwhile, no recognition of the war in Iraq going forward, no accounting for spending in New Orleans and Mississippi past this year, and still massive deficits as far as the eye can see. So what does W have to say about all this?

Bush called the growing cost of entitlement programs "the biggest challenge to our nation's fiscal health."

Perhaps a quick glance in the mirror might disabuse him of that notion.

Survey Says...

Check out this Newsweek survey. It's certainly unscientific, and given the rightward tilt of the other two weekly newsmagazines it's hardly surprising that more people who read Newsweek identify themselves as Democrats.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that of the 29% who say they get there news from cable TV, the entire sample population (24%) who identify themselves as Republican are included. If you're truly a Democrat or a liberal or just slightly connected to reality, the only reason to watch cable news is to document the atrocities and keep your heartbeat up. It could actually be a form of aerobic exercise.

Anyway, it's an interesting snapshot of boomers (I barely qualify but don't consider myself one) and their political thinking. And, as will all of these things, I suspect it's full of people's idea of what they should be vs. what they actually are.

And, only 53% suspicious of government? This government? They need to read the rest of the magazine and stop wasting their time on silly polls.

Jim Talent - Stem Cell Hypocrite

Jim Talent, the freshman Senator from my neighboring state of Missouri (who bears a remarkable resemblance to Howdy Doody, hair color aside), has shown his true "I'll say anything to get elected" colors with his publicly conflicting positions on stem cell research. What Talent says, in his moderate, city vote getting position, is this:

"I'm opposed to cloning, but I support stem cell research," Talent told The Associated Press in a recent interview. "The technology is changing all the time and so I'm always considering whether there is a better way to strike the balance."

That sounds moderate and compassionate and just the right balance to attract those ever elusive St. Louis and Kansas City voters. But his statements seem to contradict his legislative agenda, and in the contest between political statements and, well, law, we all know who wins. Here's his real position, which strips away all the compassion and moderation:

But he has co-sponsored a Senate bill to ban embryonic stem cell research and impose a million-dollar fine and 10-year jail sentence on violators.

Ahhh, the young talent of the GOP. They teach them well over there.

Busy

Not that people are really beating down the doors here or even mildly complaining, but I'm overwhelmed with non-blog related issues at the moment so posting is temporarily on hold or at least very intermittent until the workload/personal stuff lightens up.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't have things to say, like calling bullshit on Arlen Specter for refusing to put AG Gonzales under oath the morning at the NSA hearings.

More later, I hope.

Always moralizing. Always.

Women Sue Wal-Mart Over Contraception

Yet another reason to stay away from Wal-Mart. My objection has generally been their third world treatment of their employees, but I'm always looking for new fuel.

This has become a problem of sorts, however. Target, the only other option without a 15 mile drive for me, has provided cover for their pharmacist who don't want to fill prescriptions of the "Morning After Pill." So where do I shop?

For the record, I do shop at Target under the lesser of two evils theory. And as I noted before, in Illinois they have to fill all prescriptions.

O'Reilly Smackdown

I wrote about Bill O'Reilly and his petty little rant about NBC News a few days ago. Taking a cue from me (much like John Stewart and the Oprah/James Frey thing on Monday), my hero Keith Olbermann took exception to the delicate O'Reilly's characterizations.

Crooks and Liars has the video, and it's well worth watching.

Planet Envy

This is mildly interesting and pretty amusing. Apparently scientists have discovered a planetoid mass or a new planet or a big-ass chunk of space debris somewhere out there. It has a moon and is quite a bit larger than Pluto.

The question raised amongst the scientific elite is twofold:

1) Is it a planet, and if not, shouldn't Pluto be excluded as well?
2) Why can't the guys who originally discovered it name it after Xena the warrior princess?

It's actually an cool story, but how can you pass up something like this:

Among themselves, Brown, Trujillo and Rabinowitz have referred to the main body as "Xena," after the sword-wielding syndicated TV warrior princess. The moon naturally has been called "Gabrielle," after the TV Xena's trusty sidekick.

There's just too much there and I don't know where to begin.

As it turns out, an exhibit in New York has already eliminated Pluto as the ninth planet, prompting an outcry from schoolchildren and, most likely, PETA.

Principle

I've been thinking and reading about the Democratic filibuster attempt the other day and something has been bothering me about it. The consensus on the left was that garnering 25 votes, some of them from DLC leaning Senators, was a huge victory. The consensus on the right, naturally, was that it was a colossal failure and red meat into Karl Rove's cage at the White House circus.

My own feelings were mixed. I touched on this earlier, but John Kerry jumping in from his listening post in Davos at the last minute tainted the whole thing from the start. And that is the reddest of meat for Karl and Company. And, the management of the process reminded me of the Republicans and Terry Schiavo, and we all know how that helped the Republicans. It helped start their precipitous downfall that leaves us on the verge of an enormous power shift.

But despite the crumbling facade - and it is just a facade of "family values" and "fiscal restraint" and "devolving power to the states" in front of the most morally corrupt, big spending, power hungry group of weasels that have ever made the big jump to DC - of the Republican party, we can't seem to get any traction.

Of course, from my view it's simple. It's a James Carville sort of "We're Right and They're Wrong" thing. It's just that about 35 to 40% of the population are, for whatever reason, devoted to the current insanity. Another 35 to 40% see it as clearly as I do. Which leaves us with the swing voters, the ever elusive middle. And these are the people who, in the last few election cycles, seem ready to join us but fade at the last moment.

Why?

I don't think, as Bob Shrum and company would have you believe, that you need to play to the middle to capture the middle. John Kerry played to the base and I bet most dKos readers would vote for Caligula before they voted for him. Because he played to them. He looked around and decided that, at this moment, with this environment, a filibuster made political sense.

As Democrats, liberals, progressives - whatever the label, we do stand for things. And, given the right information, we stand for things that the majority of the American people agree with. I've listed them before, so I'll spare you the populist laundry list.

But our representatives, the public face of our policy ideas, never seem to stand hard enough. In the face of withering assaults from the Right Wing Noise Machine and bizarro world coverage from the "liberal media", they compromise, back down, ease off. They play to the middle, and the middle sees it as just that. And away they go.

Your principles don't have to be perfect to gain the respect of the electorate (See Bush, George W.). They need to be explained and appropriately contrasted, and then they need to be backed to the end. Stand for it. Fight for it. Even when you know it's going to lose. And, when it does - which will be almost always given the current political landscape - proudly explain to the American people why you stood for them.

The noise machine is going to make noise no matter what we do, and Karl and Company will impugn our patriotism as the Democratic Caucus takes up arms and ships off to Iraq. You can't win by compromising or backing down with these people. They'll screw you if you do and screw you if you don't.

But the people outside the vortex recognize a principled stand, and they respect it. They might not agree entirely, but once you win their respect you can bring them along the rest of the way.

Downright Depressing

The fallout from the widespread abuse and the subsequent coverup with the US Catholic Church continues as the Seattle Archdiocese offers up $47.5 million to 75 abuse victims. The diocese is in bankruptcy already, so the settlement will require the approval of the court, and it doesn't address any future complaints so it is probably not the end of it.

And, like Boston before it, the folks in Seattle - at least for purposes of their bankruptcy status - claim only $11 million in assets, so you can guess where this is headed. In Seattle, the diocese fought in court claiming they didn't "own" any of the parishes or associated real estate (I suspect to diminish their asset base) but the court ruled otherwise.

Although this ruling would likely please St. Louis's Archbishop Burke (who's trying to forcibly take control of a local parish's assets), what I suspect it means in Seattle is that lots of smaller parishes and schools will be closing soon. If you're looking for real estate in that area, the market may soon be flooded.

And, as was the case in Boston and will be the case across the country, the Church set up a culture that, at a minimum, allowed this to go on. They did nothing to stop it and, in fact, made the problem dramatically worse by not removing known offenders. They tried to hide it and, in doing so, exposed thousands of kids to molesters in positions of trust.

The result? The people who trusted the church with their most treasured assets, and who religously (no pun intended) forfeited their monetary assets, are going to have their schools and churches closed.

It's an outrage, no doubt, with thousands of families scarred and battered, and the shock waves continuing outward, widening the damage.

It's just depressing.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth...

The gibberish fest that is the Presidential update to Congress, and most of the unbearable expert analysis, is over, something to be truly grateful for. Regardless of the President, nothing meaningful ever comes of these things, and since our current leader is, well, sloppy with the facts, the whole thing is beyond pointless. This LA Times fact checking piece is as good as any, I guess, but their language is awfully timid.

So we're back to the daily grind, and it ain't pretty. A summary, for those not keeping score.

• This AP piece outlines a GAO report that basically says the Department of Homeland Security completely bungled the Katrina response, their first big test since inception, and haven't done a thing to fix the problems since. Here's hoping the terrorists are busy poring over the speech transcript looking for facts.
• The situation in Darfur (remember the relief - and, frankly, surprise - of the humanitarian community when Colin Powell officially declared it Genocide) continues to deteriorate, despite pretty words from everyone. Read more here (scroll down).
• The unrest in Israel continues, and this time there are no Palestinians involved.
• 12.5 Billion dollars disappeared from Mountain View, CA as Google shares joined in the national angst.
• Iran's leader continued his saber rattling routine in response to...well, I'm not sure there has to be a catalyst with this group, but they have been politically astute in the past. How this ends well is beyond me.
• And, sick people masquerading as parents, disgruntled postal mayhem, and signs of defiance from Mahmoud Abbas.

Back in Neverland, of course:

Bush Tries to Ride Post-Speech Momentum

Have a nice day.