Office of the Independent Blogger

There was a time in American history — there was an era in American history — wherein a candidate could invest money into a real estate project, lose it all, and still be accused of being a crook because of it. That era occurred not too long ago, either, as it was Bill Clinton in 1994 who faced that scrutiny over Whitewater. Today’s time is a different one, filled with Tom DeLays and Indian Casino Tribes, and so the Speaker of the House of Representatives can can make a 300% profit on a shady land deal and not have any bad press befall him. Our press is deeply disillusioning, both for the way it treats some news and ignores others. Like the fact that a key document was confiscated from Zarqawi’s personal collection, and it backs what Iraq War proponents have been saying.

The document describes “the current bleak situation” and says, “Time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance.” “Their assessment is that they are doing remarkably poorly and that we’re doing far better than many people assume the United States and the Iraqi government are doing,” said Bruce Hoffman, who holds the RAND Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency.

The document cites the improved Iraqi national guard, massive arrest operations, a crackdown on financial contributions, as reasons for the crisis. And the document suggests the answer is “to entangle the American forces into another war” with Iran. “In essence, their strategy is to create another Iraq, to enmesh the United States in another struggle, in another conflict, that will divert our attention, that will divert our military resources, that they hope will give them the breathing space to regroup so they can carry on the struggle,” says Hoffman. Iraqi officials said there was no question of the document’s authenticity. “Well, if I find something in your pockets, then that’s authentic, isn’t it?” al-Rubaie said. But U.S. officials said the document was not, in fact, found on or near Zarqawi’s body but in a raid three weeks earlier on other targets.

But we’re losing the war, and should pull out by the end of the Year. Right Senator Kerry? (To clarify: I believe that, at latest, we should be out of Iraq, for the most part, by the end of next year, and significant progress in withdrawal should begin in the middle of next year. I do not believe that the time is now to leave and take all our troops. No.)

Here we have an article about climate change, asking if America can go green. I take offense at a paragraph near the conclusion, however:

Shortly after Gore was elected vice-president, he proposed a tax on energy - specifically on the energy content of fossil fuels. It was defeated ignominiously, even though the Demo-crats still controlled Congress. Gore never raised the prospect of an energy tax again. Four years later he flew to Japan to salvage the Kyoto Protocol when negotiations seemed on the verge of breaking down. The Clinton administration eventually signed the protocol but never presented it to the Senate for ratification. Though Gore knew that the very future of the planet was at stake, he apparently concluded that pressing for action was hopeless, or politically inexpedient, or both. Talk about an inconvenient truth.

It is true that Al Gore didn’t publicly raise the prospect of an energy tax. He was the Vice President, not the President. Before then, however, he waged a war against most everyone in the Cabinet for Clinton to push for the tax. Clinton did, and it was defeated. I take it that Al Gore should’ve single-handedly overruled the President and the Congress? In that case, he did all he could, muhc llike he did with the Kyoto Protocol. It was clear to everyone that the Protocol would never pass in the Senate, and Clinton made the decision to let it die without a vote. Al Gore didn’t make that decision, and in that sense I defend him, although I think it was cowardly of Clinton not to submit the treaty.

Gore, however, saved the Kyoto Protocol internationally by flying abroad when the negotiations were falling apart. Without him, the nations that have signed onto it would not be, as there’d be no protocol. Give him credit for that, and the blame for environmental failures and political cowardice to Clinton. Not that environmentalists ever gave Gore any credit for anything, or that the media ever did, for that matter. But for what the media won’t do, I will.

George W. Bush has “got[ten] his mofo back” — didn’t you hear? His trip to Iraq has given him the boost that he needs to govern, says the New York Post! This is more a declaration of accomplished missions than a sign of things to come, though. Bush’s Presidency will need far more than a day’s visit to Iraq to set his course right. He’ll need better policies, for one, and he’ll need aides who aren’t crooked. Oh, sure, they’ll point to Fitzgerald not charging Rove as proof of innocence for King Karl, but how about this corruption?

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt’s trips seemed routine - visits to dozens of cities to launch the Medicare drug benefit and to help states plan for a potential pandemic. How he got there is creating controversy. Leavitt was criticized Wednesday for using a jet leased by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for emergencies. HHS estimated the cost of the flights at $720,000, and Democrats called it a waste of resources to do what Rep. John Lewis of Georgia called “public relations for the president.”

But, as we should all know from the last six years, there’s no such thing as a conflict of interest.

Bush recently said that he’d like to close Guantanamo, but I don’t buy it. Bush is a liar, haven’t you caught on? But let’s pretend that he’s being sincere when he says that, all things being right he’d close the jail, and look at that. Would it be a smart move? Absolutely. At this point, Guantanamo Bay needs to be shut down. It doesn’t do anything for us that a prison in Afghanistan or even here in the United States couldn’t do, and for all intents and purposes it appears that almost everyone held there is a low-level fighter. My opposition to the prison has nothing to do with the suicides recently there, but with the fact that it’s not a necessity. We don’t need Gitmo.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the police don’t have to knock on your door when searching with a warrant. That makes sense to me, and seems reasonable enough. I can’t say I see this case becoming an invitation for police officers to never knock. As long as everything else stays the same, and you have to be served with the warrant and notified and all that, I don’t see a problem with this.

“To err is Truman” was one of the Republican rallying cries during his Presidency. Today’s Republican Party believes in erring on the subject of Truman.

This is my reaction to this article, which argues that Harry Truman was less multilateral than assumed and Bush moreso than he’s given credit for being. This is something that’s undoubtedly true, but only technically, as most things are far more nuanced than what history textbooks tell us. The piece’s thesis is that, hey, Truman acted alone, too, and that Bush has acted with friends as well. This, they say, proves that Bush deserves none of the scorn given him by Liberals for his self-comparison to Truman. Of course, that’s not quite intellectually honest, but who needs that?

Harry Truman is closer to Bill Clinton than George W. Bush, as he and Clinton share the belief that we must act alone when we must and with others when we can. George W. Bush does not share that ideal. In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke tells the story of his and Dick Cheney’s travels around the world to find allies for the Persian Gulf War, and that, after awhile, Cheney started saying, “We have too many allies, stop inviting them!” That is a kinder, gentler version of this Bush Administration’s stance on diplomatic relations. George Walker Bush is closer to Franklin D. Roosevelt than he’ll ever be to Truman, and that is not a good thing. Hell, Bush is closer to a rabid Jimmy Carter than he is to Truman.

The fact is, that President Truman believed in bowing to other countries needs and demands at times. George W. Bush doesn’t, and if there’s one sole thing I can point to that’ll prove this, it’s the Ambassadorship of John Bolton at the UN. Truman would have never nominated a man like this to the UN because he takes its role in the world seriously. Bush wants the UN to be our lapdog, and Truman understood that that wouldn’t always — or even often — be the case.

Bloomberg is running a piece today asking if Newt Gingrich might be the beneficiary of 2006, whatever that may mean. To me, it’s a hack article, with a dubious standing in reality. Is Newt Gingrich a likely Presidential candidate? Not really, as it doesn’t seem to me like he would want to get back into politics after having been chased out by members of his own party and Larry Flynt. But, should he run, is he going to win the Presidency? Heaven, no. Look up the Newt Gingrich Cancer Story, and you’ll see just what I mean. Then take a look at his picture, and reflect on what Phil Gramm had to say when he ran for President in 1996: “I’m going to test whether or not a man as ugly as I can be elected in the day of television.”

He wasn’t. Know what I’m saying?

Big news today: Karl Rove apparently won’t be charged by Fitzgerald. What a shame that is, but I suppose it’s more of a testament to Fitzgerald’s integrity than anything else. He didn’t find anything explicitly criminal from Karl Rove, and instead of reaching for Starr and charges Karl Rove on something related to oral sex, he let it go. That’s because he’s a professional, although I do believe that Rove is probably guilty of something in this case. We’re in the courtroom of public opinion, after all.

Whenever I read an article from a former high-ranking member of a government, I wonder why they’re publishing their ideas in the newspaper instead of delivering them to the White House. You know, does Henry Kissinger really think his advice is more valuable to George Bush if relayed through the Washington Post — even though Bush doesn’t read, by his own admission? It’s something to think about, to be sure, and it makes you wonder at times if people merely write their op-eds to feed a sense of self-satisfaction instead of help the country. At the same time, it makes you wonder if the reason ex-officials have to publish their advice has to do with the current White House refusing to hear it in the first place, face-to-face. Whichever it is, Warren Christopher prompted that musing with his latest article on dealing with Iran. Christopher was our chief negotiator in the Iran Hostage Crisis, and here’s what he’s to say of today:

First, we must be sure we are talking with the right people. One of the most frustrating dead ends we encountered in the hostage negotiations was learning that despite prolonged efforts to forge a settlement with President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, he did not even have the power to move the hostages from one location to another, much less cause their release. If our 2006 negotiators study the vectors of power in Iran, they may be able to avoid such frustrations. At the moment, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is riding high. But he may not be as powerful as he seems and, in any event, power may shift over time. Ultimate authority remains with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and we have not heard from Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former two-term president and now chairman of the Expediency Council. In short, we should look for seams, even small ones, in the cloak of power.

Second, our negotiators should prepare themselves for what might be called “bazaar behavior.” For all my difficult dealings with interlocutors like China’s foreign minister, Qian Qichen, I always knew what he really wanted and that if an agreement was reached, its terms would be carried out. But with the Iranians, the negotiating style is likely to resemble that of a Middle Eastern marketplace, with outlandish demands, feints at abandoning the process and haggling over minor details up to the very last moment. Even after the agreement was signed on Jan. 19, 1981, the Iranians disavowed a vital technical annex. To bring them back in line, I directed the pilot of my plane, on a telephone line that I knew was tapped, to warm up the engines. The Iranians quickly dropped their claim, and a day later the hostages were released.

It’s fascinating, and, to tangent, I find all articles and books about political negotiations fascinating. The mannerisms of a foreign culture, their sense of shrewdness and bargaining — it’s all intriguing. If you ever get to read any of the books about the North Korean negotiations with Clinton, pick them up. They’re excellent. Who needs Harlan Coben for suspense when you’ve got reality, who needs a cleverly scripted movie for polished dialogue when you’ve got a domestic policy advisor named Zinsmeister?

Bill Clinton is a “virtuoso deceiver” and Hillary Rodham Clinton a “true chameleon” guilty of “self-serving behavior, comparative radicalism, and dubious personal morality.” Al Gore is a “mad dog” known to “foam at the mouth.” John McCain is given to “showboating.” And Jacques Chirac, Nelson Mandela, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan are all “feckless fools.”

And here I thought Dick Cheney would be the wittiest man in the White House!

I’d like to take this space to tip my hat to Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, a sophomore in the House who took the courageous action of introducing a bill declaring House offices not off-limits to subpoenas. House Speaker Hastert doesn’t like it, and I’ll share a dorky anecdote of mine with you. During the Chicago Debate League’s season, we had to debate whether or not to overturn the Korematsu Supreme Court ruling, and my partner told the Judge, “You know, this type of tool is not a good one to have for future leaders to have, because we don’t know what kind of man might come to office. If Bush and Cheney dies, Hastert becomes President, and we all know he’s tyrannical.” I just about had a heart attack because I thought it might offend the judge — and because I thought it untrue — but upon further review, it made the Judge smile (I distinctly remember that) and it was true! Hastert believes he’s above the law.

Earlier in the week, I complained that Arlen Specter was a hack, in more words, and he continues to be one. Now he’s involved in a game of footsie with Dick Cheney, who has told him that the NSA doesn’t need Congressional approval. How Imperial but true, considering that this Congress — and this lowly Chairman — don’t have the nerve to stand up to the Administration. Specter says that there’s “no doubt” that the program is breaking the Law, which makes me wonder why he’s not doing more. He’s introduced a bill that would just about rip down the program as it stands, but it’s not going anywhere because of a puppy dog Congress. What a shame it is, then, that Specter is holding half-hearted hearings, as if he put real effort into the hearings and sought to discredit and humiliate them with half the passion with which he smeared Anita Hill, then real progress would be made.

As it stands, I consider his efforts minor, and insincere.

We’ll leave it at that for today, as I’ve a Chemistry final to study for. But before I go, a few words of wisdom that President Bush must repeat every day: numbers are not your friend.

In 2004, after the elections, I teased a Conservative friend of mine by telling him that George W. Bush had taught me a new lesson about politics. That you can ignore every terrorist warning you get, have a major attack happen, half-ass the war in that first country, invade a second country with less troops than needed, give tax cuts to the rich in a time of war and deficit spend, raise our debt exponentially, and preach to partisans everywhere, and still win. He laughed, and said, “It’s a formula for victory.” And so today, we have another, this time from Bruce Reed and Al From, this time not having to do with incompetence. It’s a return to Clintonism that they advocate — I prefer to call it “The Third Way” — and it’s an excellent article.

It’ll have to satisfy you, faithful readers, while I study for my Final Exams this week. But remember: Incompetence is not a Democratic recipe for success. It’s the Republican’s platform.

Yesterday, Tom DeLay said that he had served with honor in the House of Representatives. I, of course, disagreed, as many of us do. Tom DeLay is human filth, and that’s all there is to it. There is no nuance, no reason to have an extended discussion about it: DeLay is a vile, disgusting human being, not just because he blackmailed freshman House members in 1999 so as to make them vote to Impeach Clinton when they didn’t want to, not just because he spent his time in Washington curling up to every lobbyist in town, but because he was responsible for things like this.

At a time when the Republicans like to talk up human dignity and make mentions of fixing Immigration Law, this should be all you need to know about their truest, darkest intentions. (Special thanks to the special person who informed me of this sleazy situation.)

Members of Congress announced today they are re-introducing legislation to reform labor and immigration laws in a U.S. territory that they say Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff protected from scrutiny for over a decade. Representatives George Miller (D-CA), Hilda Solis (D-CA), and John Spratt (D-SC) are introducing The United States-Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Human Dignity Act, which they hope will apply basic labor protections and U.S. immigration laws to the Pacific territory.

Indentured servitude, sweatshops–even forced abortions–are well-documented practices in Marianas islands factories, which have thus far managed to avoid U.S. labor laws while still, as a U.S. territory, applying “Made in the U.S.A.” labels to the finished product. DeLay extolled the Saipan garment industry as “a perfect petri dish of capitalism.” Miller sought support for the bill through a Dear Colleague letter sent to fellow legislators with the subject line, “Tom DeLay out, human dignity in.”

“For more than ten years, my efforts, and the efforts of so many others, have been thwarted,” Miller said, “by the corrupt partnership of two of Washington’s most powerful players: Representative Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and by their allies in Congress. Abramoff worked on behalf of the Marianas to, among other things, block implementation of U.S. labor laws. He arranged for current Marianas governor Beningo Fitial, while he was still a member of the territory’s house, to meet with President Bush and then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL).

Disgusting, unequivocally and absolutely. I say Democrats run on this issue, and anyone who opposes the application of labor laws to these places ought to be defeated.

Israel recently struck Palestine and the Palestinians — read: Hamas — responded by calling off their truce with Israel. It makes me wonder what our country would be like if we had a President willing to truly stand for Human Rights, with regard to the Marianas, and who could be bothered to do something about the violence in the Middle East but, as The Price of Loyalty tells us, George Bush decided early in his Presidency that it was time for America to “detach” itself from Israel-Palestine and let them work it out by themselves. Bill Clinton wrote in his memoirs that the situations in the Middle East and between China and Taiwan were interesting, in that, with regard to Taiwan-China, “the politicians should stay out of it, as that’s a situation that, left alone, will resolve itself” whereas the Middle East needs active, political intervention and diplomacy or else it’ll get worse. And isn’t that the truth?

How appalling that those most likely to talk up God are those most willing to sit back and allow, in the case of the Middle East, the murder of innocents because they believe that it would be embarrassing to fail at bringing peace to the Middle East, and so they’d rather not try; how disgusting that those most likely to accuse one of being unGodly or who would parade themselves in front of a Church are willing to allow slave labor on American soil. It’s such a shame that the media is unwilling to report that Tom DeLay and George Bush have blood on their hands because they had money on their mind.

The website I linked to yesterday sure called it: Zarqawi was betrayed! How interesting that is, though not quite as nifty as this, in my blog. George H.W. Bush waged a campaign to remove Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. As Blumenthal puts it,

The elder Bush’s intervention was an extraordinary attempt to rescue simultaneously his son, the family legacy and the country. The current president had previously rejected entreaties from party establishment figures to revamp his administration with new appointments. There was no one left to approach him except his father. This effort to pluck George W. from his troubles is the latest episode in a recurrent drama — from the drunken young man challenging his father to go “mano a mano,” to the father pulling strings to get the son into the Texas Air National Guard and helping salvage his finances from George W.’s mismanagement of Harken Energy. For the father, parental responsibility never ends. But for the son, rebellion continues. When journalist Bob Woodward asked George W. Bush if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq, he replied, “He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.”

That higher father is Karl Rove.

Tom DeLay gave his last speech to the House of Representatives today, and struck a feisty tone. He declared that he regretted nothing, would do it all the same except for one thing: he’d fight harder, before saying he served honestly and honorably. Except for all the times he took bribes, you know?

A Liberal blogger took the time to go on the Campaign Bus of Katherine Harris recently, where he was joined by only one other reporter, and here’s his scoop on the events. Harris’ campaign is struggling to stay alive, and the article on it is fascinating, both for its humor and its insight into her campaign.

Al-Zarqawi, the lead Insurgent in Iraq, was killed this morning. Bush believes it a large blow to the Insurgency: I do, too. That is all to say on the matter for now. (Edit: 11:04 AM. Take a look at this. It is fascinating, although I’m not sure whether or not to believe its authenticity.) (Edit the Second, 1:17: A pal of mine noticed that I’d called Zarqawi “an insurgent” rather than a terrorist. I retract, and would urge you all to call him by his name: a terrorist.)

Dick Meyer, in CBSNews, has written an article about how a “Unity08″ ticket may be the ticket. I’m not going to get into this fairy tale about whether or not someday a Republican and Democrat will get together and run: they won’t. But I take exception to the fact that a newssite is running what could be called an opinion piecem, pretending it to be objective (”A Third Way in 08?” is the bogus headline), when the article is so blatantly an advertisement that Meyer should’ve been charged to run it rather than paid for it. But that’s the state of American news.

Joseph Lieberman is facing a rough primary in Connecticut, and I’d like to take this time to endorse him for re-election. Lieberman is a strong Liberal and a smart man, and I’ll be greatly disappointed if the Democratic Party cannibalizes him for disagreeing with the Left over Iraq. If we are to be a Big Tent Party, and I argue that we should be, we can’t do things like this, and I hope that Lieberman sends his challenger, Mr. Moneybags, back to Greenwich.

Last week, a terrorist plot was foiled by Canadian Authorities. Today, we are urged to learn lessons from it, and the lesson pushed by the Tribune is for a domestic spy agency. As I’ve previously suggested, it would be problematic for our Constitution and unnecessary for our policies to have such an agency within our borders.

We’ve got a new Secretary of the Interior. His job will be to help sell off public lands. That is all.

A few days ago, I asked a friend where all the Terror Alert Warnings had gone. My friend, being more cynical than I, said that, it being 2006, there’d be another soon. I discounted the possibility, but the rumblings have begun as the chatter in the press begins, aided by leaks. That’s incredible, isn’t it, but I think the cynicism on my part toward this leak is justified considering. If Republicans are good for something, it’s for spreading cynicism through the country, like with news like this. The shortened story involves Arlen Specter, the NSA and Dick Cheney. Cheney lobbied Republicans to kill NSA Wiretapping Oversight Hearings: Specter took offense and wrote him a scathing letter, which read, in part, ““I was surprised, to the say the least, that you sought to influence, really determine, the action of the Committee without calling me first, or at least calling me at some point.” I don’t take too much heart in this, though, and don’t see it as proof of Specter being a good Senator before a loyal Republican: this merely tells me that, had Cheney asked him first, he might’ve been willing to kill hearings.

I haven’t seen any leadership from Specter on this issue, except for promises that he’d look into it. But given that this story broke ages ago, his inaction is quite telling. He’s no more a young Peter Rodino than Bob Woodward is a young Bob Woodward, and this lack of leadership in Washington is a disgrace. I sent the recent message to Arlen this evening,

Mr. Specter,

Either put up or shut up with regard to your threatened hearings on the NSA. You are dragging your feet and have achieved nothing substantial. Everything about your handling of this matter makes the more cynical — or, as I’d call it, tuned to the tone of life — among us believe that you are a phony with no more intention of investigating the NSA’s program than Iran has to disarm honestly.

You are a clawless Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sir. It is cruel to make those among us with faith in you believe that you plan on making change to the system and holding people accountable when you don’t want to. When you were young and idealistic, you used your power in government to vote against Robert Bork as a pander and smear Anita Hill for the same reason. Now’s your chance — probably your ONLY chance — to fix that.

Not that you guys actually read these things, or your staff members genuinely respond to them.

Almost immediately after I sent this, I received a note from Spectre’s staff telling me that they can only respond if it’s from someone in Pennsylvania. Convenient, huh? Senator Conrad of North Dakota found time to write back to me last year when I sent him a message about the budget, and I appreciated that muchly. I think Conrad is a man who should be involved with our Treasury and Budget in a future Democratic Administration. But that’s neither here nor there except to show that Arlen is fradulent in every way possible. So are the Republicans. Whenever Arlen Spectre is out in the press and terror alerts are issued in election years, the specter of cynicism looms large in my mind, as I am one to learn from history.

Republicans have a history of pledging something but not delivering, as well as of being submissive to the demands of their elders, both of which Arlen is guilty of. They’re also known to lie a tad, as they do with these terror warnings. And, for kicks, let me tell you that they’re known to say ridiculous things, from Bushisms to this from Louisiana’s GOP Senator. What’d he say? That the Gay Marriage Ban is more important than other matters. I repeat: Cynicism is appropriate.

George W. Bush has been derided by some as an alcoholic, but as a politician, he certainly has the ability to cut his demands down cold turkey. In the past he’s dropped his opposition to the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, his refusal to engage the Iranians and the Koreans, and his pledge to bring dignity back to the Oval Office. Now he’s backing off of his promises to play tough with the Iranians and not “engage their bad behavior,” and he’s offering airplanes for their civilian fleet, and nuclear technology for power plants. Being of a rational mind, I’ve no opposition to these offers or the existence of the talks, but I am growing tired of the Texas Two-Step: back away from the dancefloor and then come roaring in right when the jukebox is running out of music. This awkward pattern of half-hearted brinksmanship, coupled with the latest Has Been brings to mind an interesting idea. Bruce Reed notes that Republicans have two parts: sunny and Economic; dark and Cultural. With the re-introduction of the Most Meritless Amendment Since Prohibition to the Constitution the mood has turned from good to bad in George Bush’s Washington. And that leads to better government from the Bush White House.

An odd thing that I’ve noticed is that the Bush Administration likes to do such whimpy, pacifist things as engage North Korea or Iran, Congress likes to steathily raise taxes, and things altogether get better whenever the President’s polls have slipped beneath the Nixon line. Ironically, whenever the President’s poll ratings hit their lowest, he decides that finally it’s time to do something internationally that he otherwise wouldn’t have done (Iran), and a sensible foreign policy has life breathed unto it. I figure that George Bush decides that, once he’s hit the thirties and he can’t get anything done in Washington, he decides that then is the time to search somewhere else for an achievement.

If the corruption, Defense Secretary, environmental plunderers and budget deficits that are bringing this country down from the inside and tearing down the White House from the outside have any upside, there’s the fact that, without them, Bush would deem it necessary and proper to pursue nonsense in foreign policy to keep his base happy. Keep the pressure up, and maybe he’ll decide to do something about Global Warming, because as it currently stands, George Bush is reinventing the way we do business in Washington — achieve nothing worthwhile unless everybody dislikes you: before then, it’s just not worth it!

My goodness, I leave the Internets for one weekend and I return to be greeted, before all else beside my cats, by two nonsensical stories. This idea is wrong on too many levels to count with two hands. The idea of it is that California wants to allocate their electoral votes not based on who wins in their state but who wins nationally. That means that if George W. Bush loses California but beats John Kerry nationally, he gets California’s votes. Aside from the fact that it nullifies the will of the voters in that state, it makes total sense.

The hatred of the Electoral College is one I don’t understand. Listen, I’m as upset as the next guy over Al Gore losing the Presidency on such shoddy ground, but that’s not cause for repealing the Electoral College or substituting a recipe for a dysfunctional mess in the place of a system that hadn’t failed in over a hundred years and isn’t likely to anytime soon. You open up this can of worms and you begin a system in which we make it easier for nutcases (Ross Perot) warmonger racists (George Wallace) and idiots (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Patrick Buchanan) to run for President and actually win. To some of you that may be a good thing — at least with regard to Nader, since some of you still think he’s got a brain in his head — but it isn’t, and I think the reason is clear. A Straight Democracy doesn’t work, and leads to Tyranny. That’s why we — and every other Democratic nation on the Earth — has a Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy.

Also, there’s this, an article arguing that the 2004 Election was stolen. Maybe I’m just naive, but most of what he becomes tin-foiled over I would attribute to the fact that, when dealing with millions of votes, some documents are bound to go missing and some accidents will occur. Perhaps there was some fraud at the local level on some level in some state, but I very much doubt it was enough to “steal” the election. Although, it steals my heart and stretches my smile wide to see a Kennedy complain about voting fraud.

Arianna Huffington, who is a woman that I wish would go back up Newt Gingrich’s ass (where she lived through the 1990s), has written this piece about Haditha, entitled “What Haditha Means to Our Safety — and the 2006 Elections!” It’s an awful story, but now that she’s out of Newt’s caboose she seems to be inside of Cindy Sheehan, writing about the awful atrocities committed everyday in Iraq by American soldiers and ridiculing anyone with the cold-blood to suggest that, historically, war is a violent thing and that sometimes people die in the struggle. I can only imagine where she would be during the Second World War, although I’m willing to suggest that she’d be right beside Thomas Dewey in 1944. She is, after all, a flip flopper who has gone from the Left to the Right as the opposite wing took control of the country and I’d fully expect the wretched socialite to oppose the party in power, even then, simply for the sake of being chic.

Saudi Arabia’s Prince today writes, “We’re Trying to Change” and it’s about his nation and modernization. I don’t entirely trust the Saudi Government, but I do indeed believe them — the Royal family, at least — to be making a real, concerted effort at fixing their nation. Its beginning is all that I’ll quote, as it not only applies to Saudi Arabia but nations like Iraq and Afghanistan — areas that are still involved in war, after all.

Can you imagine how different American history would be if the United States went from the War of Independence to the Internet Age in less than 75 years? That is, in essence, the history of my country, Saudi Arabia. In just my lifetime, Saudi Arabia has evolved from a predominantly 17th century culture to a nation of 21st century attitudes and aspirations. But such incredibly rapid change has caused our society to experience many growing pains.

It’s something to keep in perspective — those words, “Keep it in perspective” being to my vocabulary what “I surrender!” is to the French — and it should be humbling to all those, “Pull out of Iraq now, the War is lost!” types.

I thought it was the Republicans who wanted to keep business away from the government, and the government out of everyone’s lives? Not really.

There’s precious little to discuss today. Let’s thank the stars for the fact that neither Osama bin Laden nor George Bush have blown the world up today, as tomorrow is another day.

Not to be redundant, but the future Treasury Secretary is utterly irrelevant, and this is all extra the backing I feel I need. Don’t get your hopes up that anything will change inside of the White House with this pick. Rest assured that economic policy in America will continue to revolve solely around tax cuts, the environment will continue to be abused and neglected, and the Treasury will continue to play second fiddle to the President’s gut feeling.

This — the irrelevance of the new Secretary — is no surprise, although, as the article I referenced points out, it has its own dubious significance. The manner in which Paulson will be received by the Bush White House is a telltale indicator of the times. The Treasury used to be the home of heavyweights and intellectuals, from Hamilton to Rubin. Now? In the Bush Administration? Not so much. That — the downgrade of one of the original departments to the status of “HUD” — is its own achievement. Could you have believed it, six years ago, to be told that being Treasury Secretary no longer carries meaning — or, at least, not with this President, of all people?

Off of that, the real news today is twofold. The first involves Condi Rice agreeing to talks with Iran, something that I thought would eventually happen because you can’t ignore someone forever (read: North Korea). We all know that Iran is dangerous, its leader deranged and its motives dishonest. As to where this will lead us, I’m not sure, but, for clarity’s sake, I’d like to say that I hope the talks go well, and that it’s a damn shame that

Secondly, we get to the Court. Yesterday, in a little noticed ruling, the Supreme Court struck a blow against the First Amendment by narrowing protections for whistleblowers, to be concise about the matter, but doing far worse, in detail:

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled that speech “pursuant to employment duties” is not protected under the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision came in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which involved a supervising deputy district attorney who was asked to review an affidavit police used to obtain a search warrant. Ceballos found issues with the affidavit and addressed these issues in a memorandum to his supervisor. Despite the issues, the district attorney proceeded with the prosecution. At a hearing, a defense attorney questioned Ceballos about the warrant’s validity, and the deputy DA recalled issues he addressed in his memorandum. The defense lost the challenge to the warrant.

After the trial, Ceballos claimed he was “subjected to a series of retaliatory employment actions” based on his memo. Ceballos filed a claim with the United States District Court for the Central District Court of California, which held that Ceballos’s memo was not protected speech. Ceballos appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Ceballos’s memo constituted free speech.

To me, this is an absurd ruling, but I’ll let the Sun-Times take over from here.

In embracing free speech, our society supports the right of individuals to speak out when they have privileged knowledge about wrongdoers. That has been a crucial safeguard against victimization of innocents. In recent times, however, the confidentiality long granted to news sources has been stripped or challenged. And this week, the Supreme Court added to that trend by ruling, in language as odd as it was vague, against government whistleblowers.

The case under review was that of an assistant prosecutor in Los Angeles who, after a defense attorney accurately informed him about inaccuracies in an affidavit used to get a search warrant, memoed his superiors in the DA’s office about the mistake — only to be demoted after the case went forward and the warrant was upheld. The prosecutor, Richard Ceballos, sued, claiming he was unconstitutionally punished for questioning the legality of the warrant.

Certainly, employers can and have punished employees for less. But this was not a private company looking to put a misbehaving employee in his place, it was a government agency responding badly to the raising of what seems to be a legitimate point. Never mind the merits of the case, though. What makes the Supreme Court decision such a head-scratcher is the assertion that it wasn’t what Ceballos did that made him culpable, but the venue in which he chose to do it.

According to the guidelines set forth by the majority, had Ceballos spoken out as a citizen contributing to “the civil discourse” — had he stood on a soapbox outside his house or held a press conference — he would have been protected by the First Amendment. In 1968 and 1979, in cases involving schools, the high court ruled the government could not retaliate against workers for speaking out on matters of public importance. But because Ceballos stayed within the system in voicing his concerns, making his feelings known “pursuant to [his] official duties,” he was not protected by free speech.

This opens the door for government agencies everywhere to fire dissenters, for those of you reading this a day late, and if the Bush Administration has taught us anything, it should be that dissenters need legal protection otherwise they will suffer. Especially now, given that the Supreme Court has given blanket protection to those who would censor the truth. Of course, when you’ve stacked the Court with Paleoconservatives who believe in doddering ideologies, this type of caveman ruling is the type you get.