Office of the Independent Blogger

Daddy’s Friends and Tony Blair are all saying, in recent days, that we should engage Iran and Syria in Iraq so as to gain regional assistance, and that’s something that I certainly endorse. Bush came out in opposition to this today, though, effectively ending much of my hope for a vigorous rethinking of the War.

We’ll see what happens, but, I’m not too optimistic. Back to Earth for me.

Here, at Slate, is another great article this morning on blue jeans and the environment. I hardly ever wear blue jeans, but this certainly gives me less reason to buy them.

Your closet may not be the first place you’d think to look to reduce your CO2 output. But clothing manufacture involves agriculture, industry, and commerce, so our fashion choices make a statement about greenhouse gasses as well as style. Chances are that a good portion of what’s hanging in your closet is made from cotton. The fiber is tough to grow, so cotton farmers use enormous amounts of energy-intensive, CO2-emitting chemicals and fertilizers. To produce one pair of regular cotton jeans takes three-quarters of a pound of fertilizers and pesticides. Each T-shirt takes one-third of a pound. The farming of organic fibers, by contrast, releases less CO2 into the air and uses 50 percent less energy. Cotton, hemp, bamboo, ramie, linen, and silk can all be grown organically. (And hemp and bamboo are pretty good for your CO2 count, even when they’re not organic, because they need little if any fertilizer to grow.) Organic wool, alpaca, and cashmere are also excellent choices. So is lyocell, a textile made from wood pulp. Anything in your closet made of nylon, polyester, or acrylic, on the other hand, comes drenched in CO2-laden petroleum (not literally, but you get the idea).

Aside from your refrigerator, your dryer is your household’s most energy-sucking appliance. To increase its efficiency and save CO2 emissions, put it in a part of the house that’s typically warm. Clean the lint filter after each load and only turn it on when it’s full. If your dryer features a moisture-sensor option, use it. This ensures the machine will automatically shut off when the clothes are dry. Better yet, line-dry your clothes whenever possible so you’re using no energy at all.

• If your washing machine has spin options, set it to a high or extended-spin setting. This will ring clothes out as much as possible before you put them in the dryer.

• Buy organic. Though there’s no government label for organic clothing like the one for organic food, most manufacturers let you know. (Check out some of TreeHugger’s favorite eco-conscious designers here.)

• Look for clothes that use recycled content. The environmental impact of recycling worn-out polyester into new polyester fiber, for instance, is significantly lower than making that same fiber anew. CO2 savings can be as high as 71 percent in the case of Patagonia’s recycled Capilene base layers, and the company’s Synchilla fleece is made from recycled plastic bottles.

• Donate your used, unwanted clothing and shoes instead of throwing them away. This averts the CO2 emissions that come from incinerating them or sending them to a landfill.

• We don’t expect you to go to work in rags, but buying vintage or used clothes is a great way to cut down on the CO2 costs associated with farming and manufacturing. (Click here for TreeHugger vintage finds.)

• Choose quality over quantity. Buying things you’ll wear for a long time saves energy and reduces trash.

• Choose clothes made from hemp and bamboo. Think you’ll look like a hippie? Think again.

• Cows create loads of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Could you buy fewer shoes made from leather, and give canvas and hemp a chance?

Fascinating stuff.

The Iraq Survey Group, or as it should be known, The President’s Father’s Friends Intervention on Iraq, is meeting with Bush today and is soon to deliberate on a course to take in that country, with the expectation being that they’ll conclude few good options.

Tuesday’s dramatic election results, widely seen as a repudiation of the Bush Iraq policy, has thrust the 10-member, bipartisan Iraq Study Group into the kind of special role played by the Sept. 11 commission. This panel, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D), might play a decisive role in reshaping the U.S. position in Iraq, according to lawmakers and administration officials.

Those familiar with the panel’s work predict that the ultimate recommendations will not appear novel and that there are few, if any, good options left facing the country. Many of the ideas reportedly being considered — more aggressive regional diplomacy with Syria and Iran, greater emphasis on training Iraqi troops, or focusing on a new political deal between warring Shiites and Sunni — have either been tried or have limited chances of success, in the view of many experts on Iraq. Baker is also exploring whether a broader U.S. initiative in tackling the Arab-Israeli conflict is needed to help stabilize the region.

I’ve taken the liberty of boldening the things that I’d suggest as good places to start, but I very much agree with this piece, too, which says that the President should call for reinforcements in Iraq. The way I see it, we should begin a dialogue with the Syrians and Iranians, bolster our troop numbers in an effort to stabilize and train, set a one-year deadline and begin withdrawing our troops, first taking out all the extra reinforcements and then, over the next six months, phasing out the majority of our soldiers but leaving some in an advisory position.

Fact is, we’re going to be — and we should be — in Iraq, to some extent, for the rest of our lives, and that’s not something we should run away from. Done right, Iraq can be Germany or Japan rebuilt. The next year is of the utmost importance.

Here, in the Washington Post, is an article on Rubinomics (Clintonomics, or, as I’d like to call it, Invest and Grow Economics) and, being a firm believer in the work of Clinton’s best Treasury Secretary, I thought I’d share some parts with you.

The Hamilton Project is the brainchild of Robert Rubin, Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton. Rubin’s great virtue was to be as free of ideology as is possible in politics and to recruit a team of clever pragmatists to work for him. Not every Cabinet secretary would choose an intellectual bulldozer as deputy — particularly one with a talent for political incorrectness. But Larry Summers could get to the right answer faster than most people could get out of bed, and that’s what Rubin cared about.

Two years ago, Rubin teamed up with Peter Orszag, a laser-brained economist at the Brookings Institution. He no longer controlled the Treasury, but he persuaded a number of fellow Democratic grandees to finance a center for Rubinomics in exile; and Orszag served as policy director, commissioning a series of creative pragmatists to grapple with the nation’s economic challenges. Anyone who laments the watery generalizations of the House Democrats’ election platform should check out http://www.hamiltonproject.org/ . It is proof that Democrats do have sophisticated ideas. They just need congressional leaders to adopt them.

During the recent congressional campaign, Democratic candidates mostly had the right diagnosis and the wrong prescriptions. They saw that middle-class and poor Americans have not experienced wage gains during the past five years of growth, and they saw that families are one health crisis away from financial hardship. But the Democrats’ remedies — bashing Wal-Mart, railing against globalization — offered little more than symbolism for the poor and middle class while promising damage to the economy.

The Hamilton people are just as ready to acknowledge that Americans are hurting. They note that the probability of an average family experiencing an income drop of half or more has jumped from 7 percent to 17 percent since the early 1970s; and that the average spell of unemployment has gone from 12 weeks to 16 weeks since the 1960s. But the Hamilton people have a better solution than protectionism.

Their first prescription is to encourage workers to save for themselves. A simple reform — requiring companies to make enrollment in a retirement plan the default option — would greatly boost savings, since many workers currently don’t enroll not because they don’t want to but because they don’t get around to it: One series of experiments found that making participation the default boosted coverage for newly recruited low-income workers from 13 percent to 80 percent. A recent law facilitated automatic enrollment in 401(k) accounts but did not require it; and the law did nothing for the more than 70 million workers at companies that don’t offer pension plans but that could nonetheless enroll workers in IRAs.

The Hamiltonians also advocate reform of government savings incentives. The current system of tax deductions favors the rich, because deductions are worth most to people in the highest tax brackets. A janitor who saves a dollar gets no help from the government, whereas a chief executive who saves a dollar gets a 35-cent tax subsidy. The Hamiltonians would replace this upside-down system with tax credits that are worth the same to everyone, irrespective of their tax bracket.

The Hamiltonians also have ideas on unemployment insurance. The existing system is designed to protect workers who lose jobs, though in practice eligibility restrictions ensure that only one in three gets covered. It is not designed to help workers who find new work at a much lower wage — even though the resulting hardship lasts longer. So why not create a new borrowing mechanism to help workers get through temporary layoffs, and use the savings to provide government insurance to workers who suffer acute wage losses?

In keeping with the Rubin pragmatism, some Hamiltonian ideas violate Democratic shibboleths. One paper demonstrates that teacher quality has nothing to do with whether a teacher is certified and argues that school principals should have the freedom to fire ineffective junior teachers — which would not thrill the teachers unions. But nearly all the Hamilton proposals have three things in common. They would reduce the inequality that Democrats emphasized on the campaign trail. They would not bust the budget. And they would promote economic growth. If the political system can’t make use of ideas that tick all these boxes, there is something desperately wrong with it.

It’s good, better than a missed New York Giants fieldgoal returned for a 108-yard touchdown, easy, which isn’t to discount the power of the Chicago Bears.

I’ll bet President Bush is quite upset with Newsweek today as their cover reads, Father Knows Best. While it’s true (at least, in the Bush family’s case), it probably isn’t smart of Newsweek to write such a thing. Heaven forbid the President think he’s being mocked and decide to go back to his Don’t-Mess-With-Austin-Mess-With-Houston! approach to policy and do the opposite of whatever-Daddy-might’ve-done yet again. I, for one, welcome the elder Bush’s new presence in the King’s Court, as it’ll be good for the Boy to learn from his father’s experiences (as his dad, too, had to deal with a feisty Democratic Congress) and how else would Bush learn but from face-to-face interactions with the men involved?

It’s not like he reads newspapers or history books.

Politics are a dirty business where the victor is often guilty of running something over on the road to the capital, but this, in Maryland, is ridiculous.

Observers have been shocked and outraged by two Maryland Republicans’ use of homeless and poor Philadelphians to pass out misleading campaign material at the polls on Election Day. Now it turns out the duo had tried this sort of thing before. This past Tuesday, for $100 and the promise of three meals, the GOP candidates for governor and senator recruited dozens of the least fortunate from Philadelphia’s shelters — all or most of whom were black — to come to Maryland for the day and pass out fliers portraying the two hopefuls as “our choice” for African-American voters. (Steele is black; Ehrlich most definitely is not.)

The tactic was brazenly amoral, but also logistically curious. Why did the candidates go all the way to Philadelphia for homeless people, when there are thousands in Baltimore and nearby Washington, D.C.? If they wanted deniability, why did Ehrlich’s wife — Maryland’s current first lady — meet the buses and pass out hats? It turns out the duo pulled a very similar stunt at least once before, in 2002, according to the New Republic. Then, they pulled homeless people from D.C. shelters, and black students from nearby Bowie State, and the candidates kept their distance from the operation. Instead of telling them to distribute literature, the campaign instructed the recruits to go door-to-door in predominantly black neighborhoods, telling residents that they were “volunteers” trying to get Maryland to elect its first black lieutenant governor.

That’s the type of approach to politics that leads to the Bushian approach to government that leads to mismanaged wars, mismanaged economies, mismanaged budgets, a disillusioned public and the loss of both Houses of Congress. But other than that, there’s nothing wrong with it.

After an election, if you’re a strategically-minded person, it’s good to look at the Whys of the Election, and the first question is, after the GOP failed its mid-term, why did the Democrats win? This morning I found a stupid answer to the question (proving that there are stupid answers and not just stupid questions), and that answer is, Republicans Forgot Reagan’s Message.

I’m sure that their refusal to heed the Reagan family on Stem-Cell Research had something to do with it, but this is ridiculous. Republicans lost the election because they have bumbled the War in Iraq, have spent their time as the governors of this nation doing nothing about energy or economics, have run up a deficit and focus on such matters as Terri Schiavo over other issues. But, frankly, I think the final blow in this election was Mark Foley. Without Mark Foley’s pedophilia, the Democrats might take the House and nothing else. With, the entire Republican Party is on the defensive and the Democratic Party has time to attack attack attack.

Nothing says “Please vote us out!” quite like “We covered-up a pedophile in our midst.” The other reason, as I stated on the day after the elections, is that the Democratic effort this year was headed up by competent, fiery men in Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emmanuel and Howard Dean. If Terry McAuliffe or Bob Shrum were in charge, there’s no way that the Republicans get thumped this bad. I believe that this piece gets it fairly right, except that I think it misrepresents Democrats.

See, Democrats ran moderates and even a few Conservatives, and the piece says that this is because the Powers-That-Be understand Liberalism’s lack of appeal, and that’s not quite true. Democrats did run Conservatives and Moderates, however, but it was because there were damn good candidates that deserved to run. Dean, Emmanuel and Schumer aren’t concerned with ideological purity and they shouldn’t be, as it results in Rick Santorum’s defeat and a shift in both houses of Congress.

If it’s true that you can’t tell a book by its cover, it’s also true that you can tell a newspaper article by its headline, and by that measure, this article, Team 41 is a Threat to the Bush Legacy was an absurdity before I ever read it. Team Forty One, of course, refers to Bush the Father while Forty Three is the Incumbent. Team Bush, as it currently stands, can accurately be called Team Ford and even Team Nixon, and that’s a major part of their problem. First of all, George Walker Bush built a team that was designed to confront the Atheistic Soviet Union rather than Islamist Extremists or even obsessed-with-power-quasi-warmongors (like Kim Jung), and by that measure he was already fighting a losing battle when his Presidency began (as soon as 9/11 occurred).

I don’t merely have criticism of Bush’s Cabinet building (it must be reiterated, however, that he isn’t a particularly skilled Carpenter, quite unlike Christ and Chris). I take issue with the author. David Brock alleged in his book, Blinded by the Right that Tucker Carlson once wrote an article criticizing a Brock piece because he was offered five hundred to write it, and Carlson figured that it was a good pay for twenty minutes worth of writing. I must wonder if something similar is at hand here, because otherwise, this author — Daniel Henninger is his name — must be a baboon. Team Forty One — a team that has been successful where Bush’s has never — poses no threat to the Bush Legacy unless Bush enjoys the mud that’s all over his face and doesn’t want it cleaned.

The article’s premise is that Bush’s new CIA Director, a Bush 41 Man, is a threat to Bush’s Legacy because it means that they’re turning back on their policies, and I must say, that on this point alone Henninger is correct. The problem in Iraq isn’t ideological. Some might mock the Iraqi’s Democracy — they’ve had three elections. They have an elected government that is doing its best. They’re rebuilding a war-torn country, and that’s not a process that occurs easily. The idea of invading Iraq was never flawed. The tactics taken were the flawed ones, and in that regard, I differ with the author as I more than welcome fresh blood in Washington to attempt and solve the War. If Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush hadn’t screwed up the planning, everything would’ve been better. Which isn’t to say that roses would’ve littered Baghdad: just that Baghdad wouldn’t be overrun as it is, and that brings me to this flawed article, from the other side. Its crux is that the White House is now looking at developing an Exit Strategy, something that I caution dearly against.

This, my Dear Readers, is where Iraq is made or broken. Right here, and what we need to do is raise troop levels while announcing that we will begin withdrawing in a year. Then, we step up our training exercises with the Iraqis and work on rebuilding their infrastructure. The reduction of troops in number would be a variable depending on how competent the Iraqis are, but now is the time to begin Iraqifying the country — just not immediately. It’s time to steady Iraq as she goes down the path of a self-fulfilling Democracy. It isn’t time to cut and run. Whether or not we should shouldn’t be decided for at least one more year. I’m sure that sounds alike a lot to some, but look at it this way: the sand in Iraq has been there for thousands of years. We, on the other hand, are just passing by. We should make the most of it for those people instead of rushing back home.

I had a thought the other day, a miscellaneous political thought, and figured to share it. Anyone ever notice how Vegetarians are often Liberal, and usually justify their Vegetarian stance by stating that the way our meat is prepared happens to be cruel and dishonest? Ever notice that these are often the same people who will tell you that abortion is just fine and dandy because it’s just a fetus! (certainly lower than a cow, as it’s a parasite feeding off its host!) and, hey, it’s her body, after all? It just always seemed ironic to me that vegetarians would complain of cruelty to animals but be all-too-happy to stab a fetus through the brain with scissors. (Correct that: to have a doctor do it.) But, hey. At least they’re not eating the fetii. No sir. (I’m pro-choice, although I’m certainly not trigger happy about it and I’m no culture warrior. I just noticed this irony and thought I’d point it out.)

Democrats took control of the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives. Same thoughts as before apply, although I’d like to warn Democrats of excess. The most important things for the Democrats to focus on are the War, Energy Independence and cutting spending. Democrats shouldn’t focus on passing as many things as possible because that allows the President the momentum of veto. Instead, Democrats should build an agenda on the big picture that’ll allow whoever runs for President on our side in 2008 to build off of a visionary agenda.

I expect, and hope, that Rahm Emmanuel will take care to ensure that the Democratic agenda remains on the right path in the House and that Schumer and Reid will do the same in the Senate.

Oh, and about our 2008 candidate: Iowa Governor Vilsack is running. I like him, and wish him the best. I’m still rooting for an Al Gore candidacy, however.

On October first, I wrote,

The more I read of the new Woodward book, State of Denial, the more apparent it becomes to me that Donald Rumsfeld will finally lose his job. Either the day after the Midterm Elections, or in January. That’s how George Walker works. He won’t want to give anything up to the Defeatocrats before the Elections, but I reckon Rumsfeld’s done for.

A few times I’ve waivered slightly, wondering if Bush just might really be dumb enough to allow Rumsfeld’s further presence at the Department of Defense, but I always believed that the writing was on the wall and I do believe myself a Boy who can read the President, whoever it may be. Needless to say, Rumsfeld has stepped down, and now it’s up to a new man to try and wipe Baghdad clean, something that I think is all too possible. Wars don’t end overnight and however dramatic losses may be (and Iraq’s aren’t that bad, in perspective) there is always prospect for Victory. If this new man means that George Bush is serious about changing course in Iraq (which it seems he is, in a roundabout, Bushian way, as he said today, to that same question, “Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon”) then that is nothing but a good thing.

The President’s committment, and vision, remains dubious, however. Bush has defeated Rumsfeld; now can he defeat their collective mistakes of the last four years? This is the sort of change that gives old supporters of the War new hope — cautious, tempered hope, but hope all the same.

Several articles, this one, as my favorite example, state that Iraq was the source of the Republican electoral calamity but I’d like to point out that Iraq was the source of the Republicans political success, as well.

Anyone who tells you that pre-Iraq War Bush would’ve been re-elected, that pre-9/11 he was on the road to anyone but for the land of failed Presidents, has no idea what he’s talking about. It’s completely fitting that the President would be cut open by the double-edged sword he used on Democrats in the last two electoral cycles.

Today’s Chicago Tribune led off with the headline, Democrats’ Day! but I feel that the New York Times did the public one better when they wrote, a Loud Message for Bush. The truth is that yesterday’s election was a message to Bush rather than a reaffirmation of Liberalism, and it is also a Finally Election, meaning that it’s The One that Shouldn’t Have Gotten Away Like the Others Did. That is, 2002 should’ve been a good year to be a Democrat and 2004 was not an election that Bush should’ve won. This year was similar in circumstance and for once, the Democratic Party was able to capitalize without ruining its own prospects, and the credit should go, as far as organizing the rout, to Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Rahm Emmanuel in the House for not Shrumming up a sure thing.

All through the year I was sure of three things: the Republicans would lose seats, Rick Santorum would be handily defeated and Rod Blagojevich would be re-elected Governor of Illinois. Whether or not the Democrats would take the House was something I was leaning Yes on but wasn’t confident enough to declare because of the Mathematics of Redistricting. I’m glad, enough, that the Democrats have taken the House and might still take the Senate, but I must say I feel bad for the President.

King George can’t govern with a Republican Congress. Imagine how he’ll fail with a Divided Government!

Beyond the fact that what should’ve-happened long-ago finally happened, I must comment on Nancy Pelosi, who will be the Worst Speaker of the House since Dennis Hastert. That is something I say partly in jest but partly for Serious, too. First and most serious is that she is an awful choice to head the party as far as public relations go. She’s a woman from San Francisco, and she reminds me an awful lot of Geraldine Ferraro. Besides, I think there are countless other Democrats better suited to be the Speaker than she is.

Let me tell you something else, though, about yesterday’s elections. They sucked, and I swear, I’ve never been as unexcited about candidates as I was yesterday. I wasn’t the only one. Several of my teachers, from both sides of the aisle, told me that they’ve never seen a year with so few good candidates. It might be that Rod Blagojevich is a weasel who is bound to be indicted (and don’t think you’ll get off easy, Judy Barr: you sucked, too, and don’t get me started on the fact that the Green Party candidate was a Green Party candidate)! But, I think that, overall, this wasn’t a particularly good year for fans of public service, and I can only hope that the candidates prove me wrong.

Oh, and I’m happy that Joe Lieberman is returning to the Senate. Bless his heart for not giving in. Sorry Ned. (I’m back, by the way, Dear Readers. Rain or shine!)