The Charge, Mr. Bush, is Negligent Homicide

"It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

Because of Bush's obsession with Iraq and mysterious WMDs and democracy in places that have never savored it, the levees surrounding New Orleans were underfunded and never completed. At least nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

How many people died when the flood waters of Lake Pontchartrain drained into the city? How many people's lives were traded for Mr. Bush's Iraqi Gambit? It is reasonably certain that at least one person drowned as the waters rose ever higher. Perhaps the Attorney General of Louisiana will do the right thing and seek extradition of the President so he can be charged with his crimes.

Here's hoping.

Sourced from Times-Picayune

Dick Cheney: Unhinged III

'Last Throes' Update

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
-Dick Cheney to Larry King, June 20, 2005

This past month of August, 2005 was the 4th most deadly month of the war and the deadliest since January.

Again: Given his gross inability to correctly analyze the future, is Dick Cheney stupid or insane? You be the judge.

Who Will Say 'No More'?

Powerful piece by Former US Senator questions Bush Policy

Prize paragraph?

"History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security."

Who Will Say 'No More'?
By Gary Hart
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
The Washington Post

"Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on," warned an anti-Vietnam war song those many years ago. The McGovern presidential campaign, in those days, which I know something about, is widely viewed as a cause for the decline of the Democratic Party, a gateway through which a new conservative era entered.

Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn't jump on any stove, hot or cold, today's Democratic leaders didn't want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and -- as the Big Muddy is rising yet again -- now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse.

History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security.

But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: "I was wrong."

To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrats' fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."

Further, this leader should say: "I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists' swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on."

At stake is not just the leadership of the Democratic Party and the nation but our nation's honor, our nobility and our principles. Franklin D. Roosevelt established a national community based on social justice. Harry Truman created international networks that repaired the damage of World War II and defeated communism. John F. Kennedy recaptured the ideal of the republic and the sense of civic duty. To expect to enter this pantheon, the next Democratic leader must now undertake all three tasks.

But this cannot be done while the water is rising in the Big Muddy of the Middle East. No Democrat, especially one now silent, should expect election by default. The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin.

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.

Who now has the courage to say this?

The writer is a former Democratic senator from Colorado.

Bush Becoming Increasingly Unstable, Report Says

Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Capitol Hill Blue
Aug 25, 2005

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

“I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”

Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas.Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “motherfucking traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bullshit protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”

White House insiders say Bush is growing increasingly bitter over mounting opposition to his war in Iraq. Polls show a vast majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake and most doubt the President’s honesty.

“Who gives a flying fuck what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamned please. They don’t know shit.”

Bush, whiles setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger to reporters. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go fuck yourself.” His habit of giving people the finger goes back to his days as Texas governor, aides admit, and videos of him doing so before press conferences were widely circulated among TV stations during those days. A recent video showing him shooting the finger to reporters while walking also recently surfaced.
Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.

To see that fear emerges, Dr. Frank says, all one has to do is confront the President. “To actually directly confront him in a clear way, to bring him out, so you would really see the bully, and you would also see the fear,” he says.

Dr. Frank, in his book, speculates that Bush, an alcoholic who brags that he gave up booze without help from groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, may be drinking again.

“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says. “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.”

Last year, Capitol Hill Blue learned the White House physician prescribed anti-depressant drugs for the President to control what aides called “violent mood swings.” As Dr. Frank also notes: “In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.’”

Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial:

“The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he says. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”

Cindy Sheehan is a Traitor and Maybe the Devil, Too

At least, that's what the Right would have us believe

But I just don't get that sense.

Now, obviously I've never met the woman and the perceptions one gathers from the television can be misleading, but she comes across as George W. Bush wants to come across: a genuine, 'regular-folks' person. Heck, in some ways she reminds me of my sister, a kind, gentle woman who cares most deeply about her family, about my neice and nephew.

Take yesterday's blog posting from Cindy:

The Peaceful Occupation of Crawford (Day 18)

I got up really early today to head back to Camp Casey. On the way, I had some amazing conversations with people. In one of those conversations, I was talking to Tyler who was sitting next to me on one of the planes. We were not talking about me and what I have been doing. Randomly, he told me he had just been in Texas about an hour north of Crawford. I said: "Wow that's where I am going and that's where I have been all month." He said: "I know I own a television." I thought that was pretty cute.

I got to Camp Casey and I arrived with a mom whose son, John, was killed on January 26, 2005, and his wife and baby, who never met his dad. We arrived in Waco at about 4:30 to the local press. The White House Press Corps was still with the president. When I arrived at Camp Casey II this afternoon I was amazed at what has changed since I was gone. Now, we have a huge tent to get out of the sun; caterers; an orientation tent; a medic tent (with medics); a chapel, etc.

The most emotional thing for me though was walking through the main tent and seeing the huge painting on canvas of Casey. Many things hit me all at once: That this huge movement began because of Casey's sacrifice; thousands, if not millions of people know about Casey and how he lived his life and the wrongful way in which he was killed; but the thing that hit me the hardest was how much I miss him. I miss him more everyday. It seems the void in my life grows as time goes on and I realize I am never going to see him again or hear his voice. In addition to all this, the portrait is so beautiful and moving and it captures Casey's spirit so well. I sobbed and sobbed. I was surrounded by photographers, I looked around until I finally found a friendly face, then the news people crushed in on me and I couldn't breathe. I didn't mean to have such a dramatic re-entrance to Camp Casey, but the huge portrait of Casey really surprised me. I can take all of the right wing attacks on me. I have been lied about and to before. Their attacks just show how much I am getting to them and how little truth they have to tell. What really hurts me the most is when people say that I am dishonoring Casey by my protest in Crawford. By wanting our troops to come home alive and well, that I am somehow not supporting them.

So, after Joan Baez gave us a great concert tonight, I got up and I talked about Casey. About the sweet boy who grew up to be a remarkable young man. Casey was not always a brave, big soldier man. He was my sweet, sweet baby once. I told the people at the Camp named after him, that when he was about 2 years old, he would come up behind me and throw his arms around my legs, kiss me on the butt and say: 'I wuv you mama.' I also talked about the loving big brother and wonderful, nearly perfect son. Casey was a regular guy who wanted to get married, have a family, be an elementary school teacher, and a Deacon in the Catholic Church. He wanted to be a Chaplain's assistant in the Army, but was lied to about that also by his recruiter. The last time I talked to him when he called from Kuwait, he was on his way to mass.
For Casey to even join the Army, let alone being killed in battle was the thing that was most uncharacteristic of him. He was a gentle and kind soul who only wanted to help others. What did his untimely and unnecessary death accomplish? It accomplished reinvigorating a peace movement that was sincere, but not very active--or if active, not well covered by the main stream media.

Joan sang the song Joe Hill. In it Joe Hill says: "I never died." Well, looking out at the faces here at Camp Casey, and knowing that for everyone who is present here, there are thousands of others who support our work, I am convinced that Casey never died, and he never will. When I look into the eyes of the kind and gentle souls who have come here, I see Casey and the faces of all the others killed in George Bush's war for greed and profit. We will never forget them and we will honor them by working for peace.

Joan also sang Swing Low, Sweet Chariot. "A thousand angels waiting there for me." I know Casey will be waiting for me when it is my turn, and I know when I finally get there he's going to hug me and say: "Good job, Mom."

Does Cindy Sheehan seem to you the traitorous devil the Right makes her out to be? Because to me, Cindy Sheehan comes across as a Real American. As Ordinary American. As that most archtypal of Americans, the Good Decent American.

Sure, Cindy Sheehan's spouted some things off about Mr. Bush people find unpleasant, even lunatic, but at some level one must invoke a little compassion: how would you feel if your son, the one you once held as a little baby and who you watched grow into a smiling boy and then a young man who'd become a brave soldier, how would you feel if he was killed?

No parent should bury their child. This is a truth as old as Man. How would you respond?

There are parents who've lost children in Iraq who do not behave as Cindy Sheehan does, who do not grieve so publicly, who say the trading of their child's life for the people of Iraq is a trade worthwhile. Fine. If the metric of these parents' personal sacrifice measures up, bless them for their certitude and their nights well-slept. But the willingness to sacrifice one's children for a war of constantly shifting objectives does not make someone more a patriot than Cindy Sheehan and those who like her lament the loss of those they love. In some ways, it could be argued those so willing to sacrifice their own and never question the sacrificers are guilty of nothing less than accessory-after-the-fact.

"Worse than Watergate"

And John Dean Oughtta Know

John Dean is a Republican who served as White House Cousel under Richard Nixon. Here's an excerpt from his book "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush" (Little, Brown).

"Their secrecy is extreme -- not merely unjustified and excessive but obsessive... It has given us a presidency that operates on hidden agendas. To protect their secrets, Bush and Cheney dissemble as a matter of policy... Cheney openly declares that he wants to turn the clock back to the pre-Watergate years -- a time of an unaccountable and extra-constitutional imperial presidency. To say that their secret presidency is undemocratic is an understatement."

"Cheney formed what is, in effect, a shadow NSC [National Security Council]...It is a secret government -- beyond the reach of Congress, and everyone else as well...Cheney knew that terrorism was the perfect excuse, an ideal raison d'etre, for his 'let's rule the world' philosophy. Politically, it would be much easier to be seen as shooting back instead of shooting first, given the caliber of weapon Cheney sought to wield. But he and his team did far worse than simply waiting for an attack that would kill a sufficient number of Americans...It is reasonable to believe that they planned to exploit terrorism before 9/11 handed them the issue ready-made for exploitation -- a fact they obviously want to keep buried."

"Not since Lyndon Johnson hoodwinked Congress into issuing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorizes sending American troops to Vietnam, has a president so deceived Congress about a matter of such grave national importance. ...Bush and Cheney took this nation to war on their hunches, their unreliable beliefs, and their unsubstantiated intelligence -- and used deception with Congress both before and after launching the war. ...The evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense."

"Their secrecy helps corporations and industries that are major contributors. But with a deadly difference. Bush and Cheney have, from the outset of their presidency, shown utter disregard for the human consequences of their actions, both at home and abroad. ... What Bush and Cheney are doing to the environment to curry favor with their contributors is far worse than anything Nixon's 'responsiveness program' ever did. The Bush-Cheney presidency is engaged in crimes against nature, not to mention failing to faithfully execute the laws of the land."

"The Bush-Cheney secrecy and style of governing carries with it potential consequences that are far worse than any political scandal. Their secret presidency is a dangerous threat to democracy in an age of terrorism. ...Bush and Cheney have picked up where Nixon left presidential power. They seek to free the presidency of all restraints. They want to implement their policies -- a radical wisdom they believe serves the greater good -- unencumbered by those who view the world differently."

"When the moment comes and terrorists surprise America with an even greater spirit-shattering attack than 9/11, Bush and Cheney will simply push aside the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, inflame public passions with tough talk to rally support...and take this country to a place it has only been once. For eleven weeks during the outset of the Civil War, President Lincoln became what scholars have euphemistically called a constitutional dictator. But with terrorism it will likely not be so brief. Bush once quipped, 'If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.' George Bush, however, is no Abraham Lincoln."

Quote, Unquote

On Politics and Money

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
2nd US President


"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance."
- James Madison (1751-1836)
4th US President


"The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses."
- Albert Einstein


"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini, 1883-1945,
Fascist dictator of Italy


"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
- President-Elect George W. Bush

Add LYING to List of Robertson's 10 Commandment Violations

Liar, Murder Advocate . . . Maybe Robertson Wants to Shoot For Adulterer, Too.

Leviticus 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

Well, Pat Robertson, 'Holy Man', seems to need a little brushing up on his Bible reading. Apparently, he missed out on Jehovah's admonishment against bearing false witness. But, heck, anything to save your ass, right? And what better way to cover your ass for lying than by blaming it on that wonderful new scape-goat, The Media, and the misrepresentation of a right honorable man's words.

"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," Robertson said.

Is that right, Pat? Let's cue tape from your televised speech Monday morning on the 700 Club:

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Hmmm. Exactly what part of Assissination did I misinterpret? Let's go to the Dictionary as a final reference point then, shall we?

From Websters:
as·sas·si·nate: To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.

Nuff from me. Here's the full text of the story, as reported by Reuters.

Evangelist backs off Chavez assassination call
Aug 24 12:51 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said on Wednesday he was misinterpreted and there were a number of ways to "take him out" including kidnapping.

"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program.

"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," Robertson added.

Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and a presidential candidate in 1988, said on Monday of Chavez, one of Bush's most vocal critics: "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." He made the comments during his "The 700 Club" television program.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday dismissed Robertson's remarks, but the White House remained silent despite calls for repudiation from Venezuela and religious leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called "without fact and baseless" any ideas of hostile action against Chavez or Venezuela.

The leftist Chavez has often accused the United States of plotting his overthrow or assassination. Alongside Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana on Sunday, Chavez scoffed at the idea that he and Castro were destabilizing troublemakers.

Chavez survived a short-lived coup in 2002 that he says was backed by the United States. Washington denies involvement.

Venezuelan officials said Robertson's remarks, while those of a private citizen, took on more significance given his ties to President George W. Bush's Christian-right supporters.

"Mr Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House," Venezuela's ambassador to the United States Bernardo Alvarez said.

Prominent Christian Minister Calls for Murder

What Would Jesus Do with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez?
Certainly Not what Pat Robertson Calls For.

In Matthew 5:44, Jesus says: "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

In the Sixth Commandment, as recorded in Exodus 20:13, the Lord God Jehovah commands "Thou shalt not kill."

On the 700 Club, Pat Robertson says Assassinate Hugo Chavez:

Associated Press
Aug 22 11:06 PM US

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

This is a Christian? This is an American? No, this is a religious fascist. Can Pat Robertson not be arrested for this? Can he not be defrocked by the Church? Is he really a Christian, let alone a minister of his faith, when he openly calls for murder to suit his ends? And says that a man's death won't cause the oil to stop?

Once again, follow the Bible if it suits your purpose, disregard if you have a 'better' plan.
The Reasonable Rant reports. You decide.

Dick Cheney: Unhinged II

Out of the Mouths of Boobs
By C. William Boyer

Dick Cheney, always running his mouth and putting up some priceless zingers, in a speech yesterday cited the risk of retreating in Iraq as risking that we will:

" . . . turn over the future of mankind to tiny groups of fanatics committing indiscriminate murder, enslaving whole populations, oppressing women, imposing an ideology of hatred on an entire region, and arming to create death and destruction on an unbelievable scale."

Funny thing? Read the quote again and imagine that, rather than terrorists, he's referring to the Bush Administration and far-right Republican idealogues like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and the quote STILL WORKS.

Phrase of the Day: Mission Creep

By C. William Boyer

MISSION CREEP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs. The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations, but has recently been applied to many different fields, mainly the growth of bureaucracies.

The classic example of mission creep is the Korean War. It began as an attempt to save South Korea from invasion by the North, but after that initial success expanded to an attempt to reunite the peninsula, a goal that eventually proved unattainable. That attempt resulted in a long and costly retreat through North Korea after the intervention of the Chinese.

Hmmm. Mission Creep. Remind you of anything?

1) Invade a country because it possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction and it's Bad-Man leader is in league with terrorists.
2) Discover, or rather, have it discovered/revealed/exposed that item #1 was never true.
3) Change original mission from 'Get the Evil WMDs and Bad-Man in League with Terrorists' to the mission 'Liberate People who Deserve Liberating and who will Shower Us with Candy and Kisses'.
4) Shockingly learn that liberated people don't shower anybody with kisses but rather with bombs. And bullets. Oh, and RPGs, too.
5) Change mission from 'Liberating Candy-and-Kiss-Throwing people' to 'Instilling Democracy and Freedom in a Muslim Land so it will Spread to Other Lands like a Big Happy Freedom Plague'.
6) Shockingly discover bomb-throwers can't come up with a democratic constitution and instead are intent on blowing each other up.
8) Change mission from 'Instilling Democracy and Freedom in a Muslim Land' to 'Fighting Terror and Eliminating Global Terrorism'.
7)Realize that instead of eliminating terrorists you're making more terrorists and making them angrier than usual. And that's pretty damn angry.
8) Change mission in Iraq from 'Fighting Terrorists and Eliminating Global Terror' to 'Fixing Social Security'.

Yes! That's it! A sensible, multi-faceted policy. Every time a soldier dies, that's one less person collecting social security. And if we stay in Iraq long enough . . . voila! . . . no more Social Security problem.

Because we here at The Reasonable Rant are dedicated not just to complaining, but to problem-solving.

NEXT WEEK:
Accelerating the Reform of Social Security and Stabilization of Iraq with the Senior Citizen Army.

-Out of the Nursing Home and Onto The Battlefield:
An inside look at 78-year old Sergeant Sadie and her Easy Company.

Other stories:
-Do Our Senior-Citizen-Soldiers' Wheel-Chairs Have Enough Armor?
-Motor-Homes instead of Tanks: Will it Work?

Cut and Run from Iraq, Says Retired General

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

What's wrong with Cutting and Running
By William E. Odom
August 3, 2005

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this:

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.

President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ's statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.

Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.

Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.

4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.

5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.

6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict.
The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.

9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those or a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military -- especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war -- has made it impossible for fieldcommanders to make the political leaders see the facts.

I don't believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.

The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);

3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and
probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world
gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew

Bush Rides while Soldiers Die and Mothers Cry

Maureen Dowd weighed in on the Bush vs. Aggrieved Mother story.

An amazing paragraph when Bush is asked why he hasn't visited with Cindy Sheehan, the woman who lost her son last year in Iraq and is now camped at the end of his driveway:

"I think it's also important for me to go on with my life to keep a balanced life," [President Bush said] when pressed about how he could ride his bike while refusing to see a grieving mom of a dead soldier who's camped outside his ranch. He added: "So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

Please. Think about it, George. You're the FREAKING PRESIDENT and you LAUNCHED A WAR! You are NOT entitled to have a life to live while others lose theirs because of your botched decision to start, and mis-management of, a war for dubious reasons. Only a certifiable idiot would utter those words, whether you believe them or not, near a camera.

Prima facie, then, Bush is an idiot.

Like this is news.

Now, without further ado, here's the article:


August 17, 2005
Biking Toward Nowhere
By MAUREEN DOWD
The New York Times

How could President Bush be cavorting around on a long vacation with American troops struggling with a spiraling crisis in Iraq?

Wasn't he worried that his vacation activities might send a frivolous signal at a time when he had put so many young Americans in harm's way?

"I'm determined that life goes on," Mr. Bush said stubbornly.

That wasn't the son, believe it or not. It was the father - 15 years ago. I was in Kennebunkport then to cover the first President Bush's frenetic attempts to relax while reporters were pressing him about how he could be taking a month to play around when he had started sending American troops to the Persian Gulf only three days before.

On Saturday, the current President Bush was pressed about how he could be taking five weeks to ride bikes and nap and fish and clear brush even though his occupation of Iraq had become a fiasco. "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life," W. said, "to keep a balanced life."
Pressed about how he could ride his bike while refusing to see a grieving mom of a dead soldier who's camped outside his ranch, he added: "So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

Ah, the insensitivity of reporters who ask the President Bushes how they can expect to deal with Middle East fighting while they're off fishing.

The first President Bush told us that he kept a telephone in his golf cart and his cigarette boat so he could easily stay on top of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. But at least he seemed worried that he was sending the wrong signal, as his boating and golfing was juxtaposed on the news with footage of the frightened families of troops leaving for the Middle East.

"I just don't like taking questions on serious matters on my vacation," the usually good-natured Bush senior barked at reporters on the golf course. "So I hope you'll understand if I, when I'm recreating, will recreate." His hot-tempered oldest son, who was golfing with his father that day, was even more irritated. "Hey! Hey!" W. snapped at reporters asking questions on the first tee. "Can't you wait until we finish hitting, at least?"

Junior always had his priorities straight.

As W.'s neighbors get in scraps with the antiwar forces coalescing around the ranch; as the Pentagon tries to rustle up updated armor for our soldiers, who are still sitting ducks in the third year of the war; as the Iraqi police we train keep getting blown up by terrorists, who come right back every time U.S. troops beat them up; as Shiites working on the Iraqi constitution conspire with Iran about turning Iraq into an Islamic state that represses women; and as Iraq hurtles toward a possible civil war, W. seems far more oblivious than his father was with his Persian Gulf crisis.

This president is in a truly scary place in Iraq. Americans can't get out, or they risk turning the country into a terrorist haven that will make the old Afghanistan look like Cipriani's. Yet his war, which has not accomplished any of its purposes, swallows ever more American lives and inflames ever more Muslim hearts as W. reads a book about the history of salt and looks forward to his biking date with Lance Armstrong on Saturday.

The son wanted to go into Iraq to best his daddy in the history books, by finishing what Bush senior started. He swept aside the warnings of Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell and didn't bother to ask his father's advice. Now he is caught in the very trap his father said he feared: that America would get bogged down as "an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land," facing a possibly "barren" outcome.

It turns out that the people of Iraq have ethnic and religious identities, not a national identity. Shiites and Kurds want to suppress the Sunnis who once repressed them and break off into their own states, smashing the Bush model kitchen of democracy.

At long last, a senior Bush official admits that administration officials can no longer cling to their own version of reality. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning," the official told The Washington Post.
They had better start absorbing and shedding a lot faster, before many more American kids die to create a pawn of Iran. And they had better tell the Boy in the Bubble, who continues to dwell in delusion, hailing the fights and delays on the Iraqi constitution as "a tribute to democracy."
The president's pedaling as fast as he can, but he's going nowhere.

How Many Members of the Bush Administration Does it take to Screw in a Lightbulb?

Got this via the Super Info Conduit, Jeff Stein, of Hazardous Comedy Network.

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;
4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs;
5. One to give a billion dollar, no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished;
7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark;
8. One insider to viciously smear #7;
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

And finally a little knock-knock joke:

Knock-knock.
Who's there?
Under the Patriot Act, we don't have to tell you that.

Cheers and wishing you a great day from The Reasonable Rant!

Boredom, Thought Cancer of the Modern Age

Here's an interesting piece from the Washington Post about the effects of monotonous jobs on the human psyche:

Boredom Numbs the Work World

The Washington Post
August 10, 2005

When Bruce Bartlett was the deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury under George H.W. Bush, boredom occasionally drove him from his cushy Washington office to seek relief at the movie theater. One afternoon, he ran into a friend who was a senior official in another department.

"It was kind of awkward," he said.

Bartlett had a secretary, staff, an important-sounding job and the paycheck to go with it. But, like many workers, he found himself underemployed and bored out of his mind.

"There is a reason why prison is considered punishment," Bartlett said, comparing it to his former job. "You may be in a gilded cage, but if you're just forced to sit there for eight hours all day long, staring at the wall, it can be excruciating."

Be it at a desk at the Treasury Department, a spot on the factory floor, or a drab blue cubicle, boredom is a condition that can be more stressful and damaging than overwork, according to those who have studied the issue.

"We know that 55 percent of all U.S. employees are not engaged at work. They are basically in a holding pattern. They feel like their capabilities aren't being tapped into and utilized and therefore, they really don't have a psychological connection to the organization," said Curt W. Coffman, global practice leader at the Gallup Organization, whose large polling group measured employee engagement.

Bartlett's problem was that he was deputy assistant secretary for economic policy when the president "just didn't care about economic policy, only foreign policy. . . . Because the White House didn't want to do anything, there wasn't anything we could do," he said.

That problem -- a lack of autonomy and a job that has very specific instructions -- hits workers from the highest to lowest echelons of the working world. Many spend their days surfing the Internet, writing e-mails or taking care of personal business. Bartlett spent his days writing for academic journals. Boredom has a permanent seat in many workplaces, no matter the level of employee. And people are miserable.

Kristina Henry started her career as a government contractor in the early 1990s. Her job left her so stressed, that she started grinding her teeth and was constantly looking for new work. And that stress came from the fact she had nothing to do.

"It was like Dilbert," she said. "I learned a lot about FAA regs and flight rules. And I learned a lot of acronyms. . . . . A lot of times it was just tedious, and I was thinking, I can't believe I'm here and being paid for this."

So how did she and her co-workers cope? Occasionally, they too sneaked out to movies and to museums. And she brought a copy of "War and Peace" to work. She finished it in two weeks.

Although workers may dream of days surfing the Internet with nothing to do, the busiest employees are the happiest, according to a survey by Sirota Consulting LLC. Of more than 800,000 employees at 61 organizations worldwide, those with "too little work" gave an overall job satisfaction rating of 49 out of 100, while those with "too much work" had a rating of 57.

"Those who are saying their workload is heavier rather than lighter are more positive," said Jeffrey M. Saltzman, chief executive of Sirota. "When you say you have too much work to do, other things are happening in your head: 'I'm valued by the organization. They're giving me responsibility.' That's better than being in the other place where you say I'm not of value in this place."

Boredom is "one of the biggest contributors to work-related stress," said Douglas LaBier, a business psychologist who runs the Center for Adult Development in Washington. The less someone works at work, the more pressure they feel. Jean Martin-Weinstein, managing director of the Corporate Leadership Council, a division of the Corporate Executive Board Co., cited findings from a survey of 50,000 workers around the world who were asked questions such as: "Do you love your job? Do you love your team? Are you excited by the work you do every day?" Thirteen percent came out saying no, no, very much no.

"They are disaffected, because they are basically completely checked out from the work they do," Martin-Weinstein said.

Employers suffer when employees are bored, as well.

"It casts a pall on the whole organization and can create a demoralized atmosphere," LaBier said. "It blocks creativity, which can undermine any company, which can keep it from staying abreast of the marketplace, competition. When you have that boredom, that can produce a kind of pervasive cloud. It can build like a critical mass that hurts the company's performance and market position."

And in jobs where safety is at stake, boredom can be dangerous.

The Transportation Safety Administration, which is charged with employing and training workers at airports, rotates its screeners every half hour or so, which "allows them to stay sharp and keenly focused," according to Yolanda Clark, TSA spokeswoman. "We want eagle eyes at each of those posts."

A worker may go from an X-ray machine to a position checking boarding passes, and then change environments completely, to the baggage screening area. Duty changes throughout the day keep the employees intent on the job at hand. "We like to say there's never a dull day at TSA," Clark said.

But for many workers, a shift change every 30 minutes is a mere dream. For them, the only remedy to combat boredom may be to find new work.

Henry, for instance, left the federal aviation world to join alumni affairs at Washington College. She now is a marketing and development coordinator for a small museum near Annapolis. She also writes children's books. And today, Bartlett is busier than he ever has been as an economist with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "I'm constantly working," he said. "The day goes by so rapidly, it's absolutely amazing to me."

Mr. Bush, You Are a Chicken Shit

While Holiday George Vacations, More American Men and Women Die in Iraq

There comes a time when a person says 'Enough is enough'. When one can no longer abide the ever growing heap of lies, distortions, injustices and arrogance that are part and parcel to the Bush administration.

What bothers me most about Mr. Bush is the fact that, despite sending nearly 2,000 servicemen and women to their deaths, he's yet to attend a single funeral.

To which I say: Have you no decency, sir? Have you not a shred of human compassion?

No matter who you are, no matter the stripe of your politics, you must admit that our foray into Iraq was voluntary. There was no sinking of the Maine, no shelling of Fort Sumter, no sneak attack on Pearl to prompt American tanks crossing the Iraqi border. The 9-11 commission found, unequivocally, no connection between Iraq and those planes smashing into the Towers. There was, simply put, no cause-and-effect relationship necessitating America's invasion. There was nothing more than a man and his minions making a decision, making a choice.

A choice stained crimson.

The stories are now spreading across the country, the sad tales of young men and women lost to the bombs, bullets and hatred that swirl across Iraqi sands.

Stories like this that appeared in the Plain Dealer, a story of the Shroeders of Cleveland learning their son Augie is never coming home:

Paul and Rosemary saw the grim faces on the men at their door and they knew, too. They stood motionless as one of the Marines began to speak.
"We regret to inform you that Edward August Schroeder II. . ."

Two weeks ago, Augie had called home from Iraq after spending 26 days in the field. They had not heard from him for five weeks, and their son's voice seemed to reflect a change in his convictions about this war.
"When he first arrived in Iraq in March, he was full of optimism about what his good intentions could accomplish," Paul said.
But Augie's enthusiasm eroded over time, and his father said he will never forget what his son told him.
"The closer we are to departure, the less 'worth it' this has become," Augie said.
In a way, Paul was heartened by his son's words.
"When you first get there, you think everything's hunky-dory," he said. "But after four operations, the insurgents were still there. He didn't think they were having any effect. I heard him and thought, 'Well, the bloom is off the rose.' I was opposed to this war before it even started, and my son is a sharp kid."
He caught himself.
"Was," he said, as he started to sob. "My son was a sharp kid.
"Oh, Jesus."
Augie was 23 years old. He was six weeks from coming home.
While we don't yet have exact numbers, we now know that Ohio has lost about 80 soldiers and Marines to the Iraq war.
And there is no end in sight.
That haunts Paul Schroeder.
In the first hours after he learned that his son was dead, Paul wrote a short statement. "I hope people forgive me for what I have to say," he began. "I just don't care anymore."
He listed who he blamed for Augie's death.
"I hold the Bush administration responsible, from the president
through the secretaries of state and defense and all those who have had a hand
in starting this war.
"I also hold every Democrat in Congress who voted to authorize this misadventure as accomplices."
His son, he wrote, "died doing his duty. So have some 1,800 other Americans.
"Augie did his duty at every turn, from being an emergency medical technician while still in high school, a lifeguard, a Boy Scout, an active church member, and, of course, as a Marine. For all this, we consider him a hero.
"To honor him, I no longer can sit still, just keeping quiet and being politically correct."

That same story is spreading across America like a terrible cancer. While the men and women he dispatched are far from home and bleeding out their lives, Mr. Bush takes his 49th trip to Crawford ranch to clear brush. While American soldiers race madly up Iraqi roads, scanning the bleak land around them for ambush, for the flare of a rocket-propelled grenade hurtling toward from out of the night or for the bomb hidden beneath a coke can and waiting to kill, while Marines patrol through the twisting alleys and trash-strewn streets of cities a thousand years old and teeming with gun-toting rebels and a rabid hate for America, while these brave men and women stalk streets of peril, Mr. Bush blithely rides his excercise bike before attending a pep-rally to proclaim American resolve and how he'll never back down to terrorists. Mr. Bush, safely guarded by a small army of Secret Servicemen, ensconced within the belly of America, calls out to the rebels 'Bring it on', like some midget punk surrounded by his buddies bravely threatening another, bigger man.

Makes him a tough guy, right? Wrong.

Mr. Bush, there are those who say you're a chicken-hawk who dodged his own war of youth. But I don't call you a chicken-hawk, sir.

I call you chicken-shit.

Holiday George, #1 Vacation President

More proof George Bush is NOT like you and me

One of my favorite GW lines? "I just don't get poor people."

Obviously, he doesn't get the middle class either.

In America, working folks typically get a week or two paid vacation each year. Some, the folks who've been at generous companies a while and those protected by unions, they might get as much as 4 weeks. People less fortunate, waitresses, carpet cleaners, people of that ilk usually get nada, at least not paid vacay.

George Bush has never had a real job in his life.

Once, George Bush headed a company called Arbusto Energy and answered to no one about vacations. Probably took a lot of time off there, since the company nearly went bust in '84 before being sold off Spectrum Energy. George Bush was made CEO of Spectrum.

George probably took long vacations when he headed Spectrum, because it went bust, too, or would have, if it hadn't been bought up by Harken Energy.

George Bush went on to be President of the Texas Rangers. While I don't know how much vacation he took there, it was probably a lot, considering the Rangers' record: by baseball standards, the Rangers' go bust every year.

Now, we discover that as president of the United States, Bush has spent almost 20% of his time in office on vacation. Wow. Can you imagine that? Getting 10 weeks a year vacation after 4 1/2 years on the job?

No, you can't. Most likely you're lucky to be one of the two-weeks a year people. But then, you're probably not like George W. Bush in another way: you've never run a company into the ground.

With military ventures, tax cuts and corporate giveaways, Holiday George may succeed in running one last company into the ground: America.

So I've got something for Holiday George: We The People are your boss. And, as one of The People, I say GET YOUR ASS BACK TO WORK OR YOU'RE FIRED!

Mmm. That felt damn good.

Washington Post
Wednesday, August 3, 2005

WACO, Tex.--
President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening for a stretch of clearing brush, visiting with family and friends, and tending to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- nearly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further.

Bush's long vacations are more than a curiosity: They play into diametrically opposite arguments about this leadership style. To critics and late-night comics, they symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. The more vociferous among Bush's foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs.
To Bush and his advisers, that criticism fundamentally misunderstands his Texas sojourns. Those who think he does not remain in command, aides say, do not understand the modern presidency or Bush's own work habits. At the ranch, White House officials say, Bush continues to receive daily national security briefings, sign documents, hold teleconferences with aides and military commanders, and even meet with foreign leaders. And from the president's point of view, the long Texas stints are the best way to clear his mind and reconnect with everyday America.

"I'm looking forward to getting down there and just kind of settling in," Bush told reporters from Texas newspapers during a roundtable interview at the White House on Monday. "I'll be doing a lot of work. On the other hand, I'll also be kind of making sure my Texas roots run deep."

"Spending time outside of Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the minds of the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Friday. "It's a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."
Just as Bush has made these August trips a regular feature of his presidency, so, too, have Democrats made a tradition of needling him about them. This year, opposition politicians are tying his departure from Washington to the CIA leak case that has swept up his top adviser, Karl Rove.

"The White House stonewalling operation is moving to Crawford for the dog days of summer, but they can't hide from the legitimate questions dogging the president and his refusal to keep his promise and fire Karl Rove," said Josh Earnest, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

Presidents have often sought refuge from the pressures of Washington and from life in the White House, which Harry S. Truman called the crown jewel of the American prison system. Richard M. Nixon favored Key Biscayne, Fla. Bush's father preferred Maine. Bill Clinton, lacking a home of his own, borrowed a house on Martha's Vineyard, except for two years when political adviser Dick Morris nudged him into going to Jackson, Wyo., before his reelection because it polled better.

Until now, probably no modern president was a more famous vacationer than Ronald Reagan, who loved spending time at his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif. According to an Associated Press count, Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his eight-year presidency -- a total that Bush will surpass this month in Crawford with 3 1/2 years left in his second term.

"The Oval Office is wherever the president of the United States is," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was Reagan's last White House chief of staff. "With the communications being what they are, the president can communicate instantly with whomever he wants anywhere in the world."

Bush will not return to the White House until after Labor Day, but his staff has peppered his schedule with events to dispel any impression that he is not on duty. He will visit at least seven states, mostly with quick day trips, including New Mexico, where he plans to sign energy legislation into law. He gets off to a quick start this week, with a speech Wednesday in nearby Grapevine, Tex., then he plays host to President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia at the ranch Thursday. His schedule is clear Friday through Sunday.

At some point, Bush told reporters Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld will visit for consultations. "I have a busy couple of weeks down there," Bush said.

But he will make time for fun, or at least his idea of it. Bush rarely takes the type of vacation one would consider exotic -- or, to some, even appealing. His notion of relaxation is chopping cedar on his ranch or mountain biking through rough terrain, all in 100-degree-plus temperatures in dusty Texas where crickets are known to roast on the summer pavement. He seems to relish the idea of exposing aides and reporters to the hothouse environment.

"I just checked in with the house -- it's about 100 degrees," he told reporters Monday. "But no matter how hot it gets, I enjoy spending time in Texas."

The Hotdog Theory

An economic model of America
By C. William Boyer

IMAGINE YOU’RE ONE OF A HUNDRED CONTESTANTS ON AN ISLAND, striving to survive on the 100 hotdogs shipped daily to that island. But I’m warning you, it’ll be hard, if you're not one of the elite, because this island is modeled after America and its current levels of wealth distribution.

It goes something like this:The richest man on the island, Mr. Big, will wake up in the morning and get 40 hotdogs- and if Mr. Big’s labor-to-cash ratio mirrored that of corporate CEOs, he'd be making on average 419 times his employees average annual income. The next richest four people on the island, the Pretty Bigs, will get 5½ hotdogs each, and the next richest five, the Still Pretty Bigs, will get just over 2 each. The bottom 90 people, the little people, get 27 hotdogs split up all among them, less than 1/3 a hotdog per day. In other words, the richest 10 people will get 3 times the hotdogs of the other 90 people combined.

And that’s exactly how America’s wealth is divided.

Now, since our island is modeled after America, let’s see how Mr. Big and his buddies rig the system in their favor:

Mr. Loyal Employee had a sister working for Mr. Big at his hot-dog refurbishing factory where she turned hotdogs into corn-dogs for half-a-dog a day. Unfortunately, she lost her job when Mr. Big “off-shored” the factory to another island, paying that island’s folks a quarter-dog daily[4].
The poor, off-shored woman can’t subsist solely on the 2/10th’s of a hotdog she gets working a new job, so she gets a credit card to make ends meet. Soon, if Mrs. Off-Shored can’t get a better job, she’ll max out her credit card and need to file bankruptcy. Because Mr. Big knows this— and because he owns the Banc of Hot Dog— he wants to short-circuit Mrs. Off-Shored’s intended bankruptcy. So Mr. Big gives the island’s elected representative five hotdogs for his re-election fund to close that pesky, bankruptcy-allowing loophole. That man’s name is Mr. Congress. Ostensibly, Mr. Congress works for the People, but in reality he’s Mr. Big and the Pretty Bigs’ lackey.[5] Mr. Congress later helps Mr. Big win the island’s hotdog-delivery contract. As a reward, Mr. Big gives another three hotdogs to Mr. Congress’ re-election campaign and hires the man’s son, little Timmy Congress, to run the island’s hotdog-refurbishing factory at a full two dogs a day and despite the fact the kid’s never been in a hotdog-refurbishing factory in his life and wouldn’t know a foot-long from a Vienna sausage.

Despite everything being in his favor, something’s still bugging Mr. Big. See, despite his immense wealth and importance and all that he does for the island’s citizens, Mr. Big still must pay taxes that are so much higher than, say, Mrs. Off-Shored. Why, he discovers, he’s paying nearly 20 hotdogs in taxes and can barely get by while that lazy, job-jumping woman pays only 1/10th of a dog. It’s just not right. Luckily, one of Mr. Big’s buddies, a Pretty Big, has been elected Supreme-Head-Man by convincing Mrs. Off-Shored and Mr. Loyal Employee that he’s one of them. To prove it, the Supreme Head Man passes a hotdog tax-cut. “See,” he says, “I’m looking out for you and I’m looking out for Mr. Big, who will create more jobs by spending more hotdogs back into the island’s economy.”Mrs. Off-Shored’s tax cut is 1/20th of a hotdog. Mr. Big’s is fifteen hotdogs. “But at least,” she consoles herself, “he’ll hire me back at a higher wage.”

Uh, nope.

Instead, the next day, Mrs. Off-Shored discovers that the hotdog-cutting plant’s been moved to another island as where they pay just 1/10th a dog. The reason, Mr. Big solemnly explains, is because the plant has remained ‘unprofitable’ despite the fact Mrs. Off-Shored and her co-workers’ pay and benefits were cut and people laid-off along the way.

Oh, and also along the way? Little Timmy Congress, who wouldn’t know a frankfurter from a polish sausage, got a 20-hotdog golden-parachute package[6].

Suddenly, Mr. Big, with as many hotdogs as the poorest 95% on the island combined, decides he needs even more hotdogs. “What we need,” Mr. Big says, “is another factory employing more people to turn hot dogs into pigs-in-the-blanket. But to do that, I need capital. I’ll let everyone buy into the factory and we’ll share the extra hotdogs.” The island’s citizens heartily agree that a new factory with lots of jobs is just the ticket and so an Initial Public Offering (IPO) is planned; to ensure everything’s fair when the IPO hits the market, only the man running the release, Mr. Stockmarket, knows the date before-hand. Alas, on the eve of the release, Mr. Stockmarket gives Mr. Big and the Pretty Bigs a heads-up, selling them hotdog shares at rock-bottom prices. These shares are in turn sold the very next day to regular folks on the island at a healthy profit [7].

With the IPO start-up money, Mr. Big gets the factory running. But it’s a bare staff, and when pigs-in-the-blanket production lags and stock-price drops, Mr. Big hits on the idea to hire a man to talk up the factory. The man, Mr. Media, does such a good job the stock-price rises again, and to stoke the rise even further, Mr. Big slashes the factory’s staff, paying their salaries in a hotdog dividend to the shareholders.Mr. Media (there used to be a second Mr. Media, unrelated, who provided a different point of view, but he sold himself to the first Mr. Media so now there’s only one point of view and that’s Mr. Big’s point of view), Mr. Media also helps Mr. Big with public relations. See, it would be normal for folks subsisting on less than half a hotdog to resent Mr. Big and his 40 dogs, but instead they admire him. Mr. Media tells the regular folks— Mrs. Off-Shored, Mr. Loyal Employee, and BettyBlueCollar-Can’t-find-a-job, too— that they can be Mr. Big with enough hard work and moxy. Then Mr. Media shows the cool things they’d get as Mr. Big: the superluxurious hotdog-mobile, the massive house on the beach built from millions of Mr. Big’s hotdogs and the beautiful Hotdoggity girls. “And if it can be yours,” Mr. Media coolly implores, “what’s wrong with it being Mr. Big’s? You’ve just got to be smart.”

Boy, Mr. Big is smart all right. So smart that when that second hotdog plant takes off, rather than pay a silly corporate tax on all that profit from selling hotdog-byproducts to the island’s citizens, Mr. Big re-incorporates on a neighboring island roughly the size of a suitcase. Who cares that the other island’s tiny? It’s got a mailbox, which is all it needs to become Mr. Big’s corporate headquarters. And with all that profit saved, the senior shareholders, the Pretty Bigs, think Mr. Big’s pretty swell and award him more options, which he immediately liquidates[8].

One day the Supreme-Head-Man and Mr. Congress report with great sadness that the island’s budget is running a deficit. But, rather than raise the evil taxes on Mr. Big, they cut the jobless hotdog benefit to Mrs. Off-Shored and her sister, Betty-Blue-Collar-Can’t-Find-A-Job. Simultaneously, Mr. Big’s company gets a huge hotdog-byproducts research grant and Mr. Big gives himself a huge raise.

Now, you can imagine how distressing all this became to the island’s citizens: Mr. Big and the four Pretty Bigs live high on the dog, while the least well-off 60 citizens can hardly pay the bills. It gets so distressing, in fact, that a fed-up BettyBlueCollar-Can’t-find-a-job and Mrs. Off-Shored try getting their friends to work together to stop all the outsourcing and down-waging and benefits-cutting by forming a local Hotdog Makers Union, but it’s all to no avail: Mr. Big and Mr. Media team up, explaining how a union will drive up costs and force them to relocate to another island to be competitive and, besides, they say, why make hotdog products costlier to everyone so that a few, at most half the island, can enjoy a decent wage?[9].

“Just tell these people,” Mr. Big says, “to go back to school and re-tool for a high-tech weenie world. Then we’ll re-hire them at twice the pay.”

Mr. Congress chuckles off-camera. “Same thing he told the WeenieCom people before shipping their jobs to India.” Mr. Congress chuckles again. “Is this a great island or what?”

[1] In 1980, the average pay of Chief Executive Officers (CEO's) of the largest corporations in the U.S. was 41 times larger than the pay of the average blue collar worker. By 1998, the average pay of those CEO's increased to 419 times larger ($10.6 million per year). This is the widest wage gap in the world.

[2] Statistically, it’s much worse. The bottom 40% of the population has 1% of the wealth. In our model, that’s 40 people living on a single hotdog. The bottom 80%, and chances are that’s you, have 15% of the wealth.

[4] A recent report from Forrester Research has projected that as many as 3.3 million American white collar tech jobs will go to overseas workers by 2015. [Information Week; January 26, 2004]

[5] A 30-member lobbying coalition which includes MasterCard, MBNA Corporation, Daimler-Chrysler and the American Bankers Association donated nearly $20 million to candidates in the 2002 election, 64 percent of it to the Republican Party which controls both Houses of Congress and the chairmanships of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees where the legislation to wipe out consumer bankruptcy protections originates. [ProgressiveTrail.org; January 14, 2004]

[6] CEOs of firms that announced layoffs of 1,000 or more workers in 2001 earned about 80 percent more, on average, than executives at 365 top firms surveyed by Business Week. The layoff leaders earned an average of $23.7 million in total compensation in 2000, compared with a $13.1 million average for executives as a whole. The top job-cutters received an increase in salary and bonus of nearly 20 percent in 2000, compared to average raises in that year for U.S. wage-workers of about 3 percent and for salaried employees of 4 percent. [Executive Excess 2001: Layoffs, Tax Rebates and the Gender Gap; Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy; August 2001]

[7] In the stock-market’s run-up in the late-90s, investment bankers promised CEOs whose business they sought dibs on shares of hot IPOs like Yahoo.com. The CEOs would buy these shares just before they began trading publicly. As soon as the price skyrocketed—often within minutes of trading—CEOs would sell their shares (an action called “flipping”) and pocket the cash. In exchange for this favor, the CEOs would give the bankers future business. [Maxim; May 2003]

[8] Corporate offshore tax havens cost the U.S. Treasury approximately $70 billion a year. In the year 2001, Tyco Industries pocketed $1 billion in public money while evading $400 million in taxes with its Bermuda P.O. Box. [Salon.com; May 16, 2002][9] Unions now represent less than 10 percent of the workforce in the private sector in the United States. Union workers average a 28 percent wage premium for union membership in the United States -- meaning the single fact of belonging to a union raises the average worker's wage more than 28 percent -- and it is far higher in the area of benefits. [Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It-Edward Wolff]

Global warming? Scientists see more dead birds, fewer fish on Pacific Coast

While our politicians dither about the economic impact of environmental regulations, Mother Nature reels.

What kind of world are we leaving our children?

Associated Press
August 1 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- Marine biologists are seeing mysterious and disturbing things along the Pacific Coast this year: higher water temperatures, plummeting catches of fish, lots of dead birds on the beaches, and perhaps most worrisome, very little plankton- the tiny organisms that are a vital link in the ocean food chain.Is this just one freak year? Or is this global warming?

Few scientists are willing to blame global warming, the theory that carbon dioxide and other manmade emissions are trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere and causing a worldwide rise in temperatures. Yet few are willing to rule it out.``There are strange things happening, but we don't really understand how all the pieces fit together,'' said Jane Lubchenco, a zoologist and climate change expert at Oregon State University. ``It's hard to say whether any single event is just an anomaly or a real indication of something serious happening.''Scientists say things could very well swing back to normal next year. But if the phenomenon proves to be long-lasting, the consequences could be serious for birds, fish and other wildlife.This much is known:

From California to British Columbia, unusual weather patterns have disrupted the marine ecosystem.Normally, in the spring and summer, winds blow south along the Pacific Coast and push warmer surface waters away from shore. That allows colder, nutrient-rich water to well up from the bottom of the sea and feed microscopic plants called phytoplankton.Phytoplankton are then eaten by zooplankton, tiny marine animals that include shrimp-like crustaceans called krill. Zooplankton, in turn, are eaten by seabirds and by fish and marine animals ranging from sardines to whales. But this year, the winds have been unusually weak, failing to generate much upwelling and reducing the amount of phytoplankton.Off Oregon, for example, the waters near the shore are 5 to 7 degrees warmer than normal and have yielded about one-fourth the usual amount of phytoplankton, said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Newport, Ore.``The bottom has fallen out of the coastal food chain, and there's just not enough food out there,'' said Julia Parrish, a seabird ecologist at the University of Washington in Seattle.Seabirds are clearly distressed. On the Farallon Islands west of San Francisco, researchers this spring noted a steep decrease in nesting cormorants and a 90 percent drop in Cassin's auklets- the worst in more than 35 years of monitoring. On Washington state's Tatoosh Island, common murres- a species so sensitive to disruptions that scientists consider it a harbinger of ecological change- started breeding nearly a month late. It was the longest delay in 15 years of monitoring. Researchers have also reported a sharp increase in dead birds washing up in California, Oregon and Washington.

Along Monterey Bay in Central California, there are four times the usual number of dead seabirds, said Hannah Nevins, a scientist at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.``Basically, they're not finding enough food, and they use up the energy that's stored in their muscles, liver and body fat,'' Nevins said.Fish appear to be feeling the effects, too.

NOAA found a 20 percent to 30 percent drop in juvenile salmon off the coasts of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia in June and July, compared with the average over the previous six years.And researchers counted the lowest number of juvenile rockfish in more than 20 years of monitoring in Central and Northern California. Fewer than 100 were caught between San Luis Obispo and Fort Bragg this year, compared with several thousand last year. Scientists have seen some of these strange happenings before during El Nino years, when higher water surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific alter weather patterns worldwide. But the West Coast has not had El Nino conditions this year.As for the possibility that this is being caused by global warming, scientists are not so sure, since climate change is believed to be a gradual process, and what is happening this year is relatively sudden. But ``if we did see this next year, the notion that global warming plays a role in this carries more weight,'' said Nathan Mantua, a climate expert at the University of Washington in Seattle.