December 2004 Archives

The cult of personality surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay may now lead the House Republican hypocrites to relax the chamber's ethics rules. As the Washington Post's Mike Allen and Charles Babington report:

House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber's fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.

The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers -- including Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.

My fellow Americans, are you really going to continue to listen to these people lecture you on morality and ethics?

The Bush Administration has decided to redefine torture. The Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen report:

The Justice Department published a revised and expansive definition late yesterday of acts that constitute torture under domestic and international law, overtly repudiating one of the most criticized policy memorandums drafted during President Bush's first term.

In a statement published on the department's Web site, the head of its Office of Legal Counsel declares that "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms" and goes on to reject a previous statement that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constitute torture punishable by law.

CynicsRealists might even conclude that this policy change has much to do with trying to avoid unpleasant questions next week when torture memo author Alberto R. Gonzales faces an Attorney General confirmation hearing.

This revision does not change the fact that the author of the original torture memos, a man who believes the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete" and "quaint" is unsuited to hold the office of Attorney General.

Disagree with President George W. Bush, and many conservatives think you are guilty of treason.

When they aren't wishing you dead.

Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell published some of the "highlights" of reader comments he received after writing a column on USA Today Founder Al Neuharth's column urging that our soldiers be brought home "sooner rather than later." As Mitchell explains:

This hardly seemed like a radical, traitorous notion. For one thing, it appeared in an opinion column, and surely, in our country, every American has a right to his or her opinion? Secondly, it came at a time when, according to the latest Gallup poll, a majority of American believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place, and feel the war is not going well for us.

After a presidential campaign where conservatives (and the Vice President) played the "you are a traitor or supporting the terrorists card" with alarming regularity, one should not be surprised to see the sentiment continuing.

Here's my favorite letter to Mitchell:

Mel Gibbs: “The Patriot Act will put both of you (Neuharth and Mitchell) on trial for treason and convict and execute both of you as traitors for running these stories in a time of war and it should be done on TV for other communist traitors like you two to know we mean business. This is war and you should be put in prison NOW for talking like this. Who the hell do you people think you are? You give aid and comfort to our enemies and aid them in murdering our proud soldiers. You people are a disgrace to America. Your families should be put in prison with you, then be made to leave and move to the Middle East ...This is a great Christian nation and god wants us to lead the world out of darkness with great leaders like President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Communists like Al and Greg will soon be in prison and on death row for your ugly papers. We won the election and now you are mad. We own America and all the rights, you people are trash, go back to Russia and Africa and take your friends with before we put you on death row after a fair trial.”

Here's a quick memo for those conservatives who think that expressing disagreement with the decisions of the president is treason: you are among the most un-American people on the planet.

That's right. With every hateful word, you show how little you value this nation's highest ideals.

For over a year now, a quote from former President Theodore Roosevelt has graced this web site. In response to these immoral un-American conservative thought police, it is worthwhile to remember TR's words:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

--Theodore Roosevelt
Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918

For Mel Gibbs and his fellow travelers, this is a spot-on verdict.

(Hat tip: Blogdex.)

The Boston Phoenix's Dan Kennedy writes about Podcasting, downloadable audio programming for mp3 players like the Apple iPod. As Kennedy writes:

Podcasting could be a passing fad — or it could evolve into the most serious challenge to commercial radio since television. Radio’s descent into bottom-line-oriented irrelevance, sped by the 1996 repeal of any meaningful controls on corporate ownership, has been well-documented. Other than public radio, which is thriving, the best-known alternative to the commercial AM and FM bands is satellite radio, which got a big boost in visibility in 2004 thanks to former NPR host Bob Edwards’s move to the XM network and Howard Stern’s $500 million deal with Sirius.

But satellite requires a new radio receiver and costs around $10 a month. Podcasting, by contrast, is free, at least for the moment, and assuming you’ve already got a broadband connection, a reasonably new computer, and an MP3 player. Moreover, with podcasting there is little or no barrier to entry. Many podcasts are simply MP3 versions of existing radio programs that may not be carried on a station you can receive, or that may not be broadcast at a convenient time — hence the oft-repeated phrase that podcasting is "TiVo for radio." Among these are most of Air America Radio’s shows, the left-leaning daily news program Democracy Now!, and, closer to home, WGBH’s Morning Stories series.

Along with Lydon, I am sure Podcasting will turn up some other gems of independent programs. Kennedy also explains that Podcasting really makes sense for public radio programs.

FOR COMMERCIAL RADIO, podcasting is mainly a threat: if you offer Rush Limbaugh’s show as a free download, you’re inviting listeners to skip the advertising. In public radio, the calculation is rather different. The idea is to get the programming into the ears of as many folks as possible. A person who writes a check because he heard it on his iPod is just as valuable as one who was listening on her car radio while driving to work.

I'm for almost anything that breaks the Clear Channel-Michael Powell FCC hold on our ears and eyes. Podcasting may not be an answer, but it is going to be fun to see how this idea turns out.

Keith Olbermann reports that in the wake of last week's earthquake decisions were made not to warn of the danger of tsunamis because it could be bad for business and the economy. As he writes:

At the time the Thai experts reportedly concluded they would threaten the nation’s economic health by alerting the public, the tsunami was still more than an hour away from hitting Thailand’s coast. It appears that most of the fatalities there could have been averted had the victims merely been told to walk about a mile inland, which they could have done, leisurely, in 45 minutes or less.

What should one do when 100,000 or more people die in a tragedy?

As Josh Marshall explains, President Bush and his aides decided they had an opportunity to badmouth former President Bill Clinton.

Nice touch. I am in awe at this exhibition of moral values.

I will argue that when our government agencies take anti-terror legislation and try to use it for non-terrorism related crimes, they are showing just how unserious they are about fighting the real threats against us.

Welcome to New York State (a place one might expect to take terrorism most seriously). Via Atrios we learn that a State Senator and Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson have other ideas:

At least 33 states passed laws amending criminal codes related to acts of terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most changes focused on money laundering, cyberterrorism, agri-terrorism and supporting terrorist groups.

New York's use of the statute to prosecute gang-related crime has sparked disagreement among lawmakers who voted for the legislation.

A spokeswoman for state Sen. Michael Balboni [R], who sponsored the bill, said he does not mind that prosecutors have decided gang violence is a form of domestic terrorism and are using the statute to prosecute Morales.

"Gangs are a forum to promote terrorism," said Balboni spokeswoman Lisa Angerame. "Therefore, the anti-terrorism statue would be applicable against them, even if the original intent for this law was not exactly to prosecute them."

Others say the law is not being used as intended.

"It is not that I want to defend gangs," said state Rep. Jeffrey Dinowitz. "But it should never be justifiable to use laws with purposes other than their original intent.

There are, however, laws on the books for our law enforcement officers to use to combat gangs. And if they need more, we certainly should look at the problem.

But to compare a gang violence to what Al Qaeda cells did in our country, as Balboni spokeswoman Lisa Angerame seems to attempt to justify the use of the law her boss wrote, is inexcusable.

If we are serious about fighting back against those who would use terror against us, we need to stop using linguistic games to stretch the anti-terror laws for use against crimes for which they were not intended.

Perhaps we can now stop spreading the myth that President George W. Bush is so very popular. As the Los Angeles Times' Peter Wallsten writes:

Despite a clear-cut re-election and the prospect of lasting GOP dominance in Congress, President Bush prepares for his second term with the lowest approval rating of any just-elected sitting president in more than half a century, according to a series of new surveys.

That distinction, which pollsters and analysts blame on discontent over the war in Iraq, comes as Bush begins drafting two major speeches that could recast his image: an inaugural address Jan. 20 and the State of the Union days later. Bracketed between them is the Jan. 30 election in Iraq, another milestone that could affect public impressions of Bush.

[...]

A new Gallup survey conducted for CNN and USA Today puts Bush's approval rating at 49 percent -- close to his pre-election numbers. That's 10 to 20 percentage points lower than every elected sitting president at this stage since World War II, according to Gallup.

Via Saucy Intruder, an interesting book is listed on Wal*Mart's web site.

One I doubt the mega-store will end up stocking...

Update (12/29): That didn't take long. Wal*Mart has already removed the book from their web site. But you can still see it by following this link from Amazon.com.

As Atrios helpfully reminds us, context matters.

Atrios points out that before we get too excited about the $15 million the Bush Administration has pledged for the victims of the Asian earthquake and tsunamis, we should recall that the Bushies are going to spend $30-40 million -- before security costs -- on their inauguration parties.

Time of war, international disasters, whatever. They are going to have their celebrations.

Choices that make some peoples' priorities quite clear.

The Nation's John Nichols celebrates Washington gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire's determination to ensure that every vote was counted in her close election. As Nichols points out:

Politics is a game played by rules. And the most important rule regarding close elections is that you don't win by being conciliatory during the recount process. Indeed, the only way a candidate who trails on election night ends up taking the oath of office is by refusing to concede and then confidently demanding that every vote be counted -- even when the opposition, the media and the courts turn against you.

That is a rule that Al Gore failed to follow to its logical conclusion in 2000, and that John Kerry did not even attempt to apply this year. Both men were so determined to maintain their long-term political viability that they refused to fight like hell to assure that the votes of their supporters were counted. That refusal let their backers down. It also guaranteed that, despite convincing evidence that the Democrat won in 2000, and serious questions about the voting and recount processes in the critical state of Ohio in 2004, George W. Bush would waltz into the White House.

Make sure every vote is counted. It is a shame that this seems like such a radical idea in this nation.

As the Washington Post's Thomas B. Edsall reports, the College Republicans really explored their understanding of family values in the 2004 election campaign:

The College Republican National Committee is under fire for using front organizations to collect millions of dollars in contributions, including money from elderly people with dementia.

The Bull Moose makes a wonderful suggestion: given that we are a nation at war, President George W. Bush should cancel the inaugural festivities. The Moose reminds us that there is precedent for such a decision, quoting from the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies' web site:

"At the height of WWII, Franklin D. Roosevelt's fourth Inauguration was simple and austere with no fanfare or formal celebration following the event.There was no parade because of gas rationing and a lumber shortage."

I really think the plutocrats can skip this particular chance to party.

I share Keith Olbermann's shock and concern over the fact that there are numerous people who operate under the misguided conclusion that fascism is a left-wing doctrine. As Olbermann writes:

This one fellow’s email contained a reference to Fascism being a leftist doctrine. I actually had to write him back to make sure he was serious. “Hitler was a left-winger. Case closed, dumbass.”

For anybody else just joining us here in the real world, here’s the story so far: the Fascists started in Italy, with Benito Mussolini. They— and the Germans that followed them - were an ultra-conservative political party that opposed (and later jailed and killed) leftists. The German ones even went to war against a Communist state, suggesting that the use of the term “Socialism” in their official party name was almost ironic in intention. American Fascists have sought to outlaw Jews, Catholics, minorities, and Republicans. Also, the sun rises in the east, and two and two still makes - even if somebody from a Blue State tells you this— four.

The indespensible Media Matters for America has announced its Top Ten Most Outrageous Statements of 2004 and its 2004 Misinformer of the Year.

As Media Matters has documented since its May 2004 launch, there was significant competition for both dishonors. As Media Matters noted in its release:

Here are the Top Ten most outrageous statements we have heard this year from members of the media. From anti-Semitic comments and attacks on women, gays, and lesbians to reprehensible acceptance of the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture, these statements are acutely representative of the conservative hate speech we found in the news media.

Media Matters is a good -- and absolutely necessary -- organization. One well worth your support.

Perhaps we can stop spreading the myth of the ultrapopular President George W. Bush now? As Salon's Eric Boehlert writes:

Republicans like to brag about the sweeping mandate that President Bush received on Election Day. But as he prepares for his second term, Bush approaches Inauguration Day with historically weak job-approval ratings, according to a series of new opinion polls. Unless there's a dramatic turnaround in public sentiment between now and Jan. 20, Bush will be sworn in to office with the lowest job-approval rating -- barely 50 percent -- of any president in the last 80 years, or since modern-day presidential polling began.

That "few bad apples" defense of the prisoner abuse cases takes yet another hit as FBI agents now say they witnessed widespread abuse at Guantanamo Bay. As the Washington Post's Dan Eggen and R. Jeffrey Smith report:

Detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were shackled to the floor in fetal positions for more than 24 hours at a time, left without food and water, and allowed to defecate on themselves, an FBI agent who said he witnessed such abuse reported in a memo to supervisors, according to documents released yesterday.

In memos over a two-year period that ended in August, FBI agents and officials also said that they witnessed the use of growling dogs at Guantanamo Bay to intimidate detainees -- contrary to previous statements by senior Defense Department officials -- and that one detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music in an apparent attempt to soften his resistance to interrogation. (emphasis added)

In another grand strategic move in our media's great liberal conspiracy campaign, MSNBC has decided that Tucker "Jacuzzi Cases" Carlson is deserving of a prime time talk show.

That supposedly Clinton-loving Rick Kaplan sure knows how to run some misdirection, doesn't he?

James Wolcott puts this hire into some perspective:

Isn't just too-too perfect how a perceived liberal like Kaplan confounds his critics by hiring a conservative as a lead-in into a show hosted by another conservative? (Joe Scarborough, that is, whose back troubles have him MIA from Scarborough Country, with Pat Buchanan filling in). Media liberals almost never surprise anyone by having the balls and spinal conviction to actually do something liberal; no, they always feel obliged to do the cute counterintuitive thing. No one expects Roger Ailes to surprise his critics by hiring Al Franken to host a nightly show on Fox; he earns his plaudits by sticking to his toy guns and hiring Yellin' Zell Miller for an occasional round of hog callin'.

Josh Marshall makes an excellent point about how the Bernard Kerik nomination fiasco highlights one of President George W. Bush's weaknesses:

It's a great example -- almost a morality play -- of one of the key flaws in the president's leadership. He gets clear first impressions and makes judgments based on instinct. And then there's almost no follow-up, no challenging instinct with the harsh light of facts. And certainly no accountability. More often than the not, or course, the instinct turns out to just be wrong. As with Iraq, and Putin's soul and now Kerik.

Iraq, the budget, Social Security, his appointments are all areas in which this first impression flaw has been in evidence.

We should start tying all of these errors together.

The Associated Press' William Kates reports:

Nearly one in two Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict civil liberties for Muslim-Americans, according to a nationwide Cornell University poll on terrorism fears.

Via Media Matters for America, we see that Bill O'Reilly told his audience that:

"You don’t see prominent conservatives cursing out Democratic members of Congress, for example."

After all, if he does have information concluding that the Vice President of the United States is not a prominent conservative, I think he should devote at least a show to the story.

Merck executives are providing another example of the majestic "free market" at work in the wake of their Vioxx debacle. As Jim Hightower explains:

Takeover threats make top executives very nervous, for the company doing the taking usually ousts the old team and puts in its own. Hence, Merck's sudden rush to provide executive parachutes. If another company takes over Merck—or even buys as little as 20 percent of its shares in an effort to take it over— the 230 top dogs become eligible to bail out with a special payment of three times their annual salaries, plus their expected bonuses, as well as stock payments. For example, CEO Raymond Gilmartin, who helped engineer this sweet deal, would get about $57 million to soften his landing.

Yes, this does amount to top executives rewarding themselves for their own failures ... and taking care of themselves without regard to the fate of others.

The people who made the bad decisions cushion their fall thanks to millions. The workers? Na da.

That's some invisible hand.

Eric Alterman makes an excellent point today. The Bush Administration's bungled Bernard Kerik nomination is but the latest example of its inability to take the war on terrorism seriously.

Alterman sums up the situation:

When the next attack on the United States comes, Americans will wonder just what the hell was occupying our government as it ignored the vulnerability of our chemical plants, nuclear plants, ports, and food supply in order to waste lives and resources chasing chimerical enemies in Iraq and creating new terrorist enemies across the Middle East. As currently constituted, this administration’s effort to protect us is often little more than another pork barrel for Republican members and senators to fund unneeded and wasteful projects while our true vulnerabilities go ignored.

Of course, what they know is that Bush will benefit politically from any attack, no matter what the circumstances, just has he did when his administration proved asleep at the proverbial switch on 9/11 and then panicked (and lied to us) in its immediate aftermath.

Here's another example showing the urgent need for the Democratic National Committee's leadership to get its head of out of its collective ass. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong writes:

There's something wrong when the chairs and executive directors go on and on with their praise toward the internet that's brought millions into the coffers of the DNC, and then turns around and kicks Joe Trippi and his band of bloggers out of the meeting room when the "closed" Q & A with the DNC Chair candidates occurs. You could have walked right in off the street and into the candidate Hall unencumbered, but if you happened to be a blogger, or the guy who brought the strategy of embracing the small donor activist on the net for the Democratic Party, and he's got a blog, out you go.

There's something wrong when DNC Chair candidate Donnie Fowler, during his 5-minute presentation on his candidacy, singles out Matt Stoller as an example of embracing the technological ideas that are going to bring this party forward, and then some DNC staffer walks up to Stoller and tells him he's got to leave the room, because he's a blogger.

That's just the beginning. Armstrong has more about this idiocy.

Kevin Drum makes a great point about run-away executive compensation packages:

CEOs aren't paid astronomical salaries because of market forces. They're paid astronomical salaries because they can get away with it. That's all.

Via Atrios, here's a particularly "rational" commentary about the soldier who worked with a reporter to ask Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a necessarily tough question about armor shortages:

Joe M. Richardson: "The duped soldier should be put at the very front of the action, no armor. The cooperating sergeant's career should be over and maybe become MIA. Pitts and all his cronies should be executed as traitors. We are fighting a war, the debate is over, you’re either for us or against us, there is no middle ground. I say start executing the leftists in our country, soon."

And that support for our troops: fantastic.

Taegan Goddard selected the following as his quote of the day:

"Pay no attention to those voices. They are special interests. Special interests don't like me in Sacramento because I'm always kicking their butt."

-- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), quoted by the San Jose Mercury News.

Of course we can believe that none of that haul came from any special interests.

Here's another example of the Bush Administration's support for our troops:

WASHINGTON — Spc. Robert Loria of Middletown, N.Y., lost his arm in Iraq, but instead of a farewell paycheck from the Army he got a bill for nearly $1,800.

Yesterday, New York legislators came to his rescue.

Here's some unacceptable news, reported by United Press International:

Veterans of the war in Iraq are starting to show up at homeless shelters, experts say.

"When we already have people from Iraq on the streets, my God," said Linda Boone, executive director of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. "I have talked to enough (shelters) to know we are getting them. It is happening and this nation is not prepared for that."

Mr. President, which is more important: irresponsible tax cuts or providing needed services to our Veterans.

I, for one, would like to know.

(Hat tip: John P. Hoke's Asylum.)

If President Bush continues to refuse to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld after his horrible comments today, then can we all drop the charade that this White House has any claim to supporting our troops?

As Fred Kaplan writes in Slate:

Donald Rumsfeld gave every grunt in the Army a good reason to hate him today.

At a cavernous hangar in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, the secretary of defense appeared before 2,300 soldiers to boost their morale before they headed off to Iraq. During a question-and-answer period, Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a unit that consists mainly of reservists from the Tennessee Army National Guard, spoke up to complain about their inadequate supply of armor.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson asked, setting off what the Associated Press described as "a big cheer" from his comrades in arms.

Rumsfeld paused, asked Wilson to repeat the question, then finally replied, "You go to war with the army you have." Besides, he added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown up."

If we had been attacked by Iraq and had to go to war on no notice, Mr. Secretary, your incredibly flippant answer to men and women who might die in their next mission might have some merit.

But this was not a war of necessity. It was a war of choice. As Kaplan writes:

More than that, his answer was wrong. If you're attacked by surprise, you go to war with the army you have. But if you've planned the war a year in advance and you initiate the attack, you have the opportunity—and obligation—to equip your soldiers with what they'll need. Yes, some soldiers will get killed no matter the precautions, but the idea is to heighten their odds—or at least not diminish them—as they're thrust into battle.

So here stands the secretary of defense, long and widely despised by officers for rejecting their advice before the war and now openly criticized by the grunts for failing to give them proper cover as the war rages on all around them.

And yet Rumsfeld is the one Cabinet secretary who has received explicit assurances that he will keep his job, with President Bush's full confidence, into the second term.

Do you? And I mean really. Not just rhetorically.

Your decision regarding the future of your Defense Secretary will be one of my major criteria to see if your actions will ever match your lofty rhetoric.

So far, I am not impressed.

Howard Dean gave excellent speech at George Washington University today, outlining steps the Democratic Party should take going forward.

It is well worth reading. Dean outlines a destination that Democrats should be willing to work to reach. Near the beginning of the speech, Dean outlines an important point that should be lost on no Democrat:

We cannot be a Party that seeks the presidency by running an 18-state campaign. We cannot be a party that cedes a single state, a single District, a single precinct, nor should we cede a single voter.

Why? Because Democrats have much to offer.

There is a Party of fiscal responsibility... economic responsibility.... social responsibility... civic responsibility... personal responsibility... and moral responsibility.

It's the Democratic Party.

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe.

Because we are what we believe.

CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn wastes some server space with an article on blogs and politics.

In the midst of the article, Kuhn attacks Atrios. Atrios has responded with a pointed letter. Check it out.

Your so-called liberal media. Hard at work.

Given the fall in the dollar, you might think that the Bush Administration and our Republican Congressional leaders might be looking at serious ways to reduce the federal budget deficit.

Hah. As the Los Angeles Times' Warren Vieth and Janet Hook report:

The federal government would have to borrow money over the next decade to finance President Bush's plan to create private Social Security accounts, the White House acknowledged Monday.

Independent analysts have estimated the government would initially need to borrow more than $1 trillion.

It's time to make "fiscal conservative" a dirty word. We should pin it with the irresponsible tax cutting, increasing debt burden on our children and future generations policies its advocates now propose.

Fiscally responsible is the term to use for people who care about deficits and the kind of financial future we are leaving future generations. The ranks of the fiscally responsible, alas, seem to include fewer and fewer Republicans by the day.

The well-known bastion of liberal economic thinking, The Economist, issues a warning about the falling dollar:

THE dollar has been the leading international currency for as long as most people can remember. But its dominant role can no longer be taken for granted. If America keeps on spending and borrowing at its present pace, the dollar will eventually lose its mighty status in international finance. And that would hurt: the privilege of being able to print the world's reserve currency, a privilege which is now at risk, allows America to borrow cheaply, and thus to spend much more than it earns, on far better terms than are available to others. Imagine you could write cheques that were accepted as payment but never cashed. That is what it amounts to. If you had been granted that ability, you might take care to hang on to it. America is taking no such care, and may come to regret it.

Joe Trippi publishes an after-election-analysis column today that all Democrats should read and digest. He writes of the Democratic Party's election disaster:

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush, received 50 million votes in 2000, and 59 million in 2004. He added nine million votes. That is because Karl Rove had a plan and the Bush campaign stuck to it. There is no doubt that they executed it brilliantly. But the problem for Democrats is not Mr. Rove; it is that they're doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity.

If you know Trippi, you won't be surprised to read that his foundation is investing in grassroots organization. That's a necessary step. But that's not all he writes -- and his ideas are good ones.

The Associated Press reports that November 2004 ties (at a minimum) for the deadliest month of the Iraq War.

We learn that the United States is going to boost the number of troops in Iraq to "the highest level since the U.S. occupation began 19 months ago."

The British government has announced that it will no longer allow its staff to travel the road from the center of Baghdad to the international airport because of the danger involved.

Let me know, Mr. President, when you want to try arguing again that we are turning a corner.

This story should make you angry: Atrios reports that the teacher who last year disciplined a child for explaining to a classmate that his mother is gay...is now suing the parent for defamation.

Thank goodness my children will never go near this school district.

Eric Alterman's blog post today opens with a powerful paragraph focusing on the combat death in Iraq of a New York City firefighter who survived 9-11.