Peggy Get Your Gun

What is there to say about Mad Men? I am quite frankly obsessed—with Don Draper's classic depiction of a troubled asshole, which despite just how unfeminist it is, fascinates me to no end; with the idea that the 1960s were not all Ozzie and Harriet, that people were cruel and manipulative and most of all fucked with abandon; with the way you can see glimmers of change and strength in all the characters, but particularly the women. Big things are afoot this season I believe and with a show that is replete with female writers, it is no wonder that so many of the female characters are as rich, if not richer than their male counterparts. Hello Joan, Betty and Peggy, I am talking about you.

Which leads me to Sunday's episode, where Peggy tokes up, asserts herself with the boys in a way that wins not only the smarmy adulation of the Princeton pal selling the pot, but of her coworker Smith. You could see the wheels turn in that boy's head as he began to rewrite his opinion of Peggy. For that I say hell yeah! You go girl—who is smart and quick and who the boys seem to dismiss specifically for those reasons.

But what I loved most of all is the following, her conversation with her new secretary Olive, that the women at Salon's Broadsheet extrapolated:

And in her loopy, stoned, sweet way, Peggy suddenly gets it: “But you're scared,” she says. Olive isn’t scolding her, per se, she’s scared for her, and worried about the consequences to a young lady who breaks the rules that governed women in her own day. Leaning in, Peggy says, “I am going to get to do everything you want for me. I'm going to be fine, Olive.”

How I have dearly wanted to say just that very thing to older, female figures in my life who have doubted me or worst of all been jealous. 'I am going to get to do everything you want for me, and while you may hate me for it in the end, I will be fine. I am fine.'

Death Knell

In case you haven't pursued my personal info and just happen to be a passerby and not a loyal friend that I guilt into reading my ramblings, you may not be aware that I work in publishing. (Silly reader, you thought I was just a civilian who had a way with words? Alas, I am a professional bullshitter, poorly paid, much maligned and generally regarded as suspect by anyone who sees nothing wrong with a sign for the Kwik Mart.)

Publishing is an industry that has been declining of late. Or so the media seems so fond of telling me on practically a daily basis. (Salon talks about newspapers in particular here and here. Newsweek has review popular authors like David Baldacci and Jodi Picoult and bemoaned the declining popularity of "Literature.") Oh yeah, and then there was this lovely ode to Amazon's Kindle also from Newsweek.

I get it—print is dead or at least on life support. Thus goes the way of the dodo the only thing I am really good at (despite the evidence to the contrary I am providing by ending my sentences with prepositions). And if you hadn't already convinced me with the news listed above, then the continuing layoffs that my friends have experienced again this week, should clue me in. 

So what's a girl with newsprint on her fingers and clauses in her heart to do?

I got nothing. Except my stubborn insistence that despite all the dang technology those IT folks throw at us, all the online information and networking available, there will always be stubborn old coots like myself that want something of heft to hold in our hands while we sit on the beach, or while we ride the train to work, or when we curl up in bed at night. 

Almost 570 years ago, Gutenberg brought us the printing press and ushered in a new era of communication. But lest we forget, the art of storytelling existed long before letters were mechanically embedded into paper. Our earliest ancestors found ways to share their tales, whether it was through oral traditions or cave paintings like those found at Lascaux, France. Something tells me that won't change. What will change is the methods, perhaps, of how we do this.

Don't count publishing out just yet.

"Dead Wrong"

Those are the words that Vice President Biden used when he commented on  Darth Vader's Dick Cheney's comments that Americans are less safe today because we aren't hanging terrorists up by their toenails.

As you may have gathered from yesterday's post (Spies Like Us), I am not even remotely in favor of the tacts the Bush Administration took to "secure" our safety. And I am deeply disturbed that Obama's people are not only keeping these tactics available, but are expanding on them. Wiretapping without a warrant and sending people to undisclosed locations does not keep us safer in the end. Not only does it turn people around the world against us and create even more future terrorists, it takes away many of the basic tenants of civil liberty that our country was founded on.

But what is most intriguing about the hubbub around Cheney's and Biden's remarks is the media's response to what Biden said. 

First of all let me set some things straight—Cheney is no longer in office; he doesn't have access to the information to determine what the United States security position is.

Secondly, it is poor cricket indeed for the former administration to be so bold in their criticism this early on in the new administration's time in office. Dubya ain't doing it; his daddy didn't do it, and Clinton didn't do it. There is a time for former leaders to criticize, but it surely isn't during the first 100 days when so much is at stake. While it would appear that Cheney has indeed "gone rogue," it would be nice if someone could reign him in. (Where is a man-eating shark when you need one?)

Finally, even if it were ok for Cheney to be critical at this point, or even later when it would be in better form, there is no need to sound so gleeful about the idea of another terrorist attack on Americans. This man is practically begging someone to do something just so he can be pronounced right. That is disturbing and he just might be even more deranged than I previously imagined.

But back to Biden. Joe's response to Cheney struck me as measured and almost subdued, which is saying a lot for Biden. I mean dude hasn't always been one to watch what he says . . . . This time around, however, I feel like he struck the right tone, respectful disagreement. CNN has more here.

The Right is being critical of Biden's response (of course), as Salon's Joan Walsh details in her blog post and as seen in this MSNBC clip where she debates David Rivkin, who not only thinks that Cheney isn't insane, but also managed to get Joan's name wrong too. Classy. Biden is not the one out of line here. Not even close.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Spies Like Us

Well Obama has messed up big time in my opinion. (I know I will give you a moment to sit down and read this again, yes I have criticized our new president who is a Democrat—take your time, I have a while.) Obama has sided with the Bush Administration on wire taping and is actually seeking to expand the whole shebang so that the government can NEVER be sued for listening in on normal Americans. So not only has he protected Bush's folks on torture, but now he is also doing the same on surveillance.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is throwing around terms like "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity" to explain why they think in the words of Salon's Glenn Greenwald "the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications."
Greenwald goes on to say:

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.

I get that Obama's administration doesn't want to piss off the folks who are doing intelligence work, but this seems to go against everything that Obama ran on. It brings me no joy to denounce Obama and the DOJ on this, but this kind of continuation and expansion of Bush-era tactics is something that we can not stand for as Americans. Not cool Mr. President.

As a citizen I am not at all comfortable with the idea that we citizens have no recourse against being bugged by our government. Hello, what about my civil liberties folks? Yeah I believe that Obama and his government is a better bunch than Bush, but that still doesn't make it cool. I don't want Gandhi listening in on my calls or reading my emails. I don't care who you are, I want my privacy no matter how inconvenient it is to my government or my political party.

Olbermann covers it in his fifth story last night:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And here is a skoosh more from Keith:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Don't Ask, Don't Know

In one of yesterday's posts, an old friend commented that it is "the questions that we do not know to ask that are the most important." This struck me as particularly true especially in regards to an article I read on Salon yesterday about healthcare in America.

The article by Joe Conason was entitled "The questions our healthcare debate ignores" with a deck that asked the following questions:
Why does every developed nation except the U.S. have universal healthcare? Why do they pay half as much in medical costs? Why are their infant mortality and longevity statistics superior?

One of the articles strongest points, in my opinion, was this:

Last month, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development issued the latest in a long series of reports on our wasteful and cruel practices that ought to awaken a sense of national embarrassment. This highly topical study carried a deceptively bland title: "Healthcare Reform in the United States." Naturally, the mainstream media and punditry ignored its findings (although OECD reports promoting free trade often receive wide coverage).

Documenting the gross "discrepancy" between the enormous amounts that Americans spend on healthcare and the value received for that expenditure, the study found that the United States ranks poorly among OECD countries on measures of life expectancy, infant mortality and reductions in "amenable mortality," meaning deaths "from certain causes that should not occur in the presence of timely and effective healthcare."

(emphasis mine)

He goes on to add that of the 30 members of the OECD group that conducted the study only three do not offer their residents universal health coverage—the United States, Mexico and Turkey. Conason continues:

So we pay a lot more in taxes devoted to medical care—not including insurance premiums, co-payments, fees, and other health costs—than taxpayers in those 27 countries that have universal coverage.

How much less? Nations with comparable standards of living like France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, and Japan spend roughly between half and two-thirds per capita what we spend annually. They cover everyone and their results are measurably better. And the supposed downsides of universal coverage, such as lack of access to sophisticated medical technologies, are belied in many of these countries. For instance Japan has lower per capita health expenditures than the United States (and universal coverage,) but its citizens have greater access to MRI machines, CT scanners and kidney dialysis equipment than Americans do.

This all hits home even more since the Broad household just received a bill for the spouse's first colonoscopy this weekend. And what a bill it was! When I called the insurance company to inquire as to why it was so high—he went to an in-network doc, he's over the age of 50–I was told that because a polyp was found and removed, he had TWO procedures that day, each costing over $1,000. Basically the insurance only covers one procedure. Kind of leaves you in a bit of a pickle doesn't it?

So it is nice to see that Obama is asking some questions about healthcare, but it strikes me that we still have a long way to go in terms of asking the hard stuff when it comes to how we take care of our residents.

Sound Bytes

A selection of my favorite comments, quotes, meanderings from yesterday's festivities:

"The challenges we face are real," he said. "They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America—they will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

President Obama

"A farmer considers the changing sky/ A teacher says, 'Take out your pencils, begin.'"

Elizabeth Alexander, Inaugural Poet

"Later I asked Hughley why we're all so invested in the Obamas' relationship, our focus on their "first dance" like that at a wedding. "I know why I am – because I've seen that in my own life, and on the Cosby Show, but I've never seen it represented that way in public life." Confession: I am paraphrasing that, because he was actually interviewing me, and I didn't have a notebook. But that was his point, and I know he's right."

Joan Walsh, Salon Editor in Chief

"People watched the big screen and when Mrs. Obama appeared, there was a roar, and when the Current Occupant and Mr. Cheney came out of the Capitol, a low and heartfelt rumble of booing. Dignified booing. Old black ladies around me tried to shush them -- "Don't do that!" they hissed -- but it's a democracy, and how will those men know how we feel if we don't tell them?"

Garrison Keillor, writer

"Obama arrived in the Oval Office at 8:35 a.m., according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. The president spent 10 minutes alone, reading a note left for him in the desk by outgoing President George W. Bush. The note had been placed in an envelope with a note saying: 'To: # 44, From: # 43.'"

CNN

So it begins.

Righteous Anger

I have been trolling through some of the pre-Inauguration coverage and I have two vastly different points of view that I want to highlight for the moment.

First, over the weekend I happened to catch a snippet of FoxNews talking about the upcoming event and the anticipated crowd, and with that the possible security problems. I can't remember which Fox talking head said this, but this white male commented that during the Million Man March there was a large crowd and there were security issues. OHMYGOD—really? This jack-off had to go back 13 years to find a large event that had security problems in DC and it just happened to be an event with a majority of black people?

(An aside, CSPAN this morning was asking callers if MLK's dream/legacy had been fulfilled. Obviously for those at FoxNews the answer is a resounding no.)

The second thing that sparked my interest was something I read on Joan Walsh's blog at Salon: "When the openly gay [Eugene] Robinson called on God to "bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people," I knew we're not in Dick Cheney's America any more." Amen to that sister.

I agree that we should be angry that there is discrimination in our own country and around the world. All HUMANS are equal and my hope is that tomorrow takes us on the first step of a long overdue journey to realize that fact. For everyone.

Cheap Equals Bad

This will come as no surprise to regular readers, I am not ecstatic that gas and oil prices are dropping (see previous post here). But today I read something that only backed up my feelings of dread on this subject. Here are a few snippets from Michael Klare's article that appeared on Salon explaining the problems with cheap oil:

1. The Price of Oil Will Remain Low Until It Begins to Rise Again. I know, I know: This sounds totally inane. It's just that there's no other way to put it. The price of oil has essentially dropped through the floor because, in the past four months, demand collapsed due to the onset of a staggering global recession. It is not likely to approach the record levels of spring and summer 2008 again until demand picks up and/or the global oil supply is curbed dramatically. At this point, unfortunately, no crystal ball can predict just when either of those events will occur.
   
2. When Prices Do Rise Again, They Will Rise Sharply. At present, the world enjoys the (relatively) unfamiliar prospect of a global oil-production surplus, but there's a problematic aspect to this. As long as prices remain low, oil companies have no incentive to invest in costly new production ventures, which means no new capacity is being added to global inventories, while available capacity continues to be drained. Simply put, what this means is that, when demand begins to surge again, global output is likely to prove inadequate. As Ed Crooks of the Financial Times has suggested, "The plunging oil price is like a dangerously addictive painkiller: short-term relief is being provided at a cost of serious long-term harm."
   
3. Low Oil Prices Like High Ones Will Have Significant Worldwide Political Implications. The steady run-up in oil prices between 2003 and 2008 was the result of a sharp increase in global demand as well as a perception that the international energy industry was having difficulty bringing sufficient new sources of supply online. Many analysts spoke of the imminent arrival of "peak oil," the moment at which global output would commence an irreversible decline. All this fueled fierce efforts by major consuming nations to secure control over as many foreign sources of petroleum as they could, including frenzied attempts by U.S., European, and Chinese firms to gobble up oil concessions in Africa and the Caspian Sea basin.
   

The Purpose Driven Lie

With the holidays and all I sort of missed making much of a fuss over the whole Rick Warren-as-invocation-speaker-for-Obama's-inauguration thing. Part of this was laziness and part of it was not being entirely sure where I stand. My heart said that this was a dumbass move, one that not only showed disrespect to the gays and feminists who had supported Obama, but one that also disproportionately kowtowed to the religious right. But then my head (with a loud supporting chorus from the spouse) suggested laying off, it was only the invocation speaker, really not that big a deal and was merely representative of Obama's trying to reach across the so-called aisle, as politicians simply LOVE to say and occasionally actually do.

Then last night I read this week's Newsweek and its religious column by Jonathan Darman espousing the belief that Rick Warren is no Billy Graham (duh, a thousand times duh, not that Graham is totally without issues, either in my book) and that this was what made the decision ok. Or at least that is my takeaway. But then Darman said this:

With the Inaugural invitation, and the subsequent controversy, Obama has assured conservatives that he respects their point of view.

Which pretty much set me off again, down the road my heart had initially wanted me to take. Why, oh why, should anyone show respect to the views of uber conservatives? It isn't like they respect liberals' views on abortion or equal pay or gay marriage. Believe in any of those three and you are surely doomed to hell in their eyes. As I see it, aside from the pay equity thing, these issues really have no affect on conservatives. Abortions matter to the people getting abortions, gay marriage matters to the gays or lesbians entering into those unions, neither one affects my family, my lifestyle or my marriage. Then you have equal pay, something that could actually raise the standard of living for many Americans, both liberal and conservative, although it could admittedly cost companies and businesses more.

I know this opinion isn't very open minded of me, but I just have a hard time reconciling the idea of a man of God being so unforgiving as Warren is on the idea of gays. So many of the views that modern evangelicals take seem to be the antithesis of what Jesus himself taught—loving your neighbor, caring for those less fortunate than you, refusing to judge. God knows I am far from a Biblical scholar, but aren't these some of the basic tenets of Christianity??

Salon reported back in December about some changes to Warren's Saddleback Church's Web site. (Can we just take a moment gentle readers and discuss the ludicrousness of that name? All I can think about is Brokeback Mountain of which I am certain they do not want people to think of, or the cowboy-ish feel of the name and the fact that their is nothing about Orange County, California where the church is located that strikes me as particularly John Wayne-esque.) 

The removed language? "Someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at [sic] a member of Saddleback." The site also described homosexuality as "an enormous sin." Lovely showing of tolerance there folks, is that what Jesus would do?

Regardless, Warren will speak, feathers will get ruffled and most likely a day later it will all be forgotten, as our country and Obama gets down to the serious business of fixing what Bush has broken. And for that, Obama will most certainly need Jesus, God and the whole chorus of heavenly host, because the U.S. is in the most unholiest of messes—something my heart and head are in total agreement on.

And Baby Makes You Miss Prom

Teen pregnancy seems to be getting quite the PR boost these days with former Republican VP candidate Palin's daughter giving birth to Root or Trapper Keeper or whatever she called her redneck-to-be spawn, as well as the birth last year of the next generation of Spears' ala Britney's little sister.

And today, the CDC has released the latest breakdown on the numbers for teen pregnancy. You may or may not remember that for the first time in 15 years teen pregnancy rates went up last year. Yeah abstinence only education! The latest info gives a state by state breakdown, showing that in 26 of our nation's 50 states, teen pregnancy rates were on the increase. Which youngin's are going at it hardest, and apparently without wearing their raincoat, you may ask? Yep, the South and Southwest. See we always told you the South would rise again, if through no other means than sheer numbers.

I don't give two hoots what your religious beliefs are, all kids, at some point, get curious about the horizontal mambo. Please, that is just human nature. What keeps them from potentially destroying their lives by this curiosity is twofold in my opinion: a family that is there for them and honest about the birds and bees; and real information, advice and instruction from their educational system.

God knows we load our teachers up with too many responsibilities in terms of parenting our children, but I don't think we need to start lightening that load by asking them to cut out sex ed. For some kids, those videos of Captain Condom and the horrifying demonstrations with a banana may be the only honest talk they here about sex and its ramifications. I just hope that our government and our educators start to see the light on this subject, before they are bemoaning a higher drop out rate as well, as these young people leave school for the "real world" of parenting and all the responsibilities that come with that.

UPDATE: Salon (via Amy Benfer) has remarked on this and the spate of news coverage saying teen pregnancy has been glamorized by the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears, the movie Juno, etc. That wasn't my point at all. I don't think the media has anything to do with this. I highly doubt some 15 year old in Oxford, Mississippi is saying to herself "Gosh if it is good enough for Jamie Lynn Spears, its good enough for me!" and going out and finding a willing boy to procreate with.

And the Good Times Just Keep a Comin'

Per Salon today:

If anyone needs any more evidence that the American healthcare system is broken, consider the birth of Kathryn Darling, the new daughter of one Starla D. Darling, 27, of Ashland, OH.

Laid off from her job at a cookie factory, where she'd worked for eight years, the expectant mother took medicine to induce labor two days before her health insurance would expire in hopes she would not be stuck with the bill for the delivery. She ended up having an emergency C-section and still getting the bill.

As Darling told the New York Times: "When I heard that I was losing my insurance, I was scared. I remember that the bill for my son’s delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself."

So she asked her midwife to induce: "I was determined that we were getting this baby out, and it was going to be paid for," said Darling. The insurance company denied her claim leaving the unemployed new mother with more than $17,000 in medical bills, since a C-section is more expensive than a vaginal delivery.

As the recession deepens and more American workers lose their health insurance along with their jobs, we expect to hear more mind-boggling stories like this one.

'Nuff said, I think.

Saved by Salon

Just when I was beginning to panic about what I was going to post today, Salon comes along and saves me (thank god there are only two more days in this month—next time I decide to do this post every day for a month thing I am SO picking February and not in a leap year . . .).

First, a clip from The Daily Show where Samantha Bee tells McCain just where he can stick his air quotes for women's health:

And then this, where a hockey mom does a Sarah Palin-inspired version of Don't Cry for Me Argentina. It's a tad long and the middle is hard to decipher in parts, but the beginning and end are best and it can be summed up with this snippet of lyrics: My kid plays hockey, and I wear lipstick/ but I'm a thinker, and you're a dipstick.

More Love for Garrison Keillor

From today's column on Salon:

People have lots of questions about Barack Obama and that's as it should be. The man inspires curiosity. The problem for McCain is that Barack explains himself so well. Those people jamming basketball arenas aren't going there to look at his shoes. If you listen to the man speak, you're likely to vote for him. If you listen to McCain, you're reminded of your great-uncle Elmer hashing over the injustice of MacArthur getting canned by Harry Truman. Who cares?

And then there is the Current Occupant. He's kept quiet for a while, cutting brush, playing speed golf, treadmilling, but he's bound to emerge in the fall, make a speech, issue a statement, do something, and this will not be good for McCain.

America has paid a terrible price for one family's decision to take a boy out of the public schools of Midland, Texas, and send him off to Chutney or Amway or whatever his prep school was called, and then to Yale, where he picked up a permanent grudge against people who were smarter than he. A Yalie who learned to pass for redneck, a Methodist who learned to pass for evangelical, he was cut out for politics, but what a lousy administrator and what a dull, uninspiring leader. Fewer people want more bushiness than want to see the return of infantile paralysis. And the truth is marching on.

Thoughts on Infidelity

Salon has a new reader forum called Open Salon. I haven't poked around much, but apparently readers can post things, etc. sort of like an open blog. Salon editor Joan Walsh was digesting the John Edwards news and referenced something from Open Salon that was posted by a woman whose husband was a cancer survivor. This lady's comments, as someone who has dealt with that kind of emotional upheaval and trauma, made me re-evaluate my thoughts on Edwards. I am still pissed as hell, but perhaps my expectations are too high. [After all my horoscope yesterday told me to "Let go of idealistic notions about how people should behave."]

An excerpt:

"Both partners may be just sick to death of sickness. And that's the first thing my husband said when I mentioned John Edwards' confession. He said, maybe Edwards had an affair because he just wanted things to be normal again. Maybe he was tired of cancer and treatment.

"My first thought was that maybe one or both of them just couldn't see a way to reconnect erotically after breast cancer. Speaking only for myself again, when I had a scare with an unclear mammogram -- one that took months to clear up -- I felt profoundly alienated from my body as a source of pleasure. And I didn't even have cancer, just a bad case of paranoia!

"Maybe having an affair when your spouse has just faced down mortality is a way of affirming your own survival. Maybe it's a form of denial about your partner's mortality, and your own. This might be just an extension of the stereotypical mid-life crisis -- but cranked up to eleven.

"And maybe, with the pressures of raising two young kids and running for president the Edwards[es] just hadn't yet figured out how to be a couple together again. My husband and I struggled enough, and we only had two little kids and a couple of university jobs.

"In the end, why John Edwards strayed will remain a mystery to everyone outside his family, and that's only right. They deserve their privacy. Elizabeth has asked for privacy as they work through this. A marriage should remain a mystery to everyone outside it."

Hitting the Rim

Many moons ago, the Bush White House "discovered" a letter from Iraqi security chief Tahir Jalil Habbush to Saddam Hussein. The letter showed a link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein—Mohammad Atta (lead man on September 11) had trained in Iraq and  al-Qaida had been involved with some mysterious shipments from Niger to Iraq, which were believed to contain yellow cake uranium. Dubya and the boys (sorry Condi) viewed this as the "slam dunk" they needed to make their case for invading Iraq.

As Ron Suskind has been so kind to back up with fact what many of us have long believed, this letter wasn't quite kosher. Point of fact, it was a bald-faced lie. This week his book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism, detailing the events leading up to this letter as well as the aftermath was published. Suskind's sources are two former CIA officials—Rob Richer and John Maguire— who have said CIA Director George Tenet ordered them to create the forged document. And yes he has the men's interviews on tape.

Richer and Maguire have made a statement. First from Richer:

I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document ... as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book. 

Richer, the CIA's former deputy director of clandestine operations, then added that he had spoken with Maguire (former head of the CIA's Iraq Operations Group at the time), currently in Iraq on a consultant basis, who gave permission to state the following on his behalf:

I never received any instruction from then Chief/NE Rob Richer or any other officer in my chain of command instructing me to fabricate such a letter. Further, I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter and as to how it circulated in Iraq.

And of course the Bush folk issued their own statement, courtesy of the White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. "The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter from Habbush to Saddam Hussein is absurd."

Bless Dennis Kucinich's heart. He must be salivating over the possibility of his impeachment motions against Bush and Cheney actually gaining some traction. Now of course, between the denials of the sources and no smoking gun other than said sources memories, those less inclined to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy might cry foul over Suskind's allegations.

But really folks, do you put anything past Dubya and the boys at this point? Ain't nothing straight about those boys except the creases in their pants. They are crooked and would lie to their own mothers.

Now if the Bush administration had actually paid attention to what Habbush, their source was saying, rather than what they wanted him to say, it looks like we could have avoided this whole debacle (not that avoiding war was ever something Dubya was interested in–he had a stiffie to be a "War Time President" as soon as the Supreme Court handed him the keys to the White House). Suskind notes that in January 2003 (the letter appeared in September of the same year) Habbush told British Intelligence that Saddam's nuclear program and chemical weapon stockpile were a thing of the past–the distant past, Saddam kibboshed them TWELVE years earlier.

Tenet's response to this news, "They're (the Bush Administration) not going to like this downtown." The information that Habbush supplied went away.

Salon offers a pretty even handed review of the book, which is about much more, good and bad, than this one episode—in fact the forged letter gotcha doesn't appear until page 370.

And last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann had an exclusive with Suskind as well, it is about 13 minutes long if you have the time.

Love Child

A gentle reader (thanks Wes—although you know you are breaking my heart) pointed out the recent Enquirer story about John Edwards' affair and love child yesterday. I had heard this earlier this year I guess, just prior to Edwards dropping out of the election or right after, I can't recall exactly, but had not put a lot of stock in it b/c as you may remember I had a bit of a crush on John and just couldn't bear to think of him going down the Clinton adultery track.

Well the story is back. 

Salon even alludes to it today and the possible reasons why the main stream media isn't pouncing on it. Say it ain't so John . . .

New York State of Mind

Ah, a little reference to Billy Joel. Not a bad way to start off the morning if I do say so. I've been thinking about this whole wooha over the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker, where Obama is depicted as a muslim and his wife as some sort of Black Panther militant.

Everyone is all in a tizzy over it. Part of me gets why—the "smart" media is concerned that the average American won't get the point The New Yorker is making. Well some won't, that I don't doubt, but then again something tells me those people don't regularly come in contact with The New Yorker anyway. Hell! I don't read The New Yorker—not enough pictures;)—but don't use me as a litmus.

I kind of thought it was all a bit much, but then this morning I read something on Salon that made me really think that. Gary Kamiya wrote about the kerfuffle (!) and referenced Rush Limbaugh's old comment about liberal's losing their sense of humor. Sadly I am starting to think that may be the truth. There have been other things on Salon lately that illustrate that point as well. 

On the site's War Room, Alex Koppelman sites a quote from a writer for The Atlantic about our level of outrage over everything (God knows I am guilty of losing my mind over the littlest thing) being off the charts. But then several writers on the site, including editor Joan Walsh, took Obama and Bernie Mac to task. Obama for having Mac speak at an event and Mac for doing some sexist jokes.

A comedian is going to tell jokes. And today, most of what people find humor in is putting others down. Maybe that isn't right. But for now it is what amuses us. Perhaps one day mother-in-law jokes will come back in. Who knows. But I do wonder if our nation, liberals and conservatives, are having a hard time finding the punchline these days.

Smoke and Mirrors

Rational minds are saying that Iran's recent missile launches (which apparently have been beefed up thanks to the magic of technology) were an effort to give the country more leverage should they decide to come to the table and talk about disassembling their nuclear program.

Meanwhile, equally rational minds such as Salon's Joe Conason are warning us that the Bush administration is laying on pressure about a potential military strike against the country. (I guess Dubya had enough "negotiating" with North Korea and doesn't want to appear soft??)

Not only would this be disastrous in terms of world order, it certainly wouldn't solve anything. Attacking Iran isn't going to stop terrorism and extremism. More than likely it would increase it. Nor will military measures against the country make gas prices better. I am certain the opposite would happen, as the Middle East would be thrown in even greater turmoil. And it won't improve the situation in Iraq, which might actually be getting better through the support of Iran, its neighbor. Go figure.

The Bush administration assures us that they would use force as a last resort. Well we have heard that bedtime story before and more than 4,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died because of it. What further atrocities will our country and the rest of the world have to endure due to the irrationality of this administration? Their flagrant disregard for reality continues to astound me, just when I think they have reached their limit.

Every day I am left questioning if we can just make it until the end of Bush's term. 193 days and counting . . .

A Supreme Ruling

Justice Kennedy penned today's 5-4 court decision ruling that the Gitmo detainees have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

Yes folks that is one for the Constitution.

And this makes the third time the high court has ruled in the favor of these suspected terrorists rights to a trial. Both previous times, Congress and the Bush administration had to come up with new trial procedures. This decision from the court says those still aren't good enough.

The Court declared that Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional because it wanted to get rid of habeas corpus, despite the fact that our Constitution says this can only be done in cases of rebellion or invasion.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas were the dissenters. I will pause while you get over your shock.

Here is Salon's news item on the decision. Glenn Greewald also has more about the decision at Salon.com.

The Talking Cure

The GOP, through the efforts of Bush and McCain, are trying to stir up a debate about whether talking to our enemies (countries like Iran, North Korea and Cuba) is a good or bad thing.

Salon's founder, David Talbot, phrased it this way in an article today that seeks to connect this election to the one in 1964:

Is talking with our enemies a sign of strong and intelligent—or weak and deluded—leadership?

Obviously, McCain thinks that talking to them is insane and Obama thinks that it is our best bet.

Talbot cites this quote from John F. Kennedy:

the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. 

So, dear readers, what do you think? Is it a danger to talk to our "enemies" or is that the only way to avert disaster?