demockracy

Part 2: Subsidized corn is also a prerequisite for CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations). Feeding cows corn, rather than grass, is unnatural. The corn-produced illness are so common that, of necessity, CAFOs are the largest single U.S. consumer of antibiotics. This also makes them a breeding ground for super germs. Adding insult to injury, the American public must subsidize the development of new antibiotics to replace those rendered ineffective by CAFO over-use.

The current system of subsidies produces many low-quality corn syrup calories, too -- leading to a national epidemic of obesity and type II diabetes. So while farmers proudly point to falling food costs, health costs have been rising because of food that makes us ill.

Although it takes ten pounds of feed to make one pound of beef, even raising meat can be sustainable, sanitary, safe, and tasty. At Polyface farm, they practice "perennial prairie polyculture," and produce chickens, eggs, and beef as productively as huge factory feedlots without their environmental impacts. The farm is profitable, and free of the stench and flies common to CAFOs. And, most important, unlike the industrial farms current policy subsidizes -- where some fields are as much as six feet below untilled soil they are so depleted -- this Polyface farm's soil is *improving* without any industrial chemical inputs. (See www.polyfacefarm.com for details)

Although it looks like federal agricultural policy is just farmers' business, the truth is that these subsidies have enormous impacts on the larger society. posted 05/16/2008 at 13:53:10

(From a little earlier in this process): Getting Ahead of the Farm Bill

Congressional hearings are underway to reauthorize federal agriculture policy for 2007. Misguided federal policies currently favor agribusiness, and keep most farmers in a kind of indentured servitude, telling them they must use every fertilizer and additive available just to keep up with what is subsidized -- and their loan payments. Agriculture expert Michael Pollan ("The Omnivore's Dilemma") writes that the current system essentially launders federal money for big agribusinesses like Cargill and ADM.

The current system also requires increasing amounts of imported petroleum -- for the fertilizer, for the mechanized cultivation and harvesting of the subsidized commodity crops, and to get the food to our tables. The food on U.S. dinner tables travels an average of 1,000 miles. Corn costs 1.2 gallons of oil per bushel. Midwestern corn farmers use enough petroleum-based fertilizer and insecticides to generate a 15-mile dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi river.

This misguided policy has international implications too. Until the recent ethanol fad raised its price, the U.S. was putting Central American corn farmers out of business because they couldn't raise corn cheaply enough to compete with U.S.-subsidized, industrial corn. NAFTA created our current immigration "problem" because it lowered the barriers to exporting subsidized industrial Iowa corn into Mexico. This is especially cruel since more than half the affected Mexican population gets by on less than four dollars a day. posted 05/16/2008 at 13:51:21

There's some controversy about whether the peak in world oil production has arrived or is coming soon, but there is absolutely zero controversy that U.S. domestic production peaked in 1970-71 (at $1.75/bbl, 30% of consumption was imports). Look at that Forbes graph and see for yourself. The 1973 recession -- the first one U.S. couldn't produce its way out of -- was the worst since the Great Depression.

The alternative to domestic production is imports (now 70% of consumption at $100+ /bbl). One meaning of Iraq is that a limit exist for how many foreigners we can intimidate into giving us their resources. Nevertheless, the U.S.'s fall back is to rely on those pillars of political stability around the Caspian sea. You know, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and, of course, Iraq.

Finally, the Europeans have taxed oil consumption to reduce consumption and to pay for the infrastructure alternative to driving (transit). In the U.S. we apparently prefer that Exxon keep the money, and continue to build our cities as sprawl, meaning every single trip of any significance is in an auto, and transit stops are signs stuck in the gravel shoulder of the collector street.

I couldn't make it up. posted 05/17/2008 at 11:34:58

As usual, Mr. Learsy conflates a pack of half-truths and invective into what passes for argument in his world. "Not a single mention, not one, of the oil cartel" says Learsy... Here's a news flash for you Learsy: There has never *not* been a cartel or monopoly controlling oil prices. From John D. Rockefeller, to Harold Ickes, to the Texas Railroad Commission to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, some body, or somebody controls oil prices. So what?

Then there's Learsy's not mentioning ("Not a single mention") of peak oil, except to dismiss it as some oil company fabrication. Here's another news flash, Learsy: Drilling is costly. Oil companies must publicize their discoveries to raise money to drill them. Therefore, discoveries are a known quantity.

Geologist M.King Hubbert used his chart of the peak in U.S. oil finds (about 1930) to observe that production lagged about 40 years from discovery. He successfully predicted U.S. domestic peak production would be in 1970 (at $1.75/bbl, with 30% imports). Global warming aside, no amount of drilling in ANWR or other environmentally sensitive areas will return the U.S. to that 1970 peak.

And when was the peak in world-wide oil discoveries? ... About 40 years ago.

Krugman is correct, but underestimates the cost to convert to a non-petroleum economy. See "The Power of Community" for the story about how Cuba did it. Preview: Cuban GNP declined 34% and the average Cuban lost 20 lbs. posted 05/16/2008 at 13:13:23

You think, you think... Where are the citations? Who are you, and would we even remember your (real) name after you were dead for two weeks, much less believe you now.

"Social Security has been highly effective in reducing poverty among the elderly. The program is responsible for removing more people from poverty than all other government programs combined. " from http://www.cbpp.org/1-27-00socsec.htm

The "private" health care system the U.S. enjoys now is literally the most costly in the world (German single-payer costs only 60% of ours). Yet the public health outcomes in things like life expectancy and infant mortality lead the World Health Organization to rank the U.S. 37th in the world in quality of healthcare. The high ranking nations all have single-payer, government sponsored healthcare. The Sacramento Bee says we have outcomes roughly like those in Puerto Rico, but pay six times more for the privilege.

The right-wing delusion that leads you to conclude "I think" is a citation is just a fantasy. Wake up! posted 05/18/2008 at 12:35:44

First, let's call a spade a spade here: Deficits are just taxes you haven't paid yet -- with interest. If Obama, or whoever, "raises" taxes, it's because of the Reagan / Bush / Bush deficits. This resembles nothing so much as third world people paying for the extravagance of leaders like Marcos, Suharto, and "Papa Doc" Duvalier.

Welcome to Northern Haiti!

Confining this discussion to taxes and spending is misdirection, though, in comparison to the *real* money: subsidies and loopholes.

Three-quarters of W's net worth came to him because he was able to con the citizens of Arlington Texas into building his otherwise money-losing baseball team a stadium. And he got the additional subsidy of claiming this income as "capital gains" so was taxed at a lower rate than the rest of us paycheck-earning schlubs.

Read David Cay Johnston's "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill" for the full story.

So while politicians will talk about petroleum, for example, as though all the options available are either tax or spend. What about closing the depletion allowance loophole? [Crickets and silence!...] posted 05/18/2008 at 12:25:44

When a supposed liberal says "Of course it makes sense to lower taxes when the highest marginal tax rate is at 70%, as it was in 1980".. This comment demonstrates how successful the neocons have been in spreading the anti-tax gospel. The truth is that America's greatest economic growth occurred during eras when the top bracket was 90% and 70% (1950's and '60's).

The truth is that the "Reagan revolution" of tax cuts (following Kennedy's "revolutionary" lowering of the top bracket to 70%) did *not* increase revenues. The record Republican deficits, and the way G.H.W. Bush reneged on his "read my lips" pledge by raising taxes all confirm this. And lowering the top bracket did *not* produce an economic miracle, either. What the Wall St. Journal called "Morning in America" turns out to have been an average business cycle recovery with one unusual feature: Because of the record Reagan deficits, the capital markets stagnated. In other words, the engine of growth -- capital investment -- was brought to a screeching halt because the deficits sucked all the oxygen out of the capital markets.

Oh yes, and as an added bonus, the taxes G.H.W. raised were FICA -- the most regressive taxes. So this "lower taxes" baloney turns out to be a pretext for increasing taxes on the lower brackets and lowering taxes on the wealthy. posted 05/14/2008 at 14:09:17

This, and "CommonSenseAmerican's" comment are misconceptions. Read DavidNYC's answer to the plea to drill in ANWR (at most it would supply about 480 days' U.S. oil consumption once it came online...in a decade).

In comparing various energy alternatives, the key concept is "Energy Return on Energy Invested." A low EROEI prevents the U.S. from producing petroleum from its oil shale, for example. It has more oil than Saudi Arabia -- it's just too expensive to extract.

If you account for the subsidies for nuclear, that game too is also not worth the candle. The real solution is cutting subsidies to industries like oil and nuclear, and adopting (then) market-driven conservation.

Before Gulf War I, the World Resources Institute estimated the U.S. petroleum subsidy to be $300 billion annually. This includes everything from special tax breaks for petroleum producers (the "depletion allowance") to the military protection necessary for overseas oilfields and pipelines (obviously *much* more expensive since Iraq).

Oil accounting is also deceptive. Rather than "income" (as petroleum production is currently classified), it should be "natural capital." Try qualifying for a mortgage based on the contents of your savings account (capital) rather than your income, and you'll see the difference. Sensible capitalists set aside money to replace worn capital equipment. The Europeans have done this for years, heavily taxing gasoline to provide a quality alternative mass transportation system. In the U.S., we apparently prefer to ensure larger Exxon profits instead. posted 05/05/2008 at 12:49:26

Part 4:

What about GDP, the source of all wealth? Phillips says that "federal
economists used the Gross National Product until 1991, when rising
U.S. international debt made the narrower GDP assessment more
palatable." He notes that a full 15 percent of GDP is "imputed". This
includes the fees that banks don't charge you if you have a "free"
checking account and rent that you didn't have to pay because you
owned a house. The CIA factbook says that our population is growing at
0.9% (mostly immigration and the children of recent immigrants) and
GDP is growing at 2.2%, but if it doesn't feel like the average person
is getting richer that might be partially because much of the GDP
growth is fake (in addition to the hedge fund managers and CEOs taking
most of the new money (and much of the old) for themselves). Phillips
does not estimate our true economic growth, but claims that much has
been illusory, without even resorting to pointing out that much GDP
comes from things that add no net value when you compare American
lives in 1998 to American lives in 2008, e.g., rebuilding from Katrina
and Florida hurricanes, replacing things that are broken or stolen,
hiring hundreds of thousands of security guards to deal with risks of
terrorism perceived only after September 11, making Iraq safe for
Iraqis, reinforcing cockpit doors on airliners, buying guns and
running training courses for airline pilots, ..., etc. posted 04/26/2008 at 10:21:06

Part 3:

Phillips claims that the true rate of
inflation is between 7 and 10 percent, not the 2-3 percent published
by the government. [Support for this theory might be seen in the
reluctance of foreigners now to trade their euro for dollars except at
historically extreme exchange rates.]

Aside from reducing government pension costs, how do politicians and
their cronies benefit from a lower published inflation number?
Phillips claims that a low inflation rate makes investors comfortable
with accepting a lower interest rate, which makes it much cheaper for
the government to borrow money and also helps those who benefit from
real estate bubbles. Phillips cites a 2007 article by Robert Hardaway
saying that the subprime circus (which made a lot of people very rich
before it made the Greater Fools rather poor) "can be directly traced
back to the [1983] BLS decision to exclude the price of housing from
the CPI". posted 04/26/2008 at 10:20:11

Part 2:
Calculations behind the inflation numbers cited in newspapers are
beyond the grasp of any layperson. One of the most obvious distortions
in the inflation index is that it is adjusted for "hedonic value", on
the theory that new widgets, made with Chinese slave labor, are better
than old widgets, made by the lunchpail Americans for whom Barack
Obama feels pity. The $500 Whirlpool dishwasher from the 1996 is
replaced by a $1200 Bosch in 2007. Inflation? Not for the civil
servants who construct the index; they assume that the Bosch is
superior somehow (and it would be for them, having so far generated at
least 8 days when they could have taken off work to wait for the
repairman). A non-obvious distortion is created by ignoring what
homeowners actually pay for mortgage, maintenance, real estate taxes,
etc. Starting in the 1980s, the BLS began to use "owner equivalent
rents", i.e., asking homeowners "If someone were to rent your home
today, how much do you think it would rent for monthly, unfurnished
and without utilities?" (source). Under the Nixon Administration, food
and energy were going up in price, so these items were removed from
the published "core inflation" number, which happens also to be the
basis of cost-of-living adjustments that the government must pay for
pensions and Social Security. posted 04/26/2008 at 10:19:26

Part 1 (from )

May 2008 Harpers's Magazine carries an article, (not online),
"Why the Economy is Worse Than You Know" by Kevin Phillips.

Unemployment statistics were redefined starting in the early 1960s by
the Kennedy Administration. First they took out the "discouraged",
people who wanted a job, but had stopped looking. Under the Reagan
Administration, the workforce was expanded by adding in members of the
U.S. military, who were by definition "employed", thus shrinking the
percentage of "unemployed". The Clinton Administration reduced the
number of households sampled from 60,000 to 50,000 and "a
disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner
cities." Phillips doesn't talk about prisoners, but we have greatly
increased our prison population, most of those incarcerated are
working-age men, and none are counted in the workforce. Phillips
claims that "Based on the criteria in place a quarter century ago,
today's U.S. unemployment rate is somewhere between 9 percent and 12
percent." [Poking around at http://www.bls.gov/cps/ reveals that, in
2007, 146 million of us were working, 7 million were unemployment, and
4.7 million were classified as not in the workforce but "wanted a
job"; an additional 2.3 million Americans were in prison, presumably
due to their energetic work habits in illegal trades. The "U-6″
series, published by the BLS but almost never reported by newspapers,
shows an unemployment rate right now of 9.1 percent.] posted 04/26/2008 at 10:18:43

Say "No" to Sprawl

The U.S. burns 70% of its petroleum on transportation (roughly 2-to-1, transportation to everything else). in the rest of the world that ratio is 1-to-2, not 2-to-1. So building our cities so every single trip of any significance *must* be in an auto is counter-productive, to say the least.

The market actually *prefers* the alternative. Pedestrian-friendly streets, mixed-use (residences, commerce, offices, etc.) mixed-density, mixed-income neighborhoods are what we built before 1950.

So when your local government's public works standards countenance "incomplete" streets -- streets that only accommodate autos, not pedestrians. Or when they have "zoning" that demands neighborhoods be entirely residential, commercial, etc. That's what leads to sprawl.

Sprawl makes transit impossible -- who could walk to the transit stops if the streets are designed exclusively for autos?

Sprawl is also unhealthy -- Who's going to walk when walking on the street is a life-threatening event? (Gee, I wonder why the U.S. has an epidemic of diseases related to chronic inactivity... like heart disease, obesity, type II diabetes, etc.?)

Since U.S. domestic oil production peaked in 1971 ($1.75/bbl, 30% imports then, $100+/bbl, 70% imports now) -- a peak to which not even Alaskan nor offshore oil would return us. Sprawl is why we go overseas looking for more oil.

Iraq anyone?

...or less sprawl?

Pick one. posted 04/23/2008 at 10:58:11

Interesting take on things: I suppose Global Warming is another Liberal delusion...?

Never mind, VZ, the U.S. currently *subsidizes* oil production at least $300 billion annually. (Source: World Resources Institute, wri.org), but production is in decline. Is it possible we're actually running out, no matter how much it's subsidized?

Did you know oil production is currently classified as "income" by accountants? But isn't it much more accurately described as "natural capital"? Go to a bank and ask for a loan. When they tell you how much income you need to qualify, tell them you have that amount in savings (your capital).

Then try to keep from being thrown out by security as an insane person.

But that is how we account for oil now.

And you say Liberals are delusional.... Buddy there's a saying about not picking the mote out of your neighbors eye before you deal with the beam in your own. Take it to heart. posted 04/17/2008 at 15:55:08

U.S. domestic petroleum production peaked in 1971. The price then: $1.75/bbl. Only 30% of domestic production was imports. Now, 70% is imports and the price is north of $100/bbl.

Even if we got all the oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and other environmentally sensitive locations, we will never return to that peak. Not even the American Petroleum Institute (the oil lobby) or the leaseholders in ANWR claim that. The problem is MUCH bigger than that.

The real alternatives:

Conservation (transit, traditional city design, insulation)
- or -
Continue to try to beat up petroleum-rich countries so they'll supply us with oil.

Alternative fuels are currently baloney. Look up "Energy Return on Energy Invested" if you don't believe me.

Right now, I'd settle for removing the subsidies from oil production. The World Resources Institute (wri.org) estimated this was $300 billion annually (and that was before Gulf War I).

Do that, and you'll see some action. posted 04/17/2008 at 15:47:12

What's laughable about this post is the extraordinary ignorance of what's been going on in Haiti. When the Haitians opt for "leadership" (i.e. elect leaders they want to lead them) France or the U.S. meddles to nullify the elections. This has included everything from bribery ("Papa Doc" Duvalier) to kidnapping (Jean Bertrand Aristide).

And this is *not* a metaphor. Aristide (plurality winner of Haitis' elections) was literally kidnapped by the Bush administration and dumped in Central Africa. I couldn't make it up.

From its inception, Haiti has been systematically looted by their barbaric "betters" -- from the French to the U.S. *That* (not their unwillingness to be lead) is why they are poor.

Paul Farmer, a guy who should know, calls U.S. policy toward Haiti "yelling at poor people." Farmer runs a clinic in Haiti which, because international aid is so scarce, literally has a bigger budget than the Haitian government. Remember that the next time you condemn Haitian democracy as corrupt, or "rudderless."

Listen to Farmer and Noam Chomsky give the essential history of Haiti in "The Uses of Haiti." Student Pugwash Northeast Regional Conference. February 22, 2002. This is available on Chomsky's site at http://chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm.

And let's stop yelling at poor people, shall we? posted 04/11/2008 at 13:58:44

I suggest a contest to discover what, exactly, could convince these people to change their minds. Some suggested answers:

1. Monkeys coming out of their butts.
2. Administration-sponsored home invasion robberies.
3. The voice of God himself coming from the heavens: "Bush is an asshole!"
4. A rain of frogs.
5. Global warming makes bread $200 a loaf. Bush's Middle East policies finally drive oil up to $200 a barrel.
6. The second coming.

Any other suggestions? posted 04/05/2008 at 20:01:20

This is about half true. By far the cheapest source of hydrogen, even now, is natural gas. Hydrogen is an energy sink, not a source. It's like a battery. Google "Energy return on energy invested" and you'll see this is true for more "alternative fuels." Corn ethanol, for example, in the most optimistic estimate I've seen, returns 1.4 units of energy for every one invested. East Texas crude oil, for one example, returned 100 for every one invested. Even relatively difficult-to-get oil like the recent deep Gulf finds return six-to-one.

Of the alternative "fuels" the most economical is conservation. Building sprawl cities that require every single trip of significance be in some kind of vehicle is the opposite of conservation.

Oh yes, and nuclear is only profitable when subsidized (see "Price-Anderson act" -- this makes taxpayers the insurors of last resort for all U.S. nuclear plants). Peak uranium is in 2050, unless we build lots of nuclear plants. Then it's 2015.

And yes, wind does make sense, but it's a distant second to conservation. posted 04/06/2008 at 10:24:47

Try googling "David Stockman indicted security fraud" - I get 1030 hits. Here's one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032600518.html posted 04/01/2008 at 11:32:55

Friedman's economics was *not* "Supply Side" economics. Supply side economics was a fraud cooked up to excuse lowering the top tax brackets during the Reagan/Bush years (and raising regressive taxes like social security to compensate for the revenue shortfall) -- at least according to David Stockman, Reagan's budget advisor. You may have seen Stockman in the news recently as he was being led away in handcuffs, indicted for securities fraud.

Another missing piece from the post above and comments is the role of subsidies. Talk of taxes and spending is almost misdirection when you consider the enormous impact of government subsidies (both local and federal). Three quarters of George W. Bush's net worth comes from just such a subsidy. See David Cay Johnston's "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)" ... posted 03/31/2008 at 13:43:00

Let's see, so it's those hispanics who are to blame for illegal immigration. Oh sure, we shipped subsidized Iowa corn down to Mexico, where half the population gets by on less than $4 a day, bankrupting a lot of subsistence farmers, sending them to "gringolandia" where they can get work and feed their families, but you see it's *their* fault.

And of course the penalties for crack cocaine (what the blacks use) are draconian compared to those for powdered cocaine (what whites use), but it's *their* fault for being incarcerated.

And law enforcement, schools, and other public amenities have been denied blacks for literally centuries (blacks first got welfare in 1964, by some accounts), and it's *their* fault.

Uneven law enforcement, healtcare, educational opportunities, job discrimination...all that stuff is *their* fault.

Montisqueue said "The law in its great equanimity forbids rich and poor alike from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges." There's probably some corollary for race in America too.

And racism has cost whites, too. We don't have single-payer healthcare because racist dixiecrats in congress were concerned that federally-sponsored healthcare would integrate their hospitals.

We have sprawl because red-lining in federally-sponsored lending programs de-funded inner cities and funded white flight. This is especially egregious because sprawl means we *must* burn more petroleum just to get around, and transit is locked out, by design. posted 03/27/2008 at 11:02:37

You're wrong. Oilfields as massive as Iraq's (potential) take literally decades to really produce. The ANWR fields have none of Iraq's security -- and even their owners say it will take a decade to get production from those fields if drilling is ever permitted.

Of course the big prize sought by the neocons is access to Iraqi oil after the Saudi oilfields pass their peak (some say it's already happened). Unfortunately, this does nothing for global warming, or for the U.S.'s appetite for petroleum. If we were to ignore conservation (an obvious solution) then resource wars ad infinitum lie down that path.

Do we pay the military costs of petroleum at the pump now? No. Would gas still be relatively cheap if we did? No.

Could we actually undertake a conservation project that would cut our fuel consumption in half? Europe and Japan use half the energy the U.S. does per dollar of GDP. Could we do that and spend the trillions more to get Iraqi oil online? Not even close.

Could we turn this society toward conservation without sacrifice? That's completely unbelievable. But have we done so before? Yes; remember that automobile production ceased during World War II.

Between the civilization-ending apocalyptic possibilities of peak oil and climate change, we certainly have the motivation. Can the population of the U.S. set aside its distractions long enough to disperse the delusion that we will always have the lifestyle we have now? That's the real question. posted 03/26/2008 at 14:20:09

Good point. Where do we make our statement? Candidate websites?

BTW, the "cheerleader" metaphor goes with the Reagan / Bush / Cheney definition of "victory" in Iraq. You know, a stage-managed end-zone dance, with confetti, toppling Saddam statues, and Chimpy McCokespoon in a flight suit on a carrier declaring that major military operations are over.

The alternative is what adults crave. It's the victory where people overcome their own prejudices to say "Hey! We made a mistake!" and "How do we make amends?" A repentant American public, undeterred by the temptations of stage-managed triumphs, would be the real victory. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:56:03

The missing ingredient in this post is the way white people have suffered from racism. Paul Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal" says the reason the U.S. doesn't have single-payer healthcare is that the southern dixiecrats were worried that it would integrate hospitals. So now we have the most expensive healthcare on the planet -- nearly twice as expensive as single-payer plans -- that provides outcomes (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.) that lead the World Health Organization to rank U.S. healthcare 37th in the world. The Sacramento Bee says the U.S. has outcomes roughly equivalent to Puerto Rico's, but pays six times more for the privilege.

A subtler cost is the prevalence of sprawl. When 30-year mortgages first became available, lenders "red-lined" central city areas so they didn't get loans and deteriorated. This accelerated white flight to the suburbs, and destroyed central cities all over the U.S.

This is particularly bad because those central cities are what makes transit viable. Single-occupant auto commutes are a huge consumer of petroleum (the U.S. burns 70% of its petroleum on transportation), and now they're literally cast in concrete in our cities.

Racism hurts *everybody* posted 03/26/2008 at 12:11:35

Herbert Hoover provided a better response to a hurricane similar to Katrina that hit New Orleans in 1927. The difference? He only had horses an buggies. Let's not lose sight of the Federal response here.

InformedMisery's point is the typical right-wing half truth. The full truth is that Brownie was qualified to head the Arabian horse association, not FEMA, and the incompetent response of the Feds was to evict blacks from desirable development property, and line the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater. Read Naomi Klein's "Baghdad, Year Zero" article (it's on the internets) for the full story.

Not to defend Louisiana politics (they're very, very corrupt, and have been for a long time). posted 03/26/2008 at 12:05:20

You don't mention that Bush 41 did exactly the same thing to Clinton, snooping in his passport file in hopes of discovering some dirt -- for example, did Bill apply to renounce his citizenship?

This kind of crooked subverting of the mechanism of government is exactly what is one of the big issues in this presidential election. Minimizing it misses the point. posted 03/25/2008 at 16:04:12

Of the Bush administration's stated 18 goals for "the surge," three have been realized. If you were scoring an exam where you got three out of 18 questions right, would you get an A+? posted 03/24/2008 at 21:48:11

Redefining the definition of "Victory in Iraq" is what is needed. The Bush/Cheney crowd believes that what this war needs is an end-zone dance -- you know like the ones football players do after they score a touchdown -- only this one would be accompanied by toppling Saddam statues. posted 03/24/2008 at 17:07:37

Exactly correct, both in analysis and solution. posted 03/24/2008 at 15:47:31