A robust and meaningful way

The House passed the “Second Amendment Enforcement Act” to overturn gun control in D.C., banning D.C. from imposing such restrictions as proficiency or vision, and allowing guns, assault rifles, etc to be owned by people convicted of violent crimes, etc. Naturally, George Bush, who has been known to shut down whole cities to preserve his own security, welcomed the bill and demanded the Senate also pass it, “to ensure that the residents of the District are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights in a robust and meaningful way.” As in, hand over your wallet or I will exercise my Second Amendment rights in a robust and meaningful way.

Presumably the prospect of exercising his Second Amendment rights in a robust and meaningful way explains the expression on Cheney’s face at an Oval Office event this morning.


Later, Bush celebrated the most awkward day on the White House calendar, Iftaar. He talked about the many contributions of Muslim-Americans, pointing out a guy working on devices to allow quadriplegics to operate wheelchairs and computers. But of course it was Muslims in the US military, not that guy, who he said “represent the best of our nation.”


He said that his administration has “partnered with Muslims around the world to spread freedom to millions of people who have never known it before.” Well, certainly a lot more Muslims around the world seem to be exercising their Second Amendment rights in a robust and meaningful way.

Lord make a way

Palin and the witch-hunter.

Secretary of War Robert Gates in Afghanistan, offering his “personal regrets” for all the civilians we keep bombing: “While no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder.” Really, no military? Because the Swiss Army has been preventing civilian casualties quite effectively lately by not, you know, invading anybody.

Nov. 2008 California proposition recommendations

Official results. Results below, in purple.

Abortions, high-speed trains, gay marriage, renewable energy and chicken cages. It could only be another California ballot.

---

Prop. 1A. The, and I quote, “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.” Which are safe, reliable and high-speed – the passengers, the trains, the bonds, or the act?

Look, I like safe, reliable, high-speed passengers as much as the next person, and choo-choos are nice too, but I object to all bonds as a method of funding state projects, 1) on pragmatic grounds: they’re an expensive form of finance, with almost as much going to interest, which is just money flushed down the toilet, as is spent on anything productive, 2) on fairness grounds: they’re regressive, giving undeserved tax deductions to bond purchasers, 3) on principled, democratic grounds: they place tax obligations on the future generations that have to pay them off, which amounts to taxation without representation.

Beyond that, the money would be spent mostly or entirely on purely preliminary work on a bunch of projects, most of which will never be built – a high-speed train from Merced to Stockton to San Francisco? I don’t think so. Most of the list is bait and switch, just there to attract voters in those areas. At best, 1A would provide seed money for a possible LA-SF train that would require a lot more money and federal backing to have any chance of becoming a reality. No on 1A.

Yes, 52%.

---

Prop. 2. For better treatment of farm animals (until we kill them and eat them, anyway), mostly in the form of improved housing. Yes.

Yes, 63%. Californians love their chickens.

---

Prop. 3. Children’s hospital bonds. See 1A for my argument against any bond act. In addition, there seems to be an excess of micro-management here, such as naming diseases that the hospitals should be focused on. Like 99% of voters, I lack the medical expertise to decide which diseases should be prioritized now, and no one can predict what the situation will be 5 or 10 or 15 years from now. I’m also not sure whether children’s health in this state is best served by focusing funding on a small number of children’s hospitals (some of which are private hospitals). No.
Yes, 55%. Californians are, well, okay with their children.

---

Prop. 4. Parental notification of abortion for minors, and a 48-hour waiting period.

Speaking of waiting periods, we voted down this exact measure in 2006 and 2005. I’d be against this anyway: parents should no more be able to force their daughters to carry a pregnancy to term than to force them to abort against their will. But this version also has problems with the way the judicial-bypass alternative is set up: it can take so long that parental notification might become, well, redundant; and if there is any sort of abuse, including “emotional abuse,” the girl must make a written statement (is this really the time to be giving her homework?), which will be passed on to the cops or Protective Services, a provision which seems less about protecting abused pregnant minors than it is a “nuclear option” designed to raise the stakes for girls opting for abortion.

The supporters of Prop. 4 have revamped their argument this time around. In 2005 and 2006, identical ballot arguments made clear their hostility to promiscuous little trollops: “When parents are involved and minors cannot anticipate secret access to free abortions they more often avoid the reckless behavior which leads to pregnancies.” Because that didn’t work, this time around they’re claiming to be concerned primarily with protecting the young Junos from sexual predators who impregnate them and then drag them off to abortion clinics. They claim, without any proof or logic, that “These laws reduce teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, without danger or harm to minors,” they claim that law enforcement supports this initiative, and they keep repeating the phrase “secret abortions,” as opposed to abortions carried out in the food court at the local mall, I suppose.

This is dangerous and stupid, and should be defeated by a large enough majority that we don’t have to see it again in 2010. No.

No, 52%, not as large as I'd have liked.

---

Prop. 5. More drug addiction treatment, including for prisoners, less imprisonment for non-violent drug offenders, decriminalization of marijuana possession. Yes, why don’t we try something that’s cheaper and more likely to succeed than what we’ve been doing?

No, 60%. Californians love their prisons.

---

Prop. 6. Spending minimums for criminal justice programs; more jail time for certain crimes.

The spending part is more micromanaging of the budget, which is supposed to be the Legislature’s job (yeah I know, I know, but just because they haven’t been doing it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be doing it). Nor should we be setting in stone how the budget should be allocated in the future. We don’t know what future needs will be, and it’s undemocratic to take decisions, especially budgetary decisions, out of the hands of our elected representatives in the future. No taxation without representation and all that.

The increased penalties are draconian, sometimes ridiculously, like life imprisonment for gang members who threaten witnesses or break into homes,. Plus a new crime of failing to register with the police as a gang member. And increased sentences (as much as ten years) for various crimes if performed by gang members. Presumably the police get to decide who is a gang member, which is a lot of power for them to abuse. Juvenile gang members to be tried in adult courts; increased use of hearsay evidence in court; cracking down on graffiti; you name it, really, the list goes on and on.

Mean-spirited, reactionary, self-defeating, stupid, and I can’t even imagine how much it would cost to implement. No.

No, 69%. Funny: mean-spirited, reactionary, self-defeating, stupid law 'n order measures usually do better than this.

---

Prop. 7. Requires power companies to increase the amount of energy derived from renewable energy sources.

Gosh, a proposition that requires us to be experts on both the science of cutting-edge renewable-energy technologies and the economics of the electricity market. Fortunately, the legislative analyst is there to help: “The PUC has set the amount of the penalties at 5 cents per kilowatt hour by which the IOU or ESP falls short of its RPS target...” Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. or Ms. Legislative Analyst.

Of course we don’t have the expertise to decide on this, so the authors of 7 blizzard us with details and hope we’ll just assume that anything environmental-sounding must be good. Now, I’m all for renewable energy, but I don’t trust that Prop 7 is the way to achieve it. I don’t know if the targets it sets make sense. I don’t like Californians taking the financial hit alone (the claim of supporters that it would increase electric bills by no more than 3% per year is just a claim; it’s not actually in the initiative anywhere) for an issue that should be addressed at the national level. I’m not sure why the authority to set rates would shift from the PUC to the Energy Commission, or the reason for the insistence that contracts be for more than 20 years when technological innovations might change the situation completely. This sort of massive transformation needs to be overseen and tweaked as needed, not set in stone. And smaller power generators, especially solar, do seem to be locked out completely for no good reason.

This seems like the wrong means to a commendable end. No.

No, 65%, with all the environmental groups joining the energy companies in opposition.

---

Prop. 8. “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Excuse me for the pedantry, but I just have to criticize the grammar. For a start, as written, it says that “marriage between a man and a woman” is literally the only thing at all, of the myriad of things under the sun, which will be valid or recognized (the sun won’t be valid or recognized either). That’s an interesting epistemological statement, although not perhaps one best argued in a voter pamphlet. The bad grammar results from the authors being unwilling to acknowledge the existence of gay people, much less to use the sacred word “marriage” to describe the relationship between gay people, leaving them unable to name the thing that they wish to ban. “Only marriages between a man and a woman, and not Abominations Unto the Lord, are valid and recognized in the God-Fearing State of California” might sound a little, I don’t know, unkind.

I don’t think I need to make an elaborate argument here; you probably know what you think. But remember, this is about policy, not your personal comfort zone. It doesn’t matter whether gay marriage makes you uncomfortable any more than whether you think Bristol Palin is marrying the high school dropout who knocked her up for all the wrong reasons and it’ll never work out. It’s the state’s job to register marriages, not judge them. And it is, or should be, the function of the state constitution to entrench rights, not discrimination.No.

Yes, 52.5%. Californians love their gays, but not in, you know, that way. The way that gives them equal rights, that is.

---

Prop. 9. Increases the role of crime victims in parole and bail decisions. Other provisions would interfere with the right to a fair trial, such as giving victims the ability to prevent the defense receiving certain information about them. Yet other details are designed to disadvantage people in relation to the state, such as removing the right to counsel in parole-revocation hearings. Time between parole hearings would be greatly increased. And there’s something about “finality” in criminal proceedings; I’ve read the initiative’s text and I still have no idea what if anything is meant by that.

Victims of crime already have the “rights” to be informed of parole hearings and speak at them. Those parts of Prop. 9 are redundant, window dressing to obscure the new provisions, which are all aimed at reducing the rights of defendants and prisoners and making the criminal justice system an instrument of personal vengeance rather than public order and rehabilitation. No.

Yes, 53.5%. I'm hoping some of this gets thrown out in court.

---

Prop. 10. Bonds for alternative fuels and cars run by alternative fuels, mostly in the form of rebates, with a bit of solar and wind thrown in.

I oppose this one because it is funded by bonds (see Prop. 1A above), but also because I don’t think rebates are what will got more alternative-fuel-powered cars on the road, since even $5,000 won’t begin to make them competitive (and there’s nothing to stop manufacturers and dealers raising prices and pocketing the money themselves). And as it happens, most of the money wouldn’t go to cars but to trucks, run on natural gas, which isn’t the most eco-friendly fuel either. In other words, Prop. 10, backed by T. Boone Pickens, would fund the wrong solutions, and subsidize his business interests. No.

No, 60%.

---

Prop. 11. Redistricting. Again!

These little schemes are always like one of those complicated board games where by the time you’ve read through all the rules, everyone’s cranky and no one wants to play it anymore. Redistricting for the US Congress would remain as now, except that the Legislature would be asked to take into account “communities of interest,” whatever that means (the prop. doesn’t say!). For the Legislature, there would be a citizens’ commission. Anybody who hasn’t held office, been a lobbyist or contributed lots of money to a candidate in the last ten years, or changed their party registration in the past five, could apply to join, although I have no idea who would. Then, three faceless state bureaucrats narrow the applicants down to 60 based on their intelligence and “appreciation of California’s diversity,” whatever that might mean; then leaders of the Legislature would strike out 24; then 8 names would be drawn out of a hat and those 8 would pick 6 more. In total, they would have to be 5 Dems, 5 Reps, and 4 small party or non-party. Which presumably means that if those 8 chosen at random happened to include, say, 5 Democrats, a Green and 2 non-party, they would get to choose the Republican members. And hilarity ensues. To be approved, a plan would require 9 votes, including 3 R’s, 3 D’s and 3 others.

Even if I had any confidence that a group of people so chosen could produce a fair electoral map, and agree on it, which I don’t, I’d still have a major problem with it: by insisting that panel members’ primary qualification should be their party affiliation, this measure enshrines the two parties at the heart of the redistricting process, thereby doing exactly what the current system is rightly criticized for doing, protecting the interests of the two-party establishment and trying to pre-determine the outcomes of elections. But the Republican and Democratic parties are not branches of government or established religions, so they should not be officially entrenched in the constitution. If the measure instead called for the commission to have set numbers of Methodists, Catholics and Episcopalians, or whites, blacks and Hispanics, there would be outrage. So why should party be privileged? And as party identification continues to decline in this state, with fewer people voting the straight party ticket and only 77% registered as R’s or D’s, there is less and less justification for institutionalizing the two parties. No.

Yes, 50.6%.

---

Prop. 12. Bonds for loans to veterans to buy homes. Most of my objections to bonds don’t apply here, since the veterans will be the ones paying off the bonds and the interest. So you can vote for it if you like.

Yes, 63.5%.

---

Comments and rebuttals are welcome; sarcastic remarks about Californian participatory democracy are... probably inevitable.

(UPDATE: for well thought-out recommendations by people who mostly agree with me, see Kevin Drum, whose argument that Prop. 5 is not well-drafted and should not be set in stone in case in case it works out badly in practice is fairly convincing, enough so that I will probably flip-flop on this one several times between now and election day; the SF Bay Guardian; and Greenboy at Needlenose, whose recommendations have the virtue of coming in limerick form.)

Obviously going to see a devastated part of this fantastic state

Today Bush went to Houston to examine Hurricane Ike damage.

WHAT ENERGY COMPANIES INSTINCTIVELY WANT TO DO: “Secondly, obviously people are concerned about electricity and, you know, the -- what I look for, is there enough help to get these energy companies to do what they instinctively want to do, which is get the grid up again.”

THE DEMAND HAS BEEN MET EXCEPT WHERE IT HASN’T BEEN: “Thus far -- I know there are some shortages [in water and fuel], but thus far the demand has been met”.

WHERE GEORGE IS FIXIN’ TO GO AND WHAT HE’S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO SEE: “We’re fixing to go down to Galveston and obviously are going to see a devastated part of this fantastic state.”


WHAT HE’LL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO: “And it’ll give the Governor and me and the Congressmen and Senator and others a chance to express our heartfelt sympathies for those whose lives have been, you know, disrupted.”

WHAT GEORGE HOPES: “You know, I hope that the country does not have disaster fatigue.”

He is the Lion King

I know it’s George Bush’s function in life always to be the goofiest-looking guy in any photo, but some days it must be more difficult than others. Still, he always rises to the challenge.

Is there nothing John McCain cannot do?

Not only does McCain know how to win wars and how to capture bin Laden, but evidently he can “fix” the economy too: “And I know how to fix it, and I know how to get things done.”

Bedtime for bonzos

Four San Diego firefighters are suing the city for sexual harassment because they were ordered to ride their fire truck in a gay pride parade where they were subjected to, gasp, catcalls and sexually suggestive comments, which caused them to feel demeaned and oddly aroused.

So what if Sarah Palin had an expensive tanning bed installed in the governor’s mansion?


I mean, do you know how expensive it was for McCain to install an appropriate bed in every one of his homes?

Soundness and resilience

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s mouth says that Americans can be confident in the “soundness and resilience in the American financial system” (or at least what’s left of it). But what does his face say?

Maybe certain

Have I missed something, or did we just go a day without a new Sarah Palin scandal?

Thought for the Day: Although they have very different personalities, Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin are four of the most self-regarding people on the planet.

The National Hurricane Center said that Galveston residents who don’t evacuate “may face certain death.” Is that the same as saying they definitely face uncertain death?

From H.P. Lovecraft’s Brief Tenure as a Whitman’s Sampler Copywriter: “Toffee Nugget: Few men dare ask the question ‘What is toffee, exactly?’ All those who have investigated this substance are now either dead or insane.” More.

Sarah Palin speaks: A culture of life is best for America

More of the Sarah Palin interview (and more later).

Asked what three things she would change from the Bush admin’s economic policy, she said lower taxes, “control” spending, reform oversight. Clearly, two weeks of cramming has totally paid off for Sarah. What cuts would she make? She’d find “efficiencies.” Phew, and I thought massive budget cuts to fund tax breaks for the rich would actually, you know, affect some people.

OF WHAT THERE’S NO DOUBT IN ANYBODY’S MIND NOW ACROSS AMERICA: “There’s no doubt in anybody’s mind now across America, who’s paying attention to the presidential race here, that I am a Washington outsider.” That’s not actually a qualification, you know.

Well, okay, sure, she admits, finally, she was in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere: “I was for infrastructure being built in the state.”


Abortion (on which Gibson noted that she does not support allowing abortions for victims of rape and incest, but failed to ask her about it): “I think that a culture of life is best for America. What I want to do... be able to reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life.” Yeah, because her position is all about “empowering” women to embrace other alternatives, like, for instance, raising her rapist’s child.

“Q: Homosexuality, genetic or learned? PALIN: Oh, I don’t -- I don’t know, but I’m not one to judge and, you know, I’m from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds and I’m not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I’m not going to judge them.” As opposed to actual homosexuals, who will burn in the fiery pits of Hell forever and ever.

On supporting semiautomatic assault weapons: “I believe strongly in our Second Amendment rights. That’s kind of inherent in the people of my state who rely on guns for not just self-protection, but also for our hunting and for sports, also. It’s a part of a culture here in Alaska.” Not, presumably, the culture of life that’s best for America. Also, hunting and sports require assault weapons? Those moose must be tougher than I thought.

Asked about Troopergate, she kept referring to “the trooper in question” or “a state trooper” or “a trooper who was making threats against the first family,” rather than as her sister’s ex-husband (much less by name). She’s horrified that he still has a job, that he’s “still out there”: “It amazes me still to think we cannot have very, very high standards for our troopers, for anybody in public service, certainly though, those who have a badge and carry a gun.” I thought she supported everybody’s right to carry semiautos?

Curiously, she claimed that the personnel board which she wants to investigate Troopergate rather than the state legislature is not, contrary to what everybody’s been reporting for the last two weeks, entirely appointed by herself. She says they were all appointed by previous governors.

Says never tried to ban books, that’s an “old wive’s tale.”

People who’ve taken risk in order to realize dream

McCain says again (video) that Palin knows more about energy than probably anyone else in America. Take that, Daniel Yergin!

Frankie Boyle, on Mock the Week, on global warming: The Eskimoes have 600 words for “we’re fucked.”

Hugh Dennis, on the same program, on the way McCain looks at Palin: He looks like he wants to “shoot her moose.”

Bush spoke in Oklahoma City this morning to “small business owners -- people who’ve taken risk in order to realize dream”.

Why Oklahoma City? Because they’re ignorant hillbillies (he said it, not me): “In Oklahoma a lot of people don’t know about health saving accounts, and one of the reason I’ve come down to this part of the country is because I do want people to understand they’re available and they’re good.”

Asked about the Palin interview, he quickly invoked his “no question policy,” then said, “She did just fine.” Maybe she even realized dream.

Not as governor she didn’t

The AP is getting better: “John McCain said Friday running mate Sarah Palin has never asked for money for lawmakers’ pet projects as Alaska governor when in fact she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year. ... When pressed about Palin’s record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said: ‘Not as governor she didn’t.’”

Sarah Palin: You can’t blink

The first part of Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin aired tonight (no full transcript; quotes in this post come from the excerpts and my own transcription).

NO BLINKING!: “I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.” McCain blinks enough for both of them.

DON’T YOU HATE IT WHEN THERE’S NOTHING NEW ON TV? “We will not repeat a Cold War.”

SHE’S THE REMINDERER: “We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.”

By the end of this meandering mish-mash of a sentence, she’s forgotten that Ukraine and Georgia are not yet members of NATO: “But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.”

Since she supports enlarging NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia, Gibson asks if it’s worth going to war with Russia if it invades Georgia again: “What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against.” So is that a maybe?

WHAT WE’VE GOT TO KEEP ON RUSSIA: “And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable.” She repeated “we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia.” And she’s just the person to do it: “You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”

She avoided answering whether the US should restore Georgian control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Said we shouldn’t “second guess” any Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.


The funniest part was when Gibson asked her if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Clearly stumped, she asked, “In what respect, Charlie?” To give him credit, he didn’t immediately throw her a life-line, but asked “What do you interpret it to be?” Only when she started going on about Bush’s “world view” did he help her out a little. When he finally explained the whole preemptive war thing, she was of course totally on board. But let me repeat, she had never heard of the Bush Doctrine, and her attempt at fudging it by talking in generalities also indicated that she didn’t know that presidential doctrines in foreign policy – the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, etc – are kind of a, you know, thing.

Oh, and we should totally invade or bomb Pakistan without its government’s permission if necessary because we must not, you guessed it, blink.

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you

Sarah Palin, at a rally earlier this week: “Since my own running-mate won’t say this on his own behalf, I’m gonna have to say it for him. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you. That man is John McCain.” Yeah, he’s just so reticent about claiming to be the only man in this election who has ever really fought for you.

Today, Bush went to a memorial event at the Pentagon, so he could look all squinty and somber-like.


Meanwhile, in New York, McCain hugged a construction worker while holding a flower. No, it wasn’t a 9/11 event; he just likes to hug construction workers while holding a flower.

Still here?

The Large Hadron Collider did not destroy the world today. Stephen Hawking said it wouldn’t, and it didn’t. I suppose that’s a good thing, but I can’t help feeling a little disappointed. It sounded quite exciting.

On the one hand, you see the horrors of war

Bush visited Walter Reed today. The hospital, not the middle school. After visiting some patients – after, mind you, he said, “I’ve also come to pay my respects to family members that are praying that their loved one can get back on their feet and serve again, or get back on their feet and live a normal life.”


Captain Oblivious strikes again.

Indeed, as ever he showed no signs of having registered that the catastrophic wounds he witnessed had anything to do with any decisions he might have made, but he did find everything... interesting. “It’s -- this is a interesting experience because, on the one hand, you see the horrors of war; on the other hand, you see the courage of the people that have volunteered to serve.”

HE MARVELS: “I marvel when I come to Walter Reed, I marvel at the fact that people say to me, Mr. President, I’d do it again.”

YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE SEVERELY INJURED SOLDIERS ARE? LUCKY, THAT’S WHAT. “And, General, we’re lucky -- and they’re lucky -- to have health care that can provide for the wounded and provide comfort to those who need the care.”

Every so often this just has to be said: Fuck you, George Bush.

Afghan fighters are good fighters

Follow-up: Thai Prime Minister Samak has been ordered by a court to step down because of his cooking show “Tasting and Grumbling.”

Today Bush spoke at the National Defense University.

WHAT IT TURNS OUT: “I am pleased to be back at the National Defense University again. It turns out this is my fifth visit as President.”

I’M SURE THEY’RE ALL THRILLED ABOUT IT TOO: “You know, one of the great things about being the Commander-in-Chief is to be the Commander-in-Chief of people who have volunteered to serve our country in a time of danger.”


AND THE ACTIVITIES TOO: “Yesterday, Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus reported to me via STVS that they had just gone into a market area, and seen the commerce and the activities.”

He announced that he was sending more troops to Afghanistan, which is experiencing what he has taken to calling a “quiet surge.” A quiet surge that includes greatly stepping up the number of quiet air strikes.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE: “And for all the good work we’ve done in that country, it is clear we must do even more. As we learned in Iraq, the best way to restore the confidence of the people is to restore basic security -- and that requires more troops. I’m announcing today additional American troop deployments to Afghanistan.” Because nothing says basic security like foreign troops storming through your country.

WHAT HAS BEEN THE CASE THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF WARFARE: “Regrettably, there will be times when our pursuit of the enemy will result in accidental civilian deaths. This has been the case throughout the history of warfare.” So that’s okay then. “Our nation mourns the loss of every innocent life.” So that’s okay then. “Every grieving family has the sympathy of the American people.” So that’s okay then.


WHAT AFGHAN FIGHTERS ARE: “Afghan fighters are good fighters.”

“In the period ahead, we will once again encourage Afghan security forces and Afghan tribes to take a leading role in the building of a democratic Afghanistan.” Because nothing says democracy like tribalism and the involvement of security forces in politics.

There are citizens who say, I need love

How many people does the US have to kill inside Pakistan before it counts as a war?

Journalism as it should be done: alongside a story about the investigation that Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej’s cooking show violated the constitution because he was paid for it, the Guardian includes his recipe for pigs’ legs in Coca Cola.

Master criminal of the day, from the AP:

Fresno County authorities have arrested a man they say broke into the home of two farmworkers, rubbed one with spices and whacked the other with a sausage before fleeing.

Fresno County sheriff’s Lt. Ian Burrimond says 22-year-old Antonio Vasquez of Fresno was found hiding in a nearby field wearing only a T-shirt, boxer shorts and socks.

Burrimond said Vasquez was arrested after deputies found a wallet containing his ID at the ransacked house just east of Fresno.

The victims told deputies they awoke Saturday morning to the stranger applying spices to one of them and striking the other with an 8-inch sausage.

Burrimond said money allegedly stolen in the burglary was recovered. The sausage was tossed away by the fleeing suspect and eaten by a dog.

Today Bush met a bunch of volunteers on the White House lawn.

WHAT IS A JOY: “It is a joy to be here with members of the armies of compassion.” He came with some members of the other kind of army.


WHAT EVIL MAY DO: “Evil may crush concrete and twist steel, but it can never break the spirit of the American people.”

IN OTHER WORDS: “In other words, we used high-tech innovations to be able to channel people’s desire to serve in a constructive way.”

FROM BIG BROTHERS TO BIG BROTHER: “Another key component of USA Freedom Corps is our effort to keep track of Americans’ service to others. I mean, it’s one thing to talk about it, it’s another thing to measure, to kind of see how we’re doing.”


IN OTHER WORDS: “After 9/11, we tried to make this program [AmeriCorps] more effective -- in other words, to help the dollars allocated go further.”

WHAT THE PEACE CORPS DOES A FABULOUS JOB OF: “I mean, we are a compassionate nation and the Peace Corps does a fabulous job of advancing that compassion.”

WHAT SOME PANTSLESS CITIZENS SAY: “There are citizens who say, I need love.”

One maverick, two....

McCain keeps calling McCain-Palin a “team of mavericks.” Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?


And as long as we’re on the subject, when McCain talks about himself as a maverick, he means to depict himself as one who bucked his party leaders, but isn’t he also saying that in his 25 years in Congress he has been unable to convince anyone (besides Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman) to follow him? Isn’t “maverick” another way of saying “failed leader”?

Different kinds of experiences in life

Saturday, CNN interviewed Condi Rice in Libya, where she had just had a major revelation: “Do you know when I felt it? I felt it when the airplane touched down. There was something about the United States of America plane touching down in Tripoli. That’s when it struck me that 55 years was a long time.”

Asked about the relevance of Libya having a shitload of oil to the US reestablishing ties with it: “And there’s nothing wrong with that. You know, we do need – we absolutely need reliable sources of oil and gas from diverse sources.” Diverse sources ranging from the mildly evil to the incredibly evil.

Asked about Sarah Palin’s foreign-policy experience: “There are different kinds of experiences in life that help one to deal with matters of foreign policy.” She was not asked what kinds of experiences in life Palin has that would help her deal with matters of foreign policy.