I'd rather blog than watch this farce currently on TV:

As if our soldiers don't have enough to contend with over there, now they have to worry about bird flu.... (By the way, what does this mean for soldiers returning back to the U.S.? Could one of them potentially introduce this flu into the country?)

Global warming and pollution know no boundaries:

Nor does China's air pollution respect borders: on certain days almost 25 percent of the particulate matter clotting the skies above Los Angeles can be traced to China, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental experts in California predict that China could eventually account for roughly a third of the state's air pollution.

Does this administration have blood on its hands, this time from the mining tragedy?

After one of the deadliest months for coal mining in years, federal mine regulators last week began formally considering safety improvements to help miners survive underground fires and explosions. Among the proposals: mandatory caches of oxygen tanks and breathing masks inside every coal mine.

The idea may have struck some miners as familiar, because it was. A similar proposal was put forward by the same regulators six years ago, only to be scrapped by the Bush administration shortly after it took office. And the oxygen caches were not the only proposed safety improvement to be withdrawn.

In all, the Bush administration abandoned or delayed implementation of 18 proposed safety rules that were in the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration's regulatory pipeline in early 2001, a review of agency records shows.

The US government is now operating in technical default.

Kevin Drum writes about the LA Times story that reports the Army is promoting an increasing number of less-than-stellar candidates into senior positions. As one nameless officer put it, "The problem here is that you're not knocking off the bottom 20%.... Basically, if you haven't been court-martialed, you're going to be promoted to major." Kevin comments, "I wouldn't have expected an occupation of 150,000 soldiers for three years to have caused as much stress as it has."

His assumed sarcasm aside, the problem here is it's not just any old occupation that has served as a catalyst for this stress. Rather, it's specifically this Iraq occupation -- and all the deception and lies and question marks that go with it. It's for these reasons recruiting has plummeted and consequently the quality of a typical sign-up today is lower when compared to recruits in the past.

In effect, it's just another repercussion of Bush's covert decision to attack a nation based on shoddy intel and trumped-up charges. Our future military will suffer due to the decline in quality and excellence that we're witnessing in the here and now. As a result, soldiers will die due to the increase in ineptitude. Via attrition, mediocrity will rise to the top and everyone will ultimately pay for this unfortunate trend -- many with their lives.

In the NY Observer, a segment from Fred Kaplan's review of James Risen's book, State of War:

Maybe the biggest jaw-dropper comes in Chapter 4, “The Hunt for WMD.” It’s about Dr. Sawsan Alhaddad, a woman in her 50’s, now living in Cleveland, Ohio, who escaped Saddam’s Iraq 27 years ago. In May 2002, a C.I.A. agent tracked her down and asked her to go back to Baghdad and do a little espionage. Her brother, who still lived there, had worked in Saddam’s nuclear-weapons program in the 1980’s and early 90’s. The C.I.A. wanted her to ask him a series of questions about the program’s current status and to offer him refuge in the United States. Bravely, she made the trip, asked the questions (usually on long walks, at night) and learned that the program had been dead for a decade. She went back to the States and told her case officers the news. But the C.I.A. waved it off; her brother, they said, was obviously lying.

Then Mr. Risen adds the kicker. The C.I.A. had persuaded the exiled relatives of 30 Iraqi weapons scientists to make the risky trip back to their homeland. All of them came back with the same story: Iraq had no nuclear program. This was an amazing treasure trove of intelligence at a time when the C.I.A., which had no spies on the ground, was straining to learn all it could about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And yet the information was dismissed, ignored. Nothing about the 30 relatives was ever passed on to the State Department, the Pentagon or the White House. Nor were their findings incorporated into the C.I.A.’s own National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s W.M.D., written a mere month later, which concluded, on nothing particularly solid, that Iraq “is reconstituting its nuclear program.”

Mr. Risen lays out a dozen similar instances of reality slamming into Team Bush’s assumptions—and the assumptions emerging unruffled. Time and again, officials who raised doubts were flung to the sidelines, while those who got with the program and clamped on their blinders won promotions.

Another amazing story along these lines dates from June 2003, after U.S. forces in Iraq captured Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, Saddam Hussein’s personal secretary. This was such a huge find—Mr. Hamid had been designated the “Ace of Diamonds” in U.S. Central Command’s deck of 52 most-wanted Saddamites—that the C.I.A. assigned its best Arabic speaker to conduct the interrogation. Mr. Hamid revealed two key things: First, Saddam had not been at Dora Farms the night that President Bush, acting on Mr. Tenet’s urgings, launched a cruise-missile strike on the farm, starting the war a bit earlier than planned, in hopes of decapitating the regime from the get-go. Second, there was no W.M.D. program. The C.I.A. bosses concluded that Mr. Hamid was lying, blamed their top-notch interrogator for going too easy on him and replaced her.

Just incredible. For the millionth time, if it was Clinton....

In the latest Forbes magazine (Feb. 13), within Steve Forbes column is the caption:

Alito opponents, such as Senator Ted Kennedy, employed methods reminiscent of smearmeister Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s.

Just thought you'd want to know.

Jack Abramoff's dad recently criticized George Clooney for his pretty lame joke at the Golden Globe ceremonies.

Frank Abramoff wrote a heated letter to The Desert Sun calling Clooney's remark "obscene." It's completely understandable for a father to defend his son, but c'mon Frank, me thinks doth protest a bit too much given the circumstances at hand. Your son has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors after admitting to numerous crimes committed. He has become the poster-boy of what's wrong in Washington, DC. And yet you had this to say in your open letter:

We have had to endure two years of unmitigated, outrageous falsehood directed at my son and his record of achievement on behalf of his clients and friends. The blood thirsty media, guilty of untold character assassinations during contemporary times, have even outdone themselves in their lust to create a cartoon which does not come close to resembling this fine man, my son.

What? Sorry Frank but it appears your pangs of fatherly obligation and duty have clouded your ability to see reality -- the good, the bad, and the ugly. By no means is your son a saint. Jack himself has basically admitted to this fact. With that being the case, how about offering up some sobering words that simply don't condemn Hollywood (quite hackneyed, mind you) but instead go further and make known your disappointment in Jack.

It would be different if Jack didn't cave and instead looked to fight all charges against him -- but he didn't. He's likely to face many years in jail with the question being how many. So let's not pretend: he's not such a "fine man" and until you at least fess up that much, I for one can't offer you much sympathy when he's ridiculed.

In today's NY Times, another example of this administration silencing government officials who speak the truth based on science and facts:

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.... Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.... Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, is a leading authority on the earth's climate system.... Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.
<..>
The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."
<..>
In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.
<..>
The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.

Doctor-shopper Limbaugh has asserted that the artic is not melting due to global warming but rather is expanding!

From Al Franken's blog:

Contrary to Rush Limbaugh's assertion that "The artic ice sheet’s getting bigger," experts at the US National Snow and Data Centre in Colorado say the arctic ice is melting at an alarming rate.

What's incredible is not that Limbaugh would make such an outrageously false statement, but rather that he continues to maintain a large listening audience. There's something deeply wrong with his diehard fans.

From The Progress Report:

Despite the Department of Energy's projections that carbon emissions from the United States are expected to increase 37 percent by 2030, the Bush administration has still not "proposed any comprehensive plan to limit carbon emissions from vehicles, utilities and other sources." The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has reached 380 parts per million (ppm), 27 percent higher than anytime in the past 650,000 years; emissions in 2004 were 16 percent higher than the 1990 emissions levels. The Bush administration's actions on emissions have been woefully inadequate, even though the United States produces 25 percent of carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning, more than the emissions of China, India, and Japan combined. But the states are stepping in where the Bush administration has stepped away, increasingly regulating energy use and emissions. Seven states have signed on a regional plan to restrict power plant emissions and 11 states have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, automobile tailpipe emissions requirements. "What is frustrating is that these things aren't being done on a national basis," said Maine Gov. John E. Baldacci (D).

King George continues to say that if the (illegal) wiretapping had existed pre-2001, it could've detected al-Qaeda activity in the U.S. In fact, in today's press conference he stated, "had we had the capacity to listen to the phone calls from those from San Diego elsewhere, we might have gotten information necessary to prevent the attack." [excuse the grammar but it's a direct quote]

The problem with this latest trotted-out excuse is Bush authorized such wiretapping before 9/11.

Look for another slippery excuse to be manufactured very soon.

Oh, and here's another GW whopper from today's press conference: "No American will be allowed to torture anyone anywhere in the world."

Surprisingly, from the Wall Street Journal (albeit the non-editorial page):

In 1960, the ratio of the average Fortune 500 CEO's pay to the U.S. president's salary was 2-to-1. Today, it is 30-to-1.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Markets, limits his pay to no more than 14 times the pay of his average employee. Mr. Mackey says, 'We have a philosophy of shared fate -- that we're in this together.'

Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch's original retirement package included floor-level seats at the New York Knicks, Grand Tier seating at the Metropolitan Opera, private waitstaff and monthly flower deliveries.

The average CEO's salary in the U.S. is 475 times greater than the average worker's salary. In Japan, it is 11 times greater; in France, 15 times; in Canada, 20; in South Africa, 21, and in Britain, 22

Evidence that K Street is alive and well: in closed session the GOP gift-wraps a $22 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry.

This quote from a Democrat is particularly infuriating:

"It happens in the dead of night when lobbyists get a [Republican lawmaker] in the corner and say, 'We've got to have this,' " said Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (Calif.), the Democrats' point man on Medicare issues. "It's a pattern that just goes on and on, and at some point the public's going to rise up."

Oh really Pete? When? When will the public finally rise up? If they haven't done so already given the numerous transgressions and willful knocks against them, then why should they suddenly revolt anytime soon? And with regards to this latest slimy maneuver, how would the general public even have been made aware of it since it was a closed session, "dead of night" deal?

No Mr. Stark, it's the job of you and your Democratic colleagues to inform the public of such outrageous acts and to do so forcefully and with great passion to fuel the people's rage. As a public servant, you are supposed to clearly and repeatedly let us know when we're getting screwed. Do that enough times and done effectively and then, and only then, can you rightfully expect the public to clamor for change. Short of that occurring, nothing will happen.

It's no wonder this party continues to be one in the minority. They're clueless (and a bit lazy I might add).

The Dirty Secret

A Bush defense for the illegal wiretappings is 9-11, with the obligatory appeal that it changed everything. Yes, once again this tragic event is being used to inch that much closer to a neofascist state in the name of protecting the people.

In reality, this administration is making the case that our Constitution is now antiquated (heck, everything is different now, right?). This document has outlived its usefulness when it comes to a "War on Terror" era. It's apparently understandable to do what's deemed necessary to protect the people -- even if it's unconstitutional or against the rule of law.

So when will King GW & Co. finally come out and make this case? When will they assert for the record that the Constitution is of little use in these dangerous, modern times? When will they propose that the Constitution needs to be changed or updated to better suit our current global reality?

I assure you it won't happen anytime soon, but the weak-kneed Dems should make the above clear to the American public and press the issue.

Mission Accomplished?

BAGHDAD — The number of attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians increased 29% last year.... Insurgents launched 34,131 attacks last year, up from 26,496 the year before, according to U.S. military figures released Sunday.

This guy is going to clean up the House?? Hah!

NY Times: "Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, including five who served Republican presidents, said Wednesday that the Bush administration needed to act more aggressively to limit the emission of greenhouse gases linked to climate change."

Some interesting questions and ponderings regarding the latest Bin Laden tape:

"Back in 2002, the Bush administration was chagrined when the world's foremost voice identification experts, a group in Swizterland called IDIAP analyzed several Bin Laden tapes and concluded that a 'CIA-verified' bin Laden tape was NOT Bin Laden, but someone whose voice patterns resembled the terrorist's. Now again we have a Bin Laden tape that arrives just when Bush needs a 'terrorist diversion.' And once again, we have only the CIA 'experts' verifying the authenticity. So why since 2002 hasn't the IDIAP been called in to verify these always conveniently timed tapes? And why is no CIA expert ever actually named?"

"Duke University Bin Laden expert Bruce Lawrence, who is the head of Duke's religious department, also thinks the tape was faked.... Lawrence has just published 'Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden,' a book translating bin Laden's writing. He is skeptical of Thursday's message.... He thinks bin Laden is dead and has doubts about the tape. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements.

"There's nothing in this from the Koran. He's, by his own standards, a faithful Muslim, " Lawrence said. "He quotes scripture in defense of his actions. There's no quotation from the Koran in the excerpts we got, no reference to specific events, no reference to past atrocities."
<..>
"Another element that Lawrence takes issue with in bin Laden's latest message is it's length - - only 10 minutes. Previously, the shortest was 18 minutes. "

I thought it was an appropriate time to re-post this non-Photoshopped, genuine (see Snopes.com) photo -- speaks volumes:

Want a classic example of how the GOP-led Congress has become one with corporate interests and lobbyists?

Paul Krugman: Thomas Scully was a hospital industry lobbyist before President Bush appointed him to run Medicare. In that job, Mr. Scully famously threatened to fire his chief actuary if he told Congress the truth about cost projections for the Medicare drug program.

Mr. Scully had good reasons not to let anything stand in the way of the drug bill. He had received a special ethics waiver from his superiors allowing him to negotiate for future jobs with lobbying and investment firms - firms that had a strong financial stake in the form of the bill - while still in public office. He left public service, if that's what it was, almost as soon as the bill was passed, and is once again a lobbyist, now for drug companies.

Meanwhile, Representative Billy Tauzin, the bill's point man on Capitol Hill, quickly left Congress once the bill was passed to become president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the powerful drug industry lobby.

If true, this emerging story will (should!) be HUGE:

In an exclusive last night on Air America Radio's The Majority Report, Rep. Louise Slaughter alleged that day-traders had been operating inside the offices of Senator Frist and Congressman Delay. Telling us that her source was "as good as gold," Rep. Slaughter promised to investigate further and get back to us.

"I'm going to track this down, I know it's true," Slaughter told us,"that Frist, DeLay and probably others had some day traders working out of their offices." Those working out of the Congressional offices "would find out there's a bill being written by lobbyists, that there would be no asbestos bill ... and when the market opened the next day, the cost of asbestos stock had doubled."

Even more proof that King GW's spying on US citizens is illegal.

"Judicial activism" only applies to liberal judges. For Scalia & Co., what's it called?

Mark Kleiman: Responding to Mike O'Hare's complaint that justice-to-be Alito lacks any sense of ... well ... justice, several conservative and conservatarian blogs, including the estimable Professor Bainbridge, pointed out that a judge is supposed to judge by the law, not by his or her personal sense of right and wrong. Indeed, they said, that's the difference between good (i.e., conservative) judging and bad, liberal judging: conservatives judges know their place in the democratic order and don't try to impose their own views in preference to the views of the people expressed through their elected representatives.

Now comes Justice Scalia, in dissent in the Oregon assisted-suicide case.
<..>
I'm glad Scalia's opinion was a dissent, not so much because a few Oregonians will continue to have access to physician assistance in ending their lives - the job can be done without the use of controlled substances, for example by using a breathing mask hooked up to a tank of an inert gas or nitrous oxide - as for the sake of striking down what seemed to me a clearly illegitimate power grab by the Federal government on behalf of the prejudices of the "God" faction of ruling God-and-Mammon coalition that is the political base of the current ruling oligarchy. But it's also worth noticing how empty the conservatarian promise of "neutral" judging turns out to be when push comes to shove.

Maybe this has happened because many of the corporations who pay the lobbyists are also big-time advertisers of such media outlets (i.e. pressured silence).

A great take on the incredibly inept Medicare roll-out:

Golden State Column: The defining fiasco of the Bush Administration may prove to be the utterly disastrous Medicare prescription drug benefit, formally known as Medicare Part D. Already the newspapers are filled with stories about Medicare-Medicaid patients, the poorest of the poor, being denied prescriptions by the thousands because the government, with only two full years to prepare, didn't have its computer systems tested, up, and running when the program launched January 1. The pain is just beginning.

What's instructive about this project is that it provides a concrete illustration of what Social Security would have looked like after a Bush privatization job: A program that should be designed to serve citizens turned instead into a plaything for lobbyists and business interests.... Is there a saving grace in the disaster? Only that, considering that most eligible people will be signing up in early May, then discovering the flaws in the system through the summer and early fall, they'll be reaching the peak of fury and be well poised to wreak vengeance on the perpetrators at the ballot box in November. Good riddance.
<..>
It's worth remembering that the prescription drug program was born in an act of fraud. The Bush Administration sold it to Congress in 2003 by estimating its cost at less than $400 billion over 10 years. Scarcely a month after its enactment, the White House issued a new estimate: $535 billion. That figure might well have killed the bill, which had passed the House by a razor-thin margin even with the lower price tag.

It soon came to light that Richard Foster, Medicare's chief actuary, had known of the higher estimate - but had been told he'd be fired if he warned Congress before the vote. (The current estimate is $700 billion.)

As written, the legislation complied with a drug industry demand that Medicare be prohibited from negotiating with manufacturers for lower drug prices. Among those helping the industry make its stand was Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana), whose committee on energy and commerce oversaw Medicare. In an odoriferous development, Tauzin soon quit Congress to become president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America - Big Pharma's Washington lobbying group.

And yet you have Roy Blunt writing in the WSJ about the many accomplishments of the House Republicans. You have to read his piece, it's hilarious, and note how much he doesn't talk about or conveniently excludes.

Again I ask, when will the death count begin, for those unfortunate souls who perished due to this mismanaged healthcare debacle?