PSoTD

Jonathan Tasini of Working Life has a great piece at TomPaine.com about the estate tax repeal or reform that is to be brought up next week in the United States Senate. He asks:

And what’s the cost of giving the richest Americans more cash? In the first 10 years, the U.S. Treasury will lose between $750 billion and one trillion dollars, forcing more cuts in education, Medicare and other key social programs—not to mention piling on more debt for future generations.

Americans ought to be asking their U.S. Senator in the next few days - how does the federal government plan to cover that loss of revenue, specifically? It is time for the Pay-As-You-Go Caucus in the Congress to stand up and keep their ground, and require that information.

Do we need another trillion dollars in federal debt? Do we need new taxes to replace that revenue? What programs will be cut to pay for the revenue loss? If Senator Kyl and his cohorts cannot answer that question now, then the whole proposition should be tabled until it can be answered - specifically. Otherwise, there is never an answer, and the question is lost in the swirl of promises.

I've heard New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin say the following several times now on various television programs:

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin told CNN: "We probably deal with almost a third of the nation's domestic oil that is produced, and that will most likely be shut down. "That could have a significant impact on oil prices going forward."

Saying it once or twice was informational. Saying it over and over has a political point to it. Oil prices for Mayor Nagin can't be too high on his radar of issues requiring immediate attention. But domestic oil isn't going to flow through the region without a lot of infrastructure being built first. That takes federal money and effort, and I think Mayor Nagin's point is that the rest of the nation is going to notice how long that money and effort takes.

Hurricane Andrew blasted its way across south Florida on August 24, 1992. Then came the political storm.

Even after it subsided, Hurricane Andrew continued to cause problems through the fierce political controversy generated by the widespread criticism concerning the speed and efficiency of relief operations.

At the beginning of September the first official estimates suggested that insurance companies would have to pay up to $7,300 million in damage claims arising from Andrew, making it the most costly natural catastrophe in US history. It was also estimated that some 275,000 of the hurricane's victims remained without electricity and that 150,000 were homeless. President George Bush, who had visited the affected region in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, made a second visit to Florida and Louisiana on Sept. 1, and pledged that the federal government would continue with the relief operation "until the job is done". In what was widely interpreted as a bid for electoral advantage--securing Florida's 25 electoral college votes was seen as essential if Bush was to win re-election to the White House--the President also announced that the government would provide 100 per cent federal reimbursement to local authorities for recovery operations, rather than the 75 per cent customary in such cases.

I received this the other day and am planning on participating in the conference call. Anyone interested in this discussion is invited to join. Becky Lewis can give you the specifics for joining the call.

We would like to invite you to join us for a conference call to discuss the estate tax and the upcoming vote in the Senate on September 6th to permanently repeal it. Join a discussion on this critical issue with policy experts and bloggers from around the country and learn background information, the implications for the country and all Americans of full repeal or a "backdoor repeal" compromise proposal, where Senators currently stand, and what you and other concerned people can do to help keep the Senate from enacting another tax give-away to multi-millionaires.

The American for a Fair Estate Tax Coalition (www.fairestatetax.org) has been working throughout the summer to create grassroots action to preserve the estate tax, but we need your help. Please join us!

Please RSVP to Becky Lewis at blewis@ombwatch.org or at 202.234.8494 x238 if you plan on joining the call. Thanks!

What: Blogger Conference Call on Estate Tax
When: Wednesday, August 31, from 2:00 - 3:00 pm Eastern
Where: By Phone

Moderated by:
Adam Hughes, Budget Policy Analyst, OMB Watch

Policy Experts:
John Irons, Director of Budget and Tax Policy, Center for American Progress
Joel Friedman, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

From the LA Times:

Bill Rau, the 45-year-old owner of a French Quarter antique shop that sells diamonds and 18th century clocks, flew his family to Dallas on Sunday, not because he knew anyone there but because it was the only way he could get out of town.

...

So he spent $3,000 and bought the only tickets he could find: six one-way, first-class seats to Dallas.

Bill Rau was lucky. From The Advocate News:

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation Sunday. He said he knew a large number of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, so the city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.

The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.

Let me spill a little secret for those of you lucky enough NOT to be a tourist in a location where a hurricane is coming: the airline industry's response - and perhaps the nation's air traffic control response - in these situations needs public review, and hopefully by Congress.

In July we were in the Cayman Islands when Hurricane Emily, which at that point was a Category 4, approached. If you've been to the Caymans very recently, you know what Ivan did to the island last year, and you know it's not the sandbar you want to be on for a major hurricane.

We were scheduled on a flight via US Air out of Grand Cayman on Saturday afternoon, which happened to be awfully close to the time the hurricane was going to hit. US Air did not get an aircraft to Grand Cayman there early. US Air maintained their schedule.

Tourists were told that the flight was "still scheduled".

The flight was cancelled, and those in Grand Cayman depending on US Air were not able to get out at that time. Fortunately for tourists in Grand Cayman, Emily veered west a bit, and just glanced the island.

We weren't there. We didn't depend on US Air's schedule and flew out on Cayman Airlines on Friday. And we were lucky - we pretty much bought the last tickets on the last flight available.

If we were in Grand Cayman, I would have been quite annoyed about the cancellation of the flight, because it wasn't due to the weather in the Caymans. Airline flights from other carriers left later in the day, until the airport was closed due to the hurricane.

There were thunderstorms in Charlotte, North Carolina, which prevented that specific plane from leaving.

That's what needs to be reviewed. Are airlines making every effort to evacuate tourists from harm's way? Tourists are fairly vulnerable in these situations - their knowledge of the area is limited, their personal resources and networks are not locally available. Can airlines do a better job of transporting people out of danger when needed? Where is that priority within an airline's operations? What should the FAA or Congress do to facilitate that?

Because I'm sure we can do better than the "flight's cancelled, you'll have to fend for yourselves until the next scheduled flight" answer. I'm sure both tourists and the authorities of localities subject to hurricanes would agree.

Check out Who's The RINO, where he says:

Maybe its not us critics of the DC GOP powers, but the powers themselves...

Fact-esque has posted a helpful starter for those of us who have not been attentive to the situation in Haiti.

It appears that President Bush has equated assassination as terrorism in the past:

President Condemns Assassination Statement by the Press Secretary Assassination of Israeli Cabinet Minister

The President condemns in the strongest terms the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi today. He offers his condolences and those of the United States to Prime Minister Sharon, the Israeli government and people, and the family of Minister Zeevi. This despicable act is further evidence of the need to fight terrorism.

We have noted the statement of the Palestinian Authority condemning this assassination. This statement is appropriate, but words are not enough. It is time for the Palestinian Authority to take vigorous action against terrorists. The PFLP, which operates openly in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, has claimed responsibility for this heinous act. The PA must immediately find and bring to justice those who committed this murder, as well as those who would do harm to efforts to restore an atmosphere of calm and security for Israelis and Palestinians.

Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism

Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions. In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

So, does that make Pat Robertson guilty of promoting terrorism? Is he a terrorist?

The National Coalition for School Bus Safety has renewed calls for seat belts to be installed in school buses.

The organization argues that every state has a child restraint law for other passenger vehicles, and that the 200 school districts across the nation that have adopted seat belts as an added safety measure to the required "compartmentalization" guidelines report usage rates of 80 percent to 100 percent.

Also cited is the fact that when a New York City school bus equipped with seat belts flipped over last April 26, the 44 sixth-graders it was carrying suffered only minor injuries.

The Virginia Association for Pupil Transportation, which issues guidelines to Virginia school districts, currently opposes seat belts until the NHTSA determines otherwise. The NHTSA requires seat belts only for school buses weighing less than 10,000 pounds.

"School buses are heavier, experience less crash forces, and distribute crash forces differently than do passenger cars and light trucks," the NHTSA explains in a position paper on the subject. "Because of this, the crash force experienced by passengers of large buses is much less than that experienced by the occupants of passenger cars, light trucks, or vans."

As a parent, I really would prefer that the buses have seat belts. But here's the deal - hardly anyone wants to pay for school bus seat belts if they don't have kids riding on the bus. Why can't they come up with a system of portable seat belts that parents can buy, and students can bring onto the bus? If the marketplace really can solve any question, why isn't it solving this one?

The Robertson School of Government at Regent University recently announced two new tracks of study: International Politics and Terrorism and Homeland Defense.

Apparently they're still looking for instructors to teach one of the new courses, GOV 699, Political Tools for Expediency: Assassination.

From the Lincoln Journal star:

Jeff Scheinost is a Republican, a supporter of President Bush, a military veteranwho served eight years in the Army after the Vietnam war.

Scheinost, the Budweiser distributor in Scottsbluff, said people in the area do not think the war was a mistake and they're glad Saddam Hussein is gone.

But they increasingly believe "the way we went about it was a mistake," Scheinost said. "We didn't have a plan and we didn't know what we were getting into."

People in western Nebraska remain very patriotic, he said.

"But they want to see our troops come home. We've had some soldiers killed from this area and that has hit home really hard.

"It's time for the Iraqi people to accept responsibility. If those people want to blow each other up because of their convictions and religious differences, that's up to them. It's time to bring our soldiers home."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Iraqi people have to accept responsibility. That's who has been most irresponsible, the Iraqi people. Not the American government. Not the War Republicans that run the current government, and their enabling Democrats in the Congress. Not the Americans that elected the Republicans that run the current American government. Not the Americans that RE-ELECTED the current American Government. No, they can't accept any responsibility - because when the troops come home they're going to try to conveniently forget that they had anything to do with this. The Iraqis WILL have to accept responsibility, because they're going to be in a huge freaking mess, courtesy of Bushfucks Incorporated.

Another conservative blogger.

It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?

You're going to be attacked for statements like this...

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

The long knives will be out later this week, I'm sure.

A P.S. It's started. The goal - make Hagel seem like a backbencher and a nobody to real Republicans.

PowerLine: What exactly makes Chuck Hagel a "leading Republican senator"? Not seniority; he is a second-termer. Not any official responsibilities; Hagel is not a member of the Senate leadership, nor does he chair a Senate committee. Not legislative accomplishment or influence; Hagel has little noteworthy legislation to his name, and is more often an eccentric voice--e.g., in his call for reinstatement of the draft--than an influence on his fellow Senators.

Mark Kilmer: Hagel doesn’t lead any Republicans; in fact, it could be argued that the Nebraskan follows Joe Biden around like a puppy.

Pundit Guy: I'm not surprised at all by Hagel's remarks. Later down in the same story the AP quotes Sen. George Allen, R-Va. Again, no shock here. These guys are left of center. It's a stretch to consider them Republicans.

To what extent is a President responsible for the anxiety level a country exists under? Is that part of a President's responsibility, to lead in a way that manages the country's anxiety level?

Or is the President just a buoy floating at the top of an ocean of national anxieties? Is it a President's responsibility to lead in a way that he or she believes is "right", with little to no responsibility towards managing the country's anxiety level?

Frankly, Bush is now bringing that question of "the job" to the fore. I think it's a question that ought to be asked by pollsters, and soon, because my gut feeling is that this philosophical interpretation of "the job" of President tracks very closely to Bush's "approve/disapprove" numbers.

The polls seem to indicate that George W. Bush cannot manage the country's anxiety level, either by choice or inability. And that is anxiety on both the left and the right. I don't hear the left speaking with confidence about the future of the country, and I don't hear the right speaking with confidence about the future of the United States. I hear both spectrums mostly speaking about a future in which improvement depends on their "side" being in power, and strong anxiety about the future if that does not occur.

Is this anxiety George W. Bush's responsibility?

I think it is. It's what leaders do - bring together people to follow. Bush is not bringing people together to follow, or at least not enough. That's not leading. That's just doing. Sooner or later, Republicans have to notice how anxious this nation is for confident leadership, and realize that George W. Bush isn't providing it.

Fester has an interesting post about the Bangladesh bombings up at the UPC.

I want the US to offer any and all support to the government of Bangladesh as it seems that they are being put in the crosshairs of a guerilla group that has demonstrated an impressive organizational and logistical capacity. If we are going to be serious about fighting a war on terror and aiding democracies, this is an excellent place to demonstrate these facts.

What would Republicans do if Chuck Hagel said that enough was enough, and made a total break with Bush on Iraq?

Yesterday:

Hagel said Bush faced a growing credibility gap. "The expectations that the president and his administration presented to the American people 2 1/2 years ago is not what the reality is today. That's presented the biggest credibility gap problem he's got," he said.

"I hope he has some sense that something's going on out in the country, that there's a lack of confidence that has developed in our position."

I mean, he seems pretty clear and focused on his opinion:

Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, acknowledged the U.S. military presence was becoming harder and harder to justify. He believes Iraq faces a serious danger of civil war that would threaten Middle East stability, and said there is little Washington can do to avert this.

"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should," he said at one stop.

Other blogs with commentary about Hagel's statements:

The People's Republic of Seabrook
Incertus
Running Scared
Washington Monthly
Interesting Times

How much rope is Hagel going to give Bush when it's costing American lives?

Something to think about. I hope to never need this information, but I did find this Use of Force Continuum from the United States Police Canine Association message board of interest:

The continuum we use is as follows:

1. Interepersonal Communication (Used throughout)
2. Show of force (2 or more officers)
3. Unarmed Self Defense/Defensive Tactics
4. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray
5. Baton
6. K-9
7. Presentation of Deadly Force (Drawing Weapon)
8. Deadly Force

Then you've earned a diplomatic assignment in Iraq. Thoughts of an Average Woman has the details.

It seems with so many, many conservatives having a similar problem of separating the act of criticizing the President's actions on Iraq from an emotional response of protecting the troops from criticism, there needs to be some sort of assessment test of these conservatives. Can they discuss the issue with logic? Test, test, test...

Those conservatives should be asked some questions in the abstract. Not specifically about Iraq, not specifically about Bush. Just about the actions of a Commander in Chief and our troops in the field.

Just questions about the concept...

1) Is it possible that the Commander in Chief can order troops to commit an immoral or illegal act, as viewed by yourself?

2) Is it possible that those troops will follow "immoral or illegal" orders of the Commander in Chief?

3) Would it be appropriate to criticize the Commander in Chief for such orders?

4) Would it be appropriate to support the troops for following those orders while criticizing the Commander in Chief?

You have area to talk with anyone that gives four "yes" answers. But you'll run into problems with

A No on Question 1: The person's most likely a follower, Period. And a follower of ultimate power - which you do not have. Arguing is probably futile.

A No on Question 2: If the person said no on question 1 as well, you know why. If the person said Yes on question 1, then repeat this question slowly.

A No on Question 3: You may have to have a discussion about what patriotism is about.

A No on Question 4: Okay, now this person is just being obstinate. Move on.

In any case, 2 "Nos" or more probably makes further discussion pointless. They are not on the same reality plane.

Why won't President Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan in Crawford?

Because he's on vacation.

President's Interview with Armed Forces Radio and Television Service Hangar Five MCAS Miramar, California

August 14, 2003

...

One of my jobs as the Commander-in-Chief is to try to comfort those who grieve and to comfort those who are wounded — those who grieve as a result of loss of life, and those — and to comfort those who have been wounded, and I do.

There's a difference between a responsibility and a job. Bush has spent the past few weeks illuminating the distinction.

In the Republican Primary. John Featherman is his name.

Comrade Bunnypants:

After a health check, Putin donned a flight suit and took the commander's position in the strategic bomber, which was piloted by Major General Anatoly Zhikharev, with a colonel and a lieutenant colonel in charge of navigation, Russian media reported.

The Tu-160 flew west from Moscow's Chkalovsky military airport toward the region of Nizhny Novgorod, where it was due to break the sound barrier, before slowing to make a test firing of cruise missiles over a range, Interfax news agency said.

Putin was then to witness a mid-air refuelling before returning, with a final thrill of flying at the aircraft's lowest allowed height of 200 metres (656 feet) at a blistering 900 kilometres an hour (560 miles an hour), Interfax said.

Meanwhile down in Crawford, Operation Ignore The Dead Soldier's Mother continues this weekend with Mountain Biking for Millionaires.

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, an avid cyclist, will test his mettle against Lance Armstrong when the cycling superstar visits the president's Texas ranch this weekend.

...

Bush turned to mountain biking after a knee injury forced him to give up running. He took a small group of reporters on a two-hour ride on his ranch in the August heat last weekend. There was one rule -- no one overtakes the president.

It's comforting to know that the future of the world is in the hands of such manly men!

Shingle color dispute has homeowners seeing red

All Joanne and Ken Robinson wanted was a new roof.

What they got is a battle with their homeowners association over the color of the shingles they chose.

This is an example why most homeowners associations should be voluntary AND/OR with no ability to require individual homeowner standards beyond the local code enforcement entity.

Homeowner association "laws" and the bestowed responsibilities required of the directors of such entities are going to create a more costly mess as time goes by. Don't think that "community association law" won't become a common legal practice... I predict that within 20 years it will have its own specialty listing in many city phone directories. As will "homeowner association management" as more and more of these neighborhoods discover the growing difficulty of running their organization on a volunteer basis as more and more legal issues arise. Fees will eventually increase dramatically.

At some point, mandatory homeowner associations are literally going to become a marketplace negative - people will avoid developments that work under the premise because the costs and requirements will not be seen as significant value.

ESTABLISH PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR RADIATION RELATED DISABILITIES

Urges Congress to enact legislation to amend Title 38 United States Code § 1112 and provide the necessary elements to ensure consistent determinations under all Title 38 regulations (particularly 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d)) regarding the granting of presumptive service connection for certain radiation-related diseases of skin cancer, posterior subcapsular cataracts, nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease, parathyroid adenoma, tumors of the central nervous system, prostate cancer, and rectal cancer.

He is on the edge about Cindy Sheehan.

It's gotten to the point now where it is common to go on Democrat websites and read about the pleasure it would bring if the president were assassinated. It is now common to read letters to the editors in newspapers which say it would be fun if bin Laden actually came over here and slit Bush's throat, which is what a supporter of Sheehan wrote to a letter of the editor in one of the newspapers in this country.

Seriously, this sounds quite paranoid. I haven't seen such web sites or read such letters to the editor. I find it hard to believe that they could be "common" if I haven't seen any.

But for an extreme example of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks ", check out Limbaugh's assailing of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's immigration enforcement funding of last Friday.

It is quite amazing in how honest it is. Except that Limbaugh's confused. He knows Republicans. He deals with Republicans. He's part of their megaphone. He's in on the game plans. And so, when he sees where Richardson might be going on the immigration issue, he sees it in that filter. In fact, it appears he ONLY sees it in that filter:

"You might say, "Well, why is Governor Richardson doing what he's doing?" The idea is not to build up the Democrats; the idea is to fracture the Republicans here, folks. The idea is to split the Republicans. The idea is to get some Republicans who were fed up about a number of things and then the immigration at the top of the list say, "Okay, I've had it. This party is not responding to my needs, this party is not listening to me, this party is not doing what I want." Look at all the spending that's going on. Look at that highway bill so full of pork that when it was signed it smelled like bacon. You've got Linc Chafee driving around Rhode Island here in his car describing for everybody all the pork that he brought ome, these guys are so proud of the highway bill and it's just nothing but a massive spending hill.

The highway bill has become the new omnibus spending bill where all the pork is just dovetailed and tucked right into it and don't think people don't notice this. It's got them fit to be tied. This is supposed to be a conservative Republican administration with fiscal restraint and responsibility. And they do some things right, like the tax cuts and all this, but then here comes this massive bill, and don't say, "Well, Rush, the president signed it." Well, he did, but you had a whole bunch of Republicans vote for it as well, because it's just ladled with pork. So you take some issues that some of the base on the conservative side, not all that comfortable with. Then you throw the Democrats trying to siphon off some of those people with immigration, that's all it will take, regardless what the Democratic National Committee does about immigration. Now, Fund, in his piece -- and it's too long for me to read to you the entire thing. You ought to read it, though, because his basic premise is that the Democrats' move on this is totally phony..."

Talk about projection... He claims that Richardson's move is totally phony. Why?

Because Republicans are supposed to be conservative, with fiscal restraint, and claim they are over and over again, but obviously, they aren't. The Republican Party says one thing but means another, just for a crass effort of siphoning off votes. They say they are for smaller government but they actually are the engineers of grossly expanding government. The Republican Party is being phony.

So to Limbaugh, obviously, that's what the Democrats are doing also.

BTW, I don't think that Limbaugh's wrong that national Democrats do phony things. But he's incredibly hypocritical suggesting it's any different than what the Republicans do - or even as sophisticated. It's beyond being a hypocrit. He's a Republican first, and an American somewhere after that.

I thought the whole point of the constitution process was to undercut the insurgency by bringing the Sunnis into the fold. But we're putting the screws on the Iraqis to finish some constitution - any constitution - today. As usual, Bush's domestic political concerns trump sound policy. Gotta hit that Aug 15 deadline at all costs and get the hell out of Iraq before next year's midterm elections!

Sunni Arabs have asked that the issue of federalism be put off until next year. Shiites and Kurds, the two other major groups in the country, are pushing for autonomous regions in the southern and northern parts of Iraq, but Sunnis fear the proposal could split Iraq.

Sunnis also oppose other proposals endorsed by the Shiites and Kurds, including proposals for a special status for the Shiite clerical leadership and a formula for distributing oil wealth and dual citizenship.

But Shiites and Kurds dominate the 275-member National Assembly — as well as the constitutional committee — and could ram through the charter over Sunni Arab objects. Other options include amending the interim constitution to extend the deadline or dissolving parliament.

Sunnis — who boycotted the Jan. 30 vote for an interim parliament — could defeat the constitution in the national referendum. If two-thirds of the voters in three provinces vote against the constitution, it would be defeated. Sunni Arabs form the majority in at least four provinces.

Sunni clerics have urged followers to vote against any constitution that could lead to the breakup of the country

"It looks like all the agreements are being made only by the Kurds and the Shiites without even asking our opinion," Sunni Arab official Saleh al-Mutlaq said Sunday. "I believe the draft is going to be presented tomorrow even if it is not finished, with or without our approval."

An extension would require approval of two-thirds of parliament and the president and his two deputies. U.S. officials have pressured Iraqis to stick to Monday's deadline.

American officials applied pressure to resolve differences on that and other issues before Monday's deadline — despite the risks of alienating the Sunnis.

"The Iraqis tell me that they can finish it and they will finish it tomorrow," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Sunday in a televised interview.

Khalilzad said "a lot of American blood and American treasure has been spent here" — a point that he had made "abundantly clear to my Iraqi interlocutors."

How do we get this to stop?

From the Daily Southtown

"It was the hottest ticket in town. Part political theater. Part Disney World show. Part state fair ... minus the corn dogs and root beer Icees.

Indeed, the only refreshments served at Wednesday's presidential event were small plastic cups of cold water the friendly Caterpillar volunteers were passing out. Which were very much appreciated by the 5,000 folks who had just tripped across a lumpy, dirt parking lot to climb into school buses with no air conditioning that took them to the hot concrete CAT lot where they stood in long, twisting lines that took them past slow-moving checkpoints that gained them access to the outdoor square where they sat (or stood, as was mostly the case) for another couple of hours while waiting for the president of the United States to make his brief appearance."

Okay, I'm starting to wonder when consumers are going to get pissed off at the practice of companies shutting down operations, or at least slowing them down, so that a big-name politician can appear.

This isn't a "half hour off of everyone's day" kind of thing. No, there's lots of planning and coordination that happens at the beginning. There's security. There's the handpicking of the appropriate attendees. There's the cleanup and enhancement required to make it the most beautiful photo op. And the same that happens afterwards to make the facility function.

It takes time. It costs money. Corporate money.

It's not like the workers are making this choice. They don't decide when the company is going to slow down or stop operations for public relations. That's management.

But there's a cost, and that cost, like all costs, ends up being translated into the price for the consumer. I have to pay for Caterpillar kissing up to the President? How much product cost padding occurs because of the cost of the political traveling medicine show? No matter how much more it is, why do I, as a consumer, have to pay it?

It's about time that American consumers tell corporations that their facilities are not the place where big-name politicians should be afforded the chance to spew their political viewpoints and goals on the clock for their employees. The President already makes us all pay considerably for his opportunities to pound the news media and the public with his message. We pay for it with taxes and debt. Why should we have to pay for it with higher prices on goods and services as well?

Resolution No. 613
VETERANS UNDIAGNOSED ILLNESSES

The VFW wants the eligibility period for veterans to receive VA health care and their authority to be enrolled in at least Priority Category 6 for care of Gulf War Undiagnosed Illnesses , be reinstated while the War on Terrorism is actively engaged.

Resolution 619 for the 106th Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention

Resolution No. 619 ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR STATE VETERANS HOMES PROGRAMS

They want a Veterans Administration per diem payment that equals 50 percent of the national average cost of providing care in a state veterans home; and full funding of the State Veterans Home Construction Grant program.

Larry Scott has interesting coverage of VA issues over at VAWatchdog.org - the blog. Check it out.

From Crawfordslist:

Craig Crawford on the CBS Early Show today: "Cindy Sheehan is giving the White House 'Mommie Dearest' nightmares. But instead of 'No More Wire Hangers' it's 'No More War. ... The President's supporters are now showing up to confont Sheehan. That's all we need: Warring factions in an open field this close to Waco." (Saturday Early Show, CBS 8/13).

You have to give the Bush supporters this: they're surely braver than the President in confronting Cindy Sheehan.

George Bush will fly into Salt Lake City on Monday, Aug. 22, to attend the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention at the Salt Palace Convention Center.

Seems like a good place for Cindy Sheehan to be also...

I wrote this a few days ago for the Unpaid Punditry Corps. Time to post here as well.

8-11

It’s now 31 days before the 4th sad anniversary of 9-11.

We have spent 4 years trying to capture terrorists. Four years of trying to kill terrorists. 4 years of trying to “flypaper” terrorists into specific locations on the globe.

And yet, terrorism continues to exist and will continue to exist, and by any measure it is impossible to believe that the fear of terrorism, the threat of terrorism, to Americans and others, is any less than it has been for at least three years. In summary, we’re not feeling like the risk is reduced.

I sit here and wonder if maybe most Americans have been confused about how to go about defusing terrorism. Including myself. Possible... and the confusion could be twofold:

We’re confused on what structures we should use to defuse terrorism, and;

We’re confused as to what methods we should use to defuse terrorism.

I want to get away from the question of what our government should be doing to defuse terrorism - because I am starting to think we’re missing the point with that. With few exceptions, the terrorism we have suffered isn’t due to the terroristic intentions of another government. Nor, in many cases, are the actual victims members of government directly - they are individuals just going about their business of getting to work and making phone calls and getting the kids to school.

In short, I’m wondering if Americans are crutching their responsibility to defeat terrorism with the government.

I’m not saying that it’s not the government’s job to make Americans safer. But when you go beyond the need for tools - and get to the need for philosophical change - I’m not sure government is the instrument to accomplish that task.

I don’t see the choices for individuals as simply fight or debate, but the lack of national creativity in considering options may be why that seems to be the only options taken. What I’m saying is that there are other possibilities out there - assisting in economic development, assisting in funding various services, assisting in education development, etc., etc., that Americans ought to be discussing as things that they can get involved with that may reduce terrorism - and these are things that do not require government taking the lead on them.

So, I have two simple questions about terrorism that I wish every American would strongly consider over the next thirty-one days - as an individual duty.

Question 1: Is it possible to convert potential (as opposed to already established) terrorists away from violence towards peaceful resolution of their goals?

Question 2: If so, how can I, as an ordinary American citizen, help facilitate that conversion? What can I do?

It’s August 11th. Maybe within the next 31 days, we can see some of this consideration actually discussed in the public view as well. Again, this isn’t about discussion of what government should do - this is a discussion of what individuals could do.

There was some interesting give and take on this which allowed for some further clarification, particularly in what a "potential terrorist" would be...

To be a potential terrorist a person must be considering whether

1. it is okay to target civilians to achieve political ends

2. that targeting civilians to achieve political ends will work

Anyway, that's my general upchuck question for ourselves and for the news media. What can individuals do to reduce the longterm threat of terrorism without depending on government for creation or implementation of policy? Is some of that going on? If so, why don't we ever hear about it through news organizations? If not, why aren't we asking ourselves these questions? We don't rely solely on government to investigate solutions in the War on Hunger or the War on Drugs or any other war on a problem. Why should terrorism be any different?

Read.

Bush will fly into Salt Lake City on Monday, Aug. 22, to attend the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention at the Salt Palace Convention Center, which will run Aug. 20-25.

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, Bush will say about various issues to be discussed in VFW resolutions, particularly in the Veterans Service category.

Maybe he'll stay to watch Tony Orlando.

And more than one way to think. It is 8-11.

Tuesday's AP Story: Rumsfeld: Some Iraq Arms Come From Iran

Wednesday's AP Story: Iraqi: Iran Smuggling Reports Exaggerated

Iraq's interior minister said Wednesday that reports of deadly roadside bombs being smuggled into this country from Iran are exaggerated.

On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said some insurgent weapons are entering Iraq from Iran although it's unclear whether they were coming from elements of the Iranian government or from other parties.

Interior Minister Bayan Jabr told reporters that Iraqi security forces recently opened fire on a group of men carrying boxes near the Iranian border. The men dropped the boxes and fled back into Iranian territory. Inside the boxes were dynamite sticks with some wires.

"This is all that happened at the border and was very much exaggerated," Jabr said.

There are three positives to the second story - one, the issue doesn't appear to be the problem Rumsfeld claimed it was; two, that AP actually covered a lesser-known official than Donald Rumsfeld to debunk Rumsfeld's claim; and three, that the Iraqi interior minister felt enough responsibility to refute Rumsfeld's tactical statement.

I'm noodling about the premise of vocations, and the degree of difficulty within that vocation to admit one is wrong on something relating to that vocation.

For example, any science-related occupation... there's science involved in decisionmaking, and to admit one is wrong in a decision is to admit either an application of incorrect theory or an incorrect application of science, or both. Lawsuits occur for being "wrong" in the job. Admission of being wrong isn't common, nor perhaps generally expected.

Of course, nobody tells a chemist that makes a mistake in determining a formula that she is going to hell. That's the province of some religious careers, and is certainly an indicator of how strongly some in the religion industry believe they are right - and by the same token, how strongly they believe they are not wrong, and would not admit to being so.

What to make of politics then? No matter how it is practiced, it's illogical to argue that it is science. Despite all the numbers given, all the scientific research spouted, all the analysis done for policy - politics is not a scientific vocation.

Nor is it a religious career, although today it seems closer to that, with Republican and Democratic sects, than it does to science.

No, the job of politician gets thrown in there with sales manager and restaurant owner and the like. Administrative and management and sweat labor in varying proportions rolled into one job. But it seems to me that America should have an expectation of politicians, one that they don't necessarily have of restaurant management and airline baggage handlers - that a politician, over time, will see in fuller detail more facets of an issue, and can come to a change of mind and heart on that issue.

America should expect that their politicians can - and will - say "I was wrong on that. And here's why."

And America's politicians should feel an allowance to say just that.

That's not the way America's politics work today. I don't know how we get back to that point, but I think it's important that we do. We can't have politicians pretending their correctness is a scientific certitude or an article of faith. We have to admit that politicians are human, that they make mistakes, that they are entitled to make mistakes as long as they keep trying to do what is right for their electing constituents and the city/county/state/country, and that it's far better to allow politicians to admit their mistakes in an effort to correct them rather than force politicians to steadfastly support a mistake forever in fear of being called a "flipflopper".

Voters have to accept that mistakes will be made in governing, and realize that the worst mistakes are the ones that are never corrected because nobody will admit they made a mistake.

And so do politicians.

Any any person or organization - particularly the political parties - that obsessively act in ways to prevent politicians from admitting mistakes and taint the public's view of accepting mistakes as a cost of politics should be seen as the scourge of American politics, and treated as such by all. They add nothing to political debate in this country, instead, they act to reduce political debate and to lock people into positions and sound bites repeated over and over. The scourge shouldn't be treated as guests on polivision programming.

Fired.

Can't tell you why, but doesn't seem like a good thing to me. The mis-occupation marches on.

The Baghdad provisional council dismissed mayor Alaa al-Timimi on Monday and sent armed personnel to his office to install his temporary replacement, officials told CNN on Tuesday.

The reasons for the dismissal were not disclosed.

Mohammed al-Rubaie, the governor's adviser of Baghdad, said that responsibility for running the city was temporarily transferred to provincial governor Hussein al-Tahaan until the council can elect a new mayor. That should take place in the next few days, he said.

Al-Timimi would not discuss his dismissal, but said he will submit his resignation Wednesday to the Council of Ministries.

Iraqi police said 41 armed members of Iraq's Facility Protection Services surrounded al-Timimi's office to install al-Tahaan. Al-Timimi was not there at the time.

Over the past dozen years and more, the Republican Party has done what it can to "brand" the Democratic Party as Ted Kennedy and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I think it's time to follow their form. We should not be referring to the Republican Party anymore. It should be the George W. Bush Republican Party. It should, for the foreseeable future, never be mentioned as the Republican Party. Stick him to the GOP - George's Own Party - like gum in hair.

Who are we anymore?

Guardsmen Took 'Rent' From Iraqi Businesses

California Army National Guard troops sought unauthorized, off-the-books "rent" from Iraqi-owned businesses inside Baghdad's Green Zone to raise money for a "soldiers fund," military officials and sources within the troops' battalion said Friday.

The disclosure is the latest to emerge from a wide-ranging investigation into the conduct of the 1st Battalion of the 184th Infantry Regiment of the Guard, which is headquartered in Modesto.

Military officials had confirmed previously that the battalion's commander, Lt. Col. Patrick Frey, had been suspended and that one of the battalion's companies, based in Fullerton, had been removed from patrol duties and restricted to an Army base south of Baghdad.

According to military officials and members of the battalion, soldiers from the battalion's Bravo Company, which is based in Dublin, an East Bay suburb of San Francisco, approached several businesses earlier this year that were owned and operated by Iraqi nationals.

The businesses — a dry cleaner, a convenience store and the like — catered to U.S. soldiers and were located on the fringe of the U.S. military's operating base inside the Green Zone, the fortified hub of the Iraqi government, U.S. occupation officials, embassies and contractor headquarters. The businesses were asked to pay the soldiers "rent."

I guess it was an offer at least a few of the businesses couldn't refuse.

Other posts:

From Revolutionary War times...

The British purchased the services of 30,000 German soldiers for $150,000, all of which went into the royal coffers of the German princes. These troops came from Hesse Cassel, Hesse Hanau, Brunswick, Anspach, Bayreuth, Anhalt Zerbst and Waldeck.

Total sent was 30,067 from 1776 to 1782; 12,562 did not return... 7,754 dead and 4,808 remained in America...

Now:

From Washington Times

The United States Army recruiters, facing dwindling enlistment numbers in the states, are finding success in U.S. territories, The New York Times reports.

High school graduates from places like Micronesia and the Philippines are signing up in droves, looking for a good paycheck.

The Army has a $5,000 minimum signing bonus and starting pay for a private is over $17,000.

Per capita income in Micronesia is about $2,000, $8,000 in American Samoa and $12,500 in the Northern Marianas. Based in Guam, First Sgt. Olympio Magofna oversees Pacific recruiting. He sees his counterparts in the states hurting for recruits while he has time to play golf every other day.

Per capita, Guam, Saipan and American Samoa have the highest enlistment numbers in the nation, but not without a cost.

A few other bloggers are on this story:

I haven't seen them here in Central Pennsylvania...

From the Billings Gazette...

Over the past several weeks, Montanans have been deluged with a TV ad campaign featuring veterans urging us to get rid of the "death tax." The ads play to our sense of patriotism telling us that the "death tax" is un-American.

...

The TV ads are an effort to pressure Sen. Max Baucus to support repealing the inheritance tax. It's not surprising he is a target. The Bush administration picked up his support for its big tax giveaway to the wealthy a few years ago. That tax cut not only provided huge benefits to the wealthiest Americans, it has resulted in deficits which are mortgaging our children's future.

Who else are the Republicans targeting?

Some posts worth reading from around the blogiverse about efforts to abolish the estate tax:

Slacktivist:

The particular proposal that sparked this discussion is the attempt to abolish the estate tax. The effect of such a proposal will be a significant financial windfall for some. That money comes from somewhere. There will be, in other words, winners and losers. In this case, a very few winners and a great many losers. If debating this proposal disinterestedly on its merits requires us to ignore its effect on these winners and losers then such a disinterested debate is, itself, irrelevant. Worse than irrelevant, actually. It would be unjust.

Cosmic Variance

From a Morning Edition story on the estate tax: “40 percent of Amercians believe they will be in the top one percent of income earners by the time they die”. Breaking news! 39% of Americans woefully deluded about their prospects in life. A bill repealing the century old tax (which affects only the richest 1-2% of Americans) is expected to pass the Senate this week. It will cost the federal government 1 trillion dollars per decade.

Page 132:

On top of all that spending and tax giveaways, don't forget that Congress wants to make permanent the estate tax after the summer break. While it only effects less than .1% of all estates annually, permanent repeal would lose $64 billion of revenue in 2013 alone, according to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates. In contrast, retaining the estate tax with a $3.5 million exemption and a top rate of 45 percent — the policy in effect in 2009, just prior to repeal — would lose less than half of the revenue in 2013 that full repeal would lose. Over the subsequent decade, 2014 through 2023, permanent repeal would lose approximately $820 billion in revenues. More than $460 billion of this revenue loss could be averted by retaining the estate tax with a $3.5 million exemption and a top rate of 45 percent.

Please give them a full read.

Is it fake passports?

A Briton was arrested at Bangkok airport yesterday with 452 fake blank European passports in his luggage, as he prepared to board a plane to return to the UK.

...

Officials found about 200 forged passports from France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal in his hand luggage and 250 fakes from the same countries in his checked-in bags, according to an immigration chief, General Suwat Thamrongsisakul.

"There were 452 altogether," he said. "He told us he bought the passports from a Pakistani man for £3,000 in Koh Samui and that he would be paid £15,000 when he delivered them to his contact in London.

"Of course he can't remember the name of the Pakistani."

Western diplomats believe many of the documents are made in Pakistan.

And there's a real question as to whether this guy is going to be prosecuted.

Mahieddine Daikh, an Algerian who became a naturalised Briton two years ago, will probably escape punishment unless there is a formal complaint in the next few days from the government of one of the countries affected, Thai and British authorities told the Guardian yesterday.

(Great find by Soj at Flogging the Simian)

Paul Hackett was a pop quiz in supposedly one of the Republicans' best topics. The George W. Bush-lead Republicans were given a C minus. Apparently good enough to move on, but not something that the parents of the party should be happy with, nor should the student be comfortable with the mid-term coming up in 2006.

I would expect there's going to be a "revolution" brewing in the Party now - from the "parents". They have to be worried that the "student" is going to fail miserably in 2006 by continuing to depend on campaigns and politics of Bush bluff, bluster, bullying and bending the rules.

I don't think it'll be long before we hear Republicans crying that they need to return to their "core values", that they've gotten away from their traditional philosophies, etc., etc., etc.

I suspect that immediately afterward there will be retribution and a louder bullhorn blaring of the accomplishments and brilliance of the Bush Administration.

There's big trouble coming for the Republican Party. I don't see any evidence that the GOP is smart enough to fix it by 2006 or 2008. The real question is whether the Democratic Party will be smart enough to move forward when the Republicans fail with the electorate.

Federal emergency preparedness money is being used to pay for some of Beaumont High School's 30-meter, $2 million-plus swimming pool.

Using $218,825 in federal funds for the pool is justified because it can be considered a fire suppression water storage, said Greg Bowers, executive director of facilities for the Beaumont Unified School District.

Wonder who in California pulled the strings to get the federal money...

It is rare for firefighters to tap into swimming pools, according to Riverside County Fire Battalion Chief Jeff Stowells, who didn't know the city and school district planned to build a pool that could be used by firefighters.

I'll admit it, I'm a bit jealous... I see that the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas have well-entrenched Drinking Liberally events now, and the Harrisburg area has nada? I know we're a conservative area, but there's enough of us to fill a bar once in a while...

Who wants to help me put one together? (Actually, who wants to do all the work so I can go?) Seriously, Central Pennsylvania should have such an institution.

The Nashua Telegraph had a guest column on Sunday about terrorism false alarms, and concludes with this statement:

If we can avert just one attack because of, or in spite of, the inconvenience associated with our current state of heightened vigilance, just imagine the lives that will be saved.

I'm not going to disagree with this sentiment. However, does anyone know how many times police are called in for a lost backpack at this point? Is anyone keeping track of "false alarm" activity nationally, and monitoring what the costs are? And who is bearing the cost when the police are called to a shopping mall or school or parade? Who is responsible for keeping track of our national cost of "false alarms"? Somebody should be.

Is Santorum really trying to set up a 2008 Presidential campaign by losing the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate campaign?

Larry Sabato wonders if that's the case. So does Larry Ceisler at PoliticsPA, and Terry Madonna, the political science professor and pollster from Franklin and Marshall College.

I had an argument on vacation with my Dad about the estate tax. Ever since then, I've thought about our argument quite a bit.

I'll admit, one of the things I don't get about people is how they get so jacked up about how "unfair" the estate tax is. My Dad is a case in point. He didn't get anything from estates his whole life. He's not going to leave much, if anything, when he passes on. But he's vociferous that people should be able to give their heirs what they want when they die. Without exception, without limitation.

Obviously, I disagree. I believe an estate tax system, if used properly, is more than just a revenue system for the government, it is also a way to prevent land and other asset ownership from accumulating into an ever-shrinking number of families in this country. It gives a more equal footing to the children of each generation. I believe that is where the fairness issue ought to be discussed. I think that's a more important valuable to leave behind for your heirs and their future generations in this country than money that ends up being spent on consumer items.

But I don't know how to convince someone otherwise inclined to believe that this preventative benefit alone is not worth the cost of the tax.

And one step further, I don't know how to discuss how government should view the rights of dead American citizens. When you die, some of your rights stop with your life. For example - freedom of assembly. You don't see people bringing cadavers to the ballpark, to the grocery, to the restaurant. That's because they can't. Society sees cadavers as... property, not as human beings with the right to the freedom of assembly.

So... somehow, when one dies, they lose rights previously protected by the Constitution, and that's okay. But to tax their estate - that's not acceptable. Why is that?

I think the answer generally is that those who oppose the estate tax don't look at the tax as being on the decedent, actually. They look at it as being on the survivors. But the tax is really upon the process of transfer.

There aren't many issues where I think the boomer generation is wiser than the "greatest" generation, but this is one of those issues...

From The Christian Science Monitor:

Nearly 40 percent of those in the older generation say it is very important to pass financial assets or real estate to their children. Only 10 percent of baby boomers feel that way about passing assets to their kids.

I shouldn't say "wiser". The reasoning why boomers come to this opinion may be based in selfishness or lack of planning. And the boomer generation certainly can waste money as well as any generation this country has ever seen. But I don't know why is it "important" to pass financial assets or real estate to your children? Nice, sure. Important?

Values, those are important. Wisdom, that's important. Intellectual curiousity, that's important.

Providing your kids the tools so they can build a successful life is important. Giving them money - an asset - so they can acquire a successful life isn't a formula our society should expect or desire. It may end up being counterproductive to providing the building tools.