PSoTD

Jonathan Alter churned out a very disappointing article this week for Newsweek. There was a highlight - he pretty much nailed the reason why Bill Clinton campaigned for Lieberman, in my opinion:

Clinton's strong support may well pull the man who once called his behavior "disgraceful" over the finish line. It's also a warm-up for selling his pro-war wife to skeptical liberals.

Hillary Clinton is greatly invested in the primary result in Connecticut. Her position isn't much different than Lieberman, although she obviously has finessed it considerably better. A bad result for Lieberman could be a harbinger for '08.

But if the blogs aren't a force on the ground, they are becoming a powerful factor in directing the passions (and pocketbooks) of far-flung Democratic activists. They're helping fuel a collective version of what shrinks call "projection," where the anger of Democrats at Bush is projected on a handy target, in this case Lieberman. But in doing so, they have neglected what FDR called "the putting of first things first." Job one for Democrats is identifying which Republican House incumbents are vulnerable in their own states and directing all available energy against them. Savaging fellow Democrats (except those who cannot win) should come after taking control, not before.

For whatever reason, Alter believes that the Democrats shouldn't remove deadwood in the primary within their own party if they are to beat Republicans in November. Maybe they can't. But I don't want to belong to a party that doesn't try. Joe Lieberman isn't losing in Connecticut because of his Iraq stance alone. It isn't even other positions. It's because he's a lousy politician with voters at this point - didn't we find that out in 2000? It's because he drips with the residue of clubby Washington, and if there's one thing Congressional Democrats have to do, it is to stop doing that. And most importantly, Lieberman DOES savage fellow Democrats while they're not in power - he's breaking Alter's one rule. He attacked Bill Clinton, he's suggested that Democrats that oppose Bush on Iraq policy are hurting the country - he's what Alter is complaining the blogs are - and he's being paid by taxpayers to do it.

Alter's wrong on his theory about not culling the deadwood in Democratic Party primaries, but more disappointing, he fails to apply the same criteria he uses to belittle bloggers on the man he's trying to prop up. Most importantly, he's wrong about not considering the benefits of having Ned Lamont in the Senate over Joe Lieberman. If he did, he'd hopefully see the uselessness of his article. Alter can do better, and for everyone involved, I hope he does in the future. A future with Ned Lamont, and without Joe Lieberman, in the Senate.

As much as I want to see Al Gore run in 2008, I don't think there can be much of a sneak campaign to get the nomination that would win a general election. I don't think it's because he's any less viable than other Democratic Party candidates, just that the general population pretty much remembers him as the guy that lost in 2000 - the loser in 2000.

If Gore were really running, it would be in his best interest to start working on resetting that mindset of Americans. And the first thing he should do is state what he would and wouldn't have done if he had been President since 2000. Obviously, he can't do it himself, but surrogates can, and if the man is thinking about running for President, he ought to have those.

Many of us in the blogosphere consider the country cheated of a much better future because of what happened with Bush v. Gore, but I'm afraid the general population just doesn't think of it much at all, let alone that way. There's no reason for any Gore effort to rehash the court decision on the election, but there's every reason to try to establish what has happened to the country because of that result and how that differs from what could have been.

Al Gore - where are your surrogates?

Some historians regard this as the first major terrorist attack on the United States by a foreign party - 85 years before the 9/11 attacks.

On this issue, it doesn't matter what your political background is.
On this issue, it doesn't matter what your partisan viewpoint is.
On this issue, it doesn't matter whether you like Bush or don't like Bush.
On this issue, it doesn't matter whether you think that the Middle East is the most important subject today, or taxes, or abortion, or the deficit, or whatever.

What does matter is that anyone with a brain that functions enough to allow them to find the Internet should know that this story does not belong at the top of the White House Web Site:

Discuss White House Tee Ball

Al Leiter, Former Major League Baseball Pitcher and White House Tee Ball Honorary First Base Coach, will discuss Tee Ball on the South Lawn today at 3pm (ET). Submit a question

It doesn't belong on the front page at all. It doesn't even belong on the web site. Any web developer, trying to promote the importance of their client's site, will tell a client:

Lead with the most interesting and important items for your organization in a way the audience will care about.

It's clear the content managers for the White House web site don't care about the audience, and I think it's obvious they don't care much about the value of the White House web site, either. Maybe Al Leiter can get a better job out of this, though.

The White House Web Site is an embarrassment to the industry of web development. It's a setback to "e-government" and it is time that the web site development industry start addressing it. Is this really what was imagined when content management web tools were developed? I think not.

But I do know that this is something that shouldn't be nuanced. No one less than Rice should be saying this NOW to get it prioritized in foreign news...

The US state department has dismissed as "outrageous" a suggestion by Israel that it has been authorised by the world to continue bombing Lebanon.

"The US is sparing no efforts to bring a durable and lasting end to this conflict," said spokesman Adam Ereli.

King of Zembla has a rather unsettling report.

From the Darien News Review in Connecticut

Will the Real Lieberman Stand Up?

We are staunch supporters of people's right to run as, or vote for, third-party or unaffiliated candidates. But Joe Lieberman cannot do so without making the last 18 years of loyalty to the Democratic Party a mirage.

He has received strong support from his party over the years. Now, however, he has run up against an issue, namely the war in Iraq, his position on which diverges greatly from many in his party, and it has left him the target of much criticism, and in a dogfight with Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont.

If Lieberman is a man of principle, as a U.S. senator should be, he should be able to balance loyalty to his party with a position on an issue that is unpopular within that same party. After all, no person can be expected to agree with everything his party endorses.

Lieberman should be big enough after 18 years to accept the consequences if his unpopular stand costs him the primary. It's the least he can do for the party that has sent him to Washington since 1988.

Well put.

New Gallup Poll out showing Bush job approval at 37%. That's with 82% of the Republicans polled still approving of the job Bush is doing. 82%! Not sure how much worse a Republican President has to do to get that 82% to drop substantially, but if somehow Republicans win both houses this fall, we're likely to find out. The world will weep.

Only 27% of Independents approve of the job Bush is doing, along with 9% of Democrats. 9% of Democrats? Is 9% of the party actually DINOs? Not even DINOs, but RIDOPPs*?

Of course, it's the 16% peel-off of the Republicans and the 67% disapproval of the independents that have to have the Republican candidates for Congress sleepless at night.

*Republicans In Denial Of Political Persuasion

Apparently this hurt Jacoby's feelings.

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

The whole concept of "chicken hawk" is that it's about people promoting warfare as the solution who have never participated in such practice as a solution before.

So, Jacoby's clearly wrong on what a "chicken dove" is. That would be a person that promotes peaceful solutions who has never participated in such practice as a solution before.

It's not about opposing warfare. It's about constantly seeking successful peaceful solutions to solve a problem. To suggest there are even "chicken doves" is to see reality only in the prism of war.

The news media lets this kind of bigoted crap slide all the time. Thank People there's somebody to take it on now.

From Whittier Daily News:

When the Republican Party leased the bottom floor of the former Ibiza restaurant, everyone celebrated. A temporary use had been found for a vacancy.

But hold on. There is only one minor problem. City rules don't allow offices where the party's headquarters is located.

The City Council may come to the rescue of the party at its 6:30 p.m. Tuesday meeting by carving out an exemption for political campaign headquarters.

Jeff Collier, director of community development, said the plan for Uptown banning offices in certain areas envisioned long-term uses, not short-term.

“Nothing in there says a short-term use like this can or can't be there,” he said.

In addition, a proposed new plan would not ban offices, Collier said.

The existing rule only allows restaurants and retail space on Greenleaf Avenue from Wardman to Hadley streets and on Philadelphia Street from Comstock to Bright avenues.

But local Democrats, who weren't allowed to rent along Greenleaf Avenue during the 2004 campaign are crying foul.

“Isn't it amazing how fast the rules are rolled back when it comes to the Republican Party,” said Lillian Gonzalez, president of the Mark Twain Democratic Club.

They should tell them to get out,” Gonzalez said. “If [the rules] applied to us, it should apply to them. This is discrimination.”

The club did find a location in Uptown Whittier, but it was next to the former Alpha Beta market on Comstock, not on Greenleaf Avenue.

Hypocritics.

Notice to all countries: If you're expecting intelligent direction of the only current superpower in the world in helping resolve the tensions and problems around the world, it is up to you - YOU - to keep these tensions and problems from boiling over until after the election in 2008. I know it's unfair. But we're lead by a President comparable to Uncle Billy Bob, who comes and watches the kids while the parents go on that vacation to the tropics and who clearly has no idea what he is doing. He calls his friends, who also have no clue, and together they all screw up for a week. Given an option in choices, Uncle Billy Bob will rarely, if ever, think it through past the easiest and most mediocre decision, the decision that might survive a week but little longer, but Uncle Billy Bob doesn't care, because it's not really his responsibility. George W. Bush IS Uncle Billy Bob, and I realize that bombing of civilian populations isn't the same as letting the kids drink alcohol, and that a week isn't 8 years, but we're still not expecting the parents to be back in charge until 2008. Expecting George W. Bush to competently and effectively resolve problems is, unfortunately, a fantasy with no basis in history.

And, by the way, this goes for you in the scientific community as well, too... the second hope for humanity against a changing avian flu (after a prevention being delivered) is for any human-to-human contagion to be prevented or contained until after we're done with Bush in office. If it is inevitable, please let it occur after we rid ourselves of this inept administration.

Brains and Eggs says there is hope. The New York Times reports that there will be a national Democrats' rules and bylaws committee vote on a "jumbling" proposal this weekend. Iowa would still be first, but a Western state would be wedged in before the New Hampshire primary, and a Southern state would follow New Hampshire.

From Cato-at-liberty:

The six House Republicans who voted against the authorization to use force against Iraq in October 2002 — Ron Paul (Tex.), Jim Leach (Iowa), John Hostettler (Ind.), Connie Morella (Md.), Amo Houghton (N.Y.), and John Duncan (Tenn.) — should wear their wisdom and foresight as a badge of honor. All other Republicans, and the remaining Democrats who voted for the war and have not yet admitted their error, can recover a shred of respectability by making an intellectual and personal journey similar to that of Shays, Gutknecht, McHenry, Jim Gerlach (Pa.), and others.

John Edwards recorded a podcast with President Jimmy Carter that's well worth listening to...

Here's a morsel from Carter:

"To improve our country's reputation as the only superpower on earth: I think that everyone in the world should look to Washington and say there is a mighty nation that believes in peace, not pre-emptive war. That tries to address the inevitable conflicts that exist among people and within nations and between nations by using our tremendous and unchallengable military and economic power for peace."

That is a foreign policy statement that Americans can get behind - short, easy to understand and something we can be proud of as a long-term vision.

Maybe we shouldn't wonder why our national politics are so screwed up... Maybe it's because the media promotes that EVERYONE play politics - with everything.

Not everybody aspires for a political career. But more often than not, they get one. Politics is a part of just about every job.

“If you have more than three people in the office, the politics emerge,” says Marilyn Puder-York, an executive coach and author of “The Office Survival Guide: Surefire Techniques for Dealing with Challenging People and Situations.”

Simply put, office politics is the game of the workplace — the people, the culture and the rules that must be learned.

Some of the points in this article is commonsense. But this part makes me sick:

Play the game

No matter how much the little details of the workplace annoy you, you have to play along, says Jansen.

“People, even if they figured out what the politics game is, they avoid it and the worst thing you can do is avoid it,” she says. “It will catch up to you, and it will bite you in the rear.”

Honestly, most workplaces would be SO MUCH BETTER OFF if everyone made an effort to avoid office politics as much as possible.

Challengers to Republican incumbents running for Congress ought to push the pictures of that Republican candidate with George W. Bush. Bush and Iraq are no longer just drags on Republican candidacies, but anchors.

Unfortunately, Bush and Iraq greatly reduce progress for the entire country as well.

Than he deserved.

In the end, Ralph Reed couldn’t do for himself what he had helped Republicans do all the way up to the White House: Get elected.

Despite the backing of top conservatives including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Georgia Gov. Zell Miller, Reed failed to win Georgia’s GOP nomination for lieutenant governor Tuesday. He lost to little-known state Sen. Casey Cagle of Gainesville.

Wow. Christian Coalition plus big-city Republicans plus crazy angry man doesn't equate into victory. Ralph Reed's been faced.

Looks like the Republican head of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society had them ripped off before he was able to honor Duke Cunningham.

I want to see Al Gore in the '08 Primary.

There's a terror out there that kills over 30,000 Americans every year. You may know of somebody that died from this terror. If so, you likely don't fully understand what happened - why it happened the way it did, why it wasn't prevented, and you may wonder if someone else you know will suffer from the same fate of terror eventually.

That terror is suicide.

If our society knew that over 30,000 Americans were going to be killed next year by mysterious deliberate actions of human intent, the fear and anxiety of the mystery would force the government to confront the issue openly and investigate how to save those people. We'd have alerts. We'd have public officials traipsing in front of cameras every day, keeping the issue in front of the American people, trying to work our national community to combine forces to prevent these actions.

At the very least, we'd have a VERY public debate about the entire issue - causes, cases, impacts, prevention methods, etc.

We've just had a very, very public and very, very dangerous case of suicide in the news. Did anyone see that statistic of 30,000 suicides annually in the reporting? I didn't. What I saw were comments like this:

The blast site drew a steady stream of onlookers who gawked at the gap in the row of expensive apartment houses just off Park Avenue yesterday morning. Dan and Irene Merrins of Freeport, on Long Island, were staying at their son's East Side apartment while he is on vacation. They decided to walk over and see the devastation firsthand.

"Fine if you want to (commit suicide)," Irene Merrins said. "But what about the other people around?"

"He wanted to make a statement," Dan Merrins said. "He certainly did."

Fine if you want to commit suicide? I believe in free choice, but frankly, the judgment in this case that it was "fine" seems pretty ridiculous. Would someone say that about their own family? Their best friend? Their own doctor? Their business partner?

The news media is understandably sensitive to the issue of suicide, in respect to the family members. In this particular case, however, the "suicider" made obvious his intent to make his death public and infamously known. A responsible news media should take this public suicide opportunity to discuss the larger issue at hand in detail - at least to provide the gross numbers on suicide in our country each year, and try to prompt the national debate on the issue. There is clearly a wide gap between thinking suicide is "fine" and spending government funds on suicide prevention. Our nation needs the education, and the discussion.

I guess we'd be joining a trend.

Now, 1 in 4 Americans sports a tattoo or two, a recent study from the American Academy of Dermatology shows. And the numbers of tattooed Americans are growing with each generation.

According to the study, Republicans and Democrats are about even when it comes to tattoos, with Democrats only sightly more (24 percent) than Republicans (22 percent).

Independents (27 percent) and "others" (29 percent) were a little higher.

How many other ex-House Speakers get as much press as Newt Gingrich? Thomas Foley? No. James Wright? No. Dennis Hastert hardly gets as much press. Why does the press love somebody with such shotgun, scattered, and occasionally insane opinions?

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

It's irresponsible to call this World War III. But Gingrich is worse than that, he's evil - he's marketing an attempt to politicize a conflict for the purpose of partisan power. We need leaders that not only don't declare today's world as a third world war, but work with other nations to prevent it. If we truly are close to a third world war, Newt Gingrich only has to look at his own party and his party's leader as to why the world's leadership has been so lacking to allow it to slip towards this.

About the Israel - Lebanon escalation... and it isn't very popular with war proponents.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Smell the irony about the name of the "Minuteman Project"...

Gunmen kidnapped the head of Iraq's Olympic committee and at least 30 employees after storming their offices in Baghdad on Saturday.

The Governor of Alaska, Frank Murkowski, friend to energy companies, is promising a little taxpayer payment to get a tax change for the energy companies approved and win his August 22nd primary... Former State Senator John Binkley is also running for the Republican nomination for Governor in Alaska. Binkley's lined up the current Republican House Speaker among other Republican state legislators that are backing him instead of the current Governor for the nomination. It looks like Murkowski's friendship with the energy companies is costing him in his own party.

Bringing this up for public conversation. Why the study has been kept quiet until now is somewhat disturbing, though.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

Doesn't seem applicable today.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

At least the President doesn't have this authority, but on the other hand, the Congress has presented little "manly firmness" opposition to the last six years of invasions on the rights of the people, either.

I'm starting to be in awe of the Lieberman campaign's ability to have newspapers and magazines around the country support Lieberman's candidacy. The entire process smells of an organized campaign, and I can't really say it's Lieberman or Congressional Democrats or even Republicans that are promoting the theme that it sure would be a shame if Connecticut votes to replace Lieberman with someone they like better, but it sure seems like a campaign.

What I'm not impressed with is its effectiveness. What a difference a decade makes... I keep reading how, if Lieberman is re-elected, how it's going to reveal the lefty blogs as weak and ineffective and... well, not worth listening to.

But what I'm not seeing is that this national campaign to prop up Lieberman is actually helping Lieberman's campaign. So, let's say the LA Times and The Kansas City Star and Time magazine and Slate and whoever else of traditional print media comes out with articles to prop up Wobbly Joe. And let's say Lieberman still loses the primary. And let's say Lieberman loses the general, too.

Then let's say that it's the print partisan political media that is weak and ineffective and not worth listening to, because that is where we're heading with this. These newspapers and news publications want to put their credibility on the line and promote Lieberman and oppose Lamont? Fine, but realize this - Lieberman loses and nobody is going to give a shit what the Jonathan Chaits of political reporting have to say anymore. It's one thing to diss a trend growing in popularity, as the Lamont positives and Lieberman negatives have been doing. It's quite another to do that and be shown to be clueless in the results. Think bloggers will let all this "attack on the behalf of Lieberman" slide? Unlikely...

Yes, the world is the shit right now. Is it any worse than the 1960s, though, in reality? I don't think so. How quickly we forget the past. What happened in the 1960s? Eventually cooler minds prevailed. Will that happen again? I don't know, but we have to look to ourselves to fix it. The first step is to realize that the policy of the last six years has been severely flawed and unrealistic and we need realists, not idealogues, in charge, and that anyone preferring idealogy over intellectual consideration can't be trusted to lead this country.

And any newspaper that advocates considering this time as World War III can't be trusted, either.

The 4th charge from the Declaration of Independence:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

At one time, Washington, DC could be proclaimed as all those things from the existing states, but now it's just one cushy place to be for legislators.

On July 17, 1945, Leo Szilard and 69 co-signers at the Manhattan Project "Metallurgical Laboratory" in Chicago petitioned the President of the United States concerning use of the A-bomb in Japan. His words are as salient today as they were then:

The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States — singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.

Very interesting interview of him from 1960, also.

If you want to determine why the Bush Administration seems to make similar mistakes over and over and over again, here's as good as place as any to start... from last night's Larry King interview:

And just as Liza Minnelli seemed to come unglued all on her own in her appearance on the show last March, Mr. Bush at times seemed tense and defensive even without needling from his host. "I've been popular before, as president," Mr. Bush said tightly. "And I've been — people have accepted what I've been doing." He added: "Sometimes things go up and down. The best way to lead and the best way to solve problems is to focus on a set of principles. And do what you think is right."

Focus on the problem? Focus on the particulars? Reverse-engineer from the results desired? No. Apply a collectivity of standards or judgments. Focus on a fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action. Rely on a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct.

Is there a list of problems that George W. Bush has solved during his Presidency? If so, I'd be curious to see it, because it seems to me we have the same problems we had before he came into office plus perhaps the greatest accumulation of new problems on the forefront that our country has seen in a six year period since World War II. Just why does George W. Bush think he can lecture about solving problems?

I know why - because that's his principle. The boss knows best. Might makes right. Focus on that principle. It doesn't matter that most folks disapprove of the job he's doing in this country, or that folks think the country is going in the wrong direction. He can solve that problem by just reiterating, over and over and over again, that he's the President, damnit, and he has principles of leadership. That will solve any problem. People disagree with you? Swiftboat them. Expose their cover. Accuse them of being traitors. Might makes right.

From the Declaration of Independence:

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

I wonder what the residents of Washington, DC think about their representation?

If you plan on flying from the U.S. to Asia anytime soon, you may want to check your flight's expected flight path...

Some 10 minutes before North Korea test-fired its fist missile early Wednesday, an Asiana Airlines passenger plane crossed the missile’s future trajectory above the East Sea, it emerged Thursday, highlighting Pyongyang’s recklessness in firing the rockets without warning.

The first missile was fired at 3:32 a.m. Asiana says flight OZ 235 from Chicago to Incheon International Airport flew across the area above the East Sea between 2:30-3:10 a.m. The track chart confirms the story.

The airline says there is no way of knowing how dangerous the situation was since it has no information about the flight time and altitude of the missile. But chances are that a planeload of passengers had a close shave.

North Korea gave no warning before test-firing altogether seven missiles on Wednesday, saying there was no point since spy satellites have been monitoring its every move for a month.

Robin asked me to pass along this notice:

Lower Bucks for Democracy is sponsoring a free screening of the award-winning documentary Why We Fight. Why We Fight takes a careful look at the American military-industrial complex from the end of WWII to the Iraq War.

When: Thursday, July 13 at 7:00 pm sharp Where: Langhorne Public Library

In addition, there's also Medicare D-Day:

PA Action is organizing a Lobby Day at Rep. Fitzpatrick's office dedicated to reforming Medicare Part D. The official name of the event is Medicare D-Day. We want to get one hundred people to show up to Rep. Fitzpatrick's Langhorne office on the morning of July 29 (the weekend of Medicare's birthday) to ask the congressman to fix Medicare's prescription drug benefit.

When: Saturday, July 29 at 9:15am
Where: the Congressman's Langhorne office, One Oxford Valley, Suite 800 (JC Penney lot)

From the Declaration of Independence:

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

We still have Executive neglect of issues. We still have Congressional neglect of issues. I don't think we've built a political structure from the get-go that particularly hones in on solving this issue. Of course, "immediate and pressing importance" is an eye of the beholder standard.

This doesn't surprise me about Joe Biden:

Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, Barbara Boxer of California and Ken Salazar of Colorado plan to campaign in Connecticut for Lieberman between now and the Aug. 8 primary.

This doesn't surprise me about Joe Biden either:

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. was first elected to the United States Senate in 1972 at the age of twenty-nine and is recognized as one of the nation’s most powerful and influential voices on foreign relations, terrorism, drug policy and crime prevention.

1972. Wow. Does Joe Biden get nervous when he sees how the times have changed - how Democrats expect their Senator to respond to their interests of today as the issues? Does Joe Biden wonder how he has been responding to those issues? Does Joe Biden wonder if voters care about what's happening today as opposed to 10 or 20 years ago? Does Joe Biden wonder if he's next in the barrel after Joe Lieberman?

Because I'm wondering who's going to run in the Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senator in Delaware in 2008. I'm really, really wondering.

I think each day for the foreseeable future I will post one piece of the grievance against the King of England as originally stated in the Declaration of Independence. Today's grievance:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

What does this refer to? Wikipedia states:

The granting of Royal Assent is the formal method by which a constitutional monarch completes the legislative process of lawmaking by formally assenting to an Act of Parliament. While the power to withhold Royal Assent was once exercised often, it is almost never exercised under modern constitutional conventions. The power remains as one of the reserve powers of the monarch.

Do we have this issue in the United States today? Is Bush refusing his Assent to Laws? Interesting question. When the President places in signing statement conditions as to when the law is applicable to the Executive Branch regardless of what the legislation says, is that a limited refusal of assent?

Here it is, another fourth of July, another Independence Day, another birthday for our country, so to speak. What is it we're celebrating again? Let's not just say another year older for the existence of the formal country. We ought to focus on the actual point of reference for the 4th: the text, the depth, the meaning, the elasticity and yet the solidity of this document: The Declaration of Independence. But most of all... the promise of the Declaration.

Take a look at the words. Do they feel... ironic in this day and age? Are we anywhere or anything near what the Founding Fathers were considering? Perhaps we should spend this day reconsidering ourselves rather than celebrating our predecessors. Take a look at the offenses accused of the King in 1776... do any of those sound like a problem America still has today? What can we work together to change our country tomorrow that would be most in spirit of our forefathers in 1776?

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Anyone else think people will start remembering them similarly?

"Joe Lieberman"
"Zell Miller"

Really makes you wonder what is going on...

Inspectors found a 5-inch-long crack in the foam insulation covering the shuttle Discovery's external fuel tank, and NASA managers were deciding Monday whether to call off the scheduled Fourth of July launch.

The crack was spotted during an overnight inspection. NASA had scrubbed launch plans Saturday and Sunday because of poor weather and had removed fuel from the tank.

The inspectors found the crack, which was an eighth of an inch deep, in the foam on a bracket near the top of the external fuel tank.

...

Concerns about cracks in the fuel tank's foam insulation have dogged the program since Columbia exploded over Texas on Feb. 1, 2003. A chunk of flyaway foam had damaged Columbia's wing during liftoff, allowing superheated gas to penetrate the shuttle when it re-entered the atmosphere.

NASA tried to fix the problem before trying another launch, but more foam broke off Discovery's redesigned tank last July, barely missing the shuttle.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin decided the shuttle should go into orbit despite the concerns of two top agency managers who wanted additional repairs to the foam insulation.

War on terror ruling worries GOP lawmakers

This is totally backwards. It shouldn't be the ruling that worries lawmakers, it should be the Bush Republican Administration practices that worry lawmakers. Will these people ever stop being Republicans first, and start being Americans first? How about we defend a standard of behavior for America - one that we expect the rest of the world to eventually adopt - rather than redefine the legality of secret Bush Republican Administration activities?

Corzine plays hardball on New Jersey's state budget.

Atlantic City casinos ordered shut

"It's not that I'm for the Democrats specifically," said Carol Shulman, a communications professor from Oxford, Ohio. "I'm for more of a balance of power."

The balance of power argument is the strongest hand the Democrats have for this year. It is the followup to the rhetorical question "Want more?" which follows a long grocery list of excesses by the Bush Republican Administration. It isn't even necessary for Democrats, but should play well for independents and even moderate Republicans.

In many newspapers today, there was an editorial piece from B. Jay Cooper concerning Ann Coulter and her like, entitled "Coulter Can't Define Republicans". Cooper is former deputy press secretary to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served as communications director of the Republican National Committee under four chairmen. And he finishes with:

Here's my point: Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh do not define me as a Republican, nor most Republicans I know. They just talk the loudest and hold the megaphones. But to me, that's not politics, that's show business.

Coulter, Hannity, etc., exemplify and amplify the excesses of having the Bush Republican Party run the White House and Congress, and as propagandists, they're not going away before the election. They will keep talking, and keep saying ridiculous things. Just as fast as Republicans want to run away from them, Democrats should promote their most egregious comments as representative of the Bush Republican Party as part of the balance of power argument. As much as the Bush Republican Party is on the ballot this fall, the propagandists should be unofficially on it as well.

What???? Congress is considering legislation based on a deal brokered by Bush that isn't what India expected when the deal was discussed?

The two different Bills approved by the House international relations committee and the Senate foreign relations committee have far extended the terms of the July 18, 2005 agreement on civilian nuclear energy cooperation signed between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush, with several provisions which nuclear experts point out should be taken by the Indian government as clear "deal breakers."

Dr Manmohan Singh had told Parliament that India will not enter into any inspections agreements with the IAEA until "the US has removed all the restrictions against India." But the House committee's version of the Bill has made it clear that India must first conclude "an agreement requiring the applicability of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity" before the US President submits his statutory determination to the Congress for the implementation of the deal.

The Senate Bill, building on this, ensures that the President can exercise his waiver authority if he makes a determination to the appropriate congressional committee that India has provided the IAEA and the US a credible separation plan, has filed a complete declaration of its civil nuclear facilities, has signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and is making "substantial progress" with the IAEA towards implementing an additional protocol.

The "step by step" approach, which was supposed to guide implementation of the July 18 agreement, has been completely given up, with the two Bills making it clear that even before the deal can be approved and brought into effect the Nuclear Suppliers Group should decide "by consensus to permit supply to India of nuclear items covered by the guidelines of the NSG." The NSG decision now has to be consensus and not by majority.

Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again!