Hee hee.

"Every day, more than 1,000 people - 380,000 in 2003 - are caught watching television without a license. "

Doesn't it seem a bit disingenuous, in the face of recent disclosures by drug companies that their FDA-approved products are actually not so safe, to claim that drug importation is unfeasable because drugs from Canada aren't regulated by the FDA? Personally, I think I'm more inclined to trust Canada's regulatory agencies than our own. (Washingtonpost.com, NYTimes.com)

Compassionate conservatism in action.

There is finally an organized, vocal group of people, former military lawyers, actively opposing Gonzalez's nomination as Attorney General. Their opposition, not surprisingly, is based on his apparent acceptance of torture in interrogation proceedings, and his dismissal of international law. This is important and good.

Unfortunately, they are already murmuring about their lack of power and possible willingness to just let it go in the face of such seemingly strong support of Gonzalez. According to the NY Times:

Mr. Hutson said talks with other retired senior military officials had not yet
produced a decision on how to oppose the selection, though testifying at the
hearings was a possibility. He said that while several opposed the nomination,
some were unsure if opposition would be "worth the effort" because of little
expectation the nomination could be derailed.

The point of a confirmation hearing is to get all the evidence, all the information, in order to make an informed decision about an appointment. If everyone has already made up his mind before hand, what's the point of even having them in the first place? Evidence should be presented, if it exists, and opinions should be given. Then, let the cards fall where they may. But to say that opposition isn't even "worth the effort"? Lame.

Can anyone explain to me what this is supposed to mean?

In introducing Leavitt in the Roosevelt Room of the White House yesterday, Bush
made no mention of the Kerik debacle, which was unusual for an administration
known for its discipline...

(Baker and Connolly in the Washington Post)

I've been awfully silent lately; that's because I've actually had work to do at work, and hence, not so much time for pontificating needlessly on the internet. Ahh well. I'll be back someday soon. Being useful at work probably won't last long. Sigh.

And just for kicks, here's my sweet and touching essay on the holiday season: "Merry Christmas, I Fucked Your Snowman."

This is not a good time to be a woman. Despite the fact a majority of people in this country still support abortion rights, the Senate seemingly does not.

And in the ridiculous legislation file today: The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Which would require women who want abortions after the 20 week mark to be informed that the fetus can feel pain, and be offered pain relievers. For the fetus. I'm not kidding.

Dark days, getting darker.

Wow. It's stuff like this that makes me want to stop paying taxes, Thoreau style. I never cease to be shocked by how ignorant people can be, but what's frightening is that our government is paying stupid people to ensure that high school students end up equally stupid. Sweet.

Uh-oh. Here we go again:

'President Bush increased the administration's pressure on Iran on Saturday, saying there were indications that the country was speeding forward in its production of a key ingredient for nuclear weapons fuel, a move he said was "a very serious matter'' that undercut Iran's denials that it was seeking to build weapons.'

I just hope we demand a little more hard evidence this time, before we let Bush & Co. start dropping bombs.

I saw Control Room this weekend: phenomenal. What is most compelling about it is how clearly it shows the complexity of war, and the media's roles in war, and the complexity of the relationships between the Arab world and the Western world.

This made me step back and realize that there are no right and wrong sides in this situation. It's been so easy, I think, to become subsumed in a totalizing position on this war--distaste (er, hatred) for Bush & Co., and certainty that we should not be in Iraq, quickly balloon into a simplified perspective about all of it. Watching this movie drew out my understanding of the endless ambiguities, the impossibilities of rightness or wrongness in the Middle East right now.

Be very afraid.

Even Howard Dean hears the call for a more responsible media. From his speech at Yale for a "The Media and the Election: A Postmortem" symposium, he cracked the whip on our failing media institutions, pointing out that corporate ownership, and a too-heavy focus on entertainment, are making it impossible for the media to fulfill their role in the democratic process.

And another excellent article on media failures by Frank Rich. This one is, well, much more chilling. And I applaud him. We need to hold the media accountable, we need to point out their failures, and we need to make sure they stop happening.

Some words of wisdom regarding the networks from Alessandra Stanley. (And an example of my favorite kind of writing--humour and sarcasm as trojan horse for pointing out the very sad and pathetic parts of our political and popular culture.)

Hmm. Curious.

This is what I like to hear:

'In a conversation with the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, Mr. Powell once referred in frustration to Mr. Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz as "[expletive] crazies," according to a recent British biography of Tony Blair.'

And other fun tidbits from Kristof.

Christopher Hayes's article on undecided voters is both funny and painful. But the most significant point comes at the very end, after he's revealed just how little connection people have with politics, and how separate they believe it is from their lives. He writes,

As far as I can tell, this leaves Democrats with two options: either abandon
"issues" as the lynchpin of political campaigns and adopt the language of
values, morals, and character as many have suggested; or begin the long-term and
arduous task of rebuilding a popular, accessible political vocabulary--of
convincing undecided voters to believe once again in the importance of issues.
The former strategy could help the Democrats stop the bleeding in time for 2008.
But the latter strategy might be necessary for the Democrats to become a
majority party again.

This is not even a question in my mind, and the former suggestion not an option. Adopting non-policy-based language just to get candidates elected directly contradicts any efforts to seriously re-engage citizens in politics, and re-create that political language Hayes is talking about.

People were more engaged in politics, and shared a common language and understanding of how policy fit into their lives, up until the last twenty years or so. It is not impossible, although it's not easy, to bring this engagement back. But it's worth it, and if we allow the degeneracy of politics the Republicans have instituted to continue, with our blessing and collusion, it will just become harder.

Yet more proof that the right wing likes to use "ethics" and "morality" when it suits them, and disregard them when it doesn't.

The House is trying to change current rules so that a member who is indicted by a state grand jury can still hold a leadership position. It's assumed they're doing this so that, in the eventuality that DeLay is indicted in Texas, he can retain his leadership position.

Aha, but "House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats..."

They claim that they're changing the rule now because DeLay's potential indictment is nothing more than political revenge by partisans in Texas. It's amazing how they can turn everything around and blame it on the Democrats.

Er, scary:

'Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.
"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."'

Does anyone know of any very thorough books on the history of CIA? I've become a bit obsessed in recent months (again, blame Chomsky). I'm reading The Cultural Cold War right now, which deals primarily with CIA propaganda campaigns after World War II, in Europe and elsewhere, to promote "liberty" and "freedom," as defined in a capitalist democracy. It's interesting, and includes a lot of history of the development of the Agency, but I want more.

Oh, gross. This is not the right way for the Democrats to gain votes and strength in the national spotlight. This just makes liberals look even more weak in our standards and beliefs, more easily changeable.

We cannot water down or change fundamental and important aspects of our beliefs in order to win votes. We can't become mini-Republicans to win, because then it will mean nothing that we did win. I don't argue against trying to win more religiously-minded people to the Democratic party, but we can't do it by pandering to the worst aspect of that population. We have to find those whose faith and religiosity includes ideas about social justice, honesty, and helping fellow citizens. We we can win over those who are backing Bush & Co. by pointing out just how far their actual policies are from Christian morality. Show their hypocrisy, and they will lose support.

Er, I hate watching people make bad choices, and knowing I have very little power to do anything about it.