The Next Hurrah

Iraq spending down 5% today

by emptypockets

In a report today that may signal new promise for the pro-war campaign of Senator John McCain, the State Department has released figures showing a decrease in US spending in Iraq of 1/24th, or nearly 5%, on Sunday compared to the same period one week ago.

The savings of approximately $17 million, or about what the US spends each hour in Iraq (I'm not making that up), was heralded by Sen. McCain as yet another sign that the Iraq occupation is finally paying dividends.

The report was met with skepticism by some of the nation's top scientists, who ascribed the change in spending to an annual phenomenon they call "daylight savings time," and which they believe relates to the Earth's orbital position around the sun. President Bush and other Republican leaders called these studies "inconclusive."

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama and Clinton have released dueling plans that would each reduce annual spending in Iraq by a whopping 20%. Sen. Obama's plan, already endorsed by several labor unions, calls for the creation of a non-mandatory 130-hour week, while Sen. Clinton wants to maintain the current 168-hour week while cutting February and July.

Exiting the kingdom of reason

by emptypockets

The right-wing mot du jour seems to be "socialist." Sometimes, confusingly, it is combined with "communist" or with the communistic honorific "comrade," especially to make use of the appealing internal rhyme in "comrade Obama." All this has left me, as a notoriously poor student of politics and history, wondering, "What is socialism, why is the word popping up now, and how should I react to it?" This post is something of an experiment, a sort of thinking aloud, where I try to work through (hopefully with readers' assistance) some confusing and ambiguous political labels.

First, let me get it out of the way: I know Obama isn't a socialist. If you're here as an Obama rallyist, you can spare me. I got the message. You like Obama. Awesome. I'm with you. Now let's move on, and consider what socialism is, what it isn't, and whether we as progressive Democrats should embrace the label, scorn it, or ignore it. Everything I write here is going to be a summary of things I just googled up. Treat this post as an open thread for thoughts or references on the topic.

My approach was to read, in order, a Democracy Now! interview with Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-described Socialist holding the highest office in US politics today; a brief AFL-CIO biography of Eugene Debs, a Socialist giant back when such a thing could exist, in the early 20th century; and an essay titled "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" written by Frederick Engels in the late 19th century. Again, I knew close to zilch on this topic when I began, and I now feel like I know zilch + 1.

The title of this post comes from a line in Engels's essay, describing earlier Enlightment conceptions of socialism in the late 18th century, particularly around the French Revolution and development of industry. Of these earlier Socialist attempts, Engels wrote:

One thing is common to all three ["Utopians" (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen)]. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as Heaven from Earth, from that of the French philosophers.

Engels's underlying beef here, as I read it, is that previous Socialists had attempted to reform society from first principles, using Enlightment ideals of reason conquering all, and basing their plans on their own assumptions about equality, justice, and righteousness. Since few people ever agree on such things, these attempts descended into unresolvable conflicts or else what we would today call watered-down compromises.

Go Learn Something, pt. 2

by emptypockets

Each Tuesday or Wednesday I'll try to post a link to an interesting learning resource. Treat this as an open thread for on-line learning, education news, or to bring us news about your your own field.

Last week I linked to iBioSeminars, free Quicktime-format lectures by the leading lights in cell biology. I also want to draw attention to a couple links submitted by commenters, The Doctor's Guide, a medical news site submitted by Margot, and The Archaeology Channel, a site full of audio and video documentaries about ongoing archeological work, submitted by Elliott. I'll get back to multimedia soon, but this week I want to take a look at the world of free online texts.

My favorite source, blackmask.com, was shut down a year or two ago amidst some copyright dispute. It has been reborn as Munseys.com, and currently has upwads of 25,000 titles available, all full text, free, in a number of formats including HTML, PDF, and popular eBook reader formats.

For example, check out their Political Science shelf -- everything from Hobbes to the 9/11 Commission Report. Most of their titles are copyright-expired, meaning older pieces (not a problem for those among us who see survival over time as a powerful measure of quality, and also believe all the best science fiction was written before the moon landing).

Various Ridiculous things.

by Kagro X

• Your August 6th September 5th PDB:

Bin Laden Miers, Bolten determined to strike defy subpoenas in U.S.
Justice held hostage -- Day 42. Where's that full House contempt vote?

• Bush's entourage goes to Australia. With three 747s, 2 C17 Globemaster III air transports (carrying Marine One, a Blackhawk surveillence chopper, and the president's anti-tank grenade-proof limo), and over 700 staffers, including a doctor, nurse, personal chef and four cooks, 50 White House political aides, 150 national security advisers, 200 specialists from other government departments, 250 Secret Service agents. All of which presumably sat on their thumbs at a cost of God only knows what, while the pretzelnit stopped for a few photos in Iraq. But be warned: Dems can't make an issue of it, because they were preemptively attacked when Republicans created the fake controversy over Speaker Pelosi's own plane and travel expenses. Oh well.

• And with this, Cheech Marin finally becomes a documentary film maker.

• The GAO report is out, as emptywheel notes. What will Congressional Dems do with it? This'll be the first road test of how they'll perform after patiently gathering the evidence in the ten bazillion investigations they're currently pursuing. So why is it so quiet out there?

An open thread? Sure. Why not? Your day is only going to get more ridiculous from here.

The Next Open Thread

by DemFromCT

While the Iraq war and the 2008 horse race get most of the attention, the issue emptywheel is working on, the DoJ scandal, keeps growing in unease.

The disclosure of a secret order by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that gave broad authority to his former chief of staff over the hiring and firing of senior Justice Department employees is drawing bipartisan ire in Congress.

Even Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who was Gonzales' lone defender during his recent Senate testimony, said the order should have been turned over to Congress.

"It's disturbing that Congress had to learn about the March 2006 memo through the press," Hatch said. "We should have known about this."

     The National Journal broke the story this week.

et tu, Orrin?

In any case, your turn.

The Next Open Thread: Polling Edition

by DemFromCT

So many GOP scandals, so little time. So let's change the subject and talk about polling. From Scott Rasmussen:

At this early stage of Election 2008, the public is siding with Democrats on the key issue of the day—Iraq. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Likely Voters either want to bring home the troops from Iraq immediately or have a firm timetable for withdrawal. In the showdown over the Iraq funding bill, most Americans favor the legislation passed by Congress. Fifty-two percent (52%) oppose a Presidential veto. Looking down the road, just 33% of voters now believe history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a success. Forty-three percent (43%) of voters believe that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign.Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor raising taxes on the wealthy. 

Of course, the main topic there is the Hillary vs Obama horserace, but that's of less interest this early on. For those who care, Obama has moved ahead in polling, though Craig Crawford thinks in the end it's all about who has bigger cojones on terrorism.

Remember, what's good for America is good for the troops. What's on your mind?

The Next Open Thread: Gonzo Edition

by DemFromCT

Andrew Cohen, writing for washingtonpost.com, has been right on the money in his 'The Great Gonzo' series (my title, not his):

Believe Who? The President or Your Own Eyes?

The art of politics, I suppose, is the art of trying to convince someone of something that you yourself don't really believe; to convince someone that they ought to believe you and not their own lying eyes. I know this but I still cringe whenever I hear a politician say something totally at odds with objective reality. I cringe because I consider it a waste of my time to be listening to it and a waste of the speaker's time in saying it.

Don't that just sum it up? And...

House to Vote Today on Iraq Pullout

The House has scheduled a vote today on a bill that would require U.S. troops to begin pulling out of Iraq by Oct. 1. Democratic leaders predict they will have enough votes to pass the legislation and send it on to President Bush for his promised veto.

Several House members said they would go along with the bill negotiated with the Senate in a bid for party unity despite their desire for an earlier, binding withdrawal date.

They can't get a bill. Well, they can but it'll never pass the Senate. Well, it passed the Senate, but they don't have the votes to pass the conference bill. Well, it'll get passed but it will get vetoed (a clear defeat for Democrats). Well, Republican lawmakers are on the defensive and not Dems, but...

What's on your mind today?

The Next Open Thread

by DemFromCT

Gut wrenching.

At least 22 people were killed today, some of them students, and about two dozen more injured during shootings at Virginia Tech, some of them in a classroom, the police said. A gunman was also shot to death, officials said.

The attack was the deadliest campus shooting in American history.

Up until today, the deadliest campus shooting in United States history was in 1966 at the University of Texas, where Charles Whitman climbed to the 28th-floor observation deck of a clock tower and opened fire, killing 16 people before he was gunned down by police. In the Columbine High attack in 1999, two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before killing themselves.

A police official at Virginia Tech, Wendell Flinchum, said there were “at least 20 fatalities,” and that some of the victims were shot in the classroom. News of the number of the fatalities sent up an audible gasp in the news conference, said one television reporter in the broadcast.

I am old enough to remember the U of T clock tower shootings. It was that, and not Columbine, that occurred to me on hearing the news (just as Biafra and not Darfur crosses my mind when I think malnutrition... formative years, and all that). In any case, the idea of school as a safe haven is still ingrained in every parent. This strikes you in the gut no matter how far away you live.

There's other news, but not likely to be discussed much today, not after this.

A Failure of Leadership and Vision

by DemFromCT

John McCain is unhappy that Democrats are trying to realistically clean up Bush's mess.

Mr. McCain, a Republican presidential candidate whose candidacy has been shaken by his support of the war, spoke in vivid and even apocalyptic terms as he offered a forceful call for the United States to press on with the battle of Iraq. And he repeatedly portrayed Democrats as acting out of political opportunism — and Republicans as acting on principle — in the debate in Washington over the future of this war.

If you want to understand what's happening to McCain, look no further than Jonathan Alter in Newsweek:

To understand why he's doing this, we need to go back to his own experience in a faraway war. "This is all about Vietnam," says a longtime diplomat who insists on anonymity because he's supporting another candidate. "You can see it in his face. This triggers all the complexities of his father and grandfather and the code of honor he has written about and believes in deeply. It's hitting him in his gut. It's not a rational thing. If it were, he'd listen to the advisers who are telling him to move toward a diplomatic solution."

John McCain may be playing the political angles on various social issues, but not on Iraq. Henry Clay, the great 19th-century senator, once said, "I'd rather be right than be president." Sadly for McCain, the odds are growing that he'll be neither.

The article lists very nicely all the things that are not working for Honest John, but here's the big one:

McCain has essentially lashed his presidential prospects to Petraeus. If the surge succeeds, McCain's campaign will surge, too. If it fails, as most analysts outside the Bush administration believe it will, McCain will either have to reverse course in the fall or go into the primaries as the fiasco's main cheerleader. To ratchet up the irony, he has said repeatedly that he doesn't believe that Bush is putting in enough additional troops. That means McCain is betting his political future on a strategy he believes is flawed, executed by a president he has never much liked.

emptywheel notes the issue of Bush's competence (or lack of same), and so here lies John McCain's Presidential aspirations, casualty of Iraq.

Open Thread: Postcards from TNH

by emptypockets

This is a little experiment in bringing some of my colleagues' off-site activities back home, at least in snapshot, so those of us who enjoy a more ruminant comment thread can digest them.

Kagro X calls out ABC News' treatment of the Edwards blogger "story"

ABC News' Terry Moran enters the Edwards blogger fray, under this oh-so-coy headline:

Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech? [...] If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?

...If ABC News hasn't been able to discern for itself that the right blogosphere provides more than its share of controversial figures, and that those controversial figures are right now in the employ of leading GOP presidential candidates, as Glenn Greenwald demonstrates with about five seconds worth of Googling, then the blindness must be willful.

Does ABC News condone hate speech?

and games out the next iteration of the Edwards blogger "story"

Keep in mind that those targeting Edwards simply don't abide by the same standards when it comes to defining what's reasonable discourse and what's not. Perhaps more to the point, they are perfectly willing to say that whatever they're pointing to is beyond the pale whether most Americans would agree or not, if they think it could possibly result in the firing of a Democratic campaign staffer, and by extension, damage to that campaign. So it's just as likely that tomorrow's target will be Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Tom Vilsack, or Chris Dodd, or any of the other candidates. That the attack may have to hinge on something that most people would see as perfectly reasonable won't much matter, so long as the professional outrage machine is turned up loud enough.

This fight, if Edwards is going to be called upon to make it, must be everyone's fight. If the other campaigns cannot demonstrate that they would have displayed the same courage we call upon Edwards to display, then they benefit from the right's strategy of divide and conquer. And to the extent that they benefit, they give a pass to and encourage such attacks in the future, and are powerless to stop them when the next one comes. All they can do is hold on tight, cross their fingers, and pray they're not the next target. And that's no way to win anything. Certainly not the White House.

So keep an eye on who says what here. If you want Edwards to stand up, realize that you're going to have to demand that all the campaigns stand up. Literally. They're going to have to say that they stand by Edwards. Because these attacks only really hurt campaigns among primary voters.

and Trapper John says that Edwards played it the right way

John Edwards and his campaign decided to stand up to the ankle-biters, and deserve credit for doing so.

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me... But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

It took a little while, but Edwards set the right precedent for how this type of smear should be handled. As a Democrat, I'm proud of him and his campaign. And I'm happy that Edwards is ready to move beyond BS "hijackings" like this to talk about real issues. Let's join him in putting this nonsense behind us.

As for me personally, I'm waiting to see if any of the other Democratic contenders will try to keep this "story" alive, or if they will all decide to run a clean race (for now).