Sunday Comic

Joe Sacco's the "comics journalist," and his latest work as an inbed with reservists on the road and the Euphrates is well worth the read. (And worth the wait to read it. The PDF linked to in the title downloads slowly.)

More here.

Why I love NY

This is why I love NY. The Red Sox auction off the naming rights to its stadium for a day, and a Yankee fan buys it at auction and want to name it Jeter Stadium. Genius. This is what separtes the great from the merely good. It Troy all over again. Boston wins, celebrates to excess, and someone says, "Hey I got a GREAT idea." There's just no way bringing this big wooden horse inside can backfire, we're the champs! The worst part is that the auction winner only had to bid $2325 for the naming rights. Beenie Babies sold for more. This makes me an official Yankees fan, sorry Mc Lieberman.

France tries to become the Stalin Malone of the EU

At this point France is just disagreeing to disagree. Chirac refuses to vote to include Hezbollah in EU's list of terrorist organizations. I get that France wants to be the counterbalance to the US in international affairs, but this is getting out of control. Really, I just feel for Hezbollah. While they have the good fortune to rhyme with ebola, always a plus when you're trying to be menacing, they have to wonder what they have to do for a little recognition. I guess suicide bombing is so yesterday. I can just see them crowded around a small t.v. waiting for a shout-out from Chirac, only to be left out. Truely a sad day for the Hezbollah faithful. Maybe not as sad as Gary Payton hearing he's been traded to the Hawks, but still, pretty gloomy.

Supportive???

There is a human being walking the earth with the rest of us who, when commenting on her husband's suicide said, "I wish I could have been more supportive of his decision." And she didn't just say it privately to friends, she believed that repeating this twisted sentiment to the press for all to read would not reflect ill on her. Keep in mind we aren't complicating the issue with an extreme disability or severe chronic pain. This husband was just a guy who felt that leaving a bloody corpse in the kitchen by the 12 pack of Diet Pepsi for his son and grandson to find was a better plan than facing another day of duty to his life.

I wish I could be more supportive of that too. I wish I could be more supportive of rape and white slavery. I wish I could be more supportive of people who want to cheat on their wives or steal from their employers. I wish I didn't ever have to make a stand and call wrong what it is when someone else wants it to be right. I wish I could take the easy path. I wish I could be Spanish. No, I don't. Because if I were to strip conviction and courage out of my life there would be no reason not to follow the other cowards into the kitchen with my own revolver.

Designated Driver

From Saturday's New York Times:

". . . most Chinese international security experts insist that the United States holds the two most important keys to resolving the North Korean problem: ending a state of hostility that dates from the earliest days of the cold war and providing tangible assurances to North Korea that Washington does not seek the government's overthrow.

'Although many of our friends see it as a failing state, potentially one with nuclear weapons, China has a different view,' said Piao Jianyi, an expert in international relations at the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies in Beijing. 'North Korea has a reforming economy that is very weak, but every year is getting better, and the regime is taking measures to reform its economy, so perhaps the U.S. should reconsider its approach.'"

A reconsidered approach is exactly what the Bush administration has made the past four years. How carefully and consistently that approach has been made says much about the so-called neo-cons. This says it especially well, and explains both Powell's failure in the Bush administration, and the Bush administration's failure to end N. Korea's nuclear program or, in other words, Kim Jong Il's regime.

The "tangible assurances" North Korea seeks seem unlikely to come from the Bush administration any time soon, for diplomatically calibrated reasons the article makes all too clearly and amusingly, unless you're Powell (that sexy sportscar of a state department secretary who turned all the pretty little pundits' heads, but couldn't carry the load).

Nor should these assurances be offered. North Korea's not a nation in an "axis of evil"; it's a singularly imminent global ground zero, dead center of a decade-in-the-making disaster-to-be. Whether it's war precipitated by a border crisis with South Korea or nuclear brinksmanship in the Sea of Japan, it'd be hell on Earth, and we'd be in it with China. Short of a war with North Korea, there's its nuclear technology or materials being sold to Islamicists or nations like Libya.

Minus honeyed words in cuckoo Kim's ear, however, we had an obligation after Afghanistan and along with continued anti-terrorism efforts to make disarming North Korea our top international objective. Had we not reached for what's correctly been called the low-hanging fruit of Iraq, we wouldn't have spent almost two years and counting chewing that rotten apple instead of sitting at the table with the EU and China (in addition to the six-party talks), making what's in everybody's all-around interests clear: Kim's regime will struggle to survive nuke free, or not at all, and China—not the U.S.—can be the hero here.

Suffering Sappho!

So now it's Keyes? Phenomenal.

And it's all in my forthcoming feature film, League of Extraordinary Lesbians.

Alan Keyes

Nobody wants to give Uncle Joe any guff about this? Really?

Personal Soapbox

Yes, I'm slowly turning this site into a personal venting source against a increasingly intrusive government. However, there is a very interesting case before the Supreme Court. The case is Kelo v. City of New London and its about Eminent Domain abuse. George Will's piece is well done. There are more than 10,000 cases of Eminent Domain being used to take property from one private citizen to another. In one case, the city council passed zoning laws to declare an are blighted, that used a definition that included that a home must have three bedrooms, two bathrooms, attached two car garage, and central heat and air. However, not even the mayor or any of the seven city council members who were trying to condemn the neighborhood had homes that met the description.

Social Security

What seems to be missing in the debate is that shoring up Social Security and personal Savings Accounts are two different issues, although the second ones cost will make the first goal even more difficult. The President bravely mentioned the proposals needed to return the program to solvency, he even made sure that we knew democrats had proposed each one of them. My feeling is that social security has worked rather well so far and solutions like rasing the age, reinstituting the payroll tax on those making over $80,000, means testing, lower benefits or some combination of those would solve the problem for those that think Social Security as originally envisioned should be maitained.

On PSA's, what i don't understand is whether we want to view Social Security as a safety net or an investment program. Lets not confuse the two, if people who aren't market literate make their own investment desicions, we will have more elderly in poverty at the end of the day. This may be a reasonable trade off, since others will retire with more money then they would have otherwise. If the Federal Gov't administers this plan is there a danger of state interference in markets? If the goal is to expand investment to grow the "ownership society" why not expand the 401(k) plan?

I credit the President with having the stones to get this discusion started but hopefully I wont heave to hear how those who disagree with PSA's hate freedom and think that gov't can spend your money better than you can.....

What Another Conservative Wants

Social Security Numbers: Third Rail, First Step?

The more I read about the all-around opposition or reluctance to support the personal accounts that Bush is proposing, the more I'd like to believe Bush is framing social security reform, not the tax cuts, as his domestic policy legacy. It'll take his successor (s) and subsequent congresses, but given the unprecedented expenses ahead for the U.S. and what surely will be our generation's growing interest and influence, social security as we know it is nearing its end.

Today Bush's stand on social security is principled; by 2012 , it's a winner, and the pivotal issue upon which the Democrats must also stand or finally fall as a viable party.

What a Conservative Wants

I think we established that there isn't a monolithic conservative view on constitutional jurisprudence, however Justice Scalia is a good place to go for at least some guidance as to a conservative paradigm.

In commenting on the notion of employing international law when deciding American jurisprudence, in this instance the question was what would he do if there was no US abortion jurisprudence but there were Canadian decisions, Scalia had this to say:

"I wouldn't look to Canadian law. I'd look at the text. It says nothing about it and I look at 200 years of history. Nobody ever thought it said anything about it. That's the end of the question for me. What good would reading Canadian opinions do unless it was my job to be the moral arbiter, which I don't regard it as. I regard the Constitution as having set a floor to American society. That floor says nothing about abortion. It's not the job of the Constitution to change things by judicial decree. Change is brought about by democracy. Abortion has been prohibited. You want to change that? American society think that's a terrible result? Fine, persuade each other about that, pass a law, and eliminate the laws against abortion. I have no problem with change. It's just that I do not regard the Constitution as being the instrument of change, by letting judges read Canadian cases and say, "Yeah, it would be a good idea not to have any restrictions on abortion." That's not the way we do things in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens and repeal the laws. Why should the Supreme Court decide that question?"

This is consistent with what I tried to say in my evolution sticker post. The Constitution is silent on many of the issues that society is attempting to resolve. Scalia is saying, don't turn it into a hand puppet and put words in it's mouth. If it is silent, let it be silent so the people can be heard.

As an aside, Justice Breyer felt that international opinions could be used to settle American constitutional questions. This demonstrates the liberal inclination to wander away from original intent. Clearly, the desires of our constitution creators cannot be found outside of the borders of the US.

Seach Me

So the Supreme Court overruled a Federal Court decision and now the Police can use a dog to search your car if you pulled over for any minor traffic violation. I have to admit I'm a little confused here. Every new clean water regulation is a sign that our country is becoming the next USSR, but allowing searches without a warrant or even probable cause is a ok in the world freest nation? If I remember history correctly, the one thing the Founding Fathers were most concerned with was too much government intrusion into the lives of citizens. The Bill of Rights sets out to keep the Feds from grabbing too much power from the citizens. Where are all the anti-big government voices?

Judge this!

I would like to say that Randy Jackson II never says anything insightful or even valuable when he judges the contestants on American Idol. He is a complete waste, and if I may, a bit of a dork.

Attacks Relief Plan?

Dubya 2: It's the sequel only a slim majority of us asked for, but it starts Thursday anyway. Advance word: Mandate!

Politics, yes. So's this, excerpted here:

"President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives [Sunday] for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. 'Clearly there is concern' among conservatives, Perkins said. "

The article goes on to state that, "The president is sensitive to the concerns of social conservatives and has tried to reassure them [since Monday] that he remains as committed as ever to outlawing same-sex marriage, according to White House officials. Privately, some Bush advisers say the president is uncomfortable picking divisive political fights over abortion and same-sex marriage that cannot be won."

Yet pick them the president did 'til Sunday, because for him the fight over these issues was won in November. Fooled me too, Tony, strange bedfellows though we are.

I find myself almost inexplicably disappointed.

Please welcome the New Kid on the Block

Please welcome Mike3000 as Hydrablog's newest member. We think he adds that Donnie Whalberg toughness to the group, in start contrast to McLieberman's tiny blond haired kid.

And to all the cynics out there, we didn't add him to spur lagging t-shirt and poster sales, this kid's legit.

The Evolution of Bias

In college, I went to hear a speaker who was making the argument that the theory of evolution had become a religion. Its proponents, he explained, attempted to shout down all dissent crying scientific heresy. The speaker never alluded to creation, God or even Pat Robertson. Yet when he finished he was forced to suffer angry question after angry question asking why he wanted to establish a theocracy. It was clear that none of the inquisitors had even heard the talk and were only there to head off a possible threat to their what...their faith?

These are interesting times, the Men of Science say they dethroned the oracles so that we all could be freed from the tyranny of religious ideas. Now it's clear it was really just a game of King of the Hill, and the Men of Science have found those thrones to be just as pleasurable as the oracles did...and just as corrupting.

If you never realized that evolution may be wrong, then the New Millennium Oracles have done their work well. The theory of evolution is just that; a theory. There is much of value in it, as well as many holes and shortcomings. Just what you would expect from one possible description of how life came to be. The leadership of the people of Georgia want to underline the fact that this is a theory. Feel free to question their motives. Feel free to assume their biases as you pay heed to your own. But please do read the words of the sticker they want to add to their scientific text books: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. " Every word is either true or good advice for anyone interested in science.

How a statement of fact, coupled with an appeal to intellectual prudence, can be seen as an unconstitutional promotion of religion by the state is quite curious. But one man, who happens to be a judge, has determined the following: advising people against putting too much faith in a possible truth is not acceptable. It is not acceptable because that would promote religion. In other words, discouraging faith is advocacy of faith.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. George Orwell is somewhere grinning.

Amerikan Show Trials

Is there anything more creepy then a congressional public hearing? It's like watching a group of 13 year old boys attempt to impress the only good looking girl at the party. Posing and posturing should be left to vacuous cover girls and UN leaders. I expect substance from my elected officials which is why caring about politics is such a losing proposition. Alberto Gonzales has had to sit in front of God and everyone and field questions meant to imply that George Bush's America is unkind to terrorists. Don't get me wrong, a reasonable concern for the rights of everyone, even terrorists, is what makes American's so great. But reasonable does not describe the concerns of the ring leaders under the Capitol Hill Big Tent. In fact, reasonable is not even an expectation. Political points are all that matter. How can American's peek in on this impossible display of puffery and not worry for their republic? No wonder American's are devouring "reality television"; they have been driven there by our politics of the surreal.

CBS and NBC "We ain't gay."

I'm trying to figure out CBS and NBC's stance on declining the United Church of Christ ad. I get that allowing gays in the church is a controversial topic, but to say that they're rejecting it because its an "advocacy" ad, and that because "the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast." The first is just silly coming of an election cycle, and we see advocacy ads everyday. The second is just weird. First, the ad doesn't even address gay marriage, and second, does this mean when the amendment comes up CBS won't allow any ads on the topic? I'm not crying censorship here, or suspecting any conspiracy, but I think the reasons are just plain odd. My pet "wacko theory" is that CBS is trying to make nice with the White House after the National Guard memo fiasco. My realistic guess is that CBS and NBC didn't want to deal with the backlash, boycotts, and loss of other advertising for airing the ad. I think its cowardly, but they are running an business. Only thing I know is that the reasons given don't make a lick of sense.

Denial Sclimial

The only thing worse than soft diplomacy against a hard opponent, are toothless threats. There is no threat of invasion of Iran, and to even hint at it makes the US look foolish, and endangers future threats. You can't say "I'll kick you ass if you don't..." and then not when the bluff is called. Because next time you say it, you'll have to because it won't be believed. I'm glad W hasn't made any threats against Iran, It's one of the few foreign policy decisions I agree with. That threat is gone, everyone knows it, time to move on.

Sanctions are a joke, they never, ever work. That just gives the dictator a target for the suffering of the people. The whole nation rallies against whomever is putting on the sanctions, not against the dictators. Sanctions are the policy of the weak willed. They appear tough, allow policy makers a press moment, and they can then move on, but they are completely useless.

As far as conservatives saying for years that the military was cut too deep, they must have been a minority in the GOP. Cheney pushed cuts under Sr, the GOP controlled congress sure didn't do much to stave off cuts, and Rumsfeld always pushed for less. As I recall, the GOP was claiming credit for the 90's boom as the "Peace Dividend." But beyond that, with 150k troops in Iraq, how many more would we need to invade and hold Iran? Your probably getting close to half-million troops total for both states. At that point your talking about major war footing, and that's not the result of cuts that are too deep.

Also, you have to get over the "liberal" stereotype. Kennedy and Johnson had the Vietnam war, Clinton sent troops across the globe (and got bashed by the GOP for doing so) and bombed the Al Queda "pharmacy" and got hammered by the conservatives. Even Carter tried a military rescue of the hostages. Reagan negotiated their release, then dealt arms to Iran. Reagan pulled out of Beirut when the embassy was bombed. Reagan invaded Grenada. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq and more power to him for that. W. invaded Iraq again, and more power to him for that. But recall he said leading up to his first term he was against "nation building" because that's how the GOP bashed the Dems. For years the Dems took heat for using the military to "build" democracy abroad. The GOP preferred to work behind the scenes. Over the modern era its a mixed bag. At best its a mixed bag. But the GOP is late to this party. You can say "Hollywood Liberal," but modern liberals have a solid track record of defense.

The claim that the Middle East is a hotbed of terrorism because of the wide-spread oppression begs the question, "why isn't Sub-Sarahan Africa a hotbed, or Cuba, or China, or parts of Central and South America?" The Middle-East isn't a hotbed because of oppression, it's because they have the money. They have the money because we give it to them. It's like American gangs. They're dangerous because they have loads of drug cash. Take the cash away, and they get much less dangerous. Take the cash away, and they lose their lure to new recruits. We have to get away from oil to take the cash away from the terrorists. Take the cash away and we can formulate a plan based on want, not need. Nobody's freaking out about the atrocities and oppression in Africa because they use machetes, and they use machetes because they cannot afford the big stuff. Usually in a war you seek to decrease your opponents ability to wage that war. In the war on terrorism we're funding our opponents. Its just stupid.

On democracy, I can't think of a single instance where a nation build democracy without conquering the target nation. Recall MacAurthur was the defacto Emperor of Japan. Also, his rift with Truman came when Truman wouldn't give Mac the ok to conquer N. Korea. I hope it happens here, but I think its going to take decades, not years to get Iraq on stable footing and then get neighboring people to create their own. Remember that during this process all the dictators in the region will try to undermine Iraq, as a successful Iraq is a direct threat. You talk of sanctions, but the only sanction that matters is oil. It's not like boycotting pistacio's will bring any nation in the Middle East to its knees. The only way to realistically sanction Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, is to sanction oil, but we can't do without oil. I think sanctions are a waste of time, but if you're going to do it, at least have some hope of success. Again, for me, this isn't environmental, its war. Get off oil, and they lose both their cash and their lever.

finally, Bush praises Musharraf. Got to love that. Pakistan is downgrading their efforts to contain and catch Bin Laden and Al Queda. Pakistan also gave nuke technology to N. Korea (who now flaunts it in the America's face, and exposes the limits of US power. Iran took note of this, and is now on the express train to the nuclear club. Hooray!) and possibly others, and the guy who did it is pardoned. Yet Bush is "very pleased" with Musharref. Incredible.