Cranky one liners, tell your friends

John McCain = George Bush + dementia (which is kinda redundant but you get the point).

Note to Barack Obama: Most people don't care what position you take on an issue, they care that the process you use in making the decision is principled.

It seems that everyone is writing their analysis of what happened with the Clinton campaign so I thought I'd add my own: Clinton hired Mark Penn. The end.

Enough already with Buddhists finding ways to love Dick Cheney! The latest ridiculous example is Deborah Solomon's interview with Columbia University Buddhist studies professor Robert Thurman:

"DS: What do you think about when you meditate?
RT: Usually, some form of trying to excavate any kind of negative thing cycling in the mind and turn it toward the positive. For example, when I am annoyed with Dick Cheney, I meditate on how Dick Cheney was my mother in a previous life and nursed me at his breast.

DS: You mean you fantasize about being breast-fed by Dick Cheney?
RT: It’s a fantasy of releasing fear and developing affection. It’s a way of coming back to feeling grateful toward him and seeing his positive side, finding the mother in Dick Cheney."

Note to American Buddhists: Dick Cheney is a murderous thug. Over 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead in part because of him. Stop trying to hump his leg and start working with the rest of humanity to put him in jail. There's a reason why Tibet isn't free -- Buddhists are so busy suppressing their anger that they are largely impotent when it comes to the political struggle.

In a just world...

This week, there's been a lot of talk about the possibility of Condoleezza Rice joining John McCain as his Vice Presidential candidate. Which is really just a marketing trick -- the Republican media machine floats her name to signal to independents, 'see we're not really a racist party, we even considered putting Condoleezza Rice on the ticket!' Then they will do what they always do, which is to find a conservative white male evangelical to keep the extreme 60% of the party from staying home on election day. It's just like having Chaka Khan sing at the Republican National Convention -- they'll never invite her into their clubs -- but they sure do like having a black woman around for photo ops to reassure independents (and gullible traditional media types who lap it up -- Ohhh Chaka Khan's on stage -- I love her!!!)

In a just world, Barack Obama's response to all this talk about Rice joining McCain's ticket would go something like this:

'Condoleezza Rice is currently free to run for Vice President. But when I'm sworn in as President on January 20, 2009, one of my first orders of business will be to turn Rice, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Feith over to the International Criminal Court. I expect they will get a fair trial and be convicted for war crimes. I imagine that Rice will spend the eight years of my presidency and indeed, the rest of her life moldering in a cold dark prison cell. I suppose Rice and Cheney can play on the same prison softball league -- but that's about as close to the Vice Presidency as she's gonna get.' (editor's note: See, it'd even have that trademark Obama humor in there too!)

What pisses me off about having to write that is Obama doesn't have the balls to do that (neither do 99% of other Democrats so it's not like I'm singling him out). Furthermore, I imagine some readers, including some of my closest friends, are gonna think, 'Oooh, saying Condoleezza Rice is a war criminal is really way out there radical stuff.' Really, it's radical to think that those who break the law should be held accountable? Since when? If you believe in the rule of law, read this article, and tell me some of these mutherf*ckers don't belong in jail.

Update #1: Then there's this (the National Lawyers Guild also believes in the rule of law and believes War Crimes have been committed).

3 narratives in traditional media

It seems to me when it comes to political reporting, traditional media cut and paste the facts of the story to fit within 1 of 3 narratives:

1.) Horse race. Who's winning, who's losing.

2.) Strong verses weak. Who got rolled on the bill verses who showed "strength and resolve."

3.) Unity verses disunity. Are the Democrats "sticking together" or has party unity "started to fray." See today's NY Times for example.

That's it. The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and CNN are bakers with only three cookie cutters and they force any political story to fit into one of these three narrative templates.

It explains why readers who are looking for thoughtful analysis (i.e. something other than these 3 narratives) increasingly have to turn to the blogosphere for their news and information.

What is more, it explains why we have a moron for a President and are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq -- because even though the Iraq war is a military, political, moral, and economic disaster -- none of those aspects of the story fit inside their 3 narratives. Rather, the way it is reported by the traditional media is that Bush and Cheney won the horse race, they showed strength in pursuing for the war in spite of the facts, and the Republican party has shown unity is sticking together and continuing the quagmire. In every case, forcing the story to fit within these 3 narratives does a disservice to the readers and cheapens our democratic discourse.

No wonder newspaper circulation is down.

(Meanwhile, Faux News functions more like Pravda forcing all of their stories to fit within only 2 narratives: 1.) Democrats Bad or 2.) Republicans Good -- you decide.)

The Wisdom of Crowds, Part 3, A Case for Impeachment

This is the final installment of my three part series on The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki.

In the first part of the series, I explained that, according to Surowiecki, in order for a group to be "smart," that is, in order for groups to make accurate predictions and decisions, the group needs to be diverse, independent, and decentralized.

Diversity brings in new ideas, independence insures that those new ideas get expressed, and decentralization prevents the sort of small minded group think that can lead a herd over a cliff.

Now here's where it gets interesting: In the months leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--the U.S. intelligence agencies were organized in exactly this manner--diverse, decentralized, and independent. As Surowiecki writes, the U.S. intelligence community was, "a collection of virtually autonomous, decentralized groups, all working toward the same broad goal--keeping the United States safe from attack--but in very different ways." (p. 67)

In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies had all of the necessary pieces of information to know that an attack was coming. The CIA monitored and took pictures of a 9/11 planning meeting of Al Qaeda operatives in Malaysia in January 2000. The CIA knew that two Al Qaeda operatives moved to San Diego in January 2000. In fact, the Presidential Daily Intelligence Briefing for August 6, 2001 was titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S" and Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft.

So if we had all of the relevant pieces of data to prevent the attacks on 9/11 then how did they happen anyway.

THERE WAS NO AGGREGATOR.

In order for diverse, independent, and decentralized groups to make smart decisions there has to be someone to aggregate the information. Think about the example of a crowd at the state fair guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar--the aggregator is the person who adds up all of the guesses and finds the average. In a stock market, the aggregator is the New York Stock Exchange which collects all of the buying and selling information and shows the price of the stock (which reflects the collective wisdom of the group). For sports betting, the aggregator is the bookmaker in the casino who sets the point spread for the game.

In every Presidency before George W. Bush, the aggregator was the President of the United States. Think about how John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. He gathered all of the different viewpoints from all of the different defense and intelligence agencies in one room, had them all make their best case (which reflected the collective wisdom of their group), and then came up with a plan that reflected the collective wisdom of the entire group.

With President Bush, there simply is NO ONE at the top who is sifting through all the information to figure out the collective wisdom of all of the intelligence agencies. As former Bush administration counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke indicated, the Bush administration simply wasn't interested in counter-terrorism. Despite the warning the the Presidential Daily Intelligence Briefing, the President continued his vacation in Crawford, Texas.

After 9/11, again there was no aggregator of the information to figure out who did it and how to prosecute them. Cheney had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. Never mind that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. If you've already made up your mind, the evidence never gets examined, the collective wisdom of the group is never identified, and poor decisions are the result.

In this case, the failure to aggregate the collective wisdom of the U.S. intelligence agencies has led to 2,974 American deaths on 9/11 and 3,646 (and counting) soldiers' deaths in Iraq. For all his talk of being The Decider, Bush has never fulfilled his responsibility as The Aggregator.

Speaking of collective wisdom, a poll by the American Research Group shows that 45% percent of Americans support impeachment proceedings against President Bush and 54% support impeachment of Cheney.

Among independents, 50% favor starting impeachment proceedings against President Bush, to only 30% opposed. And 51% of independents are also for starting impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney, to 29% opposed.

5+ Political Burglaries, Are the Plumbers Still at Work?

Over the past several years, I've read several stories about politically motivated burglaries. But I've never seen anyone put them all together in one place. The strange thing about burglaries at political offices is that they are often reported as local news, even when they potentially impact national political races.

So over the last few weeks, I've tracked down as many of the stories as I could remember:

December 31st, 2000, burglars broke into the Embassy of Niger in Italy. They stole letterhead and the official stamp bearing the seal of the Republic of Niger. These stolen materials were later used to forge documents claiming that Iraq acquired uranium from Niger--which became the cornerstone for the Bush administration's justification for invading Iraq. Remember this is one month after the U.S. Supreme Court appointed Bush President and nine months before the attacks on the World Trade Center.

October 11, 2004, The Lucas County, Ohio Democratic Headquarters was burglarized and three computers, including the party’s main system, were stolen. The burglary occurred 3 weeks before the Presidential election in the swing state that decided the outcome of the national election.

February 25, 2007, break in at the New Hampshire Democratic Headquarters. The New Hampshire Primary is the first in the nation (coming right after the Iowa Caucuses) and is often pivotal in determining who wins the nomination for President.

March 17, 2007, break-in at Minnesota Democratic Farm Labor Party headquarters. The intruder smashed an exterior window and stole the computer belonging to Communications Director, Nick Kimball, but passed up other valuable electronics, including a video camera and a high-end digital camera. No other computers were taken and it appears Kimball's laptop was the sole target of the robbery.

March 27, 2007, Minnesota Democratic Farm Labor Party headquarters broken into again. This time, the burglars "broke into the office of Andrew O'Leary, the DFL's executive director, stealing a computer that was not visible from outside of the building and going through materials in his desk."

That's an awful lot of burglaries don't you think?

Now maybe political headquarters (and embassies) are just easy targets for petty criminals.

But I wonder if perhaps this is evidence that The Plumbers are still at work? (For those who don't know, The Plumbers is the name given to the White House Special Investigations Unit in the Nixon Administration. The Plumbers included E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy who were later involved in the Watergate break-in.)

What if The Plumbers was actually a much larger operation than we were led to believe? And what if The Plumbers just went underground after Watergate but then re-emerged years later? It'd make sense in a way, both Cheney and Rumsfeld are former Nixon administration officials--what if that's just how they do business?

UPDATE: A reader who goes by the screenname hubbird on MyDD.com noted that Barack Obama's campaign headquarters in Davenport, Iowa was burglarized last Friday. The burglars took two laptops and some campaign literature.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: Readers at DailyKos also pointed out:

The Democratic Party headquarters in Manchester, New Hampshire was also burglarized on the weekend of January 20-21, 2007.

The burglary on February 23, in Concord, New Hampshire list above does not appear to be politically motivated.

The Republican Party offices in Spokane, Washington were burglarized in 2004 (although I think it's interesting to note that, in this case, cash was stolen not computers.)

Bush searches for a new Commander in Chief, Day 3

The Washington Post reports that 4 generals have now turned down the job.

Last night Daily Show correspondent John Oliver weighed in on Bush's search for a new Commander in Chief.

Crooks & Liars also has the complete video segment here.

I always thought Cheney was the real Commander in Chief but it sounds like national security adviser Stephen Hadley is the only guy in the Oval Office who actually does any work. Asked about the proposed appointment of someone to oversee the Iraq war, Hadley replied:

"My goal is to make the person really work for and be seen to work for the president, and be able to speak in his name... I can do it, and I do do it, but I can't do it and North Korea and Iran and all the other things I've got to do." (He said he will jettison the title "execution manager" to avoid unintended double meaning.)

Bush tries to hire someone else to be Commander in Chief

Today's Washington Post reports (incredibly this is NOT a story from The Onion):

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

It seems that even Bush doesn't approve of the job Bush is doing.

If Bush seriously doesn't want to be Commander in Chief anymore, I'm pretty sure the Constitution has the flexibility to deal with this sort of situation. Or he could follow the example of Cheney's previous boss.

The Case for Impeachment, Part 2

Iran.

Because the Bush administration manipulated pre-war intelligence against Iraq--they have no credibility when they make claims against Iran about nuclear weapons.

It's the boy who cried wolf (or, as my childhood friend used to say, "wuff").

It's not that the Iranians aren't a threat. They very well may be. We just don't know. And we're not going to be able to find out as long as Bush and Cheney are in office because they have no credibility on intelligence matters. After 6 years of lies (see Iraq) and incompetence (see Katrina) no one is listening to what they have to say.

We can't go two more years without accurate, credible, up to the minute, untouched-by-Cheney's-hands, solid information about Iran that the world can rely and act upon.

So for the sake of national security and to deal with the potential threats from Iran, North Korea, who knows where, we need to impeach Bush and Cheney immediately.

The Case for Impeachment, Part 1

If you want to end the war in Iraq, I think you have to impeach the President. Here's why:

Right now, the Congress merely has the power to cut off funding for the war--but in a lot of ways that is politically untenable. Republicans will be more than happy to use their media machine to punish Democrats for "cutting off funding to the troops" regardless of the fact that Bush put them in harm's way in the first place.

The President meanwhile, has a whole host of tools at his disposal. Not only can he draw up military strategy as the commander of the armed forces--he also has a whole array of diplomatic resources available to him--from the U.N. to the Secretary of State to the State Department. The problem is--he refuses to use all of the tools he has available. For him there can only be a military solution. But most experts, including the Iraq Study Group have concluded that only a negotiated political solution involving many of Iraq's neighbors will bring peace to the region.

So the Congress may have the will to end the war but not the appropriate tools to do so effectively and the President has the tools but refuses to use them. So what do we do?

Impeach Bush.

Impeach Cheney (the same day).

Speaker Pelosi becomes the President of the United States. She can immediately appoint a new cabinet--perhaps Bill Richardson as Ambassador to the United Nations, Wesley Clark as Defense Secretary, and Joe Biden as Secretary of State. Her team can immediately go to work to implement a political solution in the region while removing our troops from the front lines.

It gets the whole, "first woman President" thing out of the way. And it gets us out of Iraq through a comprehensive military and political strategy that is more likely to produce stability in the region.

Grounds for impeachment? That's easy--they lied to Congress (and the American people) about pre-war intelligence.