Hey, Senator Edwards, if you think a haircut should cost $400, I’d be glad to give you some shopping lessons. After all, I’ve written books and operated websites on frugality for years. I’ll even give you a copy of my e-book, The Penny-Pinching Hedonist: How to Live Like Royalty with a Peasant’s Pocketbook. It’s got a whole chapter on frugal shopping.

Not only did you pay $400 each for two Beverly Hills haircuts, but you got your campaign to pay for it! Guess which campaign I’m NOT contributing to?

And the funny thing is, you’ve got hair any barber could manage. If you looked like, say, Cher, there might be some justification for spending $100 (though not for getting the campaign to pick up the tab).

BTW, I go to stylist, not a barber, and I get great haircuts. I get them two or three times a year, and pay $20 or $22 (I forget). I’d be glad to introduce you to my hair guy. He’s even a Democrat.

Yes, it’s a legitimate campaign function to look properly groomed. But using other people’s money for a $400 haircut, twice, is shameful. Let the campaign pay the first $20 or $30 of each–and you should reimburse for the balance.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

In a rare act of almost blunt truth-telling–ok, so I’m being facetious–in a mouthful of weasely gobbdelygook–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated the obvious:

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” Reid said Thursday.

Give me a break–is this the best the Democrats can do? How about some straightforward honest language like “We never should have been in this war in the first place and we’re losing. Time to get out–starting right now.”

Still, even mild-mannered Mr. Mealy Mouth was instantly attacked as unpatriotic. The same article reports this idiotic response from Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell:

I can’t begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost.

And this from that darling of the neocons, the once-Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman:

This is exactly the wrong time to question our strategy in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed.

All I can say to McConnell and Lieberman is to quote Ronald Reagan: “there you go again!” The insidious right-wing attack on the patriotism of anyone who questions this illegal, immoral, and incompetent war continues–and we on the left have the obligation to call the scoundrels on it. Last time I read the Constitution, that very freedom to dissent was a big part of what set the United States apart from other more repressive governments in the 18th century.

Oh, and Lieberman got one thing right: unquestionably, our Iraq strategy has failed.

If our troops (and I respect them enormously, even if I have zero respect for the mission they are forced to perform) are attempting to defend the idea of democracy, that idea starts with the freedom to dissent. And calling us unpatriotic will not get us to shut up.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Doug Schoen writes in the usually sensible Huffington Post that the Democrats should roll over, as usual, and give GWB the blank check he’s looking for in Iraq: no limits on dollars or on deployment.

I think this an extremely wrong-headed and ill-advised idea–some of the worst advice I’ve heard anywhere in quite a while, in fact.

Here’s most of the public comment I made:

The Democrats need to hold fast, and to frame the dialogue thusly:

“We gave GWB a very reasonable bill that funds the war for the time being but begins a phased withdrawal. we are exercising our Constitutional authority as controller of the purse strings and a check on unbridled Presidential power. But Bush wanted a blank check, and that would be negligent–perhaps even criminally irresponsible. We do not want this crime on our hands, and we will not be a party to it. We absolutely refuse to abdicate our responsibilities by bringing forward any kind of blank check bill. Bush is the one who will not negotiate, and who is trying to usurp the power we were granted back in 1787”.

I’m using “framing” here as George Lakoff would use it: to wrap the debate around a construct that brings the public’s reference into focus–just as a black frame on a white wall allows the eye to differentiate elements in the white-background picture hanging within that frame.

The frame I’m proposing above is one that paints the Democrats as patriotic, as responsible–and GWB as overreaching his authority. This frame was not much in evidence in mainstream media during the run-up to the war, and if it had been, perhaps it would have slowed or stopped that unfortunate tide.

For far too long, the Democrats have allowed the right wing to create the frames. We have to take them back, and this is a great place to start.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I kid you not–here’s the NY Times article.

Much as the cat may have been darling, and much as its authors ight do a great job, I find this absurd. And yet another indicator of the dumbing down of the American public via the media that controls what we see and read (except for those adventurous enough to seek their own sources).

Where are the big advances for books that shape how we actually think and act? that give us a lens to understand some of the craziness in the world.

OK, I like sweet stories about cats and might actually read this book (in a library copy) at some point. It’s not a book I expect I’ll need to own. But good heavens, most books that could change the culture receive paltry advances and paltry publicity, if they sell at all.

If this were now instead of then, would books like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, “Silent Spring”, or “Unsafe at Any Speed”–three among dozens of books that actually changed the world–have even been published, or found any significant audience if they had?

I hope one day to see my own Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First in someone’s list of books that changed the world. I didn’t even try for a mainstream publisher, figuring I’d go create an audience and then sell rights to a second edition.

But seriously, isn’t a book about how we got into the Iraq mess and are heading for trouble in Iran (not the subject of my book but of several recent ones) worth more attention than a book abut a cat? Or for that matter, the sordid and tawdry life of Anna Nicole Smith?

Priorities! As a society–we need to look at ours..

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I always thought they were using Orwell’s “1984,” since it’s so much easier to read than Machiavelli’s “The Prince” or even Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.” But here’s a disinformation primer so digestible that it wouldn’t tax the brain of His Imperial Delusional Majesty.

It’s on the right hand side of this page.

Here are the first five. In the original page, if you click on the little number at the beginning of each in the list, you get a detailed explanation.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

2. Become incredulous and indignant

3. Create rumor mongers

4. Use a straw man

5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule

Sound familiar?

My thanks to my friend and colleague Mark Joyner, who quoted this list in his remarkable new book, Simpleology.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

In the ‘who would’ve thunk it’ department. George W. Bush’s Crawford ranch turns out to be a model of environmental sustainability. And the surprisingly modest structure was built since he bought the property.

I must say I was pleasantly shocked to read that the Bushes employ such forward-thinking technologies as geothermal heating and cooling, landscaping designed to keep the house cool in summer and warm in winter, even graywater recycling.

Under a gravel border around the house, a concrete gutter channels the water into a 25,000-gallon cistern for irrigation. In hot weather, a terrace directly above the cistern is a little cooler than the surrounding area.

Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground — one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called “gray water,” and one tank for “black water” from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well.

.

Oh yes, and the funniest line in the whole article: a quote from the home’s architect, David Heymann:

“We’ve got a lot of economies in the house,” he says, noting the Bushes may be wealthy, but they are “frugal people.”

It takes a lot to get me to say Bravo to George W. Bush–but this house deserves a whole round of Bravos. And it deserves to be a model for the rest of the country; why is he keeping it such a secret?

So…my question for Mr. Bush–if in your own private personal life you make such great choices, if you’re aware that the earth’s own technologies can provide all our energy needs–why is your own energy policy such an unmitigated disaster? You’re pushing disastrous technologies like nuclear, fossil fuels that get us into wars…and meanwhile you’ve quite properly created a private dwelling that uses only a tiny fraction of that used by a conventional house. In other words, you know from your own experience that all the green technologies you’ve been dissing and dismissing actually work.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

A powerful news day. First, overwhelming evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied about his involvement in the firings of the U.S. Attorneys.

Says the Baltimore Sun,

Gonzales attended an hourlong meeting on the firings on Nov. 27, 2006 – 10 days before seven U.S. attorneys were told to resign. The attorney general’s participation in the session calls into question his assertion that he was essentially in the dark about the firings.

According to NPR news this morning (not yet on the website, apparently), this meeting was specifically to discuss a plan of attack against these attorneys.

Meanwhile, the sleepy little House of Representatives shook a few fleas of its fur, stretched and yawned, and voted only to continue funding the war if the distant August 31, 2008 timetable for withdrawal is included.

Definitely a case of way too little, way too late–but even this faint stirring of opposition is enough to unleash a particularly vitriolic outburst from none other than George W. Bush:

These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.

Note to Nancy Pelosi: Let him veto it–and let that bring home the obvious point that from the date of his veto, there is no funding mechanism for the war, and the troops need to be brought home NOW! At that moment, too, his action will become the latest round in his continuous power grab against Congress, and it’s up to Congress to protect not only itself but the American people from His Imperial Delusional Majesty.

Let’s go to the authoritative source: the Constitution of the United States of America:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives (section 7)

And Section 8 (excerpted below) gives Congress specific oversight over the military.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States;…

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

Another clause in Section 8 charges Congress

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

How about the Offenses against the Law of Nations perpetrated over and over again by Bush and his underlings? In other words, what will it take to get Congress moving on impeachment?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I’ve been following the scandal about politically motivated firings of highly competent US Attorneys for a while now (see this blog entry I wrote last month).

Some disturbing new developments: First, Kevin Johnson in USA Today reports more details on the guy who replaced Bud Cummins, the fired attorney in Arkansas:

Before his call to active duty in 2005, Griffin was an aide to Rove at the White House. Griffin’s résumé says he “organized and coordinated support for the president’s agenda, including the nomination of Judge John Roberts” to be U.S. chief justice.

In other words, a political hack replaces a skilled prosecutor. Boy, does this one stink! But it gets worse:

Second, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor report for the McLatchey newspaper chain that one of the attorneys, David Iglesias, was let go after Allen Weh, head of the Republican Party in New Mexico, complained about him to Karl Rove, and Rove replied, “he’s gone.” The story continues,

Weh’s account calls into question the Justice Department’s stance that the recent decision to fire Iglesias and seven U.S. attorneys in other states was a personnel matter – made without White House intervention. Justice Department officials have said the White House’s involvement was limited to approving a list of the U.S. attorneys after the Justice Department made the decision to fire them.

And we’re not done yet. Third, today’s Democracy Now reports that the White House flat-out lied about the level of its involvement, and actually considered a “coup” against all 93 US Attorneys at once. Attorney General Gonzales, Rove, and former White House Counsel (and Supreme Court nominee) Harriet Miers are all implicated:

New information has revealed the Bush administration’s role in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys is greater than previously thought. The White House has admitted administration officials worked with the Justice Department to draw up a list of U.S. attorneys who would lose their jobs. At one point two years ago, the administration even floated the idea of firing all 93 US attorneys at once. The White House has also admitted President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about Republican concerns the prosecutors were not pursuing voter fraud cases. Seven of the prosecutors were asked to step down just weeks later. On Monday, Gonzales’ chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson resigned after acknowledging he did not properly inform the Justice Department of his consultations with the White House. Sampson’s email records show extensive discussion with top deputy Karl Rove and then-White House counsel Harriet Miers. The administration had previously claimed it only approved of a list of fired US attorneys after it was drafted by the Justice Department.

How deep does this scandal go? And many more incidences of scandals, lies, fraud, illegal activity and more will it take before the Democrats find enough backbone to start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, followed once they are out of office by criminal prosecutions against the whole gang of ruffians?

In any other democracy, these thugs would have been tossed out of office long ago. Failing to do so is an international disgrace. Our Founding Fathers would be deeply ashamed that we have let these unpatriotic radical criminals repeatedly break laws with no apparent consequences.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Yesterday’s New York Times has a very informative–and very depressing–article documenting the firing of several highly competent Justice Department attorneys, including Carol Lam, who got the guilty verdict in the Randy “Duke” Cunningham Congressional corruption scandal.

It seems that loyalty to the Republican party and willingness to play cronyistic games are more important than competence, if this article is accurate.

It continues to amaze me how the Bush administration gets its fingers into every little corner of things, always with the message that independent thinking and action are disloyal, and often with the message that competence is not valued as much as who your friends are. In one case, the times article claims that another very good prosecutor was kicked out to make room for some friend of Karl Rove’s with minimal legal experience.

Seven attorneys have been let go in the past few months–compared to just three in the preceding 25 years!

Says Adam Cohen, the article’s author:

It is hard to call what’s happening anything other than a political purge. And it’s another shameful example of how in the Bush administration, everything — from rebuilding a hurricane-ravaged city to allocating homeland security dollars to invading Iraq — is sacrificed to partisan politics and winning elections.

He then goes on to speculate on three possible reasons, none of them good.

And one more shocker that really crosses the line:

Even applicants to help administer post-invasion Iraq were asked whom they voted for in 2000 and what they thought of Roe v. Wade.

Is there no aspect of government that these thugs won’t wreck?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Huffington Post’s Eason Jordan nailed the problem with recent Iran “revelations”:

After weeks, if not months, of US official planning to present a damning “dossier” of incriminating evidence against Iran, and after this same US administration presented us with lopsided, erroneous information about the capability and evil intentions of the Saddam Hussein regime, the best the US government can give us today is incendiary evidence presented at a Baghdad news conference by three US officials who refuse to be quoted by name?

That’s disgraceful and unacceptable.

Yeah, you got that right. Disgraceful and unacceptable. There’s a book coming out about the coming war with Iran: “From the Wonderful People Who Brought You Iraq” by Craig Unger. I was listening to him on Democracy Now this morning, along with General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff–in other words, a major big cheese in the US military–who doesn’t believe the “evidence” incriminates the Iranian government (of which I am no fan, and nor was I a fan of Saddam–but that doesn’t mean we go charging in with guns blazing and brains left behind).

Scary stuff. Once down that dangerous and foolhardy road is apparently not enough for the Bush League. Or for the New York Times, which ran a Page One story yesterday with the unsourced allegations–by none other than Michael Gordon, co-author with Judith Miller of some of the worst pro-war propaganda in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

To its credit, today’s Times features a much more skeptical article:

Even so, critics have been quick to voice doubts. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the White House was more interested in sending a message to Tehran than in backing up serious allegations with proof. And David Kay, who once led the hunt for illicit weapons in Iraq, said the grave situation in Iraq should have taught the Bush administration to put more of a premium on transparency when it comes to intelligence.

“If you want to avoid the perception that you’ve cooked the books, you come out and make the charges publicly,” Mr. Kay said.

The article goes on to quote General Pace, who also gets his own article on the subject.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail