Impunity

Atrios liked this comment on Feministe about attempts to "out" one of the bloggers there. I did too, so I'll reproduce it and Atrios' response. Feministe in italics.

Yeah, that’s probably true, but it leads to a different interpretation. AB’s argument is that pseudonymity is bad because it gives people license to do things for which they would be held responsible if they were posting under their real names. But even posting under her real name, AB is pretty much immune from consequences. She can behave like a batshit loon and not worry about losing her job. The bothersome effect of pseudonymity is that it gives the rest of us the privilege that AB takes for granted. And that’s the real problem: not that it gives others impunity, but that it creates a situation where impunity ceases to be her special privilege.

This is absolutely correct. The ability to participate in the public discourse is something which previously was available only to a select few, and is now open to everyone. Part of what allows that is the ability of people to not attach their name to everything they write. People who have job and income stability (say, tenured professors) take for granted that they can say just about anything in a public space (such as the internets) without fear of consequence. Many other people, not so much.

The only reason to care about the identity of the person at the other end of the internet is to allow for real world consequences for online activity, consequences that some people are largely shielded from.

There's no reason people should worry that their boss is going to get called if they make some whiny asshole upset on the internet, or that their phone number will get posted, or their children brought into the discussion. But there are assholes on the internet who happily do such things on a regular basis, and it's perfectly sensible to hide a real world identity which has nothing to do with what goes on in the virtual world.

If I'd blogged under the name "Roger Smith" instead of "Atrios" no one would have been the wiser. Knowing what they believed to be a real name would they have been entitled to know all of my personal details? Of course not. And, if not, a name really confers no meaningful information.

Certainly anonymity lets people be bigger assholes than they might otherwise be, but for the most part who cares. It's the internets.

In fact, that latter bit about "Roger Smith" and "Atrios" is why I chose such an obvious pseudonym- because if you are using one, it is fair (I think) to make it apparent. Aside from that, I'll just add that I believe the same thing now that I did in 2002- that there's a tradition of pseudonymity and anonymity online that goes back further than the Internet, and the reason is simply because it's not supposed to matter who you are, where you are, or what your background is. All that matters is what you write.

Yes, it means that you have the same kind of impunity that "opinion journalists" generally enjoy (at least those that are patriotically correct), but the tradeoff is that you can't rely on your background for validation either. You could have a doctorate or never have finished high school. You could be a captain of industry or the lowliest worker. You could, as the saying goes, "be a dog". If the dog has something to say, more power to him.

One thing I do disagree with, though; the whole "it's the Internet, nobody cares" thing is growing passe. Newspaper editors wouldn't be wetting themselves at their circulation stats were that still the case. This isn't 1997, or even 2002, when I started this damned thing. Things have changed.

(Among other things? Libertarianism isn't anywhere near as dominant as it was, and the conservative bloggers are nowhere near as important as their liberal counterparts. There is still a hegemonic conservative discourse out there, but it's not the same world it was. Maybe I'll make OSC happy and change the site name to something more appropriate.)

(A GRRM title maybe? His books are pretty damned good too.)

In any case, the internets DO matter. And, thus, so does the tradition of pseudonymity.

“There is no state in the city right now”

The Mahdi army has taken over the city of Amara in Iraq.

A Shiite militia that has been accused of a wave of sectarian attacks on Iraq’s Sunni minority has seized control of the city of Amara in southeastern Iraq, attacking police stations and erecting checkpoints, witnesses in the city said today. At least 15 people have been killed, health officials said.

The takeover of Amara by the militia, the Mahdi Army, was a broad act of defiance against the authority of the central government, which has been trying to impose order and curb sectarian violence. The incident also raised questions about whether Iraq’s militias can be reined in....

Sheik Abdul Kareem al-Muhammadawi, a prominent tribal leader, said in an interview by telephone today that the Mahdi Army responded [to an attack on Shiites in the city] by deploying its troops in the city. He said the police were outgunned, with insufficient weapons and ammunition.

He followed with the quote in the title.

To be fair, a British commander pointed out that this was unlikely to have been intended- they didn't go in expecting to take over the city, but did it in response to the violence. This is not conquest. What is striking for me, however, is that the Mahdi Army appears to be successfully following in Hezbollah's footsteps of providing a Shiite alternate military that is capable of checking--and even defeating--the state's forces. Even if they have no designs on seizing power, this localized power makes an enormous difference.

Two thoughts immediately arise:

1) This is a boon for Iran. Every quasi-military Shiite organization in the region is a bonus for them, even if they have no designs on regional dominance. It makes it that much more likely that the "Shiite crescent" will become a de facto reality.

2) The United States is both more likely to attack Iran and less likely to succeed. DoD will want to prevent Iran from gaining a solid hold on the region, but the hold they already have will allow Iran lots of opportunity to cause havok.

Neither of these ideas are new, of course. They still bear repeating.

As for Amara, I hope that this is a temporary state of affairs at best. Having a city be militia-held is a recipe for further instability. A presence is probably inevitable, but Mahdi should relinquish control as soon as possible.

This post was written with Internet Explorer 7, by the way, which has the dubious distinction of feeling just enough like Firefox that I really feel the absence of my various Firefox extensions. Tabbed browsing without mouse gestures just feels...wrong. No other way to explain it.

Nice browser otherwise.

The October Surprise

Voter purges, apparently.

According to this Daily Kos diary, the same Republican-friendly firms that purged the Florida voter rolls of reliable Democratic voters (read: blacks) are doing the same thing to reliable Democratic voters in Ohio (read: the poor.)

Supposedly the purge was deliberately set up to catch as many Dems as possible, and the "please confirm" letters were deliberately made to look like simple information, when they had an (obscured) action element that required people to go register or they wouldn't be able to vote on election day.

(Well, wouldn't be able to vote without provisional ballots. Guess which districts aren't going to be given enough of those? If you guessed "Republicans", you'd be wrong!)

That's why Rove is so confident. Sure, the polls aren't helping him, but if this is widespread, what do polls matter? He'll win anyway. Sure, people might complain, but he just needs to trot out a few pissant cases of voter fraud and he'll be able to innoculate himself against the charge of widespread voter suppression.

Yet another reason why I've developed a healthy respect of the Canadians. At least their system works.

So Much for "Empire Lite"

Looks like Iggy is harshly critical of the United States, its president, and its foreign policy, according to this Lawrence Martin piece in the Globe and Mail.

Sure he's critical! This week. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

(Seriously, I'm not going to criticize him for taking a stand against Bush. Everybody's doing it these days. It's just that this would have had more credibility had it not smacked of damage control. Seems like Ignatieff's busier putting out fires than Joe Volpe and Dennis Hastert these days.)

A Latest Example of Charity

As found on Cerberus, Ignatieff is absolutely right to say that he doesn't support "ballistic missile defense or the weaponization of space":

''I do not support ballistic missile defence or the weaponization of space,'' Ignatieff, a freshman Toronto MP, said Monday in a statement to CanWest News Service.

''We should not participate in these measures. Canada must continue to work with our international partners and allies to ensure that our sovereignty is respected and that our national interests are represented in any multilateral discussions regarding continental security.'' [...]

Rae's comment that talks on the matter should not be a current government priority appeared to endorse the status quo. Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has promised a free vote in the Commons should negotiations take place, said in the summer that he was not reopening the issue. [...]

Gerard Kennedy, fourth-ranking candidate in the leadership race, declined comment until he has had time to study McKenna's submission.

Quote is from here.

Rae seemed to be taking much the same position, albeit with (unfortunately) somewhat weaker language. Kennedy I'm somewhat more disappointed in- McKenna's position (that Canada should join America BMD to mollify Americans', and by that I mean Republicans', irrational fears) is untenable on its face, so why hold off? Ignatieff certainly didn't. He deserves some credit for that.

(Here's hoping certain parties don't think I'm just saying this to ingratiate myself or suck up or whateverthehell. Credit where credit's due.)

So much for Conventional Wisdom

Apparently the Liberal leadership candidate best suited for taking on Harper (whose numbers are drooping badly) is the warmed over social democrat.

The Muscular Liberal Hawk finishes well behind, especially in the province of Ontario, where Bob Rae is supposed to be a liability.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Larry Craig is apparently gay. More power to him, except that he's yet another one of those guys with an "R" beside his name and an "FU" for those who share his orientation.

I'm not a huge fan of "outing", never have been, but considering this congress seems to have had little trouble poking into other people's bedrooms, well...

Went to go see An Incovenient Truth again

With a friend. The quote from Mark Twain about "what we need to fear isn't what we don't know, it's what we know that just ain't true" thus rang in my mind when I read this piece by Digby about the hideously flawed books that the right uses as sources for their foreign and military policies. Of particular interest are wild frothing tomes about Saddam being responsible for the 1994 WTC bombing, and a lovely text called "the Arab mind" which purports to show that Arabs "only understand force, and...that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation." It's about as popular as polio with academics, yet is a widely-referenced text in both the conservative movement and high-level segments of the US military.

I'm starting to understand both why Iraq was such a disaster, and why the people on the ground were so flabbergasted at the reactions of their higher-ups. If you have an expectation of behavior, it'll affect your decisionmaking- if it's wrong, then it'll be disastrous.

Thus I, kinda like Twain, almost wish that they had gone in there completely ignorant. Maybe they could have learned themselves some reality, instead of a racist fantasy.

For the Record:

BMD is a horrible idea, the Canadians were right to stay out of it, and Frank McKenna is just as wrong about it now as he was in 2004.

As for whether McKenna would be condemned for taking the same positions as Ignatieff is now... possibly? He didn't let the Liberals find out.

A Little Bit of Confusion

Props for Paul Wells, as mentioned below, for correctly calling the debate (with the exception of that continuing insistence that non-Iggy candidates will be able to control the bleeding if they try to throw to Mr. "Four positions, one week".

Warren Kinsella, well, not so much. I know I harp on the guy a lot, but he illustrates something amusing. First, this quote:

Okay, I think I’ve got it all figured out. Call it my pre-Halloween Political Analysis©. After attending the Liberal leadership thing in Toronto – and after reading the learned assessments of the punditocracy, wherein you will find as many opinions as there were journos in attendance...

See, that's the interesting part, especially for those of us who are interested in damage control. There really only seems to be two interpretations out there of the debate on Sunday.

The first is that Bob Rae won the debate. Even if it doesn't help his position, pretty much everybody in every camp and most of the journos I've read have said as much.

(Don't have much personal contact, so maybe Warren is up on me that way. He's the experienced insider, as he so often reminds us.)

He not only won it, but Ignatieff lost it, and badly, thanks to that foolish little whinge on foreign policy that Wells highlighted.

The other interpretation? You can see it over here on Redtory's site, but Warren provides a pithier version: "Who won? Beats me." Thing is, the only people who I've read this from are outspoken Ignatieff supporters like Red Tory. I suppose Warren is in that camp now, too.

Except the TRULY odd thing is that atop of that little "yawn" spin, we read this:

[Liberals are afraid]

-That Michael Ignatieff is too right wing, like Turner or Martin, or too academic, like Kim Campbell;

-That Gerard Kennedy is too bland, like Al Gore, or too incapable of French, like Preston Manning or John Crosbie;

-That Stephane Dion is too French, like Gerard Kennedy is too English;

-That Bob Rae is too much like an NDP Premier who lengthened and deepened a recession, laid off thousands of nurses, oversaw countless businesses shutting down, caused massive economic and social dislocation, seemed indifferent to one of the most scandal-plagued administrations in Ontario history, and only tore up his NDP membership card when it had taken his ambition as far as it could reasonably go. You know, that Bob Rae is, um, still Bob Rae.

Ok, now let's look at the rest of that other comment:

Went to the Liberal leadership forum thingie at Roy Thomson Hall. I walked in with Ignatieff's convention co-chair, stood with the Dionistas and loitered with the media.

Notice who's missing? That's right! Kennedy and Rae. The clear appeal to impartiality falls down, and were Kinsella backing Dion, he wouldn't be pulling that ridiculous "beats me" stunt or trying to assert that there wasn't a clear consensus. After all, the consensus isn't just that Rae won, but that Dion put in a pretty fine performance, yet we see not a word of that on Mr. K's little site.

What we do see is a loud invective against Bob Rae, blaming him for a recession which, according to pretty much everything I've read about Ontario's economy, has more to do with soft American demand for Canadian manufactures than anything else. Rae was in the unfortunate position of being in the wrong place at the wrong time; kind of like Kinsella's nemesis Paul Martin, who was left to clean up the dirty laundry that Kinsella's boss left behind.

I mean, were Kinsella at all inclined towards critiquing Ignatieff, he wouldn't have tried to play the "ambition" card against Rae, of all people. Ignatieff is the one most vulnerable to that charge; the only way this sort of ploy makes sense is as a kind of Rovian innoculation against criticism by going after the other guy for the same thing. Nice, although I doubt it'll stick in this case.

So what causes that "little bit of confusion"? Well, this last bit here:

The problem is that Stephen Harper doesn’t really scare Canadians anymore, or possibly never did. That’s the Grits’ problem.

That latter assertion is just silly. Yes, the Liberals did successfully paint Harper as scary in 2004, and that fear of an "agenda" is probably a major reason why Harpers' minority is as utterly weak as it is. That's not what's confusing, though. What's confusing is that this is yet another indicator that Kinsella's true loyalty is to Harper, as (as is always the case) he never wastes a breath that could be used praising Steve to the high hills.

So he's, apparently, cryptically supporting Ignatieff (the most right-wing Liberal candidate) while at the same time talking up Harper, and going after Rae for daring to have once been a Social Democrat during a recession. He certainly claims to be a "Calgary communist" and a small "l" liberal, yet appears to be doing his best to make sure that the Conservatives retain power and the Liberals shift in a conservative direction.

So I guess that leads to the big question: am I confused about his liberalism, or is he?

Props Where it's Due:

Great bit by Paul Wells:on the latest Canadian Liberal Party debate:

Then came the clip of the night. Iggy, MHF and Rae on Afghanistan. The question might as well have been, "Please tear each other to shreds over Afghanistan," because that's what they did. Ignatieff said he doesn't know where Rae stands on the file. Rae was, uh, kind of ready for that one: "For a guy who's changed his mind three times in a week..."

Ignatieff was furious. "You know that's not true. You've known me for 40 years." Ineffectual as a debating point, Ignatieff's response got to the heart of the most interesting human dynamic in this leadership race: precisely the deterioration of the relationship between these old UofT roommates. There's a Russian novel in there somewhere.

Considering the Dems still seem to be winning by default, the Canadian Liberal race is remaining a very interesting affair.

(Somewhat Apropo: I can't wait until Blair goes down. For many reasons, but partially because Labour may have to go through the same sort of trial, especially if Brown remains as relatively weak as he is now.)

By the Way

I haven't been doing much on the American congressional elections. Not much to say- it's going to be a bloodbath of biblical proportions. For the skinny, you should already know to go Here.

One thing I WILL say, though: this election worries me, because the Dems aren't going to win for anything they've done, really. There is no "contract with America" this time. There's no consistent message. There's just "we ain't Republicans", with a Republican party bad enough that that actually WORKS. Foley was a gift (as well as a tragedy) but that doesn't have anything to do with the Democrats.

We still don't really know what a Democratic Congress will actually DO.

The promised post on the DPRK

(That's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or "North Korea" for the rest of the planet.)

I had promised a post, but I probably don't need to make it long. Here's the short of it: Kim Jong Il isn't crazy, and isn't likely to start raining bombs down on either his Asian neighbours or the United States.

(Forget the silly ploy of saying that the US might commit an "act of war" for a moment)

He has nukes for two reasons. First, because he pretty much depends on not being ignored, for both political and economic reasons. He needs aid to have his country stay afloat, and needs the threat of the dissolution of his regime to carry enough of a penalty that other actors in the region will keep it from happening. That means South Korea and China. As long as he continues getting at least some support, he's gold. Hence the "act of war" comment- it's to keep attention.

Second, because of Iraq and Iran. He knows full well that the United States has never attacked a nuclear-armed country, no matter how belligerent they've been. As long as there's easier targets, the United States won't do so, either. This gives him a level of certainty and predictability in his negotiations that hadn't been there before- without the short- to medium-term threat of an American-led invasion of the North, he can start aiming his foreign policy towards long-term goals (whatever those might be.

There are other reasons, like personal prestige, but I think those two are the most important. They're why he won't give them up easily, and why (oddly enough for most people's understanding of warfare) he's not particularly dangerous right now. (Since he's not going to worry about a strike, he won't preempt it.)

Not that the situation shouldn't be watched, particularly for the Japanese reaction, but it's not as dire as you'd initially believe.

Bloggers and Parties

Henry Farrell has a very strong analysis of the "netroots" in the Boston Review; particularly the tension between liberal bloggers' attempts to be "non-ideological" and their constant citing of the Goldwater Republicans as a model, whose success was built on a ideological foundation.

It's actually quite ironic. Described as ideologues by their opponents, the one thing that high profile bloggers like Markos Moulitsas seem to agree on is that the drive to win should be non-ideological. Markos is quite well known for being quite impatient with policy and ideological discussions, and is laser-focused simply on having the Dems be more forthright in expressing their views, whatever those views might be. Farrell is right, though, when he points out that that can only go so far- there needs to be an underlying core of belief in order for any mass movement or political party to operate, and it must be more than a belief in "the people" or "the grassroots" or some other nostrum.

(After all, you can't please all of the people all of the time. You need to know where the big tent stands so you can figure out who doesn't belong in it, and you need to know that to know who does.)

Look: the Foley thing is a gift, no doubt. It'll probably give the House to the Dems. What it doesn't do is give the Democratic party its raison d'etre- that bedrock of belief that sustains the organization. A lot of that is because the Republicans have successfully pushed the discourse to the right, and the traditional Democratic bedrock beliefs go against that discourse. Moving the party clearly doesn't work; at this point, the mountain needs to come to Mohammed. Foley's follies have given the Dems the opportunity- now that they're within striking distance of finally having an official voice again, they need to use it for something.

As the Canadians can attest, a liberal party that doesn't govern as a liberal party just isn't going to be able to keep things going, no matter how weak the opposition.

Jonathan Ross Asks:

"Why do you think that [Stephane Dion and Bob Rae] can beat Stephen Harper's Tory government, who for the most part have very few weaknesses?"

Instead of bothering to answer a loaded question, I'll ask one in return:

"Why do you think that Michael Ignatieff's policies won't drive every left-leaning Canadian either away from the polls or into the arms of the NDP?"

His supporters may apologize over and over again, but the fact remains: Ignatieff has irrevocably associated himself with Bush's disastrous war in Iraq, Israel's disastrous war in Lebanon, and the disastrous idea that torture is effective. (Ignatieff's professed distaste notwithstanding.)

Any Canadian that looks beyond the borders of Canada and sees something more than bad guys to be clubbed into submission is going to be very, very leery of the man.

(Yes, I'm aware of the North Korean situation. I'll get to that in a bit. First thing's first though: yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as international law, and it does serve a role. If it didn't, there wouldn't be an international economy.)

"Outing" Pages

I realize I belabour the point a bit, but once again, we can see damned good reasons to keep one's self to oneself.

The FBI is investigating a possible threat against the north Louisiana teenager who was on the receiving end of suggestive e-mails from disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley, a Louisiana congressman said Tuesday.

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, said Tuesday that the young man's life wasn't threatened, "but close to it."

"There are people out there who feel like he is the one who (accused) Foley," Alexander said. "There are some bloggers out there who sent him some ugly stuff." (emphasis added)

Naturally, the guiding lights of the right, Insty and Roger Simon, were only too happy to aid those desperate to find the page and "learn 'im" a little.

Yes, this is very real, it's endemic on the right (including, no doubt, the supporters of Warren Kinsella's new bestest friend), and they see it as perfectly justified. Witness this rant from a comment posted on the above site:

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!! the left talkinga bout intimidating and trying to destroy witnesses and victims….hahahaha!!! oh you young, dumb Liberals.

You little one’s seem to forget that the Clinton administration would destroy the life and reputation of any woman who dare come out in public and say that Clinton had raped her or taken advantage of her.

The Liberal hypocrisy is beyond pathetic!!! You fake outrage is laughable at best!

As usual, the “pro-law” liberals want to pass verdict and sentence on people they hate with a passion without giving them a trial. How typical of left wing communists who hate the law and our Constitution.

What Foley did is disgusting and he should be punished to the full extend of the law IF he broke the law. We will find out if he broke the law after the FBI investigation is over and if the Justice Department decides to take this to court. Until then, remember Liberals who hate our Constitution, in the United States of America you are innocent until proven guilty. I know, i know, you guys hate that part of our laws as much as the 2nd Amendment.

Do you honestly think that a movement that embraces shit like this--especially the Killer Klinton stuff, the subject of dozens of books that were lavishly praised by all the right wing's glitterati--is going to balk at doing whatever's necessary to ensure that something like the Foley scandal doesn't put the Dems in power?

Me neither. And, as Stevie is probably aware (even if Warren ain't), where the Republican party goes, the Conservatives are going soon after.

Liberals, whether Canadian Liberals or American liberals, should remember that freedom of speech doesn't come with ID cards.

Wells and Ignatieff

Apropo of my earlier analysis of the Canadian Liberal leadership results, Paul Wells believes that Ignatieff will take it, and argues as such in a recent blog entry.

(That an Ignatieff win would be an indirect bonanza to the Canadian right, who would get to shift the whole discourse rightward, was not discussed. Man's gotta eat, and Whyte runs the store.)

(Saying otherwise might also screw up his good friend Warren Kinsella's bizarre mission to help Stephen Harper in any way, shape, or form that he can, despite what would supposedly be ideological differences.)

(Anyway...)

(Edit: In comments, "Ben" points out that Wells did say something that might fit along this line:

I suspect Ignatieff will face Stephen Harper at the next election. Which means the NDP will have room to thrive; the new Liberal leader will stand offside his party's base on the central foreign-policy issue of the moment; and no attack against Stephen Harper for militarism or coziness with the Bush White House will hold water.

I didn't read this as having much, if anything, to do with conservatism as a whole. At least upon first reading, it struck me as more a tactical comment than one about the ideological discourse. An Iggy win would validate the center-right in the Liberal party, and it is precisely due to the inability to attack on militarism et al that things would skew rightward- Iggy would have to try to exploit that lack of difference to try to bleed away soft Conservative votes, and more importantly, all the conservatives that aren't part and parcel of a political party would crow about how left-liberals and the NDP are out of touch.

It's those conservatives who aren't partisan operatives, such as Wells' boss, that would reap the biggest benefit from an Ignatieff win, and it's those conservatives and those effects that struck me as being ignored in the piece.)

(Anyway, again...)

He points out that with the various and sundry non-elected delegates that are backing Ignatieff, Ignatieff has about 32% of the delegates backing him, and that means he only needs about 18% to win. Paul's argument is that it ain't that tricky for him to do so, because supporters WILL break off.

So Ignatieff needs 18 points' growth to win. That's just a shade more than one-quarter of delegates who vote for someone else on the first ballot.

So Ignatieff doesn't need anyone's endorsement; he just needs support to bleed to him at the rate of one delegate in four. And he's been getting that all through this piece: when Hedy Fry and Carolyn Bennett went to Bob Rae, they failed to bring all their support with them. In the normal course of events, Ignatieff can expect to lure one previously unsympathetic delegate in four. Which means he can expect to win this.

The only way to stop him is to interrupt the normal course of events.

One of the second-tier candidates (Rae Kennedy Dion) would have to turn this race into a referendum on whether it is acceptable for Michael Ignatieff to become the Liberals' next leader. And the only way to demonstrate that the whole campaign should turn on that single question would be to pull out of the race immediately and throw to another second-tier candidate.

Ok, we've already run into our first problem here. Paul seems to have forgotten that, yes, the race has become about whether Ignatieff is acceptable as the Liberals' next leader. As I pointed out, that's the reason why we haven't seen any kind of snowball effect behind the leading candidate, when we damned well should have at this point.

Wells is forgetting (or not mentioning) that thanks to his positions on torture, Iraq, and the Israel-Lebanon conflict, Ignatieff has now associated himself not with the Canadian right, but with the American right, most specifically with George W. Bush. Kinsella dodged around that reality by stating that Ignatieff was just obsessed with the Kurds; the fact is, though, that Bush is deeply, deeply unpopular with Canadians, and even more so with Canadian liberals, and the 30% showing reveals that this does indeed matter.

(I'll leave aside the folderol about who finished where in each province. It's inside baseball, more a function of organizing and exploiting the membership rules than electioneering. If you think Kennedy couldn't win ANY seats in Quebec, you're dreaming.)

So the first problem is that people are very much aware of the necessity of stopping Iggy, and appear to have already made that decision. Second problem- will a quarter break for Ignatieff over Dion/Rae/Kennedy? Why would they? You can't haul a number out of some dark, smelly crevasse like Wells just did and say "oops, clearly he's going to win"- you have to justify it. The delegates are human beings, a mix of party hands (who will stick with whichever candidate is likely to benefit them, and that candidate is NOT Ignatieff, bloated as he is with organizational supporters), partisan idealists (so long, George W. Iggy) and representatives of multicultural communities (who tend to be extraordinarily loyal to their organizers, and you get back to the "benefits" problem for the organizers.) Why would a Dion supporter throw to Ignatieff, precisely, when he has no financial or moral incentive to do so? Is he just going to throw up his hands and say "well, what the heck?" Hardly.

Third problem is simpler- why is it that Ignatieff keeps ALL of his delegates, and nobody else does? If a quarter of Ignatieff's people melt away, everything's evened out. If it's even half that, all of a sudden things start looking better for, say, Rae, or any other anti-Iggy.

Fourth, there's no good reason to pull out of the race in order to turn things into a "referendum", and in fact, Wells should be aware of that. Stop and think about it, Paul. If a candidate pulls out now, his supporters are just as free as they are during the second ballot at the convention. Their names are known, and they're easily contacted them. By pulling out, all you ensure is that the Ignatieff team is going to be working them for months, while your direction to go to various candidates loses any and all credibility with time. If you want control, you keep them until the convention.

And, as this lowly, pseudonymous, yet game-theory-cognizant blogger pointed out a little while ago, bleeding an inordinate amount of delegates would be absolutely disastrous for the candidates' future careers. They're not going to do that. Instead, they'll try to mitigate the bleed by directing their supporters to go to whoever they were generally going to go to anyway, and the group-think that you know will be in effect will take care of those who might relent. Ignatieff is not that candidate. It is, I believe, either Rae or Dion, unless Kennedy gets over the Quebec thing.

So the question is not whether they stay in the race (they must, and have absolutely no good reason not to), but how and whether they choose someone amongst themselves to be the Anti-Iggs. That'll probably be whomever Findlay, Volpe, Brison and Dryden pick, as the combination of the four will put any of the three second-tier candidates over the amount needed to start the momentum.

(Well, that said, Brison might throw to Ignatieff, and Volpe's mostly useful because his loyal base absolutely guarantees that you won't need more than about 45% to beat Ignatieff. So it's mostly Dryden.)

In any case, the sequence seems pretty clear. The lower-tier people choose. Ignatieff stays well under 50%- probably about 45% or so, as only Brison would possibly throw to him, and he'll lose some people too. Then the second tier guys have a chat, and decide on their man. The guy who wasn't going to win anyway--but wants to avoid the ignominious fate of directing his people to go to Ignatieff and having them tell him where to shove it--throws to the leading anti-Iggy, and his followers cheerfully follow suit. That leading anti-Iggy scoops up the next lowest guy, and it's a two-man race.

And, although I rag on the guy, I agree with Cherniak on what would happen on the final ballot if Ignatieff were up against a single candidate (Dion, naturally, in the eyes of Cherniak.) He'd get beaten, quite handily, because the other candidates' supporters don't want him and have made that perfectly clear. That's the hurdle that Ignatieff faces that Wells ignores- if he doesn't win by the fourth ballot, he's not going to, because the anti-Ignatieff leader will be decided, and he'll quite probably win. And I really, really don't think he'll get enough bleed to win by the fourth ballot.

The only way this doesn't happen is if a candidate has an inordinate amount of control over his delegates AND wants to throw to Iggy. I know I acknowledged that possibility, but who the hell IS that, exactly? Rae would never do so. Kennedy would lose enough of his delegates to look like a laughingstock. Dion is probably a little of both.

It just doesn't seem likely, so it's probably fourth or nothing, Ignatieff.

It's still quite possible he'll win, but Wells is being far, far too forthright on far too little evidence, and a whole swath of dubious suppositions. Here's hoping his new "Steve-o's gonna be the next Reagan!" book is a bit better thought out.

(Any regular readers wish to take bets on Paul's glib comment-thread reply? My money's on something to the order of "mmm, Ken's store has the best fresh sourdough" or some such thing. I always kind of hope that Paul's response is going to be "well, guess I'll have to ask my employers to do what seemingly every other publication does, and open up a comments box on my blog", but I suppose he's going to get sued by whoeverthehell is going to sue Warren for comments that clearly aren't his own, yet NOT club him over the head for being eponymous and glib. Pity, that.)

(Edit: Ok, I do have to admit that as descriptors go, "Eponymous and glib" ain't bad.)

First you get a monopoly, then you put the screws to 'em

Happens just as much in the job market as any other. Just ask Wal-Mart, who are now apparently putting the screws to their workforce.

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, is pushing to create a cheaper, more flexible work force by capping wages, using more part-time workers and scheduling more workers on nights and weekends.

Wal-Mart executives say they have embraced new policies for a large number of their 1.3 million workers to better serve their customers, especially at busy shopping times — and point out that competitors like Sears and Target have made some of these moves, too.

But some Wal-Mart workers say the changes are further reducing their already modest incomes and putting a serious strain on their child-rearing and personal lives. Current and former Wal-Mart workers say some managers have insisted that they make themselves available around the clock, and assert that the company is making changes with an eye to forcing out longtime higher-wage workers to make way for lower-wage part-time employees.

Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent. Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time workers, although company officials say that part-timers now make up 25 percent to 30 percent of workers, up from 20 percent last October.

They do, of course, claim that investment analysts and the like are strongly encouraging them to do so. That make be true, but they're Wal-Mart- they aren't in the same position is many (or any) of their competitors. They're often an important if not vital source of jobs in many communities, making things like this unacceptable:

In the confidential memo sent to Wal-Mart’s board last year, M. Susan Chambers, who was recently promoted to be Wal-Mart’s executive vice president in charge of human resources, questioned whether it was cost-efficient to employ longtime workers. “Given the impact of tenure on wages and benefits,” she wrote, “the cost of an associate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity.”

The memo said, “the shift to more part-time associates will lower Wal-Mart’s health-care enrollment” even though Wal-Mart was reducing the amount of time to one year, from two, that part-time workers would have to wait to qualify for health insurance.

Workers say there is some evidence that the goals outlined in Ms. Chambers’ memo are being put into practice. At several stores in Florida, employees said, managers have suddenly barred older employees with back or leg problems from sitting on stools after using them for years while working as cashiers, store greeters or fitting-room attendants. Wal-Mart said it had no companywide policy on stool use and did not have enough information to comment.

Of course, that last bit about taking away stools for people with back or leg problems is downright evil. The sentiment of "kick out the people who've been here long enough to get benefits" isn't much better, though- I've seen what it does to other retail operations, and it ain't pretty. Wal-Mart makes their margin from the fact that they don't play by the same rules as everybody else- they're too big to work like an ordinary retailer. Where they go, the country follows.

If this takes place, the labourers of the country are going to become a very restive bunch indeed.

Rice: "I don't recall"

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

''What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible,'' Rice said.

Rice was President Bush's national security adviser in 2001, when Bob Woodward's book ''State of Denial'' outlines a July 10 meeting among Rice, Tenet and the CIA's top counterterror officer.

''I don't know that this meeting took place, but what I really don't know, what I'm quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told there was an impending attack and I refused to respond,'' Rice said.

Hah! If this were a cartoon, she'd have been saying "er, ah, um, well, y'see" and yanking her collar around. Funny stuff.

(Or, well, it would be, were it not for the subject matter. Damned Republican arrogance.)

Meanwhile, in South America

Lula's in trouble.

The "Super Weekend" and the Prisoner's Dilemma. Plus- What This Says About Liberalism

Well, this isn't totally unexpected, but it IS fascinating. According to the online breakdown of delegates, the number of delegates runs roughly as follows:

29.9% Ignatieff
19.8% Rae
16.9% Kennedy
16.6% Dion
4.6% Dryden
4.4% Volpe
3.9% Brison
1% Hall Findlay
2.8% Undeclared

With most of the meetings reported in. Assuming this ratio holds, we end up with pretty much everybody but Ignatieff in a classic prisoner's dilemma position. See, any of the three post-Iggy candidates can easily become Liberal leader, by absorbing the support of their fellows and the candidates like Dryden, Volpe, and Brison. (Who, seperate or together, don't have QUITE enough support to be kingmakers.) All Ignatieff needs to do is absorb the supporters of any of the three, and he's got it won, provided that he can scoop up Brison and Findlay.

(Volpe is out of the question- his bloc is pretty much totally unavailable to Ignatieff, so chalk that 4-5% up to "whoever is the Not Iggy candidate.")

If they band together, they can take Ignatieff down. BUT, if even one defects, Ignatieff will probably end up with enough support to be leader. Whoever defects will become a minister and his various supporters will be welcomed into the new regime, whereas those who DON'T defect will likely get frozen out, except for the most high-profile supporters. (Ignatieff will bring them in to "reach out", but the rest will be out in the cold.) Yet if more than one defects, or ALL defect to crown him, there will be little in the way of spoils.

So the classic prisoner's dilemma logic would suggest that at least one, if not two, will defect to Ignatieff, while insisting to their fellows that they won't. That makes Ignatieff (groan) the likely new leader of the Liberal party.

(Warm up the thumbscrews and start pumping that waterboard water.)

But... things get MORE complicated, because after the first ballot, supporters aren't necessarily going to go where they're told, and they'll know as much as anybody else that if everybody backs Ignatieff, nobody benefits, and if somebody else DOES pull it off, Rae/Dion/Kennedy will rise to power with a hell of a lot less people that Ignatieff to hand out spoils to. Plus, thanks to the "Volpe 5", you really only need about 45%, because Volpe will direct his (likely intensely loyal, considering their support existing despite the negative press) delegates to vote for whoever is the non-Iggy candidate, as payback for dropping the paid membership bomb on him right before delegate selection. That may be made up for by Brison breaking for Ignatieff, but might not.

Thus, they both have a smaller hurdle to jump than Ignatieff does, and stand the significant possibility that they might lose too many delegates to the non-Iggy alternative to be the kingmaker. That would be disastrous, as it would mean a non-Iggy candidate will probably win, and they will have played no part in that win. A lot of the Liberal left, quite simply, will not support Ignatieff. That has to be kept in mind.

So the question is, then, whether Dion, Rae and Kennedy can sit down and agree amongst each other, before the convention starts about how things are going to work. If they can come to terms, considering they know how difficult it will be holding on to delegates, then the one they choose amongst each other will likely overcome Ignatieff's initial advantage.

(A Classic prisoner's dilemma solution- work it out beforehand. Hence the famous Mafia code of silence and loyalty, among other things.)

If these negotiations break down, though, then whichever thinks that his followers won't break will likely try to back Ignatieff. Then it comes down TO said delegates- if they go with him, Ignatieff probably wins, but if they don't, the precedent will be set and the OTHER guy will likely win, thanks to the Volpe anti-Iggy bump.

(So if somebody blinks and has loyal supporters, they'll likely split and give Iggy the win, but if everybody is either not sure about the support and/or resolute in their anti-Ignatieff position, he loses.)

As for what this says about Canadian liberalism? Too soon to say yet, although the enormous success of the Rae campaign, despite the grumblings about the on-the-ground machine, suggests that the leftward shift that I'd been perceiving is very much real. No, Rae isn't a social democrat, or at least not anymore- but he does carry that aura, whether he wants it or not. The millstone around Ignatieff's neck that is foreign policy is likely to have hurt him too, and turned this from a coronation into a real race. The fact that Ignatieff is far ahead (which would seem to mean that he'd attract a majority from a "nothing succeeds like success" perspective) but hasn't attracted over 50%, and the sheer number of other credible candidates, suggests that liberals want a candidate who represents progressive, non-Americanized foreign policy- Ignatieff's other policies simply don't differ enough from his counterparts to explain it.

This is fairly similar to what's going on in the United States. I believe it reaffirms the idea that liberalism is becoming about more than simply intra-state economic divisions and structures. It's about the actions of of a country as a whole on the world stage- those sticky questions of shared values and identity that a laser-focus on economics often misses. It's also going to be a serious problem for Ignatieff, should he win. He is NOT in step with his party on foreign policy, and once the self-interested apologias by his backers become unnecessary, he'll probably start hearing it more.

Whether he watches his left flank disintegrate and get absorbed by the NDP depends entirely on how he reacts.

"The Only Way He'd Lose His Seat Is If He Were Found in Bed With a Dead Girl or a Live Boy"

Never thought it'd actually come to pass- but not only has it, but it looks like the Republican leadership kept the whole thing under wraps.

(It wasn't actually "relations", but an "overfriendly" email between a congressman and a page. Still.)

Best part?

They "kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday."

Er, yeah. I know that IOKIYAR is still in effect, but this seems to be pushing it somewhat.

Dems Suck, But They're Better That the Alternative

So, essentially, says Glenn Greenwald, who points out that although the actions of the Dems who voted for the Torture bill were cowardly, control of Congress by the Dems as a whole is a far better option than continued Republican rule.

I can't say I disagree. The Dems should win in November, and I think we're starting to hit the point where they must win if the Union has even the faintest hope of recovering its faded prestige.

What this shows is the same thing that Connecticut showed- that it's as important to get involved at the Primary level as it is in the general. Even if Lieberman wins, he's arguably the hardest target in the entire party to take down- well know, former vice-presidential candidate, and (no doubt) backed by every barrel in AIPAC's arsenal... not to mention the still-friendly media, and the ability to hop on board the Republicans' national security message machine.

Other candidates won't have those advantages, and they might be next. They need to remember that. They need to be reminded of that, particularly the Terrible Twelve in the Senate that voted for this abomination.

The Democratic "centrists" are always prattling on about how you need to "keep your powder dry". For once, they're actually right. Don't punish right now, but don't forget either. 2008 is coming.

Harper Hates Women and Trees?

Honestly, the Liberals' job SHOULD be easy, leadership aside. Take a look at two of the upcoming budget cuts"

Status of Women Canada, $5 million
This agency, established under prime minister Pierre Trudeau in the early 1970s, funds groups, research and seeks gender equity with its $23 million annual budget. Conservative supporters have urged the government to axe the agency. The $5 million cut to the agency in Baird's announcement was described as "administrative savings."

Fighting the pine beetle, $11.7 million
The government says it will cut unused funding that was set aside to fight the mountain pine beetle. The move comes just days after a government report said the infestation, which has destroyed millions of hectares of lodgepole pine in B.C., is spreading. Baird says the funding is from a Liberal program and that the government will launch its own approach.

The first one is bad enough, but the latter cut is insane. There's been a trend in the Conservatives where they ditch perfectly good programs and plans that happen to have come to being under the Liberals.

Does nobody in that Godforsaken party remember that it was that attitude that arguably set the United States up for 9/11? Now that we know that the memo was very much real and that it had a variety of recommendations that Bush didn't even touch, and considering just how America-friendly Harper's supposed to be, you think that he'd learn from that disaster. Apparently not.

I'm not against partisanship. Far from it. Adversarial government works. This, however, is just stupid.

They're Coming to Take Me Away, Haha?

The blogger punkass marc points out an unsavory side effect of the torture bill:

(huge quote, but it's worth it

Much as I like to celebrate the wingnut administration calling itself a moron, Echidne points out the troublesome inclusion of the term “leftist terrorist” in the NIE report. They’ve advanced the theory that the left could start going all right-wing and bombing shit like, say, a federal building in Oklahoma or something.

ANYWAY, leftist terrorism is now considered a legitimate threat by the omnipotent Bush administration. Once the torture/detainee legislation passes, they can label anyone they believe has a “terrorist agenda” an enemy combatant and lock them away for torture. Remember, they don’t need cause or charges to take your rights away anymore (see Photographer, Pulitzer Prize winning). They’ll probably be able to rape you for shits and giggles, too, if they feel like it.

I’m going to put on my crazy hat for a moment. It’s the one that won’t look so crazy in another few years, once the police state comes back into full fashion again.

As Lindsay notes, decorated photographer Bilal Hussein had been a target of right wing blogs for some time. They considered his work too close to the action, too full of anti-US visuals, to be anything other than insurgent propaganda. Apparently, their cries were heard, and now he’s a torture toy.

The wingnut blogs also complain about the crazy, frothing “leftist” blogosphere. Lots of us say all kinds of mean things about the Bush administration, which, as we all know, is a gateway drug for terrorist agendas*. Before you laugh, remember that talking negatively about our efforts in Iraq has already been equated with helping the terrorists. Isn’t that the same as having a terrorist agenda?

Or suppose there actually is some random cell of people intent on doing violence, and the federal government breaks it up. What if their browser histories are littered with visits to Amanda’s site? Or Glenn Greenwald’s? The wingnut blogs have been gunning for those two for years because they’re particularly good at blowing holes in Bushchev logic. If Amanda or Glenn or anyone else is ever seen as fueling the cause of anyone who’s even written an email mentioning explosives, I see no reason they won’t be next on the hit list.

People know John Stewart, and Keith Olbermann. You couldn’t lock them up without drawing national outrage. But like Bilal Hussein, other people pave the way for Olbermann and Stewart, stirring the pot or raising issues that eventually receive their attention. Bloggers are a big part of that group, and their work is at least as dangerous as unforgiving photos — which is to say not at all, unless you mean dangerous to the cause of perpetual war.

I am no one. Punkassblog is still pretty small. But people close to me are deeply hated and feared for their uncompromising work and popularity. Every day, I get a little more worried they’ll be taken away. If you are one of the outspoken pillars of the radical left — not people like Kos who stick to the political rules, but someone really agitating for deep change** — I think you should be worried, too.

*Note: this is not true. Please do not kidnap me or frame me or torture me. Thank you.

**Non-violent change! Honest!

The only thing about pseudonymity that I regret, upon reading this, is that I fear that I may not have been paranoid enough.

For those who cry "tinfoil": I'd hasten to remind you that attacks on "leftist terrorists" and "sympathizers" by the forces of Peace and Order are far, far older than the War on Terror, or anybody who could be possibly reading this. With the right increasingly desperate over Iraq (and likely to become even more so when Iran turns out to be a disaster as well), who's to say they won't turn their ire inward?

After all, according to these folks, the liberal media lost Vietnam. Who do you think they'll blame for Iraq, Iran, and whatever disasters follow?

Atrios on Torture

It was brought up (I won't mention by who) that I should, perhaps, comment on Atrios. Ok, here's the latest piece, and a good one besides:

Memories of Joe

A hideous human being, a disgusting moralist who is morally bankrupt.

These comments came after the senators had screened a 30-second snippet in which, to quote John Burgess's report in these pages, "three black-suited assailants enter a bathroom, grab a young woman wearing a flimsy nightgown, then attach a long, hooked device to her neck to suck out blood." The clip led many of the evening's TV news reports, replete with anti-video-game-violence commentary spawned by Sen. Lieberman's earlier observations on the product: that it was set in a sorority house, where the object was to hang women on meat hooks. "These games teach a child to enjoy inflicting torture," said Lieberman.

Today Joe voted for torture. A sick and twisted man, obsessed with his own image and his desire for Tim Russert's love. One of David Broder's Wise Old Men, one who hates the constitution, human rights, and the rule of law.

The Bullshit Moose's best friend is a best friend of torture.

What more is there to say, really? Yes, the Dems may retake Congress, but they've demonstrated once again that they either have no convictions, or no interest in standing up for them. I suspect that as soon as the bill becomes law, all remaining "soft" (read: reputational and diplomatic) power that the United States enjoys will wither away with it. All that will remain is the cudgel.

That, and the desperate prayer that nobody else ever, ever becomes as powerful. After all, after this, who would weep for a fallen America?

Memo to Jame Wolcott

James:

If this is what you're into:

The reason the L & O franchise wears so well in reruns is because it doesn't try to upstage the city in which it's set...

...and you're peeved about the shift to CSI-like bombast, don't complain. Just go watch THIS.

The Wire is the answer to all your "annoyed with CSI" needs.

Edit: If nothing else, this scene justifies HBO. Very much not work safe.

The Danger of Being Eponymous

Warren's comment in response to my posting on his lack of permalinks (a privilege I offer that he, apparently, thinks will get him sued for some reason) is yet another variation on the idea that potential threats to lefties don't warrent some caution.

Well, first, that goes against decades of online praxis, but other than that, I turn to the guy I called a "better blogger", Digby:

It really takes a lot of gall for the NY Post to obnoxiously ridicule Keith Olberman for calling the police when some asshole sent some white powder to his house with a note that said it was in response to his commentary against the president. The NY Post was one of the places that the original anthrax killer hit in 2001 --- and their own employees got sick.

What in the hell is wrong with these people? Jesus.

Remember when I mentioned psychotic freepers doing what freepers do best? Yeah, it was this sort of thing I'm talking about. It's already a problem in North America- in other contries, like Japan, people have had their homes burned down for saying the wrong thing in public.

And the sad part is that, as this Digby post shows, you aren't necessarily guaranteed the sympathy or support of others if this sort of thing happens.

Do I expect that anything of the sort would happen had I decided to go eponymous? No, I doubt it. Maybe back in 2002-2003 when I blogged more often and had that ongoing debate with Steven Den Beste, but not nowadays. There would certainly be more money in it.

No, the POINT, as I mentioned back in the first posting, is that I have always believed that being able to communicate, debate, and discuss pseudonymously or anonymously is as important to democracy as being able to vote anonymously. It can be annoying, especially for the eponymous who are trading on their offline "name" to gain online credibility, but it is absolutely necessary and is the very lifeblood of this new medium. It's what attracted me to blogging in the first place; why the hell would I abandon my belief in this principle just because someone like Warren, who would be completely ignored were he not Warren Kinsella, yells "coward"?

It doesn't change the fact that despite Warren using his real name, and Atrios not using his (until recently), Atrios was and is still a better read.

Warren Kinsella Doesn't Appear to Know What a Permalink Is

Check it out.

It doesn’t have those permalink things: Warren doesn’t have permalinks because (a) he is busy running a busy business (b) he is busy being father to four busy young children (c) he is busy doing a million other things and (d) he therefore couldn’t be bothered. He doesn’t have time. Besides, he believes in age-old marketing principles: why, having brought people onto his website, would he then send them somewhere else?

Um, Warren? A permalink is a link to each individual entry. What you're thinking of is a blogroll. I realize that they're easy to mix up, being completely different things that one could discern the difference between by doing thirty seconds of research (read: googling), but apparently Warren is too busy to care.

The rest of his "top ten" is basically nine different variants on "blogs are only read because they're free, there's nothing of worth there". It's a logical conclusion for an opinion columnist, as its their toes that bloggers tread on, but since most blogs have advertising, and most online newspaper outlets are also free-to-read with advertising, I'm not quite sure where he's going with this.

Oh, and he also whines about pseudonymity. Suck it up, Warren. Pseudonymity has been a feature of online discourse since before the Internet, and remains around for the same reason it always has: because while Warren doesn't have to worry about his employer finding some pretext to fire him over a political disagreement and/or Free Republic goons jumping him on the way to work, others DO.

Pseudonymity is, has been, and always will be based around a simple concept: that trading on a reputation should not be a prerequisite for being involved in a serious debate. That Warren supports his dubiously-thought-out arguments by trading on his political background may explain his position, but it doesn't grant him an iota of credibility. Digby and Atrios are far better political commentators than Warren ever was, and I haven't the foggiest idea who Digby is or who Atrios was until he "came out". Both are smart, insightful, entertaining reads...

...and both know what a permalink is.

Taking a Shot at a Classic Bit:

Shorter Steyn:

"The devastation of New Orleans was entirely the fault of black people; everybody knows Bush did everything he could. Also, I dislike rap music and black culture in general, and it is the sole cause of the plight of Black America, for it has too many jiggling booties. I also haven't the faintest idea that black alienation might predate gangster rap.

"Here's a black man who agrees with me."

(Also, bonus Shorter Barbara Amiel: "If you disagree with me about Israel, you're anti-Semitic. Please pretend I'm still relevant, like Macleans does." No need for a link- it pretty much covers all of them.)

(Honestly, Paul Wells, as annoying as he can be sometimes, can surely find better company than these drooling fools.)

Returning to Type

That's what the Canadian Conservatives seem to be up to, as they provoke no small amount of outrage through a variety of spending cuts.

Here's the weird thing, though:

"Never have Canadians seen such mean-spirited cuts at a time when Ottawa is swimming in money," said Liberal MP John McCallum. "This minority government only cares about its political base."

After announcing that last year's surplus was $13.2-billion Monday, the government unveiled $1-billion in spending cuts to take place over two years and announced that another $1-billion in savings over that period will be extracted through unidentified "tighter management" measures.

Thus, the spending cuts are entirely unnecessary from a budgetary point of view. They can't cry poverty, and even if they COULD, these would be penny ante.

Yet, for being penny ante, they're an odd set of choices. They're removing the GST rebate for foreign tourists, a program to reduce smoking among Aboriginal Canadians, cuts to the Canadian Tourism Commission, cut the funding for small museums, and (most bizarrely) slashed the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Really, when everybody and his dog in Ottawa and the press is complaining about Canada no longer "punching above its weight" internationally, why on earth would you cut the budget of the diplomatic corps?

The Tories defended it by saying

"We want a more robust foreign policy. But more robust does not always mean spending more money and having more people," he said.

"It's not the government's plan to go on a hiring blitz when we're trying to show the Canadian people we're being careful with their money."

Well, first, that first remark is beyond silly, unless by "robust foreign policy" you mean "soldiers with nowhere to go and no knowledge of what they need to do when they get there".

That's the thing, though. They're sitting on an absolutely massive surplus. There's no reason in the world for them to do ANY of this- it is vanishingly unlikely that they'll get credited for this sort of thing, and some of the cuts (like to the GST rebates) are going to thoroughly tick off important segments of the economy and parts of the country. The Republicans like using deficits to cut programs they don't like, sure, but there's no deficit here- even the Republicans are smarter than this. The whole thing is, well, stupid, and it's been a long time since Harper has been accused of being stupid.

Or is it stupidity? Back before he cleaned up his image and jumped on "the five priorities" (is hacking up museum funding a priority now?) he was well known for being a hardcore libertarian: a market fundamentalist of the first order, who also didn't really give a rat's ass about foreign policy. Could we be seeing a return of the old-style government-loathing Harper, with a side of "let the Americans handle our diplomacy, we'll just send the troops they tell us?" It's certainly plausible. It fits the intrinsic weirdness of cutting programs that keep Inuit from dying of cancer.

And it's an absolute GIFT to the Liberals. It reinforces the "hidden agenda" concept ("what'll he do when he has a majority?") and, more importantly for what I'm interested in here, it provides an opportunity for the Liberals to put forward a vision of liberalism that can be counterposed to Harper's mean little museum-closing ideology.

Now if only they can stop the necromancy long enough to start doing that.

Japan-China Rapprochement?

Good news, if it pans out. A lot depends on whether Abe visits Yasukuni, and whether the historical revisionists reap the conservative shift in Japanese government.

We'll see, I guess.

Excellent Piece on the Torture Bill by Digby

I'd highly suggest reading it, but it IS a little lengthy, so I'll shorten it up, along with the bill.

(To make up for all my lengthy posts in the past.)

"The United States is about to pass a bill that allows the government to declare anybody it likes an enemy combatant, remove their rights, and torture the hell out of them with the assurance that nobody will know about it or even be allowed to know about it. The bill doesn't appear to quite allow this, but has enough holes that presidential signing statements can invalidate the whole thing.

"The reason why this is going through is because both parties aren't going to oppose it. The Republicans don't give a shit, because the people being tortured are from different districts and different ethnic backgrounds than their supporters. The Republicans who aren't actually racists, that is. The Democrats are too busy being cowards, and still think masturbating over "handling of the economy" numbers and poorly-defined "triangulation" gets you seats. They can't get over persistent misreading of the Clinton victories, because it appears to justify their cowardice.

"If you're brown and to the left of Rush Limbaugh, or just a Muslim in general, you may wish to consider moving."

And that, as Colbert puts it, is "all you need to know".

Edit: Ok, not all Dems are being cowards on this. Louise Slaughter's stance was great, for instance. It's just that too many Dems are, and that's all that matters, really.

Meanwhile, back in Condoleeza's America...

Condoleeza Rice endangered the health of millions of Americans, by approving and possibly guiding that imfamous EPA "all clear" on post-9/11 air quality, when the air was actually choked with asbestos.

You know, the one that they put out because they placed the importance of a temporary economic hit over the safety of an entire American city? The one whose underlying mindset can most easily be explained using Nixon's phrase "screw 'em, they don't vote for me anyway?" Yeah, that one.

(If nothing else, the very concept of some sort of weird Jewish-Israeli conspiracy over 9/11 is invalidated by this thing. Would some fantastic Jewish conspiracy include quite possibly dooming the citizens of New York?)

So apparently Condoleeza had the final word on whether to put this thing out. She said "yes". She is, thus, very much responsible for what happens afterward.

Let the lawsuits commence.

A tip for Paul Wells

Before you start ranting about shutting down Newsworld, you should stop and ponder what the alternatives are.

What I've seen of Newsworld is like night and day compared to what Americans have to suffer through. But, sadly, an aphorism that I personally find repugnant still holds true in Paul's case: "Where you sit is where you stand".

Paul's sitting in the lap of Ken Whyte. National Post refugees don't back public anything, no matter how terrible the private alternative. Apparently, now, neither does Paul.

I'll Give the Ignatieff Campaign One Thing:

Unlike their candidate, they're very good at sticking to the talking points, including blog supporters like TDH Strategies' Jonathan Ross.

I received a couple of emails yesterday accusing me of turning a blind eye to the complaint filed against Michael Ignatieff's campaign that the memberships of 60 people had not been paid for by the individuals. I was told that it was "easy for you to sling mud at other campaigns as opposed to turning the attention onto yourself and your associates."

Not true, and here is why.

First, yesterday's rants were largely directed towards Joe Volpe's unjustified use of racism to tarnish the reputation of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Ok, let's begin here. I'm not the biggest fan of Volpe in the world- my interest in the Liberal leadership race is that of what sort of vision of liberalism will win out in the country and, perhaps, serve as a center for North American liberalism. (Considering how weak the Dems are in that respect lately.)

Still, what I've seen of the treatment of Volpe has this barely-hidden message of "Italian, therefore Mafia, therefore crooked". It's no different than assuming that black legislators are only killing time until they can get another hit on the pipe, and of course THAT would be completely unacceptable.

The completely different treatment that Volpe had received for his alleged Quebec indiscretions and ol' WASPy Count Ignatieff gets for his doesn't exactly undermine this claim. Completely different treatment like TDH's here, where he ignores the beam in his eye to pluck out the mote in Volpe's.

Secondly, these kinds of doubts were cleared up by Ignatieff's National Director of Operations Sachin Aggarwal, who ventured to do a little digging behind the claims. Here are some excerpts from a letter sent to National Director of the Liberal Party Steve MacKinnon:

"Of the 60 memberships cited, we have confirmed that only three were signed up by the Ignatieff Campaign. The remainder either pre-date the leadership contest, were signed up through competing campaigns, or took out their memberships independent of the leadership contest. The deceased member cited joined the Party with a five-year membership in 2004, prior to Michael's involvement in Etobicoke-Lakeshore." (NOTE: A file containing a line by line accounting of each membership in question was also provided to the party.)

"The complaint also attached a number of signed statements, alleging that "fees were kindly paid for by the Michael Ignatieff leadership campaign." As you will see from an examination of the membership lists, all of these memberships pre-date the leadership contest, making it impossible for this to be the case."

"Of the three memberships signed up by the Ignatieff Campaign still at issue...I personally signed up two of these members and can confirm that they paid their own membership fees. The third is a senior woman who suggests that her membership was paid by another member of her senior's club, not the Ignatieff Campaign."

Sounds good, right? Except look more closely. The chief defense that Ignatieff has is that the people weren't officially signed up by his campaign and/or were signed up before the leadership campaign.

Yeah. Considering that Prof. Ignatieff's bid for leadership far, far predates the official leadership race, and considering the simple fact that as a sitting MP and a leadership candidate he damned well should control every single delegate from his riding, this defense is ludicrous. Ignatieff was in a tough battle to get the seat, and everybody knows that the prize was (among other things) the seat's delegates. Memberships from prior to the leadership campaign are, thus, perfectly legitimate targets.

Of course the ones he got afterwards were legitimate. They're irrelevant! The fix was already in, the memberships already bought.

(Still, nice massaging of the facts, huh?)

Notice what isn't there, as well. There were, apparently, irregularities in a riding north of Toronto, somewhere in the satellite city of Brampton, where 12 Ignatieff supporters cited the same Indian restaurant, and widespread rumors that memberships were paid for by Indian community organizations. Is it anywhere in this email? Is anybody even breathing a word about it, including Ross? Nope.

Like I said, message discipline- they know what to say, and what to avoid.

Finally, here's Ross on the complaints:

Such abuses, if they had been true, would have bothered me, regardless of the fact that I am supporting Mr. Ignatieff. But, as a result of a little bit of basic detective work, it is now clear that these claims are were cooked up by angry individuals trying to divert attention away from questions surrounding their own campaign.

Translation: Volpe's people did it. Quite possibly, although there's no evidence for that. There IS a lot of discussion, however, about the possibility that Ignatieff's campaign was behind the initial leak of information to the Toronto Star, and (thus) the monomaniacal focus on Italian-Canadians that suggests that either:

a) they were deliberately trying to target Volpe, or

b) they assumed that Italian-Canadians were crooked enough as a group to be worth targeting.

Being charitable, I'll assume it's "a". Again, smart communications work, though- by accusing Volpe of targetting, one insulates Ignatieff. Very deft.

Pity that the machine isn't backing a better candidate. Harper would be shaking in his boots right now. As it is...

As Predicted, The Silence is Deafening

Well, at least on one Ignatieff supporter's blog, where the lack of discussion of his favored candidates little indiscretions is striking.

(A favorite, which I hadn't mentioned, was a dozen members whose supposed home address turned out to all be a single Indian restaurant. Oops.)

It makes me almost miss the chattering Dems who were almost too eager to talk about their own candidates' flaws back in 2004.

"The Dead Have Risen, And They're Voting..."

...for everybody, it seems.

Over the weekend, there was a big stink in Canadian Liberal circles over allegations that Joe Volpe paid for the memberships of "instant Liberals", including those who had no idea they were in the party, and a few that were, um, dead. This was all in the Quebec riding of Papineau, where Volpe had had better-than-expected numbers.

Yeah, bad press. People expected Volpe to bail out.

This morning, however, the situation got worse. Not only is Volpe staying in, all but accusing Michael Ignatieff of being behind the leak of supposedly-confidential liberal membership lists, but it appears that Ignatieff did the same damned thing in both a riding in Scarborough and in his own riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. So now Iggy's tactics appear to have bitten him on the ass.

Why do I say Iggy's tactics? Well, first, because the scuttlebutt is that the leaking of the info was the work of Ignatieff's Quebec team.

More importantly, though, it's because ever since this thing started, Ignatieff has been the one with the absolute most to benefit from Volpe getting out of the race. Leaving aside Volpe's identity-based support from Italians and other minority groups, he and Ignatieff are competing for the center-right in the party, and Volpe has almost certainly bled away votes and delegates that Ignatieff could really, really use to stem his decline. Thus, he has every reason to try to bring Volpe down, and the connections in the party to do it. Ignatieff can safely ignore people like Kennedy, who are unlikely to throw to him and who doesn't compete for his votes, but Ignatieff is pretty much a dead duck at this point unless he can carve those votes out of Volpe's hide.

Of course, the objection might be "but the leak was only to highlight the unique dishonesty of the Volpe campaign". Certainly one could think it was unique, but here's the problem: it ain't. It's rife in politics, particularly in Canadian politics. Opening up every single Liberal to scrutiny would have been disastrous, because it would have implicated everybody, except maybe Ignatieff.

So what did Iggy's people do? They only released the information on Italian Liberals. It is vanishingly unlikely that InstaLiberals in that community would be backing anybody but Volpe, so it was a winner for Ignatieff- Volpe looks bad, and he looks good, as any supporters of his in that community would almost certainly be long-standing Liberals who were attracted to him for whatever reason.

Unfortunately, it was still a dumb move. First, because as soon as it got out that it was only Italians, it became immediately obvious that this was a stunt, and Joe could (quite effectively) play the race card to stay in the race. That will help him keep the minority support he needs from defecting. Second, because Ignatieff didn't keep his own nose clean, and Volpe's machine still has enough power to ensure that the same thing could happen to him. Volpe's support is pretty much rock-hard, whereas Ignatieff's is ephemeral as hell. ANYTHING reducing Ignatieff to Volpe's perceived level is an absolute disaster for him, especially now that Bob Rae is the presumptive leader (thanks, largely, to an "air-war" communications strategy that outdoes even Ignatieff.

(In other words, Ignatieff has far, far more to lose. And just lost it.)

So now the Liberals face a war between Volpe and Ignatieff- the former seem as crooked, but with support that will let him ride all the way to the finish line, and enough support that they can't ignore him...and the "golden child", now sullied and dirtied by the same muck that he had thrown at "Diamond Joe Volpe".

Probably should have thought things through before so obviously ratf--king Volpe, huh? You don't screw somebody over on one of YOUR weaknesses.

(I'd say that Harper must be pleased as punch, but considering just how disastrous his foreign policy has been for his electoral chances, I wouldn't pop that champaign just yet.)

Oh, and in related news, George Allen is toast. Sorry, but dropping the "N-bomb" and saying that you moved to Virginia because it's a state where "blacks knew their place" isn't something you get out from under.

(American politics seems so much simpler in comparison. Primaries really do change things, don't they?)

Hail to the King

Remember I had blogged about Thailand's coup, ousting PM Thaksin Shinawatra?

Well, according to CNN, there's one heck of a twist: the man behind the coup may well have been the King of Thailand!

Supposedly he had had his fill of Thaksin, and decided to (peacefully, thankfully) end the situation.

It remains unclear exactly what role the king played in removing Thaksin. The palace claims it was not involved in the events, but the king late Wednesday endorsed Sonthi as the head of a temporary governing council, according to a nationally televised announcement -- essentially giving his blessing to the coup.

Many Thai people, along with political and monarchy experts, see it as another example of the constitutional monarch's behind-the-scenes power, which he has exercised sparingly but effectively in his six-decade reign.

"If the king didn't give a nod, this never would have been possible," said Sulak Siwalak, a prominent social critic and author of books on the role of the monarchy in Thailand.

"Thaksin failed to realize that the king has been on the throne for 60 years and he's no fool. The man is old, and Thaksin thought he could play around with him -- and it was a dangerous game," said Sulak. "He felt he could belittle the king, and that's something the king cannot stand."

Guess we've relearned a lesson that a lot of people forget: those "symbolic and ceremonial" roles have a way of becoming much less so when things get hairy.

I imagine Tony Blair is going to be a little more careful around Elizabeth and Charles, huh?

Storytime, Kids!

From Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, in the Washington Post:

In 1971, while in Lefortovo prison in Moscow (the central KGB interrogation jail), I went on a hunger strike demanding a defense lawyer of my choice (the KGB wanted its trusted lawyer to be assigned instead). The moment was most inconvenient for my captors because my case was due in court, and they had no time to spare. So, to break me down, they started force-feeding me in a very unusual manner -- through my nostrils. About a dozen guards led me from my cell to the medical unit. There they straitjacketed me, tied me to a bed, and sat on my legs so that I would not jerk. The others held my shoulders and my head while a doctor was pushing the feeding tube into my nostril.

The feeding pipe was thick, thicker than my nostril, and would not go in. Blood came gushing out of my nose and tears down my cheeks, but they kept pushing until the cartilages cracked. I guess I would have screamed if I could, but I could not with the pipe in my throat. I could breathe neither in nor out at first; I wheezed like a drowning man -- my lungs felt ready to burst. The doctor also seemed ready to burst into tears, but she kept shoving the pipe farther and farther down. Only when it reached my stomach could I resume breathing, carefully. Then she poured some slop through a funnel into the pipe that would choke me if it came back up. They held me down for another half-hour so that the liquid was absorbed by my stomach and could not be vomited back, and then began to pull the pipe out bit by bit. . . . Grrrr. There had just been time for everything to start healing during the night when they came back in the morning and did it all over again, for 10 days, when the guards could stand it no longer. As it happened, it was a Sunday and no bosses were around. They surrounded the doctor: 'Hey, listen, let him drink it straight from the bowl, let him sip it. It'll be quicker for you, too, you silly old fool." The doctor was in tears: "Do you think I want to go to jail because of you lot? No, I can't do that. . . . " And so they stood over my body, cursing each other, with bloody bubbles coming out of my nose. On the 12th day, the authorities surrendered; they had run out of time. I had gotten my lawyer, but neither the doctor nor those guards could ever look me in the eye again.

So, what's the moral of this story?

As Digby points out, this very thing is being done by American hands to prisoners in Gitmo as we speak.

So, the United States has a ruling party that embraces this crap after putting on a puppet play of pretend opposition, and an opposition that rolls over because they're too fearful to lose their cozy sinecures stopping the United States from embracing the worst aspects of its own enemy. Whereas Canada has a PM who, from all appearances, couldn't give a rat's ass, an opposition party with a leading candidate who is worrisomely disinterested in the fate of "the other guy" (as seen in his little "gaff" about Lebanon) and willing to equivocate on the value of torture, and intelligence services that by all accounts will serve 'em up at will to keep their access to US intelligence--judging by the Arar case.

So the real lesson is "it's kind of a bad time to be North American." Sorry, kids.

"It's Not Just the Economic, Stupid"

According to Kos, the "run on the economy" story is sketchy at best- while there are some areas where they're running on the economy--chiefly manufacturing-heavy regions where the economy has cratered--in general they're sticking to the gameplan.

Good to hear, if true. It's sad that I'm more skeptical about this than the other report, but that's the Dems for you.

Edit: Weird multi-post fixed.

So Much for Habeas Corpus

It's over on Digby's Blog. Once again, the Dems are too petrified to actually stand up for something, even something as simple as "torture is wrong, and Habeas Corpus is right". Instead they hid behind John McCaine, and let him work with the Republicans to create a watered down "anti-torture" bill that, guaranteed, the Bush administration is going to consign to oblivion the second they finish the "don't wanna, not gonna" signing statement that's no doubt being written as we speak.

The weird thing about all this, though, is that the Dems are going to look that much weaker on national security, which is going to hurt them on Iraq... and despite the blather about "running on the economy", there really is no other issue as important.

(Arianna Huffington is absolutely right in mocking the Dems who say that "we've got to keep our eyes on the ball, and the ball is the economy." Somebody needs to sit the Dems down, look them in the eye, and yell "IT IS NOT 1992--STOP PRETENDING YOU CAN AVOID NATIONAL SECURITY AS AN ISSUE" as loudly as they can, as I think that may be the only way they can get the message.)

Yes, Dems, the numbers for Bush on Iraq are improving. So what? That's because he's pushing back, as everybody knew he would. Accept the push, plan out a response, and respond, damn it. This is not ground you can afford to lose. I realize that it goes against your instincts to believe that you can actually have any effect on the polls, and I know that's certainly what's been drilled into your heads by pollsters, but stop and think about your opposition for a second, and how they manage to change perception.

Sure, read the polls, understand them, and keep the data close at hand- but don't ever forget that those are the opinions of real people, and the job of a politician isn't just to react to opinions, but to change them.

Your enemies (and, trust me, they're your enemies- they've said it many times, in many ways) understand this. They've been doing it for decades. Like the guy who wrote the book that inspired my moniker said, your best and only real teacher is your enemy.

It's time to learn, before you get taken to school.

Yep, it was a coup

And it was for the typical reasons:

Thailand's military coup leader Sondhi Boonyarataklin said the armed forces ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra during the night because his government was tainted with corruption and cronyism.

The military had to ``take control and rectify this situation to enable the country to quickly return to normal and to restore solidarity among the people,'' Sondhi, who is army chief, said in a live television broadcast today.

The Thai Political Reform Council said earlier today it is in control of the Southeast Asian nation of 65 million people and declared its allegiance to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, according to statements read on state television. The country's revered king is the world's longest reigning monarch and marked his 60th year on the throne in June.

For the uninitiated, "corruption" is what coups are ALWAYS supposed to be about. The pure and noble military leaders are forced to step in because the government is simply too corrupt. Sadly, the situation rarely supports such an assertion, and I truly doubt that this is the case in Thailand, either, even with the corruption.

So what could it really be about?

Thaksin, who is popular in rural areas for easing farmers' debts, has headed a caretaker government since he dissolved Parliament in February.

Emphasis mine. I don't know much about this case, but I am all of a sudden very curious as to exactly who's holding these debts. If Thaksin is a populist who's forcing creditors to either forgive debt or at least not foreclose on it, then his response to his unpopularity will likely be to redouble those efforts. That may well piss people off.

From an Asia Times piece on Thaksin written by what appears to be a supporter:

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was elected in 2001 on a strongly populist economic platform now widely referred to as Thaksinomics. Since that time, Thaksin's populist policies have succeeded in producing rapid economic growth. The only factor that could derail Thailand's economy is the remote risk of social instability.

Replicating the leftward political shift that has swept over Latin America in the past several years, Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party won a landslide victory in Thailand's 2001 general election. The electorate's strong disaffection with former prime minister Chuan Leekpai's pro-International Monetary Fund (IMF) economic policies was instrumental to Thaksin's victory.

Thaksin capitalized on this disaffection by campaigning on a populist platform that included the reversal of several key IMF policies. The TRT pledged to improve rural living conditions through new subsidized loans and the creation of a debt moratorium for farmers. In addition, the party pledged to improve the nation's health-care system.

Thaksin, reputably Thailand's wealthiest man, also pledged major changes for his country's business sector. Economic liberalization demanded by the IMF threatened many of Thailand's wealthy elite in both the private and public sectors. Thaksin promised to create a debt-management company to remove bad assets from the country's banks and eliminate significant amounts of private- and public-sector corporate debt.

Thaksin also hinted that he would oppose IMF-dictated bankruptcy legislation that would have closed many Thai companies. And he also alluded that he would reduce foreign investment in Thailand to protect domestic companies.

Interesting parallels and differences exist between the populist shift in Thailand in 2001 and the populist shift in Brazil in 2002.

Bolding mine. I get the feeling that "Thaksinomics" aren't overly popular among the investor class.

If I were a Chomskyian, I'd be looking very carefully at exactly who in Thailand's creditor pool is likely to benefit from this, and what sort of ties they have to the U.S. The key question is whether or not this is out of the blue, or whether the military got the "all clear" from the U.S. on this.

(Why the U.S.? Other regional players wouldn't kick up a fuss at the suspension of democracy in Thailand like the U.S. would, and the U.S. has a track record of quietly supporting coups against vaguely undemocratic populists.)

Judging by Thaksin's sketchy human rights record (a quick scan of his Wikipedia entry yields that ever-delightful phrase "extrajudicially executed") he fits that time-honored element of the "elites vs. third world populist" profile. The conflict over the sketchy April elections fits the profile as well, where somewhat undemocratic election elements (principally poorly placed ballot boxes) were used to justify the same kind of election boycotts that we saw in Venezuela. No surprise there- if the opposition parties know they'll be crushed and there's an opportunity to ensure a "round 2" by ditching the elections and calling for new ones, they'll take it.

What IS novel is the so-called "Finland Plan"--an alleged plan by Thaksin and his ally to overthrow the king of Thailand. The blogger Naphat certainly doesn't give the claim much credence, believing that it was merely an attempt to undermine the prime minister. Makes sense, and even if people didn't believe it at the time, it DOES set the groundwork up for attacking the prime minister as power-hungry, corrupt, and a threat to the system- all elements that would be necessary to legitimize a coup and ouster.

So it looks like we're seeing the same profile that we do in a lot of these cases. Honestly, although I don't think the U.S. is directly involved (it's kind of busy), the tactics and scenario could come out of a CIA handbook on "how to oust a populist," down to the inveighing in local newspapers about how populists are illegitimate because poor people are too dumb to vote.

The question is what happens in the upcoming repeat of the election. This is supposed to be temporary. If Thaksin wins again, though, will the military cede the floor? Or will they take more drastic steps?

On a somewhat less scary note:

Go read Jacob Weisberg describe "Why The Wire is the best show on Television".

He's not wrong. It's an absolutely amazing achievement- not only for the intelligent treatment of urban life, the War on Drugs, and the kinds of personalities that you find in the drug game on all sides (dealers, junkies, suppliers and cops)... but because he takes Baltimore--a city that many Americans don't give two thoughts about in a year--and puts its life and soul up on the screen for all to see. It ain't pretty, but it's powerful.

Coup in Thailand?

Thailand just called a state of emergency, according to the BBC. Tanks have appeared in Bangkok, and "An army-owned TV station has altered its programming to broadcast images of the royal family and songs associated in the past with military coups."

Not good.

The Perfect Political Ad?

If this ain't it, it's damned close. And I mean "rivals Daisy" close.



(Yeah, another video. Everybody's doing it these days.)

Anyway, this ad is tremendous. Simple, elegant, and brutally effective. Even the veteran's somewhat unpolished delivery only lends it authenticity.

Kos called it the best ad this cycle, and is calling for Americans to give a little to the organization behind it, Vote Vets, so it can run in every state and district where the senator/congressman voted against the new body armor. I can't disagree, except to say that if anything he gives it too little praise.

(Fortunately, even if it doesn't get aired on TV, it'll be emailed, blogged, and linked like mad. Youtube and other embedded video outlets are, I think, going to turn political advertising upside down.)

Five years in...

And this is still the most powerful commentary about the tragedy. Jon?



I have nothing I can add to that, except to wish he had been a little more prescient. If you want to know why Jon sounds so bitter nowadays, watch this and you'll understand everything you need to.