Don't Blame Penske For His Throwing Ability
 

Crap. Wrong link. Try "Throwing Like a Girl" on this page.

If I were a Republican, this would really piss me off:

• Mr. Bush acknowledged one major failing of the early occupation of Iraq when he said of disbanding the Saddam Hussein-era military, “The policy was to keep the army intact; didn’t happen.”
  
  But when Mr. Draper pointed out that Mr. Bush’s former Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, had gone ahead and forced the army’s dissolution and then asked Mr. Bush how he reacted to that, Mr. Bush said, “Yeah, I can’t remember, I’m sure I said, ‘This is the policy, what happened?’ ” But, he added, “Again, Hadley’s got notes on all of this stuff,” referring to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser.

NYT. The President has tied the fortunes of (among other things) his administration and the Republican Party to this war in Iraq, but he can't remember how crucial decisions were made or bothered to try to figure it out.

FWIW, Bremer has already responded with his Nuh UHHHHH! letters, documenting (arguably) that the WH knew and approved of that particular stupid decision. I don't know why Bremer is sacrificing some likely cushy job at AEI in order to avoid being tagged as the goat, but there you are.

How to export democracy.
 

You read this and you think, boy howdy, it's hard to believe that we've been so unsuccessfully in introducing democracy to the Middle East.

• "[Maliki's] learning to be a leader. And one of my jobs as the president and his ally is to help him be that leader without being patronizing. At some point in time, if I come to the conclusion that he can't be the leader—he's unwilling to lead or he's deceptive—then we'll change course. But I haven't come to that conclusion."

link

"As Iraq goes, so goes the GOP" is not the long term rule. "As the economy goes, so goes the party in charge" is the rule.

You may wish this war spells the end of the GOP, but that is not the case. It's the economy, economy, economy.

Placed in order of real importance to the average American, here are the issues:

1. Job security
2. Health care
3. Education costs
4. Retirement
5. Taxes
6. Fuel costs

20. The Iraq war

50. The subprime/ARM driven housing crisis

499. Global warming

People don't care that much about Iraq because they care more about themselves and are working like lunatics to keep their heads above water. Which is exactly how we wound up in the debacle in the first place - nobody cares. They're too strained chasing the more and more elusive and time consuming "American Dream."

To cite my obvious favorite source, "We're all wired in to a speed trip now." Nobody's watching the store, except when it directly impacts their pocketbooks. If the Dems had brains, they'd make cuts in all sorts of programs and blame the shortfall on Iraq spending. That would put the war into the average American's crosshairs.

caption, please
 

Sen. Larry Craig assumes a narrow stance.

In the long term, we'll have two parties in relative equipoise, because whichever party finds itself down will make some adjustments to win back voters, and whichever party finds itself up will piss away its advantage.

But in the short term, a lot of GOP legislators are going to pay the price for Bush's screw-ups. Which is as it should be, since they never acted as any kind of a check on him.

Don't leave your day job to be a pollster. Iraq is at the top of the list. (Don't believe Gallup? Try FOX News.)

Craig
 

So is September Larry Craig month? And does anyone care?

Craig
 

Surely the White House is not happy that Senator Craig is messing with National "The Surge Is Working" Says General Petraeus Week.

Ty -

Ask five friends what keeps them up at night sometimes. You think people are looking at their finances and saying "I'm really concerned about Iraq!"

Stop. Thinking. Like. A. Lawyer. Think like a person. When you consider your life, what do you think about? Iraq? No. You think about what matters to you, and what matters to you is what directly affects you. Iraq does not directly affect most of us.

I'm not going to bother explaining to you why that poll has so many holes in it, or why it is irrelevant because it is geared to determine people's concpetual POLITICAL concerns, which are different than their ACTUAL day to day concerns, upon which they base their voting decisions. You understand that.

It is the economy. It is always the economy. It has always been the economy and that is not going to change. This is a capitalist society.

Best,
SD

Agreed. And throw in about 60-75% of the Dems as well.

Sebby, stop thinking like a DINK. Ask five people who have kids in highschool what keeps them up at night. I bet at least three of them say "Iraq." More specifically, will my kid get sent there to die?

I tend to make voting decisions based not on my biggest day-to-day concerns, over which I have a lot of control, but on conceptual political concerns. I think the day-to-day concerns mainly affect whether I think things in general are suckier than they should be, and associate that with whoever is in office. For the vast majority of people who are getting along and aren't part of massive layoffs or whatever, economic stability/prosperity is something that is perceived as being within their own control for the most part. And, the president and Congress and the Supreme Court is going to have only a muted effect at best -- but on whether or not we are in Iraq, or whether or not the right to abortion is federally protected, who is president/in Congress actually can and does matter.

Therefore, the issues that obsess us most on a day-to-day basis (will I ever find twue wuv???? am I going to advance in my job? will I ever be able to afford to buy a place that is not a hovel here? will that heinous hose-beast bitch ever fucking retire????) are not those that influence us the most when deciding who to vote for.

Very truly yours,

me.

Actually, I suspect that Romney will have a 10-point plan for this problem shortly before the Iowa caucus.

please. I'm 1 who doesn't.

I would like to apologize for what are probably numerous problems with verb/subject agreement and dangling participles and so forth. Brain not working like that morning this.

just before the election a 90 foot tall Hank will appear in your dreams and tell you how to vote. Obey!

Likewise, the death toll has now risen to the point where almost everyone knows of someone who has died or been wounded in Iraq.

Most urban professionals like us know of someone who died in the World Trade Center or on one of the planes (and I suspect most NY professionals know several people who died), and it was part of the strength of our reaction. WE were being attacked.

The kids who have died in Iraq are a much more diverse group geographically - so my relatives in West Virginia, Nevada, and upstate New York all talk about people who have died in Iraq, but didn't know anyone who died in the World Trade Center. The war is hitting very close to home for them, and Bush's rhetoric on the war on terror is becoming more and more distant for them. So talk about ending the war is taken much more personally than talk about the risk of terrorism. You can argue that this shouldn't be so, but it is.

I don't think you were even in the dream. Just your wife.

He will then have a 12 point plan just before the New Hampshire primary, though he will suggest alternatives to 3 of his 13 points during the Michigan primary and qualify another 4 of the most important of the 15 points for Florida.

Also, of his points, some will be applicable only if you live in Utah, while others will apply only to Virginians.

Wait, did you say you were from California?

wait. is the agreement that no one is going to campaign in michigan from the Dem side?

No, because there will never be a draft. Your kid will never be sent there, and if you think he will, you're hysterical.

I am not thinking like a DINK. You are. The middle class in this country worries about money. The war impacts their vote, but it is not the driving force. I don't know anyone who even talks about it outside this board. Perhaps that's a poor reflection on my friends, but most of them seem more taken with trying to chase their kids and make financial decisions than they are with our geopolitical future. When it's discussed at all, it is always in the abstract.

I worry about keeping two business ventures afloat. I don't worry so much about Iraq because, frankly, nothing is going to change there regardless of who we elect.

Fair enough. I see there are two sides to that coin. I think you may be more the exception than the rule, but there's a valid argument to the contrary.

I don't think, however, that the middle class shares your sense of control over its economic future. You have a lot more control than most.

Of anyone on here, I tend to feel that you know least from the middle class. No offense. Uh, well, sometimes it seems like you think you are *in* the middle class, and you may know yourself, but the actual middle class? You aren't so in step with. From what I can see. But my perception may be warped by your apparent conviction that you aren't crazy rich.

I assure you, I am very middle class. I've also happened to live with and without disposable income and in my hometown (a very depressed area) grew up around people at all levels. In the past, when I was more of a lawyer-sort, I was a bit materialistic, but I've come around from that. Still materialistic, but lets just say a few things happened over the years that cured me of thinking that was everything.

But still a Hobbesian cynic when evaluating what others want.

"Hobbesian cynic" is such the phrase used by people who are at one with the middle class. Fuck, I don't even know what that means, and my dad has written books about Hobbes.

okay- so here the great revelation is that sebby is full of shit, then over at FB the great reveal is that the housing market and housing prices are pretty different moving across the country.

What an experience to be privy to all the big brained mother fuckers posting here.

Pragmatic, without much faith in people doing anything unless incentiovized by their own selfish goals to do so.

You forgot # 3 - Your terminal incoherence.

If your father is that wealthy, why are you working?

You tell your selfish prick of a father to bring back his beloved cartoon!

go read sebby's version, then take a lesson

if I'm terminal it's one slow death. en garde. bitch.

I submit this as the next board title.

Doing your best to put off that day?

Calvin's father was a tax lawyer. I just thought you would want to know.

OH the Humanity!!!!!!!
 

Capitol Update - California September 6, 2007



In This Issue

Gender Neutral Bathrooms in Our Schools
Marriage By Any Other Name?
NOW Sues Fatherhood Programs
Remember Victims of 9/11 and Fly Your Flag!
Tune In-CRI's Joe Pursch on KFIA Radio


Gender Neutral Bathrooms in Our Schools


A man who identifies as a woman may not feel comfortable in the men's restroom. To accommodate this discomfort, the University of Vermont, and at least 17 other colleges nationwide, have added gender-neutral bathrooms to their facilities. The four new bathrooms at the University of Vermont's student center cost $2,500 a piece to build.

"I think they're a really important thing to have," said a 19-year old transgender student. "Just because there can be tense situations in gendered bathrooms, especially for trans-identified people, you need a space to use the rest room and feel safe and comfortable."

Transgender activists are glad for this first step but they also want the University of Vermont to go even farther and install gender-neutral bathrooms in the library and private showers in the gym.

This story should hit close to home for Californians. Our own legislature is currently considering SB 777, legislation that could mandate gender-neutral bathrooms in our public schools, including elementary schools.

SB 777 is broad and sweeping legislation that would force schools to adopt new curriculum and prohibit school programs and activities from reflecting adversely on homosexual and transgender individuals. Gender-specific bathrooms could be considered discriminatory if SB 777 becomes law.

CRI's SB 777 Debate on Fox News

Read SB 777

LAUSD Transgender Policies


Marriage By Any Other Name?


In a legal brief submitted last month to the California Supreme Court, which is currently weighing the issue of homosexual marriage, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has stated that the legislature could eliminate "marriage" in the future and call it something entirely different.

Schwarzenegger's legal brief states: "The Administration submits that the use of the words 'marry' and 'marriage' is not required by the California Constitution [to describe the institution of marriage]. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as 'marriage' could be changed."

Although Schwarzenegger vetoed homosexual marriage legislation two years ago, he has indicated that he would not oppose the courts affirmatively deciding this issue and has generally supported special rights for homosexuals.

Schwarzenegger's legal brief is evidence of postmodernism and the deconstruction of language. If you change the word "girl" to mean boy, that doesn't make a girl a boy. Likewise, if you call "marriage" by another name, that doesn't change what marriage essentially is.

"Neither the courts nor the legislature should be in the business of rewriting dictionaries," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "Marriage has a longstanding definition. In enacting our laws, the legislature should reference the dictionary and glean from it, not attempt to rewrite it to fit their agenda."


NOW Sues Fatherhood Programs

Rather than focusing more efforts on protecting women from the international sex trade, or (heaven forbid) protecting baby girls from being aborted, the National Organization for Women (NOW) has turned its attention to federally-funded fatherhood programs.

NOW has sued three Responsible Fatherhood programs because they allegedly discriminate against women by excluding them altogether.

"Sadly, this is where radical feminism leads. Instead of acknowledging the validity of a program for fathers, to encourage them to be better dads and more involved with their families-and admitting that this would have positive repercussions for all of society-extremist feminists at NOW would destroy a good thing," stated Karen England, executive director at Capitol Resource Institute.

The importance of Responsible Fatherhood programs is described on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: "The President is determined to make committed, responsible fatherhood a national priority. The presence of two committed, involved parents contributes directly to better school performance, reduced substance abuse, less crime and delinquency, fewer emotional and other behavioral problems, less risk of abuse or neglect, and lower risk of teen suicide. The research is clear: fathers factor significantly in the lives of their children. There is simply no substitute for the love, involvement, and commitment of a responsible father."

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

And people claim that these Democrat politicians want us to succeed in Iraq....

And why didn't they say this way back when Patreus was being connfirmed (that any report he submitted would not be believed)?

Dems already discount war report
By S.A. Miller
September 6, 2007


Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, talked with reporters yesterday in Washington. "We know what is going to be in it," he said of the Iraq war report next week. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it.

"If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said.

Republicans bristled at the pre-emptive strike against the report.

"Are these leaders asking the American people to believe that the testimony of a commanding four-star general in the U.S. Army should be discarded before it's even delivered?" said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

"If so, these statements completely ignore what's truly at stake in this war and suggest that neither the commander in chief nor our chief commander on the ground have any regard for the lives of the men and women fighting for this country," he said. "It's appallng, and I think the American people — rightfully — will continue to stick by the decisions of our commanders and troops on the ground when it comes to what is best for their safety and security."

Mr. Bush's surprise visit Monday to Iraq's Anbar province showcased success in the one-time al Qaeda stronghold where Sunni tribal leaders teamed with U.S. troops to drive out the terrorists and rapidly improve security.

Despite continued bloodshed in Iraq, the president's visit was one of several recent signs of U.S. military success in Iraq that blunted antiwar momentum leading up to the September progress report.

The congressionally mandated report from the administration, which will be delivered in two parts by Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, is expected to show some U.S. military advances, but limited progress from the fledgling Iraqi government toward ending sectarian fighting.

Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.

They also favored an analysis due today
by Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe, that is expected to say security gains have been "uneven" and Iraqi security forces are ill-prepared to stand alone, according to a CNN report.

"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."

She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

If you think Petraeus and his job should be above politics, you're barking up the wrong tree. Try this article:

• The risks of playing politics with the military
  By Bruce Ackerman
  
  President George W. Bush's campaign to stay the course in Iraq is taking a new and constitutionally dangerous turn. When Senator John Warner recently called for a troop withdrawal by Christmas, the White House did not mount its usual counterattack. It allowed a surprising champion to take its place. Major General Rick Lynch, a field commander in Iraq, summoned reporters to condemn Mr Warner's proposal as "a giant step backwards".
  
  It was Maj Gen Lynch who was making the giant step into forbidden territory. He had no business engaging in a public debate with a US senator. His remarks represent an assault on the principle of civilian control - the most blatant so far during the Iraq war.
  
  Nobody remarked on the breach. But this only makes it more troubling and should serve as prologue for the next large event in civilian-military relations: the president's effort to manipulate General David Petraeus's report to Congress.
  
  Once again, nobody is noticing the threat to civilian control. Mr Bush has pushed Gen Petraeus into the foreground to shore up his badly damaged credibility. But in doing so, he has made himself a hostage. He needs the general more than the general needs him. Despite the president's grandiose pretensions as commander-in-chief, the future of the Iraq war is up to Gen Petraeus.
  
  The general's impact on Congress will be equally profound. If he brings in a negative report, Republicans will abandon the sinking ship in droves; if he accentuates the positive, it is the Democrats who will be spinning.
  
  In fact, if not in name, it will be an army general who is calling the shots - not the duly elected representatives of the American people.
  
  Wars are tough on constitutions, but losing wars is particularly tough on the American separation of powers. Especially when Congress and the presidency are in different hands, the constitutional dynamics invite both sides to politicise the military. With the war going badly, it is tempting to push the generals on to centre stage and escape responsibility for the tragic outcomes that lie ahead. But as Iraq follows on from Vietnam, this dynamic may generate a politicised military that is embittered by its repeated defeats in the field.
  
  From this perspective, the US owes a great debt to Harry Truman. It would have been politically convenient for the president to defer to General Douglas Mac-Arthur's advice and invade China in the Korean war. But Truman fired MacArthur instead, opening the way for General Dwight Eisenhower to win the next election. While the Democratic party was a big loser, the principle of civilian control remained intact.
  
  Mr Bush is no Truman. He has used Gen Petraeus as a pawn in a game to defer congressional judgment from the spring to the autumn. Now he is transforming him into a mythic figure, scheduling his report to Congress for September 11. As the nation pauses to remember that terrible day in 2001, the president wants his general to appear on television as the steely-eyed hero of the hour, leading the country to ultimate victory in "the war on terror".
  
  This puts Gen Petraeus in a difficult constitutional position. Paradoxically, it is now up to a military man to defend the principle of civilian control. Gen Petraeus should make his priorities clear by immediately disciplining Gen Lynch for his thoughtless breach of constitutional principle. When his moment of truth comes, he should make every effort to avoid being a shill for either the Republicans or the Democrats - emphasising that the important questions are political, not military. He should restrict himself to an impartial statement of the facts and refuse to judge the success of the surge.
  
  Easier said than done. We all know that facts do not speak for themselves and that Gen Petraeus will be making countless value judgments even if he re- frains from explicitly assessing the success or failure of his mission. This is why the president should not have pum- ped up this moment in the first place.
  
  But he has, and it will not be any better if Gen Petraeus and the joint chiefs of staff blind themselves to the constitutional precedent that they are establishing. They should not allow themselves to be left holding the bag for the tough choices involved in extricating the country from its blunders in Iraq. They should stringently limit themselves to an impartial statement of the facts and insist that it is up to the president and Congress to come up with the least-bad exit strategy.

Politics before the Nation's interest
 

I had missed this, but Ackerman is aboslutely right.

It is completely inappropriate (and a considerable departure from the standard) to trot out an active-duty military officer to give a press conference on why a Senator, or why any particular proposed policy, is full of shit.

Certain officers testify before Congress as a routine part of their jobs (Joint Chiefs and/or CINCs) and other do in response to particular issues or inquiries. When called, they can and do give their opinion (and/or the Administration's position) in response to Congressional questioning. They are also supposed to give their opinions up the chain to the Administration.

But the military has no business being placed out in the political fray that way. It not only undermines the principal of civilian control, but the idea that the military is professionally non-partisan. It is, after all, their job to do their best to implement whatever batshit policies the civilians pass.

S_A_M