New Format...

I have "upgraded" the blog to a slightly different layout. I don't know if it is really an update or not, but I think there are some nice new features. If you have any opinion, criticism, or suggestion for the blog format, please comment and let me know.

Positives: This new layout allows for a whole LOT more links - and much easier managment of links. In addition, I really like the new feature where you can search the blog by topic Label (on the right under the links). I think that will be really useful. (Just FYI - I have gone back and added labels to a majority of my old posts, but there are still a few more to go.) Finally, I think this format provides a more useful Archive feature.

Negatives: There are a lot more links - maybe it's too many? Too bulky over on the right side of the blog? Also, I don't like the picture I have up at the top currently, and the way it does not stretch the entire width of the page. I'll have to work on that.

Anyway, I think overall, this new layout will be efficient and helpful. It's just hard getting used to new stuff - once you are so comfortable with the old. Anyway, comments about the format/layout of the blog are appreciated.

The Golden Age of America...

Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton, First Inaugural Address

In the early 2000's, I used to make an argument to friends that history would one day look back on the last decade of the 20th century as the Golden Age of America. For almost a decade, America experienced a sort-of new Pax Americana - a time of peace and prosperity simply unrivaled in American history.

But that story is rarely if ever told today. Instead, over the past two years, crescendo-ing over the past six months, we are constantly bombarded by propaganda by the conservative right alleging that the Clinton Presidency accomplished nothing; was a do-nothing administration; did not do anything for America, etc. And people, apparently, are actually buying into this propaganda.

In my opinion, this is just a calculated attempt by the Right to cast dispersions on the Democratic Party in the run-up to Election 2008. More specifically, it is probably an attempt to de-legitimize the candidacy of Hillary Clinton by negating the accomplishments of Bill Clinton's administration. You see, Republicans...at least hard-core wingers...are running scared. They realize that America remembers what a good President was like, even thought we've had 6+ years of incompetence now. America is impressed by this slate of Democratic candidates who are willing to take our nation in a new direction. And more specifically, as America gets to know Hillary Clinton (not the right-wing caricature of her, but the actual candidate) they like her, they see her as a strong, intelligent, nuanced, and having the gravitas of a Commander-in-Chief. Heck, that is enough to give a conservative nightmares.

So they make stuff up. They try to convince regular folks, independents and traditional Republicans that the Clinton Presidency was a joke. That he accomplished nothing. Therefore, another Democrat - or Hillary herself - will accomplish nothing.

That simply could not be further from the truth.

Let me be honest - Bill Clinton was not one of America's "Great" President's. In my opinion, he will not go down in history as one of the top five, the "upper-echelon" if you will. And, it must be conceded that Clinton and his administration was unable to accomplish nearly as much in his second term as in his first - because of the most shameful, partisan witch-hunt in American political history. I don't excuse Clinton's affairs in office. It was wrong, and frankly pathetic. The lack of judgment regarding his personal life that he showed in office is enough, at least for me, to have knocked him out of the running for one of our Greatest Presidents, even if he had accomplished more than what he did. Having said that, his impeachment was nothing more than a political sham, and it took the focus away from the work of the American people.

But, the amazing thing is what was done in the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency. It is a truly amazing record, and one that has probably not been seen in the post-War era. To combat some of the revisionist propaganda about the lack of accomplishments of the Clinton era, below is a PARTIAL list of accomplishments and initiatives passed or put in motion during 1993-2000. Not everyone will agree politically that each of these items was a home-run. The point is the VAST amount accomplished during Clinton's two terms...especially when contrasted with the abysmal record of the past 6+ years.

Accomplishments of the Clinton Presidency
Domestic Legislation:
~ Family Medical Leave Act (1993) - unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member without losing jobs
~ Brady Bill (1993) - gun safety legislation
~ Creation of AmeriCorps (1993) - most significant public service program since the 1960s
~ Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit* (1993) - provided tax relief to millions of low-income working Americans
~ Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act* (1993) - raised taxes on the top 1.2%, lowered taxes for 90% of all small businesses and 15MM low-income Americans
~ Omnibus Crime Act (1994) - included supplemental funding to local governments for 100,000 new police officers
~ Paperwork Reduction Act* (1995) - streamlined federal government processes; reduced bureaucracy; saved tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money
~ Minimum Wage Increase* (1996) - was not increased again for 11 years
~ Defense of Marriage Act (1996) - allows state-determination of recognition of marriage
~ Welfare Reform (1996) - most significant welfare overhaul since the programs inception
~ Creation of the Hope and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits* (1997) - makes two years of post-secondary education available to Americans at no cost
~ Creation of the Roth IRA* (1998) - tax savings for retirement

Economy (*Note: many of the economic and tax laws listed above play directly into this area):
The longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history - including:
~ Average economic growth of 4.0%
~ Creation of 25MM new jobs, 92% in the private sector (more than the previous 12 years combined)
~ Real Median Family Income increases (after falling each of the previous four-years, and having been stagnant since)
~ Unemployment reached its lowest level in 30 years (before Bush Admin changed the definition of unemployment to kick the long-term unemployed off the rolls)
~ Inflation at its lowest level since the Kennedy Presidency
~ Home ownership at 67%
~ 7MM fewer Americans in poverty than when Clinton entered office (lowest poverty rate in 20 years)
~ Largest increase in higher education funding since the GI Bill (expansion of federal loan and grant programs; Lifetime Learning Credit and Hope Credit which enable any American to achieve 2 years of post-high school education for free)
~ Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
~ Largest budget surplus in US history (after inheriting the largest deficit in US history)
~ Lowest government spending as a share of the economy since 1966
~ Lowest tax burden as a percentage of family income in 35 years
~ Surplus used to pay down debt - $360BB worth of debt paid down (remember, at the end of Clinton's second term, the government was running a surplus and was projected to pay of the ENTIRE federal debt by 2009...four years later, the US had it's LARGEST budget deficit in history AND highest debt level in history)
~ Lowest federal debt since the 60s
~ Balanced budged for the first time since 1969

Trade:
~ NAFTA (1993) - established North American Free Trade Zone (Canada, US, Mexico)
~ Creation of the WTO (1995) - world-wide initiative, US was a leader in getting it done
~ Numerous other free trade agreements with Asia, South America, and others -
~ Normalized trade relations with China

Foreign Policy:
~ Agreed Framework with North Korea (1994) - kept N. Korea w/o nukes until Bush pulled out of the framework upon taking office
~ Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (1996) -
~ Containment of Iraq (1993-2000) - including numerous bombings to enforce the no-fly zone and prevent the re-emergence of weapons of mass destruction
~ Kosovo War (1999) - NATO run, US led
~ Mideast Peace Talks (1999) - attempt to end the 2d Intafada through diplomacy

Non-Legislative Initiatives:
~ One America Initiative - race relations initiative
~ Justice Department (FBI) investigated, found, and convicted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing terrorists

General Notes:
~ First Democrat to be re-elected to the Presidency since Franklin D. Roosevelt
~ Highest end-of-Presidency approval rating since the end of WWII
~ Lowest crime rate in 26 years (overall crime rates went down each year during the Clinton era)
~ Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
~ Lowest infant mortality rate in American history

That, my friends, is a record of accomplishment standing alone. It shines all the more brightly when placed in comparison to the last six years of the Bush Administration.

No, Bill Clinton was not one of greatest Presidents in American history. He's not in the top five. It's unlikely he cracks the top-10, although that is probably where the argument begins. The years of the Clinton era in many ways swept clean the mess and murk of the 70s and 80s, and left America stronger, safer, smarter, and more optimistic than it had been in a generation. As President, Bill Clinton accomplished as much or more domestically than any President in post-war America.

Yes, he had massive faults, poor judgment, and down-right wrong aspects of his personal life. And don't let this list convince you that I believe that everything on here was a great policy, or great decision. The point of this overview is not the wonderful things that Clinton did, but rather, the things that his Administration accomplished. Anyone can find these things using a simple Google search...but the concerted effort of the Right is to not allow people to think critically for themselves (or google for themselves) - they want to tell people what to think. Don't believe the hype about the "do-nothing" Clinton Presidency. It simply isn't true.

As President, Bill Clinton was massively successful, and massively accomplished.

The Clinton era was a new Pax-Americana, the Golden Age of our still-young nation.

Related Posts: Clinton Presidential Center

Thoughts...

I felt the Democratic debate last night was one of the best debates I've ever seen. It was lively, on topic, and --- no really --- funny.

Keith Olbermann was a tremendous debate moderator. He asked very current questions, provided genuine respect and weight to the proceeding, but actually included some levity in the process. The "crowd" that the AFL-CIO provided all the rest needed to break many of the candidates out of their shell and provide an actual "debate."

Quick synopsis:

Winners -
Sen. Hillary Clinton - she was clearly a Commander-in-Chief among politicians. One slight mis-step (shouldn't say anything that's on the mind) - otherwise a commanding and imposing figure. She maybe the best politician in my lifetime.

Sen. Barak Obama - he did not dominate on his home turf, but he held his own. With expectations so high, that is an accomplishment. His mistake was taking on lesser candidates when Hillary should be his only focus.


Losers -
Former Sen. John Edwards - he should have been Labor's candidate...but he simply never made any inroads against the top candidates. His campaign for President is over. As for another office...

Gov. Bill Richardson - another forgetable debate performance. He is such a strong public servant, maybe I am simply expecting too much. But he is CLEARLY NOT the "anti-Hillary" candidate I was expecting. I got the clear impression he is "running" for VP.

Overall -
I am so impressed by these Democratic candidates for President. Frankly, if you take away Rudy Giuliani from the Republican side, I think that there are five or six Democratic candidates that clearly surpass the Republicans as far as resume, gravity, leadership, and genuine "Presidential-ness" goes. I can see Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden as President. Let's be honest, outside of Rudy, none of the Republican candidates look like a President - McCain...does he even know who he is anymore? Romney...he seems little more than a suit trained to be a politician. Anyone else?!?

This is the strongest Democratic party of my lifetime. I'm a Hillary supporter, and I think she has what it takes to win the nomination and be our next President - but beyond her, there are so many Democratic candiates that I can be happy supporting - it's an embarrassment of riches!!!
___

Please go look that this website and organization - Center for American Progress. I've had this site bookmarked for about three-plus years now - it's time you do to.
___

Take a look at this US Senate candidate: Rick Noriega.

Link


Link


Is there anything else you want from a public servant?

The Right Battlefields...

Tonight is THE night...

Okay - all you Harry Potter fans...we're just hours away.

Well, you are. As for me - I haven't bought the books in hardback, so I'll either have to borrow from someone, or wait about a year...yeah, I think I'll be borrowing.

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed with Scholastic and Ms. Rowling for issuing the final book in the Harry Potter series the weekend before the BAR EXAM! Hello - a little consideration for us future barristers out here Ms. Rowling...how can we be expected to pass the Bar with you putting the book out right before?!?

I, for one, will be self-disciplined and not read Deathly Hallows until after the exam. How in the world I will keep from having the ending spoiled for me, I have no idea. But since I spend about 12 hours a day cooped up in a library now, I think I can manage.

Since the day is upon us, I want to link to (re-posted below) the blog entry I wrote after finishing the Half-Blood Prince - Harry Potter spoiler alert... (from 1-Dec-2005).

As I said at that time - I have not and do not read Harry Potter rumor/speculation/fan websites. I know that there is massive questions surrounding whether Harry makes it out of the series alive - and I have my opinion on that too (which has changed as I have re-read Half-Blood Prince in the past few days). But I'm still more interested (and was a year and a half ago) in the fate of another character.

As is mentioned - potential spoiler alert both for happenings in Half-Blood Prince (if there is anyone left who hasn't read that) and for speculations on the finale.

Happy reading to all of you who will start just after midnight tonight --- Don't Spoil It For Me!!!!

______________________________________________________


SPOILER ALERT


This week I finished reading the latest in the Harry Potter series of books - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

I was fortunate to be able to get this in over the Thanksgiving holiday - now that I'm in school I very rarely have much time for reading for pleasure. I borrowed Half-Blood Prince from a friend and was about 100 pages into it, a week or so ago, but I was totally lost. There were characters and story lines being referenced which I had absolutely no recognition of. So, then I decided that I needed to go back and read
Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix again, because I literally did not remember a thing about that book. That is kind of a scary proposition - the fact that you have read a book before and could not remember a single event, character or plot twist only a year or two later. I console myself thinking about how the thousands of pages of legal cases I've read since then has simply pushed these stories from my mind...but I'm really just worried I'm getting old.

Well, if you've read Half-Blood Prince, you know there are some - shall we say - twists and turns, or surprises in store. Well, I want to talk about some of those surprises a little bit in this post...

So, WARNING - PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD.

If you have not read Half-Blood Prince, but intend on doing so, please stop reading this now - because I am going to write about somethings that happen that you will not want to know before you read. If you do not want to spoil the plot of Half-Blood Prince stop reading now.

Also, WARNING - FUTURE PLOT CONJECTURE AHEAD.

The purpose of this post is I have some ideas kicking around in my head about something that may happen in the seventh and final installment of the Harry Potter books - and if I'm right, it may well not surprise you as much when you read that book. So, if you do not want to face the possibility of a surprise of Book 7 potentially being revealed here, stop reading now.

SPOILER ALERT










Okay, as I mentioned, after reading Half-Blood Prince, I got to thinking about the ending, and something came to me that might be an important part of the final book - and I want to record that here so that, in two years when the final book comes out, I can verify if I was correct or not. I do want to add here - I do not read Harry Potter websites - so if this is a very common theory of what is happening in the books, then I apologize for not citing those sources, but this comes simply from my thoughts about the books, not anything external I've read.

SPOILER ALERT

As you know if you have read Half-Blood Prince, Professor Dumbeldore (Hogwarts Headmaster, and mentor/protector of Harry Potter) dies toward the end of the book. That was a bit of a surprise - not completely, but to some extent. What was much more surprising to me was the source of his death - he was killed by the killing curse by none other than Hogwarts Professor Severus Snape. Snape is a former Death Eater, who had turned spy for the Order of the Pheonix (those whom fight the antagonist in the books - Lord Voldemort). But many in the Order - if not all other than Dumbledore - still did not trust Snape. They felt he was still too entwined in the Dark Arts, and was really still a follower of Voldemort. But Dumbledore steadfastly trusted Snape, and refused to listen to anyone's doubts of Snape's pure loyalty.

And yet it was Snape who administered the curse which killed Dumbledore.

What to make of this. Well, clearly, the idea from the book is that Harry and the other members of the Order were correct all along about Snape - that he was still evil, still following Voldemort, and that Dumbledore was wrong to trust him.

I do not think this is the case. I think Snape is still loyal to the Order, and that even now - having killed Dumbledore and on the run back to Voldemort - he will be acting as spy.

How can that be?

My conjecture is that Dumbledore had a reason to put his trust in Snape fully. What kind of a reason - an Unbreakable Vow. We learn in Half-Blood Prince about these Unbreakable Vows that bind the two oath takers together to the point that death will result if the Vow is broken. What if - and it is a big what if - Dumbledore had convinced Snape to take an Unbreakable Vow of loyalty to him, to the Order, and against Voldemort, but always as spy, never revealing his true loyalties - even if that meant he had to kill Dumbledore in front of other Death Eaters to remain with his access to Voldemort.

This is how I support such a conjecture:

1. Dumbledore never waivered in his support of Snape. In the books, has Dumbledore ever been proven wrong about such a massive point? No.

2. When Harry was chasing Snape and Malfoy from the Hogwarts grounds, Snape fought back only with defensive spells. If he was truly working for Voldemort, there is no reason not to kill Harry at that point - after all he had just killed Dumbledore.

3. My idea is that Dumbledore knew that in order to defeat Voldemort, Harry would need someone on the inside to do something, which will provide Harry the access to kill him. My gut feeling is that at this point, Dumbledore felt his life was less important than Snape's in defeating Voldemort - Snape has to be there in order to accomplish the Feat, the Something which will enable Harry to end the War. Harry doesn't know this. The Order doesn't know this. But Snape does, and he will accompolish the Feat just before he himself perishes - and is redeemed - in the final book.

Who knows. Maybe Snape is just evil. But I think that Dumbledore had a master plan, and he saw his sacrifice as simply a piece of that plan.

We shall see.
______________________________________________________

Watch in awe at the acting ability...

This video is from the Hillary Clinton campaign website - HillaryClinton.com. I think they were clearly destined to be politicians and not actors...





Having said that - this really is a funny spoof of the Sopranos finale. Good stuff...

Beckham...

Today, David Beckham joins the LA Galaxy and MLS.

David Beckham is a soccer player - maybe you've heard of him? Yes, I think it's fair to say that most people have at least heard of him and - even if not familar with his resume - know that he's a footballer.

Is Beckham in MLS going to work out? Who knows. The day this was announced last spring - and the money was disclosed - I was skeptical, but hopeful. There are so many shades of the NY Cosmos (of the long-defunct NASL) signing Pele in the 70s - big name, loads of money, big crowds, media attention - but an absolute wreck of a business plan and the league blew up just years later.

Beckham will be getting somewhere between $30 and $50 million over five years from the Galaxy and MLS - and somewhere around $200 million in profit-participation and additional endorsement deals. Spending that kind of money on soccer in America is a MASSIVE risk.

But you have to take big risks to reap big rewards.

Addidas and the Galaxy announced yesterday that they have already sold over 250,000 Beckham jerseys. They have increased season ticket sales by 4,000 plus. MLS got their first paying TV contracts. A five year, 8-figure new jersery sponsorship.

This just might work out. And not ONLY due to the dollar and cents...

"It's not a big brand thing," Beckham insists. "It's about me being the ambassador for MLS. If I can make people more aware and make kids realize that you can go into higher levels and make a great living from playing soccer, that's what I'm going over there to do."

Everything this guy is saying about the game, the game in America, and growing the sport is right. Does he really believe it? Is he really here for an early retirement - or acting - or his wife's career? That is the question. But, if he's genuine...wow...

This could pay off because he puts soccer and MLS in the minds and on the lips of millions of Americans who never would have before. More kids play, more fans watch, more folks buy jerseys, more investors want to buy teams... all of that takes time - but those are the lasting impacts that could make this deal pay off beyond the financial concerns. Pay off by truly making soccer a "major league" sport in America.

The key difference between Pele and Beckham is this - Pele was brought here to grow soccer on the sports map in America. But there was no foundation, no infrastructure, so fertile soil if you will, to grow the sport...and so the attempt did not sick, the seed didn't grow.

Beckham doesn't have to establish soccer in America. Soccer IS established now - we've got a strong league, with financially savvy owners, expansion, stadium construction, good players, a strong national team, etc., etc., etc. Now soccer in the US has a foundation, an infrastructure - fertile soil. So now, the hope is that Beckham will really be the seed that grows US soccer into a whole new realm of popularity, credibility, and significance.

I was very skeptical of this deal - but the leaders of MLS (managment and the investors) have been such solid cultivators of the league - I think this is a big risk that just might pay unimaginable rewards.

Related links:
The Americanization of Beckham - Sports Illustrated (Grant Wahl)

The Beckham Circus Comes to Town - Time

MLSnet.com introduces David Beckham - MLS

Beckham's arrival changes the MLS landscape - ESPN

I'm confused. I thought right-wingers were FOR prayer...

Talk about an ironic man-bites-dog story:

Hindu prayer in Senate disrupted

A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the Senate's morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors' gallery.

Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple in Reno, Nev., gave the brief prayer that opens each day's Senate session. As he stood at the chamber's podium in a bright orange and burgundy robe, two women and a man began shouting "this is an abomination" and other complaints from the gallery.

Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an AP reporter, "we are Christians and patriots" before police handcuffed them and led them away.

For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god."
...
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

I am a Christian who believes in the clear separation of church and state. One of the reasons is this right here. If I would choose not to have my child exposed to Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or any other sorts of prayers in public school, or public events; why would I be so arrogant as to exect Hindus, Muslims, Jews, or anyone else to accept forced exposure to the prayers of my religion? The arrogance and hypocracy of screaming for public prayer, then screaming when it's not your prayer being offered.

A little more relationship with God, and a little less of using 'god' as an election tactic would serve right-wingers well.

Poor timing...

Bush admits administration leaked CIA name

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative...

"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person," Bush said. "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? ..."

Now - this is a perfect example of a conservative "taking responsibility" for something: too little, far too late, and focus on the money rather than the truth...

Sigh...I wish this was Surprising...

Former surgeon general says he was muzzled

The first U.S. surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush accused the administration on Tuesday of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the nation's top doctor from 2002 until 2006, told a House of Representatives committee.

"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds. ..."

Systematic corruption. Nothing you wouldn't expect from this President.

Historically Pathetic...

George W. Bush is a terrible President - one of the worst (if not the worst) in our nation's history. But his action today sinks this Presidency to an even lower level.

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

Not only did the President lie to the American people about firing anyone associated with the leaking of the name of a CIA agent, it appears to me that he has now made himself complicit in that crime, by commuting the prison sentence of the high-level White House official convicted as a part of those events, which were intended to strong-arm and discredit a vocal opponent of the Administration.

The behavior of this President is dispicable and will be a part of his legacy. This is a sad day in our nation's history, when a President wants again puts power and control above the good of our nation - probably more so than our nation has ever seen (yes, including Nixon and Watergate). When you add into Bush's tragic legacy the fact that his administration condoned and advocated torture, condoned and advocated the holding of prisoners without charges, and the fact that he is now asserting executive privilege in regard to White House involvement in the political firings of US Attorney's - this is the most corrupt Presidential Administration since Warren Harding - if it has not already eclipsed Harding's pervasive levels of corruption.

The disasterous entagling intervention, invasion, and occupation in Iraq is tragic. The utter lack of planning for the occupation, and no clue as to how to extract our military will be pointed to by future generations as a lesson in how not to use and abuse our military. The monied interests dictating legislation (energy policy, medicare drup policy, bankruptcy reform, etc.) to a compliant White House has surpassed all that our government has ever experienced. And corruption spread so wide, and so deep it simply DEFINES this President has his Administration.

This - all this mire and muck - will be the legacy of George W. Bush.

Out of Touch...

It seems to me as if life seems to come at you in waves. There are long periods of relative steadiness - then, WHAM - sudden chaos.

That's what I'm experiencing right now. Just when I felt we had been in a bit of calmness and steadiness in our lives - EVERYTHING CHANGES.




Deciding to send our son to a brand new school...

Expecting a new child...

Law School finals...

Doctorate Graduation...

Studying for the Bar Exam...

Purchase of a new home...




ALL AT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a very hectic time, but this is life. This is the way it seems to go. It is not "easy," but it is always more than you expect.

Our family's life is changing quickly - and we are excited about our future.

There are, however, a lot of things going on that I would love to be writing about - the politicization of the Justice Department; the attempt at Immigration Reform; the Texas 10% graduates policy; the press-privilege in Texas issue; etc. Hopefully, I'll be back at it soon - but right now, it's just too much.

The Texas Bar Exam is in late July - as much as I love Oil & Gas and Trusts & Wills, I regret that I will likely be spending more time on those topics than on things I'd like to write about. But, this is life, and there is nothing I would trade for it.

Recently, I have taken to a little ritual with my son Noah each morning. Before we go to school, I stop him in our morning preparations and first I ask him to shut his eyes and think about one thing, and secondly, ask him a question.

First, I ask him to shut his eyes and think about him being a good boy, and how proud his teachers will be of him if he listens to them and if he learns and listens to them through the day; and how he his friends will be so happy if he is nice to them, and treats them well, and puts their interests ahead of his. I also tell him how proud I and his mom will be of him if he is on his best behavior all day, and he listens to his teachers, learns as much as he can, and is the best friend that he can be to his friends during the school day.

Secondly, I ask him to tell me three things that he is thankful for that day. That is such a beautiful and wonderful question. It differs every day -sometimes it's his toy cars, sometimes his piano (a keyboard he got from his grandparents for Christmas), and sometimes it is his mommy. But the most mornings, just like this morning, it was the following:

1. I'm thankful for Jesus saving our sins and love.

2. I'm thankful for God loving us.

3. I'm thankful for Jesus rising.

Let me be honest, I have no idea how much Noah really "knows" or "believes" these things. But what I do know is that he regularly gives me these answers - in this order - when I ask him this in the morning.


Sometimes, life seems so fast and furious that we're rarely doing more than treading water. But then for moments - even if it's brief and relatively rare moments - it seems like maybe we are making progress amidst all the chaos. As much as I care about the myriad of issues and challenges that face us all these days... really all we can do is make a difference a little at a time.

I've always believed that changes are brought about from the bottom up. Family, Church, Community, City, State, Nation. That is how I have felt differences were made. In the midst of a blinding amount of upheaval and change in life, it is centering to hear your child say that Jesus is one of the things he is thankful for.

I can't seem to find the time to write everyday about all the things I think and feel about. But - I HOPE - I am imparting everyday the things that are true and important --- to my little boy and to everyone I come in contact with. That may not change the world, but it may change people.

That is enough for me.

Kids Today...

What an article from the NY Times today: Young, Gifted, and Not Getting Into Harvard

This makes me both scared, and hopeful to be a parent these days. Scared because of all the pressure to compete and exel kids are under; hopeful because I'm convinced that good kids will ultimately excel - and hopefully keep a little bit of innocence and wonder as well. Read the whole article, but here is a bit:

ON a Sunday morning a few months back, I interviewed my final Harvard applicant of the year. After saying goodbye to the girl and watching her and her mother drive off, I headed to the beach at the end of our street for a run.

It was a spectacular winter day, bright, sunny and cold; the tide was out, the waves were high, and I had the beach to myself. As I ran, I thought the same thing I do after all these interviews:
Another amazing kid who won’t get into Harvard.

...

Actually, meeting the soon-to-be rejected makes me hopeful about young people. They are far more accomplished than I was at their age and without a doubt will do superbly wherever they go.

Knowing me and seeing them is like witnessing some major evolutionary change take place in just 35 years, from the Neanderthal Harvard applicant of 1970 to today’s fully evolved Homo sapiens applicant.

There was the girl who, during summer vacation, left her house before 7 each morning to make a two-hour train ride to a major university, where she worked all day doing cutting-edge research for NASA on weightlessness in mice.

When I was in high school, my 10th-grade science project was on plant tropism — a shoebox with soil and bean sprouts bending toward the light.

These kids who don’t get into Harvard spend summers on schooners in Chesapeake Bay studying marine biology, building homes for the poor in Central America, touring Europe with all-star orchestras.

Summers, I dug trenches for my local sewer department during the day, and sold hot dogs at Fenway Park at night.

...

I see these kids — and watch my own applying to college — and as evolved as they are, I wouldn’t change places with them for anything. They’re under such pressure.

...

But I’ve stopped feeling bad about the looming rejection. When my four were little, I used to hope a couple might go to Harvard. I pushed them, but by the end of middle school it was clear my twins, at least, were not made that way. They rebelled, and I had to learn to see who they were.

I came to understand that my own focus on Harvard was a matter of not sophistication but narrowness. I grew up in an unworldly blue-collar environment. Getting perfect grades and attending an elite college was one of the few ways up I could see.

My four have been raised in an upper-middle-class world. They look around and see lots of avenues to success. ...

That day, running on the beach, I was lost in my thoughts when a voice startled me. “Pops, hey, Pops!” It was Sammy, one of my twins, who’s probably heading for a good state school. He was in his wetsuit, surfing alone in the 30-degree weather, the only other person on the beach. “What a day!” he yelled, and his joy filled my heart.

Republican Presidential Debate...

I recorded and re-watched the Republican Presidential Debate tonight from the Reagan library in California.

I was taking notes - but it got late, so let me just give a few general impressions broken into categories -

Positive -
Brownback - Wow - I would never have expected it, but I thought he came off really, really well. Much better than I expected. I thought he seemed composed, rational, and direct. Easily the best of the second tier.

Romney - Incredibly smooth and positive; almost too smooth in that it almost seems contrived, but he was impressive.

Giuliani - This was an incredibly difficult situation for him because he is the most moderate of the Republicans, yet he stood his ground, and was strong - and yet got his points across clearly. He managed a difficult situation well as the front-runner.


Negative -
McCain - Shockingly bad; he warmed up a little bit as things went along, but frankly, he didn't look remotely like a President, and I think he won't make it to the primaries.

Tancredo - Simply looked out of his league; he was so choppy and utterly unable to get his point across; I thought his campaign was about taking extreme conservative stands, but I simply have no idea what he was trying to do tonight


Who? - I'm going to divide this into two sections - First, those who gave it a valient effort, and then those who were just invisible...

Gilmore - when he was actually asked a question, I thought he did fairly well, even though I've never even heard of him before; he always seemed poised, strong, and have ideas...but he was rarely given much of a chance

Huckabee - He was what he always is - full of character and leadership - yet he simply was not given a chance to really expand on anything - it was always in brief questions that were not in his wheelhouse

Hunter - simply did not stand out, he looked like a Congressperson, not much more

Paul - diligently advocated the Libertarian position - which was different, but that was the only thing that made him stand out

Thompson - disappointing; he was just barely there, there was simply nothing whatsoever impressive about him

Overall -
Romney
Brownback
Giuliani
Huckabee
Gilmore
Hunter
McCain
Paul
Thompson
Tancredo

Who looked Presidential?
Romney
Brownback
Guliani

Who benefits?
Romney - won the debate, solidifies position, will take supporters from those who didn't do great
Brownback - stood about among the 2d tier
Guliani - as long has he can do this - fight against the right-wing effectively - he will be nominee

Who stumbled?
McCain - Ugh...he won't make it to the primaries
Thompson/Huckabee (because he made no splash) --- these two guys I thought could be dark horses, and they didn't stand out - it's over for them

Similar to the Democratic debate of last week - this just goes too fast to give any of these guys a chance to really come off well...so the key is not to come off poorly. Romney and Guliani accomplished that - McCain simply did not.

Standing for Nothing...

I'm sitting here studying for finals (my LAST finals - HOORAY!!!!)... anway, I'm listening to some old Caedmon's Call as I try to get my mind around Bankruptcy law, and as I was listening - I was really touched by the following lyrics from their song Standing Up for Nothing, off their 1997 (10 years ago - I am so old) self titled album:

I've never seen my congressman
But I can't deny that he exists
'Cause I've seen his legislation pass
I've seen his name on the ballot list
Same I can't deny this fallen world
Though not my home it's where I live
How can I preserve and light the way
For a world that I can't admit I'm in

'Cause I know who you say you are
But these crows can't be made to stop
So I'll sit denying by this fire
I ain't standing up for nothing

Lack of interest leads to
Lack of knowledge leads to
Lack of perspective leads to
Lack of communication leads to
Lack of understanding leads to
Lack of concern leads to
This complacency denotes
This approval denies
The truth

On Monday night, my wife and I were having a conversation with some friends in which we were discussing the idea of ideas - or maybe to put it better, the way that some Christians seem to be overly defensive or downright militant against discussion of ideas or thinking that is different than ours. My friend said something terribly insighful - we have no reason to fear others' thoughts or opinions, as long as we are firmly rooted in the things we believe. As a Christian, I do not have to be defensive about - or withdraw from discussion or debate with - people who disagree with me. In fact, in pulling away and refusing to address people and ideas that are contrary to our own - we end up standing up for nothing. That's not to say that we will necessarily agree with others all the time - in fact, I think the faith that I hold means that very often my thinking may be very different than non-Christians. Yet, that doesn't mean that I will avoid those discussions, conversations and disagreements.

It is my job as a Christian to acknowlege this world - and in so doing, light the way for others. It's not mine to dig my head in the sand and deny, deny, deny.

Lack of interest, knowledge, communication, and understanding denies the truth.

First Democratic Debate...

I am currently watching the first Democratic Presidential debate from South Carolina. I'm going to post some of my thoughts as the debate goes on - although this will post when the debate is over...remember, these are quick hit thoughts, and written on the fly... (+ indicates that I noted it was a really top notch answer):

Round 1 - Iraq
Clinton - Steady; Looks authoritative; didn't answer the question (was Reid right in saying the war was lost); conceded to Obama on a rebutal - GREAT move, made her look deferential yet forceful

Edwards - Smooth; good answer on Iraq (foreign policy can be his weak spot)

Biden - very off the cuff; spontaneous

Obama - Slow start, but recovered well - good, but expected, position on Iraq

Kucinich - same old, same old on anti-war; he just doesn't seem Presidential

+ Richardson - Wow, made stronger impression on Iraq that I expected; no funding; leave by 31-Dec-07; specific three point plan on what to do when the soldiers came home on 31-Dec; only specific plan answers

Dodd - unremarkable

Gravel - "this fraudulent war was lost from the beginning;" old codger; law to make it a felony to stay in Iraq

Note: Clinton given two rebuttals - no one else

R2 - Perceptions in the Public
Obama - Corruption in Campaign - Smooth, in a tricky spot

Edwards - Haircut/Wealth - nice job of twisting this into running to give the same chances to all Americans as those he has had; Hedge Funds - markets are instrumental in getting rid of poverty

Clinton - Hedge Funds - we have an enterprising economy; basic answer

Richardson - AG AG, didn't call for resignation because he's hispanic - Took this right back to AG's failings

Dodd - Washinton insider - Proud of his pubic service; we've had 6 years of a President going through on-the-job-training, maybe we could use an insider

Kucinich - Anti-war candidate - Choppy answer; pushing his anti-war position genuinely

Biden - Gaffe-machine - Yes (first laugh-line)

Gravel - Doesn't matter if he gets elected - Scared of the rest of these guys; no nukes

+ Clinton - Unfavorable Republican view - ask them; Health Care, still have the scars from that battle; Republicans are worried, and that is why they are so vitriolic; promotes universal health care, energy independence, climate-change initiatives, corruption of Bush years, internatinoal alliances, not alienations; Serious - good answer

Notes: Clinton given two questions; Gravel is an utter embarrassment

R3 - Domestic Issues
Edwards - Abortion - This decision (the recent late-term abortion SCOTUS decision) shows just how important the Presidency and appointments to SCOTUS are; difficult decision that must be respected

Obama - Abortion (most of America agreed with decision) - would not agree; he would trust women to make the decision; then - really nicely - turned to prevention and other issues that would reduce abortions without bans

Biden - Litmus test on R v. W - no specific test, but nominees must share my values and understand there is a right to privacy; bad decision with dishonest reasoning; the late-term procedure itself is bad, but the decision was bad

Kucinich - Litmus test - yes, but the focus should be on other things: living wage, preventive care is support for life; listen to those opposed to abortion in order to be a healer on the issue; respect and protect women but listen to opposing views

Dodd - Regret voting for Roberts - No; disppointed but no - he didn't do what he said he'd do (respect precedent)

Richardson - Model SC Justice - Byron White (moderator says "alive") - Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Dodd - Model SC Justice - since Brennan is excluded (by moderator); Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Edwards - Model SC Justice - Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer

Clinton - did govt fail at VT - YES; while respecting gun owners rights, improve gun regulation especially to mentally ill

Richardson - NRA favorite - Protection of gun rights is important in the west; moved to mental health and enforcing background checks

Show of Hands - who has had a gun in the house as an adult: Gravel; Biden; Dodd; Richardson; Kucinich(?!?)

Biden - what could federal govt have done for VT - (I owned a shotgun, not just a handgun); Assault weapons ban should not have been allowed to lapse; close the gun sho loophole; focus on mental illness

Notes: No one really hit a homerun; Obama's not standing out

R4 - Health Care (HC)
Edwards - What taxes will be raised to pay for your HC plan - Repeal the Bush tax cuts on anyone over 200k; I have a specific, different HC plan

Obama - How to pay for plan - (doesn't answer, just discusses plan); Pool to buy into like Congress; must control costs; preventive care; technology; catrostophic coverage

+ Clinton - Pay for plan - (doesn't answer) - Experience of fighting for a plan; Control and decrease costs for all, including those with insurance currently; save monies in the current system before we transform to a new system

Richardson - No taxes? - No - don't want to raise taxes to pay; as Governor deal with this issue every day: 1. Cut existing beuracracy; 2. Share savings throughout system; 3. Prevention; 4. clean up inefficiencies (insitute HC Info System); 5. reinstate Dr./Patient relationships

Biden - NAACP ban on SC due to flag - more important to show of the capabilities of the people of the host historic black college, than to avoid the state

Obama - Conf. flag - Confederate flag belongs in a museum; but there are bigger issues on the table to discuss tonight - black infant mortality rates/poverty; deferred to "Hillary"

Notes: Obama finally warming up; Clinton carries the air of a President; Richardson focusing on specifics all night

Rd5 - Serious Mistake in the Past 4 Years
Gravel - Wouldn't have held the youth of the other candidates againist them

Kucinich - Years ago, fired the Cleveland Police Chief live on local news

+ Clinton - not enough time to list all mistakes; HC message; believing the President was going to go to the UN and listen to inspectors

+ Obama - when first arrived in Senate; left after debate on a law re: Schaivo - should have stayed and had a full debate/vote

Biden - overestimating the competence and underestimating the arrogance of Bush administration

Edwards - Voting for the war; lesson = listen to own judgment

Dodd - Voting for war

Richardson - too impatient, has tried to force changes, including a minimum wage in NM when should have used diplomacy

Rd6 - Miscellaneous
+ Clinton - Amnesty for immigrants - Comprehensive immigration reform including additional enforcement, helping states pay for costs of illegals, get 12MM immigrants out of the shadows so we know who is here, give current residents a chance to pay a fine, pay their taxes, learn English and get in back of the line to become citizens

Biden - Tech degrees/brain drain - Change the way we educate our children; smaller class sizes and better pay for teacher to get better teachers

Dodd - Welfare drug tests - No; over-tested all over; addition is an illness; show respect and compassion

+ Edwards - Oil Comp. windfalls - much is due to demand, we need to focus on transforming that - climate change initiative, cap carbon emmissions, clean energy resources; let's ask America to be patriotic about something other than war

Kucinich - HC premiums - due to For Profit Insurance companies; non-profit HC

Richardson - 1st thing accomplished in office - 1. Get out of Iraq; 2. Energy independence plan like Apollo program; 3. Climate change initiative

Notes: Clinton cruising

Rd 7 - Non-Iraq Foreign Policy
Obama - 3 biggest allies - 1. EU/NATO; 2. Japan; 3. Emerging China; distraction of Iraq ---follow up question - what about Israel - covers on Palestinian quote; strong ally

+ Biden - 3 biggest threats - 1. N. Korea; 2. Iran; 3. Russian/Putin; we need a change in policy - jettison preemption & regime change - we don't need regime change, but conduct change

Gravel - 3 threats - No important enemies; treat the world as equals; not afraid of any nations; military industrial complex

Edwards - Russia, friend or for - they have moved from democracy to autocracy; how does America change the dynamics of the world? Set America as a force of good in the world; lead on education of children of the world; clean water; economic independence

Richardson - 4 time nominee for Nobel Peace Prize, what about Russia - Assess strategy interests: 1. contain the nukes; 2. Humane treatment in Chechnya; 3. develope Russia as a stable source of energy for US; 4. Promote democracy; stubborn is not a foreign policy; fight terrorism and nuclear proliferation

+ Clinton - Giuliani/Dem perception - Disconnect between rhetoric and reality; current administration hypes fear without delivering on promises; our foreign policy under Bush is less stable; this is a Myth they can put to rest

Dodd - Dem perception - Myth; not building international support; problem of stateless terrorism

Hands - Who does NOT believe there is a Global War on Terror - Kucinich/Gravel

Kucinich - move away from Bush's aggressive war; the world is waiting for US leadership

Obama - Terrorist attack 2 cities, what do you do? - 1. Effective emergency response (re: Katrina); 2. Intelligence - cannot allow the world community to be doubtful of our intelligence; 3. Talk to the international community

+ Edwards - Same question - 1. Act swiftly and strongly to hold the culprits responsible; 2. Assess what happened, address DHS; need to use more tools than bombs - work to get the next generation of potential-terrorists on our side

Clinton - Same question - Immediate retaliation - but do not look for other fights which are not ours

Hands - Who would support impeachment of VP Cheney? Kucinich alone

Kucinich - Constitution - Cheney must be held accountable for Iraq and ginning up a war agaisnt Iran; notes that he is the only candidate willing to impeach

Notes: Clinton stumbles for the first time; in both answers here, she is clearly thinking while speaking and not as commanding as previously; Obama's first answer here was poor

Rd 8 Miscellaneous
Dodd - Civil Union vs. Gay Marriage - Supports civil unions; consider what he would want for his own daughters - same rights; yet marriage is distinct due to the tradition

Biden - Hard choices on climate-change - Manhattan project for climate change; "Barak and I" proposal; Car emissions/ethanol/lithium battery technology/cap emmissions now, today; hard choices

Richardson - Cuba - goes back to question about an attack - retaliate mightily, then build coalition; on Cuba, beginning planning for a post-Castro cuba; bring in Cuban-Americans to develop a plan; change policy on family visits; re-evaluate the embargo

Gravel - Nuclear energy - maturation process; back to the war - there has been a mischaracterisation of terrorism - a war won't work; change in foreign policy

+ Obama - what have you done personally for environment - on Earth Day organized volunteers to plant trees (moderator - no, personally, like light bulbs); making an effort to use efficient light bulbs and teach his children of conservation; back to terrorism - terror networks must be hunted and demolished; build alliances (great answer - I didn't get too many notes because I was caught listening - his best of the night)

[Bit of back-and-forth between Kucinich/Obama/Gravel/Obama] - Obama looks Presidential others...not

Edwards - who is your moral leader - thoughtful; cannot identify one person; the Lord who I pray to for forgiveness and counsel; wife - who is my conscience; father - every person is of value

Clinton - Is Wal-Mart good or bad - mixed blessing; it allowed rural America to stretch its dollar; but now it is raising serious questions about corporate accountability - providing HC, discrimination in the work place, work place safety; Bush and Corporate America no longer even see Middle Class America

Biden - Is there a winner on the statge - YES, a bunch of winners; if anyone on the Republican side is wishing for Hillary, they are making a mistake; back to security - for security, specifically in Afghanistan, Darfur, Balkans, have to use force; all the "happy talk" (from Kucinich and Gravel) is unrealisic

Notes: Finally - Obama hits a home-run (about time) he got better and better as things went along; Clinton closed strong; Edwards limped to the finish

Overall Immediate Impressions:

Clinton did great - she was Presidential, composed, and articulate; she stumbled a bit toward the end, but was consistently the strongest candiate on the stage...but she also got the most opportunities

Edwards did well until the very end; he is substantive and charismatic

Richardson really proved himself to me this evening - specifics, strong, bold; the biggest winner of the 2d tier

Obama really warmed up as the debate moved along; started slowly but grew commanding by the end

Biden is just really off the cuff and unrehearsed; probably the funniest, and you can see depth, but it doesn't completely come through

Dodd was essentially invisible

Kucinich towed his standard line, and actually almost looked relatively mainstream due to the man on his political and physical left...

Gravel was a joke, simply did not belong


90 minutes simply isn't enough time for 8 candidates.

No Sen. Reid, We Won...

...but our soldiers should be coming home.

I don't think I have to specifically say it - but I entirely disagree with Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried when he said the other day that the war in Iraq "is lost."* I think that I have been unequivocally clear on this blog in stating that I think that we have already won this war. (Four Years...; Motivations...)

Sen. Reid was simply wrong in making such a statement, and David Broder has an appropriately frank column today saying so - Democrats have their own embarrassment in Reid:

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: "As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats — a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance."

If you answered Harry Reid, give yourself an A. and join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to come to an end.

President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and also professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."

... Given the way the Constitution divides the war-making power between the president as commander in chief and Congress as the sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow from now until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals of his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out what ground Reid is prepared to defend — for more than 24 hours at a time.

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition — defined by the Iraq Study Group — that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

The Democrats deserve better and the country needs more than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.

Well said. But saying that does NOT mean that the President should not be putting plans in place to bring our soldiers home. I'm not convinced the current bill that the Senate passed today (and the President promises to veto) is the best way to go about this. (As an aside, this ridiculous political pandering of the right-wing accusing the Democrats of delaying bullets and supplies to our troops, or putting our soldiers in danger by delaying this funding is beyond the pale. Such funding does no such thing - and additionally, the REPUBLICAN congress took almost TWICE as long to approve a similar supplemental spending bill last year. Such vitriolic ravings are merely straw-men being created by the Right.) My general thoughts are that we need to vote to fund the troops, and vote or simply pressure the President to change his failed policies separately. That negotiation process was commented on by a Houston Chronicle editorial today - War Powers:

Constitutional scholars teach that the Founders intended Congress and the president to tussle over the power to wage war. The president is commander in chief of the armed forces, yet Congress has the authority to declare war and the absolute power of the purse.

... Ronald Cass, dean emeritus of the Boston University Law School, usefully spoke on this subject Tuesday at a gathering of the Houston lawyers chapter of the Federalist Society. He noted Congress could cut off war-fighting funds on a date certain, but was unlikely to use this blunt club.

As for Congress' power to order redeployment of U.S. forces, Cass said that authority rested with the commander in chief. He compared the tactics of Democratic leaders to a young Catholic woman who confesses that she frequently looks at herself in the mirror and thinks herself pretty.

"Is this a sin, Father?" she asks.

"No," the priest replies. "It is only a mistake."

Is Congress wrong to try to hasten the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq? No. Congress naturally wishes to affect the course of the war for the better, in this case cutting U.S. losses. Only its tactic of directing the disposition of U.S. forces is mistaken.

... Cass predicted Congress and the president eventually would negotiate the terms and amounts of continued appropriations for fighting the war. Given the Constitution's division of military powers and the troops' need for training, pay and equipment, a settlement is not only desirable, but essential.

Exactly. It's not wrong to try to end our involvement in Iraq - but this tactic does not seem be wise. We can all only hope that Congress finds the right way to negotiate with this administration - with the support of the American people as heavy pressure - to get our soldiers out of Iraq and back home. And they should come home as conquering heroes - because we've already won this war.

Because I believe that we have already won in Iraq, and it's time to bring our military home, I was opposed to Bush's Surge, and wrote so early this year. But once Bush decided to send more troops, I certainly was hoping that the Surge would work - so we could then bring our soldiers home. Initial reports from the administration seemed to be very positive about the impact of the Surge...which was encouraging. But recently, there has been a "counter-surge" in violent attacks in Iraq - and Tuesday, the administration made a disappointing disclosure - U.S. excludes bombs in touting drop in Iraq violence:

U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren't counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians.

Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

Others, however, say that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population — one of the surge's main goals.

"Since the administration keeps saying that failure is not an option, they are redefining success in a way that suits them," said James Denselow, an Iraq specialist at London-based Chatham House, a foreign policy think tank.

...U.S. officials have said that they don't expect the security plan to stop bombings.

"I don't think you're ever going to get rid of all the car bombs," Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said this week. "Iraq is going to have to learn as did, say, Northern Ireland, to live with some degree of sensational attacks."

Some think that approach could backfire, with Iraqis eventually blaming the U.S. for failing to stop bombings.

"To win, the insurgents just have to prove they are not losing," said Denselow, of London's Chatham House.

If we've already won, we don't need a surge. So what is its point? Is Bush attempting to clutch the threads of a legacy he see's slipping away? The lives of our soldiers are too important to spend them securing a legacy.

We have won this war - let's bring our soldiers home.

* - I do feel the need to note that in the same Broder piece linked above, the colunmnist points out that Sen. Chuck Schumer attempted to explain Reid's 'this war is lost' statement like this:

"What Harry Reid is saying is this war is lost — in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. ... The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this — we Democrats believe it. ... So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."

With the limited point that Schumer is making, I probably wouldn't disagree (although I'd want to see the context). But, in my opinion, that narrow point is more likely a valiant attempt to justify what Sen. Reid said, and it less likely what Sen. Reid actually meant.

AG AG...

My wife and I had a discussion this morning about one of the more recent scandals involving the Bush administration - the involvement, and involvement in the cover-up, of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (AG AG) in the firing of 8 US Attorneys.

We were discussing two primary issues:
1. The misrepresentations by the Mainstream Media that "Clinton did the same thing"
2. Was there a crime involved

I thought I would touch on my thoughts about this here.

First, Clinton did NOT do the same thing. Comparing the Clinton and Bush involvement with the US Attorneys is comparing apples and oranges.

Bill Clinton, upon entering office in 1992, fired 93 US Attorneys to replace them with his own appointments. As did Ronald Reagan in 1980. I don't think anyone attempts to argue that the President does not have the authority to fire and replace US Attorneys. That is not what Bush - through AG AG - did.

As it happens, midterm firings of US Attorneys are fairly rare - Midterm U.S. Attorney Firings Rare. As the Guardian article states:

Before the Bush administration, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired or resigned in the middle of a presidential term and before their four-year tenures were up following reports of questionable conduct.

A Reagan-era prosecutor was fired and later convicted in federal court in connection with charges that he leaked confidential information. A Clinton appointee resigned over allegations he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club following a loss in a big drug case. Another Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney resigned after being videotaped assaulting a TV reporter who was questioning him about recent decisions by his office.

There have been no allegations of such misconduct by any of the eight prosecutors forced out by Bush. Democrats charge that they were fired for political reasons.

There is evidence that Bush's team was considering disloyalty to the president as a criterion for replacements. As he planned the ousters, Gonzales' aide noted that the vast majority of federal prosecutors were ``loyal Bushies.''

What Clinton and Reagan did is simply not of in the same category as what Bush did - which leads me to the second point - firing these attorneys was likely not a crime.

I don't know that anyone I have read has suggested that the actual firings were a crime. Rather, it is simply an(other) example of the perfidious, incompetent, and quasi-ethical nature of this Presidential administration. It's not a simple matter of firing the attorneys - it's firing them for political purposes, then lying about that and attempting a cover up. As a Letter to the Editor (by Rick Schell) in the Houston Chronicle put it today:

IF anyone doubts that the Bush administration has turned the Justice Department into a branch of the Republican National Committee, all one needs to focus on are his comments about Alberto Gonzales' hearings.

After responding to more than 70 questions with some variation on the words, "I don't recall," he demonstrated he is either a gross incompetent, a party hack or a liar. The president (although he didn't see any of the proceedings) has proclaimed that Gonzales' testimony has "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job." Obviously, the president was not referring to administering justice, but his purging of U.S. attorneys who were not "loyal Bushies." At that, he was an expert.

So, no, the actual firings were likely not illegal. But the injection of petty politics into the Justice Department was ugly and tainted.

Yet, despite the ickiness of the firings, and the apparent cover-up in the aftermath, and AG AG's utterly embarrassing performance in front of the Senate Judiciary committee last week - Bush continues to back incompetence. I think everything else that needs to be said about this issue can be summed up by the Republicans themselves. Robert Novack (right-wing icon) excoriated the Bush administration's inconceivable backing of Gonzales in a blistering editorial today - So it's Bush behind the barricades with Al Gonzales:

Bush going out of his way to praise his beleaguered friend from Texas only confirmed signals sent this week. The president's improbable praise for Gonzales' pathetic performance as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week was no mere gesture. The authoritative word from the White House was that Bush was adamant about retaining Gonzales as attorney general despite Republican demands that the president cut his losses with a new face at Justice.

... Bush, never entranced by life in Washington, detests dealing with a Democratic Congress. Reflecting annoyance and fatigue, he is unwilling to withstand incessant attacks from the likes of Reid and is ready to fight it out for the more than a year and a half remaining in his term. Retaining Gonzales means Bush has slipped behind the barricades.

All the Republicans in Congress who I have contacted view this posture by Bush to be pure folly. For the long term, they predict their president's intent to wage constant warfare against the majority Democrats will cast a pall on Republican chances of retaining the presidency in 2008. For the shorter term, they foresee nothing but trouble from Gonzales continuing in power. "I cannot imagine," said a House GOP leader, who would not be quoted by name, "how Bush thinks Gonzales can function effectively with no Republican support."

... While the current cliche is that Bush never should have named Gonzales as attorney general in the first place, the consensus in the administration was that he also was at sea in his first post as White House counsel.

Colin Powell, Bush's first-term secretary of state, was so appalled by Gonzales that he shunted contact with him off to Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, who in turn handed him down to lower levels along the State Department chain of command.

Such derision of Gonzales is viewed by Bush as the arrogance of Washington, and he seems determined not to appease that mindset. ...

Never would I have thought I would say this, but...I encourage you to go read the entire Novak column.

Ugh - that feels dirty; I'm going to go take a shower...

Best Show on TV...

The Philadelphia Inquirer carried a good feature on John Stewart and the Daily Show today - What's a funnyman to say of grim news?

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are both programmed on our DVR machine at home. I think that these are two of the best shows currently on TV because they are both somehow able to simultaneously be irreverent & hysterically funny and also thought provoking & provide actual information.

The Inquirer piece notes how Stewart and the show had to deal with the horrible events at Virginia Tech last week:

So what's a fake anchorman to do? Find something else to be funny about.

"I will do what I always do when faced with something that is that powerfully damaging to the emotional core," Stewart said at the top of Monday's show. "I will begin to repress it, and swallow it . . . so let's move on, as if the world was OK."

"The main thing is to overcome your own sense of gloom," Stewart said the next day from his Manhattan office. The New Jersey native brings his stand-up comedy act to the Tower Theater in Upper Darby for two shows Friday.

"Our saving grace is that we're not the news, so we have no obligation to be the news. Our job is comedy, though the foundation of a lot of what we do is not particularly lighthearted. And it's not that horrible situations cannot make for something satirical or absurd. It's just that in the middle of the immediacy of something like this, you're fighting your own nausea."

I'm anticipating that the Daily Show coverage of the 2008 Election will be appropriately over-the-top given the over-the-top personalities involved in the election...but, that will also mean that Stewart's regular spot-light upon the incompetence of the Bush administration will be coming to an end.

Though the sitting president is Stewart's most frequent comic target, the satirist says he won't miss Bush when he leaves office. "People used to say, 'When Clinton goes, what are you going to do without him?' I have complete faith in the continued absurdity of whatever's going on.

"And besides that, I look forward to deconstructing someone else's game. At a certain point there's no more surprises. You know [the Bush administration is] going to come out and say the opposite of what most people believe reality to be as adamantly as they possibly can. . . . And I'm pretty much done with that. I'm ready to move on to another form of deception."

Well, I guess I won't have to miss it after all...

There's just too much evil...

Courtesy of Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 18-Apr-07.