Saturday afternoon

Beautiful day here. Going to get out of the house (eventually).

'Going Out On Top . . .'

". . . of the list of worst Presidential approval ratings ever for an outgoing President:"

President Bush prepares to leave office with no evidence that public opinion toward him is softening during his final days in power, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. When asked about Mr. Bush’s performance over the last eight years, 22 percent of respondents said they approved. That matched Mr. Bush’s job-approval rating for much of last fall, the lowest of his presidency. In the current poll, 73 percent disapproved of his performance over the course of his two terms.

In contrast, Mr. Bush’s most recent predecessors left office with approval ratings ranging from 68 percent, for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, to 44 percent, for Jimmy Carter. Mr. Bush’s father left with 54 percent.

"You did a heck of a job, Bushie." (From Big Tent Democrat here.)

And they said he would get a bump in the polls on his way out. A bump in the ass is more like it. Good riddance!

Friday night

It's a bit chilly here tonight, in the 50's, which is chilly for here. I took a nap when I got home from work (without the cats, since Lucky has been disturbing my naps by jumping around--Bootsy's fine). Then I bundled up and walked over to Starbucks for a cup of coffee and read my magazine. I say "bundled up"--I was wearing my usual denim shorts but had on a long-sleeve shirt, a jacket and my mocs (instead of my sandals). Of course we have natural air conditioning at home tonight.

I'm sad to report that 12 people were laid off yesterday from work, with severance. I'm just glad to report I wasn't one of them. I've been there before (without any severance), during a downsizing, and my employer at the time even lied about me in an attempt to prevent my getting unemployment benefits. They turned out to be a nasty, sleazy and cheap outfit, while the principals had lavish, spacious offices that looked like a reception hall for a king, and which even included private showers and toilets.

It had been bad enough that I was suddenly out of a job, but then to find out that my former employer had engaged in unethical (probably illegal) behavior in an attempt to block my benefits only made it more bitter. I curse them to this day, and it has partially worked. The attorney who presided over my dismissal--a partner with a beautifully furnished office that overlooked Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean beyond--also lost her job there during a subsequent downsizing and now works as an associate at another firm (probably in a little office which wouldn't accommodate her former furniture, and with a shitty view), and has worked there for years now without any advancement, although she's already well into her 50s if not much older. (Meanwhile, the firm she and I used to work for, which used to have offices all over the state, is now practically non-existent.)

At any rate, my unemployment case was quickly adjudicated in my favor and I received the benefits, which surely helped me out at the time, modest as they were.

It's been over a month since Home Depot said to be patient about wrapping up things here. I called the kitchen designer on Monday (exactly a month later). I hadn't talked to her in a while. We discussed the itemized bill for the electrical work (haven't received one) and the need for the counter people to come back and secure the kitchen sink (it moves, and it's not supposed to, and the seal is broken, and water damage could occur). She agreed these things needed to be taken care of. She also said, by the way, that the general contractor that dropped the ball on my job is no longer working for Home Depot, and that the kitchen expediter whom I could never reach and who would never return my phone calls no longer holds her position (I dared not ask whether she'd been fired, which had been my fervent wish at times). Didn't hear anything else from them all week long. I can be patient. Meanwhile I hope I'm not getting water damage to my new cabinets by water leaking out around the sink. (I check and don't see any.)

What George Bush hath wrought

My sentiments exactly. From Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker:

The President-elect’s performance can’t fully explain the public’s welcoming view of him. Part of it, surely, reflects an eagerness to be rid of the incumbent. A gangly Illinois politician whom “the base” would today label a RINo—a Republican in Name Only—once pointed out that you can fool some of the people all of the time. We now know how many “some” is: twenty-seven per cent. That’s the proportion of Americans who, according to CNN, cling to the belief that George W. Bush has done a good job. The wonder is that this number is still in the double digits, given his comprehensively disastrous record. During the eight years of the second President Bush, the unemployment rate went from 4.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent and climbing; consumer confidence dropped to an all-time low; a budget surplus of two hundred billion dollars became a deficit of that plus a trillion; more than a million families fell into poverty; the ranks of those without health insurance rose by six million; and the fruits of the nation’s economic growth went almost entirely to the rich, while family incomes in the middle and below declined. What role the Bush Administration’s downgrading of terrorism as a foreign-policy priority played in the success of the 9/11 attacks cannot be known, but there is no doubting its responsibility for the launching and mismanagement of the unprovoked war in Iraq, with all its attendant suffering; for allowing the justified war in Afghanistan to slide to the edge of defeat; and for the vertiginous worldwide decline of America’s influence, prestige, power, and moral standing.

The televised “legacy interviews” that Bush has granted have been notable for the interviewee’s shruggings-off of responsibility for what he has wrought, abroad and at home. He’s sorry about the inartfulness of “dead or alive” and “bring ’em on” and “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” but not about the war or its conduct. And in a discussion of the economic catastrophe he is about to bequeath to his successor, there is this exchange, with ABC’s Charles Gibson:

GIBSON: Do you feel in any way responsible for what’s happening?

BUSH: You know, I’ve been the President during this period of time. But I think when the history of this period is written people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over, you know, a decade or so before I arrived as President, during I arrived as President. I’m sorry it’s happening, of course. Obviously, I don’t like the idea of people losing jobs or being worried about their 401(k)s.

A nice epitaph for “compassionate conservatism”—feckless to the end. And the end, at long last, is nigh.

Platitudes

I did end up watching the speech. What a self-serving little ditty. I thought it was sappy and pathetic, and found myself rolling my eyes. Here it is. Mercifully, it's short. A stilted reading of a vapid, threadbare speech. (Now scram, you!)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"We must never let down our guard," but he did. I guess he had to learn that "on the job"--and at what expense. He came into office and immediately set about planning the invasion of Iraq, ignoring the threat from Al Qaeda, about which he'd been warned in no uncertain terms from the very moment he got into office. (See here too. Remember Bush's 8/6/2001 President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.," which came way after Clinton's brief entitled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks"?) And then came the events of 9/11, on Bush's watch.

Here's Chris Matthews' reaction to the speech. Watch this one if you don't want to watch Bush (I can sympathize). (At least we'll never have to avoid watching Bush speechify on the airwaves again.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

'Bush's goodbye is a festival of self-pity and delusion'

I'm glad Joan Walsh watched it so I didn't have to.

I can't believe President Bush's approval ratings have climbed as he edges to the end of his tragic term. Except I sort of understand it; I felt sorry for him tonight during his farewell address, which was utterly self-indulgent and delusional. It's hard to see someone leave the presidency so shamed.

I just want to say a few things about his farewell tour, for the record:

* "Waterboarding is torture," according to our new Attorney General Eric Holder. I just wanted to get that out there, in case Bush missed it today.

* The regret Bush should have is not that we didn't find WMD in Iraq, which is what he's consistently said in his goodbye messages; it's that we went to war without knowing whether or not we did. Will he never understand that? Of course not. He only pretended we cared because of 9/11; he became president intending to invade Iraq.

* Unbelievably, Bush repeated the idea that we can be proud of liberating Afghan women with our invasion of Afghanistan. Tell that to the girls disfigured by acid for pursuing their education who were profiled in the New York Times on Wednesday.

Let's be honest: Thursday night Bush sounded like a kid reciting the high points of fourth grade, or a challenged patient graduating to a new level in some kind of mental health rehab institution. No one could watch that and not be shaken by it. I've had my political disagreements with my friend Chris Matthews, but he summed it up really well: It was an abomination, the depiction of a world of presidents in which "every kid gets a trophy who participates."

Except of course this isn't a grade school T-ball tournament, this is the self-assessment of the worst president in American history, whose awful decisions could make it impossible for Barack Obama to make the full difference he was elected to make, and that his talent and policy program makes it clear he can achieve.

On Jan. 20 I'll be saying "Yes we can (I hope!)," because this president has damaged the nation beyond what I'm certain our next president can fix.

Newsweek promotes torture

The Left Coaster ("Whatever remaining credibility Newsweek may have once had is now officially gone. Cheerleaders for torture. Dick Cheney as role model.") links to Talk Left here ("In 2006, Newsweek Reported Torture Does Not Work"). From Big Tent Democrat:

The enterprise known as Newsweek magazine dedicated its cover story this week to apologizing and advocating for torture. I have covered this issue here, here and here. The Newsweek article, authored by Stuart Taylor, Jr and Evan Thomas, states:

It is a liberal shibboleth that torture doesn't work—that suspects will say anything, including lies, to stop the pain. But the reality is perhaps less clear.

Yet Newsweek reporting, by EVAN THOMAS no less, came to a different conclusion in 2006:

Does torture really work? Most intelligence experts say no.

I wonder if "most intelligence experts" are "liberals." In any event, an entity that claims to be a journalistic enterprise might want to consider its own previous reporting on a subject when engaged in later reporting. What explanation can Newsweek Managing Editor Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas himself provide for this blatant instance of journalistic malpractice?

Magazine Names Miami 'Fattest City In America'

This is silly. Full story and video here.

Men's Fitness magazine has named Salt Lake City the nation's fittest city in its annual ranking.

Following Salt Lake on the list are Colorado Springs, Colo.; Minneapolis; Denver; and Albuquerque, N.M. The magazine says Salt Lake earned the distinction because of its park space and athletically motivated residents.

The magazine named Miami the "Fattest City in America," followed by Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Las Vegas and New York. . . .

Wednesday night

Went grocery shopping after a good nap after work. Was hungry, so ended up getting all kinds of goodies. (I'm not fat, either--see post above.)

The top thing on my list, however, had been a citrus reamer, which I found at Target, my first stop. Then it was on to Publix.

Got some fried chicken, some tree-ripened peaches, ground beef (for chili and hamburgers), cubed steaks, two kinds of frozen sausages, some frozen sausage biscuits, bacon (on sale), orange sherbet (no sugar added), cheese, a bunch of yogurts (fat-free), and more. Had a piece of chicken in the car before leaving the parking lot. (I have a salt-shaker in the car for these occasions.) I looked for some peppermint stick ice cream but there wasn't any to be had. Just as well.

I also got some cat food.

Got home and ate a peach and one of the sausage biscuits (Tennessee Pride). That was good. (I'd actually been looking for the cheesy sausage balls but they didn't have any.) (Those are really good.)

Right now I'm on a little vacation from the gym, but will start back at the gym soon. (I'm paying for it whether I go or not.) Just rewarding myself for enduring the holidays, which I really don't enjoy. But I manage to muddle through.

'Conservative Kudlow dishes on Obama dinner'

From Salon's War Room.

Larry Kudlow, who writes for the National Review and hosts his own show on CNBC, was one of the conservatives who attended the big dinner with Barack Obama Tuesday night. The event was technically off the record, but on his show Wednesday, Kudlow offered a partial account. Judging from his reaction to the president-elect, Kudlow might find himself not invited to many dinners with his colleagues on the right in the coming days -- sounds like he was bowled over. . . .

OJ's 'dream team' attorney calls OJ 'sociopath'

Story here. See excellent article on psychopaths/sociopaths here.

'Tom Friedman offers a perfect definition of "terrorism"'

Complete article by Glenn Greenwald here. BTW, Greenwald, an attorney and best-selling author, has been openly gay for 20 years (he's 41) and "divides his time between New York City and Brazil, the country of citizenship of his Brazilian male partner." ("I’m able to obtain from the Brazilian government a permanent visa because my Brazilian partner’s government recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly 'free,' liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition.")

Tom Friedman, one of the nation's leading propagandists for the Iraq War and a vigorous supporter of all of Israel's wars, has a column today in The New York Times explaining and praising the Israeli attack on Gaza. For the sake of robust and diverse debate (for which our Liberal Media is so well known), Friedman's column today appears alongside an Op-Ed from The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the nation's leading (and most deceitful) propagandists for the Iraq War and a vigorous supporter of all of Israel's wars, who explains that Hamas is incorrigibly hateful and radical and cannot be negotiated with. One can hardly imagine a more compelling exhibit demonstrating the complete lack of accountability in the "journalism" profession -- at least for those who are loyal establishment spokespeople who reflexively cheer on wars -- than a leading Op-Ed page presenting these two war advocates, of all people, as experts, of all things, on the joys and glories of the latest Middle East war.

In any event, Friedman's column today is uncharacteristically and refreshingly honest. He explains that the 2006 Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon was, contrary to conventional wisdom, a great success. To make this case, Friedman acknowledges that the deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians was not an unfortunate and undesirable by-product of that war, but rather, was a vital aspect of the Israeli strategy -- the centerpiece, actually, of teaching Lebanese civilians a lesson they would not soon forget . . . .

Friedman says that he is "unsure" whether the current Israeli attack on Gaza is similiarly designed to teach Palestinians the same lesson by inflicting "heavy pain" on civilians, but he hopes it is:

In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims.

The war strategy which Friedman is heralding -- what he explicitly describes with euphemism-free candor as "exacting enough pain on civilians" in order to teach them a lesson -- is about as definitive of a war crime as it gets. It also happens to be the classic, textbook definition of "terrorism." Here is how the U.S. Department of State defined "terrorism" in its 2001 publication, Patterns of Global Terrorism:

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. . . .

Other than the fact that Friedman is advocating these actions for an actual state rather than a "subnational group," can anyone identify any differences between (a) what Friedman approvingly claims was done to the Lebanese and what he advocates be done to Palestinians and (b) what the State Department formally defines as "terrorism"? I doubt anyone can. Isn't Friedman's "logic" exactly the rationale used by Al Qaeda: we're going to inflict "civilian pain" on Americans so that they stop supporting their government's domination of our land and so their government thinks twice about bombing more Muslim countries? It's also exactly the same "logic" that fuels the rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas into Israel. . . .

The efficacy of Friedman's desired strategy of inflicting pain on Palestinian civilians in order to change their thinking and behavior is unclear. The lack of clarity is due principally to the fact that Israel is still blocking journalists from entering Gaza. But this Sunday's New York Times article -- reporting on unconfirmed claims that Israel was using white phosphorus on the civilian population (a claim the IDF expressly refused to deny) -- contains this anecdotal evidence that The Friedman Strategy is actually quite counter-productive:

Still, white phosphorus can cause injury, and a growing number of Gazans report being hurt by it, including in Beit Lahiya, Khan Yunis, and in eastern and southwestern Gaza City. When exposed to air, it ignites, experts say, and if packed into an artillery shell, it can rain down flaming chemicals that cling to anything they touch.

Luay Suboh, 10, from Beit Lahiya, lost his eyesight and some skin on his face Saturday when, his mother said, a fiery substance clung to him as he darted home from a shelter where his family was staying to pick up clothes.

The substance smelled like burned trash, said Ms. Jaawanah, the mother who fled her home in Zeitoun, who had experienced it too. She had no affection for Hamas, but her sufferings were changing that. “Do you think I’m against them firing rockets now?” she asked, referring to Hamas. “No. I was against it before. Not anymore.”

It's far easier to imagine a population subjected to this treatment becoming increasingly radicalized and belligerent rather than submissive and compliant, as Friedman intends. But while the efficacy of The Friedman Strategy is unclear, the fact that it is a perfect distillation of a "war crime" and "terrorism" is not unclear at all. . . .

Student auctions off virginity for offers of more than £2.5 million

"A student who is auctioning her virginity to pay for a masters degree in Family and Marriage therapy has seen bidding hit £2.5million ($3.7m)."

Story here.

'House Judiciary Issues Scathing Report on Bush/Cheney Imperial Presidency'

From Firedoglake here.

In a report just made public (PDF), the House Judiciary Committee issues a scathing report on the Bush/Cheney abuses against the rule of law. Entitled "Reining In the Imperial Presidency," the report details a myriad of issues which have plagued Congress and the judiciary where the Bush/Cheney administration has overstepped constitutional boundaries.

From the forward by Chairman Conyers:

...The contrast with the Bush Department of Justice could not be starker. In this Administration, too many Department leaders abandoned that proud tradition of independence and integrity, and made decisions based on political objectives rather than the facts and the law. Young political operatives were given control over the most sensitive operations of the Department, and federally protected, non-partisan law enforcement positions were used to provide political patronage. The Civil Rights Division was twisted to obtain partisan electoral advantage, rather than protect the most vulnerable among us from discrimination. . . .

There have been additional transgressions against the Constitution and the country by the Bush Administration. There was the contrived and manipulated drive to a preemptive war of aggression with Iraq. In the words of the Downing Street Minutes, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” There was the unconscionable use of detention without cause; enhanced interrogation if not outright torture; extraordinary rendition; the extralegal use of national security letters; warrantless wiretaps of American citizens; the unilateral weakening of our regulatory system; the use of signing statements to override the laws of the land; and the intimidation and silencing of critics and whistleblowers who dared tell fellow citizens what was being done in their name. . . .

Barney Frank on Rachel Maddow tonight

Talking about the ideologues and the bail-out.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Tuesday night - Curry story

A few days ago, my friend in Canada mentioned that he was making chicken curry. It's not something I regularly make myself, but I thought I'd give it a try. Over the weekend, they had boneless, skinless chicken breasts on sale at Publix and I bought three packages and froze two. Tonight I decided to make the curry. Last night I had sliced the breasts thin and marinated them in the juice of two limes, some chopped onion, garlic, sea salt, a little oil, and some chicken broth.

Tonight I put all that in a big frying pan and started simmering it, after adding a can of V-8 (my "Joy of Cooking" recipe calls for stewed tomatoes) and spices (curry powder, along with some cumin, ground cloves, ground ginger and mustard seed). After simmering 20 minutes, it was pretty much done and the flavor was excellent. It was a little soupy, however, so I removed the chicken and boiled down the juice a bit, then added a couple of tablespoons of plain yogurt. Tasted even better. I could have added the chicken back at that point and it would have been fine, but I decided to thicken it up a bit with some gravy flour (Wondra).

As I was whisking the flour in, I noticed dark specks appearing in my sauce. I was horrified. There were dead weevils in the flour! (I'd never had those at this place before.) So I had to dump all that wonderful sauce down the drain. What a pisser. And it was so good. I'll definitely make it again. And it's simple. (Since it almost turned out good, I wrote down the recipe.) Meanwhile I'll buy some more flour and keep it in the fridge.

The chicken is still good, of course. I'll have to eat that dry. It's tasty, though, and tender. Marinating it first was a good idea.

Israel faces calls for Gaza war crimes investigation

Guardian story here. Includes video.

Right-wing prudes seek ban on topless sunbathing down under

Video here.

How Republican "assholes" caused stock market crash

(And destroyed my 401K.) More from the New Yorker profile on Barney Frank.

Frank laid out the provisions that the Democrats wanted in a bailout bill: equity for the taxpayers, like any other investors; a program to limit foreclosures for beleaguered homeowners; compensation reform for executives at companies receiving bailout funds; and strict congressional oversight of the whole process. Two days later, on Saturday, September 20th, the Treasury Department sent Congress a formal proposal of sorts. In a text just three pages long, the Treasury asked for seven hundred billion dollars from Congress but provided few details about how the Administration would spend the money. “It was just ridiculous,” Pelosi told me. “They wanted us to surrender all authority and give them seven hundred billion dollars.”

Throughout the weekend, Frank and Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator from Connecticut and the chairman of the Senate banking committee, worked with colleagues in both parties to come up with a plan that they thought could win widespread support. The following Wednesday, September 24th, John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, announced that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to address the crisis. Although McCain had played no part in the negotiations, the White House promptly scheduled a meeting of the President, the congressional leadership, and the two Presidential candidates for the following afternoon, Thursday, September 25th. By this time, a deal seemed to be in place. Congressional leaders announced that they had agreed in principle to an amended version of the Administration’s bailout proposal. Before the meeting, the Democrats at the White House, including Frank, Pelosi, and Barack Obama, had caucused privately in the Roosevelt Room about their strategy for the day. “Barack said, ‘I think we need to go ahead with this,’ ” Frank recalled. “He was being conciliatory, because he thinks it’s very important for us, both in public policy and politically, that we don’t get blamed for fucking up the economy. And that we not fuck up the economy.”

The meeting with the President nearly destroyed the good will that had been generated during the previous week. John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House, expressed disapproval of the proposal, arguing that it did not reflect a bipartisan consensus. Frank tried to put McCain on the spot: would he back the House Republicans or Bush and the rest of the congressional leadership? As Frank recalled, “I said, ‘John, what do you think?’ ‘Well, I think the House Republicans have a right to their position.’ ‘Fine. You agree with that position?’ ‘No, I just think they have a right to their position.’ He looks like your old uncle, just shrivelled and shrunk, and he just didn’t look good. And we kept pressing him, saying, ‘What is your plan?’ ” McCain wouldn’t say.

“The protocol is you’re not supposed to talk to the President directly,” Frank said. “We just ignored that.” But the President didn’t bring the group together, and the meeting ended without a decision. The Democrats returned to the Roosevelt Room to plot their next move, and Paulson joined them. As Frank recalled, Paulson “literally drops to the one knee” and begged Pelosi to bring the bailout up for a vote in the House, despite the Republican opposition. “But we start yelling at him,” Frank said. “ ‘Jeez, work on your assholes over there—your guys. I mean, you know, we’re trying to do it, and your guys are playing games.’ ”

Two tumultuous votes in the House followed. On September 29th, the bailout was unexpectedly defeated, 228–205, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged seven hundred and seventy-eight points. . . .

Gay marriage

From MyDD