Raw Story: Rove won’t be indicted for at least a week, but the charges against him have already been written up.

The cost of the war in Iraq will reach $320 billion after the expected passage next month of an emergency spending bill currently before the Senate, and that total is likely to more than double before the war ends, the Congressional Research Service estimated this week . . .

When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War.

Apparently, not going so well:

The WP fronts the latest annual State Department Country Reports on Terrorism that reveals the number of terrorist attacks increased four times in 2005 to a total of 11,111, which resulted in the death of 14,600 noncombatants. The NYT focuses on what it says about Iraq, where major terrorist attacks, and their casualties, doubled from last year and killed 8,300 people. The report also states that foreign fighters in Iraq account for only four to 10 percent of the total insurgents in the country. An assessment inside the document paints a not-so-positive picture of how the war on terror is going, saying the United States is still in the "first phase of a potentially long war." According to the report, smaller terrorist cells that act autonomously are becoming more active. It goes on to say that even though al-Qaida is not the same organization it used to be, "the enemy's proven ability to adapt means we will probably go through several more cycles of action/reaction before the war's outcome is no longer in doubt.

But surely in Iraq, Americans are turning the fighting over to that quarter of a million trained Iraqi soldiers, right?

The WSJ goes high with, while the NYT and LAT point out, that with the death of a U.S. soldier on Friday, 69 U.S. troops have died in Iraq so far in April, which makes it the highest death toll in five months.

...

The WP fronts a good dispatch from Hawijah, Iraq, illustrating the distrust that exists between U.S. and Iraqi forces. Even though the two are supposed to be working as a team, there is evidence to suggest some Iraqi soldiers cooperate with insurgents, leaving U.S. troops unsure of whom exactly they can trust.

First, for all of you SUV haters out there, here's a bit of revenge (via The Big Picture):


But alas, help is on the way:


While not spectacular, gasoline production is appearing to be on the upswing. This increase in production should hit the pumps, and stop the increase, in about 2-4 months. Funny, that's just in time for the fall campaign!

Here.

The unnamed intelligent official is likely Porter Goss.

Maybe NOW the media will get interested.

Billmon's take is hilarious.

There is a movement afoot in the Illinois, Vermont and California legislature's to pass a Bush impeachment resolution. Under relatively obscure House of Representative rules, any state legislature can present articles of impeachment to the House, at which time they must stop further business and consider those articles of impeachment.

Pretty good deal eh? If the House of Representatives isn't going to do oversight, we have fifty other governments to look to.

Unfortunately it's not that easy. I went to a local political event last night and discussed the situation with someone who intimately knows about the California legislature. Indeed, a California Assemblymember has drafted an impeachment resolution which will be considered by the Assembly leadership; in this case Democrats.

Slam dunk, right? A Democratic majority in both state houses in a progressive state?

Nope.

The California legislature is currently in bipartisan discussions that are "delicate", shall we say. These discussion center on presenting and passing legislation that would amend California legislator's term limits. Under current law, which was passed through the stupid initiative system, Assembly members and Senate members are limited to three terms of two years each in each the Assembly and the Senate. As was predicted by opponents of term limits, about the time a newly elected representative gets to know the issues and the ropes in their legislative chamber, they're gone.

The new proposal is to maintain a twelve year limit in the legislature, but allow all the twelve years to be used in either the Assembly or the Senate or both. It's still limiting, but would allow elected representatives some time to become good at their job. This is all in the discussion stages so nothing is firm yet. But the discussion and passage of any such legislation will require bipartisan support.

So do California Democrats throw a bomb in the middle of such discussions? Term limits reform is a very important issue for the workings of an effective California legislature which has struggled with turmoil since the new limits were enacted. But at the same time, Bush is dangerous too.

A good point came up during the discussion. Any state impeachment resolution would take time to pass, time to be transmitted to the House, and then time for the House to take action on it. Given the Republican control of the House of Representatives, you know that delaying actions, perhaps through suit in the courts, would be the order of the day. By the time any real public action were to take place, the mid-term elections would be upon us or past. In those elections, Democrats will either take control of the House or not. If they do, certainly investigations and perhaps impeachment will happen anyway. And if Dems don't win, any impeachment resolution will become de facto moot. Republicans will defeat it and the publicity value will be diminished after the election.

I'm torn on the issue. It's a political calculation that makes sense, but detracts from my undying desire to see Bush held accountable. My district assemblymember has said she would vote for an impeachment resolution. But I can understand why the Democratic majority leaders might not allow it to come forward right now.

I suspect the same dynamics may be at work in Illinois and Vermont. Either way, the mid-term elections continue to loom as a pivotal point in our collective history.

There are news reports out that the Republican Congress thinks it time to dismantle FEMA. They argue that FEMA was so incompetent in handling Katrina that theres no saving it. When I first read that this morning, I was confused. Seems to me that FEMA worked beautifully during the Clinton administrations? However since Bush ...... well that is a different story.

I also know that Tom Oliphant, former columnist of the Boston Globe is currently writing a book about how Republicans are good at getting elected, but terrible at governance. I think that is true as well.

Republicans hate government. For years, being anti-government has been a key to the GOP playbook. So is it really any surprise that they would want government to not function well? You can then have the self-fulfilling prophecy that government does not function well, and continue to be the anti-government party.

Digby summed it up beautifully:

It's quite a scam. Run on government being incompetent and stealing your hard earned money. Take power. Make government incompetent while lining your pockets with as much taxpayer money as possible. Lose office. Make Democrats clean up your mess. Rinse repeat.

I realize that this isn't really new news, but I thought you might be interested in the gory details:

The cost of the war in Iraq will reach $320 billion after the expected passage next month of an emergency spending bill currently before the Senate, and that total is likely to more than double before the war ends, the Congressional Research Service estimated this week.

The analysis, distributed to some members of Congress on Tuesday night, provides the most official cost estimate yet of a war whose price tag will rise by nearly 17 percent this year. Just last week, independent defense analysts looking only at Defense Department costs put the total at least $7 billion below the CRS figure.

Once the war spending bill is passed, military and diplomatic costs will have reached $101.8 billion this fiscal year, up from $87.3 billion in 2005, $77.3 billion in 2004 and $51 billion in 2003, the year of the invasion, congressional analysts said. Even if a gradual troop withdrawal begins this year, war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to rise by an additional $371 billion during the phaseout, the report said, citing a Congressional Budget Office study. When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War.

"The costs are exceeding even the worst-case scenarios," said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Costs for the war are accelerating upwards instead of going down. And despite the claim that we've trained 250,000 Iraqis troops, the Pentagon says we can't turn over anything to them yet. We will spend a trillion dollars on this fiasco before all is said and done and have well trained, well armed Iraqi militias fighting multiple civil wars in a completely destabilized region that happens to be the location of most of the world's oil reserves.

Do you have any idea what a trillion dollars would have bought? This site will give you some ideas.

This really is a tragedy of monumental proportions.

I almost hate to publicize this, but did you know there is a movement that is pro-anorexia and pro bulimia? I think it's a little like being pro-cancer.

One thing I've learned over my years on planet earth is that you can never know what people actually do, what people are capable of doing, and what goes on in private lives. It's why I find comments by the neighbor of a murderer such as, "we never knew, he was such a nice guy!" to be proof of the fundamental naivete of all of us. It also explains our current politics.

This disturbing story is being reported in the LA Times:

QATIF, Saudi Arabia — The conflict in Iraq has begun to spill over onto this hardscrabble, sunburned swath of coast, breathing new life into the ancient rivalry between the country's powerful Sunni Muslim majority and the long-oppressed Shiite minority in one of the most oil-rich areas of the world.

"Saudi Sunnis are defending Iraqi Sunnis, and Saudi Shiites are defending Iraqi Shiites," said Hassan Saffar, Saudi Arabia's most influential Shiite cleric. "There's a fear that it will cause a struggle here."

Note to Bush. This particular area or Arabia is responsible for 11% of the world's oil production.

For those of you who are unaware, Shiites are a minority throughout the Arab world, except in Iraq and Iran. Shiites have a strong sense of oppression that is somewhat justified, and powerful, which is why a spill over from a Sunni/Shiite Iraqi civil war is not much of a tinfoil hat theory.

Now for some good news.

I understand that GEM cars now come in a six seat version.

This is a total crack-up.

As the old saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words. If you don't know, that's Karl Rove sitting, Karen Hughes standing in the middle and George .... ah ..... what's his name? .... ah .... Bush! standing and listening properly.

Everyone and their dog is speculating about the meaning of Rove's fifth appearance before the grand jury today. No one really knows anything. The most informed speculation (imo) suggests that Rove's appearance is not good news for Rove or the administration, that either Rove made a deal and is singing, or that Fitzgerald is "nailing down" the indictment of Rove (Rove apparently "volunteered" to appear at the request of Fitzy).

I'd love to see Rove go down. I'd really love to see Cheney go down. I'd be positively orgasmic to see Bush go down. Here's the image for that dream:

The internets are relatively quiet today.

Must be a storm comin'.

Perhaps a big one.

Just as information and verification that a shortage of oil isn't the problem, oil stocks are at an eight year high.

The problem is refining and foreign policy.

WASHINGTON - The country's three largest oil and gas companies are expected to report combined first-quarter profits this week in excess of $16 billion, a 19 percent surge from last year that is sure to complicate life for the industry in Washington, where elected officials are scrambling for ways to assuage angry consumers and businesses.

...

The combined earnings expected from ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. will be 14 times greater than the combined first-quarter profits of Google Inc., Apple Computer Inc. and Oracle Corp.

...

But with world oil prices trading at about $72 a barrel, analysts say full-year profits for the oil majors are likely to surpass the record-setting earnings of 2005, when Exxon reported a $36.13 billion profit - the highest ever for a U.S. company.

But we're supposed to believe there's no gouging going on, that the oil companies are just lucky that they own a commodity that increases in value during the six months or so it takes to go from being pumped out of the ground to being pumped into a gas tank.

Except.

They never seem to be as "unlucky" when the commodity price decreases?

Ah huh. I'm so confused.

This is a very big story, and not getting a lot of press today.

Moqtada al Sadr is quietly moving his militia forces into Kirkuk. The Badr militia (another large Shiite armed group) is also moving militiamen into position in Kirkuk.

Why is this important? Because Kirkuk is the center of Kurdish control of northern Iraq, and is oil rich. Northern Iraq has been relatively quiet. But this movement would seem to be the beginnings of the Shiites wanting to gain control of the north. The Kurdish Peshmerga (the Kurdish militia) is very well trained, armed and organized. Movement of Shiites to control this region would likely result in yet another front of the civil war that is Iraq.

At last count Shiites were fighting Sunni's, Shiites were fighting Shiites, Shiites were fighting al Qaeda, and everyone is fighting the Americans. Looks like were flirting with adding the Kurds fighting the Shiites and possibly the Turks fighting the Kurds.

Here.

If you want to understand the process of gasoline pricing, go to this post on The Oil Drum. It was originally posted when everyone was griping about gasoline prices during Katrina and offers a very good explanation of just what happens. And it's not a socialist pinko rant against big oil .... quite the contrary.

I would simply add to what the author says, when I get pissed at "the oil companies", I'm talking about the oil producers, refiners, shippers, distributors and retailers. All of em'. They all take a little advantage when they can. My personal favorite is Exxon, which controls gasoline throughout the entire process. And, like shit rolling downhill, you and I are at the bottom. And, like Lynne said below, to a certain degree the Americans who keep driving prolifigately in oversized cars deserve it.

Isn't this interesting:

Mr. Damasceno created a cheaper device by programming a standard car computer to constantly calculate the mixture of ethanol versus gasoline in the tank and adjust the engine accordingly. In 2002, the team sold the device to Volkswagen, which introduced its flex-fuel Gol the next year. Mr. Damasceno's black box is now sold by five major car makers in Brazil. Even Ford's Brazil unit uses the Damasceno device.

In Ford's newest ad in Brazil, an indecisive young boy can't decide between a pair of brown and red shoes. As a teenager, he can't pick between a blonde and a brunette at a party. The ad ends with the young man pulling up to a gas station in his Ford Ecosport. The attendant asks: "Alcohol or gasoline?" The man, happy he doesn't have to choose, raises two fingers, signifying both.

Even Ford, when it has to, can learn to deal with the oil problem. If anything is going to change in this country, it will have to be because the people demand it. So far, all I hear is bitching about the high price of gas... while continuing to purchase SUVs. Until people change their purchasing patterns, nothing will change.

Tell me.

Wouldn't it be completely ironic if after all the corruption, torture, lies, dictatorial moves and incompetence, it was high gasoline prices that brings down the Presidency of Bush?

"President Bush rode a 14-vehicle motorcade there and back to the Marriott Wardman to talk to the Renewable Fuels Association about energy conservation and other topics. En route, the motorcade passed the Exxon station next to the Watergate, where gas prices were $3.29, $3.39 and $3.49 a gallon. Just saying."

Julie Mason of the Houston Chronicle notes in her pool report:

The administration, in it's usual competent way, has a plan for tackling the possible attack of the avian flu:

The rules would require airlines and cruise ship operators to collect personal information from all passengers and report sick ones to the government. Critics say the plan is difficult, costly and in violation of passengers' rights.

"What they're proposing is nonsensical," says Tara O'Toole, director of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "The notion of trying to screen airline passengers is wrong. ... People are going to be contagious without being symptomatic."

So instead of investing in research for vaccines, or stocking anti-flu medications, or beefing up the health care system in general, we'll erode civil liberties in a futile attempt to "jail the virus", a strategy that is doomed to failure.

Is there any problem in which the administration doesn't see dictatorial force as the solution?

So, Bush is going to "crack down" on oil companies while reducing environmental standards (surprise surprise), and stop the inputs into the strategic oil reserve.

All of this is fine, if it mattered. He won't crack down on any corporation, relaxing the environmental standards is something he wants to do anyway, and the actual shortage of oil is not the issue. In fact, oil stocks are very high right now. Plus, the amount of actual impact is negligible:

Dow Jones reports that the move would free up about 70,000 barrels a day otherwise destined for the reserve in the coming weeks.

By my calculations, that's about one third of one percent of the total U.S. consumption of about 20 million barrels a day -- anyone want to call that a drop in the bucket?

But being all stupid and such, I'm sure Bush thinks that oil traders and gasoline brokers are like him and will fall for this tepid response.

We have a shortage of gasoline caused by refinery disruption and risk premium. Gasoline refining is disrupted due to Katrina. The discontinuance of gasoline imported from Europe as an emergency measure after Katrina has also left a shortfall, and the risk premium due to the idiot's foreign policy is being priced into the market.

Perhaps the market place will respond to these largely symbolic gestures, maybe not. I suspect it won't in any significant way until sometime closer to the election.

Blogger has been being a butt. Lately it's been difficult more than not it seems. Yeah, it's free. But if they're not going to do it right, charge for it and do it right. There's another outage scheduled for 4PM PDT (pretty much a daily occurence lately).

As I posted below, Bush is flirting with the roaring 20's in approval ratings.

I got to thinking about this a bit.

Why aren't more Republicans who are up for election panicing? The kind of numbers showing up in polls should be deeply troubling. But Republicans continue to dance to the Bush tune?

I wonder if it's a high level of cynicism on the part of Republican politicians about the American voter. Afterall, we've had a couple of elections since 2000 where government corruption, torture, abuse, malfesance, illegality and warmongering have been ratified by voters. Maybe they don't think there'll ever be an "accountability moment"?

And who knows .... they might be right.

There a bit of internet buzz about a four part series of articles being written in The American Prospect by John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira regarding a Democratic strategy to win in November. It's a good read and I recommend the whole series as they unfold. But Kevin Drum jumps into the fray after part one, quoting from the article:

The totality of the advice simply misses the mark and obscures the underlying problem driving progressives’ on-going woes nationally: a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything....This trend, one we call the “identity gap,” has been written about and discussed by others in years past. What is not understood is the extent to which this gap continues to drag down progressives and Democrats and depress their support in myriad ways. “No identity” translates into no character. No personal integrity. No vision worth fighting for.

To which Kevin responds:

So we need a strong identity. Check. And how are we going to figure out what it [my emphasis] should be?

In fairness to Drum, the Halpin/Teixeira piece does seem to focusing on what "it" is. And if that's the direction to which they are headed, I don't totally disagree with Drum.

But I'd like to suggest something that perhaps both parties just don't seem to get. The thing Americans are objecting to with Democrats is not what they stand for. Democrats have a long and storied history of generally believing in many core principles that almost anyone could recite: pro-choice, belief that government can help those who can't help themselves, belief in the middle class and so on.

The larger issue is the verb in the equation .... how Democrats stand for something. Any regular reader of this blog knows I've pounded this to death. The fact that Democrats are seen as calculating is the problem, even within the range of it's core beliefs is the larger issue. The reason the whole "flip-flop" meme worked with Kerry is that the GOP maximized this dynamic. Kerry stood for many very liberal/progressive values. His confusing voting record was explainable and is the inevitable result of being a legislator. But to explain all of that was to be "nuanced" which left voters confused and doubting. As an aside, this is also exactly what is spoiling Barack Obama.

Like Paul Hackett, Democrats simply need to be passionate about what they believe, and stick to it. Voters realize that politicians beliefs won't exactly match their own. But the meta-message of someone who actually stands behind their positions says a lot about the integrity of the person. And most voters simply don't have or take the time to read past that image to the nuances of the issues anyway.

A sense of strong belief that is roughly in the neighborhood of their values, that's what people vote for. And this issue is the essence of the ongoing battle between the "netroots" and the "democratic establishment". Howard Dean/Barbara Boxer gets it. Harry Reid sorta gets it. Pelsoi/Summer/Shrum et al don't.

Bush hits a new low in poll again. The ARG poll has him at 34%. Cummon' 20's .....

But that wasn't the most interesting thing in the poll. This was:

Furthermore, 31% of Americans rate the national economy as excellent, very good, or good, and 67% rate the national economy as bad, very bad, or terrible. 83% say their ratings of the economy are based on higher gasoline prices.

I thought we were in a boom?

I think this low economic rating goes deeper than just gas prices. How about, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"?

UPDATE: And closer still. Look out below!

How will the net neutrality issue affect you? Save the Internet has some information. Free speech is about to take a beating.

Jeb Eddy of Palo Alto holds up a sign protesting President Bush's visit to Stanford.


Even some Republicans are finally getting it. The Standford Daily has the story of protests during Bush's visit.

This is what oil/gas price adaptation looks like. As was said at The Oil Drum, we appear to be ready for a correction (price reduction) unless we invade Iran. Rest easy, gasoline prices will go down .... just not as much as they've gone up.

Images aren't loading right in blogger right now. Until they get it worked out, just click the image to get the proper view.

There's some conventional wisdom floating around about the stock market's behavior relative to the Federal Reserve decisions on interest rates. Specifically, it's felt that when the Fed stops raising rates, stocks will party and go up through the roof. In fact, when some evidence that the Fed may be finished raising interest rates came out last week, the market had the best day of the year.

Our friend Barry at The Big Picture, as usual, sheds the proper light on the subject:



Hmmm.

Looks like a bit of initial enthusiasm followed by a whole lot of loss.

I'm not broker and certainly not a stock expert. But given that this "boom" (and I use that term loosely) is long in the tooth, energy prices are through the roof, and interest rates are up, I suspect we're nearing the end of the recent bull cycle.

But then, if I really knew anything I'd be a rich man.

Mike at Born at the Crest of Empire makes a very very good point.

Just finished watching the pearl clutching crew on "This Week".

If Cokie Roberts and George Will get anymore pompous, they'll never be able to lay down because of that cob stuck up their ...... well you know.

Anyway, just a note about one comment made. They were discussing the firing and possible indictment of CIA employee Mary McCarthy for leaking. There's was general nodding agreement that she should "take her medicine" for "breaking the law", with Donaldson offering a weak defense that her leaks were a public service.

What struck me was the total absence of any discussion of other leaks that have occurred in the White House that have been proven and not prosecuted?

Also, David Corn mentions this little tidbit:

Meanwhile, I spotted this interesting tidbit at the end of Sunday's Washington Post piece on the arrest:

The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.

What? How long until a bill is introduced that it's illegal to be a Democrat and work in government?

Image stolen unashamedily from Billmon

Good morning!

Did you all have a nice nights rest?

Well, we folks in the wine country didn't. We spent the night listening to F-16's circling the area due to Bush's visit to St. Helena's posh $4,000/night resort. Bush slithered into the area last night, avoiding the 2,000-4,000 protestors who lined the route his motorcade was supposed to take.

Bush did not visit San Francisco. Hell, he got 4 grand in protestors in an area with only a few 10's of thousands of residents.

Maybe he's not totally stupid.

I just paid $50 to fill up my Toyota pickup.

The hell of it is there's plenty of oil. It's not lack of supply, but Bush's swell international policy that is raising the price of crude.

But there's not enough gasoline.

Why?

Refining is not keeping up.

Why?

Hell of a good question. The oily guys want to blame Katrina and "maintenance". (the annual excuse). Actually I think the answer may be a wee bit more insidious than just that, but Exxon will let Bush take the fall for it.

Gasoline will continue to increase and spike during the summer. Then, right on cue and within a month or two of the elections, gasoline prices will fall back to "low levels", like around $3.00 per gallon, our new adaptive point.

.....with global warming? How about global dimming?

PBS's Nova had a fasinating report (and a fantastic website with a full report on the story) the other night on a proven phenomena called global dimming. The report starts with the observation by a meterologist on Sept. 12, 2001. On this day, he noticed that the sky seemed unusually bright and crystal clear and wondered why? Seeking the answer, he asked himself what was unusual about that day?

Well, of course this was the day after 911. A very distinctive component of that particular day was that there were no airplanes flying ...... anywhere. This observation led to an investigation of the effect of aircraft "contrails" on the brightness of the sun, specifically on dimming the brightness of sunlight. It turns out that these vapor trails from jets lead to significant reflection of sunlight back into space. The report further verifies through various studies that indeed, particulate pollution of all types has significantly impacted the amount of sunlight actually reaching the earth's surface, up to 30% in some areas of the globe. This loss of sunlight has resulted in a cooling of the earth's surface.

In light of the fact of global warming, this sounds like it might not be too bad, eh?

Scientist now believe, and have proven, that the net impact of global dimming and global warming has been a masking effect. In essence, global warming, alone, has been progressing much faster than previously thought while this effect has been masked by the less strong counter-effect of global dimming.

And here's the kicker.

Ironically we're getting much better at controlling the emissions of pollutants the cause global dimming, thus more warmth is reaching the earth. (cue the crisis music) This means the the impact of global warming is likely to accelerate as we improve pollution control. And the anticipated acceleration is at an alarming rate.


Swell.

If you'd like the complete scientific rundown on the proof of global dimming, visit the PBS website for the various studies that have been able to verify it's existence via some very good historical records. And of course, if you interested, you can buy a DVD of the program or watch it in reruns.

Word is that Rove is dead meat. Fitzgerald is methodical but dogged.

Fox News has Bush at 33% approval.

I remember the good ole' days when I was waiting for Bush to break into the 30's. Now you've just got to wonder if he'll go into the 2o's! Mind you, I'm not complaining about hangin' out in the 30's. But hey, if it goes lower, all the better.

John Dean has written a fine analysis of George Bush's presidential style from the perspective of political thinker James David Barber. It's a very good read and highly recommend it.

For those who want the short version, essentially Dean categorizes Bush as an "active negative" president. Other such past presidents with this type include Jefferson, Wilson, Hoover, Johnson, and Nixon. If you look closely at those players, you can see that none of them had a good end as Presidents. In short, all rode losing policies to the bitter end, with terrible results for the nation.

Go read the whole thing for a deeper understanding that is spot on.

Oil hit $74+ per barrel today.

It's important to note that this price is for the most premium oil and it's a future's price. I believe in this case this is the price for a future's contract on oil in, like, 2011. Oil being delivered today is oil that was purchased at previous "futures" prices, from maybe two or three years ago.

So here's my question.

Why does gasoline, and other fuel prices, go up at the pump the minute oil future's go up?

Correction: Ok, the new price is apparently for June delivery.

Still.

I don't think oil that is delivered in June is going to hit the pumps for a few months. So why do pump prices move in lock-step with oil futures prices? If oil futures fall, the price of gasoline falls slowly with the decrease of more expensive inventory. But it sure doesn't seem to work that way on the way up, now does it?

Anti-feminist Caitlin Flanagan was on The Colbert Report pushing her book the other night. Video Dog has the video and it's really quite amazing. Colbert, who's a total parody of right wingnuts like Bill O'Reilly is unable to out-parody this nutbar (and he's actually caught off-guard, which doesn't happen often). I don't know whether she was playing along with him or if she was serious. Unfortunately, I think she's doing an Ann Coulter type "serious" schtick. You can read about her hypocrisy here.

Congress is about to sell out the Internet by letting big phone and cable companies set up toll booths along the information superhighway.

Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending tens of millions in Washington to kill "network neutrality" -- a principle that keeps the Internet open to all.

A bill moving quickly through Congress would let these companies become Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow -- and which won't load at all -- based on who pays them more. The rest of us will be detoured to the "slow lane," clicking furiously and waiting for our favorite sites to download.

Our elected representatives are trading favors for campaign donations from phone and cable companies. They're being wooed by people like AT&T's CEO, who says "the Internet can't be free" and wants to decide what you do, where you go and what you watch online.

The best ideas never come from those with the deepest pockets. If the phone and cable companies get their way, the free and open Internet could soon be fenced in by large corporations. If Congress turns the Internet over to giants like AT&T, everyone who uses the Internet will suffer:

• Google users -- Another search engine could pay AT&T to guarantee that it opens faster than Google on your computer.


• iPod listeners -- Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that paid for the privilege.


• Work-at-home parents -- Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl.


• Retirees -- Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to Verizon's pay-for-speed schemes.


• Bloggers -- Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips -- silencing citizen journalists and amplifying the mainstream media.


• Online activists -- Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."


• Small businesses -- When AT&T favors their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, and Internet phone calls.


• Innovators with the "next big idea" -- Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.

We can't let Congress ruin the free and open Internet.

Do something.

From the always articulate Digby:

Politics without heart is nothing more than crass deal making.

If you think the war and terror has been fun, you'll really love the tone of this article on the military build-up to counter our next/new enemy.

There's an odd phenomena occuring right now in the economy. By most traditional measures, we are in a "boom". The S&P 500 hit a new high for the year today, interest rates are rising to "cool the economy", and unemployment stands at "low levels". At least this is according to the standard measures. But some folks think there's a lurking underbelly to the economy that just isn't getting noticed:

Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods-producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth.

US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.

The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.

The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized “new economy” never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.

In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.

Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.

Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent, as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.

Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.

Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.

They were wrong.

Lest you think I'm quoting some left-wing socialist, here's the author, Paul Craig Roberts, creds:

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

I can't decide if the economy is in the midst of a shift to something different, but better, or sort of the other side of the coin in globalization with institutionalized weakness. I do know that job strength based on WalMart type hiring is not good for overall prosperity. Yet, that really seems to be where things are strong. It's like we're returning to a feudal economy with rich and poor .... and no middle class.

As I've said in other economic posts about globalization. Wealth is like water in that it insists on achieving level ground. To have such disparity between American affluence and the rest of the world's poverty will not be a stable situation. And there are many many more of "them" in feudal situations than "us" who have middle class affluence. I wonder which way wealth will flow?

Congrats to Santa Rosa for being so greeeeeen....

Here's an example of what effective drug policies could look like nation-wide. As is often the case, the progressive leaning California shows the way:

The state's (California) 6-year-old program that mandates treatment instead of prison sentences for drug offenders is dramatically decreasing California's jail population and saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a study released Wednesday.

The study, prepared by the left-leaning Justice Policy Institute in Washington, echoes another report released by UCLA earlier this month that also touted huge taxpayer savings through doing away with prison sentences in favor of treatment. That report said the program, which was passed by voters in 2000 as Proposition 36, saved California $173 million in its first year and $2.50 for every dollar invested since then.

You'd play hell getting that kind of investment return anywhere these days.

It's almost unimaginable to me what would happen to crime rates and the criminal justice system if drugs were legalized and regulated. Quality public policy can be cost effective as well as for the public good. Knee-jerk, emotionally driven public policies are rarely effective and often quite expensive.

"If you take the six most powerful hurricanes ever recorded in North America, three of them occurred within 52 days in 2005."—Michael Tidwell, author of Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun Coast.
Speaking at the University of South Carolina's Katrina CRISIS National Summit, Tidwell said Katrina was the most predicted natural disaster ever. "The warning signs were so obvious," he said. "The paper trail warnings... went to the moon and back. The most predicted and completely foreseen natural disaster ever and still it happened.
"We're all going to be affected by sea level rise. We all are going to be clobbered by hurricanes and we all are doing nothing about it."
—USC's Gamecock online

One of the major myths about illegal immigration is that illegals take more out of the economy than they contribute. Someone decided to take a look and find out if this conventional wisdom was, like, actually correct:

In articles in The Tax Lawyer, a publication of the American Bar Association, and in the upcoming issue of the Harvard Latino Law Review, Francine Lipman, a professor at Chapman University's law school in Orange, Calif., writes that the widespread belief that undocumented immigrants cost us more than they give us is "demonstrably false."

In her review article, Lipman wrote that there are 7 million undocumented workers, which is 1 out of every 20 in the United States. Such undocumented workers live in households in which the average annual income is $27,400, compared with nearly $48,000 for legal immigrant families.

They cannot access or easily access many public services, yet in 2003 alone the labor of undocumented workers poured $7 billion in taxes into Social Security, even though they cannot legally claim those benefits. Lipman calls this "an abyss in federal relief for hard-working, poor families. Undocumented working-poor families have higher effective income tax rates than their neighbors who enjoy higher income levels."

They perform jobs that are inseparable from our standard of living. Undocumented workers are about 5 percent of our overall labor force, but according to the Pew Hispanic Center's analysis of Census data, they are between 22 percent and 36 percent of America's insulation workers, miscellaneous agricultural workers, meat-processing workers, construction workers, dishwashers and maids. The American Farm Bureau, the lobbying group for agricultural interests, says that without guest workers, the United States would lose $5 billion to $9 billion per year in fruit, vegetable and flower production and as much as 20 percent of production would go overseas.

Often ignored by anti-immigration forces is the fact that undocumented workers pay sales taxes and real estate taxes--directly if they are homeowners, indirectly if they are renters. Analysts at Standard & Poor's wrote recently that there is no clear correlation between undocumented families and local costs, as the states with the highest numbers of such families also have relatively low unemployment rates, high property values and strong income growth, "all of which contribute to stable financial performance."

Ok, so why is it that we should be all frothy about illegals? Perhaps it's due to that long line of spoiled white boys lining up to get jobs as dry-wallers......

Do you suppose that this information has some specific implications for global warming, international politics, and military operations? And this doesn't even include India ......

Which west coast city sustained the greatest amount of damage and loss of life during the 1906 earth quake?

Answer is HERE.

Rather than writing a lot about this, I'm simply going to point you all to a couple of posts.

This one postulates that the deadlock in forming a government in Iraq is due to Iran not wanting a government formed. Makes plenty of sense.

This one postulates that Iraq, with the help of the U.S., is on the verge of naming a strongman to get things under control.

Pick your poison. Of course, both could be correct. And if the second one is correct .... how far we've come from removing that bad man Saddam!

In a piece on The Nation's blog, Carl Bernstein is quoted by John Nichols as saying:

"After Nixon's resignation, it was often said that the system had worked. Confronted by an aberrant president, the checks and balances on the executive by the legislative and judicial branches of government, and by a free press, had functioned as the founders had envisioned," he writes. "The system has thus far failed during the presidency of George W. Bush - at incalculable cost in human lives, to the American political system, to undertaking an intelligent and effective war against terror, and to the standing of the United States in parts of the world where it previously had been held in the highest regard. There was understandable reluctance in the Congress to begin a serious investigation of the Nixon presidency. Then there came a time when it was unavoidable. That time in the Bush presidency has arrived."

That was then.

This is now.

I must say that this aspect of our government's functioning has been the most surprising development, for me, over the past 5+ years. The fact that our government can be so bad, make so many costly mistakes, and damage the very foundations of our society to such a degree without people in power doing their jobs of checks and balances is astounding.

I think it's an indictment of our times that Republican party members and elected officials are so cynical about voters that they don't feel a need to really challenge George Bush. The fact that generals, of all people, are openly and defiantly challenging civilian authority is just one measure of just how bad it's become. Talk of actual revolt in the military is no longer tin-foil hat territory.

And who knows? Maybe the Rovian-like cynics who think a good ad campaign can keep them in power are right. The 2004 election would certainly lead you to believe that this cynicism is well placed. If the 2006 elections don't result in a real check on the Bush administration, the damage already done will become institutional. But if that happens, maybe that's what the American public deserves?

No pun intended, if you know what I mean.

Take a look at this picture (all via Digby):


Here's what the little girl is reading to Daddy:

I pledge to remain sexually pure...until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. ... I know that God requires this of me.. that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.

And Daddy's response?

I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.

This is part of a ritual done by the fundies at a prom-like dance called "The Purity Ball".

As Digby points out, isn't this all a bit creepy?

I know father's are supposed to be the first images of men for little girls in their developing sexuality. But this may be taking it a bit far. Does this little girl have any idea what she's pledging as she gazes into her father's eyes? And isn't it nice to know that Daddy is the household priest and will "cover" her (twice) as a young, unmarried, woman? Nevermind that all this totally fly's out the window when the hormones start raging. In fact, I'd be willing to make the case that these types of beliefs actually increase sexual acting out by the girls of wingnuts. It's no accident that rates of teen pregnancy correlate quite nicely with fundamentalist communities.

BTW, notice there's no mothers or sons? Apparently there's no equal ritual for them. Perhaps a little fear of the Oedipal thing? Or maybe as a commenter on Digby pointed out, this may be due to the inherent fear of wingnuts that their sons will turn out to be gay. Thus, they are encouraged in a thousand subtle (and not so subtle ways) to screw anything that moves (female that is) to prove they're not gay, so mom and dad can relax. Gee, wonder who they're supposed to be screwing to prove their heterosexuality?

I'm so confused.

Billmon does a thorough examination of something I was referring to the other day. Namely, he discusses the high possibility of miscalculation leading to a war with Iran. Here's his concluding graf:

In other words, there is real risk that key players in the crisis — Iranian as well as American — are fundamentally misreading the situation. They may not understand that their counterparts on the other side are perfectly willing to escalate, because they actually want war, or at least are pulled in that direction by their own political and/or strategic dilemmas.

However, there is an even more terrible risk here, which is that both sides in this crisis may want a war, although for different reasons. And when both parties to a confrontation like this one want a war, they usually get one.

For a really good reading of what drives the Iranian side of the miscalculation (I think we're pretty familiar with the American side), go read his latest post linked above.

Via Slate:

The nuclear option ... Yesterday's LAT noticed that a principal at an elementary school in Inglewood was so worried her students might attend pro-immigration rallies that she barred some from even going to the bathroom, forcing them to use buckets in class.

Now the odd part: The school district defended the principal. They explained that the super-lockdown, bucket routine is indeed allowed, albeit only in a slightly more extreme scenario, namely nuclear Armageddon. "When there's a nuclear attack, that's when buckets are used," said a district official. "She made a decision to follow the handbook. She just misread it."

The expression of their agony, their frustration, lingers in my mind more a wail than a cry: “We are a civilization of 7,000 years,” said a delegate to the U.S.-Iraqi Women’s Conference sponsored by the Global Peace Initiative of Women, March 29-31 in New York. “You are a country of 200 years.” She drifted off into the unsaid. But the message was plain: You are a young country. What have you ever lost? Who are you to tell us how to live?

Every American should read this article to truly understand what this country has done.

One piece at a time.

INDIANAPOLIS — In the biggest highway privatization deal in U.S. history, state officials last week signed an agreement to turn the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road over to a foreign consortium that will operate it for a profit for the next 75 years.

Under the lease, Spanish-Australian consortium Cintra-Macquarie will pay the state $3.8 billion up front and will be responsible for operating and maintaining the highway. It will get to keep the toll revenue it collects.

Once again, President Bush is right. He is a uniter, not a divider.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which maintained it had no plans for expansion, is now changing course. Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan, which previously had observer status, will become full members. SCO's decision to welcome Iran into its fold constitutes a political statement. Conceivably, SCO would now proceed to adopt a common position on the Iran nuclear issue at its summit meeting June 15.
-------
Visiting Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi told Itar-TASS in Moscow that the membership expansion "could make the world more fair". And he spoke of building an Iran-Russia "gas-and-oil arc" by coordinating their activities as energy producing countries. Mohammadi also touched on Iran's intention to raise the issue of his country's nuclear program and its expectations of securing SCO support.

There is no way we could attack Iran and Russia not get involved. Armageddon a bad feelin' about this.

ABSTINANCE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THE SPREAD OF DISEASE AND HEARTACHE...JUST SAY NO TO BUSH AND DICK!!!

This article about Moon is terrifying if true.

The sun finally came out. It's been raining here in Sonoma County for ... oh ... like the last month straight. Despite that, bud break has occurred on next year vintage! The grapes are all about 6" or more behind in growth, but hope springs eternal for catching up!

Or maybe of the week, although the week is young:

"Woman's sexual organ is like the open mouth of a snake filled with poison.”

—Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose pastors, under George W. Bush's Healthy Marriage Initiative and abstinence-only grants, have won nearly $1 million in public funding.

And remember, he's also the owner of the Washington Times, the owner of a number of Congressman and many other enterprises.

I'm not completely positive, but I think he might have the gender wrong. Maybe he's just projecting.

Born at the Crest of Empire has proof that the Iraq civil war will not go away easily. Note the last story about the doctor of death.

UPDATE: Link fixed (thanks).

The internets are just full of it this morning:

According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, ex-VP Al Gore spent $40K on polling this quarter, sending that amount to Penn, Schoen Berland on 3/22. (The firm currently polls for Sen. Hillary Clinton.)

The disbursement was recorded after the Gore/Lieberman GELAC transferred $40K to Gore's '00 presidential committee. So is Gore polling? For '08? For his new global warming movie?

No...

A Gore adviser says the disbursement is related to an '00 campaign committment.

What possible obligation could Gore have from 00'?

UPDATE: And Gore has also hired Roy Neel, Dean's former campaign manager? Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

Up for some good gossip?

Go here and read.

Hmmmm....

I wonder how the "summer driving season" will affect things?



Gotta wonder how consumers are lovin' their oil Preznit about now?

You may not like these folks, but does this make any sense?

Two sex offenders were gunned down in their Maine homes this weekend. The state has suspended the website that publishes offenders' pictures and addresses "as a precaution."

Remember, these are offenders who served their sentence and were released.

The map at USA Today shows which states are likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. I notice most of these states have the highest poverty rates, meaning poor women will be the hardest hit.

"We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. last month. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
---source

(Thanks George, Dick, and Donald)

Since I'm always belly-aching about the problem, here's a post on the solution. Excerpt:

What greens are proposing is a new paradigm, pairing aggressive energy efficiency and conservation (easily the cheapest "source" of energy) with distributed small-scale sources appropriate to regional context, and smart grids.

Very easily and quickly do-able ... that is once you overcome the energy lobby and governmental resistance ....

Are they playing chicken? Or are they really planning on military action?

So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling.

The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was "no war plan on my desk" despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well.

Richard Clarke and Steven Simon were, respectively, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council

I suspect the answer to the playing chicken question is that the administration is doing both. Clearly, Special Ops are already in Iran working directly and through surrogates to try and overturn the Iranian government, and gathering intelligence in preparation for an attack. Clearly the Pentagon is putting together operational plans. Clearly troops are being moved in Iraq and internationally to support those operational plans. And we certainly know that the original PNAC plan was to hit Iran and Syria after Iraq.

Yet, most people with half a brain understand that an attack on Iran might likely leave the U.S. with a number of dire circumstances. Some I've spoken with, and a common meme in the media, is to say there's no way Bush would attack Iran because it's "just crazy", neglecting to notice that Bush has acted crazily in the past. But in truth, I don't think the decision has been made, and I take Bush at his word that he is "keeping his options open". But how open are those options?

No, what concerns me is the miscalculation. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Saddam miscalculated the seriousness of Bush's threats, and Bush miscalculated the threat posed by Saddam, and the insurgent reaction within the country. There are a lot of dead people who could testify to this little miscalculation. I think the same thing is happening with Iran. On the American side, the Cheney administration is reacting with it's usual overzealous fear, over-estimating the threat of Iran .... even a nuclear Iran. This paranoia easily sways the messianic Bush into actions that are, indeed, crazy. On the Iranians side, I think they've made the calculation that the U.S. is so weakened by Iraq, and so concerned about the consequences of an attack, that the U.S. would never risk attacking. This type of story is legendary throughout history, with awful consequences.

It's not that I'm afraid that a decision has been made to attack. It's that I'm watching two locomotives barrelling down the tracks on a head-on collison course, and nothing is there to stop it. Bush's belief in the unitary executive will result in no Congressional oversight in this instance, and his demonstrated narcissism will not allow any other brakes on his authority.

Remember what I've said about a cornered narcissist in the past?

The assumption by the Iranians that Cheney/Bush are rational, along with internal Iranian turmoil, will continue to propel them in a game of brinksmanship.

That's what scares me.

Fascism in America won’t come with jackboots, book burnings, mass rallies, and fevered harangues, nor will it come with black helicopters or tanks on the street. It won’t come like a storm—but as a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: Everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality will have taken its place. All the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns—plenty of bread and circuses. But “consent of the governed” will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small and privileged group who rule for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons.

To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among the elite, and a degree of debate will be permitted; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized—usually by “the people” themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by a thoroughly impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, left ignorant of current events by a corporate media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control.

The rulers will act in secret, for reasons of “national security,” and the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, state murder of “enemies” selected by the leader, undeclared wars, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new “security structures” targeted at the populace. In time, this will be seen as “normal,” as the chill of autumn feels normal when summer is gone. It will all seem normal.

--Chris Floyd, November 10, 2001 Moscow Times (English edition)

Here's more evidence that the U.S. is already in Iran, and is using right-wing Baathists groups as surrogates in Iran to forment revolution. I'm convinced Donald Rumsfeld really wanted the CIA job.

I don't have a lot of comment on this. The chart below is a regular report published by the Internation Energy Agency on world oil output.


You can see output has definately peaked. You can also see that gas is over $3.00/gal., at least here in California. I'll publish this chart periodcally (via The Oil Drum) to see if world oil output is able to grow, or if indeed peak oil is here.

I'm so relieved. This helps me feel very warm and secure inside that the majority major political party in this country has it's finger on the nation's pulse, and is watching out for our interests:

WASHINGTON Apr 15, 2006 (AP)— Protection of marriage amendment? Check. Anti-flag burning legislation? Check. New abortion limits? Check.

Between now and the November elections, Republicans are penciling in plans to take action on social issues important to religious conservatives, the foundation of the GOP base, as they defend their congressional majority.

So despite losing in Iraq, nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran, rising deficits, trade balance problems, rising interest rates, rising energy prices, and corrpution at all levels of government, the GOP plans to focus on those burning (pun intended) issues such as flag burning.

This is sick. But I can totally understand why they are planning their campaign based on such vacant and relatively unimportant issues. The short answer is, ..... it works. It's the old bait and switch game with the ignorant ..... yes I said ignorant .... voters who continue to put these people in office. Billmon points out that it's pathological. I agree, and the pathology is in the U.S. voting public. Let's hope the upcoming 2006 election show some signs of recovery from the national pathology that was exposed by 911.

Via Slate:

The NYT gives above-the-fold treatment to another installment in its series on executive pay, this time focusing on Lee Raymond, the former CEO of Exxon. Exxon paid Raymond $686 million—nearly $150,000 a day—during his tenure as chief, from 1993 to 2005.

Let's not forget those difficult retirement years if Mr. Raymond happened to not save for his future:

Still, Mr. Raymond's package for 2005 stands out, even stripping the $98 million lump-sum value of his pension plan.

The hell of it is that the guy's a prick to boot.

These CEO pay stories have become a dime a dozen. There's no news here. There's also no news that CEO pay has risen astronomically compared to workers, or that CEO pay has zero relationship to company performance.

What I find interesting is that the excesses of CEO pay come right out of shareholders pockets. Given that public corporations are a total democracy, you'd think shareholders would revolt. But that just doesn't seem to happen.

Sorta like the Presidential elections ......