Ignoring the Big Picture

I have suddenly focused on the small. I like unusual art.

This is some unusual art.

It's Been Said Already

So I'll just link to it. The post by Ron Beasley at Running Scared called "Tony Blair.....Lap Dog or Darkside General?"

I found myslef amazed at the nerve of this guy, and Ron sums it up nicely. Short, sweet, to the point.

Bloggus Interruptus

Well, I've been working on 2 posts today, one on Bush, and one on public education. You get neither, as the water main to my building has burst, and I must vacate the premises. The odds of me getting to them if I'm in my own house are VERY slim.

Sorry, folks.

Puuding, Proof, Etc.

Know how I said that I like Jon Corzine's voting record? Well Ken at Big Windbag has done me the favor of typing it all out in a nice, easy-to-read list.

My kind of stuff:

On Education
· Universal access to preschool and higher education. (Oct 2000)
· Universal right to public education, pre-school thru college. (Sep 2000)
· Federal support & tax breaks for college tuition. (Sep 2000)
· Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001) Jon doesn’t like tutors… Do you here that, he’s coming for you if you are a tutor of any kind.
· Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001) Seriously though why should funds benefit some students when they can go to all
· Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
· Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Part Happy, Part Sad

Via Atrios:

In 1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable

(Quoting the whole thing)

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

And on the specific need for a timetable, here'’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

"I think it'’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

[ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

"It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you'’re - you'’re conceding too much to the enemy."

Why does this make me part happy? Because it's a record that shows that he really does say whatever needs to be said to make it seem like he knows what's going on better than anyone else. Why am I sad? Because no matter how many times he gets called out on crap like this, there's still people out there who support him. I understand backing him if you're an ultra-rich crony reaping all the benefits, but why would people I know still think he's a good guy for this job?

Makes no sense, and I'm sad about it.

Should We Be Surprised?

BBA
General admits to secret air war

The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

Of course. Why wouldn't there be a secret air war before the actual war that our nation was supposedly trying to avoid by having the UN impose weapons inspections on Iraq? Why wouldn't we strike while the world was looking away for a moment?

But MoseleyÂ’s remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped in southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a part in the bombing as American aircraft.

Well, at least we weren't in it alone.

About Freakin' Time

I do not know how many MoveOn.org petitions I've signed, but it's a lot. It's not all of them, sometimes they're a little too far out, even for me. But today, I've learned that something I signed a petition for actually happened:

It's a Beautiful Day In the Neighborhood

Congress Votes to Restore $100 Million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement by Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org

We are delighted that we were able to help restore some of the cuts made to NPR and PBS. MoveOn.org members sent in more than 1 million comments and made more than 40,000 calls to tell Congress to save Big Bird and Mr. Rogers. We are glad to have helped protect such an important service.

Now, according to RJ Eskow over at Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, PBS has named the "highly partisan" Patricia Harrison as their new president, so I guess it's one hand gives, and the other takes away. As long as Sesame Street's still there, and free, I'm at least a little happy.

Late Blogging Day

Travelling for work today (local).
Blogging will be late.
Apologies from the management.

Make a Kangaroo Happy

As you who've been with me for a while know, I'm extremely happy that Skippy The Bush Kanagroo added me to the STBK blogroll. Therefore, it's only fair when Skippy asks something of me, that I cheerfully comply.

Skippy is coming up on his 3rd blogiversary, and he'd like, as a gift, to reach a million hits. Go on over and give the blog a read. It's good reading, mostly short comments and links to stories, and I'm always glad I went there.

Skippy's 3rd anniversary post

DSM Update

In my daily update from Shakespeare's Sister regarding the BBA:

'Downing Memos' shed light on run-up to Iraq war (registration required)

Blair's own Labour Party - indeed, the world at large - still needed to be convinced as to why the threat from Saddam Hussein had suddenly become dire, why an invasion wouldn't contravene international law, and what kind of government might replace Saddam's regime.

I believe that was exactly the question I asked *after* we invaded. The exact phrase I used was "crime of aggression".

I'm frustrated to death about this. I never thought we had any business starting this war, and now that people are calling for a timetable to pull out our troops instead of specifying what conditions need to be met in order to pull them out... Well, it's maddening that we haven't already defined what those conditions should be, actually. I have no idea anymore if we need to stay the course, or getting the hell out would make it better for those people. Every time I think of it, my mind just freezes up trying to think of what might fix such a cluster f*ck.

Knowing this, and knowing that these memos are out there, it makes it all worse. If our government is planning wars that should never happen, if they're pretending to wage them to protect us, if the UN Sanctions are not obtained, and plans are pushed through against the better judgement of the rest of the world, how can we say that we're not committing gigantic acts of terrorism ourselves?

And now you read everywhere about the possibility of war with Iran, of war with Syria. With whose soldiers, I ask you, whose money? War is expensive, it costs money and lives and neither is a commodity we can afford to part with. This warhawk attitude has to stop. I was hoping we had evolved past this kind of behavior and I'm unimaginably sad that I was wrong.

The COST of Property Taxes!

Today I made it over to Blanton's and Ashton's and found me some fine, important reading about an important issue to NJ residents - property taxes, and why a governor can't lower them: (the post)

Mind you, I try to be accurate whenever I can in talking about issues. That's why I try to remember not to say, "lowering property taxes", but "lowering the cost of property taxes". The state does not levy your property taxes. In my area, the township assesses the value of the property and decides how much money to tax and the county sets the costs that have to be met with those taxes. The state can only provide rebates, which is what Senator Corzine has been saying all along, while Forrester has been pretty much making stuff up, talking about how he'll "cut your property taxes" by ten percent a year for four years. Well, he can't. The governor doesn't get to cut your taxes. The issue is property tax rebates.

That's exactly what was pointed out to me by a friend last week, and it's exactly right. Your local municipality levies the property taxes, and the state government doesn't make them up, or collect them. You can argue that by increasing local funding that state government could make the high property taxes unnecessary, but is anyone saying that they're going to increase local funding? I don't think so. Frogsdong is right, the issue has to be to rebate or not to rebate, and committing to lowering property taxes state-wide is a smoke screen at best.

All Your Baseless Are Belong to Us

BBA

Limbaugh baselessly suggested Downing Street memo "may be a fake"

I love an article that has the word "baseless" right in the title.

From the June 20 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I purposely haven't talked about this Downing Street memo much because, frankly, a) it didn't interest me and, you know, if it doesn't interest me, I'm not going to talk about it. And the reason it didn't interest me is because it was just another one of these ginned up things by the libs, and it looks like it's got some similarities to Bill Burkett and the forged documents of CBS and Rathergate.

"Some similarities", sure. They're both documents about something unappealing done by GWB. But this one's real.

Know why I hadn't heard this sooner? Rush Limbaugh doesn't interest me.

Were They Kidding?

I am an AOL member. I know what you're thinking - "AOL? For someone as net-savvy as you? What gives, Tami?"

Well, what gives is that I've been an AOL member since 1995 or so, and I'm not changing my address just because it's unhip. I'm going to stick with it until it's cool again, dammit. And besides, there really are some useful features to the service. Like, for instance, those of my relatives who completely fear computers can figure out how to send me email.

So, this morning, I signed on to AOL to check my mail, and waded through the zillion messages. When does mail from people you know, but don't want to hear from become spam? Never. *sigh* Right, back to my point. When you sign on, you have a welcome page. I chose the "world news" welcome page, or whatever option gives me news headlines. Today, there was a story on Bolton being blocked again.

President Bush faces a politically thorny situation - and stark choices - now that Senate Democrats twice have blocked John Bolton's confirmation as U.N. ambassador.

The president could withdraw the nomination, authorize further concessions to Democrats over access to information they seek or bypass lawmakers altogether by appointing the former State Department official to the job temporarily without the Senate's OK.

There was a poll - Should the President bypass the Senate?

Are they kidding me? OK, for the record then, I answered their poll "no". The thing is, there was no comment space, so I figured I'd add mine here:

Comment:
No, the President should not bypass the Senate, making the checks and balances that are supposed to be built into our system look even more like a joke then they already do in these days of a Republican-controlled House and Senate. No.

Lots of Downing Street Links

BBA

Once again, as a member of the Big Brass Alliance, it is my sworn duty to post important stuff here. Unfortunately, I'm really feeling slow on the uptake today, so I'm glad that other people have written comprehensive stuff. The following is lifted completely from one of our fearless leaders, Shakespeare's Sister.

I'll start with a link to her post on Conyers trying to take his petition to the White House.

Next, on to an email missive sent out to the BBA today:

Hi everyone. There's been some (probably justified) concern that the Right's last ditch tactic to disavow the Downing Street Documents by calling them fakes will gain some traction in the
media. So we need to be prepared to combat such assertions. Following is a list that should help you get started:

MSNBC:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

[W]ar critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.

Editor & Publisher:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000955273

That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times, Pincus notes. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources.

Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/02/DI2005060201359.html

WashingtonPost.com staff writer Jefferson Morley, who questions (rather ridiculously) whether Dearlove's assessment of his meeting was "accurate," still notes:

There is no dispute about the authenticity of the Downing Street memo.

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity...

NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html

officials at the British Foreign Office in London, while insisting on anonymity, said inresponse to queries from The New York Times that they would not dispute the authenticity of the document.

Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1647332,00.html

The Times notes that when directly asked about it at their joint press conference, neither Bush nor Blair disputed the original leaked memo's authenticity, and additionally points out the USA Today, who hadn't previously covered the memo because they couldn't obtain independent verification, reported on it once Bush and Blair were given the opportunity to repudiate it and did not.

And Kevin Drum's got some more here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006537.php

Please read, and understand - people aren't just making this up.

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

House panel OK's cutting $100m of PBS budget

So what, the government doesn't want a way to send subliminal messages to the most children possible? I'm surprised!

Too Big for Its Britches

I think that New Jersey Government is too big. I think that 12 people are doing jobs that could be done by 4. I think that we have too many different levels of people doing the same things over and over, and that it's wasting our (NJ residents) money. Jon Corzine thinks this, too:

While in some cases independence is needed because of the unique mission of an agency, in too many cases the absence of adequate fiscal, legal, and management controls – and the lack of transparency and accountability – have led to wasteful, unethical, and even potentially criminal practices. Also, this “invisible government” has been used as a convenient place to dole out political patronage jobs and lucrative no-bid contracts away from public scrutiny.

My first thought was to think about the fact that eliminating jobs takes away someone's source of income. The people in these positions are real people, and they need to support themselves to survive. But Corzine's not talking about average people who are earning their way, here, he's talking specifically about people who are given jobs as favors, people who may or may not ever actually do any work for these paychecks they're receiving.

I also believe that structural reforms will be needed to make this "invisible government" more open and accountable, and if elected I plan to put these reforms in place from the very beginning of my administration. ThatÂ’s why today I am announcing the formation of a task force that will look closely at these issues and periodically report back to me with suggestions and recommendations on needed reforms. Former New Jersey Attorney General Robert J. Del Tufo has agreed to chair this task force. General Del Tufo brings to the table invaluable experience as the chief law enforcement officer of this state and as the head of a cabinet department. The other members of the task force will be announced shortly.

I really like this approach. As we all know, sitting right next to someone who is using their position as a paid vacation, sits someone who's putting their kids through college, or paying off their house. If this task force actually does their job and investigates instead of just taking a sweeping brush to an entire area, I think that real cost-saving measures can be found, and maybe the state can make its way back to the days where it was run better. Not perfect, no, nothing is perfect, but better.

Oh, Yeah - Basic Rights, Right!

US House votes to curb Patriot Act, defies Bush

"We can fight terrorism without undermining basic constitutional rights. That's what the message of today is about," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who pushed the measure through the House with the support of 38 Republicans.

I love it when people do things that make sense. Now I can finally go out and get myself a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook without worrying about acquiring a tail.

Catch Up With the DSM

BBA

Unsure what the DSM stuff is all about? The Raw Story has an excellent roundup of docs and key points in a nice, easy-to-read table.

Even less sure about it all and want more info? Kevin Baas has a wiki.

Wondering when the Conyers meetings are? Tomorrow, 2:30 EDT, back on the hill.

Our dear leader led us to believe that we were going to war as a last resort. These memos say that war was the preferred method. Read them, and make some noise.

The Reward for Good Works?

Brilliant at Breakfast, Go ahead...justify this under the banner of "We need their cooperation right now"

Our most prominent "look the other way" policy has been towards Pakistan dictator Pervez Musharraf, whose invaluable assistance in the War on Terror led to a swift capture, trial, and execution of Osama Bin Laden.

Well, maybe after taking the hallucinogens they dish out in Outer Wingnuttia, they did. In the real world, Osama Bin Laden is out in the mountains mooning us daily, and Pervez Musharraf is behind atrocities like this one, brought to us by Ezra Klein:

(Klein quote)

Mukhtaran Bibi is under arrest. You remember her, in a world of Jackos and Rumsfelds and celebrity relationships and deified presidents, Bibi is an actual hero, a Mandela-esque story of courage and forgiveness. She's a Pakistani women whose brother committed a crime and, under the barbaric codes sometimes enforced in rural Pakistan, was condemned to public, forced gang rape to atone for him. When the four men had finished raping her, she was forced to walk home, nearly nude, while hundreds of onlookers laughed and jeered.

She was supposed to die.

If all had gone as planned, she would've grabbed a knife and slit her throat, or maybe her wrists. She would've accepted that she had been sacrificed for a male, that it was more than a fair trade, and that no one could move on until the last spark of life had vanished behind her eyes. And she would've hurried up and and finished the affair.

All did not go as planned.

The knives stayed in the drawer. Her nude body found clothes. She convinced a local Islamic leader to back her as she took her rapists to court. They were convicted. They were locked away. She got a settlement.

One could, at this point, forgive her for jetting off. For paying however many rupees it took, settling back into a plane seat, and appyling for asylum in America, hitting the lecture rout, leaving. She didn't. Instead, she built schools. Two of them, one for boys, one for girls. She took special care to enroll the children of her attackers, banishing vengeance and cutting the generational cord of ignorance. She enrolled in her own school to learn to read. She started a shelter for abused women. She decided to found an ambulance service so the rural sick could reach high-tech hospitals. She spoke out against honor killings and rapes. And she was going to visit America.

Oops.

Pervez Musharraf, our erstwhile ally in the War on Terror, couldn't have that. Mukhtaran Bibi was put under house arrest last Thursday. When she tried to walk out, police pointed guns at her. When she tried to make calls, they snipped the landline. When she moved to the cell, they took her to Islamabad and put her in prison. Then, for good measure, they released her rapists -- a warning shot.

Having Mukhtaran Bibi speak out about Pakistan's brutal side didn't fit the softer, more Western image Musharraf wanted to project. What he really didn't count on, though, was a columnist for the New York Times taking up the case and making more noise than she ever could've. And I bet he's not expecting outraged e-mails from all over the world to fly into his government's inboxes. Which is why they should be. And they should be loud, outraged, and laced with threats about how many congressmen will be informed and how much noise will be made. They should, above all, be perfectly clear on one count: if she dies, her voice will be far louder than if she lived.

(Jill again)

Nick Kristof is the columnist, and here's what he wrote about the case yesterday.

Ezra has e-mail and snail mail addresses for who to contact to express your opposition to this kind of tactic.

And for those who think this is a necessary sacrifice to make to ensure Musharraf's continued "cooperation", go tell your wife, or your daughter, that sometimes it's OK for a rape victim to be arrested in order to keep her silent, if we need the "cooperation" of those who would exonerate her attackers.

(apologies to Jill for re-posting so much of her work here, but it's *important* work)

Numbers Games

Read a piece over at the Corzine Connection spelling out the cost of Forrester's property tax plan, "30% in 3 years".

Sure, I called his plan false and hollow, but I did so not to engage in partisan fighting, but because his numbers simply don't work. I double-checked the budget numbers just to be sure, and I'm pretty sure that $9 billion is cost of the Forrester plan. I'll even show my work.

In an article in The Star Ledger, I read Forrester's take on this issue.

"Corzine is offering another warmed-over, McGreevey-Florio rebate gimmick. The only thing it guarantees is higher taxes," Forrester said. "Jon Corzine is part of the same group of people who gave us these problems. He cannot change New Jersey. I can."

Now, I'm not the biggest fan of rebates. I do not understand exactly why it is that we can charge someone $3000 for taxes and then give them a rebate check for $1200. Why not just charge them $1800 in the first place? It's all a trick of government spending. The thing is, it's a trick that actually puts more money in people's pockets. If the refunds were eliminated, it would be just another spot for money to be manipulated in new ways, and few of those new ways are ever good for the taxpayers. The state spends too much in the wrong places and too little in the right ones. Have I mentioned the city where the superintendent gets a $200k annual salary and the teachers (at the school I know about) are allocated one box of pencils for the year? How is that a good use of funds? Who makes these decisions?

Helping New Jersey's spending problems requires re-working the way we use the money, on top of trying to use less of it. Without a lot of back work, no plan will be able to offer tax relief to NJ residents.