Edgewise

Is Vietnam over?

Jeff Jarvis notes that Vietnam is no longer a dirty word for Democrats. Vietnam split and weakened the party and divided the whole country. We've been living with that cultural cold war ever since.

This reminds me of my suggested campaign theme (or meme) for Kerry: Kerry the Redeemer:

Kerry has stood on both sides of the divide, and in him we can elect someone who will put that history behind us and move forward with a reintegrated society, a sort of truth- and- reconciliation movement of the mind.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Inspections!

U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty
White House Resists Inspection Provision
Washington Post 7/31/04
"In a significant shift in U.S. policy, the Bush administration announced this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials....
"Administration officials.... declined, however, to explain in detail how they believed U.S. security would be harmed by creating a plan to monitor the treaty."

Isn't it obvious? Look what almost happened in Iraq, for goodness sake. Here we were, all ready to invade based on charges of WMDs, and the UN inspections under Hans Blix nearly ruined the entire thing!
Next time around, the international inspections are just going to be that much harder to impugn. We are the world's only superpower, and we can't make war without getting a permission-slip from the truth?

Flextime? Don't Hold Your Breath.

Bush Plans Flextime Proposal Washington Post 7/30/04
"President Bush plans to announce Friday that he wants to make flextime more available to the nation's workers....
"His aides did not give details about what he will propose beyond saying that he wants to give parents more chances to participate in their children's lives by letting workers accrue hours that they could take off later."

I really think they are so clueless that they didn't think this through, and so have no idea how radical it would be. But they will find out fast, if they actually try to introduce it as legislations. Business will instantly and ruthlessly shut it down.

Why Radical?
1. Flextime has little relevance to "nonexempt" (i.e. non-salaried) workers, because they are already compensated for the overtime they work They are entitled to time-and-a-half pay for working more then eight hours in a day. In the terms of flextime, that is six hours off in return for four overtime hours "accrued."
All that new legislation could add to this would be for workers to have the right to unilaterally insist on time off on other days, even when the employer does not choose to permit it. That is not going to happen. For one thing, it is too plausible that management needs to retain control of critical production schedules.
2. So flextime (aka the dimly remembered "comp time") applies primarily to "exempt" (i.e., salaried) workers, who now are routinely compelled to work overtime without any pay at all, neither time-and-a-half nor straight-time. (This is part of the great Productivity Miracle US business has so famously conjured up.)
If flextime were in force, all those invisible free hours that salaried people are already working would suddenly have to be (gasp!) recorded, and equivalent hours off allowed in return for them, with no loss in pay.
Business will never allow this to be adopted. And all the institutions that might normally endorse this general kind of a reform will remain silent, because the newspapers, TV stations, etc. are among the worst exploiters of uncompensated work.

I just want to savor the moment

Tonight, at least, Pat Buchanan is a Kerry booster. (What is up with that, by the way? For the last several weeks I've noticed him shifting into a Bill Kristol-style-almost-neutral-observer-who-happens-to-be-a-hard-righter mode. Is it a carrer move? Or, as someone over at dailykos.com speculated, is it a by-product of his longstanding dislike for the Bush family?)

Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough is getting shouted down by Andrea Mitchell and Howard Fineman for making a big deal out of the fact that Kerry talked over his applause. (Both Feingold and Mitchell repeatedly shaking their heads and saying 'can we talk about the content of his speech' -- amazing!)

Obama is (still) the bomb-a.
Moroca rocks.
Tucker Carlson has moved into Teddy Ruxpin territory. He's admitting that it's entirely possible that Bush will lose. Barbara Boxer should give him a hug.
Even Fox is being relatively gentle.

Kerry was likable.
His daughters were extraordinary.

It's a good night to be a Democrat.

Money quote

The future doesn't belong to fear. It belongs to freedom.

- John Forbes Kerry

John Kerry. reporting for duty

Kerry looks very happy, energized by the welcome (photos to come), and at ease with the rhetoric of home, hearth, faith, and family.

This is his one shot to introduce himself to the sliver of a sliver of the undecideds who are tuned in right now. After this it's the other convention, the debates, perhaps a few more well timed surprises, and then it will all be over but for the voting.

Compare Kerry today to the haggard man who seemed to have blown his best chance last fall. It's like night and day.

Alexandra Kerry humanizes her father

People critized Teresa Heinz Kerry for giving a substantive speech instead of the "he's really a good guy" type of speech filled with heart-warming anecdotes. Daughter Alexandra seems to have remedied that situation, particular with her tale of a father giving mouth-to-mouth to his child's waterlogged hamster. Jeff Jarvis concurs.

Fear itself

Dave Johnson picks up on a Reuters article on an interesting study of how "fear of death wins votes":

President Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the Sept. 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election, U.S. researchers said on July 29, 2004. Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security, the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Matt Drudge: Liar

I've been extra-super-special repulsed by Drudge's coverage this week (with apologies, I just can't stand to throw a link to this guy). There's been a different piece of tear-them-down news for every cycle, all timed so evenly you have to figure it was all drawn out well ahead of the convention in color-coded crayon -- a conscious, straight-ahead tactic to distract the media, to distract the public. And that bugs me. A lot. But I can live with it. What's really been getting under my skin -- and I know, it's kind of naive of me to still be bothered by this but... -- are all those Drudge headlines that flat-out lie. The latest example: a new book has come out, timed with the convention, called "Unfit for Combat." The lead on Drudge right now is basically a big ad for this book. And that's gross, but fine, whatever. The part that really kills me is the headline: "KERRY WAR COMRADES PREPARE BATTLE -- AGAINST KERRY." Which gives the sort of shocking misimpression that folks who actually served side-by-side with Kerry have written this book and are out to get him. A fact that runs counter to what we've heard from the Kerry campaign for the last six months or so. I mean, that would be a big scoop, right? Only it's not true. The book isn't by one of the soldiers who actually served with Kerry. By one of his "comrades." It's by John E. O'Neill, the same guy who Nixon and friends put forward as Kerry's nemesis thirty odd years ago. A fella who's devoted a decent chunk of his life, heart, and soul to convincing America that John Kerry is a scoundrel.

Implying that a book written by John O'Neil represents Kerry's war "comrades" isn't just writing a catchy headline to drive traffic. It's an attempt to intentionally mislead folks who don't know the full story. It's lying to his audience. And it's despicable.

All that said, here's my attempt at a positive, uplifting spin: what with the steady flow of exceptionally misleading Drudge, it's starting to look like the media has finally figured out they can just ignore 99% of his "scoops." The breaking point for all this may have been the non-story he was pushing months back about Kerry's supposed mistress -- most major media bit and, when no story surfaced, they got burned. Very few of the Drudge scoops this week have scored more than an inch or two of traction. So perhaps the man has overused his machine and snapped a rudder in the process, and I'm wasting my time and energy getting all worked up.

How 'bout that?

Michael Moore's speech

Dave Johnson from Seeing the Forest points to this transcript of Michael Moore's speech from Tuesday: AlterNet: Election 2004: Michael Moore's Speech in Cambridge, Mass..

I was culling through my notes from that day, so here are some of the highlights, based on my own transcription.

To the press:

We need you to do your job. Ask the questions. Demand evidence. Don't ever let them send us to war again without demanding evidence.

To the crowd of progressives (after mentioning how cowed everyone had been, how every protestation about the war had had to be accompanied by a mealy-mouthed disclaimer saying "I support the troops"

Of course you support the troops. You've always supported the troops. You've always been on their side.

To the press again:

You haven't just been "embedded." You've been "in bed with" ... the wrong people.

On political polling that focuses on "likely voters":

It's cool to talk about politics now. It's uncool to be apathetic. If you talked about politics [before] you were seen as kind of strange and wonky but that's no longer the case, which is why Jon Stewart is so popular. That's the big story the media has missed. There has been this big shift in the country.

On Dale Earnhardt taking his crew to see F9/11 and recommending that "all Americans" should see it:

I fell off the couch! Then I said a little prayer for George W. Bush. I said "Omigod, I hope he's not watching this right now and eating pretzels."

On the contradictions of capitalism:

[F9/11] made more money than any Disney film this year... will make at least a quarter billion dollars around the world by the time it's done. This incredible [aspect[ of capitalism that has always worked in my favor... The rich man will sell you the rope to hang him with.

A Canadian journalist told me (Thank God for the Canadians. They're just like us, only better. They're sort of like the Red Sox, you know. Their time will come. They like us, they really do, you know, the Canadians. They like us, they just wish we'd read a little more) that the Saudi royals own [17%?] of Euro-Disney. [They wrote] a $300,000,000,000 bailout check to Eisner, brokered by ... the Carlyle Group. My film was already done but i was like "can it get any worse? are they everywhere?"

On progressives not getting lazy or being prematurely triumphant about winning this election:

The other side, the unelected side who occupy our White House, they are not going to go peacefully. They like being in charge with no mandate. They actually believed they could take us to war with no mandate from the people, and they knew that they had to lie to the people [about the implied Saddam/911 connection to do it].

They are better fighters than we are. You have to give it up for them They get up at six in the morning to figure out which minority group they're going to screw today. That's the hate that they eat for breakfast.

Our side, we never see six in the morning... unless we've been up all night.

On Kerry's position on the war:

Reporters have been asking me while i've been at the convention, "How do you square the fact that John Kerry voted for the war.

My answer is similar to the answer I gave to a soldier who stopped me on the street, [who told me], "I was on a ship [near] Iraq the night of the Oscars and we watched you give your speech and we booed along with the audience. i was very angry with you about what you said that night, but now that I've served my tour in Iraq [I see that] what you said was the truth. We were sent to war under false pretenses. I want to apologize to you for booing."

I told him, "You owe me no apology. it is we, the American people, who need to apologize to you, for sending you into harm's way based on a lie.
I apologize to you.

Your only crime is you believed your president. Why would you apologize for believing your commander-in-chief. You're supposed to be able to believe in your commander-in-chief....

What we left with if you can't believe anything that's being said by the man that sits in the White House?

Kerry did what 70-80% of Americans did. He believed.

On the anti-war learning curve:

We're getting better at this. During Vietnam it took years. This time, it only took months!

On good Republicans:

I get mail from Republicans. I love these letters. There are good Republicans.... They just don't want to spend their hard earned money. [We need to tell them that] Bush took it from them... and their children... He's the anti-conservative. He doesn't really believe in conservative values.

On the tactic of attacking Ralph Nader:

This is so wrong, and so misguided and so uncool to do this. [Don't spend time] attacking Ralph Nader. Give those thinking of voting for Ralph Nader a reason to vote for John Kerry.

Republicans in denial

Interesting Edwards thread over at Talk Left (TalkLeft: Edwards Shines).

Lots of bluster about how Bush's base will support him and Kerry's are undecided, or something. Then some corrective posts looking at where an incumbent should be by now and how the electoral college is stacking up, which just made me want to reply

Shhh.... Don't tell them they're losing!

Bob Dole and the return of the old nasty

Back before the '96 election, Bob Dole gave the GOP response to a Clinton State of the Union. And it was just shattering in its glowering negativity. In fact, his response was such a nasty, nutty, powerfully awful speech, it struck many as the very moment Dole's campaign was plaster-wrapped and buried at sea.

The last few years, we've learned that there are other sides to Bob Dole. He's a complex man. There's a funny side. A likable side. Even a huggable side. Some days, he's like the Teddy Ruxpin of Republican hatchet-men.

Until recently, the old-school, more sinister Dole had been stored away somewhere while the huggable Dole took over center stage. But tonight, Darth Dole returned.

It was an interesting night. On the one hand, there was John Edwards. Now I'm not saying he was Obama-tastic. But he was smart. Positive. Genial. "Hope is on the way" he said. Cool. I'm for that.

On the other hand, all the right-wingers struck me as kind of extra edgy. Ralph Reed practically ground his teeth into a fine powder, talking about what John Edwards didn't talk about -- John Kerry's record in congress, and oh boy, don't get me started on that one, cuz I could just go on for --

When I found Bob Dole on a panel with Gen. Clark and David Gergen, I thought, great! That Bob Dole has such a lovably wry sense of humor. This should be fun. And then he reached through the TV and poked me in the eye with one long bony finger. Ow. Damn.

And I wondered, what's the deal? Why so angry, Bob? Why do you and your Republican buddies all around cable-ville look so extra tense tonight? In other words, why is tonight, the night Edwards made his big network debut, somehow different from all other nights? Different and yet, strangely familiar....

And I developed this theory: Sure, these the folks on the pretty-far-right don't like liberals. But, and this is just a theory, they can't stand hunky, Southern, smiling liberals. I mean: Wow. It drives them nuts.

Kerry and Gore, I don't think Ralph Reed can get too worked up about Kerry and Gore. But hunky Bill Clinton and super-hunk Southern smiley John Edwards drive the Bob Doles and Ralph Reeds of the world insane. "Those Southern liberals," (I'm just guessing) Ralph rages. "With their liberal liberal ideas." "Being all hunky" Bob (theoretically) chimes in. "And born in the South too. Come on! It's ridiculous!" And then together (perhaps): "They're driving us nuts!"

And it not just any kind of nuts. It's a very special sort of Bob-Dole-slow-burn, super-angry kind of nuts. A nuts that has a history of freaking the American people out and, you know, making Republicans lose elections.

And I thought: Cool. It's like the man said. Hope is on the way.

The future of the Democratic Party

Barack Obama's speech got more and more intense as he went along. Jerome Armstrong from My Due Diligence said at first he was worried that Obama might pull an '88 Clinton and just meander on and bore people, but the energy built and built and by the end of the speech the convention hall was in an uproar.

It's an open secret that Obama is considered a real comer in the party. Now that he's nearly guaranteed to take the Illinois Senatorial seat in a walk, his future looks bright. Chris Rabb from Afro-Netizen™, who lives in Chicago, pointed out to me that the worst thing they can pin on Obama is the "liberal" label, and even in that regard he has no track record of votes to deride. Something tells me that even a liberal can be elected these days when he's intelligent, charismatic, and a good speaker with a strong message.

Backfire

You have to wonder: at what point will the GOP attacks on Kerry's wife backfire? When will it start to seem petty and crude to the independent voter? Could it be, perhaps, when they start making a big deal out of inter-personal "I don't like Ted Kennedy" type comments she made back in 1976? (I don't have the heart to link to this trash, but it's all the hoo-hah on ye olde Drudge right now.)

Or was it when they got all fired up about her saying "shove it" to a right-wing reporter? (As an aside, isn't "shove it" like two clicks south of "sit on it, Potsy" on the expletive scale?)

I don't know. Those two items might not be quite at that point. Not yet. But there's a point out there somewhere, I'm pretty sure. Or at least, I have to hope.

And I'm just curious, you know? Wondering where it is.

Howard Dean drinking game

It won't be televised on the regular networks, but Howard Dean is scheduled to address the campaign delegates tonight. Here is a drinking game that is circulating among alumni of his wired campaign:

Howard Dean Convention Speech Drinking Game

1 shot

Any mention of the word idear

Any mention of strong, strength, stronger

Any bad joke about the Red Sox

Any mention of Kerry with the word hero

Any time he says "In Vermont."

Any time he sounds like the man you really wish were speaking on Thursday

Any mention of Bush and one-way bus back to Crawford Texas.

Any mention of healthcare coupled with a long list of countries.

2 shots

If anything "turns out not to be true"

If he talks about the "end of the civil rights movement", or MLK, Jr

If any great lies are told by people like him to people like us

If he tells any story that you remember from the blog

If we are reminded of the great loss to our sense of community

If we are informed that WE have the power (extra shots if we are reminded more than once)

If you cry

3 shots

If he mentions Fahrenheit 9-11

If he does the double arms out finger point

If Dean accidentally slips up and says, "What I wanna know..."

If he makes a reference to Ralph Nader

If we are thanked very much more than twice (extra shot each "thank you very much" above two)

5 shots

Any mention of Costa Ricans

If he says he represents the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

If he makes fun of Gerry McEntee

If he calls Bush a miserable failure

If he mentions there being more than one America, perhaps two.

If he references any sort of bat

Any jokes about a scream

If he gives a shout out to Nicco

Luntz says "Kerry will win"

Tom Schaller posts an interesting scoop over at the Gadflyer, recounting a "tipsy" conversation with Republican pollster and message crafter Frank Luntz (thank goodness for blogger ethics):

"What do you think?" I ask him, in a tone that indicates that I'm not talking about last night's Sox-Yankees brawl.

"Kerry will win," he says. I feel myself jump back slightly.

"Wow," I say. "How can you be so sure?"

"Bush's numbers on the war are bad, and it's spreading."

I follow-up: "So, it's that simple -- 'It's the war, stupid'?"

"Well, not that simple...but basically, yes."

"Ok, then, so what's the save-all scenario for Bush? Is there some way he manages to pull it out?"

"Only by making Kerry look bad, inconsistent."

"The flip-flopper thing," I say, seeking clarification.

"Yes," Luntz said. "But even that may not do it."

Good soundbite from Carter

"the super-rich and their army of lobbyists in Washington."

Baseball as metaphor

Though I grew up in New York rooting for the Yankees, I found myself strangely pulling for the Bosox this evening. Kerry threw out the first ball (it bounced and the catcher missed it) and there were all kinds of Red Sox Fans for Kerry and similar signage being handed out.

What with the Republican convention scheduled for New York in September, it seemed clear to me that the game was going to be a metaphor for the election, with the Sox representing the traditional blue-collar Democrat stereotype and the Yankees representing the pin-striped Republican fat cats of Wall Street.

It was an exciting game, explosive in the first inning, with a number of near misses as the Yankees mounted several inevitable tries at catching up. In fact, in the top of the first inning the Yankees appeared to be about to run away with it. Later, I commented to my friend and host here in the Boston area, Dave Powelstock, that if this game were a metaphor for the election, then the Yankees' rally in the first inning was the equivalent of the capture of Saddam Hussein last fall.

For the rest of the game we were trying to make similar goofy analogies. We figured if a fan, for instance, interfered with a batted ball and somehow enabled the Yankees to win, then that would be an evocation of the Nader factor. Fortunately, it did not happen - and there was no "Mr. October" suprise, neither.

Boston 9, Yankees 6.

Talk about Picky!

CNN Top Stories:
U.S. seeks extradition of one-eyed, hook-handed cleric

--That's going to be so hard to find! I think we should say either one-eyed or hook-handed or both.

Who's Counting?

Young voters are being courted nationwide Scripps Howard 7/20/04 (My italics)
"Both parties are trying to capture the nation's largest voting bloc. Comprised of about 43 million people between the ages of 18 and 30..."

I hear the voting bloc between the ages of 18 and 31 is slightly larger. One of the smallest is the voting bloc between the ages of 45.5 and 46.

The Amazing "Fahrenheit" Fever

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Making GOP Nervous Article
"...Republican operative Joe Gaylord said. 'It's a problem only if a lot of people see it.'"
-DKo: If the projections below are anywhere near accurate, the Republican "problem" will be immense.

"...through last weekend, theaters already have sold an estimated 12 million tickets to 'Fahrenheit 9/11.'
"A Gallup survey ... said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video."
-DKo: For a total of 56%! I must say the 26% theater total, at least, seems over-the-top, since that would be a blockbuster-level $300 million in theater gross. Possibly people being surveyed overstate what they will actually do. But even if we cut these numbers in half...

"More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video....
"The Gallup survey found that nearly half of the Republicans and independents who expect to see the film said they were likely to view it on video."
-DKo: If that is so, it will be October before the main electoral effect will show up in the polls.

The sober case for Kerry

Hyperbole aside, Thomas Oliphant's balanced paean to Kerry in the American Prospect Online makes a solid case for the Democratic nominee-presumptive.

In other news, Kucinich has endorsed Kerry.

Americans tortured children at Abu Ghraib

Boing Boing: Evidence for Hersh's claims of child sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib?

This story just gets more and more nauseating. What the fuck were these people thinking?

A Virtuoso of Shameless Hypocrisy

Bush: U.S. Looking Into Whether Iran Involved In 9/11 Article [My italics]
The commission has found more al Qaeda contacts with Iran than with Iraq, officials said.
[But] White House spokesman Scott McClellan said there was "no evidence that there was any official involvement between Iran and the Sept. 11 attacks."....
Bush noted McLaughlin had said "there was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of Sept. 11."

But what about ties? Were there any ties?

Bush Calls for 'Honest and Fair' Venezuela Recall Article
President Bush urged transparency...in an August recall referendum against Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and backed calls for open access for observers monitoring the vote....
"The referendum must be conducted in an honest and open way," Bush told reporters after meeting with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos.

How about a team of electoral monitors from Florida, if they can be spared?

Newtonian Permissiveness Decried

NASA Denies Funding for Key Satellite, Washington Post. 7/19/04
NASA is allowing a highly successful satellite to fall out of Earth's orbit by refusing to fund it....NASA...did not order a planned firing of its rockets...to hold the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite in orbit....Without periodic assists from its thrusters, atmospheric drag will send the satellite's remains to a watery grave in six to nine months...
--------------

Administration officials reportedly criticized the satellite for yielding to the pull of gravity, recommending a firm commitment to abstinence to maintain itself in orbit.

Nondenial denials

Holden at Eschaton is obsessed with the White House press corps' daily gaggle:

Q Why don't you answer the question? Do we have secret detainees and is it possible that they could be subjected to the same treatment as in Baghdad prisons?

MR. McCLELLAN: We work to address these issues that the Red Cross raises directly with the Red Cross. And any issues that they have, we respond directly to the --

Q That's not the answer to the question.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- Red Cross. We meet with them on a regular basis at a variety of levels, and we stay in close and constant contact with them. And I really don't have anything else to add to this issue.

Q You don't know whether we have secret detainees --

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, Helen, I don't have anything else to add to this issue.

Q Why?

Me being stodgy

NYT
"Sarkozy....has acquired a reputation as a man of action...who speaks his mind on controversial issues, while Chirac is often seen as reigning more than ruling, speaking obtusely and saying little to offend."

In this case, the word they meant to use is anybody's guess. Mainly obscurely, I'd think, with some mix of abstrusely, opaquely, and obliquely. A couple of weeks back, the NYT had something like "discrete inquiries."

Neither of these has joined the growing class of close-enough-for-Jazz misnomers that people would now think you picky or technical for correcting.

"Diffusing a crisis," for example, is already common and well-established.

Pelosi's bold prediction

CNN.com - Pelosi predicts Democrats will take back House - Jul 15, 2004:

At a news conference with Rep. Bob Matsui, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Pelosi cited strong showings in various polls and victories in the last two special elections to bolster her assertion.

"We're putting our credibility on the line," she said. "We think if the election were held today there would be no question that the Democrats would take back the House."

Nancy Pelosi has been a breath of fresh air in the House. Kos has more on this over at his new Our Congress site.

Threat Levels

There have been a lot of complaints that our system of color-coded terrorism alerts does not provide enough useful information. When Ridge or Ashcroft issues a new threat alert, they never specify the targets. Will it be kidnapped prisoners? Random bystanders? Home invasion sprees? Wedding parties in the desert?

Well, give me a break! Obviously, If we give out too much detail about an immanent threat, the targets are going to be ready and waiting for us--making the whole mission unacceptably dangerous to US forces.

Frankly, I think they ought to be grateful that we give any advance warning at all! You don't see Al Qaeda giving out the location and nature of their next attack.

OK, I'll Be Chicken-Little

Is A Housing Bubble About To Burst? Business Week

"If 30-year fixed-rate mortgages rise just one percentage point, to 7.2% from their current 6.2% ... house prices would have to fall 11% to keep new buyers' monthly mortgage payments from rising. If fixed rates went to 8%, prices would need to fall 20% to keep payments level....

"The ratio of house prices to median family income is a record 3.4,...19% above the 1975-2000 average,...As rates rise, a return to the long-term-average ratio would require housing prices to fall 19% -- or incomes to shoot up an implausible 24%.

"... a decline in housing wealth dampens consumer spending at least twice as much as a same-sized loss in the stock market

"...economist at HSBC Securities Inc. (HBC ), estimates that housing prices nationally will slide 5% to 10% over the next five years. That could cause economic growth to slow to 2% by the second half of 2005 from 4% now, he predicts in a report called The U.S. Housing Bubble....

"The overheating is greatest in markets such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Washington, New York, and Boston. The takeoff in coastal real estate started around 2000 -- suggesting that the speculative fever of the late 1990s did not die but instead jumped from stocks to real estate.

"...the lower rates available from adjustable-rate mortgages...leaves them fully exposed to rising rates. In fact, the rise in one-year adjustable rates since late March has already raised annual borrowing costs for new buyers by 25%."

and also

for the weblog for my forthcoming book

Bananastand

I have taken to looking at the paper every day for articles about the place that harbored the people who attacked our country in the first place (remember afghanistan?), and it seems that nobody cares about it anymore. They are typically in the "and in other news" column, and the news is never good. Couldn't find any today, but this evening found something on Yahoo about three or four attacks in various places in an attempt to disrupt the election on October 9.

Did you know they were about to have elections? Does Bush know? Does John Kerry know? Does anyone want to talk to us about it? Or are we just going to let it go to hell again?

I would love to see Kerry start attacking Bush on Afghanistan and start re-educating the people about it. But I'm sure that will just annoy people. Best just to keep it in the margins. Literally.

Well, at least the heroin trade will be booming.

Pipecasting

Progressive Pipes turns 39 progressive mailing lists into one (queriable?) webfeed. I have added the RSS feed to the sidebar here at Edgewise.

New Miracle Drug?

Statling new evidence suggests that sugar-pills may be the answer to some of humankind's most dreaded diseases, however scientists are at a loss to think of ways to rigorously test them.

Can't anybody here play this game?

Cheney as Grand Vizier (from Brad DeLong's Webjournal) ...lazy summer hammockblogging has apparently resumed now i just need a chron job to update the sidebar, plus maybe reorder a tad to reflect who updates most often.

We'd like to thank you Herbert Hoover

...for really showing us the way

Chimps disavow president

George W. Bush is NOT a chimp

Doctor Fastow

Listening to the talking voices on McLehrer in my car today, discussing how Ken Lay is going to put all the blame for Enron's failure on his CFO, Andrew Fastow (who has already pled guilty and turned state's evidence, I believe), it occurred to me that perhaps Fastow is American for Faust.

'Supporting' the Troops?

This is one of the most critical issues facing our nation today -- and few are paying much attention. The fact is, for all their talk about 'security' the Bush Administration has, in fact, made the US LESS secure in almost every possible way. They have alienated our allies and created hatred for us around the world -- in places where it never existed before. But their most egregious failure is to the military. They have so damaged morale and so overextended our troops that we are now in no position to be able to respond to threats. If another nation declared war or attacked us now, we would simply have no credible force to meet the challenge. Recruitment among all service branches is falling far below necessary levels, and our military is increasingly relying on forcing back into service those who are retired, have recently served long, dangerous deployments in Afghanistan or Iraq, or are unprepared, inexperienced reservists. This puts these people at extreme risk if they are sent to the battlefield, which can only increase casualties. Once again, this administration talks the talk about 'supporting the troops' but they have done nothing to walk the walk. All veteran services have been cut, and are due to be cut more. Even Republican congresspeople [as you see from the article below] are alarmed at the shameful way the Bush people are undermining and endangering our military, and our country's security.

July 8, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a bipartisan show of concern that the military is dangerously overworked, lawmakers said Wednesday the Pentagon is stretching troops to their limit and perhaps undermining the nation's future force. Amid worries the high level of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan could discourage potential new service members, Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., said it was not reassuring that most reserve components were falling below their recruiting goals for the year. As of May 31, the Army National Guard was reported at 88 percent, the Air National Guard at 93 percent and the Air Force Reserve at 91 percent of their goals. "We're taxing our part-time soldiers, our Guard and Reserves nearly to the breaking point," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. "We have to be aware that the families back home are paying a significant price. We don't want to break the force." Added Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee chairman: "We're also concerned that insufficient force structure and manpower are leading the services to make decisions that I liken to eating the seed corn. That is, in order to make it through today, we do things that mortgage the future." The Army recently decided to deploy units that have been used to train other soldiers. Hunter also noted that the ratio of reserves to active duty soldiers in Iraq is increasing and he said he was concerned that troops are not getting enough turnaround time back in the states. Stretched by war needs, the Pentagon already had declared a "stop-loss" to prevent troops from leaving once they have finished their obligation. The Army in April broke a promise to some active-duty units, including the 1st Armored Division, that they would not have to serve more than 12 months in Iraq. It also has extended the tours of other units, including some in Afghanistan. For the first time since the 1991 Gulf War, the Army is forcing thousands of former soldiers back into uniform, a reflection of the strain on the service of the long campaign in Iraq, coming on top of the global fight against terrorism. More than 5,600 former soldiers -- mostly those who recently finished serving and have skills in military policing, engineering, logistics, medicine or transportation -- will be assigned to National Guard and Reserve units scheduled to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan, officials announced last week. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve, perhaps thousands more are likely to be called up next year, the Pentagon said. People in the Individual Ready Reserve are distinct from the National Guard and Reserve because they do not perform regularly scheduled training and are not paid as reservists.

No Time to Lose on Burning Flags!

At last, Vice President Cheney has had the guts to stick his neck out and move the flag-burning ammendment to the front burner.

Facing up to the flag-burning crisis that is overwhelming our nation may not be popular or fashionable or "hep-cat," but it is the right thing to do.

Video Shows Foreign Fighters in Major Iraq Attacks

(The Reuters video in question)

Mostly British and American, I suppose.

It's OK, Ma, They've Stopped Beating Their Wives.

It has been widely reported and openly acknowledged that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld issued orders to employ "harsh interrogation techniques"--orders that were later rescinded. A similar sequence occurred later in Iraq, with respect to interrogation orders issued by General Sanchez.

In both cases, the orders were reversed on legal advice that the techniques authorized looked to be illegal. And, at this point, their illegality has been all but publicly admitted. But, the tone of these reports, and of the surrounding discussions, has been "Oh, that's alright then, the situation was corrected." The idea is that, even if the techniques were criminally abusive, it doesn't matter, because (as they claim) the orders were never carried out. "No harm. No foul."

I don't get that. I am not a lawyer and this is just my home-spun interpretation, but these orders seem to me in the nature of (or analogous to) criminal solicitation, "To entice or incite to illegal action." Solicitation remains a crime, even if the solicited action does not ensue. Private-enterprise gangsters who put out a contract on someone cannot say, "Oh, that's OK, I rescinded the contract a month later. Hey, I let the guy live."

Acting "under color of law" only makes such solicitation more grave. If Secretary Rumsfeld and General Sanchez did issue orders to criminally abuse prisoners, then subsequently rescinding those orders does not absolve them of their crimes.

'Liberal' losing its pejorative power?

I've noticed that right wingers seem to believe that Democrats and liberals must be "outed" as closet socialists. The fact that they are bandying the word socialist around this way makes me wonder if the word liberal itself is losing its sting. Do they need to remind people that that liberal = left = socialist = communist = pinko?

This is a liberal democratic republic, is it not? How far back do these people really wish to roll things? To pre-1789?

Can we start calling the right-wing illiberal now?

US Decries Iranian Meddling

Iran Is in Strong Position to Steer Iraq's Political Future, NYT, 7/3/04
....Already, the Iranian government has quietly strengthened its presence in Iraq by providing financial backing...and by flooding the country with intelligence agents, the officials say....Most worrisome to American officials are Iran's close ties to powerful Shiite clerics like Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani...and Moktada al-Sadr...

BTW: There are some Iraqi Separatists who regard the United States as a foreign power.

Our Question Wins by a Mile!

In March, I blog-worried about which of two questions about Bush and Terrorism would prevail: Our Question or his. I think now we know.

[W]hich of two messages will end up as the net "take-away" ....
--The weak one is that Bush didn't care enough about terror: It's mushy, vague, "who can know?", etc.
--The message that needs to come through is that the Iraq war displaced terror as the main concern. That's not very mushy.
For Bush it is crucial that that question should not be effectively posed in the first place; it is not a good question for people to even be considering. It is immediately plausible that the war was an obsessive-compulsive blunder. And if it is a blunder, it is a colossal blunder.

At this point, Our Question wins by a mile!
NYT
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll published yesterday found that a majority of Americans now believe the war has increased the threat of terrorism. A New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this week found that 47 percent of respondents believe the terror threat has increased, while only 13 percent say it has declined. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents in that poll said the war had not made a difference.