Hold Your Horses: The Karl E. Mundt Guide for Retaining A South Dakota Senate Seat

The conservative echo chamber is atwitter today with the news that Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota suffered a stroke yesterday and is currently on the operating table undergoing brain surgery at George Washington University hospital. As Fox news continues to repeat every three minutes, the AP reports that Johnson is in critical condition. Demagogues like Michelle Malkin and the blowhards at redstate.com are pausing for a single sentence of feigned empathy for the Senator's plight before (metaphorically, at this point) dancing over his lifeless corpse and the consequent prospect of a Republican-controlled Senate. While the polls are still open, early indications are that Tony Blankley leads in the category for the most creative expression of feigned empathy through his usage of the word "ghoulish" to describe his apparent distaste for any analysis of a post-Johnson world... and then three seconds later launching into an extensive exposition on the potential upside for Republicans. By the way, it doesn't make a difference that he's getting paid to do it... the adjective reprehensible applies as equally to Blankley as it did to the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg. As of 6:39 AM PST, the award for beating this story to death goes to the Fox News Channel who, by my admittedly unscientific count, has mentioned the word "Johnson" 477 times in the last hour, "critical condition" 256 times, variations of "Republican control of the Senate" 135 times and "vacate his seat" 64 times, all while providing a live camera on the front door of the hospital for the last 38 minutes. Reprehensible.

If Johnson were to pass away, be unable to vote or resign his post, then the Republican governor of South Dakota, Mike Rounds, would appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of Johnson's term, which expires in 2008. Given Rounds' political affiliation and the Republican dominated South Dakota state legislature, it is conceivable that Rounds would defy the will of the electorate and appoint a Republican to fill the Democrat's vacated seat.

However, if Johnson does survive surgery, it is solely his decision to keep or vacate his seat. If he were disabled to the point that he could not be present in the Senate (and thus could not vote--as only a Senator, not staff or other proxy, can cast a vote), control of the Senate would remain in the hands of the Democrats/Independents by a one vote margin (50 to 49). If however, Johnson were to vacate his seat or pass away and a Republican were appointed in his stead, control of the Senate would pass to the Republicans, with VP Dick Cheney, acting as President pro tempore of the Senate, casting the tiebreaking vote in any 50 to 50 tie. Under this structure, Republicans would appoint the chairmen of Senate committees and control the chamber's legislative agenda.

Thus, if Johnson survives (in an albeit debilitated state), the ultimate question is whether he would vacate his seat. Fortunately, there is precedent here. As I learned yesterday from Tim Russert, the austere fountain of political knowledge who acts as the perfect foil to hacks like Malkin, South Dakota has had experience with these circumstances before. In 1969, Republican Karl Mundt, the senior Senator from South Dakota, suffered a significant stroke. Mundt did not recover well after the stroke, yet he refused to vacate his office unless his wife were named as his replacement. When the Republican governor Nils Boe refused to accede to Mundt's request, Mundt decided he would not vacate his seat and held in until 1972, when he chose not to run for reelection. During these three years, Mundt did not cast a single vote. At the time of Mundt's service in absentia, the Senate had a Democratic majority of 58 seats in the 91st Congress and 54 seats in the 92 Congress. As noted above, the current margin of majority is a single seat that was won in a watershed election that saw the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress.

Thus, if Johnson survives, Democrats would do well to remember the precedent set by the selfish Karl Mundt. To the extent that he is unable to attend sessions of Congress, there will undoubtedly be calls from the "compassionate" conservatives that Johnson should be replaced. You can hear it already from Malkin and Bill O'Reilly: "how come this guy just can't step down... doesn't he care about the people of his state having effective representation?... the nerve of these Democrats..." When you inevitably hear this drivel, just remember two words: Karl Mundt.

Oh, by the way, 2939 Americans soldiers now killed in Iraq, while a regional religious war brews in the Middle East. But first, we go to back that live shot at the hospital where Johnson remains in critical condition...

[Editor's Note: Instead of wasting your time randomly checking back for new essays, simply enter your e-mail address in the box on the top of this page's right column and you'll be notified when new essays are posted.]

Seeing is Believing: Republicans to Lose Control of Congress

I recently read a passage from Twain (Mark, that is) in which he described with awe his view of the snow-capped Rocky Mountains from the window of an overland stagecoach on a hot and sticky day in July 1861. He reflected on the axiom "seeing is believing," and conveyed the import of that phrase and captured its precision through a lamentation that for many people "thinking is believing" and that those who believe without seeing are often shocked to find that once they have seen, they found out that, until their moment of sight, they never truly believed what they thought. For Twain, it was his childhood belief that snow could persist at high altitudes in the warmest months of summer. While he ardently believed that notion as a child, he never came to truly believe it and appreciate it until that moment when he had seen it himself "on the ground, in person." I found Twain's analysis profound and unquestionably applicable to my perceptions and judgments with regard to events occurring in our own time.

Take, for example, the Senate race in Pennsylvania, in which Republican incumbent Rick Santorum is on the ropes and, if you believe polls, likely to be defeated. Santorum is renown for his unflinching support of the pro-life agenda. However, Santorum is, by gender, a man and, thus, has not and never will "see" from the perspective of a woman what he believes in regard to abortion. I can't honestly believe that if Rick Santorum were a fifteen year-old girl that was violently raped and impregnated, he would still fundamentally oppose abortion. If he were a woman, how would he feel if abortions (and, in this sense, choices) were entirely unavailable to him?

Perhaps someone should pose my query to Santorum at one of his upcoming rallies. However, recent precedent suggests that such a messenger will be assaulted, like this poor sap at a George Allen event:



It's always darkest before dawn, I suppose. Admittedly, this guy is an unlubricated dildo for the Webb campaign (albeit unofficially), but he's out there in the mix, reveling in the joie de vivre. My sense is that the spirit of activism he portrays is percolating in this country. You can see it the middle class family fuming over the wasteful spending of their tax dollars while trying to cover the payments on an interest-only mortgage that seemed like such a good idea two years ago. If it weren't for the weak housing market and apparently limitless interest rates unsecured lenders are allowed to collect, perhaps this family could send one of their children to a community college. I've seen this anger, and I believe it to be genuine and metastasizing. It exists in every person who has been downsized, outsourced or simply left out and shut out. Families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Sudan and countless other countries are increasingly asking why and, more importantly, demanding to know the conditions that will dictate when the bloodletting can stop. These people all share a common trait-- they have all seen what they believe, and I have seen them; lots of them.

I have also seen those who continue to believe only what they think-- for some its the belief that illegal immigrants and same-sex marriages are unquestionably the last of the seven seals to be broken; others can't stop preaching (hypocritically, no less) that what's really lacking in this country is Christian faith and morality; a few believe that the recent adjustment to the payroll numbers from the last three months (including a 200+% increase in the September number) had nothing to do with providing the Republicans with a talking point on the employment aspect of the economy or that the timing of Saddam's death sentence was anything other than a contrivance; and, in a wave of Rove's wand, almost everyone who owns a television believed on Tuesday and Wednesday that John Kerry truly sought to insult the intelligence of American troops. Most who ponder the question agree that hearing, like thinking, is a lesser breed than sight in the measurement of belief.

My impression is that people of this mindset and the politicians they support-- those who believe what they think, without the benefit, or is some senses the will, to see-- will do poorly in the upcoming elections. That means you Jim Talent and the other Republican lemmings who have clung to the Bush coattails without even a hint of independent inquiry or investigation. The will of the people has turned-- and it now points squarely to disclosure, accountability in spending and equality and humanity in social services and education. It's impossible to believe that No Child has Been Left Behind when you've seen your local schools closing, annual district bond measures and DOE-mandated programs exploited by Bush loyalists for personal gain (here's a rebuttal of that assertion). In this relatively small segment of domestic policy, many have seen the results of Republican governance and they believe the time has come for a change. With heads snuggly in asses, Republicans will be sent packing on Tuesday. I don't just think it, I've seen it (as a Diebold technician, of course).

Now that it's begun to rain in Oregon, I'll soon be settling back in with the pen at greater frequency. I've already spun a rough draft on the myriad of reasons why America should not partition Iraq, and have the beginnings of an essay on why the Borat phenomenon is bound to end up in Branson, Missouri; already home to the comic stylings of one lovable Eastern European buffoon, Yakov Smirnov. "I love this country!"

I'm waiting on the Iraq piece because, like the Iraq Study Group, headed by uber patriots James Baker III and Lee Hamilton, I don't want to sway the elections with my super-secret plan to save the United States from seemingly certain political defeat in Iraq. The military aspect of this war was over long, long ago. What those troops are still doing there, as opposed to a UN force, is not clear. My eyes have told me, as I noted many months ago, that the troops are there to guarantee the security of the ol' fossil fuel, now pumping at a rate which exceeds the pre-Gulf War II level.

One thing the military is certainly not there for anymore: reconstruction. That well is now tapped out-- witness construction giant Bechtel "cutting and running" from Iraq (albeit to the bank with truckloads of our tax dollars). If companies like Bechtel and KBR are walking away from Iraq, it's either got to be the growing evidence of fraud or Iraq is truly engulfed in a civil war, but, more likely, a combination of those two. It certainly isn't the astronomical profit margins that are driving the contractors away.

I'm hoping that the Baker-Hamilton report finally defines "victory," because it's my impression that there is currently no discernible definition of that term offered by either major political party with respect to Iraq. Regardless of the report's conclusions, I'm worried because Baker and Hamilton have admitted that, due to certain dangers, they did not actually talk to any Iraqi civilians, only Iraqi government officials of the highest posts, not those "on the ground and in person." The list of sources for their upcoming report, while vast, fails to denote a single meeting with any Iraqis other than those who have continued in their failure to govern the country. Baker and Hamilton's greatest failure will be a result of failing to see what they believe, instead relying solely on believing what they and a handful of detached officials think.

Suffice it to say, this isn't the first time I've been happy that I am not an Iraqi. But, upon reflection, I realize that I am a human being and that no innocent person should suffer unnecessarily. So, while we continue to hear from VP Cheney that Iraq is not a quagmire and that, regardless of the outcome of the elections, Bush and his team will continue go "full steam ahead" doing "what they believe is the right thing," I can only wonder whether Democrats, having gained control of the House and/or Senate, will have the political spine to aggressively curtail the tax dollars Bush is allowed to spend on his military adventures. I'll believe that when I see it.

[Editor's Note: Instead of wasting your time randomly checking back for new essays, simply enter your e-mail address in the box on the top of this page's right column.]

The War on Terror: A Progress Report on the First Five Years

As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, we've recently learned from President Bush and his party that we are "safer, but not safe" and that "because we are fighting the terrorists over there (Iraq?), we don't have to fight them here." In Iraq, our armed forces "will stand down when the Iraqis stand up." What do all of these phrases have in common? An expression of incompletion, couched in terms to make the administration's failures seem defensible as ongoing solutions.

I use the word "failures" because that is what I believe has and continues to occur. On the evening of September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and the nation, setting forth a path for America in this new age. A common refrain in the speech is that Americans "will come together" to solve the problems and that in fighting for our principles "our first responsibility is to live by them." I remember that fantastic, touching speech (full text here). The state of the union was indeed strong. However, since that day, the union has become increasingly weaker as the Bush administration has wasted trillions of dollars waging ill-conceived and, in one case, unjustified, wars while creating a bumbling behemoth of a bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security that failed miserably in its only true test since 9/11, Hurricane Katrina. The surge in international support following 9/11 has been squandered by Bush's war of aggression in Iraq, our subsequent occupation of Iraq, the seizure of its resources and the civil war it has incited there.

As 9/11/06 approaches, debate now rages on whether America is safer today than on 9/11/01. On the domestic front, the Department of Homeland Security has spent over $100 billion since 2003, with an FY 06 budget of $40 billion. While billions of these dollars have been spent to "organize" our national security plan, only a few perfunctory actions have actually been undertaken to secure our country. While DHS Director Michael Chertoff is busy blaming (the Republican-controlled) Congress for the inaction on security measures, his Department of Homeland Security, apparently in the spirit of the Coalition Provisional Authority, recklessly doles out billions of dollars, allowing state governments and contractors to fleece the American taxpayer under the banner of homeland security.

And it's not just our money that's been stolen, but our civil liberties as well. The Terrorist Surveillance Program is a gross violation of FISA act that, along with the IV Amendment to our Constitution, prevents surveillance of individuals resident in the United States without a warrant. The public furor over this program, ignited by the New York Times disclosure of it, provoked circus-like hearings conducted by the Republican Senate. In the most comic, albeit disgusting, moment, Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General of the United States, was not required to swear to his testimony before this kangaroo court. When Democrats challenged that notion, Chairman Specter was finally forced to take a vote on whether to require Gonzalez to be sworn. Only a few of the Republican committee members were present, so Specter and other senators claimed to have voting proxies for those members, thus assuring the defeat of the motion. When Wisconsin Senator Feingold requested to see the proxies, Specter cancelled the vote and commenced the hearing without Gonzalez being sworn. To date, the Terrorist Surveillance Program continues despite portions of it being adjudged unconstitutional by a federal district court in Michigan, and has expanded into telecommunications companies disclosing information on your phone records, e-mail and internet searches to the National Security Agency.

These actions by the Bush administration amount to gross failures of the plan set forth in Bush's September 20, 2001, speech. If we had known five years ago that the Bush war on terror would be so ineptly run and the extent to which it would damage, perhaps irreparably, the social, political and legal fabric of this country, would we have allowed it happen? Of course not, and it appears the citizens of this country are beginning to understand the consequences. Yet the Bush administration, having squandered both international and domestic support for our actions abroad, drones on, defying laws, wildly spending our country into further debt while continuing to spout half-truths in an effort to bolster the meritless claim that their grand plan for our security is succeeding. The Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror hasn't been a principled fight to bring the light of freedom to the world. Quite to the contrary, it's evolved into an undefined and seemingly endless war of aggression against oil-bearing nations and an assault on the liberty of the world's people through illegal searches and torture. Five years after 9/11, the credibility of the Bush administration has vanished, with the truth of their assertions lying only in their widespread and unending repetition.

What's most troubling though, and I've tried to define in the title of this post, is that despite the incompetence, negligence and malfeasance of the Bush administration, the war on terror will go on for at least the duration of the Bush presidency. Even if Democrats are able to wrest control of Congress, there is no indication that a President who has brazenly sought to expand executive power will voluntarily surrender his new powers to Congress. By evoking images of 9/11 and the fear it has instilled in the American public, the Bush administration has ensured that any future effort by Congress to limit funding for the war on terror or Department of Homeland Security would be met with calls of "weakness, appeasement and surrender." The average American, after five years of intense conditioning, would knee-jerk in the same way. But it's exactly that kind of thinking that will ensure that the war on terror lives on long beyond its usefulness.

Allowing the war on terror to continue with no discernible end in sight paints a dark future for our country. What is the logical end of the war on terror as currently structured? There is no leader of the forces of terror. Killing bin Laden might be a symbolic accomplishment, but nothing more. Can anyone seriously believe that the American occupation of Iran or Syria would produce a "democracy" any more likely to succeed than our currently floundering efforts in Iraq? If not, then what conceivable reason would we have to attack them? Current U.S. intelligence estimates assert that Iran will not have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon for at least ten years. Moreover, the Iranian President has been knocking on Bush's door for the last five months, seeking a dialogue on the nuclear issue to avert a crisis. If the U.S. relies on what to this point have been baseless assertions by Bush that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah to wage war on the countries, neither the world nor the American public should follow without extensive and verifiable documentation of that connection and a justification of the rationale that Hezbollah threatens the United States.

As long as America, whether under Bush or not, continues to engage in unjustified wars for resources and heedlessly supports Israel to the exclusion of the democratically elected Islamic elements in Palestine and Lebanon, there will always be villains to be manufactured and crusades to be completed. By continuing to misrepresent to the world that America is still under attack five years after 9/11, the Bush administration wastes our money, erodes the nation's standing and authority internationally, while needlessly endangering the country's civilians and soldiers alike.

Intertainment requires patience

In the spirit of our President, I've decided to take a vacation from substantive blogging. So now, for something completely different. Thanks to www.break.com for the videos.



In reality, this is a mix of two videos. The full video of the screaming German kid, with translated subtitles for context, is below. His parents must have a tranquilizer gun in every room of the house. And you thought only American children were overweight, impatient pygmies? Listen to this child wheeze...



Finally, tip of the hat to Steven Colbert who, in reacting to a dig from Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo, called the two of them, "itty-bitty Nixons, without the relevance or a hint or vision." Bravo.

Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?

Among other things, I've spent the last few weeks researching the roots of the Israel's current war of aggression against Lebanon. I even drafted an essay on the history of Lebanon for the modern-day alarmist, which you can read here. As for the current state of Lebanon's politics, that can be quickly summarized in two points: first Lebanon's Constitution requires a Christian (Maronite) President, a Sunni Muslim Prime Minister and a Shi'a Muslim Speaker of the Parliament, and second, read this piece on how the Christian enclaves of Beirut are unscathed, untargeted and, quite uninterested by Israel's constant bombardment of their fellow Muslim citizens.

In drafting this essay, I initially set out to lay down a comprehensive history of the Middle East from World War I to the present day. You see, there really was no Middle East until England and France carved up the region pursuant to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, despite their later pledge of "the complete and total liberation" of Arab peoples in the Anglo-French Declaration. Moreover, I was going to detail the backroom deal in which England secretly ceded a portion of their Mandate of Palestine for the establishment of a Jewish state through the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which was later consummated in the scandalous 1947 UN Partition of Palestine. Richard Cohen recently was lambasted for, in my opinion, an insightful, honest article describing that scandal. I was also going to explain to you how corporate avarice has, and continues to, destabilize the Middle East as oil was first privatized, then nationalized, and is now being privatized again. (As a sidenote, if you have a second, read about St. John Philby, who was a key to the privatization process and, in my opinion, one of contemporary history's most incredible, yet largely unknown figures.) I was even going to tell you how Britain, after establishing dominance over Iraq and its oil in the 1920s, fought an Iraqi insurgency by outsourcing the fighting to Indian soldiers. Ultimately, however, I've decided to skip all that and publish only a solitary quote -- believing it to illuminate the single most important aspect of Israel's invasion. However, in editing for publication, my rage percolated and I just had to do a few paragraphs on Bush. But first, the quote.

Yesterday, Prime Minister (Sunni) Fouad Siniora of Lebanon queried, rhetorically, the American body politic: "Is the value of human life less in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser God? Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?" As of today, non-combatant (civilian) casualties stemming from Israel's response to the kidnapping of 3 of its soldiers number between 300 and 600 Lebanese and at least 150 Palestinians. 19 Israeli civilians have been killed.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration, which speaks on the international stage for you, me and every other American, has turned a deaf ear to this suffering, all the while tirelessly marketing undocumented allegations that Hezbollah, the Islamic revolutionary political faction in Lebanon, is currently being supported by Syria, Iran and, now, laughably, Al-Qaeda-- the ultimate hobgoblin in the Bush arsenal.

As to the allegation that Iran is currently funding and controlling Hezbollah, whether through its alleged surrogate Syria or otherwise, I challenge any reader to find documentation of this connection. I've found nothing in two weeks of searching. I did come to understand, through this excellent piece by Daniel Byman on the history of the relationship between Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, that Iran supported a nascent Hezbollah in the 1980s, as the group sought an Islamic revolution in Lebanon similar to that in Iran in 1979. However, Byman concedes that "Hezbollah is increasingly growing out of its role as a proxy and becoming more of a partner with both Tehran and Damascus." Moreover, he never once makes the assertion that Iran or Syria had any role in directing or approving the recent kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah.

The last bit, the alleged Al-Qaeda connection, came out earlier today. It's being reported that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the alleged second in command to bin Laden, released a videotaped statement which included this gem: "The war with Israel does not depend on ceasefires. It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq."

If you'll remember, Zawahiri is supposed to be bin Laden's attending doctor, living with him and the rest of those nefarious Al-Qaeda thugs while plotting evildoer-like things from some cave in the enigmatic "mountainous Afghan-Pakistani border region." I saw this interview on my favorite daily news program, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, and was absolutely shocked. Not because of anything he was saying, as I'm more likely to believe this guy that Zawahiri is merely a pawn from CIA central casting, but rather at what I saw. Take a look for yourself at the picture below and ask yourself-- does anything seem out of place?

In case you missed it look again... and then slap yourself silly for not noticing that this guy, who we are told is running for his life in the nether-regions of Afghanistan, is in a television studio, complete with large scale prints of spooky images and multiple, dynamic lighting sources. Either Al-Qaeda's built a really nice studio and franchised a Kinko's nearby (which should make them pretty easy to find), or something is fishy here.

As of tonight, CBS is the only news source that even mentions the "professional television studio." However, CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan completely missed the clue, instead remarking that, "It's a slicker look for al Qaeda's number two, who delivered his latest video message from what appears to be a professional television studio, complete with background props." [Update: This morning the New York Daily News, which masquerades as a newspaper but shares more in common with The National Enquirer, attempts to clarify the mystery by noting that "Zawahiri appeared in a white turban in front of photos of the World Trade Center towers burning, slain Al Qaeda military chief Mohammed Atef and a bearded 9/11 cell leader Mohamed Atta. Atta's photo was downloaded from a Zacarias Moussaoui trial exhibits Web site, while the phony backdrop was intended to look like Zawahiri was in a huge TV studio." That's it... no explanation why Zawahiri would "intend" to look like he was in a TV studio, or how he's getting the equipment necessary for such a production. But I guess that's just journalism today... a whole lot of "what," just no "why."]

Despite the distractions created by the allegations of foreign involvement and the potential of the Israeli aggression to incite a regional war, the mind of every concerned citizen of the world should focus on answering Prime Minister Siniora's question: "Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?"

The Republican Philosophy for the Economy: Entering the Alamo?

On June 18, I wrote on the woeful state of the American consumer. Updating that post, I offer the recent numbers from the Federal Reserve indicating that the negative trends cited in my post continue. To wit, consumer credit increased for the seventh consecutive month, a rise of $4.4 billion in May (a 2.4% increase) to a total of $2.17 trillion, spurred by a 9.9 percent gain in non-revolving credit (mostly credit cards) that amounted to an increase of $6.7 billion for the month. Meanwhile, Americans continue to eschew disposable savings, with the personal savings rate furthering its march into negative territory with a -1.7% reading. Simply put, this means that Americans are spending (actually borrowing) 1.7% more than they are earning. Here's a 2006 chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve illustrating the personal savings rate over the last ten years-- notice any trend?

Since my first post, I've had some pretty smart people tell me that the personal savings rate calculation is misleading in that it does not include money squirreled away in retirement savings (401(k), IRAs, etc.) My retort is that those monies are not liquid-- you cannot access those dollars without penalty in most cases and, even if Americans did, I cannot find much positive in people sapping their retirement savings to pay their credit card bills and mortgages. As to mortgages, homeowners are now using a record percentage (11.4%) of disposable personal income to pay their mortgage obligations.

Ultimately, my point in setting forth these figures is to reflect on the effects stemming from a continuing negative personal savings rate and inevitable washing out of the credit pool, in sequence, leading to a decline in every material economic indicator other than the unemployment and tax rates. To the extent that you believe such a scenario is a bit too nihilistic, you're probably right-- the American consumer, as a class, will survive; albeit paying higher monthly interest charges and, perhaps, draining their savings. Whatever the next point in the cycle though, I would challenge anyone to exhibit an American economic model in which debt-laden consumers continue to spend and borrow in an environment where domestic interest rates are increasing and the world community is tortured by widening political and religious conflict.

Given these delicate economic conditions, it seems odd Republicans are laying the foundation for their mid-term election platform that includes a plank extolling their stewardship of the American economy. While corporations continue to report double-digit returns, the Republican government's greatest economic achievement is celebrating a deficit of $300 billion as a supply-side lesson in practice. Fortunately, not many are fooled. There is, however, at least one idiot arguing that the "White House can now very credibly assert that the deficit will indeed have been halved by the time Bush leaves office." Halved from what? The total deficit equals $1.4 trillion (with actual Congressional deficit spending of $2.2 trillion during the Bush administration) and "cutting that in half" can only be done by producing a surplus of $700 billion. However, as the Washington Post notes, even the administration's recent "midsession review" predicts that "spending will outstrip revenue in every year through 2011 -- the end of the administration's budget window. The administration notes that tax revenue this year is projected to be 18.3 percent of the nation's economic output, just above the 40-year average of 18.2 percent. It is projected to be under that -- averaging 17.9 percent -- from 2007 through 2011." If Republican-controlled Congressional spending continues (and likely increases) in this fashion and the domestic economy suffers from the aforementioned maladies of the American consumer, then "staying the course" with current domestic economic policy is indeed taking the American people into the Alamo: destined for defeat.

As the sun rises on tomorrow's America, we are virtually guaranteed to have a growing deficit, likely to have rising interest rates and metaphysically certain to have a decrease in the aggregate purchasing power of the American consumer. Pile on the ever-increasing rise in the price of crude oil, catalyzed by global turmoil (Gaza, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan-- to name a few) and the continuing outsourcing/offshoring of domestic jobs, and it is difficult to imagine a great American economic renaissance anytime in the near future. After the last five years, it seems difficult to imagine a globalized economy prospering in these difficult conditions at any point in the near future, and that does not augur well for the American economy or its globalized supply chains. Maybe alternative energy production is the answer.

If you have a slice of the good life now, I'd recommend that you put part of it in the freezer. It may not taste as good ten years from now, but it'll be better than waiting in line for a slice, or having no slice at all.

Your comments are both welcome and encouraged.

Laundry: Andy Rooney style

I was recently told, second-hand, that "all smart people watch 60 minutes." Fortunately, I have been watching the show and, in particular, the Andy Rooney segments. I have a great admiration for the sophisticated simplicity of his perspectively honest missives and curmudgeon's disposition. What follows is my best effort of describing a simple task I undertook today, channeling the Socratic Andy Rooney...

You see, I do all my laundry in a single, marathon session--a fashion that has suited me since I became responsible for my own laundry (thanks for those 18 years Mom). Seems more efficient to me to operate in this fashion, though I've noticed a difference in viewpoint with some, which surveys will tell us are primarily those of the opposite gender. The same survey reveals that men are four times more likely than women to find "spending time with their laundry partner the best part of doing laundry." However, "women can take solace in the fact that men are 3 times more likely to report that they stare at their laundry as it cycles."

Do you realize how much water your washer uses for a single load of laundry? In the United Sates, over 12 million gallons of water a day is used for laundry--that's nearly 4.4 billion gallons a year. And how does the washer work? Does it really clean my clothes? Would scrubbing my clothes get them any cleaner? What deficit in cleanliness am I willing to trade for modern convenience? What about the different brands of laundry detergent--is one better than the other? Turns outs that yes, some detergents are better at getting out certain types of stains. And dryer sheets/fabric softeners-- what are they made of? Whatever it is, they sure are handy.

Finally, I have a lesson to share with you. If you are doing your laundry in a marathon session like me, be sure to include the clothes you're wearing in the last load. There's nothing more disappointing than putting away all the laundry, only to realize that the clothes you're wearing are dirty.

Syntaxman: Please save ESPN's Jeff Brantley

In the spirit of the "Superman: The Movie I Probably Won't See," I offer a plea to Jor-L to birth a Syntaxman to save Baseball Tonight's Jeff Brantley, who emphatically remarked this evening with regard to the woes of the middle relief corps of the Cincinnati Reds:

"doesn't matter how well you starter does or how many runs you score, if you can't keep a team like Kansas City who can't score at all from scoring, in the middle of the ballgame, you got a problem."

Thanks Jeff... would have never guessed.

Iraq: Cut and Run or Stay and Bleed?

As you've likely heard, the issue du jour is whether to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Politicians eyeing the White House in '08 have each staked out a strategic peninsula, careful to look tough but not fence themselves in to any substantive policy that is either too radical or too conservative. Frankly, I wish the debate could move past the "cut and run" sloganeering and the vague pledges of Republicans to "stand down when the Iraqis can stand up." In my mind, and I'm sure in some of yours, the truth is that American troops will be in Iraq long after "W" is gone.

You see, we've only just begun in Iraq. Despite the laughable protestations of Republican hawks and Bush apologists that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil, we all know that it at least played a role in the decision to invade. That's the only aspect of the invasion I think was arguably justifiable. The oil that fuels the American economy is under Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and, in smaller amounts, other countries in the Middle East. Iraq happened to be the easiest target, both politically and militarily. The US maintains a cozy economic relationship with Saudi Arabia, but domestic political pressures there forced the royals to boot the American military out of the country. Iran, while certainly scoring high on a political axis, scored very low on the military axis because it is a giant, rugged country with a military that has not suffered under draconian sanctions for the last decade. Iraq scored high on the military axis and, given a little selective use of intelligence information and some fear mongering, became a "slam dunk" on the political axis.

Once we had conquered the Iraqi military and gained control over the country's oil fields, Haliburton set about building a sprawling, high-technology fortress that will act as the American embassy in Iraq. American contracts have also been let to build large, seemingly permanent military air bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it conceivable that we would pay for all of this improvement to infrastructure, built to American specification, and then abandon it a few years later? It simply would not make sense-- even to the freewheeling spenders in the Bush administration.

Moreover, both Iraq and Afghanistan act as extraordinarily important strategic location for combating (figuratively, for now) the growing influence of both India and China. By having substantial air and ground resources stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has implicit leverage in the regional politics of Southern Eurasia, with nations like Syria, Iran and what, if anything, might be left of Palestine bending under the yoke of American influence and threat of direct military intervention.

Also, recent history teaches us that American troops shouldn't leave Iraq or Afghanistan. It wasn't long ago that we funded both Saddam (against Iran) and the Afghan Mujihadeen in their battle against the Soviet invaders. In each of those instances, the forces we armed were subsequently used against us. Despite the nearly continuous stream of mistakes, disappointments and outright stupidity that emanates from the Bush White House, I firmly believe that they would not be dumb enough to rebuild infrastructure and rearm local security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and then leave those resource-rich nations with no military to protect the newly acquired American interests.

These are the facts as I see them. As alluded to in the opening paragraph, I wish that these facts could be acknowledged and for the debate to mature from sound bites to policymaking. The policy question is simple: does the United States need control of the oil in these regions to maintain its place as a world superpower? In the short term, that answer is clearly yes. In the long term, however, oil is a non-renewable resource and one day, sooner or later, it will run out. Every country will be faced with an uncertain future and the potentially catastrophic consequences of an industrialized world economy that suddenly runs out of fuel.

If the United States wishes to maintain its influence over world affairs, it must address this eventual crisis with a thoughtful and long-ranging solution. Getting in front of the parade on a new source of energy (whether solar, hydrogen, wind or nuclear), putting substantial resources behind that solution and acting as the lead manufacturer of the fuel, byproducts and services is the only way the United States can maintain its standing as a first-world country in an oil-deprived world.

So, should we withdraw the troops? Absolutely; but just not now. For now, we must stay and bleed, both personally with our troops and financially with our wallets. The only palatable cut and run scenario is to withdraw after adopting a bipartisan energy policy that promotes the vast and rapid development of new sources of energy. Ergo, if you really want to support the troops then support the American creation and production of alternative energy sources and, please, support it now.

The American Consumer: A Real Weapon of Mass Destruction

Whilst the debate gets underway on whether you support the troops, the mission, or both the troops and the mission, I'm hoping that someone will address an immediate threat to our future: the sorry state and perilous path of the American consumer.

Articles citing disturbing short-term trends in the economy are aplenty and many speculate on an impending recession spurred by declining asset prices, yet there is very little commentary from politicians or the daily media on how the economy will be affected by the current (and worsening) state of the debt-laden American consumer. As explained below, a continuing deterioration in the short-term health of the American consumer will dramatically affect the economy. In the long-term, a significant decrease in the borrowing and spending by American consumers may either induce or further accelerate a recession or perhaps depression.

To begin with, we must first understand the significance of the American consumer to the American economy. Approximately two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States is undertaken by the individual consumer-- you, me and the three hundred million other Americans. As a unit, we are the single fiercest economic force this plant has ever seen. However, as discussed below, our purchasing power has been waning and our debts have been mounting. Still, the American consumer forges on, emboldened by the incessant siren's song streaming from every imaginable commercial concern.

"The More You Buy, the More You Save!"

I heard that bit of American commercial wisdom in a radio advertisement. Probably wouldn't have worked quite as well on television-- can you imagine the facial contortions necessary to turn that phrase? The more I buy, the more I save? Does that also mean the less I buy, the less I save? What if I don't buy anything? I don't save anything?

What's plainly clear to me is that if I don't buy anything, I save what I already possess. However simple it seems to comprehend, the logic of that formulation seems to be lost on many Americans. How warped our little minds must be to equate saving with consuming. However, Americans as a whole are doing exactly that: spending more than we are saving (if we are saving at all). It's been widely reported that in June 2005 the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a report indicating the personal savings rate (roughly the percentage of total dollars spent over total dollars earned) of Americans had become negative. This was the first time that the indicator had reached negative territory since the Great Depression, and it has remained negative for the last eleven months, dropping to its lowest level of -1.6% in April 2006, the most recent report released. The report for May will be released on June 30. Check back for an update. [Update: May personal savings rate: -1.7%]

While the declining personal savings rate is surely a cause for concern, the indicator will inevitably be corrected through the washing out of the credit pool. Those with the means will begin saving more as interest rates increase and the once-meteoric rise in asset prices continues to taper off. However, there will also be a significant number of defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies. Consumers who are "leveraged 'till doomsday" will begin seeking those remedies in greater numbers as the Federal Reserve continues to raise the base interest rate to 5.25% and perhaps beyond. Oddly enough, total consumer credit in this country, estimated by the Federal Reserve to have currently reached a record $2.17 trillion, rose by 5.9% in April! [Update: The Fed said May's 2.4% increase in consumer credit followed a huge 5.2% rise in April. The slowdown occurred because of weakness in auto loans, which offset the jump in credit card borrowing. Borrowing on credit cards and other categories of revolving debt shot up at an annual rate of 9.9% in May, the biggest surge in this category since a 13.5% increase in October 2004.]

It's also estimated that American households on average carried $9,312 in credit card debt in 2004, the latest year for which statistics are available. Many of the rates for credit cards are keyed the rising base rate, and as the base right rises, so to will the APR on credit cards and adjustable rate mortgages (where default rates are rising dramatically). Given the recent "advances" in personal bankruptcy law, those Americans who do seek bankruptcy protection to prevent foreclosure will effectively be shut out of the financial system for at least the length of their repayment plan and likely longer. Debt slaves don't make good consumers.

Perhaps Bush and his "braintrust" could get something right and convince us that paying our credit card bills helps fight terrorism. However, given the deficit Bush has run up with the public's credit card, it's unlikely that even his whizbang team of spinners could put a shine on that pile. To the extent that consumers do begin to pull back their spending or consumer credit defaults, the Democrats would be wise to shift the debate to the sagging economy. While Democrats do not have a particularly shining economic record historically, they have never spent money as recklessly and partisan as the current administration, both domestically and internationally. As Bush and his cronies are so fond of saying, "9/11 changed everything." Apparently that includes Republicans, who appear to now support big government and a gross lack of fiscal discipline, including a national debt of $8.3 trillion.

Unfortunately, some "fool" is still arguing that old chestnut that deficits don't matter-- that's not the issue. The issue is that the deficit is growing unnecessarily in a time when the overall economy is stumbling and its main engine, the consumer, is drowning in an ocean of personal debt. In this environment, it is deplorable that the Bush administration is spending untold billions in its pseudowars and squandering billions more domestically with poor oversight while the Republican Congress approves outright pork projects.

Ultimately, for the personal savings rate to increase, the amount of money in the economic cycle must decrease. A decrease in the amount of capital circulating in the economy means a slowdown in economic activity and a concomitant decrease in production. If that slowdown in production lasts long enough, then you've seen a recession, and if it lasts longer, a depression. Commentators are just getting started on whether there will be a recession, though it is now clear that the likelihood of such an economic decline is no longer considered remote.

At a minimum, the writing is on the wall for at least a temporary pullback in consumer spending, which hopefully shows up in the personal savings rate report for May. The longer the indicator remains negative, the deeper the hole becomes and the longer the recession or depression will endure while consumers struggle under mountains of debt. A prolonged depression would also affect the increasingly global economy and may allow emerging powerhouses like China and India to capture further gains in global market share. The potential implosion of the American consumer is a real threat, and if that implosion occurs during a downturn in the business cycle, the economic effects would be similar to the detonation of a real weapon of mass destruction at Wall and Broad streets. Such an implosion would significantly depress or even eliminate growth in the American economy for the next several years.

The Curse of Rocky Balboa

We've all heard of curses in the sports world. There used to be one that haunted the Boston Red Sox, but that curse was broken in 2004. Not to be outdone, the Cubs have their own curse, as do the St. Louis Cardinals (later broken in October 2006), anyone or anything touched by basketball legend Elgin Baylor and the entire city of Philadelphia, apparently suffering under an umbrella curse that affects all of their sports teams. Well, I'm proud to coin the newest addition to the landscape: the curse of Rocky Balboa.

You see, Rocky Balboa is the quintessential Part-American success story, a linguistically challenged, down-on-his-luck Italo-Philadelphian boxer, portrayed effortlessly by the linguistically challenged Sylvester Stallone. The first movie, Rocky, actually won two Academy Awards (Best Picture and Best Director) in 1976 and netted Sly a nomination for Best Actor. Following that success, there have been several iterations of the Rocky franchise which, along with the first film, have grossed in excess of $500 million in aggregate. The plot line for the subsequent movies did not stray much from the original: Rocky takes extraordinarily dramatic punishment and, in some cases, a loss, before triumphantly stomping a mud hole in each successively larger opponent. With that beating complete, the villains who opposed Rocky have only begun to suffer-- for they have now been infected with the curse of Rocky Balboa.

The first victim of the curse was Carl Weathers, who played heavyweight champion Apollo Creed. Creed wins a heart-wrenching battle in Rocky I, but later returns for multiple beatings in Rocky II and Rocky IV. If that wasn't enough for Carl Weathers, he later lost an arm in an unforgettable scene in the 1987 hit Predator.

Beginning with the third Rocky movie, new villains had to be introduced to provide some false hope that Rocky would finally get the beating that he deserved. In Rocky III, Hulk Hogan makes an appearance as a heel, but the real hay makers landed on the inimitable mug of Mr. T. Not that either Hogan or Mr. T needed much help in failing, but the curse has pushed Hogan back to the disdainful world of television wrestling and displaced Mr. T from once-budding star bodyguard to pitchman for collect phone call commercials.

Rocky IV's villain, Dolph Lundgren as the Cold War villain Ivan Drago, also stumbled following his stint as Stallone's appointed punching bag. His next role was as He-Man in the Masters of the Universe, and then he was The Punisher. Need I say more? Okay, he was also engaged to Grace Jones, who left an indelible mark on the silver screen with her work in Conan the Destroyer.

All was well and good at this point, as the villains were only taking a symbolic beating as victims of the Rocky Balboa curse. What happened next was, well, simply breathtaking. The curse of Rocky Balboa first manifested itself physically in the form of Tommy "The Duke" Morrison. Morrison, an undefeated professional boxer, took on the role of villain in Rocky V. Less than a year after that film was released, Morrison took a monumentally viscous beating at the hands of "Merciless" Ray Mercer. Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, you can now share in the joy of witnessing that savage beating by pressing play in the frame below:

Following that pummeling, Morrison's career never regained its upward trajectory as he toiled against good fighters (including Lennox Lewis and a sideshow event with George Foreman) for inferior purses and largely unrecognized titles. He later tested positive for HIV and spent a little time in the pokey on drug and weapons charges.

[Update: As of October 31, 2006, Tommy Morrision is now applying for a boxing license in Nevada to begin a comeback. Morrison's attorney now claims the Duke never had AIDS/HIV, alleging that "his prefight blood test for his 1996 bout... resulted [in] a false-positive or was rigged by a rival promoter out to get him." Morrison was quoted as saying, "A lot of people doubt that I have anything left. But one thing they're forgetting is that I haven't been fighting for 10 years. I've been resting. I'll go down in history. It's going to happen. Then I'll become a legend." That's right Tommy, after you go down in history you become a legend. But to become a legend, you can't just fight bums. Instead, you'll have the tall task (pun intended) of defeating behemoths like current IBF heavyweight champion, the 6'6" Dr. Wladimir Klitschko and current WBA heavyweight champion, the 7'+, 330 pound Nikolai Valuev. Morrison was last listed at 6'2", 224 lbs.]

So, given the history of the curse of Rocky Balboa, it should come as no surprise that the villain for Rocky VI (titled Rocky Balboa), Antonio "The Magic Man" Tarver, has recently fallen victim to the curse of Rocky Balboa. This evening he took a convincing beating (and lost me $20) at the hands of Bernard "The Executioner" Hopkins. The fight was never close and one should expect that Tarver will probably hang the gloves up soon. It clearly isn't going to get any better for him-- just ask Tommy Morrison.

In addition to the Rocky Balboa curse, Tarver likely suffers from the bad karma generated by the name of his character, Mason "The Line" Dixon (really, no shit), in the upcoming Rocky Balboa. There had to have been gross negligence at multiple levels of the production and corporate regime to permit a black character to be named after a surveying reference most renowned for its role in the Missouri Compromise slave debate and resulting Civil War. That's just plain stupid and Tarver, along with everyone else involved in Rocky Balboa, should be cursed for that kind of boorish idiocy. As a public service, we ought to get Ray Mercer a few rounds with Stallone and those Sony Pictures executives.

Comments welcome. Curses not.

Jason Grimsley: Seeing the Forest Surrounding the Tree

By now, you have likely heard at least one utterance of the name Jason Grimsley. He's the middle relief pitcher from the Arizona Diamondbacks that was recently served with a second search warrant seeking evidence of narcotics possession and money laundering at his Scottsdale home.

According to the affidavit filed with this most recent search warrant, agents from the IRS and FBI intercepted a shipment of Human Growth Hormone that was addressed to arrive at Grimsley's home via the USPS. On the 19th of April, one day after that package was allowed to arrive at Grimsley's home, IRS agents executed an "anticipatory search warrant" at Grimsley's home, confronted Grimsley with an accusation of guilt and persuaded him that, instead of having his home searched, Grimsley would be transported to a secondary location where he would be, in the words of the agent's later affidavit "extensively debriefed."

At his debriefing, Grimsley apparently spilled the beans on his own torrid affair with all sorts of bizarre chemicals, including things called Deca-Durabolin and Clenbuterol. Grimsley also reportedly divulged the names of numerous other players, though Grimsley's lawyer, Edward Novak, denies that. ESPN (my least favorite news outlet) reported that Novak also believes that some unidentified federalis wanted Grimsley to wear a wire and seek statements incriminating Barry Bonds in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Keith Olbermann has implicated Albert Pujols thru a gentlemen he refers to as, and this is allegedly sourced, Albert's "soul brother." Jesus Christ in a birch bark canoe.

Instead of getting caught up in the whirlwind of speculation, I prefer to focus on some rather interesting, and apparently unreported, facts in the Jason Grimsley story. I'm not muckraking this trick and I won't judge whether he'll pay in any afterlife for his alleged betrayals, but I will focus on Grimsley's behavior and the extraordinary ride he has had from confession to impending incarceration.

Grimsley was first confronted by IRS agents on April 19th, 2006. He continued to pitch for the Diamondbacks for the next fifty some-odd days, including dealing four innings of scoreless relief the day after the "debriefing." Amidst the stress of having, figuratively, his nuts in the IRS vice, Grimsley managed to log 20 innings, posting a 1-1 record and lowering his ERA from 10.57 to 4.88. Not bad under pressure. There's been no report as to when Grimsley eventually decided to tell the Feds to stick it. I'm betting it was right before what will now be known as his final game, May 31 at Shea Stadium, where he took the loss after allowing one run in the home half of the 13th.

Second, Grimsley allegedly sought and was granted a release from the Diamondbacks after the Feds served the second warrant on his house yesterday. ESPN has reported that the Diamondbacks are paying Grimsley the remainder of his salary as a condition of his release. I can't decide how to feel about that-- do you scorn the MLBPA contract clause requiring guaranteed money or the Diamondbacks for not fighting the clause in the case of a likely-to-be convicted substance abuser? My guess would be that every contract (except maybe that of Barry Bonds) has an explicit provision that denies compensation for a player released upon the discovery of illegal substances. Perhaps the Diamondbacks didn't want to be seen as bad guys. In any event, Grimsley got paid for cheating.
[UPDATE: Apparently Ken Kendrick, managing general partner of the Diamondbacks read my post here and has now decided that Grimsley will not be paid the remainder of his salary, noting that "it's a moral issue." Being the "morally superior" jerkoff that he is, Kendrick finished his remarks by blaming Grimsley for the team's recent slump, stating that "our team hasn't played the same since the day this thing happened. You can see it out there."]

[UPDATE #2: Grimsley's agent Joe Bick has stated that he will fight the Diamondbacks decision, though he'll have to wait for Ken Kendrick to come down off the cross before he can climb up there. Also, think of the tough decision that has to made at the MLBPA: do you file a grievance on behalf of an admitted cheater? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.]

The IRS affidavit also states that Grimsley cited widespread amphetamine use among players that was supported by the their teams. The affidavit alleges that Grimsley quipped that "until last year, Major League clubhouses had coffee pots labeled 'leaded' and 'unleaded' for the players, indicating coffee with amphetamines and without." (page 15 of 23 of affidavit). I have not seen any other news source report these lines of the affidavit. If this claim is true, the controversy has only begun.

Finally, in an unrelated issue, this is the most revolting image I've seen in a long time. Nothing obscene or graphic, just unadulterated humanity that should be viewed only with utmost caution-- it could knot your stomach.

Comments welcome.

Amending the Constitution: Procedure, Unresolved Questions and Fun Facts

With the recent media blitz surrounding the Federal Marriage Amendment (a/k/a the same-sex marriage ban), I went back to the books to refresh my memory on the process for amending the Constitution. My hope is that this post helps educate you not only to the ratification process, but also to assuage any fears you may have of an imminent Constitutional crisis.

Procedure

As set forth in Article V, the Constitution may be amended in one of two ways: either a resolution proposing an amendment to the States is passed by 2/3 of each House of Congress and then approved by 3/4 of the States' legislatures or Conventions, or, 2/3 of the States mandate that Congress call a national Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments and any such amendments so proposed must receive the approbation of at least 3/4 of the States' legislatures or Conventions. Each Amendment to the Constitution has originated through a joint resolution in Congress. With the exception of the Twenty-First Amendment (ratified thru approval of Conventions in the States), each Amendment has been ratified thru approval by 3/4 of the States' legislatures. Ratification of any amendment proposed today requires approval by 38 of the 50 States.

Unanswered Questions

Interestingly, Article V does not set forth any guidelines with respect to the composition of or voting requirements for a national Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. There is much controversy as to how such a convention would operate, how its delegates would be chosen, the necessary vote required to propose a particular amendment, and many other lingering questions.

In addition, the customary practice in Congress has been to interpret the Constitution's 2/3 requirement for sending amendments to the States as 2/3 of those members present (assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast) and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress.

Article V also does not set forth the ratio required for the approval of amendments presented to the States by either Congress or a Convention. It does not seem consistent that the ratio required for ratification in each State should be simple majority when the ratification process at all other stages requires a supermajority. This is especially true when one considers that under a simple majority approval model, it is mathematically possible that only 37.6% of the people in the country could amend the Constitution. That is, if 50.1% of the people in 3/4 of the States approved an amendment, then the Amendment would be ratified and control 100% of the people.

Fun Facts

The last Amendment to the Constitution, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, was ratified in 1992. The Amendment, which prohibits the alteration of the salary of members of Congress until after an intervening election of House members has occurred, was proposed to the States by the First Congress in 1789. The Supreme Court held in Coleman v. Miller that unless Congress specifies atime limit within which the state legislatures (or conventions held in the states) must act upon the proposed amendment, then the amendment remains pending business before the state legislatures (or conventions) until such time as the requisite number of States either ratifies or defeats the proposed amendment. Due to this odd quirk, there are still four amendments pending before the States-- Article One of the original Bill of Rights (proposed in 1789), the Titles of Nobility Amendment (proposed in 1810), the Corwin Amendment (proposed in 1861) and the Child Labor Amendment (proposed in 1924).

Read more of Today's Effort by clicking here.

What you know, or what you're told?

I couldn't resist posting this piece I found at slate.com Of course, all presidents have spun the truth, but I believe Bush simply takes it to a new level-- lying, either without knowledge or remorse (and, perhaps, both). Truth is clearly at a premium in Washington and unvarnished information is seen less frequently than an atheist politician. The collection and dissemination of both public and private information is dominated by fewer and fewer interests each day, making the open and deliberative society sought by Bill Moyers an impossibility.

If you need more evidence that we now live in an age where access to primary source information is dwindling, witness the Bush administration's overzealous use of the "state secrets" doctrine and gross extension of the national security classification scheme that has led to the classification of twice as many government documents in 2005 as in 2001. The numbers used in that comparison do not include the documents classified by the Vice President's office, which has refused since 2002 to report the number of documents it has classified. It also does not include the number of documents seized from the National Archives and "ununclassified." It seems that any information you now receive is either diluted or inflated, but never pure. And that's only the information that's not classified.

Take, for example, a recent FOIA request to the FBI for any documents pertaining to connections between Al-Qaeda and certain charitable organizations. The FBI's response: we don't have any documents relevant to that query. A similar FOIA request to the CIA seeking documents relevant to the relationship between Bin Laden and Mullah Omar (head of the deposed Taliban) was denied on the basis that "it is the CIA policy neither to confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of any CIA records." Essentially, then, the CIA's policy is not only to flatly deny FOIA requests without justification, but to simply pretend that they do not have any records whatsoever.

Your thoughts, as always, are welcome. Use the comment link at the end of this (and every) post.

When Presidents Fib
Little lies matter, too.
By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 6:41 PM ET

John Snow leaving the Treasury Department was an open secret for many months. There seemed no end to the list of names floated as possible replacements. First it was going to be Chief of Staff Andy Card, then Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, then Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, and then former Commerce Secretary Don Evans. The manager at my Starbucks may have gotten feelers. When the president was asked at his press conference last week whether he had any indication Snow intended to leave, I thought he might say, "Is he still in my Cabinet?"

We now know that would have been a reasonable answer. Four days earlier, Hank Paulson had agreed to replace Snow. Bush also could have simply said yes, because as Snow later put it, Bush knew for some time that he was thinking of doing so. Instead, the president answered in a way that was not, to use a White House term, reality-based. "Has he given you any indication he intends to leave his job any time soon?" Bush was asked. The president responded: "No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he's doing a fine job."
The New York Times called this answer "artful." That's not the word I'd use. Artful should be reserved for things that hide the truth but don't deceive. A hat is artful. A toupee is a lie. Bush's answer was toupee-like. Even if it was technically true that Bush had not talked to Snow about "resignation," the president knew his confected statement was deceptive. I'm reluctant to call it a lie, but the president abused our trust.

We allow presidents a measure of obfuscation because in public they must give nuanced answers in some sensitive areas like national security. On personnel matters like this one, the public's right to know is not done grave harm when a president is less than candid. Bush is also protected by a less-honorable Washington tradition: the departure fiction where even if someone has been fired, he is described as having gone at his own behest, often to spend more time with his family.

Such wiggle-room prerogatives allow the president to duck many questions, as he has in the past. When the press has tried to ask about his flexibility on a particular piece of legislation, he has refused to speculate about what compromise he might accept, saying, "I won't negotiate with myself." When reporters try to get him to make news, he regularly refuses to "play that Washington" game. Richard Keil of Bloomberg was certainly trying to get Bush to play a round of that game by asking him to talk about Snow's intentions. But when asked in March about staff changes and calls from outside his administration for a shakeup, the president was careful to give nothing away without fibbing. "I'm not going to announce it right now," he said. "Look, they've got some ideas that I like and some I don't like. Put it that way."

These are unhelpful answers but they're not deceitful. There are times when administration officials have told me the back story behind a non-answer and it all makes sense. In this case, though, the president jumped over the menu of bland dodges available to him and picked the least truthful statement short of "Secretary Snow is staying." When asked about this answer yesterday, press spokesman Tony Snow explained that the president didn't misspeak. He was worried about spooking financial markets and wanted Paulson's background checks to go through before he announced the change. The president was also likely being sensitive about John Snow, who has been a dead man walking for so many months. Bush wanted to give him a proper send-off.

But those motivations don't explain why the president avoided the gentle euphemism and instead reached out to mislead. Snow ultimately fell back on the Clinton defense. "It was very carefully worded," he said of the president's answer. That's not encouraging. When a person hears a question, dissects it, and fashions an answer on the spot that deceives, it suggests a lot of practice and comfort with fibbing. This is a problem area for Bush: Fifty-six percent of the country does not find him trustworthy, according to recent polls.

In Washington, we often say politicians are "misleading." That's the kind of thinking President Bush usually resists. He often talks about his Midland, Texas, heritage when he wants to convey his moral compass. There, a man's word is sealed with his handshake. In Midland, they would have called what Bush said about John Snow a lie.

John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent. He can be reached at
slatepolitics@gmail.com