Franken on Letterman

I especially like the comment that starts about 5 minutes in. I told my husband that I almost wish I could move to Minnesota so I could vote for him.

Sampson Testifies

NYT - Ex-Aide Rejects Gonzales Stand Over Dismissals

The former chief of staff to Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Thursday that he had consulted regularly with the attorney general about dismissing United States attorneys, disputing Mr. Gonzales’s public account of his role as very limited.

The former aide, D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned two weeks ago, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Gonzales’s statements about the prosecutors’ dismissals were inaccurate and that the attorney general had been repeatedly advised of the planning for them.

I'm sure that is true. It hard to believe otherwise really. I'm still convinced that Sampson is not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, however. Take for example the inconsistency between this statement:

Mr. Sampson also acknowledged publicly for the first time that he proposed replacing Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago, at a White House meeting in 2006. Mr. Fitzgerald was then prosecuting the case involving the leak of the identity of Valerie Wilson, the C.I.A. officer. That led to the conviction this month of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on perjury charges.

“I said Patrick Fitzgerald could be added to this list,” Mr. Sampson said, recalling a conversation with Ms. Miers and an aide. The suggestion, which he said he regretted, was immediately dropped. “They looked at me like I had said something totally inappropriate, and I had,” Mr. Sampson said.

And this statement:

None of the dismissals were intended to interfere with political corruption investigations, he said. “During this process, I never associated asking the U.S. attorneys to resign with any investigation,” Mr. Sampson said.

So he admits that he suggested Fitzgerald be added to the list but we are supposed to believe it had nothing to do with the Libby trial. Yeah, right.

As an Alabamian I'm glad to see this:

Many of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, including Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, made it clear that like the Democrats they remained extremely disappointed with the way the dismissals had been handled and explained.

Interesting quote of the day

Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.
- George Jean Nathan

I should probably be asking my priest, but. . .

This post is actually a culmination of many thoughts I've had for some time now. Most recently, however, I was reading a post over at Poliblog about Dobson's comments about Thompson and what makes a person a Christian. And it made me think of something that occurred to me the other day when I was listing to an AudioSlave song, Like A Stone. The line in the song that particularly struck me was this:

On my deathbed I will pray
To the Gods and the angels
Like a pagan to anyone
Who will take me to heaven

As a good Christian (or at least a good Episcopalian), I've been trying to observe Lent this year, including some religious introspection. That said, the question occurred to me: Is it wrong to be a Christian (or any other religion for that matter) just because you want to go to heaven? That is not to say that it is necessarily wrong to want to go to heaven, but is it wrong for that to be one's only reason for being religious? Somehow that just seems too self-centered to me.

Considering some of our recent discussions at church, I'm sure some would suggest that if wanting to go to heaven encourages an individual to follow the teachings of Christ and be helpful and kind to others, then it is not a bad thing. It is undoubtedly true that it is not a bad thing for those being helped, but the question remains whether it is bad for the person who is actively seeking heaven.

It seems to me that Jesus taught that thoughts and motivations matter. I think most all Christians have heard the story of Jesus saying that it is as much a sin to lust after a woman as it is to commit adultery. This seems to me to indicate that what we want, what we truly madly deeply want, is just as important as what we do. So if we truly want the reward of a mansion on the hill or pearly gates or streets paved with gold, and we are willing to put up with some lowly earthly toils to get it, does that really comport with what Jesus was teaching? I'm not sure it does.

Seriously, do we think it is right in an Earthly relationship to only want to be with a person for what they can give us? For example, Anna Nicole Smith married an elderly millionaire. She was willing to fulfill her wifely duties and produced a child with him. She did what was expected of her in hopes of a lucrative reward. The problem is the whole world saw her as a gold digger.

And then there are also those churches that recruit converts with stories of the power of Christianity. I've heard radio commercials for a church in a nearby city that says something to the effect of ". . .having faith that can swing out over the pit of hell on a shoe string and spit in the devil's eye". Somehow that just doesn't sound very Jesus-like to me either. To me it sounds like something that will appeal to people who want to have the power to condemn others. And I just don't think that is what Jesus had in mind either.

Which brings me to the ultimate question: What should be want, as Christians? I feel like we should have love in our hearts. We should truly want to ease the suffering of those around us. We should really want to be helpful and kind for it's own sake. And if we do have a desire of a heavenly reward, it should not be about golden streets, it should be about wanting to be with God, whatever that means. And it certainly shouldn't be about having the power to condemn, but about having the tools to save them.

Now this may be evidence of my lack of faith, I don't know, but one question has recurred in my mind for many years. What would you do if you found out that your religion was wrong? What if there was nothing that came after this life? Would you feel like being good and behaving like a Christian was a waste of time? My personal answer is no. I don't think it would be a waste of time. I think it would be just as important if not more so. If this life is all we have, we should definitely make it as easy as we can for all concerned.

I'm reminded of the story of Moses. He was given the task of leading the Israelites to the Promised Land even though he knew that he would never get to enter it himself. Maybe that kind of faith is not necessary for the common person. Moses was obviously and extraordinary person. I don't know, but it is something I often contemplate.

International He said She said

NYT - Britain Steps Up Pressure on Iran, Freezing Business Ties

Escalating its dispute with Iran, Britain today froze all “bilateral business” with Tehran to retaliate for the seizure of 15 British naval personnel six days ago in what the Royal Navy insists were Iraqi territorial waters.

“It is now time to ratchet up international and diplomatic pressure” on Iran to demonstrate its “total isolation,” Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament after the Royal Navy made public details of what it said was the sailors’ position when they were apprehended.

[. . .]

He said the boarding took place at these coordinates: 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north, 048 degrees 43.08 minutes East. That placed it 1.7 nautical miles — around two miles on land — inside Iraqi waters.

In diplomatic contacts, Iran had provided Britain with an initial set of coordinates for the position of the boats that placed the incident in Iraqi waters.

“We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts,” Vice Admiral Style said. “After we did this they then provided a second set of coordinates that places the incident in Iranian waters” over two nautical miles away from where they were said to be by Britain, he said.

“It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates,” he said.

Iran says they were in Iranian waters; the British say they were in Iraqi waters. I'm not sure how it will ever be proven one way or the other. It's not like this is an episode of CSI or Numb3rs, and it's not like the Iraqi are just gonna say, "Oops, we were wrong" even if the British can produce strong evidence for their side of the argument. And now this game of he said, she said appears to be heating up. I hope that a diplomatic solution can be found (and feel certain it will) because we really don't want a regional war on our hands.

Is a withdrawal date a good idea?

There was heated debate in the Senate yesterday over the necessity/folly of setting a withdrawal date in Iraq. Here are some of the arguments presented by the opposing sides via the NYT - Senate Supports a Pullout Date in Iraq War Bill:
Pro deadline arguments-

“There will not be a military solution to Iraq,” Mr. Hagel declared. “Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It doesn’t belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.”

I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. The administration keeps repeating that our troops need more time so that we can win, but I don't see how a real victory is possible in Iraq. In many ways, we were defeated before we ever started. We never should have gone into Iraq, and I've held that position from the beginning.

“Rather than continuing to defy the will of the American people and Congress by threatening to veto this legislation,” Mr. Kennedy said, “President Bush should put the Iraqis on notice.”

I also agree that the Iraqis need to be put on notice. If democracy is not something they are willing to fight for, then it is not something they are going to have for very long even if we hand it to them on a silver platter. Ideally democracy is a bottom-up process. It's like winning in sports - you have to want it bad enough to get it.

And the Anti-withdrawal date arguments-

“This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it’s a recipe for defeat.”

[. . .]

“We cannot give up,” Mr. McCain said, “just as we are starting to turn things around in Iraq.”

I've never been a cadet at West Point, so I don't know what they know, but it sounds reasonable. The only problem is, as pointed out above, I agree with Senator Hagel that there is no military victory on the horizon in Iraq. Starting the war in the first place was the recipe for defeat. Continuing to pour money and troops into a bad situation is the epitome of the old adage of throwing good money after bad.

“It would be the bugle of retreat,” Mr. Warner said. “It would be echoed and repeated from every minaret through Iraq: the coalition forces have decided to take the first step backward. We cannot send that message. Not at this time.”

He's right. I will be "echoed and repeated from every minaret through Iraq," but there is little we can do to stop it. The problem is that the terrorist win either way. If we continue to stay and fight, we look like an occupying force and we are an easy target those who want to accuse the US of neo-Imperialism. Terrorist organizations can use our mere presence as a recruiting tool.

On the other hand, if we leave, they appear to have defeated us. I have heard it argued on many occasions that Osama bin Laden was emboldened by the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, giving him the belief that a relatively small band of rebels could defeat a superpower. And it was this belief that gave him the will to attack the US on Sept. 11th.

The ultimate problem is that this administration has already placed us in a no win situation. If we had only gone into Afghanistan, which we had wide international support to do, and stayed the course until the mission was truly completed, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. Bush was hell bent on attacking Iraq for a reason that is not fully evident at this point, but I doubt it had much to do with the phony intelligence we were given at the time (I suspect it had something to do with proving something to his Daddy, but I could be wrong). I fear this is a mistake that we will be paying for for years to come.

Senate votes on troop removal

CNN - Withdrawal timeline survives Senate vote

Defying President Bush, the Democratic-led Senate turned back a Republican attempt to remove a call for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq from a $124 billion war-spending bill, Tuesday.

Though the 50-48 vote is far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto, Democrats said the measure was a sign of growing support for bringing the four-year-old war to an end.

[. . .]

Two Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon -- joined 48 Democrats to turn back the GOP-backed amendment. (Watch Hagel question claims of progress in Iraq Video)

"The American people are demanding that we develop a bipartisan consensus for an honorable and responsible exit strategy from Iraq," said Hagel, a possible Republican presidential candidate. "If we fail to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder, one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead."

One Democrat, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, joined Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman to vote with the Republican leadership. And Virginia Sen. John Warner, a leading GOP opponent of Bush's plan to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq, rejoined the Republican fold on Tuesday's vote, warning that calling for withdrawal would sound "the bugle of retreat."

Obviously this will never make it off the President's desk. I feel like the Democrats know that they need to do something to make it at least look like they are trying to change the current policy even though they know it won't make it into law. I'm actually a little glad to see some cross party voting. I feel like Senators should vote their conscience (or at least their constituency's conscience) and not always just toe the party line.

More sad news for UNC

SI.com - UNC student, mascot dies

Jason Ray, the North Carolina student who performed as a mascot for the school's basketball team, died three days after he was struck by a car hours before an NCAA tournament game. He was 21.

Ray died Monday morning, said Steve Kirschner, the university's associate athletic director for communications.

Ray had been in critical condition at Hackensack University Medical Center since the accident Friday afternoon. He was hit from behind while walking on a highway shoulder near his hotel in Fort Lee after going to a nearby convenience store.

It is sad news to hear of someone so young dying so suddenly. I'm sure he will be dearly missed. One has to wonder if his condition affected the team's game yesterday. Something certainly did.

The state of Russian Democracy

BBC News - Russian opposition demo quashed

Russian riot police have arrested dozens of demonstrators who staged an anti-government rally in the city of Nizhny Novgorod on Saturday.

Protesters were dragged into waiting police vans and driven away.

The marchers were defying a ban on protests to demonstrate against what they see as attempts by President Vladimir Putin to stifle democracy.

It appears that Russian democracy continues to suffer under the rule of President Putin (for earlier evidence see here). Far be it from me to defend Putin or Russian democracy, but it certainly could be worse. Arresting protesters happens in the most consolidated of democracies. It is also significant to note that the people are willing to hold such protests, something that would not have been too likely two decades ago. The fact that the protesters were arrested and taken away in vans is a far cry from being ran over by tanks. There are certainly problems, and Russia may be headed in the wrong direction, I don't know, but I wouldn't count the Russian people out just yet.

Speaking of Poison. . .

MSNBC - Rat poison found in deadly pet food

Rat poison was found in the pet food suspected of causing kidney failure that killed at least 16 cats and dogs, but scientists still don’t know how it got there, state officials said Friday.

The toxin was identified as aminopterin, which is used to kill rats in some countries, state Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker said.

The poison may have been used on wheat imported from China, NBC News correspondent Tom Costello told MSNBC TV.

[. . .]

There have been several reports of kidney failure in pets that ate the recalled brands, and the company has confirmed the deaths of 15 cats and one dog.

At least they are getting to the bottom of the story.

Was Houdini Murdered?

No, it's not an upcoming episode of CSI, it's a read life conspiracy theory running its course. MSNBC has the story (from the AP) - One final trick for Houdini: Exhumation

For all of his death-defying stunts, Harry Houdini could not escape the Grim Reaper: the unparalleled performer, age 52, died on Halloween 1926, taking with him many of his trade secrets. The rumors that he was murdered, however, soon took on a life of their own.

Eighty-one years later, Houdini's great-nephew wants to exhume the escape artist's body to determine if he was poisoned by enemies for debunking their bogus claims of contact with the dead. A team of top-level forensic investigators would conduct new tests once Houdini's body was disinterred, the legendary star's relative told The Associated Press.

All of the new focus appears to stem from a new biography of Houdini's life that suggests he was murdered. I've always heard the story of how he was sucker-punched in the gut, but I've actually never heard of the murder conspiracy theory before.

I can see that an exhumation could possibly show evidence of poisoning, but I feel like any examination of the appendix would be impossible at this point. Eighty-plus years is a long time to spend in the ground. I can't imagine there is much left in way of internal organs. But then again what do I know.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . .unless they are at Guantanamo

NYT - New to Job, Gates Argued for Closing Guantánamo

In his first weeks as defense secretary, Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.

This idea was shot down, however, because some members of the administration wanted to make sure that the detainees didn't gain any Constitutional rights.

There is widespread agreement, however, that moving any detainees or legal proceedings to American territory could bring significant complications.

Some administration lawyers are deeply reluctant to move terrorism suspects to American soil because it could increase their constitutional and statutory rights — and invite an explosion of civil litigation. Guantánamo was chosen because it was an American military facility but not on American soil.

It is funny (ironic) to me that the United States was founded with the grand notion that all men are created equal, but when it comes down to it, we don't seem to think that all men (human beings) are entitled to the same rights or considerations. If they are not American citizens or housed on American soil, we don't have to treat them in the way that we claim to believe all of human-kind should be treated.

If we truly believe that our justice system is the best possible (although not perfect) form of determining guilt or innocence and doling out judgments while preserving the inalienable rights of the individual, why are we so bound and determined not to use it in the case of terror suspects. The short answer, of course, is that we think they don't have any rights. They are guilty until proven innocent. Actually they are guilty. Period. Or maybe even exclamation point. They are guilty, we know it, we shouldn't have to prove it. We should just be able to torture them and execute them. End of story.

I'm sorry, but that is just not the moral foundation that my country was founded on. It seems to me that if we can't try and convict them according to our stated standard of justice, the same standard we hold our own citizens to, then we have no business being the ones to punish them.

I like my cat, but this is ridiculous

CNN - Pet owners file class-action suit over tainted food

Jacqueline Johnson of Madison, Wisconsin, filed the suit Tuesday. The complaint contends her gray tabby, Gumbie, became ill after eating food from an Iams Select Bites pouch in early February. Gumbie became lethargic, refused food and lost weight, she said, and a veterinarian diagnosed acute renal failure. The cat was "pet-hospitalized" and prescribed intravenous fluids.

[. . .]

Since coming home, Gumbie has required a great deal of care. "It is stressful to have to stick a needle in the cat every day," said Johnson, who has had to administer daily subcutaneous fluid-and-drip injections since bringing Gumbie home.

Gumbie is likely to require medical tests and monitoring every few months, and Johnson expects this will increase her expenses considerably. She said she already has paid more than $3,000 in veterinary bills.

I like my cats, 2 out of 3 of them anyway, but I'm not gonna spend $3,000 in vet bills or sue the catfood company over it. Wow!

So true

Any cat owner will recognize the accuracy of this chart.

Splitting Hairs?

WaPo - Clinton, Obama Camps Spar on War

A brewing argument over Iraq between the presidential campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama broke into public view here Monday night when Clinton's chief strategist challenged Obama's credentials as a consistent opponent of the war.

[. . .]

Clinton (N.Y.) voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq war, while Obama (Ill.), then a state senator, publicly opposed the war. The exchange marked the most substantive clash to date between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and reflected frustration among Clinton advisers over the Illinois senator's use of the issue to distinguish his candidacy.

Penn, responding to a question about Clinton's vote for the resolution, used the opportunity to attack Obama, arguing that he had said in 2004 that he was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the Senate.

"Obama said he didn't know exactly how he would have voted in Congress because he didn't have the full intelligence," Penn said.

I've seen some clips of what Obama had to say about the war at the time and I've read some transcripts. I think what he said and how he said it is perfectly in line with what he is still saying today. The "I didn't have all the info" caveat is just normal procedure. It's like when I was little and my mother would say that we were going to do something but she would always add, "unless something happens." It's just one of those things you have to say. I think that is even more true in politics than it is when dealing with children.

The Clinton camp also points to this:

The Clinton campaign later supplied several Obama quotations from 2004 to buttress Penn's attack. One came from the New York Times, in which Obama declined to criticize the Democratic Party's presidential and vice presidential nominees, Sen. John F. Kerry and then-Sen. John Edwards, for supporting the 2002 war resolution. "But I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Obama said, according to the Times. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

At that point in the Presidential campaign, what else is he supposed to say? Once the party has its candidates other party members are expected to back them up, not rock the boat. I think he was as true to his beliefs as he could be in that statement while trying not to tear down the party's candidate.

Let's just say this whole exchange doesn't make me dislike Hillary any less than I did before. In fact, it just reinforces the feelings I already had for her. But then again, I've never made any secret of the fact that I'm not a fan of Sen. Clinton.

Ill-Prepared

WaPo - Military Is Ill-Prepared For Other Conflicts

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

[. . .]

The risk to the nation is serious and deepening, senior officers warn, because the U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises, whether the internal collapse of Pakistan, a conflict with Iran or an outbreak of war on the Korean Peninsula. Air and naval power can only go so far in compensating for infantry, artillery and other land forces, they said. An immediate concern is that critical Army overseas equipment stocks for use in another conflict have been depleted by the recent troop increases in Iraq, they said.

Hopefully, we will not find ourselves caught up in any of the conflicts listed above anytime soon. However, this does underscore the folly of starting a war that was not necessary for National Security and illustrates how it has, at least to some degree, weakened our National Security instead of strengthening it.

In addition, if other countries are aware that our military strength has been diminished by the Iraq conflict, or that we are too tied up in Iraq to be able to effectively combat threats elsewhere, this could embolden groups into action that might have otherwise been deterred by a fear of U.S. intervention.

My Heroes Personality

Matt Parkman You scored 70 Idealism, 33 Nonconformity, 33 Nerdiness

I don't want to be a chump. Congratulations, you're Matt Parkman! You're a great person: caring, hard-working, and honest. You might not have the best of luck, but you do your best in all areas of life. Your kind and responsible nature is rare, and you should be proud of it. Your best quality: Heart Your worst quality: You may take more abuse than you deserve

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 99% on Idealism You scored higher than 99% on Nonconformity You scored higher than 99% on Nerdiness

Link: The Heroes Personality Test written by freedomdegrees on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

H/T: PoliSciFi

Pet Food Recall

MSNBC - 60 million containers of pet food recalled

Eukanuba, Iams and store brands tied to kidney failure, deaths

A major manufacturer of dog and cat food sold under Wal-Mart, Safeway, Kroger and other store brands recalled 60 million containers of wet pet food Friday after reports of kidney failure and deaths.

[. . .]

Menu Foods did not immediately provide a full list of brand names and lot numbers covered by the recall, saying they would be posted on its Web site — www.menufoods.com/recall — early Saturday. Consumers with questions can call (866) 463-6738.

My cats don't eat wet food, but my dog does eat Wal-Mart wet dog food in the foil pouches. She doesn't seem to be showing any of the symptoms they mention, but she has been eating less lately. I hope she is okay.

China moves further toward capitalism

NYT - China Approves Property Law, Strengthening Its Middle Class

After more than a quarter-century of market-oriented economic policies and record-setting growth, China on Friday enacted its first law to protect private property explicitly.

The measure, which was delayed a year ago amid vocal opposition from resurgent socialist intellectuals and old-line, left-leaning members of the ruling Communist Party, is viewed by its supporters as building a new and more secure legal foundation for private entrepreneurs and the country’s urban middle-class home and car owners.

Wow, at first blush this sounds very promising, doesn't it? These first two paragraphs make it sound as if the Chinese legislature held a debate on a policy issue and in true democratic fashion reached a decision that will ultimately lead to a stronger middle class, and raising hopes of increased capitalist growth and democracy. Well, read on my friends, the rosy glow fades quickly.

But delays in pushing it through the Communist Party’s generally pliant legislative arm, the National People’s Congress, and a ban on news media discussion of the proposal, raise questions about the underlying intentions and the governing style of President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, experts say.

[. . .]

The leadership did not so much overcome opposition to the property law as forbid it. Unlike in 2005, when leaders invited broad discussion about property rights, the latest drafts of the law were not widely circulated. Several left-leaning scholars, who favor preserving some elements of China’s eroded socialist system, said they had come under pressure from their universities to stay silent.

When one financial magazine, Caijing, defied the Propaganda Department’s ban on reporting on the matter and published a cover story last week, it was ordered to halt distribution and reprint the issue without the offending article, people associated with the magazine said.

So while it would appear that China is still moving forward in their advance toward capitalism, a similar move toward democracy is still a long way away.

While strengthening the Middle Class is often a necessary step toward establishing democracy, it is not a fait accompli. As long as the Chinese government continues to suppress civil liberties, democracy is not likely to take root. There is still a long battle ahead before that happens, if it ever does.

Mohammed confession update

For those of you who are interested, the full (well, as full as the government will allow) transcript of the hearing can be found here.