July 2004 Archives

I've heard of ticketed events, but isn't this getting a little ridiculous?

Some would-be spectators hoping to attend Vice President Dick Cheney's rally in Rio Rancho this weekend walked out of a Republican campaign office miffed and ticketless Thursday after getting this news: Unless you sign an endorsement for President George W. Bush, you're not getting any passes.

The Albuquerque Bush-Cheney Victory office in charge of doling out the tickets to Saturday's event was requiring the endorsement forms from people it could not verify as supporters.

State Rep. Dan Foley, R-Roswell, speaking on behalf of the Republican Party, said Thursday that a "known Democrat operative group" was intending to try to crash Saturday's campaign rally at Rio Rancho Mid-High School. He added that some people were providing false names and addresses and added that tickets for the limited-seating event should go to loyal Bush backers.
. . .
"I'm outraged at this. I'm being closed off by my own government. It's crazy," said East Mountains resident Pamela Random, who added that she is an unaffiliated voter.

Event is at a public facility, no less.

I agree with President Bush:

When it comes to improving our economy and creating new jobs, results matter.

And those results?

Average monthly employment growth during the Bush administration: -0.04%.

Worst record since President Hoover.

Meanwhile, amid the teeming poppy fields:

Afghanistan will fall apart unless Nato countries urgently fulfil promises to send troops, the Commons foreign affairs select committee warned yesterday.

With violence rising ahead of an election scheduled for October, the MPs concluded: "There is a real danger that if these resources are not provided soon Afghanistan - a fragile state in one of the most sensitive and volatile regions of the world - could implode, with terrible consequences."
. . .
The MPs criticised the Nato countries, other than the US and Britain, who pledged support at their summit in Istanbul in June but did not match that with the provision of desperately needed troops for the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).
. . .
They added: "We recommend that the government impresses upon its Nato allies the need to deliver on their promises to help Afghanistan before it is too late, both for the credibility of the alliance and, more importantly, for the people of Afghanistan."

I guess this shortfall can be excused. After all, we have to take care of things in Iraq, right?

Oops. Same deal there:

"We conclude that the insufficient number of troops in Iraq has contributed to the deterioration in security. We further conclude that the failure of countries other than the US and the UK to send significant numbers of troops has had serious and regrettable consequences."

So when John Kerry talks about the urgent need to strengthen alliances and bring in other nations, it's not just idle chatter.

Even the GOP is (secretly) conceding that Florida's voting system can't be trusted:

While Gov. Jeb Bush reassures Floridians that touch screen voting machines are reliable, the Republican Party is sending the opposite message to some voters.

The GOP urged some Miami voters to use absentee ballots because touch screens lack a paper trail and cannot "verify your vote."

That's the same argument Democrats have made but which Bush, his elections director and Republican legislators have repeatedly rejected.

"The liberal Democrats have already begun their attacks and the new electronic voting machines do not have a paper ballot to verify your vote in case of a recount," says a glossy mailer, paid for by the Republican Party of Florida and prominently featuring two pictures of President Bush. "Make sure your vote counts. Order your absentee ballot today."

Guess the message here is don't trust and verify.

Full text here:

• I have unforgettable memories of being a kid mesmerized by the British, French, and American troops, each of them guarding their own part of the city, and Russians standing guard on the stark line separating East from West. On one occasion, I rode my bike into Soviet East Berlin. And when I proudly told my dad, he promptly grounded me.
  
  But what I learned has stayed with me for a lifetime. I saw how different life was on different sides of the same city. I saw the fear in the eyes of people who were not free. I saw the gratitude of people toward the United States for all that we had done. I felt goose bumps as I got off a military train and heard the Army band strike up "Stars and Stripes Forever." I learned what it meant to be America at our best. I learned the pride of our freedom. And I am determined now to restore that pride to all who look to America.


• I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.


• They say this is the best economy we've ever had. And they say that anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist. Well, here is our answer: There is nothing more pessimistic than saying America can't do better.
  
  We can do better and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can do people. And let's not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves and we can do it again.


• I am proud that after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. How we wish it had stayed that way.


• Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities and I do, because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so.


• In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.
  
  We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared.


• And tonight, we have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives.  Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.


• That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people.


• For four years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans.  Values are not just words. They're what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for. And it is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families.


• My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place. And that's why Republicans and Democrats must make this election a contest of big ideas, not small-minded attacks. This is our time to reject the kind of politics calculated to divide race from race, group from group, region from region. Maybe some just see us divided into red states and blue states, but I see us as one America – red, white, and blue. And when I am President, the government I lead will enlist people of talent, Republicans as well as Democrats, to find the common ground so that no one who has something to contribute will be left on the sidelines.


• I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.

Senator Kerry served in the Vietnam War.

We are family.

This is the most important election of our lifetimes.

Oh Captain Kerry, my captain.

We live in the United States of America.

Kerry's daughters did a better job talking him up than his wife.

Placard printers make a lot of money during political conventions. I had expected them for the keynote speakers. But it seemed like they had them for almost everyone. Even Al Sharpton. Not only that, but they had some to go along with the talking points of the speeches. And those vertically-oriented signs (better for the TV audience?). The "Boiler Room" was working overtime.

All said, a great speech. A little rushed, a bit long, and the sweating was unfortunate. But it was the best I've seen Kerry this campaign season. He did a good job of sharing his story and his values as well as making the case for why we should elect him to lead the country into the future.

I thought it a fitting conclusion to what I view as a preemptive convention. The Democrats took the supposed Republican ammunition ("strong leadership", war, veterans, the flag, faith, values, optimism) and pointed it right back at them. To use a football comparison, it's like a team who's read all week how they won't be able to move the ball on offense completing a long pass the first play from scrimmage to make a "take that" statement.

Three months to go and a lot can happen, but Kerry is off to a strong start.

BREAKING NEWS: John Kerry wins Democratic nomination!

I thought I recalled from prior conventions that the state delegations ordered themselves in the roll call so that the nominee's home state provided the votes necessary to clinch the nomination.

That didn't happen this time; Massachusetts went first, followed by North Carolina. Ohio was the magic state this time around. Guess the powers that be wanted to make a statement about the importance of the swing state.

Brilliant move; one which will undoubtedly sway thousands of Ohio undecideds this November. Ha.

Cable news has been covering Senator Kerry's arrival by boat in Boston for the last half hour or so. Boats go pretty slow after all. He was gabbing with his Vietnam buddies along the way in an event designed for TV camera. I think the only way they could have played it up more would be to arrive by rowboat--a la Washington crossing the Delaware.

Anyway, a somewhat amusing episode of campaign stagecraft.

Kerry better get working on his speech once this show ends. The convention has gone fairly well thus far, but it he's the clean-up batter and must deliver a game-winning hit.

"Now shove it."

Teresa Heinz Kerry
To newspaper reporter
25 July 2004

"Go f--- yourself."

Vice President Dick Cheney
To Senator Patrick Leahy (on Senate floor)
22 June 2004

Neither of these statements demonstrate civility. Funny how many people, including "journalists" are now playing up the former without mentioning the latter.

No need to be in Boston; C-Span has the filter-free action.

The themes of the afternoon appear to be "the future" (what Kerry's all about) and "diversity" (what the different-looking speakers are all about).

Chairman Terry McAuliffe attempted some sort of Spanish introduction for Governor Bill Richardson. I hope no Hispanics were watching. That butchering alone could cost the State of Florida.

OxBlog's David Adesnik notes this this Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial:

Those perched on the political fringes have found a home on the Internet. True believers of one stripe or another, no longer content to merely bore spouses and neighbors with their nutty opinions, can now spew forth on their own blogs, thereby playing a pivotal role in creating the polarized climate that dominates debate on nearly every national issue. There are blogs devoted to the right, blogs devoted to the left, blogs devoted to exposing the vast and devious media conspiracy, blogs defending and attacking, well, almost anything that mirrors one individual's view of the world.

If Hitler were alive today, he'd have his own blog.

The occasion for this wit? The launching of the newspaper's own blog, of course. Go figure.

Meanwhile, the folks at MSNBC have set up Hardblogger, the "mother of all weblogs."

To each their own, but don't many of these "big media" folks already have sufficient platform to reach the masses? Seems like some of this corporate-funded blogging is largely a marketing endeavor.

I'll be covering the Democratic National Convention like all the other cool bloggers.

The flight in was adventurous to say the least. All my luggage went to Tampa (fortunately I had the notebook computer with me). There was nearly a fight between the passengers and 30 Arab men who were loitering at the front of the plane. I exchanged knowing glances with the 83-year-old granny sitting next to me for two hours.

Once on the ground, it took me three hours to reach the hotel--where they had lost my reservations. So I slept in the park. I nearly had to fight my way into the free-speech stockade because I lost my admission ticket. While protesting, I got tired of a reporter from www.demslovebinladen.com asking me questions, so I told him to "shove it."

While standing in line to use the restroom I dropped my extra battery, so blogging will be limited to 20 minutes per day. But hey, isn't it great to blog about all these news stories on convention blogging?

Ha.

Okay, so I'm not really in Boston, and I'll be covering the convention from the TV, not the Fleet Center. But we playing along at home can still have some fun, right?

Yesterday I read an account of the Tour de France's legendary L'Alpe d'Huez ascent. So in a moment of insanity inspiration, I decided to simulate the experience in what I'll call the L'Tellico d'Cherohala.

I loaded up the bicycle, drove down to Tellico Plains, TN, and cycled up the Cherohala Skyway to the North Carolina state line.

I'd say my experience yesterday is comparable to that of the Tour's riders. Except the only record I set is measured in pain. And rather than a million fans, I only had the occasional pickup truck or motorcycle whizzing by with the driver wondering, "What the hell is that guy doing here?" Oh, and I don't suspect Tour de France riders do any walking, either.

Anyway, I've got pictures of the excursion here.

The big news today is the release of the 9/11 Commission report. My sense (without having read a word of it) is that it sacrifices some of the real story in order not to ruffle too many feathers and be viewed as "partisan." After all, the commission does consist of fomer government insiders.

I was watching some of the press conference earlier. Commission chair Kean offered an interesting factoid. He said that looking back to what the two candidates said during the 2000 campaign, the commission could find only one reference to terrorism. What makes that even more remarkable is that we had the Cole bombing in October. So yes, as the politicians say, terrorism was obviously an top priority before 9/11. And the press was asleep to. Or rather they were out hunting for Chandra Levy.

Kucinich endorses Kerry.

Apparently he was still in the race, though no one knew it.

. . . is up at Big Orange Michael.

President Bush yesterday:

Let me say one other thing about the 9/11. I told the commissioners right here in the Oval Office that had we had any inkling, whatsoever, that terrorists were about to attack our country, we would have moved heaven and Earth to protect America.

Yes, it would have been something if the president had some clue that terrorists were about to strike the United States. Imagine how things might have been different had the president received some warning like this:

"Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"

Oh wait, he actually did. But I guess he was too busy moving brush at the ranch at the time to move any "heaven and Earth." Or do anything whatsoever.

You'd think the White House journalists might grow weary of this sometime, but I suppose its all part of the game now. Besides, the news channels were all worked up tonight about the "stunning," "chilling" video which offers the shocking revelation that 9/11 hijackers did indeed make it through the airport security checkpoints and onto the planes. I guess old stories magically become "news" if there's matching video.

You may be aware of BugMeNot.com, a website which allows you to bypass compulsory registration at many free websites.

I just noticed that Mozilla has a plug-in based on the same concept. I'll have to try it out.

Resolve! Not giving in to terrorists!

I guess that kind of chatter is easy to offer when you're a politician who isn't getting shot at:

After more than a year of fighting, U.S. troops have stopped patrolling large swaths of Iraq's restive Anbar province, according to the top American military intelligence officer in the area.

Most U.S. Army officers interviewed this week said the patrols in and around the province's capital, Ramadi - home to many Iraqi military and intelligence officers under Saddam Hussein - have stopped largely because the soldiers and commanders there were tired of being shot at by insurgents who've refused to back down under heavy American military pressure.
. . .
After losing dozens of men to a "voiceless, faceless mass of people" with no clear leadership or political aim other than killing American soldiers, the U.S. military has had to re-evaluate the situation, said Army Maj. Thomas Neemeyer, the head American intelligence officer for the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, the main military force in the Ramadi area and from there to Fallujah.
. . .
In the wreckage of the security situation, Neemeyer said, U.S. officials have all but given up on plans to install a democratic government in the city, and are hoping instead that Islamic extremists and other insurgent groups don't overrun the province in the same way that they've seized the region's most infamous town, Fallujah.

Seems like that's pretty much our game plan in all of Iraq: hoping things don't all fall apart. At least not until November 3.

Just received one of the Nigerian scam e-mails (yes, I'm behind the times). I guess there must still be some Internet un-savvy people who fall for this kind of thing. But you'd think the frauds behind this would mix things up to try to catch a few more people off guard. You know like changing the country and plot to something fewer people have been tipped off on.

Nope. No signs of our armed forces being stretched too thin here:

Seven years ago, Lexington psychiatrist Charles Ham retired from the Army.

Or at least he thought so.

Then, the other day, he got a call telling him to report to Fort Jackson for a physical examination.

Ham, who wore a U.S. Army uniform for 41 years, knew 5,600 veterans who recently had left the service were being called up. But he never thought he would be on the list.

"You know, I'm 67 years old. Why do you need me?" Ham asked.

The caller explained the Army needed psychiatrists to counsel troops.

I'm glad we've had almost four years to repair the military Clinton decimated.

Authorities in Texas have allowed a suspicious shutterbug slip thorugh the net:

Law enforcement officials said on Monday they are looking for a man seen taking pictures of two refineries in Texas City, Texas.
. . .
The man, described as white with dark hair, was seen taking pictures outside the refineries, all located on the same highway, at about 5 p.m. CDT on Saturday, said Bruce Clawson, emergency management and homeland security director for Texas City.

While it is not illegal to take pictures of a refinery from a highway or street, officials would like to talk to the man to find out his reason for taking the photographs.

And lest you have any questions concerning this operative's culpability, this ought to quash all doubt:

The man was seen driving a white van.

Bingo.

On the other hand, police in New York seem to be more on their game.

Oy. Do pictures I took at the Fort Loudoun dam make me a fugitive?

Going to downtown Boston soon? Don't forget to smile for the cameras:

An unprecedented number of video cameras will be trained on Boston during the Democratic National Convention, with Boston police installing some 30 cameras near the FleetCenter, the Coast Guard using infrared devices and night-vision cameras in the harbor, and dozens of pieces of surveillance equipment mounted on downtown buildings to monitor crowds for terrorists, unruly demonstrators, and ordinary street crime.

For the first time, 75 high-tech video cameras . . . will be linked into a surveillance network to monitor the Central Artery, City Hall Plaza, the FleetCenter, and other sensitive sites.

Of course the authorities need this spyware to deal with any incidents that may arise during the convention. That's why the video feeds are being piped to a central facility . . . in Washington D.C.?

Their feeds from cameras mounted on various downtown buildings will be piped to monitoring stations in the Boston area and in Washington, D.C., and officials will be able to zoom in from their work stations to gather details of facial descriptions or read license plates.

This is a great opportunity for Senator Kerry to at least make a token statement against the exponential growth of government intrusion. But thanks to the media-fueled "war on terror" hype we rarely hear such statements from politicians, regardless of how ineffectual a measure actually is preventing terrorism. Fortunately, not everyone is so constrained:

''What this demonstrates is that '1984' is now technologically possible," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Technology and Liberty Program, referring to George Orwell's vision of an all-seeing totalitarian state. ''This is really a situation where we are really being asked to blindly trust the government. There is no oversight of this. There are no safeguards."

Good point. Who is watching the watchers here? How about some publicly-accessible surveillance cameras in the surveillance rooms?

Hey, I didn't realize Bill Clinton had assumed the presidency again:

The Los Alamos National Laboratory, a key U.S. center for nuclear weapons research, has suspended virtually all its operations after an intern sustained a serious eye injury while working with a laser, a spokesman said on Saturday.

The Friday accident, capping a series of embarrassing security and safety lapses for the lab, led new director Peter Nanos to determine that a lab-wide assessment of all operations was needed, spokesman Jim Fallin said. Nanos on Thursday had suspended all classified research.

I'm sure Clinton and the University of California are in cahoots with this somehow. But the show will go on. After all, we've got the "war on terror":

"We are not going to hamper national security needs," said Fallin. "We understand that the nation is at war."

Uh, how is it that we need the work of a nuclear research lab to fight shadowy warriors welding box cutters and suicide bombs? Are we going to nuke Fallujah?

We've found another leader for the ages:

I have chosen to support his President because, for my countrymen, President Bush is our Lincoln. He has freed our people from oppression, slavery and injustice. Therefore, I thought the NAACP would be in favor of our country's actions.

Notice the parallels: Both men chose to defend those who had no rights and very few freedoms. Both men took a highly unpopular stand, regardless of public opinion, in the midst of their first term, not because it was politically expedient, but because it was right. Both men extended the rights of education, equality and the freedom of speech and vote to a people who had lived under oppression for years. In the South, slave owners would whip, maim and kill those slaves who disobeyed them. Saddam Hussein gassed his own people, the Shi'a in the southern part of Iraq.

Neither man initiated any war. President Lincoln did not take action until the provisional Confederate army captured Fort Sumpter, three months after his inauguration. President Bush responded to the war brought to our shores only after the bombing of 9/11, eight months after his inauguration. Both men fully understood that taking such action endangered the chance they had for a second term. Both still acted, because it was the right thing to do.

When people talk about how Americans don't know history these days, I have to agree. George W. Bush is like Abraham Lincoln as president the way I am to Lance Armstrong in bicycling.

It took outside pressure, but this is a good move by the Bush administration:

The State Department announced that $18 million in military and economic aid to Uzbekistan, a Muslim country in Central Asia, would be suspended because of its failure to carry out a promised political liberalization or improve its human rights record. Driven in part by congressional pressure, the cutoff should send a message to Uzbekistan's authoritarian president, Islam Karimov, as well as several of his neighbors in a region where oil, gas and military bases have recently become important: The old formula for partnership with Washington may no longer work.

Nice that we aren't completely ignoring human rights abusers. But it remains to be seen how committed we are to this cause over the long term.

I think if I had this I'd be able to generate some decent site traffic:

A rough cut of a new album by U2 has gone missing from a photo shoot - prompting fears it may be posted on the internet months before its release.
. . .
The rough cut does not have any great financial value but could be published on the internet in advance of the official release date, he said.

I would think the potential Internet release clearly does have financial value to the band, and that's why they went to the police.

Anyway, yes, I resisted the urge to throw in the obligatory "Still Haven't Found" title.

Well, sort of. A radical judicial activist dropped trespassing charges against a couple who dared to express a political opinion on public land:

A Texas couple is headed home after proving Americans have the right to say what they want, when they want, even during a Presidential visit. Charleston Municipal Court Judge Carol Bloom dismissed the trespassing charges against Jeff and Nicole Rank Thursday morning.

The couple was charged after wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to the President's 4th of July address at the state capitol. The Rank's lawyer, Harvey Peyton, says the charges were dismissed as a matter of jurisdiction. "Municipalities only have the authority to enforce, in their courts, violations of the municipal code. This citation was a general charge of trespass but the city of Charleston does not have an ordinance that prohibits trespass other than on city property or 'the property of another,' and that does not apply to the common grounds of the state house which, of course, is owned by everybody."

This doesn't appear to be a First Amendment victory. But the import of this is that if lawbreakers continue to express themselves outside the friendly confines of government-sanctioned free-speech zones, the zones will soon lose their air of privilege.

UPDATE: The Daily Show had a segment on free-speech zones last night. Again a fake news program seems to have a better beat on the issues that the "real" news programs. It also had good commentary on "conventional wisdom"--"Talking points: they're true, because they're said alot."

I took my camera on a bike ride yesterday evening. I rode the ride currently listed as the "Anchor Park" route here. The route starts in Anchor Park (Farragut), skirts Fort Loudoun Lake, goes past Fort Loudoun dam, into Lenoir City, and back. Distance: 24 miles.

You can't beat a good bike ride on a warm summer evening.

The pictures are posted in the photo gallery.

Our national security faces a new threat, now that the Federal Marriage Amendment has been voted down:

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. ".....Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

So we had four days over this, for what?

In the end, Frist and White House strategist Karl Rove couldn't decide whether they really wanted to pass the measure or merely have a vote they could campaign on. The result is that they got neither.

Rather than seek an up-or-down vote on a toughly worded version of the amendment, Frist and his allies (led by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania) allowed discussion of a second, milder one. But since that one (which would leave latitude to the states) might actually pass, Democrats opted to mount a filibuster. As a result, the central (and only) vote turned out to be on a motion to shut off debate�a harder vote to use in an attack TV ad.

But I'm sure Congress didn't have much other business to take care of, so this was worth it.

Score another one for the terrorists liberal Democrats. Thanks to the media hype and our nation's political leaders, we now live in an environment where everything is referred to in terms of terrorism.

Via SayUncle.

There's a legal adage that goes something like this:

If the law is on your side, pound the law.

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.

If neither is on your side, pound the podium.

As The Daily Show pointed out last night, that's what Bush seems to have resorted to . . . literally. Take a look at these excerpts from his speech Monday at Oak Ridge:

America is safer because of your service at Oak Ridge.
. . .
Today, because we acted to liberate Afghanistan, a threat has been removed, and the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because we're working with the Pakistani leaders, Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, and the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because Saudi Arabia has seen the danger and has joined the war on terror, the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we're helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because the Libyan government saw the seriousness of the civilized world, and correctly judged its own interests, the American people are safer.
. . .
We have ended one of the most dangerous sources of proliferation in the world, and the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because America has acted, and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.

We might be safer these days, or maybe we aren't. It's hard to tell. So what is the criteria the president is using to reassure us that we are safer? The number of times he can repeat himself? Perhaps he thinks that by pounding the podium enough times he will discourage al Qaeda and they will opt not to attempt any more terrorist attacks.

See, that's one of the major problems with this whole "war on terror." Since there aren't many meaningful gages with which we can measure the government's performance, officials can make all sorts of claims, issue warnings, change color codes, and the public won't know the difference. We've ratcheted trust in government to a higher plane.

Kevin Drum makes a great point here regarding the pre-war intelligence problems in Iraq: they had become irrelevant by the time Bush launched the invasion. Once the UN weapons inspectors went in, the faulty intelligence became a moot point because we could verify it directly:

The fact is that by March 2003 we didn't have to rely on CIA estimates or on the estimates of any other intelligence agency. We had been on the ground in Iraq for months and there was nothing there. There was nothing there and we knew it.

Did the CIA screw up? Probably. Did it matter? No. George Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003 not because he was convinced Iraq had WMD, but because he was becoming scared that Iraq didn't have WMD and that further inspections would prove it beyond any doubt. Facts on the ground have never been allowed to interfere with George Bush's worldview, and he wasn't about to take the chance that they might interfere with his war.

I'm not sure that Bush knew the weapons weren't there, but it's pretty clear that he didn't care whether they were or not. If he did, he would have invested a lot more into the UN inspections, rather than treating them as a distraction.

Ernie The Attorney quotes guitarist Chris Cortez, who offers a little perspective on life:

My general philosophy is one where we embrace things that bring us together and reject what separates us. Race and religion, gay or straight, republican or democrat, nationalism. These are examples of differences. In the overall scheme of our evolution, it's what we have in common that moves us forward. The differences become scapegoats for the little minds who need to blame someone for their own failures.

Okay, I don't exactly come to this with clean hands. But I like to think that my criticisms of politicians center on incompetence and partisan craziness, and that I don't just spew out the "X group is bringing on the end of civilization," like you hear on radio and elsewhere these days.

Anyway, we now return to regular programing.

I was going to comment on this matter of terrorism potentially delaying the federal elections, but jeff-perado (stutz [at] unlv.nevada.edu) sums up the major issues for me:

I certainly hope that Republicans out there are paying close attention to this latest development. Because it is not only especially unnerving, but it borders on the absurd as well. This is of importance to Republicans because how can they trust the people in charge if they are making such ridiculous statements.

The question then, is what makes these allegations so preposterous? First there is the idea implicit on the statement that the elections could be put off due to a terrorist attack. What that says, if reworded, is that these people in homeland security and the election assistance commission will disrupt the democratic process IN RESPONSE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK. The reason they give as motivation for planning for this is that TERRORISTS WANT TO DISRUPT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS!!! So, if they disrupt our democratic process in response to terrorism, then the terrorists will GET EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT courtesy of Bush and his inept administration. That is the zenith of absurd rationalization.

Then there is the next issue. What form of terrorist attack could cause such a national disruption as to affect the entire national election process? I cannot answer that one, no one can. It could disrupt one or two cities (ala 9/11) but not the whole nation. So must all election sites be closed? I would have to answer no. The affected areas would most likely have to delay elections, but those results could be tallied and included at a later date. This implies that the final results could possibly be delayed, but not the actual democratic right to vote in the first place. There has never been a time in the entire history of this great country when national elections were postponed. Not during the two world wars, not the Civil War, not during the Cuban missile crisis. Never. There certainly is no provision in our U.S. Constitution for forgoing elections in favor of maintaining the status quo in government officials. If this is done this November, not only will it be unconstitutional, but it will amount to nothing short of a coup by Bush and Co. Even if you are Republican, do you really want this country to forgo democracy in favor of a self-imposed dictatorship? Our very Declaration of Independence and Constitution not only forbids such actions, it states that it becomes the sworn duty of Americans to rise up and overthrow the government.

Now I'm not prognosticating here about the future of democracy, and a counter-coup would not be the preferred course if the elections were just put
off a matter of days or a week or two. This would only result from Bush declaring an end to elections for the foreseeable future. Now as a realist, I
do NOT think even Bush in his all-consuming zeal to remain president would resort to this. Martial law and dictatorship are for countries like Iraq, not for the uber-moral and supremely democratic United States.

Okay, returning to reality, there is not a rational explanation for even delaying national elections even one day. As evidence of this, I give you Bush's own words. He told New Yorkers (and all of America for that matter) to "go about your daily lives, buying stuff, spending money, and living your usual lives. If you let this [9/11] disrupt your lives, then the terrorists win." This was his response to the attacks. Based on this statement, then America must go about its normal lives once again if another attack occurs on or near the elections of 02 November -- and vote.

The final point I wish to make is the least important, but certainly one worth keeping an eye on, if you treasure your freedom and your country. This is that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission is heading up by a Baptist minister. Bush appointed the man to the job. So, I have to wonder what qualifications he has to hold such an important job as ensuring democracy and fairness in our elections. I will not delve into a deep theological discussion of this matter. Simply, I will say that it seems a bit odd that Bush has been pushing for campaign assistance from churches, and claims his strongest base is that of religious fundamentalists and large corporate types. Now the person in charge of fairness in national elections is handed over to a fundamentalist Christian who fought to have a middle-class neighborhood plowed under so it could be used by a large corporation for bidnez'. If you like the idea of this country's democratic process being hijacked by Bush's cronies who have an agenda of destroying freedom and liberty, and desire nothing less than the grab for all the power and wealth for their personal class then welcome George Orwell's vision with open arms. As I see no less than that coming if we allow ourselves to fall victim to this level of personal control.

I do think some contingency plans should be made for worst case scenarios. For instance, if there there is another 9/11-type attack on Election Day (or its eve), then I don't think it's practical to have voting in that area. But the drastic step of canceling an election should be limited to the vicinity immediately surrounding disruption (e.g., New York City). There's no need to halt voting elsewhere; such a move is likely unlawful and begs for mischief.

President Bush
July 14, 2003:

I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence.

As it turns out, Ann Richards' assessment is more accurate:

[F]ormer Texas governor Ann Richards got things going early. She joked that with "one if by land" and "two if by sea," Paul Revere & Co. had better information about the impending war with the Brits than the current administration did before going into Iraq.

Now, after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence releases a blistering report, Bush sings a different tune:

I look forward to working with members of Congress to put out reforms that will work. A couple of ideas that I think make sense: One, we need to bolster human intelligence. In other words, one of the best ways to figure out what the enemy is thinking is to get to know the enemy firsthand, I guess is the best way to put it -- is to have as much human intelligence as possible. Good quality intelligence and enough human intelligence agents, assets out there so that we can cover the globe.

Secondly, one of the key ingredients is to use our technologies to listen and look better. And so we've got to always make sure our intelligence agencies are on the cutting edge of change. And thirdly, there are quite a few intelligence-gathering agencies within Washington, and there needs to be better coordination between the agencies.

We are only now learning how questionable and unreliable some of the sources for the pre-war WMD claims were. But didn't Bush, at the time he was talking of mushroom clouds, have an opportunity to press the CIA and the Pentagon's own special intelligence outfit on the reliability of the sources? He could have said: "Going to war is such a momentous decision. I want to make absolutely sure that the sources for these are rock solid."

Knowing what we know about Bush's intellectual curiosity, and his desire to go after Iraq dating back to the start of his administration, do you believe he viewed the "darn good" intelligence with an adequate degree of skepticism?

I don't.

I chuckled over the way this AP story is worded. Maybe President Bush should incorporate arson into his economic growth package:

"Fires create jobs for rural Alaskans"

Good news: fires = paychecks:

It's a little known silver lining to the fires that have burned about 2 million acres in Alaska this year - they're also putting paychecks in the pockets of hundreds of Alaskans.

This past week, close to 1,700 people were playing some role in battling eight major blazes raging throughout Alaska, said Brett Ricker, a spokeswoman for the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center at Fort Wainwright.
. . .
"This is a good opportunity for us right now," said Roberta Thomas, who's working in a warehouse supply unit. "There are limited jobs available, so when fire season comes around it's a good opportunity for men and women."

Alas. There is a slight downside to the fires. You know, the fact that they burn things:

Fort Yukon residents worry the fires could endanger relatives, damage remote cabins where boats, snowmobiles and hunting and fishing gear are stored, and affect wild game they depend on to feed their families.

This is similar to the often stated view that war is "good" for the economy. Of course it's not the war that helps the economy--the markets could find a far more productive use of capital than to blow things up. It's the government spending that primes the economy. But people often fail to recognize that difference.

I watched the Kerry/Edwards Interview on 60 Minutes last night. I might comment on policy or something significant like that. But one of the things that struck me about the interview [not in the transcript] is when they showed John and Teresa Heinz Kerry not knowing what to do with their hands. Kind of weird to see given how long the two have been in the public spotlight now.

Things are getting so bad the president now travels in secret to his ticketed events:

Security will be tight this morning in anticipation of President Bush's arrival in East Tennessee to visit the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

It's so tight, in fact, that no one involved in the preparations Sunday would utter so much as a word about event details.
. . .
Lack of information about the president's visit has upset many dissenters who normally show up at Bush visits to protest the administration's policies.

Bush's administration has differed from past presidencies in that protesters are forced under threat of arrest into "First Amendment zones" that are placed well away from where the president is expected to be.

But with no one from the White House letting the public know in advance where the zones in Oak Ridge will be - or if protests of any kind will even be permitted - some potential protesters said they weren't going to show up for what seemed to be the certainty of jail time.
. . .
"They put us where no one can see us, and they let the Bush supporters up front. No one seems to know where the zones are, and that's the whole point. It's hard to organize demonstrations when you can't even tell anyone where to go, and if they don't know where to go, they're going to get arrested.

"It's ironic that we have a president claiming to be pushing democracy in Iraq while here in Tennessee the First Amendment only applies to a few hundred square feet."

Resonance will remain a free speech bubble during Bush's visit.

Several bloggers are headed to the Democratic National Convention.

Don't get me wrong here: if I had the opportunity (and the money), I'd be inclined to go myself. I'm sure it would be quite interesting. But unless these bloggers are willing to give the scoop on inside stuff (and I'm not inclined to believe they are since some of it is negative) is their "coverage" likely to offer much in the way of news? The TV networks are offering minimal coverage of the conventions, in part, because they have largely become staged infomercials. And while they are fun for political junkies, I'm not sure how much "newsworthy" output bloggers will add to the coverage.

I could be wrong though. We'll see.

UPDATE: Jay Rosen has a lengthy counterpoint arguing that the old regimes in convention reporting and commentary have contributed to their downfall and bloggers can bring rewneal. I think this overstates the current impact of blogging, but it's an interesting read.

Yet another Republican group, fearful of Bush's chances straight up against Kerry, is working to get Ralph Nader on the Michigan ballot.

Too bad there's not a way to require ballot petition signers to vote for Nader in November.

UPDATE: More:

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1,000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.
. . .
But the financial records show that $23,000 in checks of $1,000 or more have come from loyal Republicans. Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Najid I. Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush's 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150,000 to GOP causes since 2000 alone.

Funny how all these Republicans are giving to Nader, since he's going to draw from both Democratic and Republican voters, right?

Wired News has a piece on bloggers suffering from burnout.

Yes, it can be draining posting trivial and mediocre musings day after day. I find the best way to deal with that is just take a break from posting.

Oh, if you read to the end of the above column you'll discover that not everyone likes Glenn Reynolds. Shocking, I know.

So what can we expect during the Democratic National Convention at the end of the month?

Well, there will be the suspense of the nomination process as delegate votes are tallied and we find out who the nominee will be. There will be the rhetorical sops thrown out to the usual constituent groups (teachers, unions, et al.). There will be speeches by President Clinton and other Democratic leaders raving about the strong [current buzzword] Democratic ticket. There will be an emotional acceptance speech by the mysterious nominee. And, if certain Bush administration officials have their way, we might see the capture of an al Qaeda leader, such as Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri:

But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs [high-value targets] by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed TNR that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says [National Security Council spokesman] Sean McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

It's nice to see that the Bush administration is making diplomatic efforts to get at al Qaeda, but why the deadlines now? What's the primary motive evidenced here? Disrupting terrorism? Or winning reelection?

Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake.

That's a pretty cynical view of things. But after all we've seen the past three years, can one reasonably view it any other way?

What does unaccomplished mean?

As Len notes, it must depend on who you are describing, for some people's standards vary significantly.

Eugene Volokh makes a pretty good point in countering the argument that flag burning is not "speech", thus protected by the First Amendment: Does Congress have the authority to ban flag waving (e.g., the Confederate flag)? Most people would say no. Why? Because flag waving is a symbolic expression--it's a form of speech.

From a constitutional standpoint, what's the difference between flag waving and flag burning?

This is the 1,000th post I've made since Resonance switched to Movable Type on this domain.

It took me a little extra time to mark this milestone because my hosting company suspended the account earlier today due to "high server loads." I'm not sure exactly what caused this, but it may be related to the several hundred spam comments which were dumped here overnight.

I guess the spammers wanted to join the celebration.

That was an odd decision/announcement process, but in the end it's all good. Senator Kerry has made a great decision in selecting Senator Edwards as his running mate. Some of you may recall that last winter I supported Edwards to head the top of the ticket, so naturally I think he will be an asset as the number two guy.

Edwards will bring enthusiasm and energy to the campaign, sharpen its message, and enhance the ticket's chances in blue collar/Southern areas (e.g., Ohio, Louisiana).

If you've got some extra change, now would be a good time to reward good behavior. America deserves a competent president.

UPDATE: I've had a day now to think about this ticket seems even better. One only need watch Kerry's announcement to see why he needs someone like Edwards. Let's be frank; Kerry's not the most engaging speaker. And in this sound byte age a ticket needs someone who can appeal to voters who are not particularly interested in politics.

It was interesting following coverage of the decision throughout the day. On TV, once the initial news story was covered, the TV talking heads needed something to say. So, in predictable fashion, they resorted to the Republican press releases. Edwards is a wealthy trial lawyer! Green and inexperienced! A second choice! Two of the most "liberal" members in the senate!

I tuned into WGOP radio yesterday afternoon. Usually, when I do so it's only for a few minutes. But this time I went for an extended play. It was interesting trying to follow Rush's logic as he aimlessly wondered trying to disparage the ticket: vice president doesn't matter; the choice was politically driven (disregard point one, I guess), Kerry is just trying to mask an "abortion flip", Kerry is desperate, and on and on. A lot of it was standard GOP boilerplate, but Rush did add his own "insights," such as the usual Clinton Hillarity analysis. And then there was this nugget:

So what's the deal? It's another typical Kerry flip-flop, and I'll tell you what: the reason I'm not making that big a deal about Edwards today is because I don't believe that it's over. You know, the New York Post today, they got a tip last night -- and they felt comfortable with it, and the cover of the New York Post says it's Gephardt and it still could be. Kerry could flip-flop tonight and name Gephardt tomorrow. So until this is actually done and we see 'em together...

Huh? Is this guy thinking clearly? Are his medical issues resolved? At least he has the NY Post to feed his delusions.

USA Today has conducted polling which may help explain why the GOP attack machine is in high gear. Sixty-four percent of surveyed registered voters view Edwards as an excellent or good choice. Sixty-four percent say this move reflects favorably on Kerry's decision making ability.

As far as favorability ratings go, 54% view Edwards favorably, while only 43% view Cheney favorably.

Given Cheney's low numbers, the blogger known as Instapundit the following forecast:

(One prediction of mine: Bush will drop Cheney from the ticket, and replace him with someone more exciting, and with less baggage -- think John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Colin Powell, or, my favorite, Condi Rice.

I agree Bush could find a more politically attractive running mate. But unless Cheney is in legal trouble, I don't see that happening. Bush has shown he won't get rid of anyone unless they are unloyal. And Cheney is virtually a co-president, calling shots behind the scenes. No way Bush goes without him.

Earlier today C-Span2 rebroadcast a Sam Waterston reenactment of Abraham Lincoln's 1860 Cooper Union address. The anti-slavery speech, delivered 27 February 1860 at the Great Hall of Cooper Union in New York City, is claimed to have propelled Lincoln to the presidency that year.

At the end of the performance, Waterston said it had been planned as an "experiment" and wanted feedback? Why? To see how a modern audience could handle a political speech of yore. Back in that day political speeches were a form of entertainment. Lincoln's speech alone lasted over 1 1/2 hours, in an evening that included at least three other speakers.

Quite a contrast from today. Can you imagine a modern presidential candidate giving a 1 1/2 hour speech? And a TV network covering it? Heck, the TV networks barely devote that much to the political conventions anymore. We just don't have the attention span as people used to have.

If this idea gets any traction, we'll soon see what Iraqi sovereignty really means:

Iraq's prime minister, less than a week after taking power, may offer amnesty to insurgents and could extend it to those who killed American troops in an apparent bid to lure Saddam Hussein loyalists from their campaign of violence.

A spokesman for Iyad Allawi went as far as to suggest attacks on U.S. troops over the past year were legitimate acts of resistance -- a sign of the new government's desire to distance itself from the 14-month U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

"If he (a guerrilla) was in opposition against the Americans, that will be justified because it was an occupation force," the spokesman, Georges Sada, said Saturday. "We will give them freedom."

I don't think this would go over very well with many of those who have been touting Iraqi freedom.

What is the purpose of a church?

If you're a traditionally-minded person, you might answer that a church is a place where people of like-minded religious beliefs gather to worship, fellowship, and learn about God.

But if you're part of Bush/Cheney America, the church has a more important function: it's a fundamental building block in your political empire.

Take a look at this Bush/Cheney '04 campaign instruction sheet, obtained by the Washington Post. It outlines the "duties" of good Christian campaign coordinators. Some highlights:

• Send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 Headquarters or give to a BC04 Field Rep.


• Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush.


• Recruit 5 people in your church to help with the voter registration project.


• Talk to your Pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and Voter Registration Drive.


• Begin to organize a voter registration drive at your church.


• Have a coffee/pot luck dinner/ "Party for the President" with church members -- July 15th, 2004.


• Talk to your Church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush/Cheney '04.


• Receive a list from you [sic] County Chair of all non-registered church members and Pro-Bush Conservatives.


• All non-registered church members must be registered to vote.


• Distribute Voter guides in your church.


• Get-out-the-vote program in your church-place reminder bulletin about all Christian citizens needing to vote in Sunday program or on a board near the church entrance.

This document illustrates the extent to which the Bush administration/campaign is working to merge politics with religion. It's one thing to make friendly campaign overtures to religious voters. But this is a clear effort to marshal institutional churches in support of Bush/Cheney.

I don't think there's ever been a president who has so overtly worked to eradicate the separation between church and state. And whether you agree with that position or not (I don't), it's an issue which deserves more public attention.

Here's some ironic timing. On the same day that President Bush commemorates the 40th Anniversary of Civil Rights Act, a Florida court has to force the state to release the names of "suspected felons" it is purging from the eligible voter rolls.

Recall that in 2000, the sounds-like felon name trick was used to remove many minority (i.e., Democratic) people from the voter list.

Fourty years hasn't changed everything.

The "Bush boom" finally brings jobs to the working class . . . with no benefits:

The economy started creating jobs again last year, but the number of working-age adults who went without health insurance for more than a year jumped sharply, the government reported Wednesday.

An additional 2.6 million people ages 18 to 64 were uninsured for more than a year, raising the total to 24.5 million, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
. . .
The increase in the number of long-term uninsured, which Robin A. Cohen of the statistics center called "quite a significant jump," underscored the chronic nature of the problem and the decreasing likelihood that a job guaranteed access to health insurance, analysts said.

Unsurprisingly, a leading contributor to the lack of coverage is cost:

Kate Sullivan Hare, executive director of health policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said rising healthcare costs were making it more difficult for employers of all sizes to offer coverage to workers. As businesses that still offer health insurance pass on more of the costs to employees, greater numbers of workers are deciding that the coverage is not worth the cost, she said.

Health insurance premiums that employed Americans pay for family coverage have increased by almost 50% over the last three years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and voters questioned in public opinion polls consistently cited rising healthcare costs and worries about losing health coverage among their top concerns.

But there is a bright economic spot here. Despite the decline in customers, there's no need to shed tears for the health insurance industry. They're doing quite well, thank you very much:

By the end of 2000, revenues were rising faster than expenses and operating margins swung into the black, according to Sanford Bernstein, a Wall Street research firm. By 2003 they had reached 5.1%, possibly an all-time high. That may sound low, but health insurers have huge operating leverage. They do not have to finance inventory. Quite the opposite, in fact: they receive premiums up front and pay out later. Although capital demands in health care are enormous, they are mostly the responsibility of hospitals and labs, not health insurers, whose investments are limited to the technology needed to accept or reject claims. Unlike life and property-and-casualty insurers, health-care insurers have no long-lasting liabilities. Their obligations usually last no more than one year. As a result, margins in the mid-single digits can produce returns on equity in the mid-teens or higher.

Accordingly, insurance shareholders and executives have been handsomely rewarded:

Shares of health insurers bottomed in early 2000�as it happened, just when tech stocks reached their peak. Since then, the prices of many have quadrupled. And if shareholders have done well, executives have been more than amply rewarded, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert. Presumably, boards judged that the industry-wide resurgence was the product of their companies' individual strokes of genius. William McGuire, head of UnitedHealth Group of Minnesota, earned $30m in pay in 2003 and exercised $84m in stock options from earlier years. This left him with options worth $840m at the company's current share price. Mr McGuire's number two, Stephen Hemsely, earned $13.7m in compensation and holds options worth $350m. John Rowe, the head of Aetna, earned $16m, Larry Glasscock of Anthem $51m and Leonard Schaeffer of WellPoint $27m.

So, in short, working class people are being hosed, while the upper-tier folks are prospering.

Looks like the Bush economic plan is in full effect.

You can tell a nation is well on its way to sovereignty when it has a third country censoring the televised broadcast of its big trials.

NBC's Lisa Myers had a piece yesterday on allegations of waste by former Halliburton employees. Some highlights:

$50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case

$1 million a month to clean clothes � or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry

A labor foreman paid $82,000 a year with no employees to supervise

Halliburton employees living in 5-star hotels

When questioned about this matter, Halliburton offered what's become a standard response these days: those who are critical of the war effort must be on the side of the terrorists:

The company declined an interview but suggests in an e-mail to NBC News that critics are politically motivated: "When Halliburton succeeds, Iraq progresses. Sadly, a few people don't want either of those results."

Right.

This is more accurate: When Halliburton rips taxpayers off, America loses. Sadly, most people don't seem to care.