CQ Politics:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admitted Thursday that she had underestimated the willingness of Republicans to stand behind President Bush’s Iraq policy despite the drubbing the GOP took in the polls in 2006.
“The assumption I made was that the Republicans would soon see the light,” she said. Instead, the minority stuck to the president’s war policy in the face of unrelenting pressure from congressional Democrats and powerful lobbying campaigns by anti-war groups.
. . .
“That was a revelation to me, because I felt the American peoples’ voices were so strong and still are in this
regard that I hoped that with some compromise and reaching out there might be some change in direction,” Pelosi said. “But they are sticking with the president on this.”

One can only assume that Speaker Pelosi was surprised by the Republican behavior because it’s completely at odds with that of her own caucus, which seemingly buckles at the first hint that a policy position may be unpopular with 40% of the public.
You’d think that on issues (like Iraq) that are supposedly important to Congressional Democrats, they’d learn a few lessons from the GOP minority and try sticking it out on a position. But apparently that’s too difficult to follow.

In a post lamenting another Democratic cave-in, Glenn Greenwald notes this unusual act of courage:

To be fair, the Democratic-led House was able to pass an extremely important bipartisan resolution yesterday — by a vote of 372-9 — which “recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world”; proclaims that Christmas is “a holiday of great significance to Americans”; decrees that “Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization”; explains that “on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ”; and “expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.”
So it’s important to temper the criticisms of the Congress with an acknowledgment and appreciation for these brave and important achievements — one of the bravest and most consequential acts of Congress since they solemnly banded together to condemn MoveOn.org’s newspaper advertisement.

And some people complain about us having a do-nothing Congress.
Actually, the House did step up today by voting to ban waterboarding. With a double dose of protection, perhaps Santa won’t need to worry about being tortured this year.

Compare these two answers Mayor Rudy Giuliani (9/11) gave Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
Regarding the duration of United States’ occupation of Iraq:

MR. RUSSERT: Your best estimate as a potential commander in chief, how long will U.S. troops be in Iraq?
MR. GIULIANI: For as long as necessarily to get the strategic objective achieved. I mean, we, we, we have a strategic objective in Iraq, and sometimes we lose sight of that in light of all the politics that are surrounding it. Our strategic objective in Iraq is an Iraq that’s stable and an Iraq that will act as an ally of the United States in the ongoing Islamic terrorist effort war against us.
. . .
Everything that I can see, information that I can get, tells me that our military, including General Petraeus, thinks that there’s still a chance we can achieve that objective. As long as there’s still a chance that we can achieve that objective, we should support it, Democrats and Republicans.
. . .
MR. RUSSERT: …as of now you’re, you’re prepared to spending more–several more years if necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: For now–I, I don’t think you put it–when has any country ever won a war with great pressure for time limits placed on the military while you are engaged in that war? I think there’s been a counterproductive thing done here that–if we had gone into any war with, you know, “You’ve got a year to do this, you got two years to do this, otherwise we’re going to give the enemy a timetable of our retreat,” you almost can’t succeed in that war. The enemy even figures out you can’t succeed, and they outlast you.

Regarding energy security:

MR. RUSSERT: Congress–the House has passed an energy bill which would mandate 35 miles per gallon per automobiles by the year 2020. Would you support that?
MR. GIULIANI: That isn’t the way I think it should be done. I think what we should be doing is developing the alternatives so it’s possible to accomplish that as opposed to just setting mandates and not having the support there for expansion of hybrid vehicles, expansion of biofuels, including ethanol. Expansion…
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re against increasing miles per gallon.
MR. GIULIANI: I would not do it that way, yes. I would do it with heavy expansion of hybrid vehicles, which move some of the sources over to electricity, then deal with clean coal, nuclear power, hybrid vehicles, expansion of hydroelectric power, more oil refineries, more domestic oil. All of those things are the things that we should be supporting. And we should be selling that to the, to the rest of the world, because if, if–no matter what we do, if China and India and these other countries that are developing don’t start to get control on this, it’s going to wipe out any good that we do. So the real emphasis here should be on developing energy independence and creating these alternative industries.

Contrast what Giuliani is asking of Americans. On one hand, if you are a member of the armed forces you can expect to continue risking life and limb near the oilfields in Iraq. Giuliani offers no finality to that war–we’re there as long as there’s “a chance” that things might turn out well.
On the other hand, if you don’t have connections to the military, then nothing is asked of you. Heaven forbid that we even require SUVs to have a few less horsepower or cubic feet of cargo space. That wouldn’t be good for business!
I suppose it’s just a coincidence that Giuliani’s law firm and campaign have strong financial ties to the energy industry. I can’t think of anyone who would benefit from a continued U.S. military presence in the Middle East + high American demand for oil, can you?
Meanwhile, “IEA exec says oil supply crunch looms.”

This is awesome:

From the film maker:

On Sunday we spent the entire day – from 5 AM ’til nearly 5 PM – riding bicycles around the city courtesy of the Ciclovia, a weekly event in which over 70 miles of city streets are closed to traffic where residents come out to walk, bike, run, skate, recreate, picnic, and talk with family, neighbors & strangers…it is simply one of the most moving experiences I have had in my entire life.
. . .
What immediately comes to mind when I think back to our trip were the ubiquitous smiles on everyone’s faces wherever we went. Nearly 1.8 million Colombians out using the Ciclovia and Recreovia to de-stress, get healthy, and connect personally with their fellow citizens. Young or old, rich or poor, pedestrian or cyclist – in Bogotá everyone loves the Ciclovia.

What if Ciclovia caught on in America? Imagine the opportunity it would provide for people to connect with their cities. Heaven forbid–it might prompt residents to go downtown on Sundays!
More importantly, it would encourage Americans to get more exercise. Given the growing obesity rates in the United States, that’s no small feat.
This is a win-win idea for everyone!

There are three kinds of victims whenever someone goes on a violent rampage. First, there’s the direct victims–those killed or injured by the attack. Second, there’s the indirect victims–those connected to the direct victims, or those who sustain a personal negative consequence stemming from the incident.
And then there are the TV-viewing victims–those subjected to TV news stupidity while watching coverage of the event.
Most of us fit in the latter category. In the immediate aftermath of the incident it takes the form of baseless speculation about what happened. The anchors don’t have many details to relay, but they have to keep talking, so they make stuff up.
Within a few hours, after the initial shock starts to wear out, the news coverage partially shifts to personalizing the event to the viewers. Typically it employs a security expert or consultant to answer the timeless question: could this happen here? The guru will then walk the audience through a complex formula:
Local venue where people gather + access to weapons = Yep, it could happen here
If the news outfit is really on its game it will take the story one step further: what should you do if you are caught in a deadly rampage?
This Colorado TV news station takes us inside a mall shooting scenario:

“In a case like a mall shooting, you should avoid the threat,” says Grand Junction Police Department officer T.J. Rix.

Good thinking. Bonus points for thinking outside the box.

Authorities say they do have plans in place if a shooting happened here, however, mall security is being tight-lipped about what those plans actually are.
“All of our security officers go through a comprehensive training program,” says Paul Petersen, general manager of Mesa Mall.

In other words, they hope that they can disable the shooter before he or she kills very many people.

Police say if a shooter opened fire in a store with direct exits, you should go outside.

What if there’s no “direct” exits (whatever that means)? You shouldn’t try to get out through “indirect” exits?

If you’re in a store wedged between others, it’s best to go to the back, get down, and stay out of sight.

I’m not sure why you would be “wedged between others” unless you were trying to cram through an exit. I’m glad it mentions staying out of sight; that’s so counter-intuitive in the midst of random gunfire. If there are no exits in the back, why would you want to get trapped there?

You should also be aware of your surroundings and don’t put yourself in a vulnerable position.

So much for my cleaver plan of aimlessly running around in wild panic.
So there you have it–news you can use. In the event of a mall shooting, run or hide! Who needs natural instincts when you have TV news teaching survival tips?