Alberto Gonzales and "The Key"

Dick Cheney--not the guy I would want to be giving me a character reference, given his in-the-teens favorability ratings--came out on CBS news giving his vote of confidence to "Al" Gonzales today. According to CBS news correspondent Mark Knoller, Cheney tells us "I think Al has done a good job under difficult circumstances." And then adds, as everyone who works for the White House seems compelled to when talking about ol "Al:" "The key," he said, is whether Gonzales has "the confidence of the president, and he clearly does."

To which I cry "Bullshit." Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States, and the head of the United States Department of Justice. He took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, and he serves us, the people of the United States. He has lied, committed perjury, and done any number of things that protect Bush, the Bush Administration, and his own precious ass. He is not doing his job, which is overseeing the Department of Justice. Rather, he is protecting George W. Bush.

Cheney is wrong, Bush is wrong, the Bush Administration is wrong, their pathetic mouthpiece Tony Snow is wrong: The key is not that Gonzales has "the confidence of the President." The key is whether Gonzales has the confidence of the American people whom he serves, and he clearly does not. If the government was not run by a gang of--let's face it--criminals who think that everything they do is above the law, Gonzales would have resigned months ago, after his first disastrous appearance before Congress. But because Bush and his cronies know that if Gonzales were to resign, their rampant law-breaking would come to light before they could leave office, they are hanging on to him like grim death, even though to do so means they are doing severe damage to the Department of Justice, and to Americans' confidence in the justice system. Quite simply, they don't care. So long as they can leave office without being impeached or sent to jail, they simply don't care.

So in response to Dick Cheney I say: on this issue, like on so many others (e.g., the WMDs in Iraq, the insurgency being in its "last throes," etc.), you are dead wrong. But of course, like on so many other issues, you will never admit it.

The Iraq Endgame

Something Andrew Sullivan said in one of his posts really struck me about the current Iraq mess, and started those ol' neurons a'firin':

Whatever David Petraeus says next month - and we know it's going to be a glowing report of massive success - the reality of Iraq endures. That reality is that there is no Iraq. The "government" is paralyzed between sectarian factions none of which wants a national, political settlement any time soon.

I didn't have any new ideas about Iraq--I'm not a brilliant international diplomat, I'm just a technical writer with a big mouth and lots of opinions who reads a lot--but I started to put some things together in my head. Consider these facts:

• Kurdistan, i.e. northern Iraq, is currently the most peaceful portion of Iraq by far. Further, the Kurds are the only ones who actually want the United States there.
• The current "head" of the "national government," al Maliki, let slip a few weeks ago that the American military could leave any time, so far as he was concerned. He quickly recanted (presumably after a good talking-to in one of his daily video conferences with Bush), but that doesn't change the fact that it slipped out.
• The Sunnis and the Shiites have been fighting each other, no kidding, for centuries. They have been holding grudges about things that have happened hundreds of years ago. Imagine, if you can, Notherners still being mad about the Battle of the Crater and Southerners still holding a grudge about Antietam 600 years from now, and people from Atlanta wanting to shoot people from Boston about it. In Baltimore. And doing so. That's Iraq right now. Do we really believe that these people are going to paper over their differences and form a unified democratic government in a few months? Who are we fooling?
• Despite diplomatic pressure, the Iraqi government went on vacation anyway.
  

So the Doug theory, for what it's worth, is that the Iraqi "unity government" doesn't give a damn about actually doing anything. They know that Bush is leaving office in January, 2009. They know the American people have had it with this idiotic war. They know that the next Administration, no matter who it is run by, will start to withdraw American troops.

Until that time, they are marking time. They are accumulating weapons and training. They are killing as many of the "enemy" (Shia or Sunni) as they can get away with. They are engaging in low-level ethnic cleansing. And once we're out of the way--which is bound to happen sooner or later--Iraq will break up into Kurdistan, a Shiite state, and a Sunni state. The Shiite state may align with or be completely taken over by Iran; I have no idea. There will probably be some pretty ugly ethnic cleansing in various cities. A huge battle for Baghdad.

I could be wrong, obviously; like I say, I'm a technical writer, not a diplomat. But why on Earth should we expect tribes that have been fighting for hundreds of years to get together and create a "national government" in a country that was created by colonialists out of nothing in particular, just for our convenience? It's insane, not to mention delusional and stupid.

I think the sooner we recognize the real situation and deal with it, the better off we'll be. (Hey, the Kurds want us there! Isn't one of our goals to have an ally in the Middle East? How tough is this? Duh!) But unfortunately, we're stuck dealing with the boneheads in the Bush Administration for the next 17 months. God help us all.

"Liberal" vs. "Conservative"; the False Dichotomy

I sometimes get emails or phone calls asking me to take polls, and I always struggle with the question, "Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" And while I have never voted for a Republican, and find it hard to imagine ever voting for one, I don't consider myself a Democrat.

"How can this be?" you might ask. (Or you would if anyone was reading this blog!)

Well, partly it's the excesses of what the parties "stand for." The Democrats are not so much a party any more as a collection of special interests all at war for what they can get. Labor. Minorities. Latte-sipping left wingers. Gays and lesbians. Anti-war folks. Farmers. Not that I don't support some of those causes (personally, I prefer mochas to lattes); but it doesn't seem to be a party of "what unites us," but rather a party of "What's in it for me?" And I just can't get behind it.

Not to mention that when they're in charge, they seem so friggin' incompetent. Look at them now; they're in the majority, and they're still the gang who can't shoot straight. Somehow the Republicans are stopping them with filibusters, and it's the Democrats who are being accused of obstructionism! That's lame. I should be a part of a party that's that lame?

Obvious proviso and caveat: all Democrats are not like that; we're speaking in broad generalities here.

The Republicans, in my view, are even worse. They're only a party of "What's in it for me." Even more, they're spectacular hypocrites. They're all for federalism . . . except when it serves they're own best interests (e.g., Bush v. Gore). They're all for "staying out of your personal life" . . . except that they want to go into your bedroom and tell you how to run your personal sex life, and tell you what you can watch on your TV (including which swear words you can and can't hear), and tell you what books your children can and can't read at school, and so on. They're for a strong national defense . . . so long as they don't actually have to be the ones to suit up and go overseas and fight.

(And even worse, in my book, all the moral stuff they try to shove down our throats, they do "for the children," when what they're really doing is a clear attempt to force their religious values on everyone else. But by the cynical ploy of hiding behind "the children," they can make it seem noble.)

And finally, they come across as just plain mean. "I don't care about what happens to other people so long as I get my tax cuts." "I don't care what happens to other people so long as my programs are put through congress." "I don't care what happens to the 12 million immigrants and their children who are already here; I just want them gone." Etc. The level of plain old meanness behind some of the things the spokespeople for the Republicans espouse is simply staggering. I can't be a part of a party that is so doggone mean. (Think Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and their hate-spewing brethren.)

Again, we are speaking broadly here; not all Republicans are like this, of course.

Which brings us to the completely absurd and false dichotomy between "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans.

Today's Republicans are not "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who supports the huge increase in government that is the Department of Homeland Security, that is the Medicare Drug Bill, is not a conservative. Anyone who supports the trampling on the Constitution that is warrantless wiretapping and the elimination of habeas corpus is not a conservative. (What can possibly be more conservative than habeas corpus? It goes back to the Magna Carta, for crying out loud!) Anyone who supports the economic policies of this Administration, which has spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave and run up debts that we can never replay, is definitely not a conservative. And anyone who supports the absurd theory that is the "unitary executive" is most certainly not a conservative. I have no doubt in my mind that if you got a single member of the Constitutional Convention, pulled him forward in time, and told him this theory, he would recoil in horror. They fought the Revolution to get rid of a King; the "unitary executive" gives you a king. It is a radical position, not a conservative one.

So like many Americans, there is really no party for me, I'm afraid. I support fiscal responsibility. (Supply-side economics doesn't work. We've tried it in three different Presidential administrations now, and it's been a disaster all three times. Isn't that enough?) I support a strong national defense (but not one that's ridiculously out of proportion to the threat that is posed by the rest of the world--how many aircraft carriers and submarines do you need to fight terrorists hiding in caves in Afghanistan?). I am socially liberal--I think gays should get married if they want, for example. (All you right-wingers bleating about gay marriage are being silly. How do gays getting married threaten your marriage? They certainly don't threaten mine. And if gays get married, doesn't that make society more stable? Your arguments are absurd.)

So am I conservative, or liberal? Neither. Both. It's a false dichotomy. And the silly choice I have to make between the two parties doesn't exactly make it easier. How about you?

Taxation without Representation

In a previous post, I mentioned why I feel like I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Even so, I have always voted Democratic, mostly because I've felt it was the lesser of two evils. (For one thing, I have too many gay friends, and too many illegal immigrant friends, to vote with a party that demonizes both groups.)

Living in Austin Texas now, as I do, in a post-Tom Delay redistricted world, means that I am in the same position as our pre-Revolutionary War forebears: I have taxation, but no representation. My governor is Rick Perry, a Republican who is a typical party wheel, i.e. he's for pretty much everything I'm not. Of our two Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison is not too bad, but she's still a Republican, and has voted with the Republican caucus on every single issue of importance to me, especially the Iraq war. And John Cornyn is, quite simply, your typical right-wing asshole.

Since the redistricting and the election following, "my" representative is Lamar Smith, which is, as Bugs Bunny would say, "A revoltin' development." Rep. Smith is very much a Republican in the mold of Delay, and needless to say he doesn't "represent" me in any way whatsoever. His stance on basically every issue is the polar opposite of mine. I find it completely repugnant to be "represented" by this man, but this is the situation that I am stuck with.

It is further galling, because Rep. Smith is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary committee, so not only is my "representative" someone who stands up in Congress on a regular basis and casts votes in exactly the opposite way I would have him do, but he also has a powerful platform on an important committee, where he espouses opinions on a matter that I find extremely important, i.e. the politically-motivated firing of the U.S. Attorneys by the Bush Administration. He has given arrogant speeches to the committee about this matter in which he, my representative, spewed the Republican party line about there being "no scandal" and "they serve at the President's pleasure" and similar absurdities that, not to put too fine a point on it, make me livid. My Representative.

It is bad enough that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are sticking to their absurd and transparently bogus arguments about these firings. They are intelligent men and women, and I know that some of them are just as aware as I that these firings stink to high heaven. But I cannot even say how galling it is to me that my representative, on the Judiciary Committee, is spewing this bullshit.

Hell, that's not "taxation without representation;" that's "taxation with negative representation and we slap you in the face, too." Let's just say that it makes me understand why me forebears in Boston heaved tea into the harbor, picked up flintlocks, and started taking potshots at Redcoats. I don't own a gun, but believe me, I'm pretty tempted.

General Spin

The new spokesman for the U.S. Military in Iraq is a Brigadier General (i.e., a one-star) named Kevin Bergner. As is typical with Bush Administration appointees, Bergner's news from the front is filled with happy-happy/joy-joy talk, but even more so for him than most, as Digby points out in Salon and Dan Froomkin notes in the Washington Post.

Lots of journalists have noted that Bergner went straight from being a member of the White House's national security staff to being the spokesman in Baghdad. But I've been wondering about his career trajectory, honestly. Let me 'splain:

My Dad was a naval officer. The common wisdom in the Navy is that if you don't make Captain by the time you hit 20 years, you should just go ahead and retire, because you're not going to advance much more. In the Army, the equivalent is Colonel. To move from Colonel to General requires a Presidential nomination, and approval by the Senate.

So I got to wondering: how old was Colonel Bergner when he was tapped for Brigadier? And who was it who tapped him? What was his first assignment as a General?

Call me a crazy conspiracy nut, but here's some interesting facts from the good General's biography: he's a graduate of Trinity College in San Antonio, Texas, Bush's home state (and we know how much more comfortable Bush feels with friends from Texas). In May of 2003, as a full Colonel, he was assigned as the Deputy Director for Politico-Military Affairs (Middle East), J-5, The Joint Staff, in Washington, D.C. He was promoted to Brigadier General in November of 2004, in the middle of that time. He put in about a year in Iraq in 2005 as Deputy Commander of the Multi-National Force-Northwest before heading back to Washington to become the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Iraq for the National Security Council at the White House.

So what have we? We have a Texan who was promoted to General by Bush, given his first highly-visible, political D.C. assignment by Bush, moved by to an even more visible assignment by Bush, and is now the military spokesman in Iraq. Who do you reckon his loyalty is to? The American people? Or the person who famously (and jealously) surrounds himself with loyal minions (and fires and punishes those who are disloyal), and is further responsible for his promotion and current position?

I know which answers gets my vote. How about you?

Iraq and Vietnam: Will We Never Learn?

I have often felt over the last four years that the press (not to mention the government) strains mightily not to compare the mess in Iraq to Vietnam. Sometimes they do it, of course, but I often feel that Vietnam was such a trauma that to mention it in comparison to Iraq is the journalistic equivalent of dropping a nuclear weapon. It's too harsh for ordinary reportage. Aside from which, we have to bear in mind some key differences: the draft, and the much higher number of American deaths.

However, as we march on through this absolutely insane, idiotic war, the parallels become too stark for me:

• Johnson lied to get us into Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin incident; Bush lied to get us into Iraq with WMDs and an al Qaeda/9/11 link
• The war has gone on much longer than the government said it would
• The government has said innumerable times that we had "reached a turning point"
• The population of the country that we were purporting to save want us, most urgently, to leave
• As the war has gone on, the country has turned against it in vast numbers
• The war has been run with incredible incompetence by the civilians in government, who keep over-ruling the military commanders

What I suspect is going to happen, honestly, is that we are not going to learn from history, and we are going to follow the who weary mess right through to the bitter end (sans the helicopter leaving from the roof of the embassy). Here's what I see:

Like in Vietnam, the President who started the war will leave office without ending it. As in Vietnam, we will be forced to leave Iraq in some condition short of "victory" (whatever the heck "victory" means in this situation; I would argue we've already been "victorious"). Like Vietnam, Iraq will be split into multiple countries, perhaps two, perhaps three. (I envision an independent Kurdistan in the north, and a big ol' mess in the south. Will there be a Sunni region and a Shiite region? Will there be a separate region, and Iran will absorb their coreligionists? I don't know, but it will be ugly.)

If we're smart, and the next President appoints a good team--and let's face it, he or she could hardly appoint a worse one--we could leverage the situation and perhaps come out with some positives. For example, the Kurds, heaven forbid, actually like us; wouldn't it behoove us to use that fact? Maybe set up an embassy there? One would think so, but the Bush Administration isn't "reality based," so it's not going to happen in the next 17 months.

In any event, as someone who grew up outside Washington D.C. during the Vietnam era, it fills me with a painful combination of sorrow and rage to see history repeating itself so closely. Will we never learn? (Perhaps we would have if we hadn't elected a couple of men who did their best to duck out of their Vietnam service.)

Another Talking Point

In Doug's ongoing effort to call your attention to baloney-filled right-wing talking points, another one is surfacing, so add it to my helpful list:

• The Iraq government going on vacation in August is no big surprise because it's so durn hot in Iraq in August and/or the U.S. Congress goes on vacation in August, too.

Tony Snow has used both these reasons in an attempt to wave away how insulting and infuriating it is for the Iraq government to go missing while U.S. forces are fighting and dying to "give them the space" to create that government. But hey, I'm a reasonable guy; I'll take a few seconds and deconstruct this insanity:

1. It's even hotter for the U.S. troops outside, in their body armor, in the Humvees, while getting shot at; the Iraqis bureaucrats can deal.
2. Yes, the Congress goes on vacation. We've had a stable government for 2.25 centuries; the Iraqis don't have a stable government yet.
   

Our founding fathers worked through a Philadelphia summer without air conditioning in those heavy outfits and ridiculous wigs; the Iraqi "founding fathers" are taking a vacation. Forgive me if I'm a little irked at Tony Snow's flippancy.

I might add that there is something else surfacing from George Bush, but it's not a talking point; it's a blatant, flat-out lie: "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th," he remarked at his press conference last week. The regular newspapers and mainstream press use terms like "misleading" and "an oversimplification," but the fact is, it's a flat-out lie. First, "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" is a completely different organization from the al Qaeda that is run by Osama bin Laden, and only loosely affiliated with him. Second, "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" didn't exist on 9/11.

The President is lying. He is lying because his war is a disaster, his policies are a disaster, and he is betting that his fear-mongering--which has worked for him so many times before--will work for him again. Don't let it. And don't be afraid to call a spade a spade; this isn't a mis-statement; it's a lie.

iPhone Diary - the Bugs

If you read my review of the iPhone, you know that I really like the durn thing, and think it's an extremely solid effort for a Release 1 device. That said, it does have some bugs, some of which I've found, but a lot more of which the Apple Hound has found. He has compiled a list of iPhone bugs, if you want to be warned in advance before you buy. Here are some that I've found that I didn't see on the Apple Hound's list (I've used the same divisions that he has; thanks, AppleHound!):

Calendar:

• UI/Usability: The calendar syncs inconsistently when attempting to sync with Outlook that uses a Microsoft Exchange server. Entries created on the iPhone are synced correctly to Outlook, but entries created on Outlook are not synced to the iPhone.

Phone:

• Crash/Hang/Data Loss: The phone application becomes unresponsive/slow when the amount of data on the iPhone approaches the maximum limit of 8Gb. This was noticed at approximately 7.725 Gb of used space. Workaround is to remove enough data so that there is more free space.

Mail:

• UI/Usability: POP3 mailbox folders are not copied/synced to the iPhone.
• UI/Usability: There is no way to create mailbox folders on the iPhone. With the above bug, this is a serious lack.
• UI/Usability: Email text cannot be read in landscape mode. This is inconsistent with many of the other utilities on the iPhone (e.g., Safari).

Safari:

• Crash/Hang/Data Loss: Similar to the same problem in the Google Map utility, Safari may crash during zooming and scrolling actions. To reproduce, surf to a lengthy web page, zoom in and rotate to landscape mode, and scroll down multiple times (preferably in excess of 10 times). If this happens when listening to music, the music playback stops, Safari crashes, and you are returned to the "Home" screen.

Honestly, not bad for Release 1 hardware with a bunch of Release 1 software apps. Apple should be proud of themselves.

iPhone Review

For those so interested, you can read my (unbelievably long) iPhone review at Gear Diary.

The Steel Wall

"Stonewalling" is a term that is used to describe when the White House refuses to surrender information to another branch of government, generally Congress, when that other branch is investigating suspect conduct. The most famous example is, of course, Watergate, but it's hardly uncommon; Reagan with Iran/Contra, Clinton with the whole Lewinsky nonsense, Johnson during Vietnam, and for all I know Jefferson avoiding questions about Sally Hemmings.

But the Bush Administration is bringing this to a whole new level such that the wall is not made of stone, in my opinion, but steel. "Steelwalling."

First and foremost, of course, we have Dick Cheney, who has invented a new stamp for basically every piece of paper in his office: "Treat as Secret." This stamp is applied even to press releases, in other words information he wants to disseminate is stamped "treat as secret." He fought like a lion to keep deliberations of his "energy task force" secret. Even his daily locations are a secret from the press. (This is a public servant, and we don't even know where he is most of the time, and can't find out!)

But under new White House counsel Fred Fielding, the Bush Administration has used the "Executive Privilege" rubric to cover, well, basically everything. And yesterday brought news that they are using this to block Congress' investigation into the details of the death of Pat Tillman, the former football player who gave up his career to join the army and was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan several years ago.

Yup, that's right: the White House is asserting "executive privilege" to block Congress from investigating something the Pentagon did.

It's bad enough that Bush has plunked us into this moronic war in Iraq in which he adamantly refuses to face reality. It's bad enough that he has done his level best to cut out the other two branches of government. It's bad enough that he issues "signing statements" that assert he can ignore laws, that he yanks American citizens off of American soil and imprisons them without cause or trial for years, that he fails to account for any of his actions, and that he lies--constantly--about his reasons for doing things. But now this, too? What next? He's going to assert "executive privilege" to block DC police from issuing parking tickets when his White House aides double-park when getting a latte from Starbucks? His office staff need donuts and don't want to pay, they say "executive privilege" and just grab them out of the store? Who the hell does this guy think he is? (The answer is clear, of course; he thinks he is King. He thinks he has unfettered power.)

I hope to God that congress has the huevos to stand up to this latest heinous power grab. The only way to stop types like these, as Churchill once observed, is to step on their toes until they apologize. It's time for Congress to do some serious toe-stepping with these clowns.

Republican Talking Points: A Handy Guide

Every once in a while, a new memo goes out to folks on the right, the new talking points are disseminated, and we start hearing the new talking points about some Major Item of Interest (these days, usually Iraq).

As a public service, I will help folks keep track of the latest talking points in easy, bulleted list format (hey, I'm a tech writer by trade!). As you absorb the news from both the mainstream media and the right wing blovocracy over the next several weeks, refer back to this handy guide for these talking points to remind yourself, no, this baloney isn't "real news," it's just the talking points that went out in the memo all those months ago.

• The surge "just started." This is obvious B.S. The surge, which was announced in mid-January, "started" when the first brigade landed on the ground on January 21. The final brigade just arrived two weeks ago. This is just Bush's way of trying, yet again, to buy more time for his failed war policy so he can run out the clock until he leaves office. Don't buy it for a minute.
• Congress is only investigating, not legislating. This is a popular one on the Right, and you'll hear it a lot as elections heat up next year. Republicans conveniently forget all the legislation they failed to pass last year (and in previous years), and will further suffer memory loss when it comes to the 6 years of Congressional oversight that they neglected to engage in. Yes, it takes time to do 6 years of oversight in just a few months; what a bummer that is. (I could also point out that Republicans are the ones who say they want less government; are you saying you want Congress to be passing more laws? Isn't that kind of counter-intuitive?)
• Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent. This is used to show that Scooter Libby shouldn't spend any time in jail ("There wasn't a crime!"), and is just flat-out untrue. The CIA and Patrick Fitzgerald have stated that she was. End of discussion.
• We're fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. This is really popular now, particularly with "military sources." Bush loves to say things that are not provably false, but that imply things that are complete and utter B.S. (e.g., "Some in America don't believe we're at war;" like who, Mr. President?). Any time he can mention "al Qaeda" and "Iraq" in the same sentence, it's a win for him, because it implies (without stating it explicitly, which would be a lie) that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, when they were in fact completely unconnected. But the truth is, "al Qaeda in Iraq" didn't exist until 2004, they are a tiny percentage of what's going on over there, there is no evidence that they are in contact with Osama bin Laden, and there is no proof that they are doing anything nearly as damaging as the other insurgents. But Bush knows support for his war has gone south, so he hopes to goose it by implying (but not stating!) a 9/11-Iraq connection. Again. Don't fall for it.
  

This list brought to you as a public service.

iPhone Diary 7/10

Probably my last diary entry prior to full review on Gear Diary; look for review there sometime in the Friday timeframe (as we like to say in the computer biz).

Enjoying playing with phone immensely. Best cell phone I've ever had, bar none. Certainly appreciate easy way to switch between iPod mode and phone mode with simple click of headphone switch; how easy can you get? Good reception, easy dialing, and great interface between contacts list and dialing.

Also enjoying an iPod/portable music player for first time since, really, my first decent Walkman back-in-the-day. Clearly, low weight is a major advantage with these babies, and my old PDAs were just too durn heavy and awkward.

Loving having the thing as a movie player as well. Kicks ass as a PMP.

Still missing having games and a eBook reader on this thing. Wish Apple would get on the stick about that. Not holding my breath, however.

Some bugs, for sure. Got a bum pixel. Playing music while web surfing sometimes causes both Safari and iPod player to crash. Map viewer crashes pretty regularly (happens for a lot of people, apparently; read about it on the discussions forum).

Still and all, a winner of a device. A couple more features, and it would be damn near perfect. As it is, it's pretty stellar.

The Administration Cries Wolf, Again

Tomorrow, Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, will be testifying before congress about her role in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. On Thursday, former White House counsel, Supreme Court nominee, and long-time Bush friend Harriet Miers will be doing the same thing. (Although if past history is any guide, their memories will be extremely foggy.)

Bush's poll numbers are in the sub-30 percent range. Cheney's are down below 20%. There is serious talk of impeachment. Bush's only remaining serious stab at a "legacy"--his immigration bill--went down in flames. The public and even his own party despises his commutation of the sentence of convicted felon Scooter Libby.

And so today, the AP reports that the White House "has called an urgent multi-agency meeting for Thursday to discuss a potential new al Qaeda threat on U.S. soil."

The story contains all the usual fear-mongering hallmarks of this Administration: the "unnamed White House official" who warns of us of heightened fears of attack even though there's no "credible evidence" of such; the scary (but vague) words of Homeland Security Czar Chertoff, who says "Summertime seems to be appealing to them. ... We worry that they are rebuilding their activities;" and of course the ever-popular reliance on the Administrations always-accurate "gut feelings" (in paragraph 9).

If you plow through the story diligently, you will find, at the very end, this nugget:

Al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has spoken out regularly in audio-taped messages in recent months. In the latest recording, posted on the Internet on Tuesday, the Egyptian cleric threatened more attacks on Britain.

On Britain. More attacks on Britain.

So in sum, this Administration, which is monstrosly unpopular, is in the midst of hearings, is desparate to change the subject, has a record of manipulating the national terror levels to win elections and divert attention away from other things embarassing to them, has suddenly called "urgent meetings" at the White House to discuss possible terror attacks, for which there are "no credible evidence" (but there are "gut feelings!"), and the AP is reporting this as straight news without a hint of skepticism?

Personally, I'm outraged in two different directions: that the Administration is so transparently trying to manipulate the nations mood in order to escape the attention that is currently--and rightly--being focused on their many blunders and criminal activity. But I am also outraged by the press once again swallowing this line of Administration B.S. without calling them on it. As Keith Olbermann highlighted in one of his reports several months ago, the Bush Administration has done this over and over again; it is high time that the press called them on it.

Updated: Keith Olbermann, bless him, noticed the exact same thing, and highlighted it in his July 10 broadcast of "Countdown." Good work, Keith.

iPhone Diary 7/3

Major geekage slowing down; integrating iPhone into life. Is that good? Or scary?

Irritants:

• The email lack-of-folders thing is a major irritant. Suspect Apple is working on it; lots of people on the forums have complained, but haven't seen word one about a solution yet, and I check in every day.
• One-way calendar connectivity simply bizarre. Can enter calendar items on iPhone and they appear on Outlook; reverse not true. What's up with that?
• Wish platform were open, and could load own apps onto it. Bet money MacOS eReader would work with only minor tweakage.
• Would love to be able to manage calendar, contacts, and so on through iTunes interface; the sooner I can ditch Outlook, the happier I'll be.
• Can't drag-and-drop songs, videos, and whatnot from library to iPhone in iTunes. Why not? Seems weird.
  
• Screen does indeed get gunky fast; have to carry wipe cloth everywhere.
  

Joys:

• Audio connection much better than my old Motorola v180.
• Love being able to pull up contacts list and one-touch dial. Yeah, baby!
• Can't do that two-thumb typing thing, but one-finger typing working well for me for SMS. Email, not so much, but doable for short messages.
• Oh, the screen, the screen! So much better as a movie viewer! So light! So crisp! So easy to use! Automatically bookmarks your place. The portable movie viewer I've longed for! (If only there as an expansion slot . . .)
• The interface is killer. It can't be overstated. You get used to it so fast, you forget how good it is. "Intuitive" is too weak a word. You guess, and you're right almost all the time. It's astounding. (And I'm incredibly hard to please when it comes to software.)
  

Other notes:

• Love how solid the device feels. Doesn't creak, groan, wiggle, or otherwise feel cheap. Buttons are solid. Case is solid. Battery cover is solid. Plastic battery cover on HTC Universal constantly creaking; not a problem on iPhone.
• People who complain about speed of Edge network spoiled beyond belief. People who compare it to "dial-up speed" deluding selves. Am old enough to have seen handsets plugged into audio jacks at 30 baud; these people have no idea what real "dial-up speed" means. If old enough to remember being excited about 1200 baud modems, then you can complain. Yes, 3G faster. Big whoop.
• Still jonesing for games, and eReader. If this thing had games and eReader, I would be in heaven. But it's all software; I hold out hope.
• Handbrake conversion tool produces good output (and I'm very picky), but is a little flakey, and a major CPU hog. Oh well; nothing's perfect.
• Not having stylus is a mixed bag. On one hand: no stylus to lose. On other hand: gunky screen.
• No menus. It takes a little getting used to. Means there's some functionality that seems "missing" (e.g., can't create new mailboxes in the email utility). Is this a bad thing? A good thing? Dunno; but there it is.
  

Libby's Pardon

Yesterday, with Scooter Libby getting his sentence "commuted," he has been pardoned completely, but in a spectacularly spinnable, political way. First of all, he gets out of jail time for committing a felony. Second, don't even think for a minute that the other parts of his sentence are going to bother him in any way. His "probation" amounts to paperwork. His fine will be paid by his "legal defense fee," paid for by his rich friends.

So in sum, he gets off scot free for lying to cover up whatever crimes the Vice President (and who knows who else) committed.

And all the Republicans who are talking about how this is a good thing, that it's good that a "nice guy" isn't facing jail time? This "nice man" is a convicted felon. This "nice man" lied to federal prosecutors in order to cover up possible crimes by the Vice President of the United States, who may now get away with them. And finally, most of these same happy Republicans are the same ones who were right out in front of the crowd talking about what a heinous crime it was for Bill Clinton to lie about getting a (consensual!) hummer from an intern.

They should be ashamed of themselves. But of course they aren't; people like that never are. Heaven's no! The Wall Street Journal, the folks at the National Review, and so on, all know better than the jury, the judge (appointed by George Bush!), the prosecutor (appointed by John Ashcroft!), and the three-judge review panel (one of whom was the genius who overturned the Oliver North conviction, and gave us Kenneth Starr!)! Yessir, Libby got a raw deal from The Man!

What a crock. Libby had every single advantage he could possibly have, and he was still found guilty.

This is an easy one: Libby is a convicted felon. Bush is more than a hypocrite, he is a profound hypocrite. Bush has said:

• He would fire anyone that had anything to do with the "outing" of Valerie Plame. He didn't. (He didn't fire Libby, and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney still work at the White House.)
• He said that his Administration would not just do what's legal, but what's moral. Libby is a convicted felon; in other words, he behaved neither legally, nor morally.
• He didn't even follow his own rules with regard to pardoning and commuting sentences.

Bush, who blatted on and on about bringing "a new tone" to Washington, who gets all high and mighty about what a good Christian he is, and how he is doing God's work, and justifies his unjustifiable war in Iraq by citing God, is an immoral, hypocritical liar who believes that he and anyone who works for him is above the law. That is your President, ladies and gentlemen. And all you people who harshed on Natalie Maines for what she said about Bush at the beginning of the Iraq war? She was right, and you all were wrong; it is embarrassing that he is from Texas.

My level of disgust with this knows no bounds. I hope Fitzgerald goes after Cheney. Not for revenge, but for the good of the country. How long can this country survive if everyone thinks that the law doesn't apply to the people on top?

"Law if often but the but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

iPhone Diary 7/2

Plumbing the depths now. Interesting discoveries:

• No way to create separate mail folders on the iPhone itself. Apparently *.mac account holders get their mail folders copied across; the rest of us, SOL.
• Calendar synced just fine the first time; since then, nothing. All new entries not being synced. Happening to plenty of other people, too.
• Nice feature: if you are listening to music or a video on speakers, and plug in the headphones, volume automatically drops. Good idea!
• Application called "Handbrake" does a good job converting DVDs to iPhone-understandable format.
• Little flakey picking up in-house network; works fine near modem, not so good farther away.
• Headphones not convenient. How do all you iPod users deal? Wrap them around arm? Tuck them in pocket? They get tangled all the time!