Independent Rant

I've ranted before about the dangers of the electronic voting machines that will be used in Novbember. But don't take my word for it -- there's an excellent article in today's Independent that goes deeply into the issues and experience to date. Here's a snippet:

"The mess that is Florida nevertheless came as a profound shock to a group of international election monitors who toured the state last week. Dr Brigalia Bam, who chairs South Africa's Independent Electoral Commission, was stunned by the patchwork of jurisdictions, rules and anomalies. "Absolutely everything is a violation," she said. "All these different systems in different counties with no accountability... It's like the poorest village in Africa." November could be another agonisingly long month in American politics. "

Thanks toDave Weinberger at Joho for finding this piece. Here's hoping the hurricanes damaged enough electronic machines that some counties have to go back to paper.

As anticipated, the partisan blathering has already begun after the vote to repeal DC's gun laws. The NYT reports that "within hours of the vote, Republican Congressional candidates began using it to criticize opponents who voted to keep the gun law intact. In Vermont, for example, Greg Parke, who is running against Representative Bernard Sanders, an independent who usually botes with Democrats, issued a news release saying, "If Sanders isn't protecting the Constitutional rights of Washington residents, how can he be trusted to protect Vermonters' rights."

I hope that this kind of bull costs Parke lots of votes. Vermonters aren't that stupid.

Finding partisan interests to be greater than the dangers of 18 year-olds (and younger) roaming the streets with assault weapons, the Republican-led House yesterday passed a bill to repeal all of DC's locally entacted gun control laws -- this from the party that wants the federal government out of local affairs. This is, of course, one of those pre-election grandstanding votes that the majority hopes will make the minorty either a) vote their consciences but supply a snippet to be used in a campaign ad (Jane Representative wants to take away your second amendment rights) or b) vote with the majority to avoid the situation above but then able them to both get their way and paint her as a flip-flopper. Today the same thing will be done with a proposed amendment to the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

In either case, the bills are highly unlikely to actually become law; they are just acts of legislative masturbation.

The Republicans are guilty of it this time; the Democrats have done it before. No matter who is doing it, it should be stopped. The Congress hasn't passed a budget, enacted intelligence reforms, or dealt with other important affairs of state but they find time for this crap.

If only we could sue them for dereliction of duty and improper use of public funds. Time to e-mail your representative and ol' Bill First a nasty-gram. Join me, won't you?

Meanwhile back at the 'tini bar, glam-blog diva deluxe Wankette, er, Wonkette parties down. Fresh from the uber-thrill of making America drool in Chris Buck's fetching photo (above) in the NYT Magazine on Sunday (that sly come hither stare...), the Divine Ms. W posted a shot of her own special RNC moment with everyone's favorite turncoat, Zell Miller on Wonkette. She serves up the decollatage du jour like oysters on the half shell and Zell is obviously happy to be kept abreast of the what's happening with the blogospheres (below). Rumor has it he's ready to invest in the first Wonktoria's Secret store.


Wankette & Zell


What's next for the Brooke Burke of blogging -- drooling teen fan sites on GeoCities?

You'd have to be pretty desperate to look to Al Gore for campaign advice although the best lessons often come through failure. He has some wise words in todays NYT. Here's a sample:

A t-minus 50 hours and counting there is seemingly endless handwringing on how best to prepare for the debates. My two cents:
- Jumping jacks and push ups. Get the blood flowing and pump up the upper body to look good on camera;
- Aveda rosemary-mint shampoo and conditioner. Hair is very important (but mind the poof!) and that refreshing scent helps clear the sinuses -- v. important for the speaking voice;
- No stripes. Solids look better on camera. and Kerry has a distinct advantage -- he can wear many items in blue and make a subtle play to the base while W can only go red with the tie.

But seriously, here's the inside line for a Kerry victory:
- Simple, declarative sentences. Can he do it? If he does it will be remarked upon by every pundit in the post-debate spin cycle;
- Fact-based comebacks. Don't be wonkish but let everyone see that Bush's knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep. But be careful -- TAP (that's "the American public" for the acronym-challenged) knows he's not-so-bright and actually likes him for it. Show that he's dangerous because of it;
- Independent sources. The recently leaked intelligence estimate on Iraq is a perfect example. So are the military opinions that the Iraqi insurgency is actually an indiginous Iraqi resistance. Show the distance between Bush-land and reality;
- Flip-flop the flip-flop. Bush has changed his positions plenty of times and when he hasn't they are often at odds with reality. The only way for Kerry to jettison the flip-flop thing is to play "tag -- you're it" with W. See "Just Guessing" by Chris Bowers on 9/28.
- Answer the questions. Independent Rant will be watching -- and posting about -- the questions dodged, finessed, and avoided;
- Don't be afraid to get messy. Disenfranchisement of black voters is racism -- call it that. Dirty tricks to throw out voter registration forms (OH) is illegal -- call it that. Electronic voting without a paper record is undemocratic (and even Ahnold has banned it)-- call it that.

Now, for those of you at home, popcorn and a hearty cabernet sauvignon is what I recommend for the best viewing experience. Beer bottles do a number on TV screens when thrown at them so I recommend wine.

Fears of this fall's election winding back in a of lot black-robed laps are ciruclating and escalating as furiously as a tropical depression reaching hurricane strength. Unfortunately, this is not a bunch of whackos playing bong politics but speculation based on an building base of facts. Not long ago Florida's election officials were compiling a list of mostly black (read "Democratic") people to turn away from the polls yet omitting white and Hispanic voters (read "much more likely to be Republican) in the same circumstances. Then the R Ohio AG started trying to toss voter registration forms based on the weight of the paper. Now Jeffrey Rosen in TNR looks more deeply into what happened in Florida 2000 and what could happen as both parties ready legal teams to contest anything short of a unanimous vote.

Here's a snippet of Digby's excellent overview: "You continue through this article you see that this was the problem for the Democrats throughout the recount period. It wasn't cowardice, it was a naive faith in the rule of law. It was the last vestige of true, internalized belief that the American legal system was immune from naked, opportunistic partisanship. " You'll need to register at TNR to get the full article -- links are with the overview.

Digby then goes on to say that Dems need to be ready for a "knife fight" after the election. If that's what it has come to, have we already lost more that we can gain by winning such a brawl? Isn't it "game over" at that point?

Well at least one Boston-based campaign is having positive results -- the Red Sox just clinched a playoff berth with a 7 - 3 defeat of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Here's hoping for a 1 -2 punch, Oct - Nov victory.

Atrios was the first on this one or maybe it was MyDD. In any event, great catch and call to action. Write or e-mail today.

Chris Bowers has also jumped into the issues around the impact of religion on voting with an excellent breakdown of the Christian vote by state. See my post "The Dangers of Born Again Politics" (9/20) for more from this writer. Religion is too important a societal force to be removed from politics for long. The efforts of Rove & Co. to energize the evangelical base are just one bit of evidence that things are changing -- the R's want a Christian America before the "heathen" overwhelm them.

Christianity, as the evangelical right interprets and practices it, is as authoritarian a philosophy as there has ever been. We must be prepared to fight for freedom for all religions.

The analysis performed by Bowers is the kind of insightful reporting we should demand of all media but so rarely find. Mainstream journalists, tip your hats.

Among the rules stipulated for the upcomong prez candidate debates, in particular for the town hall-style event in St. Louis on 9/30, is one that states that the question that the citizen asks can't deviate from the question submitted earlier in writing for approval. This prevents rants and posturing, but it also prevents any follow up questions based on previous answers. Scott Simon opined on this on NPR this past weekend.

First, I'm offended that the candidates get to draft the rules and send them to us. Does the candidate for any other job get to demand that the interview take place in a room with north facing windows on Wednesday afternoon at round conference table -- and that questions can only be asked on certain topics and in certain ways?

It should be stipulated that if you want to run for president you will submit to at least five debates. You will have to go deep on the hot issues. Debate experts will decide the formats and locations and make sure that neither candidate has accidental advantage due to camera angles, etc. And you will show up. Period. End of story. If you don't like it, Mr. or Ms. Candidate, you can haul your sorry ass back where you came from.

Second, can we start a movement to bring back the follow up question? I'd like nothing more than to have someone at the town hall forum (or, hey, even a journalist once in awhile just for kicks) discard their own question to demand that the candidate answer a previous question that's been dodged. Or ask for clarification or precision.

POTUS is the biggest, toughest job there is -- we shouldn't make it any easier to get it.

Thanks, Halley, for reminding us not just of how to vote but why we should think about the deeper meaning of voting and civic participation.

I spend all this time writing about politics and what post gets the fastest comment? My simple congratulations to the Red Sox on their whomping of the Yankees today scored an instant reply from a fan of the Bronx Bombers. It looks like Marissa and I may be dueling through the post season.

Wonkette and several of the other "big time" bloggers made it big in the cover story from today's New York Times Magazine. The mainstream media so wants to get this phenomenon (or coopt it or dismiss it) but they won't so long as they think of it as yet one more media channel. Bloggers are connecting with each other in part because distinctive voices have mostly been flushed by the traditional media -- and blogger and reader can actually interact which is a whole lot more fun that writing a letter to the editor. Will fame and legitimacy ruin the blogosphere? Enquiring minds want to know. Ed Cone has some thoughts as does Joho. To their credit, neither Wonkette or Daily Kos trumpet the coverage today.

The Red Sox just spanked the Yankees and all is well with the world.

This Francophile has been listening to complaints about Pierre et freres for more than three years now. We had freedom fries and freedom toast. Most painful of all was the charge of “cheese eating surrender monkey.” I can’t help you if you don’t like cheese though I don’t know what the link is between dairy consumption and the propensity to lay down arms. No more grilled cheese for our fighting forces, I guess.

The surrender part, however, shows an unfortunate lack of understanding of history that leaves us vulnerable. The “surrender monkey” charge refers to the rapid fall of France after the Nazi invasion in WWII.

The French (along with the Brits, Belgians, us, and others) fought a long, grueling battle with the Germans in WWI. There were enormous casualties as the front lines changed by yards, not miles. After the eventual victory the French response was to build the Maginot Line. This massive fortification was designed to stop any future German invasion – at least by its most likely route. This being football season, think of it as the biggest, meanest defensive line ever. Except that it can’t move left, right, forward or back. The Nazis, who had extracted offensive rather than defensive lessons from the First World War, came at them next time with a force that was as agile as it was strong. They simply went around the Maginot Line and overwhelmed the French forces.

Simply put, it wasn’t that the average French soldier wasn’t brave (though few could have been looking forward to another slaughter in the trenches – there’s nothing like war to make you lose your taste for war) but that the French command failed to anticipate what the next war would require. They also ignored the obvious – no fortification or weapon has a shorter deterrent effect than that which is fixed and defensive in nature. The enemy quickly finds ways to go around it.

What does this have to do with W? Let’s talk about the missile defense system that is, and will be, sucking billions out of the defense budget for the next decade or so. It is a massive defensive system designed to thwart what some imagine to be the most important long-term threat – ballistic missiles. In early tests it has failed to work and a fair number of credible scientists doubt that it ever will.

The world is changing, however. Our retaliatory capability ensures that any state that fires a missile at us will be blown off the map by a counterstrike. Those nations with the capability to deliver a massive first strike (Russia and perhaps China) would much rather engage with us economically than try to bomb us into the Stone Age. There just isn’t much upside for them in military action.

The more likely threat is a terrorist group with a dirty bomb (or two or three) smuggled in and harbored with a sleeper cell. Imagine this scenario: a dirty bomb is detonated in Manhattan. Upwards of a million people would die. All of our forces would go on alert but they wouldn’t know whom to strike. A message comes to the White House. Start pulling your forces out of the Middle East within 24 hours or else. Bush goes on television to console the nation for its loss and to defiantly the terrorists that the United States doesn’t bow to terrorist demands. As he signs off the air a second bomb is detonated – not in Washington, Chicago or LA where we’ve concentrated our search efforts but Toledo or Syracuse or Fresno. Anger gives way to panic in the heartland. A car bomb goes off in Boston. The pressure to pull out mounts.

This may sound far-fetched but would be less of a feat to buy nuclear material and smuggle it into the US than for Kim Il Jung to build an intercontinental ballistic missile. As soon as we announced the play to build a missile shield those who wish to destroy us started focusing on other means.

We, like the French before us, seem to be taking away the wrong lessons from the events that have brought us to where we are today. September 11 showed us that stateless groups can project power and are willing to die in an effort to cause massive destruction and loss of life. The war in Iraq is a distraction as is the “Star Wars” missile shield. We should be aggressively working to acquire “loose” nuclear material from the former Soviet Union and other repositories. We should be hell-bent on tightening our ports of entry for freight. We should let nothing stand in the way of creating a TSA that is as competent as the US military. And we should remember that surrender monkey business happens to the cocky, too.

Great op ed piece on the Kerry v. Bush linguistics battle. Maybe this explains the polls.

W plans to renew his push to privatize at least part of Social Security in a second term. This remains a truly stupid idea.

First, if the problem is lower-than-market returns a portion of the money could be managed like other large penion funds with a variety of market investments. Breaking it up into 220 million accounts is simply an inefficient way to achieve that goal.

However what is really at work is the attempt to shift SS from a program that pays you from when you begin to collect until you die into one that pays you back what you have put in plus the interest that money has earned much like a 401K plan. Once your personal account is empty, you're done. Sorry if you happen to live longer than you expected.

Creating "personal accounts" moves the thrust from a common-interest program in which the emphasis is placed on spreading risk, pooling assets, and providing some support for everyone to a self-interest program where you are only concerned with number one.

SS was set up so that the money paid in by workers pays for the benefits of the retirees ahead of them. Not perfect, but that's the structure. To transform this into a system where your payout is drawn from your own contributions is like trying to turn a horse into a cow. In simple financial terms, I've read that a privatized program would require up to $1.4 trillion in additional government funding to cover the shortfall from the loss of dollars that once would have gone into the pool but would now go into personal accounts (remember the pool still has to pay those retirees who enter the system before personal accounts are established). Where will that money come from? What will that kind of public borrowing do to interest rates?

No one gets rich on SS but we are all richer when we live in a society that provides some basic support for those who have reached their later years. Poverty among the elderly has dropped from 30% to 10% since the inception of Social Security -- that's a pretty good return on our investment.

Congress has voted to extend several of the "temporary" Bush tax cuts which should have come as a surprise to no one. Even most of those in favor of greater fiscal responsibility were afraid to vote against this in an election year. The first round of cuts were passed as temporary in order to keep the projected costs at a low enough level to get them passed. Now that they are in effect, voting to reject an extension will be cast as a vote to increase taxes and few politicians can survive that no matter how wise their vote might be.

Interesting that one cut they didn't extend was the child credit for those who make less than$11K/year. Terming it "welfare," the extension proponents said that it was unaffordable yet had no problem preserving far more costly tax cuts for businesses and those at the top of the income scale. May they rot in Hell for that bit of self-serving b.s.

Here's a quick lesson on where your taxes come from and go to courtesy of the President's Office of Mangement and Budget:
Money in:
- $ .44 from individual income taxes
- $ .40 from payroll taxes
- $ .09 corporate income taxes
- $ .07 misc. taxes (gas, alcohol, tobacco, etc.)

Interesting that the Republicans talk about how business pays too much in taxes, stifling growth, when they actually pay less than 10% of the total and benefit from lots of federal programs.

Money out:
- $ .22 for social security (the famous "third rail" of American politics)
- $ .19 for running the government -- a whole bunch of programs each of which is less than 3% of the total budget. Think education, international affairs, the EPA, Dept. of Agriculture, Justice Dept., etc.
- $ .17 for defense (don't see any cuts in this from either party in the near term given the war on terror)
- $ .12 for medicare (not medicaid -- see below; if you or a member of your family is ever facing nursing home care at $5K + a month you will thank your lucky stars for this one every single day)
- $ . 08 for medicaid (this is medical care for the needy)
- $ .08 for interest on the debt (this has been low thanks to low interest rates and will go up as they rise and the deficit increases)
- $ .07 Federal worker benefits (unemployment, retirement, and insurance, etc.)
- $ .07 Misc. entitlements mostly for low-income families (food stamps, school lunches, vets benefits, etc.)

The tax situation is simple: we won't, or can't, cut much out the above as there is only so much that can be squeezed out of miscellaneous entitlements and medicaid. The extension of the Bush tax cuts was completely irresponsible -- to think we can spend and not pay is simply to deny reality. Unfortunately, too few in Washington are brave enough to stand up and say it.

Independent Rant is in New York along with a vast collection of world leaders attending the gathering at the United Nations. Bush spoke yesterday and seemed to want to extend the doctrine of pre-emptive war by seeking “a new definition of security” that would let nations to join together to extend freedom to countries with tyrannical governments. I haven’t seen who gets to define “tyranny” but I assume that’s a parlor game that W, Condi, and Rummy will play after they send Colin Powell to the local Starbucks to pick up some cookies and joe.

I ask now as I have before: if we oppose tyranny in the Middle East, what are we doing about deposing the Saudi royal family? If we’re going to have a doctrine then, dammit, let’s have doctrine. We can’t exempt friends of the family.

Mark my Independent Ranting words: if Bush gets back in we’re off to Tehran within 18 months and the consequences for us will be enormous.

Much is being made of the importance of the religious vote this election season. The evangelical crowd is important to the Bush base and they are hoping to draw conservative Catholics and others as well. I don't like to seem intolerant of the evangelicals' faith, but the wholehearted importation of its edicts into the Bush White House scares me.

I spent a couple of years as a born again Christian (I'm now dead again, I guess) so I know that of which I speak. There is vision-limiting aspect to accepting the Bible as literal truth and Jesus as the only path to Heaven. In the strict evangelical view, the Jews -- chosen people though they may be -- are going straight to Hell unless they accept Jesus as their savior. The Catholics? They're going to Hell too. So are the Hindus, Muslims, Buddists, etc. Only the born again are going to Heaven and everyone else is going to get a toasted petutty in the fires of the underworld. There is but one way, one truth, and one light. Remeber those folks who'd hang the John 3:16 banners out a ball games? That counted as "exposure" to the Word of God. Follow it and you're saved; ignore it and you're damned. Cut and dried. Easy.

As far as personal faith goes, Independent Rant says more power to you. If you want to think that God is a toaster oven I'm fine with that, too.

But Bush and Christian mullahs want to us all to be governed by their beliefs (and, credit to them, that is what is urged by a literal reading of the Bible). They seem to feel that because they are right (at least in their own minds) about religion, they are right about everything else. The coalition of the "willing"along with the rebuke of "Old Europe" had chilling strains of Mathew 12:30, "He that is not with me is against me..."

I'd like to remind them of Abraham Lincoln's famous retort to the question of whether God was on the Union side -- "Pray that we're on God's side."

The certitude that comes with this black-and-white world view can quickly lead one a President to try to create the Christian Republic of America. Look out for the coming battle with Tehran as the Christian mullahs take on the Ayatollahs.

Most disturbing is the "end of days" mentality that abounds. in many conservative Christian circles. W won't say it in public but I wouldn't be surprised if he's thinking late at night of the cataclysmic battle between good and evil forecast in Revelation. Back in the 70's when I was a church goer the popular speculation was that the war would be between the Israelis and the Arabs with the Soviets backing them. The U.S. would, of course, back Israel (don't think that isn't why support for Israel is so strong among conservative voters). Jesus was due back any day. Think now about the deeper meaning of "axis of evil."

W isn't leading us into just a war -- he's provoking the conflict of the end times that will bring the big J back so that the chosen can rise up to His Kingdom of red state Heaven.

I left the evangelical Baptist church for two reasons: one was their intolerance of different religious beliefs (I believe each of us is on a personal spiritual journey and there are many paths on which one can take that journey) and the push to convert anyone and everyone. "Share the Good News" they'd say. "Witness and try to save someone every day." It was like big game hunters on the prowl. Most Christians are not like this and I don't mean to condemn them for their personal beliefs, but W hangs with the aggressive, self-righteous set that believes their every action is a part of God's grand plan. Heaven help us.

CBS is now admitting that they can't verify the authenticity of the documents they cited that cast doubt on Bush's NG service. Well, that supposedly proved the doubts that have been swirling for years. No one seems to be contesting the spirit of the material -- just the documents themselves but that subtlety will be lost in the frenzy over the faxed memos first reported on Sixty Minutes II.

Meanwhile, today's NY Times has an excellent piece on Bush's service -- or lack thereof (free reg rq'd). It too, alas, will be lost in the caw-cawing over Dan Rather's screw up. The air waves will be crackling with charges of liberal media bias, etc. when actually I think that the 60II crew simply played too fast and loose hoping to scoop their rivals.

Bush still skated out of duty but now he'll get a pass on it for good.

You may have thought it was Saddam's crack at Bush I. Or Karl Rove's insight that a wartime president is a virtual shoe-in. But no, the war in Iraq was caused by spam.

Every day men across America are bombarded by e-mail messages: your penis is miniscule, you can't satisfy your lover, you're overweight, your penis is really miniscule, your erection is gone so fast your lover calls you "speedy." In they come, day after day. After awhile, a guy gets riled.

That's right, millions of American men getting really pissed off. We have to take it out on someone. We have to show that they are manly men with gallons of testosterone pulsing through our bodies. We can get a hard on, dammit and we can kick some ass to prove it (OK there's no cause-and-effect there, but try to find logic in the arguements that the White House used as they moved from "imminent threat" to "massive stockpiles of WMDs" to "Saddam's a bad, bad man with a funny black moustache.")

Sensing the surging machismo, W lit upon the notion of "preemptive war." It was either that or there would be riots and pillaging in the streets of America. We had no choice.

And that's why they hid Dick Cheney for all of those months -- he was in the basement spamming his little black heart out.

In the heart-stopping race to get every single vote, attention has turned to the ex-pat community. I have friends in Germany and Italy who started trying to organize their friends and family months ago to be sure they vote come November. Here's a site that can help.

If there are electronic machines being used at your polling place that DON'T produce a paper receipt, request an absentee ballot.

Florida is again doing its best to deliver the state for Bush by any means possible. He's on again, off again with final arguments being heard today. By state law, absentee ballots must be mailed by tomorrow. Keep your fingers crossed.

And here's my favorite site of the day/week/month: Drink Liberally.

No matter where one stands on President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, one must agree that the situation has deteriorated and the prognosis for the immediate future does not look promising (just look at this week's intelligence brief). We have immersed ourselves in looking back to see who knew what about 9/11 and whether officials fabricated the threat of weapons of mass destruction; we should spend more time learning lessons that can help us now and as we move forward. W has an MBA from Harvard Business School so perhaps practical pointers from the business world will resonate. Here are two that I find particularly relevant.

First, acknowledge your decision-making biases and adjust for them. The work of academics such as Daniel Kahneman of Princeton and Max Bazerman of Harvard Business School has shown business leaders how one’s decision-making filters, preferences, and style can lead to wrong conclusions from otherwise legitimate evidence. We all have these biases – the wisest among us seek to balance them in order to increase the likelihood that we will make the “right” decision.

Whether one is pro- or anti-Bush, these truths are self-evident: the administration is comfortable acting alone, or largely alone, and may even prefer it; it likes a muscular foreign policy and is not opposed to using military force to back it up; and it does not welcome dissent.This particular set of preferences can lead to highly efficient decision making. The Bush team shows a definite preference for “let’s get it done” over “let’s talk about it.” The cost of the efficiency, however, is a weakening of the filters used to assess whether or not a decision such as launching an invasion is the wise thing to do. Rather than dismissing dissenters as appeasers or “cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” the administration would have been wiser to invite its critics in for a rigorous debate that would have tested their assumptions, pushed on their hypotheses, and challenged their reasoning. While no argument may have changed their minds about whether or not to invade, the process may well have resulted in better-formed plans that could have saved lives and money while avoiding some of the current morass.

Second, rebuilding Iraq is the ultimate start-up and one of the most important things to know about start-ups is that the initial strategy is almost always wrong. A Harvard Business School study of 400 businesses started by its graduates showed that those 80% of those that succeeded had shifted their strategy significantly from the one with which they started. They preserved resources and focused on adaptability in their early stages so that they could correct course and then build scale when there was evidence that they had found the right strategy. The current administration seems to feel that any admission that they were wrong about anything is a weakness and so stubbornly pushes ahead under the assumption that they will eventually be proven right. The far greater failure is to not admit that circumstances have turned out differently than expected and make the appropriate adjustments.

Third, deep understanding of the obstacles one faces and the ways to overcome them will be found at the front lines. The challenge for the command structure is to tear down the blockages that keep this information from reaching those who can act upon it. The military has traditionally played a leadership role in developing processes such as the After-action Review (later adopted by many businesses) for conducting blame-free assessments of what is going well and what is failing. The current civilian leadership, however, has shown little tolerance for those that challenge its assessments and plans (just ask General Shinseki). The military needs to ensure that its learning-while-doing tools are in place and supported at the highest levels – and the administration needs to learn that listening – even to those with bad news to report – is not just a virtue, it is smart management.

Despite our overwhelming military superiority, the question of whether our vision of a free, democratic Iraq will become a reality still hangs undecided. It stands a much better chance if we use our understanding of analogous situations when formulating our plans of action.

The New York Times has an excellent series of editorials on the big issues in the election. Even if you don't agree with them, the are worth the read. I find them an excellent articulation of the topics we should be talking about instead of the 30-years-ago war. Free registration is required.

However, for the last article you need to read about the charge-countercharge over Vietnam service (or non-Vietnam service in the case of W), check out Roberts Sam Anson's excellent column in the 9/20 edition of the New York Observer. He does a thorough and witty job of detangling the embarassing mess right up through the suspicious speed with which blog-nation leapt to challenge the authenticity of the W-damning documents shown on 60 Minutes II.

So read and then let's put the jungle behind us and head for the desert sands of Iraq. Interesting to read that the official intelligence estimate from July paints a pretty bleak picture of the next 18 months while W keeps making rosy pronouncements. He has an amazing belief in "saying so makes it so."

The U.S. Senate is engaged in one of the most important confirmation hearings in recent times -- those of Representative Peter Goss to become head of the CIA. Much of the wrangling over whether he has been too partisan while serving in the House and whether he can provide the President with an independent perspective. Here's my own quick analysis:
- He's served in the CIA and that's good. He knows the organization and will likely be able to gain the confidence of those in the agency because he is "one of them";
- He's been in the U.S. Congress, including on the Intelligence committee, and that should equip him for dealing with them both in oversight and budgetary situations;
- He's fiercely partisan but who isn't these days? I'd prefer a dispassionate intelligence whiz but there don't seem to be any on the horizon.

My first concern is that he has never been in situations where he has had to lead large scale organizational change. That's a tougher job than most people realize but it is a job that must be done at the CIA whether or not the post of intelligence czar is created later on. It's not a task most people come to naturally and he had best have a plan for developing that knowledge or bringing in someone with the requisite skills to help him.

Second, will he be able to go toe-to-toe with Rummy and the rest of the gang at the Pentagon? The changes needed in our intelligence agencies extends far beyond the CIA and there are going to be fierce battles over budgets, authority, and influence. The CIA Director needs to be a suave street fighter -- Mack the Knife in pinstripes -- in order to survive and bring the agency into the 21st century.

If Goss is up to the two tasks above, he should get a shot at the job. But I suggest that the Senate push him on these issues -- either publicly or behind the scenes -- to find out if he's really the person for the job. Unfortunately the hearings are less an intensive job interview that a chance for the questioners to make speeches and the candidate to deliver pre-packaged testimony. Heaven help us if we get this one wrong.

Well, the assault weapons ban ended today without action by the Congress. Despite overwhelming support of the public and law enforcement officials the law that kept weapons without flash mufflers, silencers, and large capacity magazines off the streets is dead. The President took the ultimate weeny position -- "I would sign it if they sent it to me" -- but he didn't exert any effort to get the Congress to act. People will die because of this.

Now let's all read the entire text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " "Well-regulated" is right there in the beginning and we've long since abandoned a militia in favor of a professional military.

I'm not an anti-gun nut but there is no one who needs to hunt with an assault weapon. No one who needs to target shoot with an assault weapon. The NRA needs to get right over itself. Assault weapons are for ego and crime -- both things we could do with a little less of.

The point is well taken that there are plenty of weapons that are "almost" assault weapons currently available. That points more to the need for redrafting the legislation, not eliminating it.
Those who let this law elapse should be ashamed.

The presidential campaign reached a new low yesterday with Dick Cheney’s assertion that a vote for Kerry is a vote for another massive terrorist attack in the U.S. Such mean-spirited foolishness is most harmful is that it destroys any meaningful, engaging debate over how to best prevent the terrorist attack we all dread. But perhaps I’m being old-fashioned in longing for a discussion of issues rather than the slapstick buffoonery that attracts more media attention. Soon we’ll have to cultivate a credible third party so that we can have an all out Moe, Larry, and Curly style televised debate complete with eye poking and head slapping.

Here are the questions I’d like each candidate to answer:
- Where the f*#@ is Osama and why haven’t we found him yet?
- What concrete steps will you take to enable meaningful scanning of incoming freight to ensure that a dirty bomb doesn’t enter the country? How much will it cost? How long will it take? And “executive privilege prevents disclosure of this information,” “we can’t put a price tag on safety” and “as long as it takes to get the job done” are not acceptable answers.
- List the recommendations from the 9/11 commission that you’ve endorsed along with two credible alternatives to each and a brief statement of why the ones you’ve endorsed will be the most effective. Hint: If you can’t do this, you shouldn’t be endorsing any of them. See Bill Safire's excellent column today for more on this.
- If the mission was accomplished on May 1, 2003 how come we’re at 1,000 U.S. dead and counting, $200 billion and counting, and admitting that significant portions of Iraq are controlled by insurgents on September 8, 2004?
- How many people are in the country on expired visas? Who are they? What is being done to find them? If you don’t have an answer to these questions, who are you firing because of it?

Please submit your answers before November 2, 2004

Bush’s post-convention bump is timed with the arrival of former Clinton aides to the Kerry team. All around are calls to “focus” and “find the theme.” C’mon kids, how hard can this be?
- More than one million few jobs now that when Bush took office;
- The slowest rate of job growth in a recovery since the 1930’s (and that will remain slow until we retool our tax code to remove incentives to spend on machines rather than people and lower health care costs);
- More than 1.3 million more people in poverty;
- More than one million more people without health insurance (and likely to grow unless we get costs under control)
- Average worker compensation from 2000 – 2003 down 3.4% (about $1,500);

Take each of these facts and put them in a commercial, on a billboard, and in a print ad. Shake electorate vigorously. Watch poll numbers rise.

Heard on the Street: I was in the airport this morning and stopped to get my shoes shined. My Kerry button started a conversation with the gentleman running the stand. After working through the DNC experience (he was working the VIP floor), we got to the candidates themselves. He told me, “I’m a Republican and I say we have to get this guy out of there.” He describes W as “the ‘uh’ and ‘duh’ President.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Now that the conventions are behind us I’d like to thank the folks at PBS and NPR for their coverage of the events. They provided the only extended coverage, along with some excellent analysis, for those not paying ransom to a cable company. Pull out your credit card or checkbook the next time you get a solicitation from your local public television or radio station – our public broadcasting services are underappreciated yet they continue to produce world-class programming. They are one of the few true news sources available to one and all (and the on-line archive is great).

In his acceptance speech this past Thursday night, President Bush put forth his case for creating more of an “ownership” society. He wants to expand homeownership (no complaints there). Back from the dustbin come plans to privatize social security so that each person has a personal retirement account. Added to that is the idea of a personal health plan as one more step in his advocacy for cutting the cords of dependency on government programs.

Every society has a balance between individual rights and responsibilities and collective rights and responsibilities. Mr. Bush obviously vastly prefers the former as he continually portrays anything “private” as positive and anything public as degenerate in some way. Market forces, good; public funding, bad. In doing this he creates a false dichotomy.

I suggest we take a few moments to remember the common wealth that has allowed so many to succeed in our society – yours truly included. A superior public school system (and the complementary network of public libraries), at its best, helps students of all ages to learn and grow regardless of their means. A healthy democracy and a competitive post-industrial economy are both dependent upon a well-educated workforce. Increasingly education is a life-long endeavor increasing the demands on our educational resources.

Safe and abundant parks and playgrounds are the breeding grounds of future athletic stars and a crucial resource for the physical development of all citizens – from the infant learning to walk to midlife joggers to the elderly out for an afternoon stroll. Exercise keeps us healthier, both mentally and physically, something from which we benefit as individuals and as a society.

National parks were not created as preserves to be harvested by private mining, timber, and oil companies; they are treasures for education, recreation, and preservation. We have all inherited “shares” in these assets. We all have opportunities to realize a return from them through use and an obligation to preserve the “capital” for future generations.

Schools, libraries, parks, roads, sewers and water systems, airports, courts, Social Security, Medicare, the military – these and many more are components of a vast public infrastructure that makes a dynamic private sector possible. This infrastructure isn’t a hindrance to private enterprise; rather it is an essential foundation that enables growth. It is an infrastructure in which we are all invested and from which we all benefit. Can our efforts be more effective? Certainly. Are there greater efficiencies to be found? Absolutely. But privatization of each element is not the cure-all answer. Some things do need to be managed for the common good rather than private gain. Nor can we forget that this great common wealth needs continued investment if it is to deliver optimum returns.

A system that relies to heavily on wealth for access to opportunity will result in the mediocre offspring of wealthy rising to the highest reaches of society while the talented but poor remain trapped beneath them – ultimately denying all of us the benefits of their potential.

Amidst all of the calls for continued tax cuts we can overlook the value of what we purchase with our tax payments. The vast majority of homes in this country have clean, fresh water constantly available. Waste is reliably taken away. Police, firefighters, and medical teams are on call for immediate response. Millions of books are waiting to be read free of charge. Some of the most glorious natural beauty in the world is open to all. Twelve years of education are a birthright. Should natural disaster strike, government relief is there. The list goes on and on.

We should be proud, not ashamed, of our public programs, agencies, and initiatives. We must work to have them evolve along with the changes in our society and we must hold them to high standards of performance. Let us celebrate our “ownership” of a vast enterprise that makes our live richer, healthier, more productive and more enjoyable. But, most important, we must remember that these institutions tie us to each other, give us a stake in the fate of our fellow citizens, and provide the opportunity live into the dream of “freedom and justice for all.”

For all you poll nuts out there, take a look at the projections at
http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html. Professor Sam Wang, a man obviosly far more adept at statistical analysis than this poor scribe, has Kerry winning with 274 electoral votes to W's 264. His projections are updated regularly.

Maybe it's a good thing that Independent Rant didn't get press credentials for NYC -- the blood pressure would be going through the roof. One must remember that conventions are about revving up the base more than anything else. Still, how can Dick Cheney keep a straight face?

I love this snippet from the Economist.com:
"The 'Grand Old Party' is making its case for re-electing George Bush at the party's convention in New York. The tone will be inclusive, but Mr Bush’s proposals for a second term could look like a continuation of his polarising first four years." See what I meant about the difference between the circus and the platform?

You have to give the Republicans credit -- nobody manages a news cycle better than they do and no one packages their message better. The Dems should do some studying or else they are going to get their butts kicked.

Now I'm off in search of a theme. The RNC has a theme every day. The speakers talk about it; the New York Times even prints it. It was compassion one day and opportunity the next. Today's is "A Safer World, a More Hopeful America" -- who can disagree with that? Perhaps I can plagarize a bit. My theme for today: "There'll be a Safer World and a More Hopeful America when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, and Wolfowitz are all Back in High-paying Private Sector Jobs." Won't fit on a bumber sticker, but I like it.

First, a quick break from the heat of politics for a more important headline: Indians 22, Yankees 0; Red Sox 10, Angels 7. That puts the Red Sox just 3 1/2 games out of the division lead. And yes, the ol' Town Team may fall apart at any moment if history is to be any guide but they are playing great baseball and the boys in the Bronx ain't. Let us savor this glorious moment.

Unable to secure press credentials, Indpendent Rant is still following the blow-by-blow drama of the RNC. Perhaps we'll get a better hair stylist for 2008 and then we'll be able to sit with Jennings and Brokaw or whomever their replacements might be. But being 400 miles away gives us something lacking in most of ther television press reports I've seen -- perspective.

Last night it was time for those comely Bush gals to take the stage and remind us what it is to be a lady. It was sort of a Big Valley moment -- Laura as the Barbara Stanwyck character, Barbara playing the role originated by Linda Evans, and Jenna -- well she's more like Hoss in drag but that means mixing my television metaphors. It was all sweet smiles fronting for flinty character. Anyway it was all about personal grit and being fine, upstanding white folks on land surrounded by savages.

Speaking of white folks and savages, I was told a great anecdote by a neighbor about a recent conversation she had had with her Repulican aunt. My neighbor had said that she still felt bad about how we had treated the Native Americans over the years. "Don't feel bad," the aunt replied, "they had this country for centuries but they never did anything with it." That puts the compassion in compassionate conservatism, doesn't it? I think it encapsulates the current administration's approach to non-whites, environmental policy, and diversity in just 16 words. at least it's concise conservatism.

And, finally, this from the archives thanks to our good friends at the NY Times (free registration required). From a Wall Street Journal Op Ed written by Brent Scowcroft (adviser to Bush I on Iraq War I) in August 2002: "a new war in Iraq did not seem justified by the threat posed by Sadaam Hussein; would likely be followed by a 'large-scale, long-term occupation'; and would 'seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken." See, not all Republicans are stupid.

Scowcroft joins such other Republicans as James Baker III, Colin Powell, and Richard Darman in not attending the festivities in New York.