Independent Rant

Could there be a chink in the armor of the Bush machine in the person of "Jeff Gannon?" "Gannon" is the pseudonym for a W-lovin' reporter who has a White House press pass and the latest link in the media manipulation madess that has included Armstrong Williams and Michael McManus.

There's a hot pursuit to uncover "Gannon"'s true identity. He's apparently close to Karl Rove. Could he be linked to the revelation Valerie Plame's undercover status? Are we living in a John LeCarre novel?

This is a story with legs. Let's not let it die.

Congratulations to the Iraqis. The elections have apparently held successfully and we now await the counting of the ballots. Then the hard work begins -- holding the country together long enough to write and ratify a constitution that all of the factions can live with.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A the Dems have the timetable drums beating. "Let us know how long and how much" they cry. "No, no, you unpatriotic wastrals" reply the Bushies. "To set a timetable would be to tell the insurgents that the country is theirs on X date."

Well, not so fast.

It is the responsibility of the Congress to oversee the expenditures of the government so Senators Kennedy, Biden, et al are doing exactly what they ought to as good public servants. It is not too much to ask for some idea of the plan and its implications. This is not a global fight-to-the-death like WWII; it is a war of supposed liberation that should have a planned endpoint. Are there 120,000 trained Iraqi security forces, as Condi maintains, or under 10,000, as Joe Biden says. The truth is likely somewhere in between and only a timetable with benchmarks will force all parties to deal honestly with reality.

Any timetable would, of course, come with milestones and the requirements held out by W as necessary for withdrawal -- such as a viable Iraqi defense force, an accepted constitution, etc. But, those milestones should have accompanying expectations for how long massive American forces will be needed. It is one year? Three years? Five?

Very few are asking for a timetable that calls for a withdrawal by the end of the week. Nor is anyone expecting an answer as exact as "Thursday, July 14 at 4:27 p.m."

My guess is that the administration knows that a realistic timetable will not be palatable to the American (or Iraqi) public. Military officials who I've heard say that it will take three-to-five years to get the Iraqi military into shape to stand on its own. It takes about three years to get a new division battle ready in the U.S. or Europe and the old Iraqi army did not have a modern command-and-control structure or an ability to coordinate actions between units (Sadaam liked to keep everyone dependent on him). So they have a steep hill to climb.

To dis any thought of a timetable is, in essence, to say that the Iraqis will be dependent on U.S. might for the foreseeable future. It says you see no hope for the Iraqis to be respsonsible for their own country. To label calls for a timetable unpatriotic is insulting -- both to us and the Iraqis. Let's admit that an endgame requires a plan and the sooner we face up to what it will require, the better.

Salon.com reports that a third conservative columnist has been caught accepting money for delivering opinion. I guess there is no such thing as a "free" press.

I'm fine if the conservatives want a battle of ideas, but let's have an actual discussion and not mercenary mayhem. "All our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," Bush said at a news conference. Let's hope that the actions that follow reflect these sentiments.

Don't be surprised that I'm not holding my breath.

The anti-gay forces have their panties in a wad over an upcoming episode of Postcards from Buster that features lesbian parents. PBS, in another cave-in to the ranting right, is not distributing the episode to its 350 or so stations after Education Secretary Margaret Spellings denounced it.

Demonizing gay and lesbian parents is part of the ongoing attempt to turn us into a more homophobic nation ruled by Christian zealots. It is great that Postcards recognizes that healthy, happy families come in many shapes, sizes, and configurations. Loving, caring parents should be celebrated no matter what their sexual orientation. There are too few of them.

Buster joins Spongebob Squarepants and Tinky Winky as a target of conservatives who see a limp-wristed demon behind every gentle children's character. Last time I checked, sponges don't even have genetalia so sex is sort of beside the point; Teletubbies, too, are non-sexual creations. Do they think that Davey was into beastiality because he spent all of his time with Goliath?

Homosexuals aren't trying to convert everyone to their lifestyle (unlike evangelical Christians who are all but on a conversion quota system). Those who have had to struggle as they recognized their own sexuality are more likely to want others to find theirs -- be it straight or gay.

A case in Connecticut has the death penalty back in the news. CT may execute its first prisoner in more than 40 years.

I don't believe in the death penalty. It's not that I am soft on crime, but rather that I think that spending a lifetime in prison contemplating what put you there (and getting a nightly visit from a large, mean fellow inmate for a little lovin') is far greater punishment than being put to death. Anyone who thinks that prison is a cakewalk, especially max. security, should volunteer to spend a night on the inside.

Second, life inprisonment without parole is actually cheaper than the prolonged appeal process through which most death row inmates march on their way to the chair. Michael Ross (in CT) was arrested in 1984 and convicted in 1987. If he didn't choose to stop fighting, he could keep this going on for years more. All on our dime.

Third, there is ample recent evidence that too many folks who get put to death were wrongly convicted. You can't undo the death penalty and if we've zapped the wrong guy, it's murder plain-and-simple.

The death penalty is mostly about the blood lust of victims' families and others who feel that smashing people is the best way to set an example. Perhaps those who believe in Heaven and Hell think that the perpertrator will get downstairs faster with lethal injection. Except that a fair number of these prisoners seem to find Jesus behind bars and, in theory, will be heading straight to Glory.

But, if we have to have it, here is my prescription for reform:
- It is only applicable in capital cases where there at least two unrelated eye witnesses and a preponderance of physical evidence (this pretty much eliminates the chance of getting the wrong person and makes it tougher to frame someone);
- You get one appeal to a special review board and it will be held within 90 days of conviction. From there you can try the applicable Supreme Court, but that's it (keeps costs down and punishment swift);
- The jury that convicts you has to come to watch the penalty be carried out. If you can mete out the ultimate verdict, you damn well better be able to see what you've done.

Dan Gillmor is leading an interesting debate on blogging and journalism among other topics on his new blog. It's well worth the read.

Atrios is also still hot on the case. The right wing continues on believing their own press releases. It's more than a full-time job debunking their claims. All is not perfect on the left, but the progressive voices seem to include more of the pioneering bloggers who understand the nature of community, establishing on-line norms and rules-of-the-road, and are not looking to create virtual talk radio.

I'm sorry to have missed last week's Blogging, Journalism, and Credibility conference (but David Weinberger has posted

The passing of Johnny Carson is a sad moment. Neither Leno nor Letterman come close to filling Carson's shoes in my opinion. He made us laugh, made us feel more sophisticated, he brought us new talent.

Carson was out of the spotlight for the past several years but his impact continues to be felt through the work of the current late-night hosts as well as Jerry Seinfeld, Ray Romano, and virtually every other stand-up comedian currently working.

Letterman is all about Letterman. Leno just lacks an edge -- he's a corporate guy. Carson, however, had a humility and quiet confidence that made him a bit of an everyman (watch the animal skits). It wasn't all about him -- it was about entertaining the audience. He wasn't afraid to make a fool of himself if it would get a laugh. He consistently pushed the envelope. Best of all, the comedy holds up today.

Carl Reiner suggested that someone run the old Carson shows each night on TV. I second that motion.

We'll miss you, Johnny.

In another sad passing, former Boston Globe political columnist David Nyhan died of a heart attack while shoveling snow this weekend. Nyhan was an intelligent and thoughtful voice whose work appeared in the pages of the Globe for 31 years. More recently he wrote for the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune.

My trip to China was truly fascinating. Unfortunately, between a packed schedule and mediocre internet connection, I didn't get a chance to do much blogging.

The most obvious evidence that China is still China was the death of Zhao Ziyang this past Monday. Zhao was a senior party official for many years and was the one leader who showed public support for the students in Tienamen Square. Shortly thereafter he was toppled and spent the next 15 years under house arrest.

When he died it was a front page story in the Hong Kong papers as well as the International Herald Tribune. On the mainland, however, the state radio and television stations were under orders not to broadcast the news. It merited only a brief mention in The People's Daily buried deep in the paper. Plainclothes police kept mourners from visiting Zhao's house. By the end of the week things had softened a bit and the party had agreed to bury Zhao in the Chinese equivalent of Arlington National Cemetery.

Still it was apparent that political control is still tight in the People's Republic of China. Don't mistake the opening of the economic system for a political awakening. Based on my conversations with ordinary Chinese folks there isn't a huge appetite for more political freedom. They want the freedom to make money and they don't want party spies in every corner, but beyond that they don't care.

Long term the ability to have strong economic growth without Western-style democracy will be the biggest threat to that democracy. China will be the world's largest economy within a few years and they will begin calling more shots that we realize. We are, as the old Chinese curse says, living in interesting times.

As I prepare to re-enter the People's Republic of China it is interesting to note that the prison population in the U.S. exceeds that of the PRC police state by about a half million people (think about the per capita ratio given that China's population is greater than ours by an order of magnitude). This is according to the International Centre for Prison Studies as cited in this week's Newsweek Asian edition. We exceed the prison population of Russia by about 1.2 million people.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down federal sentencing guidelines may help alleviate this problem by returning more control of sentencing to judges where it belongs. The growth of our prison population stems largely from elected officials wanting to appear tough on crime by passing legislation that makes good headlines. Little is published, however, about the total cost to taxpayers or the effectiveness of prison sentences vs. other penalties (given how many people wind up in jail, it can't be that much of a deterrent and I'll bet it boosts recidivism).

It is time to look at other penalties (financial, required public service, etc.) that may as or more effective than prison for non-violent and first-time criminals and less expensive for taxpayers.

I'm sitting at O'Hare waiting to board a flight to Hong Kong. I thought I'd share a post from about 18 months ago from my old blog as it is oh-so appropriate.

But before we get there, shame shame on the Dean campaign which has now admitted paying bloggers to shill for them. I'm surprised that DailyKos adn MyDD would put their credibility in play but according to today's WSJ, they apparently did (to the tune of $3,000 a month for four months). Both claim that they clearly disclosed that they were being paid but deny that it was for writing about Dean. The Dean story is a year old, but it comes n the heels of the Armstrong Williams story (see my previousl post) and shows the increasing creep of both perceived and blatant pay-to-report influencing of the media. As readers/listeners/viewers, we cannot stand for this.

It has been revealed that the Department of Education paid at least one black commentator to hype the No Child Left Behind Act in his broadcasts. This improper, and likely illegal, intervention in the editorial process is appalling -- as much in that Armstrong Williams accepted the money as that it was offered at all.

That's $240,000 of our money that could have gone to, well I don't know, educating kids or something. But instead it was put to trying to rig the public discourse around the program.

Let's hope indictments follow.

John Barlow's stellar piece (yes, brilliant again) on the "uh-oh" decade is well worth the read. I'll be using the moniker starting tonight.

As we watch people from Darfur to Sumatra to southern California search for missing loved ones, the folks at The Hackers Foundation are David Weinberger for keeping this one spreading.

In a bold move to stop CEO recidivism, Fannie Mae is paying ex-CEO Franklin Raines enough money to keep him from ever destroying a company, er working, again. Raines recently "retired" after inventive accounting practices forced Fannie Mae to restate several years' earning and was recently named by Business Week as one of the worst managers of the year.

As reward for this stellar performance, BW reports that Raines received a $19 million severance package and a lifetime salary of $1.37 million. He's already recieved $21 million in stock and is due $23.8 in future stock payouts and an additinoal $23.8 million in performance-based options. He received $17.5 million in comp. between 1999 when he took the job and his "retirement." Add it all up: $140 million for doing his job so well that he got bounced.

I wish I could screw up to the tune of $140 million. No, actually, I don't think I could live with myself.

This is just the latest revelation of a platinum parachute that heaps money on executives who perform poorly. There is ample evidence that CEO compensation needs to be ripped down and rebuilt, but investors still have little impact or recourse when a board grants an executive an irresponsible package. Even Elliot Spitzer can't help much here as these packages are legal if not ethical.

The Republicans always make a big deal about the power and efficiency of the market. Get those meddling liberals and do-gooders out of the way and the "invisible hand" will optimize our resources, generate greater wealth, and solve just about every problem we face.

It is interesting, however, how this market lovefest doesn't extend to popular culture and entertainment. It isn't lapsed morals that gave us the t&a of Desperate Housewives or the f-bombs of Tony Soprano, but rather the good old-fashioned profit motive. The romping scantily clad vixens of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model Search aren't brought to you by the DNC. As media consolidation has grown, so has the focus on the bottom line. Sex sells. Violence sells. And we always get more of what sells.

The market is as amoral as it is relentless. Some of us don't like it when the market drives companies to destroy the environment or exploit people. Others don't like it that it squeezes cleavage and foul language into their living rooms. Maybe it is time for everyone to admit that almost no one really wants a completely unfettered market so that we can begin a productive discussoin of how best to exploit the strengths of the free market while mitigating its weaknesses.

You may have missed this one in the pre-holiday frenzy, but the missile defense system that W and company were have given as a gift to the military-industrial complex for the past few years failed another test. This time the intercept vehicle couldn't even get off the ground. We (that's you and me, Joe and Jane taxpayer) have spent $100 billion on this fantasy so far with virtually nothing to show for it except mud on our collective faces.

We have an enormous deficit. We are fighting an expensive war in Iraq. We are about to see an administration budget that holds domestic spending flat or cuts it. Please tell me why we continue to spend lavishly on a missle defense system that has failed virtually every test to which it has been put. I'm all in favor of giving the military the tools they need to defend our interests, but this program runs like it was designed by Wiley Coyote.

The "star wars" defense isn't the best way to defend against nuclear threats from other countries (which are more likely to manifest themselves as bombs smuggled into the country rather than coming air mail via missle). It doesn't do the job it is supposed to do even if North Korea lobbed a missle our way. Let's ground it now.

The Reps are split on W's plan to take the security out of Social Security. They can't quite decide if they should cut benefits up front or borrow tons of money to push that decision off for awhile. W seems to favor cutting benefits by tying future increases to prices rather than wages. I doubt, however, they'll mail each of us a statement comparing projections for the two methods to show how much we'll lose though according to NYT, "analysts say such a change would mean deep cuts in benefits over time." If nothing else, the intra-party tension may mean that we get a real debate on the issue (or least between the varieties of conservative solutions to it) which is the least we can ask for.

W is drumming up a "$10 trillion" crisis without bothering to mention that the way his number crunches got to that number was by through Buzz Lightyear economics -- they extrapolated to infinity and beyond. Administration policymakers are also apparently making some interesting projections about increases in life expectancy -- saying that it will be slow and steady unlike the last 30 years despite the enormous growth of bio tech and other advances that promise to deliver more dramatic results -- so that their privatization scheme will look more feasible.

Relatively small adjustments to the input (that's the taxes we and our employers pay) and the output (that's benefits) could keep the current system healthy long into the future. W, scion of a rich famly who will never have to worry about how his retirement will be funded, is Hell bent on gambling the futures of millions of Americans in order to satisfy the market-mania ideologues.

A study that I r ead recently (sorry, can't seem to find the link) said that a majority of Americans are uncomfortable making their own investment decisions. There is no great outcry of people to control their retirement plans -- we may need to get better returns on SS, but there is no guarantee that privatizing the program will provide that. No one on either side of the aisle seems to have the guts to suggest raising taxes or lowering benefits in a straightforward fashion even in a small way. Instead, by promising the upside of market returns, any decrease of benefits will be the result of the "invisible hand" and that hand doesn't have identifiable fingerprints.

At the very least, the implications of any changes that we make must be made fully clear to everyone before they are put into place. Will that happen? I doubt it. Yesterday's NYT quoted Newt Gingrich, a Republican and former House speaker, "...anything that changes benefits on an involuntary basis will allow the Democrats, the AARP and the unions to beat our brains in. It isn't politically doable." So they'll sugar coat the bullshit and hope that most people aren't paying attention.

The law of unintended consequences will come back to bite us in the ass big time if we aren't careful.

I am happy to see that the House has decided to scrap the drive to rewrite their ethics rules to benefit Tom DeLay. DeLay, brilliant tactician that he is, saw that they were about to hand the Dems a potent political issue and asked the ethics committee to stand down. Still, however, they voted to make ethics investigations harder to undertake.

The cynic in me also suspects that they feel confident that they can move the Texas investigation from the local district (with a Dem. Prosecutor) to the office of the state AG (a Rep) making an indictment of DeLay less likely.

In a country where most people think that the definition of politician is "corrupt S.O.B.," the last thing we need is to make it harder to investigate ethical lapses. However, we do need to make it harder to spend vast sums of taxpayer money chasing spurious charges. What we need is a system that balances the need for transparency with the temptation of political witch hunts. Perhaps we could emulate the NFL and allow three challenges per year and, if the investigation exonerates the accused, the accusing party must pay $10 million.

Meanwhile on Seventh Avenue, the NYT reports that in the year ahead skirts are expected to get longer and shoes flatter. Just goes to show that I have little influence in the fashion world.

Americans seem to love meaningless, feel good symbols and slogans. No other country embraces attitudinal t-shirts or unctuous bumper stickers with as much gusto. From "Imagine Whirled Peas" to "These Colors Don't Run," people seem to feel compelled to show passion, cleverness, or patriotism on their sleeves, bumpers, and backsides.

The latest craze are obnoxious ribbon-shaped magnets (yellow for "support our troops" and pink for "find a cure for breast cancer.") If the money spent on these insipid gimcracks were actually put to use, oh, supporting the troops or finding a cure for breast cancer a lot more would get done.

This amusing take on the subject was forwarded by my friend Jean.

Kudos to President Bush for tapping his father and President Clinton to head up a national fund raising effort to benefit the victims of the tragedy in southeast Asia. This step both signals that our response will be in proportion with the devastation and also allows much the private sector to be fully involved in the effort.

We can, and should, help the victims of this awesome act of nature. Our government pledge has increased tenfold to $350 million, but the government alone cannot solve this crisis. I must applaud Bush for holding to his philosophy of limiting the role of government by turning to the private sector to raise the needed money.

See, I don't always bash the guy.

There is going to be a battle royale for the direction of the Democratic Party culminating in the election of a new DNC head in February. One faction wants to move to the left, come out more strongly against the war, and energize the traditonal base (worked for Rove on the other side); the other wants to move to the center, reach out to socialy conservative voters, and "go to where the votes are" (based on the red-state runup by W).

More important, Howard Dean is leading a group that wants to concentrate on building the party at the grassroots level. Their counterparts in the Rep party have been building since the Goldwater debacle and are now reaping the rewards of that work. I'm with these folks and I know I'm not alone. We have to lead the party to the point where it can win and that is going to mean winning school districts, city councils, and judgeships as well as the White House.

Howard Dean may not have been the right man to be President, but he can bring life back to the Party. Toadying up to right wing appeasers is no way to do it. We have to define core values, promote them proudly, and argue them coherently. Polls show that more Americans are in favor of progressive positions -- we need to give them reasons to elect our people to enact them.