Happy New Year!

A big happy new year wish to all who visit and co-blog at The Reaction. Michael, you've built a great home here. Co-bloggers, you are a great bunch and I'm proud to share that home with you. Here's looking forward an interesting 2008.

-Creature

My voting history

By Edward Copeland

My state won't get to vote until Feb. 5, so who knows how the Democratic field will look then. With the approach of Iowa though, I'm in a reflective mood since 2008 will mark 20 years since I first voted for president.

In 1988, my state's presidential primary was in March. By that time, my candidate, Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois, had suspended his campaign but not dropped out, meaning he could still accumulate delegates. I voted for Simon anyway. I worked for Dukakis during the summer and voted for him proudly in November.

In 1992, Paul Tsongas was my guy. Unfortunately, the success of his candidacy seemed to have surprised even his campaign, who neglected to get him on my state's primary ballot. Still leery of Bill Clinton's ability to beat Bush 41, I voted for Jerry Brown with the dim hope of a brokered convention. Thank heavens for that mad dwarf Ross Perot, who enabled Clinton to win twice. I voted for Clinton in both 1992 and 1996.

Since there was no Democratic primary fight in 1996, I switched my registration to GOP and voted for Buchanan, just to screw with Dole.

2000 was incredibly depressing. I was a Bradley man, having despised Gore dating back to Tipper and the PMRC. I was moving between states, but Bradley's candidacy was already over, so I registered GOP in the hopes of helping McCain stop Dubya. In the fall, faced with a choice between two men I despised and living in the reddest of red states where Nader wasn't even an option, I voted for Harry Browne, the Libertarian.

In 2004, I wasn't sure how to go. At first, I felt John Edwards was an empty suit, but after seeing him in person, I was sold and voted for him in the primary, though he barely lost the state. In the fall, I gladly voted for Kerry and his loss led me into a funk that led me on the path to blogging.

This year, Edwards is still my first choice, but if he's out of it by Feb. 5, I'm going to vote for Obama to try to stop Hillary's ego from costing the Dems an easy November win. The Democrats are blessed with a field of worthy contenders, but the only serious candidate (not counting Gravel, entertaining as he is) with a worse chance in November than Hillary is Kucinich and I still like him better than her.

Every election, we like to say is the most important ever, but it's very true about 2008. The Democrats and the country in general can't afford to blow this one.

How odd...

By Carl

...Democracy without a war?

DEOTHANG, Bhutan (Reuters) - Bhutanese voted on Monday to elect members to a new upper house of parliament for the first time, a step towards democracy after a century of absolute monarchy.

The tiny, conservative Himalayan kingdom has been preparing for democracy since former monarch Jigme Singye Wangchuck decided to hand power to an elected government, even as many of his citizens said they were quite happy with the way things were.

Not a shot fired. No nation invaded and displaced the king. No trillions of dollars spent to spread a philosophy.

In short, democracy grew from within, because the people were ready for it. In this case, the existing government was, as well.

And yet, even here in a country where the first TVs only came in 1999, the ugly head of Iraq is reared:

"I'm afraid that our country might end up like other countries who are having problems because of democracy," said Mila Wangchuk, 28, who runs a real estate business.

It's taken nearly twenty years for the king to agree to a general call for democracy. In that time, many Bhutanese have been expelled and ethnic Nepalese living in Bhutan have been denied the vote. We're not talking about a paradise here.

But it's a start, and should serve as a beacon to any war-mongering knucklehead who wants to be President that we will be vigilant about how our troops are used in the future, because here we have a clear example of how to do democracy the right way.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Huckabee comes out

By Capt. Fogg

Mike Huckabee is almost a gift to those of us engaged in cynical bloggery. Face it, we need a respite from the horrors of an ever crazier and more nuclear world, and nattering about the differences between most candidates has gone on so long that many of us no longer care about any perceived differences between them.

It's less so with Mike. The main result of the weight loss he seems to feel has cosmic significance is that he's now limber enough to put one or more feet in his mouth without hardly trying. Even though his stunning conflation of Benazir Bhutto's assassination and Mexican immigration left many of his supporters open-mouthed at his illogic and his pathetic attempt to put every bit of news into that Procrustean bed of illegal immigration, he keeps doing it. If that asteroid hits Mars in late January, I'm sure we'll hear about the need to build an even higher wall along the wild and scenic Rio Grande.

The Huckster's latest attempt to appeal to the unlettered aired yesterday on Meet the Press. Homosexuality, said Mike, is a choice.

"We may have certain tendencies, but [we choose] how we behave and how we carry out our behavior,"

he said to Russert. "Very interesting," Arte Johnson used to say, "but stupid." Stupid indeed, unless this is Huckabee's attempt to admit the secret homosexual tendencies so common amongst his peers. If one has to choose which gender to be interested in, one might rightly be able to say it's a choice, but most of us never had to think much about it, our natures having been formed in utero at the latest. Most people have heard the "it's a choice" argument disemboweled long enough ago to be embarrassed to hear their candidate endorse it.

I don't know how many more of his supporters will head for the gang plank after this latest revelation of idiocy, but although the press continues to wave flags for him and invent opportunities to use the name Reagan in conjunction with his, he can't have many left. Telling us that he believes we are all sinners, he doesn't seem to realize that by calling homosexuality a sin, his argument cancels itself out, but all kidding aside, Mike Huckabee is an idiot who attempts to make other idiots feel good about their idiocy so they'll vote for him.

Cross posted from Human Voices

On the way to 2008

By Carol Gee

It is important to maintain perspective. With all the danger and tragedy in the news, it can be helpful to step back and come to know again what is really important to the bigger picture. In the case of the environment these seem important to me, but I know your lists might be very different.

Science matters -- We are reading many more stories these days that must be understood from a scientific point of view. A solid foundation in science is essential to staying up to date as we move into this next year. Reading science news from Scientific American, I found myself thinking about both the past and the future. My previous post was about the future of the natural earth (see Nature), and I have often written about the environment and energy in the past. I routinely reference Carl Pope, the head of the Sierra Club's blog, "Taking the Initiative," (12/19) regarding water shortages in Asia, from which I quote:

It will require a new kind of economic and ecological cooperation to avoid . . . beggar-your-neighbor scenarios -- and a recognition that, as Tom Friedman said Sunday in the Times, "It’s Too Late for Later." Building that kind of new world order is the biggest challenge facing the next American President -- if we don't want the 21st century to be a catastrophic string of conflicts and wars over control of the Earth's rapidly diminishing biological commons and ecosystems.

Art Matters -- as well as science. We can advocate for the environment in several different ways. A more creative way might be even more effective. Each way reaches a different part of the reader or listener. I recently composed a little piece of poetry as part of my transition into 2008. I called it, "Happy New Year, Dear Earth." It goes like this:

I want to wish you . . .
A Happy New Year, dear Earth.
You deserve better than a penny's worth
Of righteous effort from us.

I want to wish you. . .
A better bunch of friends in high places.
You deserve a set of brand new faces
Honoring their Bully Pulpits.

I want to wish you. . .
A decent shot at normal temp trends.
You deserve relief from over extended
Fossil fuel fires of waste.

I want to wish you . . .
A Chilly Winter at both your poles.
You deserve fewer gaping holes
In those precious ozone layers.

I want to wish you. . .
A Happy New Year, dear Earth.
You deserve at least a rebirth
Of higher rescue aspirations.

Copyright by Carol Gee
December 29, 2007

Love matters -- The 2007 holidays are almost in the past and the song, "As Time Goes By," from the movie Casablanca (an old favorite I just saw for the umpteenth time), is now running through my head:

You must remember this
A kiss is still a kiss,
a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

Perspective matters -- With the environment the fundamental things do apply, and apply ever so seriously. But having fun along the way really lightens a burdened heart. Larry West, who writes "Your Guide to Environmental Issues," a blog for About.com, posted this for Christmas, in case you missed it. A Kiss is Just a Kiss:

Fun Facts About Mistletoe
Everyone knows about the power of mistletoe at Christmas, right? It makes holiday romance democratic by making everyone equally kissable. But there is more to mistletoe than kissing and holiday merriment. . . consider these fun facts about the unassuming little sprig that promises to enliven your holiday romance.

Compassion matters -- People acting in the name of science must have compassion,too. On the way to 2008, I came across this short article. It troubled me as I read it. There is an almost barbaric edge to the story, in my opinion. My questions are these. Was there no way to end this except by killing the subject? Am I just a fuzzy-headed liberal for wondering? The story is headlined, "Top 10 Scientific Discoveries - 50 Top 10 Lists of 2007 " to quote from TIME:

#9. The World's Oldest Animal

In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell. The clam species, the Arctica Atlantica, is particularly long lived — it has been known to survive some 200 and 300 years — and this particular specimen spent its protracted life burrowed in the sand 262 feet under water. When it first lodged itself down there, Shakespeare's Hamlet was on stage at the Globe Theater, and the English were setting up camp in North America.

Happy New Year, Everyone.

cross-posted at South by Southwest

16-0

By J. Thomas Duffy

Even though I, long ago, stopped being a die-hard, life-revolving-around, sports fan (hey, after the "it's only a game", it becomes really big business) it is, nonetheless, very sweet to see the New England Patriots and their 16-0 perfect season.

I am just old enough to have sat in the bleachers set up in leftfield (in front of the Green Monster), to watch the Boston Patriots, of the AFL, led by Babe Parilli, Jim "Bo" Nance (whose main rival was Buffalo Bill fullback Cookie Gilchrist - "Lookie, Lookie, Here Comes Cookie"), and Gino Cappelletti, at Fenway Park, in the early 60's ... I was at the preseason game in 1969 (or 1970), played at Boston College, when the stands caught fire ... I was at the opening game of 1970 season, played at Harvard Stadium (the year before they moved to Foxborough), when Bob Gladieux, sitting in the stands, drinking and smoking dope, was paged over the PA system to report to the locker room, where he suited up moments before the kickoff.

For much of my youth, and into early adulthood, the word "hapless" was often attached to the Boston/New England Patriots.

And with that experience, it's almost impossible to comprehend the achievements and success of the current team.

While it would be cool for any team to go undefeated, it is rather sweet to watch the Patriots do it.


The 16-0 Links

Sweet 16 - Brady and Moss are an unbeatable combination in comeback against Giants

Jackie MacMullan: Brady and Moss set the records straight

RECORD TRACKER: Marks the Pats set en route to 16-0

16-0! Recapping the Patriots' pursuit of perfection

'72 Dolphins toast achievement

Charles P. Pierce: Winners - Josh Beckett became the ace, Randy Moss is the missing ingredient, and Kevin Garnett is as advertised. Has there ever been a better year to be a Boston sports fan?
















(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

RIAA runs amok

By Libby Spencer

Back in the dark ages when I was young, musicians used to make vinyl albums. If you only wanted one song, you could buy a 45, which for you young folks who might not remember, was a little vinyl disk that required an insert so you could play it on your Hi-Fi. The first 45 I bought was Roses are Red by Bobby Vinton. The second was the Beatles, I Want to Hold Your Hand but I bought it for the B-side, This Boy.

Eventually, technology evolved to enable you to record from the albums to tape and this was good. Rarely does anyone love every song on an album and this allowed the listener to assemble compilations of their favorite songs. The industry whined about copyrights then too, but they didn't sue anyone since you still had to buy the album to get the songs and besides there was no practical way to track who was trading cassettes with their friends.

Now the latest technology allows the listener to download music without ever visiting a record store and share it much more widely. It also allows the record companies to track who is doing the sharing. I'll admit, I do have a little sympathy for the recording companies. To some extent, file sharing with hundreds or thousands of strangers starts to resemble stealing and the industry should be able to protect its product, but this is definitely a step that goes too far.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

This is such a greedy and stupid move. The industry needs to realize that it can't have complete control over its product once its sold, especially when their product isn't all that great anymore. Just as in every media format, the music industry has consolidated to the point where creativity is stifled and only a handful of artificially assembled groups get promoted. Most of them aren't really that good.

More and more musicians, in response to being shut out or otherwise exploited by the big labels, are taking their work directly to the public via the internet. Many give their work away for free to promote their tours. It's a model consumers have responded to positively. The recording industry could take a lesson here and adapt their own business model because if it continues to try to criminalize its remaining consumer base by threatening them with draconian rules of use, that base is likely to disappear altogether.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

An Endorsement

By Carl

(NOTE: The following reflects the personal opinion of the writer and in no way should be construed as the official position of The Reaction. If you're going to write nasty response to Michael and crew. Don't. Direct them to me, please)

I've put this off long enough, even though in truth, I don't have to do this until the New York primary. Since that gets lost in the flurry of Super Tuesday endorsements, I figured I may as well stake my claim now.

I've spent the entire past year on the fence about whom to support for the Democratic presidential nomination. I had my list narrowed down to three people: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and then, Barack Obama.

Edwards I discounted quickly, when his lack of character and toughness was on display for all to see with the whole "Catholic League/Bloggers" debacle. If he couldn't either shit or get off the pot..."Oooh, I don't want to arouse my base against me! Oooh, I don't want to take on the big, mean Catholic League!"...on that ridiculously inconsequential issue; if that's his idea of leadership, then he was the wrong choice. And that was just one issue: his flipflopping apology for the Iraq war vote smelled too calculated, and then there was the whole heartstring tug of Elizabeth's cancer, and running or not running.

Some will say that Marcotte and McEwan resigned of their own accord. That may be true, but I'd be willing to bet if Edwards had personally sat down with them and assured them that he'd take the heat (and that message was reinforced across the board), they'd still be blogging for Edwards today.

In truth, Edwards was on the list more as a hat-tip to the fact I voted for him in 2004 than anything he's done since.

Which left Obama and Clinton.

I admire both of them for different reasons, and none of those reasons have anything to do with the monumental courage each showed by just tossing a chapeau in the ring.

Barack Obama speaks to me of a new generation, a generation of ideals and idealists, unafraid to talk about issues despite the fact that he might actually have to take a stand on them. I like that. It appeals to the rabble-rouser in me. Even in his gaffes, he seems to have at least thought about what he leaves unsaid (as when he shorthanded his answer about meeting with Ahmadinejad, Castro, and Chavez).

Hillary Clinton just knows so damned much and seems to have an answer for every question thrown at her: not only are her answers detailed, they're usually light years ahead of anything anyone else throws out there. Many of her contenders' answers sound more like "And then, at this point, we pray it all works out".

There is no perfect candidate in this race, to be sure, and so this isn't a choice between the more perfect of two people.

Neither is it a choice between the lesser of two evils as even some on the left have tried to paint a vote for Hillary as a vote for evil.

Without disclosing too much, I've known of Hillary since her days working with Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, with whom I've had some indirect contact. No less a conservative than Marty Peretz (nominally a liberal (LINO?), believe it or not) has called Edelman "Hillary's closest sister and ideological soul mate."

Which is why I find all the negativity from the left about Hillary so amusing and confounding. And why I also find the love-fest for Barack so intriguing.

After all, a careful examination of their voting records and public statements about Iraq show they agree on about 90-95% of the issues. And yet, Hillary's a DINO while Barack is a liberal love child.

I ain't buying that. It's easy to say "I would not have voted for the Iraq war authorization" and seem to mean it. It's another thing to skip the vote on the "Iranian war authorization" (not even officially, just a "sense of the Senate" vote), then to chide others for having voted for it, particularly when you've voted for every single Iraq war funding bill that you've been able to.

Ironically, the candidate who's being touted as "change" is not.

In eight years in the Senate, Hillary has shown an unique capacity to enlist the help of people of all stripes. No one who serves with her has too many unkind things to say about her. That could be useful in a Presidency that, for the first term at least, is going to be about cleaning up the messes..."Mom."

On the other hand, it does leave her open to charges of being too conservative, ironically the same charges leveled against her husband prior to his election, and look at what happened in those eight years: the greatest economic boom this nation, the world, had ever seen, without resorting to full scale war, and eight years of protection from terror attacks on our soil.

I say, "ironically," because Hillary was viewed in many corners, including left wing ones, as a bulwark of liberal thought in the Clinton administration and cabinet.

Barack Obama has demonstrated that he's not a man of character to me, despite his outward image. His actions speak volumes. With Hillary Clinton, we know what we're getting, and guess what? It's not a whole lot different than we'd get with Obama, but at least she's unfraid of her decisions.

Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for President. She has my vote.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Happy New Year, Earth

By Carol Gee


The year 2008 will be "crunch time" for the earth's healthier environment. In small ways a few people people took a bit of climate control away from the Bush administration in recent months. Such news serves to wish a "Good 2008 to the Earth," if this trend continues. (Images from NASA)

Credit goes to these folks:

Al Gore -- Despite the fact that our current president (OCP) stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, our former Vice President stole the 2007 spotlight from OCP, winning the Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work to save the environment from the effects of potentially catastrophic climate change. Ellen Goodman wrote a great Gore tribute piece on Friday, December 28, 2007 that was published in the Boston Globe, and republished in Common Dreams titled, "War and Peace with the Environment." To quote:

Since this is the list-making time of year, allow me to add a tiny trophy to Al Gore’s very full shelf: the prize for the most elegant speech of 2007.

I wasn’t sure how the politician-turned-environmentalist fit the profile for a Nobel Peace Prize, but his acceptance speech connected the dots. “Without realizing it,” Gore said, “we have begun to wage war on the Earth itself. Now, we and the Earth’s climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: mutually assured destruction.”

How many Americans actually heard these words of war and peace? The coverage from Oslo was overshadowed by the coverage from Iowa. The presidential campaigns used up the oxygen that might have been reserved for the greenhouse gases.

. . . In 2007, consciousness rose with the thermostat. Scientists layered one set of facts on another. Gore wrapped these facts into an attention-grabbing movie. After Bali, the world’s leaders are just waiting for this presidency to pass. But we are still waiting for the renewable energy to fuel election-year politics.

On the day Gore spoke to the Nobel audience, he said, “we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer . . . We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.”

I still have a stack of greeting cards wishing Peace on Earth. Is it too corny to wish that we begin the new year making Peace with the Earth?

Congress -- Find the names of your House members who voted for the new Energy bill. Here are the vote results in the U.S. House of Representatives on December 18, 2007, for the Energy Independence and Security Act: 314 yeas, 100 nays and 19 not voting.

Delegates to Climate Talks in Bali -- A Guardian Unlimited (12/15/07) article about the recent Bali Climate Conference is a good summary of the "u-turn" the United States delegation was practically forced to make after being openly booed by the rest of the delegates. To quote:

A compromise deal for a new international climate change agenda was agreed at the UN summit in Bali today. . . Ministers from around 180 countries were united in accepting the agenda for a global emissions cuts agreement to launch negotiations for a post-2012 agreement to tackle climate change.

Consensus for the road map followed a dramatic U-turn by the US, which had threatened to block the deal at the 11th hour and been booed by other countries. It dropped its opposition to poorer countries' calls for technological and financial help to combat the issue. The sudden reversal by the US in the marathon talks which saw the country duelling with European envoys was met with rousing applause.

Scientists who find out what is true and talk about it -- In researching this post for today I discovered several interesting on line environmental resources:

One of the most interesting is "Geology.com," a must for anyone the least bit interested in the earth sciences. Geology.com introduced me to the great newsmaker website: "Carbon Tracker," unveiled in September by the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA. Their state map collection is another rich visual resource. It has a link to Google Earth, which I just downloaded today from Google Pack. Also included is a lot of good info regarding lands below sea level, and a link to Time Magazine's "Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of 2007."

You, my readers -- can do your part to wish the Earth a Happy New Year; check out your area's carbon foot-print at, "Making Your Neighborhood a Better World."

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Who shot Benazir?

By Capt. Fogg

The short video clip of Benazir Bhutto's last moments shown over and over again on CNN last night does not reveal the exact cause of her death, but two observations are unavoidable: someone was firing a semi-automatic pistol at her from less than 5 feet away and the security personnel, presumably her own bodyguards, riding on the back of the vehicle, took no action other than to duck.

There are reports that police abandoned their posts shortly before the shots and the explosion and although the official story is that she had no bullet wounds, a top aide to Bhutto who helped prepare her body for burial says she clearly showed bullet wounds to the head. Could the shooter have missed three times at point blank range?

Of course the official explanation evokes the al Qaeda bogeyman, but that's just what Musharraf, eager to keep those billions flowing in and himself in power would say if he were somehow complicit. Can this, as a reader commented on Human Voices yesterday, be a false flag operation?

"We in effect helped -- helped -- precipitate this dynamic that led to her tragic assassination,"

said John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN on Fox News Thursday. I find myself in agreement. Having urged Bhutto to return to Pakistan and seek power, may have been another bloody consequence to the Neocon doctrine of creating democracy by toppling dictators. I don't know what will arise out of the current chaos, but history suggests many unsavory possibilities other than a quick return to calm and a restoration of democracy.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Yes, Virginia, even sadder, Little Billy Kristol is going to the NYT

By J. Thomas Duffy

Boy, our poor little Christmas girl can't catch a break.

First, we have to confirm to her that Yes, Virginia, There Is, Sadly, A William Kristol ..., and now this drops on her.

The Huffington Post is reporting that Little Billy Kristol will be taking his craziness to the pages of the New York Times (Bill Kristol To Become New York Times Columnist In 2008), only a week after Time Magazine gave him the boot.

I suppose this was inevitable.

A great deal of Bush Grindhouse water has pooled up since Judy Miller left, so the NYT had a need for another water carrier, someone with a big bucket, someone with "Big Lying" credentials.

Apparently, David Brooks wasn't up to snuff, or that his "body language" thing has even creeped-out his co-workers.

Jonah Goldberg is currently unavailable, too busy sticking his head up his own ass.

They probably could have reached out and pulled in Coltergeist, but why risk seeing the building explode into flames?

Someone should go check on Arthur Schulzberger Jr., just to make sure he didn't hit his head on a SUV sunroof lever.


Bonus Bad News Billy Links

Anonymous Liberal: Kristol's Secret to Success

Anonymous Liberal: Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar

Creature/State of The Day: The post in which my head explodes

Crooks and Liars: Bill Kristol is rewarded for being “wrong” on everything: NY Times gig is a comin’

Crooks and Liars: Bonus Bill Kristol Highlight Reel

It Takes A Neocon To Raise A Legacy ... They're Drinking The Kool-Aid Again ...

Of Legacy Maintenance - And Corrections! ... David Corn's "REBUTTAL - Why Bush Is A Loser"










(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

Iowa's brand of democracy

By Edward Copeland

The Iowa caucuses are a strange beast in general, with multiple locations where Iowans brave whatever winter weather might be occurring to stand in a room and publicly declare their support for a candidate. However, what's not so well known is Iowans who work night shifts are disenfranchised BY STATE LAW. Their employers are not required to let them off to go vote. From the Des Moines Register story:

Ruth Kennedy's boss won't let her take time off from her night-shift job so she can caucus. She's not alone — emergency workers and other Iowans on the night shift will miss the marquee political event in Iowa.
Three weeks ago, Kennedy asked to leave her customer service job at Mediacom at 5:30 p.m. on Jan. 3 so she could caucus for Democrat Hillary Clinton. She said her supervisor waited until Christmas Eve to deny the request, saying that they couldn't spare her, that they hadn't had such requests before and that one fewer person at the caucus wouldn't make a difference anyway.
"It made me so furious," said Kennedy, who lives in Des Moines. "I raised such a fit I'm surprised they didn't send me home."
Nothing in the law requires Iowa employers to give workers time off so they can stand up for the presidential candidate of their choice.

In something that's certain to hurt Dodd, emergency services in Des Moines are fully staffing firefighters and then some for caucus night, meaning the union that endorsed him will have a lot of members unable to caucus.

Two plus two equals a 17 foot wall

By Capt. Fogg

“We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”

Said Mike Huckabee here in Florida last night. He repeated the theme today in Iowa:

“When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border,”

The fact that this isn't close to being true is less amazing than the sheer irrationality of his non-sequiturs.

“The fact is that the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds, it’s about someone coming with a shoulder-fired missile,”

Sure, it is, only it hasn't happened nor has it been made more likely by an assassination in Pakistan any more than the assassination of President Kennedy made it more likely for Texans to sneak into Mexico carrying rockets. The fact that the Huckster thinks Afghanistan is east of Pakistan and confuses migrant fruit pickers with Islamic extremists from Waziristan, is only a small part of the evidence that the man has no idea what he is talking about but has a strong feeling that vague mumblings in an ominous tone will allow him to latch on to the Xenophobic and Nativist gravy train. That's just what we need to represent the United States' interests in the world; a dishonest idiot who thinks Jesus wants him in power and will do the thinking for him. Come to think of it, that's what we have been saddled with for these last seven years of bad luck, and that's what we customarily vote for.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Leadership in a very flat world

By Carol Gee

Today is the funeral day for assassinated Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. From space we cannot see people where they live and die. It is a very tragic and sad thing for her family and supporters, and certainly for her nation. But it is a sad day for us, as well, because of the flat world in which we live. The reality of her death reverberates far beyond Pakistan. Looking at the Middle East and Southwest Asia from far above reveals a two dimensional view in muted colors of sand and water. Two dimensions are flat; three dimensions reveal true perspective. When we first glimpsed the face of Benazir Bhutto, many of us instinctively held our breath, afraid to hear what was to come next.

(Aljazeera's image heads this paragraph)

Very quickly the world knew what was transpiring with this leader yesterday. Just after the Bhutto rally, the U.S. broadcast TV reports of the shooting and suicide bombing. As time passed the news got worse and worse. What we saw was coming from Aljazeera, from which I quote the beginning and ending portions of this very interesting and seemingly even-handed editorial:

FOCUS PAKISTAN : POWER AND POLITICS

Daughter of tragedy
By Kamran Rehmat (News Editor at Dawn News, an independent Pakistani television news channel).

What ever else the mind-numbing killing of Benazir Bhutto in Thursday’s suicide attack will mean for Pakistan’s future, there is little doubt that politics in this south Asian country will never be the same again.

. . . Bhutto may have been the first woman prime minister of a Muslim country but was twice ousted as premier on corruption charges, which she fought for the rest of her political life.

Ironically, it was only recently that corruption cases against her were "washed" clean courtesy of a controversial ordinance passed by Musharraf on the premise of national reconciliation but effectively seen as a means to win her support for his continued stay in power.

Regardless of what modus operandi appealed to her - and she took many that surprised even her family not to mention, her political adversaries - Bhutto remained a force to reckon with right until the end.

In her death, Pakistan may have lost its most potent political player, who remained at least for its vast moderate and secular population, their best hope.

Given the vitiated international climate vis-a-vis the war-on-terror for Islamabad, deep polarisation within the country and the institutional instability, her loss is colossal not just for Pakistan but for the rest of the world as well.

And very quickly following the news of Bhutto's death, leaders from around the world began to react. The presidents in Pakistan and the United States made statements. Leaders in the United States, and certainly other countries, made telephone calls to Pakistani leaders. And presidential candidates began to release statements or speak with the media on camera or by phone. And we instinctively knew to take the measure of their leadership capacity by how they reacted to the news of the death of this small and fierce unarmed woman halfway around our flat world.

Iowans will be meeting in caucuses in less than a week to make their choices for the POTUS. And the other primaries will quickly follow. It is entirely possible that these outcomes will be in large or small measure be influenced by the current news about the violence in Pakistan, and how the candidates behave as a result. It seems to me that the perspective provided by a reader's comment on my most recent S/SW post (12/19) on leadership -- cross-posted at at The Reaction -- is very apt for the current situation. The entire comment of "Ecophotos" follows:

Reaction: 1 Comment on "Behavior is an Indicator of Leadership Capacity"

Hi Carol,

My apologies for being late to this party, holiday diversions and all. A quick response to this post:

There is a lot of stuff being said about what we should expect from candidates with respect to comfort, character, consistency, and competitiveness.

My concern here is that most candidates repackage themselves according to the latest polls and focus group studies, and what we think we see is not always what we get. Ergo, a repeat of what we had. So I think an onus of responsibility should also be placed on voters to be more discerning. Here is a kind of inventory that voters should ask themselves:

Do you want a candidate who can govern effectively or one you can have a beer with?

Are you susceptible to propaganda, sloganeering, and sound bites, or do you read in search of veracity?

Are you swayed by artifice or authenticity?

Do you equate strength with arrogance or humility?

Voters should understand that elections are about "conquest and control" (no matter who wins); that all governments have a "primordial mean streak" and will violate their own stated principles when confronted with crisis. So the question is: Whose controls are more acceptable to you?

When I consider these criteria, I am able to narrow the field of candidates to one (not exactly one of the front-runners), but at least one in whom I have confidence. Unfortunately, we always get one based on popularity and consensus, never our first choice.

By ECOPHOTOS, at 12:09 AM

I close with some quick random thoughts. Senator Clinton's words seemed just exactly right for the moment. Senator Biden's words had a great deal of authority based on his vast knowledge. Senator Dodd's early words during a phone call with MSNBC carried a great deal of authoritative wisdom and subtlety. On the other hand, I was not impressed with John Edwards' report of a phone call directly to President Musharraf. Nor was I impressed by Senator McCain's litany of how much he knows about the situation, nor by Governor Romney's fear-mongering style of rhetoric. I plan to use Ecophotos' template for further study of all our candidates' potential for foreign policy leadership, based on their take on the current news from Pakistan.

My link to this article, "Non-violent protest has gone on line," in Common Dreams somehow seemed appropriate for today's post. It came to my notice a few weeks ago from my friend, "betmo," who always has a unique thoughts.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

A timely review

By Edward Copeland

As it so happens, I was planning to post on my film blog today a review of Charlie Wilson's War, which now proves particularly timely in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. A brief excerpt:

As a member of an important subcommittee, Wilson, almost on a whim, doubles the amount of U.S. dollars being spent on covert activities in Afghanistan. Wilson's action attracts the attention of a wealthy Houston socialite Joanna Herring (Julia Roberts), who is as right-wing and Republican as Wilson is not but has made the Afghan situation a cause aimed at winning the Cold War. She encourages Wilson to add a trip to Pakistan on to a planned junket to the Mideast so he can meet with Pakistani President Zia (Om Puri), the man who hanged the late Benazir Bhutto's father in a previous takeover in Pakistan.

To read the full review, click here.

A Quickie

By Carl

In an effort to have Jonah Goldberg's book forever linked with...something unintended, Blogtopia (© Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo) has decided to Googlebomb it.

So here's to Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning , also known as Liberal Fascism

Fred's funds run out

By Libby Spencer

The Politico is reporting that the Thompson campaign has run out of money and won't be airing any TV ads in Iowa. Fred will now be forced to rely on his personality and his bus tour to win over the Iowa voters. Considering the previous reviews of Fred's on the road performance, one might think this is not going to be a winning strategy.

Hard to believe that only a few short months ago Fred was being touted as the savior of the party. It would appear his campaign was simply never able to overcome the loss of momentum caused by his long tease on testing the waters in the beginning and his on the stump style just didn't ignite the necessary enthusiasm needed to fire up his supporters.

But he does have a few left. There's a fundraising blogburst going on even as you read this. Unfortunately for them, I think, like the campaign itself, it will be to little, too late.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

On the eve of elections

By Carol Gee

"Pakistan's Bhutto killed in gun, bomb attack," is Reuters' sad, sad headline. To quote:

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed in a gun and bomb attack after a rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Thursday, her party said.

"She has been martyred," said party official Rehman Malik.

Bhutto, 54, died in hospital in Rawalpindi. Ary-One Television said she had been shot in the head.

Police said a suicide bomber fired shots at Bhutto as she was leaving the rally venue in a park before blowing himself up.

The attack came just a few days before presidential elections were to be held in Pakistan on January 8. The video came into the MSNBC studio raw, bloody and unedited. News reporters and analysts, Mika Brzezinski and Andrea Mitchell are calling the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, this very brave woman, an "incredible tragedy." Earlier Madeleine Albright spoke eloquently about the tragic circumstances of her death, and commented on how difficult and delicate it was to discuss the very disturbing and complex Pakistani situation. Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institute, called it a potential "failing state."

"Who do you want in the White House when something like this happens," asks Brzezinski's sidekick, Joe Scarborough, another of MSNBC's talking heads who immediately put his finger on the related U.S. election question. All the U.S. presidential candidates will be making statements about this very significant development. The first just came in from Rudy Giuliani, whose candidacy will inevitably be affected by the tragedy halfway around the world, because of his association with New York after the 9/11 attacks.

The two presidents have not yet made their statements. President Bush will speak at 11:00 AM, and President Musharraf reportedly "condemned the killing and urged calm."

I close this post with a report that Mika, who is doing a very good job, is now interviewing her father, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser, for his views. He is pulling no punches with his comments critical of the current administration. It will be very interesting to listen to our candidates on both sides of the political aisle. We again get a chance to assess their leadership skills.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Why are we allied with a terrorist?

By Carl

When the dust settles and history has its say on the Bush administration's ill-conceived and tragically executed Middle East and South Asia policy, this one event may end up being the capstone, the signature event that ties together the utter abject lunacy of the warmongers in this nation:

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has died after a suicide bombing that killed at least 14 of her supporters, ex-government spokesman Tariq Azim Khan and Pakistan's primary television networks said.

Bhutto suffered bullet wounds in the aftermath of the bomb attack, TV networks report.

The execution-style assassination speaks to a pretty clear plot, and the suspects are fairly likely: the military.

Finally, Bush has pushed an "ally" to the brink. Pakistanis are not oparticularly endeared to Pervez Musharraf, who was seen as caving into Bush's imperial hubris. The return of Bhutto, supported by the United States, put Musharraf in a bind and left him not a lot of wriggle room. It was clear the US wanted him defanged.

To be clear, he was never a staunch ally of US policy, just US money. The link between Pakistan's covert intelligence service, the ISI, and the terrorists who brought down four planes into two cities here in the United States are pretty clear, and it's pretty clear that Musharraf had at least condoned that funding.

While we've been hunting terrorists in southern Afghanistan, Musharraf has been cutting asylum deals with tribes in northern Pakistan, on the border of Afghanistan, that precluded searches in those regions for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces.

Indeed, it almost seems he has stood four-square against our interests. While we've been working hard to prop up the Karzai government in Afghanistan, he's been engaged in cross-border bickering over the tribal regions.

He has power, and he intends to keep it, and it's looking more and more by any means necessary. Earlier today, a rally for another more moderate former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, was disrupted by bombs that killed 4 people. And now this. And all this comes on the heels of a deliberate and planned program to disrupt large political rallies, such as the one on October 18, when 136 people died and nearly 400 were injured, as Bhutto's triumphant return was marred by a suicide bomber.

This is a dangerous man with a nuclear bomb who's nation has a history of supporting terrorists that have attacked America.

You know, an ally.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Alas Bhutto

By Capt. Fogg

I wonder if Pakistanis are saying "God, I love freedom" today. I wonder when the idiot in chief will realize that elections in a country without stability or where stability exists only in the iron grip of a dictator, don't by themselves make a democracy.

I have no idea what the future holds for Pakistan and I have little idea what the growing chaos will mean for the US, that country's biggest supporter. I have no idea whether the most radical elements in the tribal areas will gain an advantage, or whether that country will long remain an ally, but I suspect that the upcoming elections are not landmarks on the long and tortuous path to modernity for Pakistan.

The only thing I am sure of is that our administration has no idea about how to promote liberal democracy here or abroad nor how to create the security and stability that such a condition needs in order to thrive. I'm convinced that no country so saturated with religious passion can be the host for freedom or achieve the reasonableness freedom requires.

I mourn not only Benazir Bhutto this morning, but for liberty and for peace.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Why you're wrong about the Democrats

By Carl

When you spend your days reading blog after blog in Blogtopia (© Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo), you forget there's an entire moderate-progressive movement out there that makes you look like a left-winger.

Indeed, yesterday's thoughtpiece on Christ, Christmas and living life in the 21st Century made me cringe a little to post: it firmly placed me in the Ceiling Cat corner. Someone who believes in a traditional religious experience, not atheist, and not sardonically supporting the Flying Spaghetti Monster in some hipster rank-out on his upbringing.

Reading blog after blog, you find that Hillary is a criminal (or worse, a sell-out), Obama's cool, Edwards is even cooler but looks like he won't make it (but we should all support him anyway), and why in the hell don't the Democrats in Congress show some backbone and impeach the bastards?

And then, you take a breath and read a story like this, and you realize that so little of the left-wing of this country, nevermind the electorate, is represented on-line:

While they overwhelmingly support that agenda, the bloc of freshmen has begun casting votes against such minor procedural motions in an effort, Democratic sources and Republican critics say, to demonstrate their independence from their leadership. The number of votes that the potentially vulnerable newcomers to Capitol Hill cast against House leaders is tallied and watched closely by interest groups and political foes.

Such is the political life of many of the 42 freshman House Democrats, a sizable number of them moderates and conservatives who must straddle the fence between supporting their party's interests and distancing themselves from a mostly liberal leadership as they gear up for their first reelection battle next fall.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other members of the party's leadership are happy to tolerate the independence on procedural matters. Less than three hours after opposing the late-October journal vote, the same six freshmen sided with Pelosi as Democrats tried, and failed, to override President Bush's veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years, legislation that Pelosi has called her "crown jewel."

And then you remember that, if it wasn't for these "conservative Democrats," there wouldn't even BE a chance to talk about the crimes of this administration: Democrats wouldn't be in charge, and we'd be watching the dodderings of Dennis Hastert and Trent Lott in the leadsership roles.

Try telling that to the more militant rabble on the left, however.

To give you an idea how valuable these freshmen are:

Protecting the 42 freshman Democrats, the largest partisan class since 73 Republicans took office in 1994, has been the top priority for key Democratic strategists such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). The freshmen get special treatment from leaders, including a weekly meeting with Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). And they receive frequent advice on how to vote from Emanuel and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Those are some pretty heavy hitters. My suspicion is, there's an even smaller core that get direction straight from Pelosi.

This isn't about power. It's about preventing another 109th Congress, and watching the pickings of the American economy get plucked by Republicans and their cronies at the expense of the middle- and working-class Americans they would court for votes.

Imagine the recent sub-prime mortgage debacle as handled by Republicans, for example. It would have been hushed up and hidden until after next November, at which point a) it would have been too late to help ten million American familes and b) the banks would have gotten away wholly scot-free, whereas now there's still a chance that they'll be held accountable for their predatory lending practices.

It is a compromise, I know, but it's one that simply has to be done right now. There's not a lot of wiggle room. The Republicans aren't defeated and crushed yet.

This does bring a new dynamic to Congress in 2008. My guess is, keep an eye out for a lot of sub-committee and committee meetings on a variety of topics, just to put them on the table, like wire-tapping and other crimes against humanity and civil rights by the Bushies.

Just don't expect them to come to the floor until after November 4. Then look out.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Blackwater Christmas - not just a dream

By Capt. Fogg

I don't know what the spectators at the Armed Forces Bowl this New Years Eve will think when they see Blackwater mercenaries parachuting into the stadium as they did December 1st during halftime at the Sand Diego State/BYU game. Indeed, what will the Air Force team think when they see that those aren't our guys in the black uniforms? Are they staging an armed takeover or just displaying the awesome power of a private military?

I'm sorry to contradict Reagan the Great, but when someone shows up to help, I prefer that it would be someone from the legitimate government rather than armed representatives from a country without borders, or laws or accountability. I don't think it will be long, for instance, before the Bushists privatize the "War on Drugs" by giving license to companies like Blackwater to do all the things we won't allow the government to do ( like start a war in Columbia or Mexico or pour water up your nose or worse) and make no mistake, Blackwater has the vehicles, the helicopters, the ships and the intelligence division to allow them to accomplish most any mission, foreign or domestic, our next rogue president might consider to be too touchy to approach in a legal fashion.


If the next rogue president should be Mitt Romney, we can be assured that Blackwater head, Cofer Black, his chief adviser on counterterrorism, will have a lot to say about military affairs and military conduct and indeed he already has had. Romney's decision not to comment on torture was made with the advice of Black. Of course I'm sure Cofer Black's private army will be happy to accept more and better no-bid contracts from whichever idiot the American people choose to make things worse.

As Jeremy Scahill writes in The Nation,

"the Government is in the midst of the most radical privatization in history, and companies like Blackwater are becoming ever more deeply embedded in the war apparatus. Until this system is brought down, the world's the limit for Blackwater Worldwide. . ."

And what are the chances that this profitable enterprise will be brought down now that they have moved beyond the borders of brutal occupation and commercial espionage into retail sales of everything from 9mm pistols to baby clothes? Is the future a kind and degree of fascism unimaginable even in the Europe of the 1930's and 40's? Why not? With the country rallying behind thugs and idiots in blue pinstripes, what chance does freedom have?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Christmas then, Christmas now

By Carol Gee

To compare and contrast my childhood memories with the realities of today is a clear indication that some seven decades have past since those bucolic days in Wyoming.

My Holiday Reminiscences

Then - Our Christmas tree was real, as lush as we could afford, at least 5 feet tall, and endowed with the most wonderful aroma. There was no such thing as an artificial Christmas tree until after I was grown. By then these "manufactured by humans" tree came in metal or plastic versions. The metal ones were silver or gold. The plastic came in good-weather green. But by then you could also get your real evergreens artificially "flocked" to look snowy-white.

Now - We know that this happens in lots of places. Yesterday's mlive.com (Grand Rapids Press) news story about giving away Christmas trees happens to also come from Wyoming. Merchants did not by any means give away Christmas trees in Mexico, as this Houston Chronicle article reports. It is an effect of globalization. Oregon ships about 10% of its Christmas tree crop to Mexico. Many were sold at Walmart, now Mexico's largest retailer. To quote:

First celebrated in northern Europe some 500 years ago, the Christmas tree tradition was brought to North America by German settlers in the early 1800s. City dwellers in Mexico City began buying Christmas trees in the 1950s, obtaining them from farms in the relatively chilly highlands nearby.

The Americanized tradition exploded here in recent years as Mexico became increasingly urban and wealthier. Today, more than 1 million trees are imported each season, mostly coming from Oregon. Mexican growers sell untold numbers more.

. . . At $100 to $130 or more for a 7-foot beauty, asking prices for trees at the flower market are more than double the average in the United States. That's a costly tradition in a city where $20 a day is a good blue-collar wage.

Then - Most of the decorations we hung on my childhood trees were homemade. The "garlands" were made of construction paper strips circled into multicolored chains. They also included stringed popcorn. At school we made ornaments as class projects, and Mama hung every one, ugly or beautiful.

Now - There is a growing controversy over tree ornaments imported from sweatshops in China. ABC News carried a story early in December that also included information about Walmart. To quote:

The National Labor Committee, which tracks working conditions in developing countries worldwide, released a report Wednesday titled "A Wal-Mart Christmas Brought to You from a Sweatshop in China."

It documents with photos and video, workers -- some as young as 12 years old -- working at the Guangzhou Huanya Gift Co., which produces ornaments sold in the United States at Wal-Mart and Target stores.

Then - Presents were sometimes homemade, sometimes ordered out of the Montgomery Ward "Christmas" catalog. Re-gifting, however, was verboten with my mother. Our parents saw to it that each child's was of equal monetary value, as nearly as possible. We got one main gift each, as much as the folks could afford that year.

Now - The 2007 holiday shopping season was a worry to retailers but this International Herald Tribune headline tells a better story, "Last-minute US shoppers bring relief to retailers; post-Christmas season seen as crucial." Many of us are waiting to buy our gifts to each other at the big discounts that will come after Christmas. To quote:

Just weeks ago, the holiday shopping season seemed headed for disaster. But in the waning hours before Christmas, the America's retailers got their wish — a last-minute surge of shopping that helped meet their modest sales goals, according to data released late Monday by research firm ShopperTrak RCT Corp.

. . . The spree defied fears that a deepening housing slump, escalating credit crisis and higher gas and food prices would turn shoppers into Grinches — even in the end. Meanwhile, with the season plagued by a slew of Chinese-made toy recalls that began in the summer, there were concerns that shoppers would boycott those products. That didn't happen either.

Then - Food was always delicious, and never felt anything less than special. It was not the cost, it was the care with which it was prepared. The Christmas day menu might include ham, turkey or roast hen with bread dressing. Side dishes were mashed potatoes, candies sweet potatoes, gravy, green peas, homemade cranberry sauce, and yeast rolls. Desserts would be fruitcake, or coconut cake, mincemeat pie and homemade fudge and fondant candy. Christmas Eve's menu was always oyster stew with special little round soda crackers.

Now - I now live in Texas so here is the link to Southern Food Christmas recipes from About.com. Homemade Mexican tamales are also a big Texas tradition. Many of us order ahead and go back to the same source every year. And howstuffworks.com posted lots of "Christmas food trivia" here. To quote:

What's for Christmas Dinner in America?

• Baked ham
• Turkey and stuffing
• Mashed potatoes and gravy
• Sweet potatoes
• Green bean casserole
• Winter squash soup
• Waldorf salad
• Cranberry salad
• Parker house rolls
• Divinity
• Red velvet cake
• Pumpkin pie

To summarize - I never felt too tight a budget as a child. Our Christmases were celebrated together with much attention, tradition and with love. We looked forward to Christmas Eve and to the day itself when we got to open our presents. And we felt rich.

Now - now I know my folks were on a shoestring as I was growing up. The Census Bureau currently keeps track of poverty in America. I quote their 2006 Highlights:

Poverty: 2006 Highlights

* The official poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent, down from 12.6 percent in 2005 (Table 3).

* In 2006, 36.5 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2005.

* Poverty rates in 2006 were statistically unchanged for non-Hispanic Whites (8.2 percent), Blacks (24.3 percent), and Asians (10.3 percent) from 2005. The poverty rate decreased for Hispanics (20.6 percent in 2006, down from 21.8 percent in 2005).

* The poverty rate in 2006 was lower than in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available (Figure 3). From the most recent trough in 2000, the rate rose for four consecutive years, from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.7 percent in 2004, and then declined to 12.3 percent in 2006 – a rate not statistically different from those in 2002 and 2003 (12.1 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively).

* For children under 18 years old and people aged 18 to 64, the poverty rates (17.4 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively) and the numbers in poverty (12.8 million and 20.2 million, respectively) remained statistically unchanged from 2005.

* Both the poverty rate and the number in poverty decreased for people aged 65 and older (9.4 percent and 3.4 million in 2006, down from 10.1 percent and 3.6 million in 2005)

Miscellaneous links:

1. A Special Christmas Message from Blackwater at TPMmuckraker.
2. Boston.com reports that "Bush celebrates Christmas at Camp David"
   

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Merry Christmas!

By J. Thomas Duffy


Oscar Peterson - A Child Is Born





(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas

By Libby Spencer

For those of you like me, who didn't get snow for Christmas, here's a little bit of the white stuff to make your holiday bright thanks to my dear friend, John W. Farrell. And I have a charming Christmas story about the kindness of strangers.

I ordered a gift on-line from a company I had never dealt with before that was supposed to come yesterday by priority mail. I had gone down to meet the mailman to spare him the walk up the stairs but the package didn't arrive as promised. I was bummed. That was my most important gift and I needed it for today. But what can you do?

Last night at about 7:30 I was startled by a knock on the door. I don't customarily get unexpected visitors. It was the mailman. He said he had noticed when he finished his run that the package was at the PO. He made a special trip back here on his own time to give it to me. Now that is the true spirit of Christmas and the best present I've received in a long time. It restored my faith in the goodness of my fellow man.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)