Krugman nails it: 

Remember how the 2004 election was supposed to have demonstrated, once and for all, that conservatism was the future of American politics? I do: early in 2005, some colleagues in the news media urged me, in effect, to give up. "The election settled some things," I was told. 

But at this point 2004 looks like an aberration, an election won with fear-and-smear tactics that have passed their sell-by date. Republicans no longer have a perceived edge over Democrats on national security - and without that edge, they stand revealed as ideologues out of step with an increasingly liberal American public. 

One of the most predictable offshoots of the 2006 election was how many conservatives closed ranks to scapegoat key Republicans.  It reminds me of that scene in Downfall where just before the fall of Berlin, Hitler blames the German people for failing the test.  It is the mark of all radical ideologues facing failure to blame those around them for not being true enough to their core values.  In this case, supposed conservatives like Rush Limbaugh blamed the Bush admin for not being conservative enough – in other words, conservatives didn’t lose the election, Republicans did. 

Well, it turns out that – shocking, I know – Rush may have overstated American support for the conservative vision.  Republicans are increasingly losing control of their own base.  Mormon support, for example, has dropped 21% over the last five months.  Congressional Republicans are increasingly willing to thwart the Bush agenda and have even warmed to the idea of impeachment.  Hell, some conservatives have even voiced support for Jimmy Carter to replace Rice as Secretary of State! 

Meanwhile, it turns out that the American people are polling fairly progressively on the basis of issues.  Bigger government, universal health care, and inflating the middle class are all strongly supported by nearly 2-1 margins among the electorate and Democrats now hold nearly a double party ID advantage.  As Atrios notes, the GOP can keep trotting out people willing to publicly proclaim mainstream adherence to the conservative worldview, but much like their vision, it simply does not accord with reality.

In the last election cycle, voters in Missoulian County, Montana passed a citizen’s initiative urging local law enforcement to ignore marijuana offenses. However, last week, county officials voted 2-1 to amend the measure based on a “gut feeling” that the voters did not know what they were passing:

Much of the criticism, online and off, has alluded to County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg's position that a “gut feeling” led him to conclude Missoula's electorate misinterpreted the ballot language. The tone of Wednesday's public hearing, which was teeming with 20-something adults, went from inquisitive to indignant when Van Valkenburg used the phrase “gut feeling,” which many called insulting.

When people warn of the tyranny of the majority, they are talking about egregious offense to the minority that result in the suspension or prevention of equal rights based on, oh, I don’t know, say … sexual orientation? However, absent this standard, “tyranny of the majority” is more commonly referred to as “Democracy” and in no case does a representative retain the right to subvert a voter-passed referendum simply because they find it unpalatable. Hey, sometimes democracy sucks – just ask anyone who has had to survive radical GOP majorities for the past six years.

Representatives are placed in office to serve the will of their constituent majorities to the best of their ability. Absent federal or state supersedance or judicial restraint, voter referendum is absolute and iron-clad. But then again, who can blame Missoula County for their unconscionable behavior when they were only following in the example set by the Bush executive branch.

Does anyone remember that old Cold War story about NASA investing millions developing a pen that could write in zero-gravity conditions?  The Soviets solved the problem by using a pencil. 

I’m not clear on whether this is a myth, but our current electoral technology woes certainly hold an air of familiarity.  All this money and time invested in a decidedly partisan enterprise to develop machines that are untrustworthy, inaccurate, and insecure.  All so we can spend the foreseeable future arguing over how to fix them. 

But lo - among the quarreling crowd is heard a childlike voice imploring “what’s wrong with paper ballots?” 

Yeah, right.  Next thing you know we’ll be using wadded up balls of tissue instead of the three sea shells.

I believe the kids call this a ‘moment of Zen’:

Tony Blair apparently has no sense of irony when it comes to Iraq:

British government officials will release evidence today designed to prove that British marines seized by Iranians last week were patrolling well inside Iraqi waters and should never have been captured.

The evidence will include maps, detailed co-ordinates and photographs of the area. The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, cutting short a visit to Turkey yesterday, will also make a statement to MPs today, but the detailed briefing will be left to officials.

I wrote a post earlier in the week about Team Bush’s role in preventing a frank evaluation of any threat that may be posed by Iran. The article drew a fair amount of flak on the Daily Kos from those who felt I was supporting the viewpoint that Iran poses a threat. I’ll chalk it up to poor writing on my part, but this was never my intention, nor do I honestly suspect that Iran is a vital security issue at present.

However, I believe that the incident with the 15 British marines illustrates my point exactly. None of us know for sure what is happening, but my gut reaction tells me that the marines were in Iranian waters in violation of international law. It is also apparent that Tehran is refusing – for the time being – the prisoners access to British diplomats. I suspect that all things considered, both sides are behaving outside the dictates of fair play to say the least.

But perhaps there is more to the story. Perhaps the marines are being illegally detained, as alleged by Blair, and this incident is further evidence of a growing threat. The point I was trying to make is that, in my own petulant way, it doesn’t matter one whit to me. Why? Because based entirely on the aggressive and provocative history of the Bush/Blair warmongering in this region, I am prepared to give Tehran practically carte blanche when it comes to benefit of the doubt. When Blair trots out his satellite surveillance, all I will see is the specter of Colin Powell at the UN with his “proof” of Iraqi WMDs. Which is another way of saying that all I see is a big, honkin’ liar.

Is Iran trying to start a war with the West? Probably not. But they could be. And as long as a bunch of self-serving, arrogant thugs are behind the wheel, I will reflexively assume they are lying. And in the end, the rest of us sheep may very well pay the price for Team Bush having cried wolf.

Too cool for school:

GlaxoSmithKline, the second-largest food and drug company in the world, was yesterday fined $217,500 in the Auckland District Court after it admitted 15 breaches of the Fair Trading Act.

The case was brought by the Commerce Commission after a science experiment in 2004 by 14-year-old Pakuranga College schoolgirls Jenny Suo and Anna Devathasan raised questions about the vitamin C content in Ribena.

I don’t think Ribena is sold in the US, but it aggressively targets the youth market in Ireland. I gladly admit it has never passed my lips, but I once got one mistakenly from a vending machine and was appalled by the labeling. Each bottle proudly proclaims the lack of artificial sweeteners, despite the fact that sugar is the first thing on the ingredient list. While this may be technically legal (labeling standards suck the world over), it is a serious breach of intellect to claim that sugar is a naturally occurring substance any more than Splenda. Or jet fuel for that matter.

So I can’t really feign surprise to see they have been caught lying about their vitamin C content. I can, however, wag a finger of shame at a court who felt that a behemoth pharmaceutical company falsely marketing “healthy” drinks to children felt punitive damages didn’t even warrant what GlaxoSmithKline spends on paper clips in a month.

Different strokes for different folks?  Hat tip to debel u at DKos: 

As you'll remember , several months ago Newsweek ran a cover story titled "Losing Afghanistan".  Well sort of.  They ran the cover story in every edition around the world except in the US, where the cover story was titled "Annie Leibowitz Amazing 'Life in Pictures'".   

Well this week TIME magazine stole a page out of Newsweek's book (or magazine?).  If you click on the link, you'll see TIME's cover story in every edition but the American one is "Talibanistan", a story about the resurgence of the Taliban.  TIME's cover for the US: "Why We Should Teach the Bible in Public School". 

Nice.

August graces us with his latest comic and weighs in on event horizon of Bushipocrisy: 

Look, regardless of political stripes, can it at least be accepted that almost since September 11, 2001, George W. Bush has been a living, breathing photo-op? For Bush to complain that his opponents are engaging in "political theater" is like... wow. I'm having trouble thinking of an analogy here. 

Okay, imagine Mr. T. He's standing atop a pile- no, a hill- consisting of every single fool he has pitied in his entire life. They're all just there. A big pyramid of fools, all of whom were pitied by Mr. T. And standing atop the fool pyramid is Mr. T himself, looking down on you. And he says but one thing, and that is how upset he is with you for pitying fools. 

And that's what it's like with President Bush to say that he dislikes political theater. And you're just standing there, thinking just what you would think with Mr. T on the fool pile: Man, that guy's career has really hit the shitter, hasn't it? 

Seriously now - if my next 1,000 lives were various incarnations of Mel Brooks, my humor would still pale against the incandescent blaze that is August:

M.J. Rosenberg has an article on TPM Café chastising certain (unnamed) Democrats for refusing to take war with Iran off the table.  As an individual, scholar, writer, and voter I am adamantly anti-war.  However, this in no way should imply that I am anti-conflict.  It remains to be seen whether this conflict with Iran must turn violent.  Yet I am willing to concede that inaction could prove far more costly – especially when such passivity stems not from measured and meritorious arguments, but in significant part from hatred and distrust of the executive branch. 

A couple of months ago, I was trapped in a small waiting room while the great city of Dublin judged the roadworthiness of my latest clunker.  A small television set babbled away in the corner and, like any good American automaton, I was powerless to avert my eyes.  In a cruel twist of providence, this turned out to be one of those unfortunate rare occasions where our president had escaped his cage and was seen wandering loose in the White House press room.

The big news item that week was the administration’s claims to have tied Iranian arms to IED’s in Iraq.  One reporter was challenging the evidence that the Iranian government had anything to do with the items showing up in the neighboring country.  I remember chuckling to myself that this seemed like a far more disturbing alternative – the only thing worse that an erratic government is an unstable government.  And at that very moment, the sky opened, the seas turned to blood, and a torrent of frogs rained down – while Bush verbalized (albeit in choppy, semi-articulate idiom) the very essence of what I had just been thinking.

At this point I blacked out for a moment and only vaguely remember switching seats while the janitorial staff got to work cleaning my brains off the wall.  Yet it was certainly a moment of clarity for me to realize that, while I firmly oppose the administration’s march to war, this had little to do with my feelings about Ahmadinejad’s government.  George W. Bush may be dangerously incompetent, but that is an entirely different matter than a Tehran which has repeatedly flouted international weapons laws, chronically violates human rights, is regressively curtailing the rights of women, has inserted further chaos into an already disastrous Iraq, and maintains active calls for Israel’s annihilation.

None of this is meant to refute Iran’s right to nuclear energy (to which they are certainly entitled) nor their right to retain sovereignty over political decisions within the bounds of acceptable human  rights standards (which remains questionable).  Yet, much like our own, the Iranian government is firmly under the control of conservative zealots who are aggressively asserting their perception of relative power in the regional and global theaters.  In my humble opinion, they certainly don’t represent the kind of menace that must be met with preemptive violence, but I am equally convinced they pose a threat to domestic and international stability that must be dealt with swiftly and certainly. 

Yet after six years of dichotomous framing by the Bush administration, even ordinarily clear-headed thinkers like Rosenberg find themselves unable to see beyond the boolean absolutes of ‘war’ and ‘not war’.  In fact, very few people are posing the question of why we cannot recognize that Iran poses a viable and rational threat without automatically signaling our support for military intervention or the totality of administration policies.  The reason for this is clear – when the Snow/McClellan/Fleischer du jour gaggles that “all options are on the table,” we all know they are actually considering both options (which, for them, appears to be one too many) and, with the complicity of a lazy mainstream media, a national debate emerges in which alternate options cease to exist. 

This administration has gambled recklessly with our good faith and dragged us into a mess from which we may never entirely emerge.  They have proven themselves dishonest, feckless, and incompetent in the conduct of their elective invasion and, no matter how threatening Tehran may become, I could not imagine a single scenario under which I would support Bush’s leadership in yet another invasion.  I doubt I am alone.  Yet like children, we seem prepared to ignore Iran’s growing threat for as long as Bush remains in office.  And for me, there is no more compelling reason to bring impeachment back to the table.  While I will continue to oppose aggressive and violent countermeasures under a new administration, I could at least find comfort in a country finally able to look past this despised president and resume a rational and inclusive dialogue on the very real problems we must face.