Brain degeneration at the Dept. of Agriculture - MSNBC.com

Brain degeneration at the Dept. of Agriculture - Hardball with Chris Matthews - MSNBC.com: "Did I mention that American scientists are tracking a mysterious spike in the U.S. of the human form of BSE, known as Creutzfeldt Jakob disease?"



The corrupt morons, who run the Agriculture Department on behalf of corporate agribusiness have evidently muffed the job of making sure U.S. beef is safe. And, the proof of that tragic, criminal incompetence is starting to emerge.

WSJ.com - Deficit Is Arriving Under Forecasts

WSJ.com - Deficit Is Arriving Under Forecasts: "Overall federal spending is increasing, including for war costs. More broadly, spiraling health-care costs for Medicare and Medicaid programs, including a prescription-drug benefit for seniors starting next year and a wave of baby-boomer retirements after 2008, will drive federal deficits to unsustainable sizes.

'These are the good ol' days. These are the best of times,' says Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former administration economic adviser. 'After this, it gets worse.'"

This is the good news / bad news story of the day. The country is prospering, for the moment, and the storm clouds some see on the horizon are far away.

But, notice the projected timimg. The coming storm has been timed by Republicans to engulf the next President, and not this one. The Republicans are planning to lose in 2008, in order to hooverize the Democrats. {You heard it here first.)

Iraqis Look at Cuts in Payroll

Iraqis Look at Cuts in Payroll: "On Sunday, members of Iraq's elite police commando units, heralded by U.S. and Iraqi officials as a key to stemming the insurgency, staged a protest outside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, saying they hadn't been paid in four months, witnesses said. "



I got this via Brad DeLong, who got it from Eric Urmansky.



But, there it is, in the L.A. Times.



I do not know which is more incompetent -- the American news media for not reporting this astonishing story more prominently, or the American occupation authorities for, well, being complete friggin' idiots.

The New York Review of Books: Selling Washington

The New York Review of Books: Selling Washington: "The Republican purge of K Street is a more thorough, ruthless, vindictive, and effective attack on Democratic lobbyists and other Democrats who represent businesses and other organizations than anything Washington has seen before. "



Thanks to Carpetbagger for this link.



This is an article on the Republican K Street project, by Elizabeth Drew, is excellent.



The purge of Democrats from lobbying will accelerate the shift in the Democratic Party toward a more radical and "pure" ideology. It will also keep the Democrats from power, until such time as a catastrophe overcomes the country.



A "coming storm" is not merely a perverse hope or rhetorical framework for alarm, it becomes a kind of political necessity built into the political structure. The Republican Party becomes a thoroughly corrupt instrument of the corporate executive class, while the Democrats, almost against their will, are forced to become representatives of whoever, other than business, cares about politics.



Until catastrophe strikes, the Democrats are excluded from political power, and even then, they may get screwed. Corruption does not necessarily entail fatal incompetence. Thoroughly corrupt institutions do not exactly prosper, but they can endure indefinitely, as the history of Empires attest.



But, the K Street Project, while disgusting, is actually a hopeful sign, because it will help the Democrats shake off the corruption, which has prevented the Democrats from effectively opposing the Republican agenda, and from offering a clear alternative. If the storm comes, and if the Democrats standing away from power and responsiblity are able to tell a clear narrative, which connects corruption to disaster, the country may yet be saved.

Clusterfuck Nation by James Howard Kunstler

Clusterfuck Nation by James Howard Kunstler: "The Times's star columnist Thomas Friedman is making hay this season with his new book, The World is Flat, about the global economy. His book asserts that current trends will continue indefinitely -- China will continue to manufacture ever more of America's household products, Americans will continue to enjoy cash-out home equity loans to buy plastic patio chairs made in China, WalMart will keep running its warehouse-on-wheels at a thumping great profit, and all impediments to global trade will be vanquished by telemarketing, computer technology, and confident corporate can-do spirits. I am tempted to ask how Friedman manages to type on a laptop with his head so far up his ass, but this blog is dedicated, above all, to a high-minded brand of politeness so we'll just say that he is not paying attention to a gathering global energy shitstorm that is going to change absolutely everything -- including global economic relations which pundits foolishly maintain to be permanent conditions of life."



Kunstler is a true believer in the Coming Storm -- but his apocalypse is an energy-driven one of truly global proportions, and not the local political meltdown of the Republican right-wing, which I am fond of hoping for. Still, he has style. ;-)



Just for the record, I do think the energy situation is a critical, global problem, and, of course, I do not expect Bush-Cheney, who are, after all, two oil company executives, to address it in anything like a sensible manner. However, I am also an economist, who knows that there is a lot of slack and waste in our energy use, and huge reservoirs of marginally more expensive fuel available. I am with Stirling Newbery, in thinking that the developed world will have to make a technological switch, which will affect politics deeply, just as the original switch to fossil fuel in the industrial revolution, circa 1830, did. But, still I would not expect much of anything to happen, which would be suitable fodder for a summer blockbuster movie. Then, again, maybe India and China will ally against the U.S. in World War III, or IV or V. You never know.



(But, Kunstler is right about one thing: Friedman does write his column with his head (ahem) somewhere unsuitable, and a neat trick it is.)

Good Intentions Gone Bad - Newsweek World News - MSNBC.com

Good Intentions Gone Bad - Newsweek World News - MSNBC.com: "Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18 percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S. contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most, it's only 4 percent.



The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost—which only deepens Iraqis' resentment.



The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers—to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours—and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family.



I can't say how it will end. "



I can say how it will end. Badly.



The L.A. Times, today, is reporting the Iraqi government is planning big layoffs. That will surely make everyone very happy.

TPMCafe || The Democrats' Dilemma

TPMCafe || The Democrats' Dilemma: "Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008 are going to need to essentially admit that they don't have magical solutions that will make this all come out all right and will, consequently, need to spend a lot of time making the case that this lack of appealing options is fundamentally the Bush administration's fault. That's fair enough as far as it goes, but it's bound to re-open the extremely divisive debate within the Democratic Party about the initial decision to go to war."



Iraq is part of the scenario of the coming storm for many. Surely, the Republican Party cannot continue indefinitely to prosper on the basis of their performance in the Global War on Terror, generally, or the War in Iraq, in particular.



The Democrats do have a problem, however. It is not a problem of previous intellectual committments, however, it is a problem of narratives.



The "credibility" issue is not about past intellectual committments so much as the difficulty of finding a common narrative, to which the whole party can subscribe, without too much individual embarassment.



Many on the Left would like a mind-your-own-business narrative, which is simply not all that credible, for a couple of reasons. First, like it or not, Iraq and the Middle East are vital strategic interests. Leftist Democrats, who live in fantasyland, can pretend otherwise, but those of us in the reality-based community are unlikely to trust those dwelling there, to "protect" our interests.



Second, the "other" side in Iraq are genuinely evil. Many leftists convinced themselves that the "other" side in Vietnam were Vietnamese patriots; whatever the merits of that view, it doesn't apply in Iraq. The "other" side in Iraq are evil and/or crazy; some are ruthless criminals, others are sectarians of the worst kind.



The Democrats need a narrative that will affirm that the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong, practically and morally, without building into that narrative assumptions, which will seem hopelessly naive to a majority of Americans. And, the Democrats need a narrative, which will point to a future policy, including withdrawal of military forces, which is not clearly self-destructive (and, no, it does not matter, how clearly self-destructive, staying is likely to be).



Any good Democratic narrative will start by characterizing Republican policy to date. That is key. It is the great advantage of being powerless and in opposition, that you can unify in opposition to the objective committments of your opponent, without having to unify in favor of any particular committment of your own. Republicans, even though they have been in power for several years, still do a better job of uniting themselves in opposition to Liberal Democrat strawmen, than real Democrats are able to unite in opposition to the reality of Republican policy.



So, instead of worrying quite yet about what ultimate Democratic policy in the Middle East might look like, let's start by figuring out a compelling narrative, which characterizes what the Republicans have been doing in the GWOT and Iraq.



It is really pointless to worry about whether Democrats favor withdrawal or aggressive military action in the present circumstances. We have no power to affect policy in the present circumstances; it will be hard enough to salvage something from the shambles, which will be the U.S. position in the world and the Middle East in 2008. So, no, Matthew, Democrats should not worry about prescribing "what do we do now"; instead the Democratic narrative should restrict itself to characterizing what the Republicans are doing now.



What are the Republicans doing? What is their policy? What is their plan? What is their objective? What have been the results? And, what is likely to be the result?



My recommendation for a narrative characterization of Bush and Bush's policy, would make ample use of the twin, alliterative adjectives, cowardly and corrupt.



When Democrats are asked for the Democratic plan, they should say, "if and when the American people again trust us with power, we will do our best to salvage what we can of American interests, American resources and American honor."



In the meantime, concentrate on characterizing Republican policy as dishonorable for being cowardly in its foundation of unreasoning fear; concentrate on characterizing Republican policy as corrupt and wasteful for squandering American resources in Iraq and elsewhere -- the borrowing, the absurdly expensive fantasy weapons programs, the ineffective reconstruction program in Iraq, the deterioration in military strength, etc.