Originally Posted by Justin '77

How are you coming to a "dem-controlled Senate"? Are you counting Lieberman as a Democract? Even though he almost always votes with the Rupublicans? And didn't run as a Democrat? Given Lieberman's record, were things to break on party lines, Cheney would get to decide a lot of votes...

Lieberman may be right-wing on the war and some social issues, it has been pointed out to me that his record is fairly liberal otherwise, esp. on economic concerns.

Also, even if he votes with the Republicans a significant amount of the time, since he has stated he will caucus with the Democrats, that still gives the Dems the committee chairs.

If giving Joe a committee chairmanship is the price of putting Vermont's Lehey in charge of the Senate Judicary committee so as to protect our courts from more wingnuts, it's a small price to pay.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

If giving Joe a committee chairmanship is the price of putting Vermont's Lehey in charge of the Senate Judicary committee so as to protect our courts from more wingnuts, it's a small price to pay.

Has there been any discussion of exactly which chairmanships Holy Joe is angling for? It would be nice to keep him as far away from foreign policy as possible.

Or, if he's all hot and bothered for it, here's a silly scenario: Cheney steps down. Bush appoints Rice as VP. Joe becomes the new SoS. Rell appoints as his replacement... Lamont. W00t!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here's my best guess. Cheney acts as the heat-attractor for the next 6 to 8 months, then steps aside "for health reasons". This allows Bush to appoint a "new VP" ... one that will run for the top job in '08. Who in the Senate is well liked, Republican and ambitious?

In the past, I would have bet on George Allen.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This is too funny!

Originally Posted by Finch

Doesn't hafta be a Senator, ya know... and why would the incoming Dem-controlled Senate confirm somebody who would be a serious '08 challenger?

I guess I forgot to put the sarcasm smiley on that.
Good for Jenny who caught it anyway.

Originally Posted by Finch

Speaking of the incoming Senate, I sure hope that they can draw out the confirmation of Gates until the new Senate is seated. I can think of at least one fellow who will have a lot to say about Gates and his connections to the Iran-Contra scandal: the Secretary of the Navy at the time, Senator James Webb.

Almost makes me wonder whether Bush had to speed up the timetable once the balance of power in the new Senate became clear. Bush does not want that whole scandal revisited -- there are too many of its players in Washington right now, and a lot of them have close ties to his disastrous Iraq policy. Negroponte comes first to mind, but there's also Abrams, Reich and Poindexter. Even Manuchar Gorbanifar made a reappearance in the "16 words" Niger fraud.

And lo and behold, Daniel Ortega is back in power in Nicaragua. Unfinished business, indeed.

H-m-m-m. What goes around the Bush, comes around the other Bush. Perhaps we're about to see a little payback ... or maybe some serious horse trading. Either way, I hope the Dems don't start this relationship by giving George a bye-me. If he'd slandered me like he slandered some of the Dems, letting it go would NOT be a freebee.

Originally Posted by Finch

Has there been any discussion of exactly which chairmanships Holy Joe is angling for? It would be nice to keep him as far away from foreign policy as possible.

He wants the the chair of the national security commitee.

Joe will likely support any policy as long as it supports the status quo and is pro-israeli.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I agree with you about us being on the wrong course, and disagree with Finch that America can't be a force for good in the world. But I can't buy off on a path of autarky and militarization. I'll write more on that when I get the chance.

Also, do you really think Caesar and Diocletian are good models?!? The first represents the death of the Roman Republic and the second represents the calcification of the later Empire. I myself would rather we remain a flexible republic.

If our nation's ideals are supposedly those of goodness and dignity; why would there be anything wrong with taking a more proactive approach toward implementing our ideals? What is wrong about spreading our ideals to new lands and populations? Surely our nation's chances for prosperity and security would be greatly enhanced by the creation by force of a defensive cordon around our hemisphere. As for autarky, north america alone contains just about every major resource except excess oil, The need for oil can be gotten around by simply converting to an hydrogen fueled economy.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

As for autarky, north america alone contains just about every major resource except excess oil, The need for oil can be gotten around by simply converting to an hydrogen fueled economy.

Of course there's also our need for a special kind of poppy, a need whose fulfillment we have preferred to outsource to particular central and southeast Asian countries (although perhaps like our need for the torture of certain people we'll prefer to bring the good jobs home). And then you have our need for kinky Asian porn, and there's only so many good looking Thai chicks willing to have weird sex on camera in these United States to meet that need. Once you mix in our need for authentic Russian assault rifles, Phillipino nanny/paramours, and looted antiquities from various countries we have invaded you realize how vast our needs actually are, and how unlikely they are to be met by this hemisphere alone. (I was going to say Mexican valium too but I realize that as much as many people don't want to admit it Mexico is in fact in North America.)

Originally Posted by Linus

Of course there's also our need for a special kind of poppy, a need whose fulfillment we have preferred to outsource to particular central and southeast Asian countries

Love the snark, but I'll be Aspie-literal and point out that there is no "special kind of poppy" -- the poppy that produces opium is exactly the same poppy that grows in vacant lots just about anywhere in North America. It's a plain old weed. So is cannabis. The "War on Drugs" is really a "War on nature" in more ways than one.

Originally Posted by Finch

Love the snark, but I'll be Aspie-literal and point out that there is no "special kind of poppy" -- the poppy that produces opium is exactly the same poppy that grows in vacant lots just about anywhere in North America. It's a plain old weed. So is cannabis. The "War on Drugs" is really a "War on nature" in more ways than one.

Is that true??? So you mean the same seeds that make a most delicious pound cake can also be refined into smack??? I never knew that! Why the hell does the mob outsource production then... because the quantity required would be too conspicuous over here?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Is that true??? So you mean the same seeds that make a most delicious pound cake can also be refined into smack??? I never knew that! Why the hell does the mob outsource production then... because the quantity required would be too conspicuous over here?

From Wikipedia on Poppy

Eating food (e.g. muffins) that contains poppy seeds can result in a false positive for opiates in a drug test. Although the drug opium is produced from the unripe fruits ("seed pods") rather than the seeds, all parts of the plant can contain the opium alkaloids.

This was confirmed by the presenters of the television programme MythBusters. One participant, Adam Savage, who ate an entire loaf of poppy seed cake tested positive for opiates just half an hour later. A second participant, Jamie Hyneman, who ate three poppy seed bagels, first tested positive two hours after eating. Both tested positive for the remainder of the day, but were clean 18 hours later in the morning. The results of this entertaining experiment are dubious, however, because they used a test with an opiate cutoff level of 300 ng/mL instead of the most widely used (and federally mandated) cutoff level of 2,000 ng/mL.

In an episode of Seinfeld, the character Elaine tested positive for opioids in a round of tests mandated by her workplace. She eventually found out that this was coming from her poppy-seed muffin habit.

The sale of poppy seeds is banned in Singapore due to the alleged morphine content.

20th century America devoloped a habit of 'declaring war' on things. You can't really have a war against poverty, drugs or terrorism. There is no government to topple, no leader to capture, in short, no way to define victory. There will always be poverty, drugs and terrorism in the world. It is more effective to mitigate bad effects. The debate on how to mitigate can be a constructive act, whereas 'declaring war' on things never will be.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

20th century America devoloped a habit of 'declaring war' on things. You can't really have a war against poverty, drugs or terrorism. There is no government to topple, no leader to capture, in short, no way to define victory. There will always be poverty, drugs and terrorism in the world. It is more effective to mitigate bad effects. The debate on how to mitigate can be a constructive act, whereas 'declaring war' on things never will be.

I'd speculate this is due to the chronic (male) Silent malaise: that of being just a smidgeon too young to fight in a war that returned its survivors as revered Heroes. Ever since, the Silent and their early-Boomer followers have been staging their own various Wars On Things here at home, that they too could "win".

Originally Posted by herbal tee

20th century America devoloped a habit of 'declaring war' on things. You can't really have a war against poverty, drugs or terrorism. There is no government to topple, no leader to capture, in short, no way to define victory. There will always be poverty, drugs and terrorism in the world. It is more effective to mitigate bad effects. The debate on how to mitigate can be a constructive act, whereas 'declaring war' on things never will be.

I'm waiting for the "war on nuclear weapons." But, then again, aren't we already in "war on WMDs"? Hey, what kind of a country would make a metaphor out of war, anyway? What about a "war on metaphors"?

Now I'm going back to Sunday football. The Raiders just blitzed the Saints and sacked their quarterback. The Redskins are deep in Cowboy territory and threaten to draw first blood in the red zone. Times running out, though, so Brunell spiked the ball to kill the clock. And the Vikings, who are not normally religious, said several Hail Marys in the huddle and threw a bomb in hopes for a glorious victory against their arch enemy, the Patriots...

Maybe I should watch more tennis—the "game of love."

Originally Posted by Finch

Love the snark, but I'll be Aspie-literal and point out that there is no "special kind of poppy" -- the poppy that produces opium is exactly the same poppy that grows in vacant lots just about anywhere in North America. It's a plain old weed. So is cannabis. The "War on Drugs" is really a "War on nature" in more ways than one.

As it happens, I'm not a leading authority on poppies. As it also happens, there is a special kind of poppy used in the production of opiate drugs. (The California poppy for instance has sedative properties but contains no opiates.) That they can grow more or less anywhere speaks to the fact that I wasn't entirely joking about bringing the good jobs home.

From C>A>R>R>H>A>E> to S>O>M>M>E>*

Originally Posted by Mr. Simon Tisdall

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

...The "last push" strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans "political time and space" to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. "The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they'll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House.

in the Guardian (UK)



Succor Our Muddled Middle East* offered to Ms. Karen Hughes, et al. by Yo. Patriotic Sv. without any need of recompense. Arrows to Araby!!!

The nature of the Iraq War has changed. It is now Where Elephants Die In Herds - W>E>D>I>H.

Originally Posted by Mr. Simon Tisdall

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Push? To where? Where is the front? The 38th parallel does not cross Iraq.

Originally Posted by Finch

Push? To where? Where is the front? The 38th parallel does not cross Iraq.

Well, considering how narrow northern Iraq is, there is a "bulge" in southern Iraq that they could have a battle in.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Is that true??? So you mean the same seeds that make a most delicious pound cake can also be refined into smack??? I never knew that! Why the hell does the mob outsource production then... because the quantity required would be too conspicuous over here?

Yes, the seeds can be refined to make smack, but it's less than optimal. The amount of the desired alkaloids is too low to make it a worthwhile endeavor. The same goes for lettuce. The part that sucks though is that is does have enough of the desired alkaloids to mess up pee tests. I think one would be better off sticking to morning glory seeds and perhaps nutmeg.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

20th century America devoloped a habit of 'declaring war' on things. You can't really have a war against poverty, drugs or terrorism. There is no government to topple, no leader to capture, in short, no way to define victory. There will always be poverty, drugs and terrorism in the world. It is more effective to mitigate bad effects. The debate on how to mitigate can be a constructive act, whereas 'declaring war' on things never will be.

I agree! I don't know if you're old enough to recall Jimmy Carter's
lame assed "MEW" = moral equivalent of war ,on I think the "energy crisis".
I was in "High" school, which at that time had a dual meanining ...

On drugs, I support legalizing them. I don't have a ready answer to povery. I think the terrorism thing could be sort of mitigated by autarcky.
I'd suggest using the nuclear option which I guess could be used to make hydorgen, but the main source would be the current uranium reactors and a fairly new option of using thorium. If we used uranium/thorium, no more meddling aound in the Mideast, which I think would reduce their antagonism. I'm not sure how we'd make enough hydrogen to replace fossil fuels right now, but thorium technology would suffice as a replacement. Perhaps genetic research into how plants capture photons and how they split water into H2 and O2 may work, but it would take some time to get something scaled up to do this on the needed scale.

Sectarian Strife in Iraq Imperils Entire Region, Analysts Warn

Originally Posted by Ellen Knickmeyer

BAGHDAD -- While American commanders have suggested that civil war is possible in Iraq, many leaders, experts and ordinary people in Baghdad and around the Middle East say it is already underway, and that the real worry ahead is that the conflict will destroy the flimsy Iraqi state and draw in surrounding countries.

Whether the U.S. military departs Iraq sooner or later, the United States will be hard-pressed to leave behind a country that does not threaten U.S. interests and regional peace, according to U.S. and Arab analysts and political observers.

"We're not talking about just a full-scale civil war. This would be a failed-state situation with fighting among various groups," growing into regional conflict, Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, said by telephone from Amman, Jordan.

"The war will be over Iraq, over its dead body," Hiltermann said.

Originally Posted by Linus

Sectarian Strife in Iraq Imperils Entire Region, Analysts Warn

Consider stepping outside the box that everyone seems to want to deem reality, and consider the possibility that sectarian strife that engulfs much of the region is not only an inevitable, but possibly good, thing. Remove the American barrier of our kids and treasury from the road to peril and see if the regional power brokers decide to step back from the abyss. If they decide to stumble in, we probable won't hear from them for a few decades. Yes, the rest of us will all have to get real serious about alternatives to ME oil dependency -- a 4T perhaps, but a lot less substantial than the previous three or the one that we now seem headed toward if we stay as fully engaged as we are now.

Originally Posted by salsabob

Consider stepping outside the box that everyone seems to want to deem reality, and consider the possibility that sectarian strife that engulfs much of the region is not only an inevitable, but possibly good, thing. Remove the American barrier of our kids and treasury from the road to peril and see if the regional power brokers decide to step back from the abyss. If they decide to stumble in, we probable won't hear from them for a few decades. Yes, the rest of us will all have to get real serious about alternatives to ME oil dependency -- a 4T perhaps, but a lot less substantial than the previous three or the one that we now seem headed toward if we stay as fully engaged as we are now.

I'm afraid this might have to come. We are looking at a failed state. In other recent failed state situations, we have have seen genocide, ethnic cleansing, organized rape and famine as a political weapon. While I am most displeased with many aspects of traditional muslim treatment of women, at least they aren't doing the organized rapes. The famines may not have started yet, but seem a possibility.

I've heard that the Shia and Sunni populations are so intermixed that ethnic cleansing isn't going to be easy. Few if any national level politicians are favoring a partitioned federated state. Unfortunately, the local tendency for genocide might well force ethnic cleansing. There has been a lot of movement as families locally in the minority move to areas where they will be part of the majority and more able to defend themselves. People are voting for partitioning with their feet. I'm not sure what is apt to halt this trend.

The current government seems to be a dysfunctional collection of agencies, conceived in graft, and based on the proposition that all agencies shall be dominated by an aggressive ethnic militia. I'd recommend purging it all and starting over again, except I have no confidence that what would reform to take its place would be significantly different.

When Clinton considered sending a peacekeeping mission into the Third World, he would try to negotiate a treaty for the ultimate solution first. He'd generally wait until the situation is clearly untenable, force the opposing factions to partition, and only then send in troops to enforce a scheme already agreed upon by the rival factions.

I don't know. While we are there, the situation might not get so untenable that the rival factions will agree on partition of territory and power. My cockeyed vision of the future suggests we may have to leave, to enable chaos, before the situation will be ripe for us to go back in.

More likely, the Iranians will be the nation that goes in.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

20th century America developed a habit of 'declaring war' on things. You can't really have a war against poverty, drugs or terrorism. There is no government to topple, no leader to capture, in short, no way to define victory. There will always be poverty, drugs and terrorism in the world. It is more effective to mitigate bad effects. The debate on how to mitigate can be a constructive act, whereas 'declaring war' on things never will be.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I agree! I don't know if you're old enough to recall Jimmy Carter's lame assed "MEW" = moral equivalent of war, on I think the "energy crisis". I was in "High" school, which at that time had a dual meaning ...

I was a married adult with a child in '73, when the Saudis turned-off the oil tap, and I was married adult with two children in '79 when it happened again (only the players changed: Saudi Arabia => Iran). The moral equivalent of war was a good metaphor, and Ronald Reagan could have made it work.

Those were lean times, and good experience for what comes next.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

On drugs, I support legalizing them. I don't have a ready answer to poverty. I think the terrorism thing could be sort of mitigated by autarcky.

OK.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I'd suggest using the nuclear option which I guess could be used to make hydrogen, but the main source would be the current uranium reactors and a fairly new option of using thorium. If we used uranium/thorium, no more meddling around in the Mideast, which I think would reduce their antagonism. I'm not sure how we'd make enough hydrogen to replace fossil fuels right now, but thorium technology would suffice as a replacement. Perhaps genetic research into how plants capture photons and how they split water into H2 and O2 may work, but it would take some time to get something scaled up to do this on the needed scale.

... getting back to the original topic, Jimmy Carter wanted to develop Breeder Reactors, strict CAFE standards on vehicles and major improvements to building efficiency standards, among other things. He also favored a Manhattan-like project on fission. But that was then.

BTW, plants don't split water into it's components, they use solar energy to convert 6 H2O + 6 CO2 => C6H12O6 + 6 O2. If you want H2, try electrolysis or a catalytic chemical conversion from methane. See Mike Alexander (Mikebert) for details.