With meaningful health reform on life-support, and the August recess looming, I have a couple of modest proposals...

Rather than suspending Congress in August, suspend Congressional healthcare (coverage under FEHBP), heck there must be some emergency supplemental type bill that could be procedurally crammed through Congress.  Pass a bill that suspends Congressional coverage until national coverage is agreed upon.

Secondly, why not spend the 100 million or so it would cost to conduct a national referendum on health care?  I know many of the strategic reasons, and also the precedent considerations (there WAS a referendum last Nov....).  But a national referendum, perhaps posing 3 or 4 clear options, would offer a final, indisputable resolution to the current debate.  Hey, at worst it would inject a few billion dollars worth of "stimulus" into the advertising and lobbying industries...
Are you in favor of:
No federal changes to current system of health care
A federally mandated universal health care system funded by universal premiums
A federally mandated system, funded by private insurance, operated by private interests
No federal mandate for health care

Well, something like that, put the bones on the questions anyway that is fair and transparent enough, but you get the idea.

The Gaming of Torture

The initial victory is, unfortunately, awarded to the evil doers of our time.  By cleverly goading the United States into debasing itself with a legalistic work around for the rule of law, Al-Qaeda scored an important victory.  Their own questionable tactics (the only ones realistically available to them for economic and logistic reasons) can now be cast in a somewhat less negative light --kill, maim, or injure innocents? Well, everyone does it when they're desperate don't they?  Even the self-righteous Americans, well, especially the self-righteous Americans, as soon as they're threatened all that talk of liberty and the rule of law (government) of the people, by the people, for the people --evaporates.
Leaving aside the historical evidence (evidence from non-fictional sources) that the use and precidence of torture seems to indicate that it is only (conditionally) effective as a tool or DOMESTIC suppression (suppression of dissent, suppression of political rivals), one must also consider how, after an initial victory from deligitimizing America and American governance, the future gaming of torture tactics may unfold.
I would humbly suggest that Al-Qaeda planners are now in same position as their Soviet conterparts were during the cold war.  The difference is of course that the Soviets were never able to get America to hand them such a complete propaganda victory as Al-Qaeda has.  Many may argue that the victory is in the telling or broadcasting of the truth in relation to torture, that is a childish and misguided perspective, the victory was in getting America to abandon it's core principles in such a vulgar, ignorant, unskilled, and OBVIOUS way.
However, now everyone knows suspects are tortured.  (No, we don't do that anymore! --uh, yeah, right, of COURSE you don't, wink, wink)  So, every operative will be given several fancifull and intricate "plans" some of which may be plausible, others, not so much.  Planners will ASSUME that operations will be compromised. When they are compromised they will still offer benefits (torture away, waste your life and resources chasing ghosts, losing credibility, and acting in ways that debase you and your way of life).  In this scenario, a successful operation may actually have less positive impact (from Al-Qaeda's perspective), and higher negatives than an unsuccessful one!
And so, I come to the most unlikely conclusion (from my own moral perspective):  perhaps it is possible to love torture policy (an alternative conclusion could also be that future attacks will harm the causes of those conducting them more than they will harm the intended targets, but that, I suppose, will require further analysis...)

Simple put: Get out of Washington.

There are plenty of Republicans outside of Washington, in fact there are plenty of Republicans outside of Washington who's interest and philosophy is more closely aligned with Obama than, say, John Boehner, or Rush Limbaugh, or Grover Norquist (or whomever is directing Washington Republicans these days).

The ultra-partisan minority of the Republican party is clawing and gasping for relevance, why grant it to them?

Governors, mayors, former senators, former members of congress, members of former administrations --lots of non "hyper-partisan" (a generous term for bat-shit crazy) Republicans to draw from...

Just a thought.

Just finished watching the Douglas make his case on The Daily Show...

While I've yet to watch the complete unedited interview on Comedy Central's website I intend too, BUT the gist of it is pretty simple really:
The problem with the Iraq war and run up to the war was NOT enough SPIN.
Sure, sure, there was a shout down campaign to silence dissent. Of course there was an organized, force multiplied disinformation campaign. AND of course Feith made no explanation for what effect PNAC's predetermined priority for the removal of Saddam Hussein (circa 1998) may have had on the advice and counsel given to the Bush administration in the run up to the war. No, no, the problem was the FAILURE to (spin)inform the public of all the super duper, extra delicious ideas they had as to why their preconceived notions were absolutely correct, even if they weren't. Don't remember it that way? That's cuz yous a dummy who don't listen --dummy, or so sayeth the Feith.
What's the most awesomeness about the whole thing, is that all Americans can now experience the type of torture formerly reserved for a few elite terror suspect (or a few hundreds, who the hell knows), and decide for themselves if its inhumane or not --waterboarding? No,no, this will have you scratching your own eyeballs out, even sweeter:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Decision-Inside-Pentagon-Terrorism/dp/0060899735/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

Enjoy

As noted on the TPM front page:
"The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq has been arrested, an Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman tells The Associated Press."

Please don't slam me too hard on this, but I have to admit ARRESTING an al Qaeda in Iraq leader (versus identifying his charred remains by DNA testing) does represent a sort of progress in Iraq (in my opinion).

It's not that I get weepy eyed when they blow one of them up or anything, it's just that to me it does represent what should be happening in a more stable, functioning country.  (Which, despite the rhetoric, is a good thing if our troops are to get out of there!)
(As an aside, who the hell applies for the job "Leader of al Qaeda in Iraq?"  Those guys haven't had much of a life span....)

Well, it's Friday, and I guess a memo went out to all media "channels" that it is tired political sports metaphor day.  So, in the spirit of T.P.S.M.D. here goes:
It seems that backs are against the wall -- http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/971485.aspx
Of course, from a sporting metaphor sense, given that Obama is marginally in the lead, and we are not yet in sudden death overtime, isn't it more accurate to say he is desperately struggling to protect his lead while fending off a desperate opponent?
Then of course there is the big game comparison --
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/02/opinion/main4064934.shtml
Cuz you see, Hillary is the scrappy N.C. State, a land grant college formed after the civil war, and Obama is the privileged and elitist UNC. Got that?  But just for "shits and giggles" carry on past the Nation Reviews article ending metaphor about how the Tar Heels did this season and check out the description of UNC's season here --
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/teams/nat
"North Carolina State Team Report Apr 8, 2008

North Carolina State's potential dream season turned into a nightmare."

[Hey, don't slam ME as an Obamabot, its the National Reviews freakin' metaphor not mine]

Of course, what ESPN round up of "best of metaphors" would be complete without visiting --

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192685.php

GOT that?

Hillary by keeping it close will send a message that the fans should stay for sudden death overtime, even if the scoreboard says otherwise when the clock runs out.

Because of course --

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/story?id=4763893&page=1

You see? She would ALREADY be the Republican nominee...

Of course that's a little like a Canadian Football League Quarterback laying down on the 2 yard line and refusing to move because, "If this were the NFL, I'd already HAVE a touch down."

Except of course, this is more like that OTHER "football" (the one that focuses on kicking a ball with your foot), where cards are handed out for penalties, and the game keeps going until a referee mysteriously says "Its over!" (injury time and all that...)

On a personal level I reject dualistic thinking.  It serves a purpose no doubt, and occasionally it is required for survival, or at least basic self interest.  Having said that, there is a dualistic filter which I apply to political and in particular foreign policy considerations: does this process lead to genocide?

It is of course, the “nuclear option” of philosophical consideration.  Applying it to domestic political policies such as education, or taxation, or civil liberty, is an exercise best left to times of quiet reflection and meditation, and not open discourse.  However; on foreign policy matters it is a question that must at least be posed at the ideological level.

 Douglas Feith’s ideological input to “P.N.A.C.,” and his role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and his role (and the role of those influenced by his ideology) in the ongoing U.S. foreign policy issues vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea demand a public definition of his ideological end game.

On a pragmatic level there are only a few obvious matters of self interest that must be addressed with regard to Middle Eastern foreign policy:

-- Energy policy

-- The historic and ideological support of the existence and continued/improved health and security of the state of Israel

-- Economic policy, as it relates to energy policy, but also as it relates to global security and normalization of global trade

--Domestic and Global security

The last point (security) is of course the poisoned fruit of foreign policy considerations.  The adjustment of sensibilities that has been opportunistically forced upon the public since 2001 has made a pragmatic discussion of (inter)National Security impossible.  National security is a magical hammer that can be used to torture logic, reality, budgets, and prisoners with equal effectiveness.

And so it is that I pose an open question to Douglas Feith et al:

What ideal ending of the Iraq war that does not result in (more?) genocide do you propose?

What ideal outcome of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that does not end in (continued?) genocide do you propose?

What ideal ending to the “Global War On Terror” (terror the tactic having been replaced by terror an ideology?) do you propose that does not end in genocide (nb: collateral damage does not differ from genocide to those that are defined as collateral)?

Will you consider that, even in ideological terms, a failure to identify an end point to all of these endeavors is to embrace a long term policy that leads inevitably to genocide?