brainrow

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman looks back at 2005 and says “Heck of a Job, Bushie”:

A year ago, everyone expected President Bush to get his way on Social Security. Pundits warned Democrats that they were making a big political mistake by opposing plans to divert payroll taxes into private accounts.

A year ago, everyone thought Congress would make Mr. Bush’s tax cuts permanent, in spite of projections showing that doing so would lead to budget deficits as far as the eye can see….

A year ago, Mr. Bush made many Americans feel safe, because they believed that he would be decisive and effective in an emergency….

A year ago, before “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” became a national punch line, the rising tide of cronyism in government agencies and the rapid replacement of competent professionals with unqualified political appointees attracted hardly any national attention.

A year ago, hardly anyone outside Washington had heard of Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay’s position as House majority leader seemed unassailable.

A year ago, Dick Cheney, who repeatedly cited discredited evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and promised that invading Americans would be welcomed as liberators – although he hadn’t yet declared that the Iraq insurgency was in its “last throes” – was widely admired for his “gravitas.”

…

A year ago, Mr. Bush hadn’t yet openly reneged on Scott McClellan’s 2003 pledge that “if anyone in this administration was involved” in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity, that person “would no longer be in this administration.” Of course, some suspect that Mr. Bush has always known who was involved.

A year ago, we didn’t know that Mr. Bush was lying, or at least being deceptive, when he said at an April 2004 event promoting the Patriot Act that “a wiretap requires a court order. …When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

A year ago, most Americans thought Mr. Bush was honest.

A year ago, we didn’t know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn’t above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.

Unfortunately, the full column is only available to paying customers. Sorry.

As a farewell to 2005, the Washington Post brings us the year in review, as seen by Chuck Shepherd’s News of the Weird:

DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick told a middle-school class that the U.S. Congress is different from the Texas legislature because in Washington, there are “454” members on the House side and “60” in the Senate.

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was on The Charlie Rose Show not long ago, talking about Team of Rivals, her book about Abraham Lincoln.

She repeated a story from her book. Only a little more than forty years after Lincoln’s death, Leo Tolstoy found that Lincoln’s fame had spread to one of the remotest places on earth.

From the book:

In 1908, in a wild and remote area of the North Caucusus, Leo Tolstoy, the greatest writer of the age, was the guest of a tribal chief “living far away from civilized life in the mountains.” Gathering his family and neighbors, the chief asked Tolstoy to tell stories about the famous men of history. Tolstoy told how he entertained the eager crowd for hours with tales of Alexander, Caesar, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon. When he was winding to a close, the chief stood and said, “But you have not told us a syllable about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock…. His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America, which is so far away that if a youth should journey to reach it he would be an old man when he arrived. Tell us of that man.”

“I looked at them,” Tolstoy recalled, “and saw their faces all aglow, while their eyes were burning. I saw that those rude barbarians were really interested in a man whose name and deeds had already become a legend.” He told them everything he knew about Lincoln’s “home life and youth … his habits, his influence upon the people and his physical strength.” When he finished, they were so grateful for the story that they presented him with “a wonderful Arabian horse.” The next morning, as Tolstoy prepared to leave, they asked if he could possibly acquire for them a picture of Lincoln. Thinking that he might find one at a friend’s house in the neighboring town, Tolstoy asked one of the riders to accompany him. “I was successful in getting a large photograph from my friend,” recalled Tolstoy. As he handed it to the rider, he noted that the man’s hand trembled as he took it. “He gazed for several minutes silently, like one in a reverent prayer, his eyes filled with tears.”

Tolstoy went on to observe, “This little incident proves how largely the name of Lincoln is worshipped throughout the world and how legendary his personality has become. Now, why was Lincoln so great that he overshadows all other national heroes? He really was not such a great general like Napoleon or Washington; he was not such a skilful statesman as Gladstone or Frederick the Great; but his supremacy expresses itself altogether in his peculiar moral power and in the greatness of his character.

“Washington was a typical American. Napoleon was a typical Frenchman, but Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country — bigger than all the Presidents together.

“We are still too near to his greatness,” Tolstoy concluded, “but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.”

Cartoonist Tom Tomorrow looks back at 2005: part 1 and part 2. He also has a parable of recent American history.

From an email message: Connecticut apologizes.

With thanks to Colorado Jyms, here’s Will Ferrell as George W. Bush, explaining global warming.

From a leftover political ad, here’s Will Ferrell again, as George W. Bush down on the farm.

I’ve linked to this before, but it’s funny enough to watch again: the George W. Bush biopic, Dubya, the Movie.

Finally, a consummation devoutly to be wished:

There are lots more Bush pictures here. Most are pretty disrespectful, which is the only way I’d have it.

Cartoonist Mark Fiore brings us Get Smarter, with “Agent Dubya, smarter than any old law.”

Last week, the Christian Science Monitor looked at the war in Iraq on its 1,000th day. The chart showing the number of insurgent attacks is depressing. Comparisons to other wars are enlightening.

I’d like to wish everyone a very happy Winter Solstice.

Every day since the first day of summer, half a year ago, the Sun has risen and set a little bit farther south, and the noonday Sun has been a little bit lower in the sky. The days have grown shorter and the nights longer — at least here in the northern hemisphere. Today, that changes. The Sun stops its southward movement. Tomorrow, and each day for half a year, the Sun will rise a little higher, the days will grow a little longer, and the nights shorter.

Imagine how happy the sky watchers of ancient times must have felt when they realized that the Sun was returning — that the cold and dark of winter would not last forever. What a celebration there must have been then!

Those ancient people almost certainly believed the earth was flat. How do you suppose they explained the movements of the Sun that governed the seasons? We know that some cultures worshipped the Sun, and made sacrifices to it. Greek mythology says the Sun was the chariot of the god Apollo, but it seems unlikely that many Greeks actually believed that. There were countless other ancient cultures about whom we know little or nothing. I would be fascinated to know how they balanced reason and fancy in their explanations of what they saw.

Ancient people weren’t stupid. They just didn’t know some things that we know now about the reason for the seasons: that the earth is round, and orbits the Sun once a year; that it rotates on its axis, which is tilted about 23.5° relative to the plane of that orbit, so that the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun for half the year, and away from the sun for the other half.

How much effort did ancient cultures put into observing and describing the phenomenon, and how much into weaving intricate flights of fancy attempting to explain it? How many years did it take for those flights of fancy to become dogma? Did they persecute those who doubted? How much has human society lost when mystic certainty has trumped logic and doubt? How often, and at what cost, does dogma triumph over truth today?

Oh, well. You don’t have to be a pagan or a Zoroastrian to appreciate the Solstice. The Sun is returning to the north. There will be brighter days ahead.

I’ve been a fan of only a handful of politicians. I was a fan of former Senator William Proxmire, who died today.

Proxmire entered the Senate in 1957, replacing Senator Joseph R. McCarthy after McCarthy’s death. That must number among the finest upgrades in American electoral history.

Proxmire was a Democrat with an independent mind and a strong sense of ethics, which got him a reputation as a political maverick.

He fought for the little guy, and for transparency in government. He was famous for his “Golden Fleece Award,” which called attention to government programs that he considered wasteful of taxpayer money.

One Golden Fleece Award from the 1970s stands out in my memory. It named a research program that was studying how insects walk. The research was being done at the Ohio State University, where I worked at the time. I had read about the project before Proxmire’s award called national attention to it. The researchers believed their work might help in developing robotic vehicles with military uses, for space exploration, and for maneuvering in particularly rugged territory here on earth. It was the first time I’d had a different perspective on one of the Golden Fleece Awards, and I thought the research was probably money well-spent. It was an educational experience for me. Ever since, I’ve been slow to judge when someone with an axe to grind points out some apparently self-evident foolishness. There is always more to the story, and we would be a lot better off if more people understood that.

Even when I disagreed with Senator Proxmire, I knew his vote and his voice were honest. Unlike so many other politicians, William Proxmire was not for sale.

I wish there were more like him.

Thirty-three years ago today was the last time any human being walked on the Moon.

The first time any human being walked on the Moon was thirty-six years ago last July 20th.

Those were three and a half remarkable years. They seemed to show what human ingenuity and initiative could do when we harnessed our energies to solve a difficult problem. I watched the Apollo missions, and felt optimistic that, in my lifetime, we would make the world a better place for everyone.

I was a space nut. I still am. But, to me, the important thing about the Apollo program was not the moon rocks, or the big rockets, or any of the cool hardware. There was something else — something almost spiritual. The important thing was not that we landed on the Moon, but that we did something very hard. We didn’t shy away from the challenge.

The Apollo missions showed us something we keep forgetting: that we are strong, and smart, and resourceful. We don’t need to be weak and powerless in the face of great problems. There is greatness in us. It shows itself when we have the will to confront our problems.

That greatness should not be confined only to history books.

Oh, I just knew the right-wingers had no respect for democracy. From the Washington Post:

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department’s voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.

…

Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory elections are required to submit changes in their voting systems or election maps for approval by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

The Texas case provides another example of conflict between political appointees and many of the division’s career employees. In a separate case, The Post reported last month that a team was overruled when it recommended rejecting a controversial Georgia voter-identification program that was later struck down as unconstitutional by a court.

Mark Posner, a longtime Justice Department lawyer who now teaches law at American University, said it was “highly unusual” for political appointees to overrule a unanimous finding such as the one in the Texas case.

…

DeLay, the former House majority leader, is fighting state felony counts of money laundering and conspiracy — crimes he is charged with committing by unlawfully injecting corporate money into state elections. His campaign efforts were made in preparation for the new congressional map that was the focus of the Justice Department memo.

That’s right — the money laundering for which Tom DeLay is under indictment was done to advance a gerrymandering plan that was itself considered illegal by every lawyer and analyst who studied it in the Justice Department.

To be fair, a lot of right-wingers make no secret of their desire to revoke or gut the Voting Rights Act. It’s part of their program to repeal the entire 20^th century.

When Marine Corps General Peter Pace became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last month, he was interviewed on the NewsHour on PBS. I was impressed. He seemed to be a straight talker and a clear thinker. When interviewer Jim Lehrer asked how many insurgents had been killed in a recent military operation, Pace said this:

GENERAL PETER PACE: I know the answer to that question. But, if you don’t mind, I’m not going to tell you because I truly believe that we do not want the American public or anybody else watching this broadcast to start counting bodies.

This is not the way we count success. We count success and we measure success by the security that we provide in these towns for the Iraqi people. This is not about killing of people. It is about providing security for people.

And if we inadvertently, mistakenly start counting how many of the enemy are killed, we will be sending the wrong messages to our own troops and to the Iraqi people. We want to provide security for them.

JIM LEHRER: And now, General, isn’t that a change — what you just expressed — a change? Because up till this point in time, every time there’s been one of these sweeps, every time there’s been one of these, the U.S. military in Iraq is quick to say how many insurgents have been captured, how many insurgents have been killed and the whole point of the exercise is to destroy the insurgency. You are saying no more?

GENERAL PETER PACE: No. I am saying that anyone who, in the past, has been counting bodies has been presenting the wrong measure of success; that the correct measure of success is how much of this country, how much of Iraq is being controlled by coalition forces to include, and most importantly, to include the Iraqi armed forces themselves, how much security is being provided, and it’s not about death counts. It’s about defining security so that the Iraqi people can live in freedom.

JIM LEHRER: So how do we measure success of this operation?

GENERAL PETER PACE: We measure success of this operation by how quickly we are able to establish Iraqi government control of the area and we measure success by watching as time goes on the ability of the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi police to continue to provide that security.

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank wrote about a recent Pentagon briefing by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Pace:

When UPI’s Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that “obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility” other than to voice disapproval.

But Pace had a different view. “It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it,” the general said.

Rumsfeld interjected: “I don’t think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it’s to report it.”

But Pace meant what he said. “If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it,” he said, firmly.

(Crooks and Liars has video.)

So, three cheers for General Pace — not for standing up to Don Rumsfeld, but for standing up for a higher standard of conduct than that proposed by the excuse-makers and corner-cutters of the Bush Administration.

Our uniformed services deserve better civilian leadership.

Somewhere in the universe, a gear in the machinery shifted.

— Eldridge Cleaver, about Rosa Parks

Fifty years ago today, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama city bus to an able-bodied white man. For that act of defiance, she was arrested and fined $14.

The world is very different now, in no small part because Rosa Parks’ small act of defiance inspired millions of additional acts of defiance. Martin Luther King said, “We must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent.”

By all the usual metrics, she was a perfectly ordinary person, like you or me. That is why she is remembered today. It would have been so easy to submit once again to one of the smaller injustices of Alabama’s system of segregation and discrimination. But she had had enough, and she would not back down. Because she was just like any one of us, her defiance provided an inspiring example that straightened countless bent backs.

She still provides that inspiration, fifty years later.