Alafair

We had to say goodbye to our sweet Alafair this afternoon. She was in too much pain to keep trying and she really let us know it was time.

Thanks to all for their thoughts and prayers. This is part of life that sucks.

We will miss her so much. She was the sweetest dog I think I have ever met. She loved people and as one of my friends noted, brought joy wherever she went. Being around her made you smile.

We will miss you, Alafair. We love you.

Update

This morning was horrible. She was in so much pain. We asked our vet what he would do if it were his dog, and he wants to give it a few more hours to see if we can manage the pain and make her comfortable so we can pursue some possible treatment. If that doesn't work, we are going to have to let her go. We will know probably around noon if the pain management is working. I know in the world of tragedy this is just our dog, but it is our Alafair--faithful, loving and amazing friend for 10 years.

Thanks to everyone for their prayers and thoughts. Monk-in-Training's prayer was on my mind throughout the morning.

Alafair update

Not too much to tell so far. This morning was pretty awful as she was in some pain, but the vet made her comfortable and is now trying to figure out the cause. Not sure when we will know.

Keep a good thought for our dog Alafair

We took her into an emergency vet clinic this afternoon and they are keeping her overnight. Not sure what is causing the problem, and it could be serious and it could be manageable.

Needless to say, I won't be too available for a while.

Please keep a good thought.

John Dilulio finally speaks

Dilulio was one of those who thought the President was earnest when he talked about "compassionate conservatism." And he notes, Bush has done much to help in world Aids crisis and has actually increased some funding for poorer schools. But that is it. In most other areas, poverty is winning, and Bush seems resolute to be more helpful to the rich.
Bush's stand on insurance plan contradicts words of compassion | Inquirer | 07/26/2007:

On the other hand, poverty rates have risen in many cities. In 2005, Washington fiddled while New Orleans flooded, and the White House has vacillated in its support for the region's recovery and rebuilding process. Most urban religious nonprofit organizations that provide social services in low-income communities still get no public support whatsoever. Several recent administration positions on social policy contradict the compassion vision Bush articulated in 1999.

In May, Bush rejected a bipartisan House bill that increased funding for Head Start, a program that benefits millions of low-income preschoolers. His spokesmen claimed the bill was bad because it did not include a provision giving faith-based preschool programs an absolute right to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring.

That reason reverses a principle Bush proclaimed in his 1999 speech: "We will keep a commitment to pluralism, not discriminating for or against Methodists or Mormons or Muslims, or good people of no faith at all." As many studies show, most urban faith-based nonprofits that serve their own needy neighbors do not discriminate against beneficiaries, volunteers or staff on religious grounds. These inner-city churches and grassroots groups would love to expand Head Start in their communities.

Last week, Bush threatened to veto a bipartisan Senate plan that would add $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The decade-old program insures children in families that are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but are too poor to afford private insurance. The extra $7 billion a year offered by the Senate would cover a few million more children. New money for the purpose would come from raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes.

Several former Bush advisers have urged the White House to accept some such SCHIP plan. So have many governors in both parties and Republican leaders in the Senate. In 2003, Bush supported a Medicare bill that increased government spending on prescription drugs for elderly middle-income citizens by hundreds of billions of dollars. But he has pledged only $1 billion a year more for low-income children's health insurance. His spokesmen say doing any more for the "government-subsidized program" would encourage families to drop private insurance.

But the health-insurance market has already priced out working-poor families by the millions. With a growing population of low-income children, $1 billion a year more would be insufficient even to maintain current per-capita child coverage levels. Some speculate that SCHIP is now hostage to negotiations over the president's broader plan to expand health coverage via tax cuts and credits. But his plan has no chance in this Congress; besides, treating health insurance for needy children as a political bargaining chip would be wrong.

Gonzales is undermatched

New meme from conservatives--mark this down. Watching Chris Matthews tonight, saw a Republican suggest that Gonzales is a fine lawyer, just doesn't have the skills to match up to a Leahy or Shumer.

How about he is just incompetent?

Colliding Galaxies

Real Live Preacher:

"In his book 'Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time,' Marcus Borg describes the confusion and trauma that occurred when his childish images of Jesus collided with the scientific worldview of our culture. As I read his words, I felt like he was telling my own story. How well I remember when that collision began."

Friday morning

The Bush White House looks scarier and scarier as time goes on. By telling Gonzales not to honor contempt charges, they are essentially claiming the "right to determine the limits of their own power." I can't remember who wrote that, but it absolutely nails the problem. In a real democracy, Bush allows this to go forward and let the courts decide if he deserves executive priviledge. Instead, he says that when he claims it, that is the end and there is nothing Congress can do. Reminds me of Nixon saying "When the President does it, that means it isn't illegal." Bush appears to be daring Congress to impeach him--knowing that he has the votes to survive it. Ah, another little gift from Republicans--impeaching Clinton essentially saving a far worse President from legitimate impeachment.

Instead, I wish they would go after Gonzo, as I have said before. And his latest debacle of testimony might provide that possibility.

"It's been pretty clear for a while that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has repeatedly lied to investigative committees on Capitol Hill. But yesterday he took that fateful step of making a false statement about an event in which there are multiple fact witnesses available to contradict him. Indeed, the falsehood was apparently so great that even fellow members of the administration like FBI Chief Robert Mueller felt bound to contradict him publicly."

Now, the Dems are pushing for a Special Counsel and hoping that Solicitor General Paul Clement is not as corrupt as Albert Gonzales or his bosses. We shall see.

I was talking with my friend Mary yesterday about Gonzales' testimony and we agreed that had we performed that badly on national television, we would take out a full page ad in the NY Times and apologize for being so stupid.

*****

Anne Marie Cox had a funny line about checks and balances:

"You know if the Senate would just call it 'legislative waterboarding' and not 'oversight,' I bet they could get Cheney to support it."

It would be funnier if it weren't so scary. How bad does it have to be when we joke about an American administration that tortures?

******

Yesterday, I posted some more Conservatives who have lost faith in this administration. The list is growing.

"One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come."

******

Then this truly horrific possibility that Pat Tillman might have been murdered. No wonder Bush has invoked executive privilege on this subject as well. Hard enough to use a former NFL star to sell a war when he was killed by friendly fire. Harder still if one of his fellow soldiers fragged him.

No doubt that peopel in power work very hard to keep control of their image and their power. Bush is not unique to this, but his administration has been the most secretive in history and we need to shed a little daylight on some of the things that occurred under his watch. Many of them are not his fault, I am sure. But we need to know about this. Truth is like freedom, it is always harder to handle than the alternative, but usually better.

I have been busy

Trying to keep Abbie from completely taking over. Of course, I have failed on that front. But the good news is that she and I are enrolled in obedience training. In a couple of weeks, I am confident that I will obey better.

But the news just keeps happening and I keep up with most of it. Yesterday, I kept track on Al Gonzales' testimony before the Senate and it was truly amazing. If you didn't watch, TPM has a good rundown with clips. Gonzales' incompetence is truly amazing. He lies constantly, and lies badly. At times, you wonder if he isn't just making stuff up.

TPM has some concerns that this has long standing consequences that really need to be addressed now:

"Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed."

And that is my fear as well. I think, for example, that there is a good possibility that our next President might be Hillary Clinton. Will she embrace that expanded power of the President? Why do conservatives not fear that? Where is the damn principled conservatism?

At least some are starting to see what many of us have been yelling about. Here is a list from conservative Rod Dreher of things he no longer believes:

"1. Having been absolutely certain that the war was the right thing to have done, and that we would prevail easily, I am no longer confident that I can discern when emotion is affecting my judgment unduly.

2. I no longer implicitly trust governmental institutions, including the military -- neither in their honesty nor their competence.

3. I no longer believe the Republican Party is superior in foreign policy judgment to the Democrats.

4. I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone. I mean, I thought nothing could stand in the way of the strongest military fielded since the days of ancient Rome. No more.

5. I have a far greater appreciation for how rare and fragile liberal democracy is, and a corresponding revulsion at the American assumption that it's the natural state of mankind. Which is to say, the war has made me rethink my ideas about human nature, and I'm far more pessimistic now than I ever was."

Sports

I like sports and watch the big events when I can. I rarely watch a regular golf tournament, but enjoy watching the majors. I like the drama of people competing under pressure. So this weekend (with SOF out of town) I have tried to watch the British Open--when I am not chasing Abbie around, that is. And as I write this, I am hoping that Sergio will pull it off. I know CIL doesn't like him, but I don't mind the Spaniard. I like his game.

But there are a few annoyances from this Open coverage. First is the play of some American named Boo Weekley. I was recently chastized for my anti-Southern attitude, but people like Weekley don't help. Not only does he seem to embrace the kind of anti-intellectual disdain for language, but he doesn't even like golf that much. He has no sense of the history of the game--doesn't watch it, and has no clue who some of these people are. Perhaps, especially given my next complaint, I should enjoy someone who disdains the pomp of golf history, but it annoys me that someone who seems to disrespect the game so much--is still good enough to be a pro player and play on this kind of stage. Or perhaps that is just jealousy on my part. Perhaps I resent someone who doesn't even care that much about something he can play at a professional level, while most of us aren't that good at what we truly care about. Oh well.

But the second item is most annoying. This year, the Open is at Carnoustie, so the inevitable Jean Van de Velde discussions are to be expected. Those who don't watch golf (Boo) might even remember the monumental collapse on the last hole from 1999. Van de Velde played aggressively that hole with a several stroke lead (I think it was three), hit several bad shots, and had some very bad luck as well. He ended up losing the tournament in a playoff.

Of course, the coverage would talk about it. It was a memorable moment at this particular course. But the American coverage (which is all I get) of the Van de Velde story was simply horrible. The last few days, ABC ran an extensive look at that last hole--complete with commentators at the time and now calling Van de Velde stupid. This morning, ABC interviewed the man himself and made it clear that they demanded and insisted that Van de Velde be ashamed of losing. He kept reminding them that it was a game--that he would have liked to have won, but there were more important things. ABC would have none of it. Be ashamed. Of course, they also raved about Boo Weekley's "honesty." Whatever that means.

Oh well.

Impeachment may be the only option

Translation: Attorney General works for the President--NOT the country, and Congress has no authority to check or balance the Executive. You know, because he is King.

Read it and weep for our democracy.

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege.

Young Republican Chickenhawks

Interesting video by Max Blumenthal interviewing Young Republicans and asking them why they support the war so fervently yet are not serving. Is it fair? You be the judge.

Is Bush actually David Simms?

In the film Tin Cup, our hero tries to warn the damsel that her boyfriend hates "old people, children and dogs." Now George Bush is threatening to veto a plan to expand insurance coverage for children. Yeah, that's right. Children who don't have insurance. And Bush says that it is because it will encourage people to forego private insurance in favor of government insurance. Better to have no insurance at all, I guess than to dare expand coverage.

President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.

The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House.

"I support the initial intent of the program," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post after a factory tour and a discussion on health care with small-business owners in Landover. "My concern is that when you expand eligibility . . . you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."

Jeesh.

Forgiveness indeed!

H/t to Ubub for this spot on critique of Bush/immigration/David Vitter. Yeah, that's right. All in one.

"Didn't want to hear the science"

I blogged about former Surgeon General Richard Carmona saying that the Bush people muzzled him. What I didn't realize was the extent. Last night's Daily Show pointed out this little story

For example, he said he wasn't allowed to make a speech at the Special Olympics because it was viewed as benefiting a political opponent. However, he said was asked to speak at events designed to benefit Republican lawmakers.

Evidently that refers to the Kennedy's long standing support for Special Olympics. Just think of that. Bush people would rather spite a political enemy than support Special Olympians? WWJD?

Interesting little note about Koop's tenure as SG and his relationship with Reagan. Makes Ronnie look about ten times more principled than George.

Koop is probably the most recognized former surgeon general. He talked about AIDS as a public health issue rather than a moral issue, which won him many admirers and some critics. He said President Reagan was pressed to fire him every day, but Reagan would not interfere.

Back to Carmona.

Another report, on global health challenges, was never released after the administration demanded changes that he refused to make, Carmona said.

"I was told this would be a political document or you're not going to release it." Carmona said. "I said it can't be a political document because the surgeon general never releases political documents. I release scientific documents that will help our elected officials and the citizens understand the complex world we live in and what their responsibilities are."

He refused to identify the officials who sought the changes.

But his name rhymes with Sharl Trove.

Carmona said he believed the surgeon general should show leadership on health issues. But his speeches were edited by political appointees, and he was told not to talk about certain issues. For example, he supported comprehensive sex education that would include abstinence in the curriculum, rather than focusing solely on abstinence.

"However, there was already a policy in place that didn't want to hear the science, but wanted to quote, unquote preach abstinence, which I felt was scientifically incorrect," Carmona said.

Politics first, policy second, and science dead last. Exactly what we have feared from these people, but time after time, report after report, event after event, we see exactly that. As this (Madison, WI) letter to the editor reminded us:

"Instead of putting experienced foreign affairs people in jobs to handle the Iraqi transition from Saddam Hussein to some form of democracy, the administration filled those jobs with inexperienced, mostly young people, whose only qualification was that they were doctrinaire Republicans. "

This administration has inflicted such great damage on our national security, our international standing, our public health, our environment, our social contract, our constitutional standards, our political system, etc., etc.. As Dave Zweifel (our letter writer and Capital Times editor) put it:

If lying about sex gets you impeached, what do we do with an administration whose lies have led to a world calamity and whose ideology trumps even common sense? The answer couldn't be more clear.

A question of character

I remember Paul O'Neill telling a story about observing CEOs and how they interacted with their staff. Before he would ok a merger with that company, he wanted to see the character of the leader. If the CEO was dismissive of the staff, that was a red flag character issue. He related the story of how Bush treated Andrew Card (his chief of staff at the time) as a serf--ordering Card to fetch him some food. O'Neill recalled how distasteful that was and the lack of character it revealed in our President.

This late into such a failed Presidency, we really don't have to search for more examples, but the way the President points fingers at others is just a HUGE character flaw that I cannot believe he still has even 25% approval.

Witness last week's press conference where Bush throws Tommy Franks under the bus.

Last week, Bush rejected any blame for the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. So whose fault was it? Bush pointed the finger at Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief at the time. "My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes," Bush said.

That's the same Tommy Franks to whom Bush awarded a Medal of Freedom in 2004.

And when virtually all of Bush military line of command, including the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed his "surge" proposal late last year, Bush responded not by listening, but by removing the top two commanders responsible for Iraq and replacing them with more amenable leaders, including Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus.

That is a lack of character.

Peggy Noonan thinks Bush is deluded

Seriously. She is saying the same stuff now that many of us here have been saying for 6+ years. Here she addresses what she says "used to be called" the Bush Derangement Syndrome (what you and I call "common sense"):

That phrase suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. No one thinks that anymore. I received an email before the news conference from as rock-ribbed a Republican as you can find, a Georgia woman (middle-aged, entrepreneurial) who'd previously supported him. She said she'd had it. "I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth." I was startled by her vehemence only because she is, as I said, rock-ribbed. Her email reminded me of another, one a friend received some months ago: "I took the W off my car today," it said on the subject line. It sounded like a country western song, like a great lament.

As I watched the news conference, it occurred to me that one of the things that might leave people feeling somewhat disoriented is the president's seemingly effortless high spirits. He's in a good mood. There was the usual teasing, the partly aggressive, partly joshing humor, the certitude. He doesn't seem to be suffering, which is jarring. Presidents in great enterprises that are going badly suffer: Lincoln, LBJ with his head in his hands. Why doesn't Mr. Bush? Every major domestic initiative of his second term has been ill thought through and ended in failure. His Iraq leadership has failed. His standing is lower than any previous president's since polling began. He's in a good mood. Discuss.

Is it defiance? Denial? Is it that he's right and you're wrong, which is your problem? Is he faking a certain steely good cheer to show his foes from Washington to Baghdad that the American president is neither beaten nor bowed? Fair enough: Presidents can't sit around and moan. But it doesn't look like an act. People would feel better to know his lack of success sometimes gets to him. It gets to them.

A mild and cute complication

As if our lives weren't complicated enough, we decided to add another urchin to the family. Her name is Abbie and she was living at a local animal shelter until yesterday. She has worked her way into the family with startling ease--well, at least she has the humans well trained. The cats are still trying to figure out what she is, and the dogs are mildly annoyed at her casual flaunting of local rules and regulations.



Streak was really annoyed at her yesterday and kept giving me the "why do you hate me so much?" look last night. This morning, I took him with me to get coffee (he had a decaf soy latte*), and he was as happy as could be. The moment we came back inside, he had that disgusted "What is she still doing here?" look.

But given the complexities of the pack dynamics, all is well so far.



(*Of course, I am joking. Streak only drinks black coffee with a shot of espresso. I think he calls it a "depth charge")

See, this is just funny

Family Values Senator David Vitter

has given a whole new meaning to roll call. Deborah Jean Palfrey (aka DC Madam) placed five phone calls to Vitter while he was a House member from 1999 to 2001, including two during roll call votes in the House that Vitter was present for, according to Palfrey's phone records and congressional records. Meanwhile, another name has appeared on the list that keeps on giving; this time it is conservative pundit and strategist Jack Burkman. (Boston Globe, Think Progress)"

Of course, Vitter was one of the Republican Right shocked, SHOCKED that Bill Clinton was sexually active outside his marriage and saying that he had lost the moral standing to govern.

Meanwhile, conservatives on the MSM asked why we were wasting time on this story when there were so many more important ones out there. The same conservatives, however, didn't mind the Monica stories before. The same conservatives who now say that this is focusing on sexual issues instead of political issues forget that they changed the rules. They politicized sex and morality and now are wondering why they are suddenly being hoisted by their own petard. Whatever the hell that is.

Meanwhile, the rest of us chuckle each time a self-righteous bastard is caught calling a hooker from the House floor. It is just too funny.

Friday morning rant/fatigue/stop raining dammit!

More rain. Argh. So this Friday I look at the world through dreary eyes--sleep deprived eyes.

Building on last night's post on this problematic president, a couple of notes.

First, from yesterday's presser when the President defended his commutation of Scooter's "excessive sentence" he drew the attention of the Republican judge who laid down that sentence.

Also yesterday, Bush's statement that he had commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence because it was "excessive" drew a quizzical response from the trial judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton. In an opinion ordering Libby to begin serving supervised probation, Walton noted that the prison term was "consistent with the bottom end" of federal sentencing guidelines.

"The court is somewhat perplexed as to how its sentence could accurately be characterized as excessive," Walton wrote.

"Although it is certainly the president's prerogative to justify the exercise of his constitutional commutation of power in whatever manner he chooses," Walton wrote, ". . . the court notes that the term of incarceration imposed in this case was determined after a careful consideration of each of the requisite statutory factors."

Bush did not discuss his reasoning in depth yesterday. "It's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course and now we're going to move on," he said.

Yeah, move on. Nothing to see here.

Add to that Bush's statement:

"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person, and I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?"

That would be a great question to pose to your chief political advisor, wouldn't it, George? Wouldn't you like to ask Karl if he could have stopped all this investigation?

Withdrawn.

But this is the guy who constantly refers to "his government." Remember when Leahy chastized Taylor for saying she took an "Oath to the President?" Well, an alert Sullivan reader points out that this is typical for this President:

"This president often mentions his oath but never talks about protecting the constitution. On the contrary, he regularly talks about his oath to protect the people, or to protect America. But it's possible to justify any number of tyrannies in the name of protecting the people."

There seems to be a big disconnect between this President and our basic constitutional principles.

****

On issues of feminism, a couple of notes. First, from the ridiculous world of beauty pageants comes the even more ridiculous story about Miss New Jersey having to beg to keep in the pageant after having the audacity of horsing around with friends fully clothed. She is blackmailed by someone and then has to plead for her position and admit that what she did was not very ladylike. Whatever.

But then again, there is this story about a Taekwondo star who took up the sport to get her father's attention. You see, Daddy dearest didn't care about his daughter when all she did was excel in academics. But once she started sports, then he became aware. The entire story is sad--in how it is written and the glimpse into an aspect of masculinity that most of us thought was a relic of the past.