Bluebonnet at Pink Dome

has a Q & A with Chris Bell.

This is a good one:

BB: Your thoughts on Kinky Friedman? Carole Keaton Strayhorn?

CB: Kinky's a humorous guy who I've enjoyed listening to over the years. I once won a pitcher of beer for singing a Kinky Friedman song.

As far as Carole, I'm glad she's in the race.

More at the link in the header.

Turd Blossom needs a hug

Atrios points us to one-click way to e-mail your support for Bush's Brain-Leak.

Rove-ing around the Internets

Though I could have indulged my schadenfreude every day this week by posting something about The Leaky Turd Blossom, I have hesitated doing so, mostly because the situation seems to change by the hour. Blow-by-blow ringside action of the bout between Scotty "Pinata" McClelland and a suddenly testicular White House press corps has been well-documented by others; many have weighed in on the is-it-smoke-or-fire aspect, and the GOP, after one day of news blackout, all got their talking points distributed ("Poor Karl is being smeared!") and started slamming them hard, right down to their wretched lickspittles in the media.

But this post represents today's most intriguing development, in my humble O:

On July 11th, 2003, Karl Rove, the Chief Adviser to the President of the United States, told Time reporter Matthew Cooper that he knew who had sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson on his fact-finding trip to Niger: Wilson's wife.

According to the RNC statement released today, more than two months later, Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC, on September 14th, 2003, "I don't (know) who sent Joe Wilson (to Niger)."

So: Karl Rove was leaking information to Time that he wasn't willing to share with the Vice President of the United States? A top Administration official (Rove) tells Time that it (the Administration) "knew" who had sent Wilson to Niger, and then two months later another top official (Cheney) denies that knowledge?

I don't think so.

At some point, Rove's supposedly lying to so many people -- first Bush, now you'd have to believe he was lying to Cheney, too -- that you realize, he didn't lie to any of them: they've all been lying to us.

So, did Cheney repeat this lie to the prosecutor investigating the Plame leak, Attorney Fitzgerald, when the latter interviewed him?

If so, guess what: that's obstruction of justice.

You know, (that was) one of the things they tried to impeach Clinton for -- and Clinton's deceit was both less direct and pursuant to a civil (not criminal) investigation.

Think about it: if Cheney did tell Fitzgerald that he knew who had sent Wilson, then he would also have been forced to tell him how he got that information -- from Rove. Which means Rove would be in a jail cell right now, either for the leak itself, or for perjury, or for obstruction of justice. The fact that Rove remains free is, politically-speaking, res ipsa loquitur proof ("the thing speaks for itself") that Cheney maintained his claim of ignorance not only to NBC and to America, but to Fitzgerald as well. Which makes him not only a liar, but also, almost certainly, a criminal.

And if it really is true that Rove was withholding information from Cheney, that fact would already have been uncovered and Rove would have been fired from the Bush Administration. The fact that they haven't fired him is, again, at least in political terms, res ipsa loquitur proof that the Administration was wise to the same intelligence Rove had.

And by Administration, I mean President and Vice President.

And by President, I mean the man who told the American people repeatedly that he wanted to uncover the source of the leak and didn't know himself who the leaker was.

But what did he know, and when did he know it?

White House Press Corps reporters have already asked White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan that question, and he's refused to answer; now the RNC statement casts an even greater shadow on whether Cheney and Bush have lied publicly about the Plame leak. That is, did Bush lie to the cameras, in a Lewinsky-like moment, in order to save his corrupt king-maker, Rove?

And what sort of dirt would Rove have to have on Bush for Bush to be willing to do that?

Seth Abramson has been blogging these angles heavily. Go check him out.

Ted Poe steps in it

Ted Poe, who represents the 2nd Congressional District of Texas, wrote this yesterday at Arianna Huffington's blog under the headline "Has the Supreme Court Lost its Way?". At heart it's just another rambling right-wing screed against the judiciary, but it's also remarkable in its ignorance considering the source:

As a former felony court judge in Houston, Texas for over 20 years, I used the Constitution and made decisions that affected real people – defendants, victims, and the community. I took the same oath as our Supreme Court justices and never rendered a ruling based upon the sentiments of another nation. I determined whether individuals should lose their property, liberty, and freedom. On occasion, my decisions even resulted in those individuals forfeiting their lives. Nonetheless, every ruling was rooted in the United States Constitution, which those who came to my court unquestionably knew constitutes the basis of all American law... not the judge’s personal opinion or the holdings of a foreign nation; not the British way or the European way; but rather the American way. Had I used any other law but that of the Constitution, I would have been removed from the bench and rightfully so.

The overarching thrust of this rant -- decrying the influence of international law on American jurisprudence -- is specious. Surely Poe has knows enough of law history to recall that Franklin, Hamilton, et al drew inspiration -- if not entire passages -- from the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and other foreign sources.

And the portion I emphasized above is just plain foolish. Unless the death penalty appears somewhere in the Constitution, then Poe was just another "activist judge" doing his best to interpret the Framers' intent, and not the strict constructionist he believes himself to be.

Poe was nationally renowned for his creative punishment sentencings while he was a judge locally, and was widely known as a "tough-on-crimer" (even if he let a lot of criminals off the hook after the fact). "Poetic Justice", as it were. I'm not sure where Poe found constitutional authority to order child molesters to put signs on their front doors advertising their convictions, or command drunken drivers to walk at the scene of their crime with sandwich boards publicizing their circumstances, or force people to take out newspaper ads apologizing for their dastardly deeds.

Nor how that ensured the "predictability, consistency, and uniformity of justice".

Then there's this:

Having been down in the mud, blood, and beer with real people, I have witnessed the Constitution’s impact on the lives of Americans. I submit that looking to foreign court decisions is as relevant as using the writings of Reader’s Digest, a Sears and Roebuck catalog, a horoscope, my grandmother’s recipe for the common cold, tea leaves, star gazing, or the local gossip at the barbershop in Cut N’ Shoot, Texas.

I have to wonder here if Poe's father actually named him Sue ...

Maybe while the judge works out his own private personal hypocrisy he can go huntin' with Ag Commissioner Jerry Patterson.

Or sumpin'.

Some Goober news

Chris Bell blew them away at the SDEC in Austin last Saturday. Go read the entire speech.

One Tough Grandma raised $1.5 million in the first ten days of June -- that was before she even declared for Governor -- and has over seven million samolians on hand, as of June 20.

But she's going to have to spend all of it and more to beat God's Own MoFo'n Governor:

Texas Republican primary voters would support incumbent Governor Rick Perry over State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn by a two-to-one margin, according to a recent poll.

Since the summer of 2001, Montgomery and Associates, an independent research firm based in Austin, Texas, has been running surveys tracking statewide political issues and elected officials. This survey was conducted from June 27 – July 1, 2005 and tested 905 Texans who had voted in at least one out of the past two Republican primaries. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.3%. Montgomery & Associates conducted the survey independently, and has not been paid by any candidate or party. In partisan political races, the firm works for Democratic candidates.

Damn, this is going to be fun to watch...

More Supreme Court gossip -- three vacancies?

As Hope indicates, one is bad enough, two is pretty scary ...

... but three?

I have to hope this really is just an unfounded Internet rumor.

(Hat tip in there to Republic of T)

Some Peak Oil, some Shiner Bock

Yesterday I attended part of the Peak Oil mini-conference held locally; it featured a screening of The End of Suburbia, which I have seen once previously (and commented on here -- toward the end of that post, but before the update).

I purchased the DVD and plan to show it to everyone who wants to watch it. It is truly one of the most eye-opening films I have seen.

It's difficult to know where to start in providing an overview of something as ominous sounding as "The End of Suburbia". Maybe I should begin with the grand American Dream -- owning a home -- but more specifically how that Dream of a home in the "country", with a green lawn and a few trees and a white picket fence and maybe a puppy as well as formal dining and living rooms and a two-car garage was offered to a post-Industrial Age, post-WWII America hungry for something to live for besides war. And how the auto manufacturers, looking for ways to keep their assembly lines busy in the new postwar economy, happily participated in the sales presentation, which in turned spawned a pop culture phenomenon, the idyll of a man in his car on the open road ("Route 66" being one of the obvious examples). And how this combination of the allure of 'town and country living' coupled with the fascination with the automobile -- along with a very genuine concern to escape the cities' tenements and their proximity to smoke-belching factories -- resulted not only in the evolution of places where people could live comfortably but also buy what they needed (the development of shopping centers and then regional malls). And even how the interstate highway system, originally a Defense Department strategy envisioned from seeing armies and tanks bogged down in Europe, gradually evolved into a marketing tool to encourage Americans to get away on vacation.

All of the suburban lifestyle, of course, is based on consumption. Out of the maturation of the consumer economy came business strategies like planned obsolescence, or what our parents and grandparents meant when they said "they don't build 'em like they used to". Even a basic understanding of economics makes obvious a statistic like new housing starts being a key measurement of the health of our nation's economy, because when people buy a new home they must also buy furniture and furnishings and appliances and so on. Naturally, everybody who's ever bought a new home already knows this.

The suburban lifestyle also assumes fundamentally the premise of extraordinarily inexpensive fuel: cheap gasoline, cheap home heating oil, cheap electricity. Such was most certainly the case at the beginning of the postwar period; the United States in fact was awash in oil, and even had trouble finding uses for it all. Those of us with a few grey hairs can remember gasoline price wars in our towns when we were kids, and gas was .10 or .15 cents a gallon. And even through the price shocks engineered by OPEC in the Seventies, which scared consumers and producers and automakers so bad that it stimulated significant conservation action ('conservative' being a word we oddly don't hear today when it comes to energy consumption), the price of oil and its myriad byproducts only climbed marginally and within the expected rate of currency inflation right through the end of the 20th century. Only recently -- within the past few years -- have we seen an aggressive advance of fuel costs in a pattern of quite rapid escalation.

What's driving that? At this point an understanding of Peak Oil is worthwhile, but I won't delve too deeply here into the conversation that the world's supply of oil is at or nearing peak production, with global consumption still growing, and how that scenario affects petroleum markets and ultimately the price you pay at the pump, short- as well as long-term. Google "Peak Oil" or look at the links in the post I mentioned above. Once one has a grasp of the premise, one can agree or disagree as to whether we're already there, but one cannot reasonably think that it is something that will never happen. It's really only a matter of when. And the only other point that needs to be reinforced is that the war we're currently fighting in Iraq has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with 'freedom'. Indeed, most future military confrontations will be over the control of the commodity which powers the engines of our machines and our economies.

So back to Suburbia: what happens to the Great American Consumer when oil reaches $75 or $100 a barrel, and gasoline reaches $3 or even $5 a gallon? (We could reach these levels perhaps within the next six months, perhaps longer than that, but most surely within the next few years.)

Well, $100 fillups don't leave a lot of disposable income, and when you're too upside down to trade your Suburban in on a Prius, and you can't change jobs for fear of losing your health insurance and you can't move closer to your work because you just took out a home equity loan to put in a pool ...

... and then the housing bubble begins to burst in your subdivision and you discover to your chagrin that you have negative equity in your home, but you also realize that the rising price of fuel has jacked up the price of everything at the supermarket, and there's even less food at the market because all of the fertilizers and pesticides are also made out of petroleum products and even the commercial megafarmers are going broke or getting out of the business of growing and shipping food ...

Farfetched, you think? Alarmist?

Perhaps.

Consider the 3,000-mile Caesar's salad.

There's much more to the movie, including suggestions on how to cope with this inevitable paradigm shift, but I'll leave the rest of that for another day (or to your own research).

==============================

Oh yeah! About the other brown liquid I mentioned in the headline:

Several of us Houston Blogsylvanians met up yesterday afternoon to take the edge off of unsettling matters like Peak Oil at a cute little watering hole near Rice Village. Charles, Lyn, Pete, and John, nice seeing y'all again/meeting you and your families for the first time (as the case may be).

Update (7/11): The host indicates he had a few too many, but I didn't notice.

FOX News again shows us 'fair and balanced'

I think it's terribly revealing of human nature when people, under the stress of an emotional circumstance such as a terrorist attack, just blurt out what's on their mind. Sort of a momentary direct link to their subconscious. From Chris Bowers:

Brit Hume thinks it's time to invest:

I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."

Brian Kilmeade thinks the attacks were a good thing for the Western world:

And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

The day before the attack, Fox's John Gibson wrote:

So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.

Which is why he wrote yesterday that it would be good if France was bombed:

The bombings in London; this is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

Even though the attacks were targeted at Arab areas of London, finally Fox assures us that Arabs living in London are not real Londoners:

... these people are, If necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of non-Arab people living in London.

This is about as offensive as coverage can get.

Yes. Yes, it is.

You may have noticed...

... that I've been playing around with the site, adding some graphics.

The newest one, to Howard's right up top, is for the Velvet Revolution, a non-profit organized to bring together the many disparate elements calling attention to election irregularities that began in 2000, and specifically regarding the questions surrounding paperless electronic voting machines.

One of the warriors of that cause lost his battle with pancreatic cancer last night, and the little flag link above is my small tribute to his tireless efforts.

RIP, Andy. The fight goes on.

From an e-mail between friends

... one of whom lives in the United Kingdom:

It's ironic that acts of terrorism encourage international warfare to defeat terrorism, and of course that has the effect of increasing the numbers of terrorists.

And also increases the number of acts of terrorism, I might add (despite the efforts of Condoleeza Rice to suppress the truth).

So, with George W Bush leading us around in this circle, we should be due for another war shortly ...