This would explain a few things, namely various incredulous pronouncements made by the Bush Administration over the past five and a half years.

The title of Ron Suskind’s riveting new book, “The One Percent Doctrine,” refers to an operating principle that he says Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind’s words, “if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction — and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time — the United States must now act as if it were a certainty.” He quotes Mr. Cheney saying that it’s not about “our analysis,” it’s about “our response,” and argues that this conviction effectively sidelines the traditional policymaking process of analysis and debate, making suspicion, not evidence, the new threshold for action.

Now, if you assume that something assessed to have a one percent chance of happening is certain, that is a conversion of a one percent chance into a one hundred percent chance. Within this new framework, you assess something new as having a one percent chance. We now arrive at point zero one percent. And, of course, this new one percent, properly a point zero one percent, becomes a certainty, and we start all over again.

Ad infinitum. You go from the scale of the cosmos and move into sub-atomic particles… whatever it was that scientists deemed quarks were composed of a few years back.

The problem comes in that the reciprocal is not followed through — for the sake of a one percent, you are not following through the percentages of consequences in addressing the one percent. Further, the fact that the ninety-nine percent are being bumped up against, and the ninety nine percent turns out to be the reality, complicates the consequences.

Further, when you slide into absolute certainty over what should be one slice out of a hundred, it’s nearly impossible to snap back to the one to one scale on that scale. We’re already in quadraple zero terriotry.

Do you have any idea how many hours of television Aaron Spelling produced? And how much of it was absorbed by the television watching public plopped on the couch, too lazy to change the channel?

Or I guess they weren’t too lazy, instead indulging in the guilty pleasure of “Jigg-o-vision”, which I guess is the inspiration for Baywatch, the heroines of late 1970s grade d action shows bobbing toward the television, breasts bopping up and down.

Perhaps it is time I read Everything Bad is Good For You, the idea behind the book being something akin to pop cultural products have improved markably in “nutritional worth”. Where does Aaron Spelling, whos programming fits the very stereotype inherent in the slur toward television as the “boob tube” (the other definition of ‘boob’ not intentional, but apt), sit in this blender? Melrose Place was better than Charlie’s Angels, right?

Actually I’m most impressed by the bombs in Aaron Spelling’s catalouge. Back when the Fox television network was having Spelling float out a new television program every season. The legacy of the show “Models Inc” is a single gag on the Simpsons, wherein the family cat tries to get attention over the family’s whole bunch of new greyhounds:

The family and the puppies all watch TV. A woman in a bikini suns
herself on a boat, and one of the puppies gets up on its hind legs and
paws at the screen. Marge chuckles, “Look at Branford II! Isn’t that
cute? He thinks he’s one of the Models, Inc.!” The family join in
their laughter. Snowball II, listless, tries the same stunt as Branford
II, only to be rebuked angrily by Homer: “Get that cat out of the way!”

Too bad the other shows didn’t have the luxury of another show to make a reference to it.

The television induis run

It speaks to the general degradation of our American educational system that I could in 8th grade American History class scribble next to “Booker T Washington” “Prominent Black leader of early 20th century” and receive full credit. To be fair, this was about the bottom barrel of it all — for this particular class, I purposefully turned in the worst review of an autobiography of Dwight D Eisenhower, one that I believe should have been graded below a blank sheet of paper, that I could and — lo and behold — received an A.

But why do I remeber something as mundane as the answer to a middle school test question? I perhaps don’t, but remember vaguely the type of test answers that were permissable. I couldn’t quite accept the incompletness of such identifyers, and in this case the subtle racism of the acceptance of such a response. I should have, at the very least, been required to write in “established Tukegee Institute”, and in an even slightly better educational setting probably further been required to explain what, precisely, the Tukegee Institute was and is — never mind the historical and political context.

So it is that I didn’t really get any notion of the controversial nature of Booker T Washington as “The Great Accomodator” until college. WEB Du Bois is assigned reading, and there Du Bois is — tearing Booker T a new one. Sitting alongside Du Bois in the Norton Anthology is, indeed, a few selections of Booker T Washington. They were not assigned reading, though they probably should have been — if just to explain Du Bois’s problem. It is understandable why Booker T Washington was not assigned, and if you venture into David Howowitz’s thesis of the entrenched left-wing indoctrinating system of the University Professor for a second — spitting on Booker T Washington’s inspiring capitalist message here, Booker T Washington’s “Pull yourself up by the boot-straps” message invited “Whitey” to just keep pushing “Blackey”‘s face back right on down to their bootstraps.

Nay. I can create a charitable and sympathetic portrait of Booker T Washington. To help create a decent life for the dispossessed in highly compromised circumstances is a noble enough feat, and you cannot accomplish it without being so compromised. If he didn’t exist, someone else would have had to stand in his place. Further, the call to “Agitate, Agitate, Agitate” from Fredrick Douglas is easy enough to chime in for, but understand if you are in the South and you do such a thing as a black man — you’ll be dead before sunlight.

In present day America, I cannot hear the regularly scheduled speeches of Bill Cosby against the problems with “thug culture” of urban black youth without thinking, in the back of my mind, Booker T Washington. Supposing for a minute that he’s largely correct, and after wiping my mind clean of the image of him shouting for “Theo!”, he is largely correct, and is saying much that Chris Rock gave in his famous comedy monolouge. I hear the celebrations on conservative talk radio and such after any Bill Cosby pronouncement, and I just kind of wince. We have been absolved of our sins!!

Thus it is that I never really think “Uncle Tom”, though as someone more white than thou I don’t really have to intrinsically deal with such an issue. Uncle Tom is just a cartoonish character in a bad, though historically important, polemical fiction. Booker T Washington is at least a complicated and multi-fissured person you can draw from.

I. A clearly frustrated Karzai complained that the coalition’s hunt for Taliban militants was killing hundreds of Afghans, saying that “is not acceptable.” More than 600 people, mostly militants, have been killed in recent weeks as insurgents have launched their deadliest campaign of violence in years.

“It is not acceptable for us that in all this fighting, Afghans are dying. In the last three to four weeks, 500 to 600 Afghans were killed. (Even) if they are Taliban, they are sons of this land,” he added.

II.
The Iraqi government will present a national reconciliation plan to parliament tomorrow that would grant some insurgents amnesty and ask for approval of a series of steps for Iraqis to take over security from US troops, according to a key politician and a draft of the document.

The plan promises to open a review of the new constitution to address demands made by Sunni Arabs, while attempting to find a way to eradicate sectarian militias. It also pledges to shield the crucial Defense and Interior ministries from outside political influence.

It is their nations. At the end of the day, they have to live with one another, and have to navigate their own frustrations against each other. Of course they have to reconcile and “mainstream” your militant forces into your fledgling governments! I hear a certain amount of outrage in liberal sphere of talk about the granting of amnesty to Iraqi insurgents — who have, by definition, killed American soldiers, and there is a bit of talk on the Senate floor from Republicans — sometimes with bad historical parallels, that such a thing is necessary. I take it be a bit false, and wonder if the political parties in the United States were reversed, the talk would be reversed.

Lordy, lordy.

So, Karl Rove is feeling frisky. He has found the opening to stir up just enough antipathy toward any position that is not “stay the course”, ie: “They want to cut and run”. But how to shore up a bit of support for the war in and of itself and show that going in was worthwhile anyways, at least amongst a couple voting blocks — and to various degrees.

The information is garbage, of couse. We have a page of the report that points to the canisters of decayed chemical weapons dating back from before the Gulf War of the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration, rolling around Iraq still to this day.

Rick Santorum is the perfect conduit to relay this, for reportage on Fox News and right wing radio. He is a sacrifical lamb at this point. Nobody believes he is going to defeat Bob Casey, Jr this November. The idea of floating out the startling revelations of discovered weapons of mass destruction in a hyped up press conference is to stir the sure-headedness of the true believer (that CNN and everyone else is not touching the story just goes to show their liberal bias), and to sow a bit of doubt in the minds of a few noncommitals. Imagine the storied water cooler. The Right wing blowhard pounces about that “Weapons of Mass Destruction have been discovered after all!” The largely apolitical loaf shrugs, and digests it as “Sure. Possibly.”

Hey! It works with Global Warming.

It short-circuits Rick Santorum’s credibility. He’s currently 18 percentage points behind Casey in his race for re-election, a gap that has grown. This little fiasco is probably worth a couple more points — an even 20 point race. The analogy for Santorum is the Swift Boat bunch. They did Kerry a lot of harm, but I’m pretty sure a poll rating of John O’Neal would show the majority of Americans find him untrustworthy. It’s a strange double-backed paradox. (Consider too that Katherine Harris is getting nowhere in her bid for the Senate seat in Florida.)

But Rick Santorum has been written away as dead, and thus… use him.

Did Rick Santorum believe his own press conference?

For Democratic activists around the country, Connecticut’s U.S. Senate primary is not just a local contest between a veteran political figure and an aggressive newcomer; it’s a crucial test of whether the left or the center has more influence in the national party.

Very well then. Let’s proceed in this article, skipping past the quotes from the leader of the Democratic Leadership Committee and Al Gore’s campaign manager, to get a good focus on the “rift”.

But those triumphs didn’t heal the rift. Long term, the debate is largely over social programs: The left says centrists are willing to compromise social spending to win; moderates say the progressives are impractical and too wedded to liberal shibboleths such as welfare or strict affirmative action.

Okay. And what of the present moment?

More recently, the conflict has centered on Iraq. Liberals want troops out of Iraq quickly and according to a clear timetable; moderates say they also want an end to the war, but with a careful and gradual troop withdrawal.

To review. There are three categories being set up here, one of which has skippted past the writer of the Hartford Courant article.

(#1) Liberals want troops out of Iraq quickly and according to a clear timetable.
(#2) Moderates say they also want an end to the war, but with a careful and gradual troop withdrawal.
(#3) Lieberman believes neither.

Interesting dichotemy, that. But then again Lieberman is no moderate. He is a “Centrist”.

Ned Lamont, meanwhile, is a Republican in Democrat’s clothing being supported by left wing loonies, and we already have too many Republicans in Washington* and Lamont represents the death of bi-partisanship. Oh so goes the amalgrem of the Lieberman campaign.

*”already have too many Republicans in Washington” near direct quote from one of Lieberman’s campaign manager. But then again, as is “Left wing loonies” and “death of bi-partisanship”.

By the way, how’s the Chaffee — Laffey race going?

From the Providence Journal June 17:

More than 14,500 Rhode Island Democrats have switched their voter affiliations within the past six months to participate in the Sept. 12 Republican primary, a figure that experts say will probably help incumbent Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee in his campaign against Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey.

Hm.

My first roommate, a pretty nice guy I got along well enough with, came from Madras, Oregon — some small town I’d never expect to hear much about in the middle of Oregon. I know not from Madras, except bits here and there that Charlie told me over several months.

I believe the propreitors of the dorm stuck us together due to some small town background similarity logic, and to split him up slightly from the other Madras resident. In the midst of analyzing survey answers, such a set-up makes as much sense as anything else. At any rate, somewhere along the line he had a bit of a roadtrip with a neighbor (a girl who grew up in Eugene) to go back home to show her the sights and sounds of … Madras freaking Oregon. There’s nothing much to sell there, but apparently they would at some point go to that old teenage hang-out…

… A Gas Station.

Is Parochial the word? I shrug it off, and figure that anywhere is as good as anywhere else. But my imagination pictures a truck stop that serves a bit more as the base of the local economy than seems appropriate.

The girl from Eugene gave a simultaneous shrug, rolled eyes, and a “How quaint”. I let out a gaffow. To which I was asked, “Didn’t you have a gas station?”

Monday, Madras came up in the news. Thomas Tucker, from Madras, Oregon — and his fellow soldier from Texas, was missing from his unit. He had been kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents. Today, the bodies have been discovered. They were both savagely maimed and killed.

I caught his age today. It doesn’t take a great leap of faith to imagine him on the same high school football team as my old roommate… or if not that, something — anything — else shared by them at that time in their lives.

Condolences to to the community of Madras, Oregon.

Democrats who support Lieberman sure are going to feel stupid when he addressed the 2008 republican convention giving an angry Zell Miller style speech. (Comments from Here.

Democrats will just have to cross that road when it comes.

The democratic party has always been a big tent. However, its clear that many on the left dont want it to be anymore.

Reasonable democrats must know join forces to stop what seems to be a new movement of intolerant selfish left-loonies who “just want to get out of Iraq and Bush is a liar, man” and dont shy any means whatsoever including going after one of the democratic partys most respectet leaders in the country.

“Respectful” as deigned by whom? I’m not a fan of “Centrism”. I’m keen and okay on ‘moderation”, and there’s a difference there. Cetrism assumses a one dimensional line with which you modify your stances to a mythical spot dead center, theoretically but not in practice “where the voters are”. Except a funny thing: they’re not there.

Assume that it’s all about Iraq. It isn’t, and I can say that as a person who didn’t vote for Al Gore and whose vote against Gore was weighted with Gore’s choice of Lieberman as running mate. It is symptomatic — say, for instance, In the case of Gore, Lieberman disallows me from answering with any clarity that a President Gore would not have taken us into Iraq. But if it were all about Iraq, half the rest of the party’s elected officials would be targetted right now. They’re not.

But assume it’s all about Iraq. You don’t have to agree with the political position to understand the idea that Lieberman is a roadblock to the, quote in quote “loony left”, or the quote-in-quote “Democratic pacificist”‘s political desire. More so than the “half of the party’s elected officials” not particularly targetted. He pops up on Meet the Press, he relays the “Stay the Course” position, it is a direct assault on the “Change the Course” position, and thus in the realm of democracy where people try, through the channels of electoral politics, guide the nation one way or ther other — would prefer to reject him.

And on the idea of toeing the line for the party:

There are some folks in the GOP would could take a hint from that last line when the names Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chafee and John McCain are mentioned.

To be honest, I wish primary battles were more successful — on the rate of one per cycle, actually, out of two or three strong or semi-strong challenges. As it is, the only real guage those following Lieberman versus Lamont has is Specter versus Toomey, Pennsylvania in 2004. At the moment, Hugh Hewitt is arguring that the Republicans jettison Lincoln Chaffee — perhaps the last real “Whig” in the party. There are a couple interesting stirrings in the Republican primary race in Rhode Island, which is that Chaffee’s challenger is attempting a dishonest feat of suggesting Chaffee might switch to “Independent”.

Actually, in the end the problem with Lieberman comes down to:

But Schumer has to abandon corrupting the ability of Democrats to refresh the cast of people they want carrying their views in Washington.

If Chaffee were the constant face on the Sunday Morning chattering class gabs, or for that matter on liberal talk radio as Lieberman has, and on a key issue of their concern, the Republicans would probably have a better case for jettisoning him and risking a Democratic seat.

I remember hearing a few months ago the revelation that the campaign to repeal the Estate Tax, the tax recently rebuked by Congress but likely to resurface again any time soon and perilously close to action, has basically been financed by Eighteen families.

18. Worth a collective $185.5 billion. 18 Families have greased the engines so that the term “Death Tax” has come to be not laughed out of political discussion.

This is a sort of mirror moment where we compare the situation with a nation that is worse off than ours. This is analogious to Mexico and its ruleship by … is it 30?… is it 40? … ruling families, holding up an oligarchic government.

I admit to not being truly attuned and to being out of step with dominant Connecticut state politics, but I think I’m grasping what Joseph Lieberman’s latest political advertisement tells us about what is going on in his mind and where the disconnect with Lieberman and the state of Connecticut in general and the Democratic primary voters in specificity lies.

Now, go back a few blog posts and you’ll see that I derided a couple of Ned Lamont’s ads. To flesh out the flaw of the one I mentioned: Ned Lamont supporters rushing into Lamont’s living room, notably Markos of daily kos — the problem is that it seems to be referencing the bloggers that are aiding Lamont’s rise. The rub here is that nobody cares, that is a storyline that should Lamont succeed will go down in liberal blogger lore and will be tucked away as irrelevant as Lamont assumes office off of, in the end, the backing of a great deal of people not “in” on this “great wave” who will like or dislike him depending on how he assumes his responsibilities in the Senate.

Joseph Lieberman’s new advertisement, featured here likewise misses the point. Lieberman is drawing off of a Political Insider story. The Lowell Weicker storyline to this race, the man he defeated in 1988 by running to his right on certain issues and with the aid of an advertisement featuring a Bear, and haunting Lieberman in 2006 by first entertaining a campaign run and then backing Lamont when he comes forward to run, is interesting enough to follow. But it’s a minor storyline, and in the end the sort of “Insider Baseball” that does not cut across the fabled kitchen table. Maybe you read about it in Hotline and Roll Call and possibly make an appearance on Meet the Press, but Weicker is nowhere to be seen otherwise.

Beyond which, that Lamont voted “80 percent” with the Republicans on a city council (or whatever it was Lamont served on) is an absurd line of attack.

At any rate, this is the week that it dawns on me that Lamont just might win the thing, and thus… I sit back, hope, and if nothing else enjoy the fireworks.