You may or you may not remember this puzzling story of miseducating immigrants from August of 2004:

California has joined other states in acting against a private school that claimed to award high school diplomas while teaching its immigrant students a curriculum riddled with errors, including the wrong years for World War II and the wrong number of states.

There was no comment from the school or Gossai. Messages left at school offices in Lomita, Los Angeles and Huntington Park last week were not returned, and Gossai’s attorney, Scott Furstman, also didn’t return a call.

Freeze frame this sentence: There are two houses of Congress — the Senate and the House, and “one is for Democrats and the other is for the Republicans, respectively.”

For a moment, I thought that would be an interesting experiment in representative government… see: you have the two houses of Congress, and what gets decided every two years when the people vote is how much power is apportioned to each house.

But, when I think about it for a minute, I think it’d just essentially devolve into the British system — where the opposition party has a shadow government shadowing the party in power, and the party in power acts more or less as an Elected Dictatorship. (An endearing term that is not quite right, as Tony Blair received his first defeat from the House of Commons a week or two ago on some anti-terrorism bill.)

Anyway, I guess the United States can implement some Regime Change somewhere, install this experimental government system, and see if and how it works. (Though, it’d have to be a government whose political parties would not simply be competing ethnic groups. Unless we find a way to make the 2-parliament system work to give the two factions a certain measure of autonomy within the nation-state. Hm. Curious tidings.)

Or so chimes in Frontpage Magazine, David Horowitz’s organ.

And so we arrive at the reason that I sympathize with the Abraham Lincoln – haters. That is, outside the base of Lincoln-haters who either reside in the south or have strong heritage ties to the South who fly or display the Confederate flag and revere Jefferson Davis. I refer instead to the cadre of Lincoln – haters of a sort of libertarian bent who believe his assaults on civil liberties were not warranted, and even sometimes it comes to the point of: perhaps the Union was not worth saving. Today, when somebody wants to cry out for the suspension of this or that Constitutional provision during a period of war (or Endless Undefined War, as the case may be), they will cite Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Actually, there was this article in a history magazine (American History or some such) that I read a few years ago. It was a purposefully contrarian list of “Overrated” and “Underrated” events in American history. Most Overrated Event in American History? The Civil War. Why? The South secedes, they will eventually be stuck rejoining the Union, slavery will fade away, and Institutional Racism will continue to exist and eventually be fought against. Half of one… two quarters of another. (Incidentally the “Most Underrated Event” is a hell of a lot less doubtful… the Virginia colony accept their first shipment of African slaves… and thus… the United States’ agricultural base is an economy based on slavery, and thus our culture will forever be permeated and thread together with the culture that blacks bring to it.) [Other items on the list included: Most Overrated Enemy — Russia, which paraded the same missiles down the street for the duration of the Cold War, and fooled us into thinking they could do anything. Most Underrated: Canada… I don’t remember why. I think it had something to do with the War of 1812. Most Overrated headline: Dewey Defeats Truman. It was retrieved off the stands early in the morning and replaced with the proper headline, very few people actually received a copy of that headline-emblazoned newspaper, and is generally overhyped — in part by the Chicago Times itself, since it makes a good souviener.)

I cannot say that Lincoln’s severe silencing of “Copperhead”s didn’t hlep win him the Civil War. Which is unfortunate and an uncomfortable place for my mind to end up at, because the idea gives a small (and by small, I mean microscopic) measure of credence to the blowhards who would create the above graphic suggesting we execute Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. (I wonder if I can get away with making a similar graphic for our current president with a quote from, say, the Ted Roosevelt — the one I posted here–, replete with an explanation of what the punishment for Treason is. (Or George Herbert Walker Bush’s quotation on outing a CIA agent, which has Al Franken repeating ad naseum the joke that “I guess this means Karl Rove and Scooter Libby face execution.”)

That was a close one. Good thing we had Ghengis Khan Mediating, to keep Bush and Mongolia’s President Nachagyn Bagabandy in line, otherwise tensions would have erupted and we surely would have had war. I say we give Ghengis Khan the Noble Peace Prize!

On the station that broadcasts Rush Limbaugh (more importantly, Art Bell and Ean Punnett on the weekend show of that lesser Coast to Coast host who’s the main host these days — and I don’t want to dignify him by mentioning his name), I hear a curious promo for Rush’s program.

“There are no right wing extremists. There is only the Consrvative Movement, which is the Republican Party.”

This sounds weirdly Maoist to me. I don’t know the context of Rush Limbaugh’s comments, and charitably trying to figure out what the heck he is talking about all I can come up with is an idea that there are “left wing extremists” who have a difficult relationship with the Democratic Party (making up a significant part of the base, but in various ways ignored and/or campaigned against by Democratic Party politicians… and just who represents the war protesters in the streets?*), whereas with the Republican Party — they proudly declare themselves “Conservative”, work with the “Conservative Movement”, and we march toward the Great Conservative Whatever Paradise of Meaning. (We do end up with a difference between the Democratic Party and Republican Party with Rush Limbaugh’s statement: the Republican Party is less fractured due to a blind-numbing single-mindedness. Which, I guess, is both why the Democratic Party is the lesser party, and why I am much more comfortable with the Democratic Party… why do I want 200+ Representatives in Washington thinking and acting in lockstep?)

Which makes Rush Limbaugh a Republican Party hack, as opposed to a Conservative Ideologue. Seriously, the latest Weekly Standard has an article that concerns itself with how the “Conservative Movement” should proceed post-Bush, where they will have the opportunity to rid itself of its many discontents with the president. Leave aside the paleo-conservative American Conservative (isolationists and social conervatives that they are, Pat Buchannan’s brigade are doomed to a lifetime of grumpiness as they survey the landscape, and find that — no — no matter what they do, they cannot seem to ban the existence of homosexuals, or lock women in the kitchen). Otherwise, you’re throwing your dice in with a political party, and the purpose of a political party is to move money through channels of the governement into whoever is funding the party… which does not a political movement make.
…………………..

*A good example of the disconnect came on the march the day after Election Day. Okay, they waved the mantle against Bush, but there was significant Kerry sentiment in the crowds. The War was the central issue. What were they marching for — Kerry’s position of increased troop levels in Iraq?

Last Friday is an example of a rare moment where I wish I still had C-SPAN. I guess the political show on Friday would provide good material for a DVD “Best of CSPAN — the House of Representatives” (I don’t have a clue what else it would include, as they cut through the video footage of the frequent parliamentary pauses where since nothing is happening on the floor, the video pans around for an hour or so combing everything to find amusing video footage of our Legislature in Action). There we had the House of Representatives debated a bill from Representative Duncan (Republican) who tore out two parts of Representative John Murtha (Democrat)’s 3-part plan of a bill on moving us out of Iraq. The best I can do is watching this and this and listening to the footage on NPR’s “Weekend Edition.”

Welcome Representative Jeanne Schmidt. She’s the woman who won a special election against Paul Hackett, by four points or thereabouts in a district that Bush had won by 30+ points or thereabouts… an election Charles Cooke, Newt Gingrich, and others referred to as a serious warning siren for the Republican Party. It’s a good thing it wasn’t her that said those words, and instead a Marine… otherwise I’d have to call her a World Class Asshole. Nay… it is striking how the Republicans hid behind the almighty “troops”, who are all, evidentally, uniformly demanding to “Continue the Mission” (whatever the hell the “Mission” is supposed to be these days). Also notice the defense from Representative Tom Lantos, who I believe is what is referred to as a “Hawk”.

[BTW: There is no “exit strategy” because the War with Iraq was itself an “Entrance Strategy”. This is why the Senate resolution to merely let the Iraqis know the US’s Intention is to depart was shot down. To Bush Administration and Bushistas, the act of not being in Iraq is the definition of Failure. Keep that in mind as we commence with the fallacious debate the nation’s political class is currently engaging themselves in.]

It looks like George Bush is going to shake up his cabinet, and get himself some new advisors that will move us to success in Iraq, and new policy innovations here in the US.

First to the forefront: The Robot Einstein:

The nation — nay, the WORLD, will soon be is in safe hands!
…………………

Funny thing about Einstein… there was a comic strip… um… “Stone Soup”… which celebrated the contribution Albert Einstein’s girlfriend made to the Theory of Relativity. This comes with the speculation that Mileva made a significant contribution to Albert Einstein’s work (as per some references in their personal coorespondences), to the point where they were co-equals. Balderdash! Or… PROBABLY Balderdash. The references to “our special project” from Einstein’s love letters are more a reflection of his romantic feelings toward Mileva than any scientific project, a bringing her into his life sort of thing. Or so say most Einstein experts…

What that has to do with the Einstein Robot meeting George W Bush, I do not know. The photo, naturally, is in the Top Emailed photographs list at Yahoo… somewhere alongside:

[UPDATE:

Interesting combination of bumpers stickers.

“Kerry / Edwards 2004”.

And on top of it, diagonally crossing it, a bumpers-sticker of a band-aid.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know the precise meaning of it, but the general idea I do know.

Hey! I am a 16-year-old high school junior from Methuen, Massachusetts. “Bush Was Right” is AWESOME! I heard the 49 second clip from RightMarch.com, and I just purchased the CD single. Nearly student at my high school is conservative, and I can’t wait to share it with them. I contacted KISS 107.9 FM, our local radio station that nearly everyone between the ages of 14 and 24 listens to, and I asked them to consider playing “Bush Was Right.” I’m sick of hearing Eminem and Green Day trash our great leader and our military, and so is everyone else up here in Methuen. If radio will play biased music, they must, in my opinion, play music from both sides of the political spectrum. Our beliefs are not being represented by Eminem or Green Day. Our beliefs are being represented by bands like you. The next time you’re up here in the Boston area, look for me in the crowd, because I’ll be there!

Good luck, and best wishes,
– D.J.: Methuen, Massachusetts

I remain puzzled. When the hell did our teenagers become politicized to the point where their identities are located as “liberal” and “conservative”? (Yes, even in suburban Methuen, Massachusetts, where “Nearly student […] is [according to D.J.] conservative” and thus would be highly susceptible to the music of “The Right Brothers”, which the Boston, Massachusetts-based station KISS 97.9 (I looked it up… it comes from out of Boston, that evil liberal bastion. Obviously it’s official call letters is not “KISS”, and — that being the Eastern United States, starts with a “W”.)

I also have an additional thought: are they really sure they want to have this song (possible video found here) on MTV’s “Total Request Live”? Have you ever seen Total Request Live? Do they know what they’d be getting into if, by some bizarre flucuations of events, the video to thie Billy Joel riff rip-off Right-wing agit-prop found its way onto the video? If it’s anything like it was last time I saw any of it a few years back, it’s the video, cut off with distraction after distraction, email messages crawling on the bottom proclaiming the awesomeness of the song/video being (sort of) played, every 15 seconds footage of a teenager yelling something about how “hot” a member of the band is. All of which lead me to wonder: is the attention span of my generation (skew a few years younger than I) roughly that of a water-logged sponge? I don’t know.

And by the way: in the wake of 9/11, the pop universe was saturated with songs about “Heroes”. The zeitgist marches forward.

I’m a bit puzzled by the cover feature in the latest New Republic on Russ Feingold. It’s largely billed as exploding to his Dean-ish early followers who “know him for his lonely vote against the Patriot Act and for his call for a time-table for withdrawal from Iraq” … the parts that would break their heart. But I don’t get it. This is the Case Against Russ Feingold???

In Washington, Feingold has maintained his processorientation–to the frequent dismay of his fellow Democrats. The most obvious example is his relentless advocacy of major campaign finance reform in the late ’90s and early ’00s. When he teamed up with John McCain to pass new campaign finance restrictions a few years ago, many Democratic party officials felt near-panic over the legislation’s ban on “soft money” fund-raising by the national parties, a cash stream that was far more important to Democrats than to Republicans. (McCain-Feingold’s long-term effects are still uncertain, though the rise of Internet fund-raising has spared Democrats for now.) But Feingold didn’t care: This is a man who demanded that the Democratic party stop running ads in support of his own 1998 Senate campaign because he opposed soft money-funded ads in principle. “Get the hell out of my state with those things,” he said at the time. “It was kind of frustrating,” says his friend Newby of the afl-cio.

On its own, this would be enough to give Feingold a hall-monitor reputation. (“He’s like the kid in class who tattles on everyone else,” says one Democratic Hill aide turned lobbyist.) But maybe nothing annoys Feingold’s colleagues as much as his fights against annual cost-of-living raises granted to senators. Such raises now kick in automatically by law, but Feingold has tried to change that, and he routinely battles to force an invariably embarrassing Senate debate–and recorded vote–on them. “It’s not my favorite time of year in the Senate,” Feingold concedes. (Although Feingold is a pauper by Senate standards, he refuses pay raises and donates anything over his $162,100 starting salary for deficit reduction–more than $50,000 so far.)

He diligently guards against the Corruption of Lobbyist Money, and has alienated his Senate colleagues by being unscrupuosly CLEAN and uncorruptable? THE HORROR OF IT ALL! He’s facilitated a change in the Democratic process, moving the party from relying on huge money contributions to the smallest of Internet (grassroots) donors? GASP! Get me K Street please, and tear down the life support line of this Threat to our Psuedo-Democracy!! How deeply entrenched is the New Republic suckered into the rarefied air of Beltway Washington?

The other sins of Russ Feingold to a Democratic primary voter, and “Deaniac”: his demurring to the president on his nominations? That would be John Ashcroft and John Roberts. This would not be a problem if he were president, would it? Actually, I point out something else that is key: when he does oppose a nomination, it ends up carrying a lot of weight — which is to say JOHN BOLTON, who Bush ultimately was stuck recess-pointing into the UN.

I have one comment to make about this paragraph:
Maybe the ultimate Feingold heresy came during the 1998-1999 Clinton impeachment fight. When Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia offered a resolution to dismiss the charges against the president, every Democrat voted for the resolution but one: Feingold. Again, the issue was process. Feingold argued that Republicans deserved a chance to make their case and put it to a vote and that the Byrd resolution would “in appearance, and in fact, improperly short-circuit this trial” and “call the fairness of the process into question.” The vote was a disaster among his Democratic constituents, according to the Wisconsin Democratic Party chairwoman, who told The Washington Post: “We’re getting a lot of very upset people calling. … Elderly people crying, other people yelling. … They’re just mad as hell.” Feingold ultimately voted against impeachment. But watching him explain his interim vote promises to amuse. One adviser to a potential 2008 rival said he could envision cutting a “Feingold favored impeachment” ad. That’s hardly a winning position with the Democratic base–not to mention a touchy debating point on a stage with Hillary Clinton.

I point to a part of the Christopher Hitchens anti-Clinton book Nobody Left to Lie To, where a single Democratic Senator is having a trouble of conscience about how to vote on the Vote to Impeach Clinton, and is confiding in Chritopher Hitchens. He ultimately votes “no”, but I had wondered who the hell this could possibly be. I thought the only two Senators that would be travelling in Chritopher Hitchens’s circle would be Russ Feingold and Paul Wellstone (today, his cheerleading for the Iraq War has him the other camp)… does this signify anything? I don’t know.

“The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region … Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the US can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily”

“Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.”

“The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.”

“I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”
………………..

Just shifting for the quotes, as the Republican leadership tosses up their “bafflement” that John “Hawk” Murtha has “endorsed the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing”, I notice this bit of comedy from David Horowitz’s web version of his magazine: Rep. John Murtha pushed the national argument on the Iraq War further towards the International ANSWER/MoveOn agenda.

And here’s a prescient remark about the current Bush line of attack: If Bush castigates Democrats for changing their minds on the war, he might wind up alienating Republicans who have done so, too.

There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”