The Fab Four

(Action starts at about 30 seconds...)

Fun With Obscure Left Coast Bands...

Wish these guys hadn't broken up:

Two for Washington's B'Day...

Adult Swim:

Some Dude:

The Long Pole

Petraeus and the 'Long Pole'

Back in May, General Petraeus told the AP annual meeting that the surge should be judged, first of all, by political progress and reconciliation in Iraq. Now he's changed his tune, and no wonder.

By Greg Mitchell

(September 10, 2007) -- On May 8, General David Petraeus appeared, via satellite from Baghdad, at The Associated Press's annual meeting in New York. Much like the episode today, at the outset of his testimony on the "surge" on Capitol Hill, there was a communication breakdown at the start: No sound. Perhaps like some others in the crowd at the AP gathering, I saw the symbolism in this.

But then the technology kicked in and Petraeus, dressed in camouflage fatigues, offered what was essentially a preview of his testimony of progress today. It was clear, even then, there was no way David Petraeus was going to give General Petraeus a bad mark. Then he took questions for a few minutes from a pair of AP reporters who had covered the war and met him previously.

But there was one key difference: Today he measured everything in terms of some kind of military or security progress. Back in May, he declared that political progress and reconciliation was the "long pole" in this tent.

This priority is inconvenient now, since everyone, including his partner on the Hill today, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, admits that political progress and reconciliation in Iraq is non-existent. Crocker was so desperate to find some advance on that he was reduced to citing a communique from leaders promising to work on it.

Well, as Tom Ricks and Karen DeYoung sum it up so well in Tuesday's Washington Post: "If Gen. David H. Petraeus has his way, tens of thousands of U.S. troops will be in Iraq for years to come."

Here, from the military's transcript, is the key portion of Petraeus's remarks to the AP in May.

So we are really still in the fairly early stages. We don't have, you know, all the concrete walls and population control measures and markets hardened. It -- I mean, this stuff takes quite a while. And that's why I, you know, began right up off the bat back when I had the confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying that it would be late summer, early fall. And as you know, what we've settled on is some time in early -- probably first or second week of September, Ambassador Crocker and I will link arms and come back and provide an assessment.

I have said that, you know, if I really don't think that it can work, for a variety of reasons, and they could be, you know -- it could be a number of different reasons. But you've heard me say what is necessary. And I think you have some sense of the long poles in the tent, which really are those actions that will build on what it is that we are trying to do.

Again, our action is necessary, not sufficient. The sufficient piece is the genuine demonstration of a willingness by all parties to reconcile with one another, to truly embrace what is enshrined in the Iraqi constitution -- one Iraq, minority rights, no safe haven for terrorists and a government that is representative of and responsive to all Iraqis, and "all" is underlined.

I mean, that's, I think, where we're all sort of focusing like a laser beam. That is what Ambassador Crocker is increasingly over time -- and as you know, he's just been on the ground now about a month or so. We have a very good partnership. And that's where we're focusing. And again, that is the long pole in the tent.

Presently Reading...

Robert Reich's Supercapitalism:

As Adam Smith first described clearly, individuals who pursue only their own narrow interests in a competitive system often inadvertently create widespread social gains. But not always. Unlike many of his modern disciples, Smith was keenly aware of the invisible hand’s limitations. Individual and social interests often diverge, he realized, and in such cases, greater competition makes matters worse. If a firm can cut costs by removing the filter from its smokestack, for example, it will feel greater pressure to do so when competition intensifies.

If our social ills are indeed rooted in increased competition, our only recourse, Reich argues, is to change the rules. Denouncing greed is simply wasted energy. If we want less inequality, we must make taxes more progressive. If we want cleaner air and water, we must adopt more stringent environmental laws.

Reich’s narrative begins with his account of the “not quite golden age” — roughly, the three decades following World War II — in which limited competition enabled large companies to earn high profits. High profits, in turn, enabled unions to bargain for high wages and benefits. Legislators, who were less influenced by corporate cash in those days, passed laws in the public interest.

Things changed when the Internet and other new communications and transportation technologies enabled the economy’s most able producers to extend their reach. Many established firms were swept away.

At about the same time, financial deregulation increased the influence of capital markets on corporate behavior. Wall Street’s message to chief executives was “Slash your payrolls or we’ll buy your company and hire someone who will.”

...The main thrust of Reich’s argument is right on target. Those who seize their opportunities in highly competitive environments tend to survive and prosper. “To confuse greed with opportunity,” he writes, “is to confound desire with availability.”

The point is that almost no one, with any power, advocates for citizens (i. e., the common good) and that this calls for more citizen-based advocacy and restrictions on activity like lobbying and corporate contributions to campaigns...

Bill Kristol Magnitizes Wankers Throughout the Noosphere

Via Crooked Timber.

Just For the Hell of It

The White Stripes: