The crucial vote on Hans von Spakovsky's FEC term.

Regarding "Tally Ho!: The GOP's Hounding of Voters" (September 27), which focused on GOP anti-Democratic, anti-democratic operative Hans von Spakovsky, the lawyers at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice gave me a heads-up on their mass mailing to senators about today's scheduled vote on von Spakovsky's confirmation for another FEC term. The letter, signed by Executive Director Michael Waldman, pulls no punches:

Read the whole letter (PDF), but forget about counting on today's hearing if you're planning on learning all about von Spakovsky's sordid history of partisan sabotage of voting rights when he worked for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and since his recess appointment by which George W. Bush's handlers sneaked him in at FEC headquarters. Members of the club known as the U.S. Senate have agreed to conduct only two hours of hearings about von Spakovsky before putting his name to a vote on the Senate floor. The Hill explains:

Will today's scheduled vote on the former GOP county chairman from Georgia rest on a simple majority in a Senate where the Democrats have a razor-thin handle on power? At this very minute, there's probably some pretty intense lobbying going on in the Senate cloakroom.

Too bad the hearing on von Spakovsky is being limited to two hours. That's not enough time for Americans to fully learn about his shenanigans in keeping citizens from voting. OK, so, unlike William Rehnquist, he hasn't personally stopped black people from voting on Election Day in 1964 before becoming chief justice of the United States. Von Spakovsky is more of a behind-the-scenes operative.

But leaving this guy on the FEC is absurd, not only for Democrats but for all voters. If he survives, our 2008 elections automatically become less democratic, and you'll have to rewrite your kids' civics textbooks.

How about "large armies of foreign mercenaries"?

Regarding the army of mercenaries I wrote about in "Dreadlock in Baghdad" (September 18), Harry Byrne writes from Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania:

Thanks for reading, Harry, but look, this sounds like some typically liberal claptrap. Anyone can lift a quote from Jefferson. What's the context?

Oh, wait, it's from the Declaration of Independence.

Regarding "Off With Our Heads" (August 24, 2007), about the War on Terra making our soldiers nuts, Carmelita McQuillan of Sydenham, Ontario, writes:

Thanks for writing, Carmelita. Canada's Liberal Party is pushing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party to get Canuck soldiers the hell back home. Before last week's "summit" of Harper, George W. Bush, and Mexico's Felipe Calderón, Opposition Leader Stephane Dion urged that Canadians end their combat role in Afghanistan by early 2009.

There's no doubt that Canadian troops will be home a lot sooner than U.S. troops. But as you say, one of the big questions, of course, is what kind of shape the troops from either country will be in to resume any kind of sane civilian life. If the U.S. veterans get another administrator like GOP hack Jim Nicholson, whose previous job was chairman of the national party and who says he's leaving his post as Secretary of Veteran Affairs in October, forget about much sane help for the soldiers we've driven insane.

Maybe it will be different in Canada, where at least the number of fried soldiers is smaller and the provincial governments have a few more internal watchdogs. But there's always collateral damage: Reader McQuillan pointed out this frightening CBC story from April 13 about military children up north:

Regarding my July 13 item, "A Different 'Gut Feeling': Israel Attacking Iran," Martin Gensler, a former aide to the late senator Paul Wellstone, writes:

Thanks for reading, Martin. But last things first: That wasn't my speculation that Israel has the green light to attack Iran.

As I noted before, it was a report on Israeli warmonger Avigdor Lieberman's recent chats with NATO. Israel Today wrote on July 11:

Now, it depends on how that is spun. Lieberman supposedly said he got the "tacit blessing" of Europe and the U.S. Another Israeli news org saw it another way:

I noted that there was more than a whiff of conspiracy theorizing at work. And Rice's cancellation of her trip, in any case, wouldn't have been her decision. Cheney makes the decisions, as I've been saying for years.

And it's undeniably scary that Avigdor Lieberman, a very high Israeli official, is beating the war drums, as he has done so often. The guy was Bibi Netanyahu's chief of staff, for G-d's sakes. Lieberman (very high indeed) is infamous for proposing an ingenious apartheid plan for cleansing Arabs from Israel. That was too extreme even for Ariel Sharon, who dismissed him in 2004. Now Sharon is dead, and Lieberman is back in the government as a deputy prime minister.

Speaking of reckless, you could call the Bush-Cheney "team" Feckless and Reckless, kind of a horror/vaudeville duo.

"Feckless" is better applied to Bush, but as for Rice, yes, she's strictly from hunger. The only pro Bono action the fluffy major domo has ever taken is to bask in a photo-op with that rock star.

Regarding "McCain: Between Iraq and a Hard Place" (June 18), Chris O'Malley writes:

I enjoy your column. I thought you might enjoy this:

John McCain & George W. Bush...So Sweet

Dear Chris: Thanks for reading, and, yes, your YouTube video of Bush and McCain, their relationship set to the stylings of Nat King Cole, is really sweet. Highly recommended.

A retired World Bank manager writes in response to my post last night, "Where Was I? Oh, Yeah, Wolfowitz". Oh, and he nails Paul Wolfowitz. As always with such hubristic goniffs, Wolfie keeps getting into more and more trouble the more he tries to explain things.

First, take a look at Wolfie's April 9 e-mail to the World Bank staff. In it, he doesn't mention his gal pal, Shaha Ali Riza, by name, nor does he recount the sweet details of her transfer to the State Department. But he says:

Bull. And every time Wolfie brays about fighting corruption, he steps in it. Check out his April 12 press conference, in which the embattled bank prexy said:

The ex-manager who wrote me points out the hypocrisy of this self-styled corruption fighter as Wolfie floods bank staffers with e-mails and selective information:

On another matter, thanks to all of you who have welcomed me back online. But you should know that I was not in hell — at least not all of the time. It's true that new management canceled the Bush Beat in February 2006. But it's also true that only a month later, new management installed me as interim editor in chief of the Voice. I had fun doing that job for six months while we searched for the right person. After some twists and turns, we've found that person. If you don't believe me, check out the most recent issues of the Voice.

And in the next few weeks, we'll be unveiling a big dose of national news online, thanks to the many excellent journalists in the Voice's coast-to-coast chain. I'm lucky to be involved in that exciting project too.

OK, back to the bidness of doing journalism rather than talking about it. As the Bush regime's schnooks always show us, talk is cheap.

Garry Owen Brennan writes tonight from Port Saint Lucie, Florida:

As a "veteran, Commie, pinko, liberal," I say, great stuff, my man!!!

Put me on your e-mail list!!!

I am also a Vietnam U.S. Air Force veteran — you know, one of those guys Bush, Cheney, Rove et al., like to badmouth and then say they were not!

Those good-for-nothing sacks of shit!

I live in a little "cracker shack" on the edge of the savannas here in south Florida, where the wildlife and rednecks have more integrity, and more balls, than Congress and the Bush babies, combined!

Keep up the good stuff!

Thanks for reading, Garry. I just put you on the list (all y'all, see "Connect the Dolts" elsewhere on this page to get no-strings-attached e-mail alerts when I post).

Regarding November 23's "Cheney's High Dive into Shallow Waters," Paul writes with a link to quotes from Teddy Roosevelt and picks this one, labeling it "Teddy on Bush administration":

Any other attitude [other than allowing debate] 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.

Thanks for reading, Paul. Reaching back into TR's era, I can only add, "Remember the maniacs!"

Regarding my November 20 item, "We've Been Had — by Hadley," Pyeatte writes:

The only dope here is Harkavy.

Thanks for reading, Pyeatte.

Annie wrote late last month:

I noticed that Bill Clinton was quoted as saying Murtha was really terrific and if he said get out of Iraq now, well, Bill would have to think hard about what he was saying.

And that's when I had a very spiteful thought:

Is this where Bill changes his position, explains himself to Hillary, who is so "impressed" she morphs into a Stop The War Leader, thus managing to be on the other side of the fence from the place she was, just as it got really unpopular?

Annie
Fascinated observer of US politics from Belfast, Northern Ireland, the place that gave its Puritans to America

Thanks for reading, Annie. So you're the one responsible for sending us the Puritans, huh? You should be ashamed, and if you have any Puritan blood in you, it'll be easy for you to conjure up that feeling.

Your spiteful thought about Hillary Clinton seems right on the mark to me. Having covered her Senate campaign back in 2000 and seen her mediocre performance since then as a senator, I can say that I wish we had a two-party system in the U.S.

And if we don't get one pretty soon, I'm going to have take the next letter writer's suggestion.

Leonardo Valvassori writes from Toronto:

I sent you an e-mail last spring with a suggestion: Move to Canada. Your country is lost.

You wrote a very nice, and funny, reply.

There have more disheartening events in the U.S. since then — Katrina, John Roberts, Judith Miller, Wampumgate. The hits just keep on coming.

C'mon, Ward, do yourself (and we Canucks) a favour! Move up here and write for a literate, interested population. It's got to be disheartening writing about a president that can't speak properly for a nation that can barely read and doesn't seem to care for its own future.

I love that look I get from an average American when I tell him that my gov't (through my taxes) actually provided the treatment that got me through a two-year fight with non-Hogdkins B-cell lymphoma. When telling Americans that universal health care here is gov't-provided, I get the same look of incredulity that Dubya had on his face after "winning" his first election: "Really?"

The population of the U.S. has become so well trained by the gov't and media as to expect nothing back from the gov't for its use of their tax dollars — "You mean I get no health care (insert list of other services), but you can afford to send my children to die 'off-shore' protecting Dick Cheney's oil? Jeez, thanks, I'll just be over here looking at pictures of Paris Hilton while I bury my son. By the way can I have a picture of his casket draped with that pretty flag?"

For what it's worth, you can stay at my place till you've settled and have received your first cheque from Macleans magazine.

Thanks for writing, Leonardo. While I'm thinking about your kind offer, could you ask Macleans to send me a check anyway?

Vera Chevrolet-Narishkin writes from Geneva, Switzerland:

Having visited your blog a great many times, I took the liberty of copying some of the excellent links you post in the right-hand column — those with clickable graphics and/or logos — and downloaded said graphics/logos to host them on a free image-hosting service in which I have an account (so as to steal no bandwidth from anyone), and use them just as you have used them: to link to the corresponding website, in my timid bloglet. I apologize most contritely, and I hope you'll be lenient with me.

Thanks for reading, Vera. Ain't the Internet great for shrinking the world? Golly!

Nothing to apologize for, by the way. I put those links on there (though I haven't updated them in a while) to help people find interesting stuff to read. In a few instances, when the art I've borrowed for those links is a site's original work, I've contacted the site's people to ask permission, and there's been no problem. I can't imagine that any organization I've linked to will mind getting more readers.

Unless it's the White House, in which case I don't care.

That's a government (though not much of one), and governments are fair game for any citizen of this planet, except for artwork or photos that said governments have themselves borrowed or bought from private citizens and which are copyrighted. I don't knowingly touch those, unless I get permission.

Regarding "Lost Hermanos," my December 7 item, Alexis Mazón writes from Tucson:

Dear Mr. Harkavy:

Excellent post yesterday on the Pentagon's predatory tactics against my community's young people. If Latino & Latina youth stopped falling for the military's lies, we could stop this war in Iraq and many future wars.

You write that the Pentagon is spending $20 million a year in marketing to Latinos. However, I think the figure is actually much higher. Roberto Lovato recently did a great article for The Nation in which he states that the Pentagon's spending on Latino-targeted marketing is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is so much to say about this, not the least of which is that the national Latino organizations like NCLR [National Council of La Raza] and LULAC [League of United Latin American Citizens] are supporting this [the Pentagon's recruitment of Hispanics]. It's outrageous.

By the way, did you design those graphics in your post? They are genius. Thanks again and please keep it up.

Thanks for writing, Alexis. You're so right about Lovato's October 3, 2005, piece in The Nation: It's excellent. Lovato zeroed in on how crucial Hispanic recruitment is for the Pentagon:

The centrality of Latinos to the military enterprise can be seen in statements by Pentagon officials like John McLaurin, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Human Resources, who stated that in order to meet recruitment goals, Latino enlistments must grow to 22 percent by the year 2025, when one in four Americans will be Latino. Two factors add to the urgency. One is that while Latinos make up only 13 percent of the active-duty forces, they also make up a fast-growing 16 percent of the 17- to 21-year-old population.

In the eyes of Pentagon planners, this rapidly growing, relatively poor population is prime recruiting material. Latinos already in the military are concentrated in the low ranks of the Marines and the Army, serving in the high-casualty, high-risk jobs of front-line troops urgently needed in Iraq. The second factor driving the Latinization of the Pentagon's recruitment strategy is the decrease in African-American and women recruits. Since 2000 the percentage of African-American recruits has dropped from 23.5 percent to less than 14 percent, thanks to the widespread disaffection with the Iraq War — and good organizing — among parents and students in the black community.

And some preliminary indicators show that the Pentagon's efforts are paying off. Latino enlistment increased from 10.4 percent of new recruits in 2000 to 13 percent in 2004. According to University of Maryland military sociologist David Segal, however, the jury is still out on whether the Latino enlistment campaign will solve the Defense Department's recruitment problem in the mid to long term. A drop in Latino numbers could, Segal says, "plunge the military into an even deeper crisis. They will have to learn how to better recruit whites." He adds that "when anti-war efforts focus on recruitment, they're denying recruiters major access they desperately need."

And Lovato did a particularly good job in sussing out the counterrecruitment movement:

The Bush adventure in Iraq has done much to foster anti-recruitment sentiment and create the "Latino unity" activists have dreamed of for decades. Beyond the anonymous, individualistic rejection of the war measured in recent polls of Latinos, a more vocal and active rejection of war and recruitment is taking hold on the ground, tapping into several currents of Latino political tradition. Vietnam veteran and University of San Diego professor Jorge Mariscal is among those working feverishly to cut Pentagon strings they feel yank young Latinos further and further into imperial entanglements. "We are trying to show the historical continuity of Latino protest against the exploitation of other Latinos in US wars of aggression," says Mariscal, considered by many to be the dean of Latino counterrecruitment efforts.

As to the amount of money spent on recruiting, it's enormous, although it's unclear, as Lovato notes, exactly how much of it is spent to target Hispanics.

Typically, the Bush regime is practicing massive corporate welfare in this case, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into ad agencies' coffers to come up with the right slogans to sucker poor kids into a military that the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal is using and abusing. Considering the growing inequality of income and wealth in America, better that the money be spent on education and economic opportunity, you'd think.

As to how all these billions are spent, even the federal government's own auditors are critical. A GAO report from September 2003 (read it at John Pike's excellent globalsecurity.org site) found that the military's ad budget for recruiting had started soaring in the Clinton era, when it was already ridiculously high:

DOD’s total advertising funding increased 98 percent in constant dollars from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003 — from $299 million to $592 million. The advertising cost per enlisted recruit has nearly tripled and is now almost $1,900.

Did all that money do any good? The GAO report was scathing:

DOD does not have clear program objectives and adequate outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of its advertising as part of its overall recruiting effort. Thus, DOD cannot show that its increased advertising efforts have been a key reason for its overall recruiting success. Isolating the impact of advertising on recruiting efforts is inherently difficult because joining the military is a profound life decision. Moreover, DOD has not consistently tracked key information, such as public awareness of military recruiting advertising and the willingness of young adults to join the military.

Such data could be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of advertising. Without sufficient information on advertising’s effectiveness, DOD cannot determine the return on its advertising funding or make fact-based choices on how its overall recruiting investments should be allocated.

Well, it's a faith-based administration, creating its own reality, so who needs facts?

Oh, and Alexis, yes, I do my own graphics, using mostly art and photos available on government websites. For yesterday's post, I used material from the "Marketing to Hispanics" presentation at the February 2005 conference of Pentagon direct-marketing muckety-mucks.

Thanks for the kind words. Make sure any prospective military recruits check out these men from Mars before signing up.

Also regarding "Lost Hermanos," Armando S. writes:

I think the spirit of "you can't make this shit up" would be better translated as:

"¿quien coños iba a inventar esa mierda?"

But anyway, yours is a damn good translation.

Thanks for writing, Armando. You're referring to this comment of mine in yesterday's item:

Esta mierda no se puede inventar.

I can't take credit for the translation I used; that goes to colleague and multilingual wordsmith Jorge Morales.

I understand, Armando, that your alternative translates roughly to this:

"Who the fuck would make this shit up?"

That sounds like me, and it certainly captures my continuing astonishment at what the Bush regime does. Why I'm astonished I don't know.

All of Bush's pals, plus others

Howdy from New York to friends Dave and Judy in New Orleans (and their son, Mack, temporarily in Phoenix) as they try to recover from Hurricane Katrina. Along those lines, Jeff Schwartz wrote:

Subject: A word of thanks and encouragement …

Already an ardent fan prior to Katrina, as a displaced New Orleanian I feel an added dimension of gratitude towards your willingness to keep post-Katrina New Orleans in the spotlight.

Speaking of throwing this administration's words in their faces ["Lies My Fodder Told Me," November 17], how about the ones Bush uttered in front of my Jackson Cathedral — something along the lines of doing whatever it takes, for as long as it takes? We aren't even out of this fiscal quarter, and New Orleans has departed from the front page. Consider this a word of thanks and encouragement to continuing to make all of the connections that you do; your narratives are most compelling!

Thanks for writing, Jeff. You're referring to Bush's September 15 speech to the country; he was standing in front of wonderful Jackson Square Cathedral when he vowed:

Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.

I appreciate your kind words, but the press of scandal descending on the Bush regime is so hard to keep up with that I've also let New Orleans slip off my front page. Best that most of us can do is try to squeeze the vise president, Steve Hadley, and their cohorts. It's kinda like peeling an onion: As you skin back layers, you can't help but cry. All you can do is laugh and chop, chop and laugh.

And regarding New Orleans, the indefatigable nola.com, website of the Times-Picayune, has an interesting yarn this morning, "Storm Work Deals Go To Inside Players."

As for George W. Bush staying "as long as it takes," he's got 1,155 days left. That's plenty of time for him to do more damage to us. And vice versa.

Regarding an October 5 item, "Harriet's Supreme Qualification: Her Firm's Fundraising," in which I made fun of Bush fundraiser Jeff Love (among other Texans), Benton Love III writes from Houston:

Subject: Jeff Love, Evil Republican Puppetmaster

Just wanted you to know my dad (the Jeff in question) and I really enjoyed your article. The “G-string” and “high chair” references were my personal favorites. I would have used “bib” or “pacifier” since he is 6’5”, but otherwise everything in there about the quid pro quo political and judicial maneuvering seems in character.

Of course, I don’t really remember because I was about ten during that [Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom] Phillips campaign, but I remember meeting Nolan Ryan at a fundraiser at our house, so there must have been a lot of cash thrown around somewhere.

Anyway, my Dad is such a nice guy in person that it’s refreshing to read a reminder that he’s a Decepticon behind the scenes.

Great displaced head photo, as well. Reminds me of that “heads on sticks” routine they do on PTI.

Best Regards, seriously,
Benton III

Thanks for writing, Benton III. You're referring in part to my quoting from a Texans for Public Justice profile of your dad, which included this:

[Jeff] Love co-chaired Bush’s Texas state finance committee in 2000. He sits on the board of JP Morgan Chase-Houston.

Which I followed with my own comments:

Now how did Jeff Love come to sit on the board of this particular bank? His Locke Liddell profile points out that he was a star baseball player at Vanderbilt, but it neglects to mention his daddy, who ran giant Texas Commerce Bank, which merged with New York's Chemical Bank in 1987, which in turn got swallowed up by JP Morgan Chase.

No wonder the bank's board got out the high chair for Jeff.

All that bank background is courtesy of the blurb for Daddy Ben [Love]'s autobiography, My Life in Texas Commerce, which features a forward by James Baker — Reagan's chief of staff and Treasury secretary and Bush the Elder's Secretary of State.

Benton III, you and your dad are good sports. Has your family considered not contributing any more campaign cash to Bush?

On second thought, let me borrow that word "decepticon" from you, and I won't bring it up again.