This just in: our representatives are hard at work!

Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline,under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.

Way to address the root problems, guys.

So it looks like Scooter Libby got orders to leak classified information to the New York Times. From President Bush by way of Cheney, according to his testimony.

Libby's participation in acritical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in theNational Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information." --Fox News

In other words, this doesn't necessarily relate to the Plame leak. It is interesting, though, and raises a number of fascinating secondary questions. Specifically, the issue of leaking classified information, how it's justified, and whether it is ever acceptable. There are, I think, at least three distinct ways of looking at it:

1. Leaking classified information is always morally wrong, period, end of story, and should be punished.(The 'absolutist' position)
2. Leaking classified information is acceptable if
   1. it is used to expose wrongdoing,
   2. the damage done by the wrongdoing is greater than the damage done by the leak, and
   3. the person leaking the information is otherwise unable to stop the wrongdoing.

   (The 'whistleblower' position)

3. Leaking classified information is acceptable if the person leaking ranks high enough inthe government that their decision amounts to ad-hoc declassification. (The 'judgement call' position)

The conflicting cases of the Plame leak and the NSA surveilance leaks reveal the interesting schisms between these three views. Both Democrats and Republicans tend to use the rhetoric of the absolutist position. Based on what instances they choose to complain about, however, they seem to be motivated by the whistleblower and judgement call positions, respectively. I tend to favor the whistleblower position. Why? Allowing the 'judgement call' position to be adopted basically gives our elected officials the ability to use classification as a political weapon -- a poison pill-trap that only they are immune to. Documents can be classified, then leaked selectively. Those who attempt to learn the context -- and reveal potential lies of omission -- enjoy no such immunity and can then be prosecuted.

The 'whistleblower' exception works in the opposite direction. If restricted information is leaked by an individual seeking to 'right a wrong,' and the full context makes it clear that no wrong was in fact done, declassifying the document will reveal the truth. I can see a case being made for all three positions, but I think there's a much greater danger for abuse in both the 'absolutist' and 'judgement call' scenerios. Recognizing the danger of human corruption, and the lure of power-for-power's sake, has always struck me as an essential tenet of true conservatism.

EDIT: Gary Farber on Obsidian Wings offers some helpful clarification. It IS true that the President has complete legal authority over what is classified and what is not. In my mind, the fundamental question is not so much about legal authority but the moral, ethical, and democratic concerns raised by the use of classification as a tool of rhetoric. In the 'poison pill' case I mention above, the reason for shifting classification is not to preserve national security, but to to control the information landscape and thus the outcome of a national debate. Winners write history, and Classifying Authorities write the present, one might say.

Over the last decade or so, conservatism in the United States has become increasingly dominated by a couple of key ideas. Several related directly to the use of force and international relations. One, though, has bubbled up from the pool of economic talking points to *pop* noisily and grab everyone's attention. It is simply this: No one has the right to demand that others pay their way.

Often, this comes up in the context of health care or education or welfare or what not. An individual on welfare, after all, is effectively demanding that productive members of society subsidize their lifestyle. How fair is that, hmm? Not one bit. And someone who's wheeled into the emergency room, but can't pay their bills -- why should I, a healthy hard-working American, be forced to pay their bills? It's precisely the sort of thing that private charities should handle. The government is notoriously inefficient at that sort of thing anways, and the market should be allowed to find the perfect solution.

I think the real failure of conservatism is that it hasn't been willing to take this idea all the way -- probably for fear that liberals would be angry, or some pantywaisted silliness like that. I, for one, think it's high time that we embraced the truth.

Not only is it unfair for me to pay for someone else's health care, it's unfair for me to pay for someone else's police protection. After all -- I live a modest life. I drive an older car and I pay my bills and I don't keep valuable things lying around. Why should I pay for the police to investigate burglaries at the houses of millionaires? If thousands of disgruntled employees decide to lay siege to WalMart headquarters, it's certainy not my problem.

Now, many will probably object. "Police protection benefits everyone," they'll bleat. Pshaw. That's exactly what the liberals say about public education, and health care. How much of our nation's money is sucked into the black hole of law enforcement? Far, far too much in my opinion. If you have soemthing valuable, you should be able to afford to protect it! And if you can't, well. I shouldn't be punished for your irresponsible behavior.

Now, if you don't mind, I have to head off. I'm organizing a looting party for this Friday.

UPDATE: No corroborating articles have come around to back up KR's original piece on this subject, quoted at the bottom of this post. PulpSpy posts a link back to the original press conference for more context on the 'only an example' comment, and notes that it's not quite the backpedal that it appeared to be from the article. Here's hoping that someone in the Administration is serious about energy independence. I'm skeptical as all hell, but hope springs eternal.

After last night's State of the Union, I was startled to find that the President pledged to dramatically cut our fossil fuel usage over the next two decades. It's the sort of bold leap that i've been saying we need to take to maintain our nation's current rayte of growth and standard of living -- weaning our nation off petrolium would be no less important than the space race was in the 1960s.

Of course, I was rather skeptical. The Bush administration has spent the last six years or so seeking out promising energy initiatives and strangling them in their cribs, so I was a little perplexed. Today, he went out stumping and gave some details.

On Wednesday President Bush set off on a tour of the United States to bring the messages in his State of the Union speech to all corners of the nation.

He told the Nashville audience that the US was close to a breakthrough in making ethanol from materials like grasses or woods.

"All of a sudden, you know, we may be in the energy business by being able to grow grass on the ranch! And have it harvested and converted into energy. That's what's close to happening," he said.

I've ranted about Ethanol before; it's pork, pure and simple. The same problems we face with oil will be faced with Ethanol: even converting the entire midwest into a giant expanse of corn, dedicated to nothing but biomass production, wouldn't give us enough raw material to offset our fossil fuel usage.

Don't worry, though -- the President didn't really mean it.

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
...
Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.
...
Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands."

Uh-huh. Well, at least we've reduced the turnaround time on the backpedaling to twenty-four hours now. According to last year's State of the Union, we should still be gunning for a manned mission to Mars right about now. Maybe next year we'll get ponies for everyone.

Bloomberg covers the president's upcoming State of the Union address. In it, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama offers some fascinating commentary:

"When Bush is focused, he can give candidates a big boost," [Sessions] says. "Hurricane Katrina hit him hard and it got him off-message. But he can still draw a crowd, he's good on the stump and he can re-energize the coalition that got him 51 percent of the vote" in 2004.

With all due respect (I know politicking is hard work), I don't really think that the President was the one hit hard by Katrina.

[inline:1]

I've been engaged in a couple of discussions on several sites about the current state of Iraq, and what steps the US can take to help 'ensure victory.' The ultimate question of what constitutes 'victory' needs much clearer definition, of course. We must admit that some definitions of 'victory' are not achievable, or depend on a multitude of factors completely outside of our control. Even acknowledging that, however, there are specific steps that I think can help us quite a bit.

1) Any and all rebuilding projects MUST EMPLOY LOCAL WORKERS. This is not optional. Unemployment in Iraq is currently astronomical, and the legions of unemployed and disaffected are ripe for recruitment by nationalist insurgents. Putting THEM to work in the rebuilding of the country is critical, but American companies are going so far as to importing third-world laborers from Sierra Leone. Helping Sierra Leone is great, but keeping Iraqis employed while their country is being rebuilt is better.

2) Allow laws banning all forms of torture to pass. Open up military prisons in Iraq, Cuba, and other nations to Red Cross inspectors. We are not simply fighting a military conflict: we are trying to convince an entire nation of people we are on their side, even though we have betrayed them in the past. Whatever benefits we believe are gained by mistreatment of prisoners, torture, or 'torture light' are offset by the tremendous damage done to our reputation in the Mideast.

3) Decide which is more important: a pro-American Iraq willing to stand against religious extremism, or a free and democratic Iraq. One of the reasons we backed Sunni-ruled Iraq through the 80s and early 90s was its strong opposition to the Shiite religious extremists in Iran. Iraq was a secular Arab state, arguably one of our best friends in the region until Kuwait. In toppling the Sunni power structure and installing a democracy, we've effectively put the Shiites in charge. This is good, democratically speaking, because the Shiites have a considerable majority. This is bad strategically speaking, because the rest of the Middle East didn't want Iran's influence to spread. Either did we.

4) Plan for civil war. If we're tremendously lucky, it might not happen. Osama Bin Laden might turn himself in tomorrow and announce a change of heart, too. Sadly, we must plan for what is likely rather than what is desired. Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites have been at each others' throats for decades. We've shaken the bottle and taken the cork off. The Iraqi military force that *we are currently training* is mostly composed of existing tribal and regional militia members. It's currently doubtful that they will side with a central national government over their pre-existing tribal and ethnic groups if push comes to shove. What will we do if the central government breaks down? What will we do if the Kurds go ahead with their plans to negotiate separate treaties with other countries, and begin to function as their own autonimous region? They did during Sadaam's reign in the 90's.

5) Establish clear criteria by which Iraqi military and civil defense preparedness can be measured. 'They're in the fight' is not a metric, it's a platitude. We had these clear measurements going for a while, but they were canned when progress was slow. If things are not moving as fast as we'd like, it's better to KNOW it and figure out what's wrong than pretend things are better.

This is not a comprehensive plan. This is not a blueprint for victory. But I believe they're clear things we can do to improve our chances.

It has come to my attention recently that CNN, that so-called news source, engaged in subliminal warfare against the brave citizens of these United States. For almost one eighth of a second, the following 'X' defaced the inspiring visage of our country's Second In Command on live television.

Thankfully, the brave bloggers of the blogging blogosphere of blogs were too crafty for CNN. Known for their careful attention to detail, they alerted the world to the truth. CNN, of course, investigated the matter and responded with typical liberal smokescreens. There was even talk among the weak-minded that it had been an accident, rather than a deliberate conspiracy to erode the American populace's inspiring support for their Leader. The image, CNN apologists claimed, was a 'key frame' used by video technicians to queue video clips during broadcasts. The words 'Transition begins after five frames of black' can be made out below the debauched 'X' in the image above.

Friends, I've done some research into these so-called 'Key Frames.' I'm afraid that the situation is even worse than we ever suspected.

'Key Frames,' as liberals refer to them, have been in use for decades in the television industry. So cunning are the liberals that they saw the writing on the wall during the glorious time of Reagan. Knowing they could never defeat him honestly, they began to plan. They designed a nefarious video queueing mechanism and mobilized their agents in the video industry to infiltrate television studios around the world. It took years, but with 'Key Framing' accepted worldwide, the 'cover story' for their agents at CNN was in place.

They've been biding their time ever since, waiting through the dark days of the Amiga Video Toaster, counting the years, the months, the days, until they could spring their trap. Then -- when the time was right, and everything was in place -- their decades of planning paid off. BAM! Operation Key Frame! For 1/8th of a foul second, a flickered 'X' and the coded message flashed across the face of our glorious second-in-command!

The message? 'TRANSITION BEGINS AFTER FIVE FRAMES OF BLACK!'

Doubtless, it's a ciphered signal to their followers. But what could it mean? Regime change? Fomenting revolution? What -- or who -- could the 'five frames of black' be? I don't know, but it sounds mighty ominous...

CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger reports that Michael Brown, who recently resigned as the head of the FEMA, has been rehired by the agency as a consultant to evaluate it's response following Hurricane Katrina.

I don't think anything else need be said. Is it Dilbert? Is it The Daily Show? Is it The Onion? I just can't decide.

EDIT: More articles have been popping up. Apparently he's on board, with full pay, until sometime in October. Until then, he'll be helping Congress evaluate the Katrina failures. Apparently, he's said he "should have asked the military for help sooner." Seems to me that a more serious problem was old-fashioned ignorance of the magnitude of the disaster while it was happening.

Is 'If only the military had been there sooner' going to be the new talking point to hammer from every angle? We'll see.

Amusing trivia: the pledge of allegiance was written in the 1890s by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist who was forced out of his Baptist congegation for preachin' liberal views. The pledge was published in a Readers-Digest style magazine at the time. As a member of the National Education Association, he used the pledge in a school flag-raising ceremony on Columbus Day, 1892. In the wake of the Civil War, it was an expression of unity and purpose. At that time, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In the 1920s, The American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution held Flag Conferences, and officially declared that the pledge had to be changed to use the words 'The flag of the United States Of America' instead of 'my flag.' Bellamy opposed the change, but the change became commonplace. He died about a decade later.

In the 1940s, Congress officially recognized the Pledge, but the Supreme Court immediately ruled that students could not be forced to recite it. In 1954, the Knights of Columbus vigorously lobbied Congress to add the phrase 'Under God' to the pledge, as a means of differentiating us from Godless communists. Congress officially changed the pledge.

The pledge has changed over time. It was originally an organic expression of patriotism by one man -- ironically, one who would've likely been called Very Unpatriotic had he lived to see the 1950s.

From Newsweek: an account of the Administration's internal response to Katrina. Beyond politicking, beyond opinion, beyond viewpoint, this is deeply and profoundly unsettling. Having a President who trusts his gut is not a bad thing, in and of itself. We just need to remember what happens when his gut is wrong.

The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.

How this could be—how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century—is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.

The article goes on to document incompetence and oversight at all levels -- local, regional, and national -- but the bit above summarizes what I find chilling.