Today.  Kings supermarket, of Cresskill, New Jersey.  In the deli counter, they had hot soups, including the perennial favorite, Liberty Onion Soup.

I don't know what all of you would do if you found such an item in a place where you shopped.  For me, I'm not spending one cent of my money there until they realize that it's French onion soup.  French onion soup, goddamnit.

So what would you do if you had forty or fifty or ninety bucks' worth of groceries in a shopping cart, and then found them peddling something Newspeak like Liberty Onion Soup?

(I suppose I should be grateful they didn't have Victory Coffee in with the Chock Full O' Nuts.  Now, if you'll all excuse me, I need a slug of Victory Gin to wash the taste out of my mouth.  Talk about doubleplusungood.)

Paul Krugman unloads on the Government in general, and His Exalted Royal Imperious Shrubliness by extension, in the Op-Ed page of the NYT on Friday.

I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't get adequate armor.

At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.

He gives them both barrels here (free registration required).

I just had a nasty thought.

There's been all kinds of talk about Bush forcing Bolton on the UN via a recess appointment.  But what if he tried the same thing for the Supreme Court?

I know it sounds very silly, but hear me out:

Since World War II, the specter of impeachment has haunted two Presidents, over widely different circumstances.

Richard M. Nixon stood on the throes of impeachment due to his interference into the investigation of a reprehensible political operation.

William J. Clinton was impeached and tried due to his prevarication over a personal indiscretion.

George W. Bush's situation is drastically different from both those men's.  His political problems don't stem from underhanded electioneering or an inability to keep his trousers fastened; they stem from the fundamental, zealously advanced actions and agendas of his entire administration, and if he is impeached, it won't be a distraction or a sideshow; it will be a referendum on his stewardship of the office of President of the United States.

Yesterday, I saw an anti-New York Yankees rant in the diary column here - gloating over the Yankees losing to the Mets.  One comment ended thusly:

"Rooting against the Yankees is the Kossack way to follow baseball."

That, to me, says something unbearably sad about the way hate has become legitimized in 21st century America.

It's one thing to root for your own team - to exhort them on, to urge them to their own success.  But to wish bad fortune upon others, to demonize them...

Is it the Kossack way to hurl curses at Emmanuel Goldstein, while Big Brother looms in the distance?  Is it the Kossack way to give in to mindless hate, to demonize those who support a team you may dislike?

The Constitution has been amended and rules have been promulgated to cover the line of succession to the Presidency: if the President is removed from office, by death, inability, or impeachment, the Vice President becomes President.  Next in line of succession is the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask people to consider the following scenario:

• For some reason or other, the office of Vice President becomes vacant.
  
• Before a new Vice President can be chosen by the Senate, the President is impeached, convicted, and removed from office one month before the midterm elections.  By law, the Speaker of the House becomes President.
  
• In the ensuing midterm election, the House changes hands, meaning there is a new Speaker of the House.

What then?

Seven months I spent working for the campaign - from the beginning of March to the beginning of November.  I know the battle's lost; I know the war's far from over.

I'm afraid that I can't keep up the fight for now; I finally, finally may have a job that pays a marginally living wage, one that will take up almost all my time for the foreseeable future.  If I have money to spare, I'll try and contribute that way; if I can find a little time, here or there, I'll see what I can do to help, but I think my days on the front line of the battle for America are done for now.

I feel bad, almost like a deserter, and damnably selfish for feeling any gratitude over my good fortune in such horrifying times, but there it is.  All I can really do at this point is ask if someone who's been hanging back would be willing to step up, and to make one last plea:

An indulgence, if I may be permitted.  I finally got a half-decent job offer and for a change, I need to vent a little happiness.  (Still bitter over the Time, Fox News, and Kenneth Cole billboards on the West Side Highway, though.)

I see the young turning blue, I see a solid base to build from - maybe my work the past seven months hasn't all been for nothing.

If His Royal Shrubliness and minions run out of ways to wallpaper over the fundamental problems they've caused, I can see the tide turning.  Hopefully.

My dream headline, if you'll permit:

BUSH CONVICTED

BY 79-21 VOTE, SENATE REMOVES PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE;
SPEAKER PELOSI TO BE SWORN IN TODAY AT NOON
America's First Woman President Calls for Unity, Healing in Wake of Scandal

The battle's lost, but the war's far from over.

There are things we can do little or nothing about - the Supreme Court will likely be dramatically changed in the next four years.  The right-wing agenda will be pushed as though forty-eight percent of the country matters not a damn.

But--

We can start to chip away.

My work in politics came close to intruding on an old friendship today, one of the few I've maintained over the years.

My friend (I'll refrain from using names and specific locations) has always been of a moderate-to-conservative bent - more likely than not to vote Republican.  I called him today, just to get back in touch, and when he asked what I'd been doing the past six months, I mentioned that I'd been campaigning.  (I tend not to advertise which campaign I'm working for if I'm unsure of the other person's politics, given the polarizing influence of this campaign.)

Anyway, he mentioned that although he respects Kerry, he's voting for Bush - for purely personal reasons.

I was unemployed for two years after my benefits ran out.  I spent most of that time looking for work in vain.

In March, I decided enough was enough, and signed up to volunteer for the Kerry campaign in New Jersey.  Seven months later, I've become one of the old-timers in the West Orange office, and on good days, it can feel like it was time well spent.

Now comes the dilemma: I've finally got a paying job.

This comes from the LiveJournal of "Ginmar," an Army reservist serving in Iraq, and is posted with her permission.

"The Summer Soldier"

I got my ballot the other day, and it was relief to find that it didn't have any blood stains on it. With all the hits we've been taking lately, that was all the cautious good news one could find.

I left the post office, and looked up at the palace on the hill: Saddam's palace, now a place where soldiers from several countries are bumbling around, trying to bring democracy to this place. Some of them have only recently acquired it themselves in their own countries. One of the most touching things I've ever seen was the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, tearing up as his country was inducted into NATO.

Democracy is one of those things that people look for when they see that palace on the hill. They want it to be big and shiny, with trumpets and armies and flags. Instead, I think of that man, trying not to weep in front of the world. I have no idea what his thoughts could be. I've never really thought about what it means to be a citizen of a democracy, because it's always been there for me.

It shouldn't be a big thing, this concept of freedom, and the idealist in me thinks that every war is a failure of humanity. That palace on the hill has gorgeous marble, crudely carved. And from that vantage point one could almost see Saddam's eyes, looking for enemies. Yet the people of Iraq still smile at us, offer us tea, smiles, handshakes, able even in this war of trying to find some common ground. These are people who hope for freedom, for self-determination.

Some people say, "My country, love it or leave it," and insist that that's patriotism.

Many people here have lots of issues with the New York Times.  Understandable.

However, for all the questions about the reporters, the editorial page certainly isn't on the side of the President.

In the Sunday (17-Oct-04) edition, they present their endorsement.  Unsurprisingly, they're endorsing John Kerry.  Surprisingly, they're not holding their noses while they do so.

"He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core."

"John Kerry has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive and we enthusiastically endorse him for president."

The NewsHour is running a segment now (7:30pm EST) on the Sinclair issue.  The framing report mentions the owners' support of Bush, their strength in battleground states, and the Nightline "Fallen" issue.

Something tells me that even though the NewsHour people are trying to be, er, fair and balanced, it's not going to go well for Sinclair...

Ronan Tynan was singing "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch at Yankee Stadium on Tuesday night; the fans cheered the song, but when the Vice President (in attendance at the game) was shown on the right-field video scoreboard, the cheers changed to boos, and continued that way until the Vice President was taken off the video scoreboard, at which point the cheers resumed.

Via Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com) and ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=240629110).

B(proud once again to be a Yankee fan)K

Seeing as how Nancy Pelosi's criticism of George W. Bush is now being denounced as dangerous, unpatriotic, and treasonous, it might make sense to remind those who criticize Pelosi of a quote from a rather notable Republican of days of yore.

"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." - Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Several people on LiveJournal have suggested that this quote be written up on a postcard and sent to Tom DeLay.  I'd probably add Dennis Hastert to the list.

BK

I found the following in a friend's LiveJournal.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03920:@@@L&summ2=m&

The consequences of allowing Congress to overturn, by vote, a decision of the Supreme Court?  The Constitution of the United States would mean exactly what the legislative branch wants it to mean, and the Supreme Court becomes absolutely powerless to change it.  The ironic part?  If the law were unconstitutional, who would strike it down?