HorsesAss.Org

Damn it. In plotting our conspiracy to violently overthrow the government of the United States, my comrades and I have been careful not to communicate via email or telephone because we know how easily these communications can be intercepted by a Bush administration unfettered by the First Amendment. But now we can’t even rely on old-fashioned snail mail anymore:

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

[…] Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court’s approval.

Yet in his statement Bush said he will “construe” an exception, “which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent … with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances.”

Yeah… yeah… I know what the righty trolls are going to say. I hate America. I love Osama bin Laden. Lefty wingbats like me are at least as dangerous as the terrorists we mollycoddle.

But I’d just like you righties to pause for a moment and imagine it was a President Clinton (Bill or Hillary) who was asserting the unitary executive doctrine and the power to “construe” legislation as he or she chooses. Imagine it was a President Clinton claiming the power to invade your privacy simply by declaring “exigent circumstances.”

Would you still defend the President? Or might you start wondering if the means by which the administration is fighting the War on Terror might be destroying the very democratic principles we’re attempting to defend?

I’m just askin’.

Phew. For a moment there, I thought I might have to agree with a post over on (un)Sound Politics. But then I followed through the link. What a relief.

Jim Miller takes issue with Seattle P-I editorial cartoonist David Horsey for this week’s Burning Question, blockquoting it for the convenience of (u)SP readers:

Unquestionably, there are good things resulting from the democratization of the media. The best bloggers are delving into issues and information that may be bypassed by professional journalists. But with everyone holding a virtual megaphone, will we be able to hear the wiser voices amid the din of full-throated free expression?

Here’s my Burning Question:

All things considered, is our understanding of the world made better or worse by an unfiltered cacophony of opinions?

Miller calls it a “revealing question” that displays a “dangerous misunderstanding”:

Freedom of speech is not something owned by public officials and “professional journalists”. It belongs to all of us, regardless of how wise David Horsey may think we are. It is up to the listener, or the reader, not some filter, however “professional”, to decide what should be believed — and what should not be believed.

The loss of their monopoly has hit many journalists hard. But to see one half wishing for filters on the freedom of others is still dismaying. I have criticized David Horsey more than once, but I have never said that he should be filtered. But he seems to believe that it might be better if I were.

Uh-huh.

What a pompous, paranoid load of crap.

The fact is, Horsey’s question isn’t “revealing” at all, and the only “misunderstanding” is the one that Miller willfully foists on his readers by presenting the question entirely out of context. If you click through the link and actually read Horsey’s piece (something I’m sure Miller understands a small minority of blog readers generally take the initiative to do) you’d understand that this week’s Burning Question is the final installment in Horsey’s long-running series.

The world of punditry has been democratized. The mainstream media are surrounded by non-professional competitors who employ a wide array of formats to exchange opinions unfiltered by editors or experts.

In this new context, finding a place to express a viewpoint is hardly a challenge. Thus, with that need more than met, Burning Questions will close up shop next Saturday to give way to new things.

Miller tsk-tskingly accuses Horsey of “half wishing for filters on the freedom of others” (totally oblivious to the fact that us bloggers are media filters in our own right,) but a fair reading of Horsey finds that he actually celebrates the new media, openly acknowledging that the Burning Question series has come to an end exactly because us bloggers have made it superfluous and outdated. That said, Horsey then goes on to raise some legitimate concerns about the blogosphere in general, and our comment threads in particular.

Yes, it does seem good that average folk can have their say, just like George Will and Paul Krugman. Yet, most times when I’ve read through a long string of comments posted on an online forum, I have come away with the same doubts I had about the amateur hotel reviewers.

Not just doubts, actually, but worries about the intellect and analytical skills (plus spelling ability) of my fellow citizens. In so much of this populist punditry there is an overabundance of ill-informed spouting off infused with incredible rudeness, paranoia, bias and bile.

Gee, I dunno… that seems to me like a pretty fair description of the comment threads on both (u)SP and HA. I’m not exactly sure what Miller finds so objectionable.

As for the claim that Horsey’s question is “revealing,” Miller ignores the basic conceit of posing a “Burning Question” in the first place. The whole point of the exercise is to spark debate. How could a question possibly be revealing if the very nature of the rhetorical device demands that it be controversial?

Jesus… what an idiotic and/or dishonest critique.

The irony is that by reading between the lines to portray Horsey as a status-quo-defending, patrician enemy of free speech, Miller pretty much confirms all of Horsey’s doubts about the “intellect and analytical skills” of us citizen bloggers. (Though I gotta admit, Miller’s spelling is dead on.) Unpoisoned by Miller’s paranoid analysis, I think the average reader would find that Horsey was actually saying some pretty darned flattering things about us bloggers.

Too flattering.

Apparently, state Senate Minority Leader Mike Hewitt (R-Walla Walla) didn’t get the message that the phrase “stay the course” is so yesterday.

At an Associated Press Legislative Forum held this morning in Olympia, Pete Callaghan of the Tacoma News Tribune asked the panel whether there was any “resistance” to Gov. Chris Gregoire’s proposal to delay the math WASL as a requirement for graduation. House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-Seattle) said he supported the governor’s proposal. But at around the 31:10 mark, Sen. Hewitt disagreed:

“Our caucus, and I think probably the House caucus as well, will tell you that we want to stay the course. The WASL scores are increasing, as are the math scores.”

That’s it. No problem here. Nothing to look at. Sure, a huge percentage of the state’s high school seniors are about to be denied a diploma, keeping them out of college and higher paying jobs, but… you know… stay the course.

To be fair, as Sen. Hewitt continues, he starts to sound a bit more nuanced, arguing that we need to evaluate the issue district by district. “One shoe does not fit all,” Sen. Hewitt tells the audience. But the question was straight forward: do you support the governor’s proposal to delay the math WASL requirement? And apparently, according to Sen. Hewitt, the official GOP position is “no.”

Whatever the merits of standards based teaching, something’s clearly not working right here in WA state. And to simply respond with “stay the course” in the face of a growing anti-WASL backlash is the kind of head-in-the-sand policy orthodoxy that has landed Sen. Hewitt and his fellow Republicans firmly in the minority.

A kid was shot to death today at Foss High School in Tacoma, Washington.

One of the arguments given by gun control proponents is that handguns make it really easy to take out aggressions on someone. It’s hard to find fault with that claim.

From 1999 to 2004, there were 70,200 people in the U.S. that died of gun-related homicide, which is a rate of 41 gun-related homicides per million people. (And this does not include gun-related suicides.)

Over the same time period, there were 2,927 people who died of terrorism—a rate of less than 2 terrorism-related deaths per million people.

Yet, somehow we’ve chosen a war on terror™ [sic] as our national obsession. And using that “war” as justification, we’ve weakened the Constitution and abandoned other fundamental American values, we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the effort, we’ve invaded other countries, and we’ve brought death, injury and violence into the lives of millions of innocent people.

My point is this: if we really wanted to make America safer, wouldn’t it be far more effective to launch a war on gun violence with the same resolve? I mean, that war would involve weakening the constitution, too, but I cannot imagine it would entail all the other bad side effects….

I suppose the PR folks at Microsoft thought it a savvy move to send free computers loaded with Vista software to dozens of tech-industry bloggers. But rather than generating glowing reviews, the Redmond software giant’s outreach efforts have created an online controversy, with charges of “payola” and “bribery” flying in all directions.

Microsoft’s efforts to woo influential bloggers by sending them free computers loaded with the Vista operating system is generating controversy, with some online writers attacking would-be Vista reviewers for taking what were tantamount to bribes, while recipients defend their editorial independence, arguing that journalism-style rules prohibiting such gifts are outdated.

[…] In total, Microsoft and AMD gave away 90 PCs, all loaded with the highest-end version of Windows Vista, the 64-bit Ultimate edition. Most received Acer Ferrari laptops that list for between US$2,000 and $2,400 at retail stores. Others received media center desktops made by Velocity Micro Inc.

Microsoft says it has “no expectation of any editorial payback,” and some of the bloggers who have benefited from the company’s largesse argue that professional journalism ethics simply don’t apply in an online world where many bloggers could not afford to review products if they had to pay for them themselves.

Hmm. If Microsoft were to send me a new Acer Ferrari laptop, I suppose I would be faced with quite an ethical quandary. On the one hand, accepting such a gift might compromise my credibility when writing about Microsoft or its new operating system. On the other hand my current laptop, a time-worn Apple iBook, is now over five years old.

So I guess the only way for me to adequately consider this controversy and determine for myself and my readers on which side I fall, is for Microsoft to send me a free computer too. Personally, I’d prefer a new MacBook Pro. (I understand that Vista runs fine within a copy of Parallels Desktop for Mac.) But I guess I’d take one of those Acer laptops if that’s all you have lying around.

So, hey Microsoft, drop me an email and I’ll give you my shipping address. And I absolutely promise you… no editorial payback.

Don’t you just love irony?

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he’d take his oath of office on the Koran — especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow’s ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We’ve learned that the new congressman — in a savvy bit of political symbolism — will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

Rep. Goode — who took Rep. Ellison’s election as an opportunity to warn his constituents that unless we “wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office” — represents Jefferson’s birthplace of Albemarle County Virginia.

Hmm. If we don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there might be more Thomas Jeffersons elected to office.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Really.

Take a much needed break from the sober realities of the holiday season, and join me for a night of hoppy beer and hopped up political debate.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

I don’t follow college football all that much but I gotta say, man… what a finish to the Salty Corn Chip Bowl last night between Boise State and Oklahoma. A hook-and-lateral to tie it up with 7 seconds left, and then a Statue of Liberty play on a two-point conversion to win it in overtime.

And then the star tailback proposes to the head cheerleader live on national television. (I’d love to follow up on that story 20 years from now.)

I’m not sure what possessed me to tune in, but I sure am glad I did.

Washington state’s minimum wage went up to $7.93 yesterday — an automatic cost-of-living adjustment — $2.78 higher than the federally mandated minimum wage of $5.15/hour paid just across the Idaho border. And according to an AP story in today’s Seattle Times, that’s great for minimum wage workers like James Randall, a University of Idaho student who lives in Moscow but delivers pizza 30 hours a week in Pullman.

“It’s kinda hard to make ends meet,” Randall said. “I’m just glad the state of Washington has tied the minimum [wage] to inflation. That way it’s advantageous to everyone.”

But of course, this article was written by a professional journalist, and thus there must be two sides (and usually only two sides) to every story. If our state’s higher minimum wage is good for workers on both sides of the border, then it must be bad for businesses here in Washington, right?

Yeah, well, so one Pullman business owner “thinks” while another supposes that it will “catch up to me eventually,” and that’s enough for the AP to spin the other side of the story. Of course there are tons of academic and government reports studying the economic impact of minimum wage hikes here and elsewhere, but why bother with hard facts and numbers when one can report anecdotal suppositions to back up your thesis?

Hmm. Well if this whole debate amounts to little more than a thought experiment, how about this angle: if a higher minimum wage is bad for Pullman businesses because it squeezes profits and forces prices higher, what kind of impact does it have on Idaho businesses who can’t attract and retain qualified employees like Randall while paying them only two-thirds the wage available just across the border? Workers are just as mobile as customers after all, so you think maybe WA’s minimum wage law is forcing wages up in Idaho towns all along the border? So wouldn’t that relieve some of the economic pressure on businesses in WA border towns?

Of course, I could do a little research to find some studies that back up my thesis, but I’m striving for journalistic professionalism here, so I wouldn’t want to stray from pure conjecture and supposition.

In fact, there is pressure on Idaho to raise its minimum wage and tie future increases to inflation, and just such a bill made some progress in the Idaho legislature last session.

Idaho’s minimum wage has been at the federal level of $5.15 an hour for about 10 years. A state bill to increase the wage to $6.15 an hour — and mandate yearly increases tied to inflation, like in Washington — died in an Idaho House committee this spring because some lawmakers feared it would lead to higher prices, increase unemployment rates and reduce incentives for low-paid workers to improve themselves.

That’s right, because we all know that, um… it’s not the employers who choose to pay a sub-subsistence wage that are at the root of the problem, but rather the lazy workers who choose to take these low-paid jobs. I mean, if we pay people like Randall a living wage, he’ll never have the incentive to improve himself. He’ll just drop out of college and deliver pizza for the rest of his life.

Yeah. Right.

I hope everyone had a great New Year’s Eve. I know I did, and if you listened to Goldy’s show and heard my call-ins, you know I did! Let’s just say that the lyrics to Auld Lang Syne turn into some mash-up of Def Leppard’s Pour Some Sugar On Me and ABBA’s Dancing Queen after a few Heinekins. You know you had a good time when you wake up in your bed with a pounding headache, and not in jail, or dead. Let that be a lesson to all you folks… take a cab. It’s cheaper than a Deferred Prosecution for DUI.

On to the links!

Blatheresolutions!!! Moderate-ish predictions! On the Road to 2008 checks predictions made one year ago. Democratic congress? Check! Local races go big for Dems? Check! Machines rise up to take their rightful place above humanity as the dominant species? Wrong on that one, Dan!

Chinchilla Blogging is back!!!

Dan Savage: Basketball is overrated.

Wingnut blogger Jonathan Gardner claims there has not been a single case of torture by American forces or our allies. Effin’ has the scoop.

Erica C. Barnett is 25 percent “male.” Since when does being the toughest reporter in Seattle make you guy-ish?

When I say the liberal interest groups should be more like conservative interest groups, this is what I’m taking about.

One day in 2002, Stefan Sharkansky started writing hit pieces on Rep. Nancy Pelosi. After Stefan declared victory against Pelosi and moved to Seattle, Pelosi was never heard from again. First Nancy Pelosi, then Chris Gregoire, and now Ron Sims, is there any progressive whose career is safe from Stefan’s cutlass of righteousness? (That’s cutlass the sword, not the car.)

Robert Reich writes about how the GOP foments cynicism, and how it helps their agenda.

UPDATE

I never thought I’d see the day: someone has questioned the Democratic credentials of Ivan Weiss (the chair of the rock-solid, top-notch 34th District Democrats). I don’t see eye to eye with Ivan on some things (viaduct!), but if ever there was a guy who gets it, it’s Ivan:

I won’t win many friends here with this opinion, but whatever the “progressive movement” is and whoever is to decide, it is not going anywhere without its vehicle, which is the Democratic Party. The “progressive movement” does not nominate any candidates that I am aware of, any more than the “religious right,” whose vehicle is the Republican Party, does.

The “progressive” movement should do like Howard Dean did a few years ago: if you don’t like the Democratic Party, take it over! A note to the diarist: when someone comments on your diary in a critical way, you shouldn’t knock them for commenting. If you don’t want comments from folks who disagree with you, don’t diary.

A last item from The Left Shue:

As we come to the end of this “Year of Transition” in Iraq, we note the death of the 3000th American service member to die as a result of duty in Iraq, the death of former president Gerald Ford – the man who brought us George HW Bush (CIA), Dick Cheney (Chief of Staff), and Donald Rumsfeld (Department of Defense), and Saddam Hussein – a man both embraced and despised by this country as it fit our purpose. However, as noted by Riverbend, perhaps the most significant “transition” is the loss of Iraq itself.

If anything, in ’06 we’ve seen most Americans turn against the war. Rep. Jack Murtha was right: the American people are ready for a change, perhaps more ready than their own leadership.

Oops. I’m an hour late with the post, but I’m on the air again today filling in for Ron & Don from 4pm to 7pm on Newsradio 710-KIRO.

Hour 1: Was Saddam Hussein’s death worth 3000 dead American soldiers and half a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money?

Hour 2: What is the stupidest thing you’ve ever done?

Hour 3: Can’t afford health insurance? Blame the insurance companies… and your politicians for not giving you (gasp) “socialized medicine.”

Maybe it’s just me. But this Seattle Times editorial, seemingly celebrating Washington State’s achievement of gender parity in politics, comes off as slightly misogynistic in the very last sentence:

Voters, as well as skilled politicians at several levels, understand that men do a very good job at a lot of things and, quite often, women do, too.

On Saturday I documented some ways that the Special Iraqi Criminal Tribunal—the extra-judicial Tribunal under which Saddam Hussein was convicted—was a sham. The root of the problem is that the U.S., while acting as an occupying power, needed to create the Tribunal for ideological reasons: to avoid the International Criminal Court so despised by Bush, and to ensure that capital punishment would be on the menu. The Tribunal was a sham in numerous ways:

1. The Tribunal was created by an occupying power, which is prohibited by long-standing treaties and conventions
2. The Tribunal’s process was an American style adversary-accusatorial system rather than an Iraqi style inquisitorial system (modeled after French law)
3. The Tribunal’s charges were in violation of the nullum crimen legal principle (and Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution)
4. The implementation of the tribunal included numerous procedural flaws like an indictment issued seven months into the trial

My point wasn’t to defend Hussein. Rather, I argued that the U.S. and Iraqis, in prosecuting a dictator for his abuse of judicial power, should have taken the moral and legal high ground, and set an example for the world of good democracy. The prosecution of Hussein should have been unimpeachable—not for Hussein’s sake, but for the sake of restoring some credibility for American democracy (you know, after illegally invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses) and to empirically establish legitimacy for the new Iraqi government.

So, we missed that badly needed opportunity.

Today’s New York Times further documents illegitimacy in carrying out the sentence:

The American role extended beyond providing the helicopter that carried Mr. Hussein home. Iraqi and American officials who have discussed the intrigue and confusion that preceded the decision late on Friday to rush Mr. Hussein to the gallows have said that it was the Americans who questioned the political wisdom—and justice—of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts that might have assured Mr. Hussein a more dignified passage to his end.

Uh-huh. The U.S. government had concerns and questions about what was going on. But, in the end, they handed over Hussein anyway.

That works for me about as well as the excuse “but…but…but, Your Honor, I really did have concerns and questions about the legitimacy of robbing that bank….”

One political concern was realized during the execution. A video of the hanging showed an…

…unruly, mocking atmosphere in the execution chamber.

This continued, on the video, through the actual hanging itself, with a shout of “The tyrant has fallen! May God curse him!” as Mr. Hussein hung lifeless, his neck snapped back and his glassy eyes open.

The cacophony from those gathered before the gallows included a shout of “Go to hell!” as the former ruler stood with the noose around his neck in the final moments, and his riposte, barely audible above the bedlam, which included the words “gallows of shame.” It continued despite appeals from an official-sounding voice, possibly Munir Haddad, the judge who presided at the hanging, saying, “Please no! The man is about to die.”

The Shiites who predominated at the hanging began a refrain at one point of “Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!”— the name of a volatile cleric whose private militia has spawned death squads that have made an indiscriminate industry of killing Sunnis — appending it to a Muslim imprecation for blessings on the Prophet Muhammad. “Moktada,” Mr. Hussein replied, smiling contemptuously. “Is this how real men behave?”

Of course, the issue isn’t about dignity for Hussein. The concern was that by coming off as a Shi’ite lynch mob, the execution further contributes to the sectarian divide in Iraq. It will fuel the civil war. It will translate into more dead and maimed Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. And that Hussein came off as dignified in the face of a lynch mob is a symbolic failure for the U.S. in “fostering democracy” in the Mideast.

The U.S. was correct when it…

…counseled caution in the way the Iraqis carried out the hanging. The issues uppermost in the Americans’ minds, these officials said, were a provision in Iraq’s new Constitution that required the three-man presidency council to approve hangings, and a stipulation in a longstanding Iraqi law that no executions can be carried out during the Id al-Adha holiday, which began for Iraqi Sunnis on Saturday and Shiites on Sunday.

It was Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki who pushed for an immediate execution. The largest snag for Maliki was that, by the Iraq constitution, he needed

…a decree from President Jalal Talabani, signed jointly by his two vice presidents, upholding the death sentence, and a letter from the chief judge of the Iraqi High Tribunal, the court that tried Mr. Hussein, certifying the verdict. But Mr. Talabani, a Kurd, made it known that he objected to the death penalty on principle.

Rather than adhering to the Iraqi constitution and law, Maliki developed a work-around.

The Maliki government spent much of Friday working on legal mechanisms to meet the American demands. From Mr. Talabani, they obtained a letter saying that while he would not sign a decree approving the hanging, he had no objections. The Iraqi official said Mr. Talabani first asked the tribunal’s judges for an opinion on whether the constitutional requirement for presidential approval applied to a death sentence handed down by the tribunal, a special court operating outside Iraq’s main judicial system. The judges said the requirement was void.

Apparently, everyone was willing to be convinced by the Tribunal judges who opined that the legislation creating the Tribunal (Law No. 10, passed on 9 Oct 2005) took precedence over Article 70 of the Iraqi constitution that requires the President to “[r]atify death sentences issued by the competent courts.” But, the Tribunal cannot override the Constitution; Article 92 prohibits “Special or exceptional courts.”

Without presidential ratification, the hanging violated the clear rule of law (as codified in the Iraqi constitution). It really was a lynching.

The fact that Iraqi law prohibits executions on holidays was never fully addressed. Instead, the Iraqis used simple psychological tricks on us to secure Hussein:

‘Who is going to execute him, anyway, you or us?’ The Americans replied by saying that obviously, it was the Iraqis who would carry out the hanging. So the Iraqis said, ‘This is our problem and we will handle the consequences. If there is any damage done, it is we who will be damaged, not you.’”

To this, the Iraqis added what has often been their trump card in tricky political situations: they telephoned officials of the marjaiya, the supreme religious body in Iraqi Shiism, composed of ayatollahs in the holy city of Najaf. The ayatollahs approved.

It is untrue that there would be no damage to the U.S. The U.S. needed the trial and execution of Hussein to be above reproach. There is only one way that the U.S. can achieve something resembling a “victory” in Iraq, and that would be to leave behind a functioning democracy.

Instead, we have replaced a lawless Sunni dictator with a lawless Shi’ite theocracy. And Iraq is led by a Prime Minister who has now committed one of the crimes that Hussein was guilty of: a lawless execution.

And to what end? What difference would it have made if Hussein’s execution had to wait for a week or wait for several years until a new President was elected?

None of the Iraqi officials were able to explain why Mr. Maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait.
[…]

But the explanation may have lain in something that Bassam al-Husseini, a Maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the BBC later. Mr. Husseini, who has American citizenship, described the hanging as “an Id gift to the Iraqi people.”

Hey, well, you know…whatever it takes for Happy Holidays.

It’s New Years Eve, and I can’t think of a better way to celebrate than to stay home tonight, turn on the radio, and tune in to “The David Goldstein Show” tonight from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. Subject to change, here are the topics for tonight’s show:

7PM: What will 2007 bring us? I’ll be making my predictions for the new year. Call in and give me yours.

8PM: Are you drinking and driving tonight? Well don’t. Sgt. Monica Hunter of the Washington State Patrol will join me for the hour to talk about the patrol’s stepped up DUI enforcement efforts this holiday weekend, and what you can expect if you’re pulled over and blow a .08. (It ain’t pretty.) We’ll also dispel a few popular myths about how to fool the breathalyzer.

9PM: Gen. JC Christian welcomes the end of the times. Gen. JC Christian of the far right-wing religious blog Jesus’ General comes back on the show to talk about the unique way he and his family celebrate the New Year, and to clue us in on his design proposal for the George W. Bush Presidential Library, and his plans to use robots to defeat Iran. Really.

Also, fellow HA blogger Will may call in from time to time with a live update on New Years Eve revelry from various Seattle hotspots. Won’t that be fun?

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

PROGRAMMING NOTE:
If you’re not too hung over, tune in to 710-KIRO tomorrow afternoon from 4PM to 7PM, when I’ll be filling in for Ron & Don.

Saddam Hussein wasn’t the only person to die in Iraq over the weekend. According to icasualties.org — which Reuters describes as “an authoritative Web site tracking war deaths” — the US military death toll hit the 3000 mark on December 28 with the death of Spec. Dustin R. Donica. According to the same web site, US military personnel have also suffered an additional 46,880 non-mortal casulaties.

The 111 US fatalities suffered in December was the highest monthly total since November 2004, and the third highest since the US invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Here’s hoping for a happier new year for US military personnel and their families.