PSoTD

I think the terrorists have figured that Americans are quite susceptible to applying reverse psychology. Why, if the terrorists are mocking Bush, that means they are really afraid of him! Anyone the terrorists mock I will support!

If terrorists want to keep Bush in unfettered power, they have to dance with Bush in just this fashion.

We'll see if they're right about Americans on election day.

President Bush suggested Thursday that Democrats don't have the stomach to fight the war on terror, battling back in the election-season clamor over administration intelligence showing terrorism spreading.

Dear America - quit worrying about the freaking fat guts of politicians, and start worrying about the addled brains of those in charge. Of course Bush would focus on the stomach. He can't afford a discussion about mental capabilities.

Democrats - please focus on fighting the War on Terrorism smarter. Ignore the bait about the stomach - it's a poison pill. Focus on the brain. We need to tackle terrorism smarter. Period.

Isn't this terrorism?

Have you seen any news account call it terrorism?

If Duane Morrison had been from Iraq, and done the exact same thing, would it have been terrorism?

Isn't this terrorism?

I just don't understand why Senators - but particularly, Democratic Party Senators, would vote to allow the dumbest President in the history of our nation to define torture. The guy can barely talk. Why the deference? Utter abdication of responsibility by the Congress.

Yesterday I asked what inhibits people's blog content choices the most. A few responded, but for most this may be a question that may take a while to consider. I know for me, there are financial reasons - business, that limit what I blog about. I'm also sensitive to my choice to remain semi-anonymous, which limits choices. In general, I also choose not to blog about personal relationships.

I think consideration of this question, and a public statement of areas in which a blogger feels inhibited to go with content, can be quite useful for bloggers - an examination of the choices they do and don't make in posting. I'd like to see more bloggers make such a post, if only for a reference point on the blogger's intent and expectations.

Well, that, and as an example for journalists.

What does Tim Russert feel inhibited about covering in his programming? What does Chris Matthews feel inhibited about? What about Nedra Pickler? David Broder? There's no way for the public to know what potential stories, or topics, that reporters and talking heads won't participate in because of personal reasons. It's not like these folks have to spend valuable air time or print space stating these inhibitions. Perhaps it should be a standard practice that all "talent" in the news industry post such items on the Web - it is a cheap delivery mechanism, and allows the public to frame the personality of the news deliverer in the context of coverage.

I don't buy that those in the news industry are without personal inhibitions that affect their choices. I also don't accept that coverage choices are an "open process". Pretending that it's all open isn't open.

What is open is being public about the areas in which a journalist does not feel comfortable - not due to ignorance, but due to personal experience - in covering. And I think it would be a healthy process for those in the news industry as well.

Check out Shakes' Ode to McCain.

Bad things are coming out of the woodwork concerning George Allen. Most of it has to do with him. But a tiny part of it, I think, is in preventing the George W. Bush model again. There's no way that an imbecile - and Allen's behavior, if true, is imbecilic among other things - should be in position to have the stars align so that he or she could win the nomination of his party for President. Lesson learned with George W. Bush. And so, the powers that be, the people who know stuff and the people who suspect stuff, about candidates without adequate brain power and usage to be Presidentin', are going to shake those potential candidates until they are damaged beyond possible candidacy for the highest office in the land - before they even run for it.

If only the former friends of George W. Bush had hammered him with the truth in 1998.

Sure seems like a great niche for some self-appointed television "self-help" guru.

I watched a fellow on TV today discuss how he was an Independent, but could be a moderate Republican or a conservative Democrat, and that the extremes of both parties were destroying the nation and the center of the political spectrum - the moderates - need to stand up and take over.

I find such language incredibly stunning. I don't understand how the "extreme left" can be blamed for much of anything, in as much as they don't really have any power. Last I checked, the federal government is pretty much in the hands of conservative Republicans, including the extremes of that party.

So why is the left being lumped into this at all? The fact is, I understand the anger of the left. We're out of power, and things are awful, and are in decline. I feel this nation has been hijacked. Anyone who has been paying attention for the past five years has to have some of that feeling. Perhaps some in the left might be guilty of incredibly impassioned language. But what have they actually done - to "destroy the nation" - the past five years? If the center feels that the nation has been damaged the past five years, it has to get off its ass and assign blame to who deserves it - those in power, and those who put those people in power. And that includes the center.

And then put them out of power.

This "extremist" blathering is just more labeling of people and no ideas. This time, however, it's the center labeling the poles, rather than one pole labeling another. This isn't better politics. It's the same politics, just a consolidation of targets. You can't argue that governing needs to be inclusive and blanket attack folks at various spectrums - especially when some of those folks at some of those spectrums haven't had a say in governing in five years. You can attack anti-inclusivity - and that should be done. But you can't attack points on the spectrum without being as guilty of anti-inclusivity as those you attack.

Ridiculous to speculate until confirmed.

Call me ridiculous. But as I read it, if this is true, it is obviously welcome news for the United States but not necessarily good news for Bush. One - he was allegedly in Pakistan, a supposed ally. 2 - Bush can't take claim for taking him out with Typhoid, can he? 3 - Hard to predict what the responses in the Middle East will be if this pans out. 4 - With the figurehead of 9/11 gone, would Americans be more likely to separate the issues of terrorism and the Iraq War in November?

according to Rasmussen.

From the White House today:

Q Mr. President, after 9/11, would the United States have actually attacked Pakistan if President Musharraf had not agreed to cooperate with the war on terrorism? He says that the United States was threatening to bomb his country back into the stone age.

And, President Musharraf, would Pakistan have given up its backing of the Taliban if this threat had not come from Armitage?

PRESIDENT BUSH: First, let me -- she's asking about the Armitage thing. The first I heard of this was when I read it in the newspaper today. You know, I was -- I guess I was taken aback by the harshness of the words.

All I can tell you is, is that shortly after 9/11, Secretary Colin Powell came in and said, President Musharraf understands the stakes and he wants to join and help route out an enemy that has come and killed 3,000 of our citizens. As a matter of fact, my recollection was that one of the first leaders to step up and say that the stakes have changed, that attack on America that killed 3,000 of the citizens needs to be dealt with firmly, was the President. And if I'm not mistaken, Colin told us that, if not the night of September the 11th, shortly thereafter. I need to make sure I get my facts straight, but it was soon.

I don't know of any conversation that was reported in the newspaper like that. I just don't know about it.

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF: I would like to -- I am launching my book on the 25th, and I am honor-bound to Simon and Schuster not to comment on the book before that day. (Laughter.)

Honestly, Washington Press Corps - it isn't funny. Are you going to let every head of state use such a reason to not answer a question?

I'll tell you, Duke's Political Science department ought to try to convince this guy to quit mentioning where he's from, because he's convincing a generation of bloggers that they're teaching students to be the world's biggest whiners.

It seems to me that some enterprising liberal superblogger - one with the resources for such a project - should begin to compile every available photo of Bush and McCain together that is out there. They should be available for bloggers to peruse online. McCain has done plenty, including the shrug on the Geneva Convention standards, that should attach him to Bush. The "maverick" label is undeserved and we have two years to attach McCain to Bush more effectively.

And I do mean "we". There are too many wuss Democratic Party Senators that will piss all over any national message to emphasize McCain's attendance to Bush. Too many journalists will do the same. It will have to be a grassroots effort, or it won't happen at all.

I found the White House bio of Chester A. Arthur a bit interesting.

Arthur demonstrated as President that he was above factions within the Republican Party, if indeed not above the party itself. Perhaps in part his reason was the well-kept secret he had known since a year after he succeeded to the Presidency, that he was suffering from a fatal kidney disease. He kept himself in the running for the Presidential nomination in 1884 in order not to appear that he feared defeat, but was not renominated, and died in 1886. Publisher Alexander K. McClure recalled, "No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired ... more generally respected."

We live in the era of antiChesterAArthurarianism.

PR

If George W. Bush has proven one thing, it's this - if a President cannot be convincing on his or her own with their own PR, both to Americans and to the world at large, that President will be seen as a failure to the majority of the world.

The President is America's top PR person. Because of that, the President must be able to present to the world an image that America can be proud of. That image is one of the tools the President can - and must - use in order to sell America's values and expectations around the world.

One term - four years - is a long time for one person to be on such a stage. The essence of a person will shine through no matter how good the handlers are - there is just no way to gloss over the character of a person under such scrutiny for so long. The Bush people tried. It can't be done.

In 2000, the Bush choice was for a "strong but dumb" character over whatever the perception was of Gore. Bush was seen as an "everyman", the kind of guy you'd "like to have a beer with"... which were code words warning America that Bush was ordinary, at best. Not enough of America took the warning. And America's image, saddled with Bush as the daily advertisement, has been diminished daily for 6 years.

It's not that Bush's policies weren't bought by a Congressional rubber stamp. It is that almost every one of them has run into problems early on after becoming practice - usually quite foreseeable - and forced Bush into re-selling them - and over and over and over again, Bush can't do it. In this country, Bush benefits because the members of Bush's party push many of the same things, and usually better, than Bush does, and so the message gets through.

But internationally, that doesn't work. Russia doesn't give a shit about John Boehner's speeches. Iranians don't have a clue who Denny Hastert is. Even McCain's statements barely make the radar out of country, and he's the expected frontrunner for the Republicans in 2008. It's up to Bush. And Bush can barely speak. Convincing a nation of something? Other than force, Bush has no tools. And force isn't "convincing".

American cannot afford this again. We couldn't afford it this time. Voters have to consider the PR capability of the candidate - can this person actually sell the nation, and the world, on his or her policies, and be the lead person in that push? And if the answer is no - then the vote must be no against that person.

The Republican Party needs to lose the next couple of elections, for the good of the country and the Republican Party.

With the Official Seal Generator...

Elayne finds the neatest things...

It seems like it has been said many times lately that the military wins battles, but politics wins wars.

Doesn't it seem that the Republican Party - the party in charge of Congress and the Executive Branch of this government - spends considerably more effort and brainpower in political battles to beat the Democratic Party in electoral campaigns than they do to win either the War on Terrorism or the War in Iraq? What do most of the actions of the Republican Congress and the actions of the President seem to be focused towards? Beating the Democratic Party.

So who do they think is the enemy again?

I was too young to really understand the John F. Kennedy phenomenon at the time - the Camelot image. Sure, his wife was beautiful, he had young kids, he was handsome. But I wonder how much of his legend came because he was also optimistic and hopeful, and came after 8 years of General/President Eisenhower and Nixon rule. When I think of "the Cold War", the two terms of Eisenhower come to mind first. That period of time in America seems grey to me, although, again, I don't remember it first hand.

Obviously, the Bush II period has been darker than grey, and makes me wonder if Americans are ready to embrace an optimistic, hope-filled candidate. Is that what also happened in 1976 with Carter? And how important is it for America to have children living in the White House again? Does that add to the hopefulness - and remind us regularly of hope for the future, as current and future generation of Americans reside in the most important house in the land?

I'm not saying we need a Danny Kaye-ish candidate, but I do think that the times we live in seem to be ripe for a candidate like John Edwards.

Term search at Whitehouse.gov:

31 results for "Support the Troops"
7 results for "Support the Republicans"
3 results for "Support the Citizens"
0 results for "Support the Voters"

How many times do we have to hear "Support the Troops" in the news media?

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment, but frankly, it is a given. I just think we need to start hearing "Support the Citizens" a lot more. What is the primary objective of the troops? To protect the citizens - and the will of the citizens?

The will of the citizens, at this point in time, is to develop an exit strategy for Iraq. A July Gallup poll found that roughly 2 in 3 Americans want the U.S. to exit Iraq. Significantly, 31 percent wanted the exodus to begin immediately. Where is the support for these citizens? We are suggested to be treasonous, or schizophrenic. We are not respected. We are not supported. There are arguments for setting a date for withdrawal. There are strategies that go along with withdrawal. They certainly aren't any worse than the "more of the same" approach we are being promised. And yet, these ideas are refused responsible consideration.

I acknowledge, for the next two months, that it is the power of our action that prevents that respect and support. Polls do not represent the power of the commitment of a vote, and certainly aren't even close to the commitment of volunteering for the military. But an election in which candidates are elected as a rejection of Bush's "strategy" in Iraq must be listened to. It must be respected. The citizens must be supported.

So, news media... Support the Citizens. And, of course, everyone vote.

Who has jurisdiction?

The U.S. Department of Justice is suing a Connecticut state agency, saying it cannot force two telecommunications companies to answer questions about whether they provided customer records to the federal government.

The lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday, says the state Department of Public Utility Control overstepped its authority when it ordered AT&T and Verizon to answer questions from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU petitioned the state DPUC to investigate whether the telecommunications providers disclosed customer phone records to the federal government without a court order, warrant or subpoena since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The ACLU has called the disclosures illegal government spying, and launched a nationwide campaign in May in an attempt to determine which companies complied with government requests for the records.

Wow. By 7.5 points, according to Zogby.

Nationally, 9/11 is the saddest day of the year. Nothing else is even close - not Memorial Day, or Pearl Harbor Day, or April 12th, the first day of attack in the Civil War.

It's not just because so many people died due to the most heinous crime committed in our lifetimes. It's not just because many of the mastermind criminals behind it are still at large, and Bin Laden is still mocking this nation today. It's not just because this nation's government has stumbled - continually - from one incomplete effort to another since 9/11, small and large, displaying to the world the slow humbling of a giant in eclipse. What have we resolved in the past five years? Catch bin Laden? Catch the anthrax killers? Clean up Afghanistan? Fix Iraq? Fix WTC? Financially strengthen our nation? Heal divisions in our nation? What have we achieved?

It's all those things, and more. September 11th is a sad day. The past five years have been sad years for our nation. Petty. Vengeful. Empty. Bankrupting. Self-destructive.

Maybe this isn't the Great Depression. But it has been the Great Unhappiness, or the Great Dismay... Clinton declared himself The Man from Hope. The Bush era has seemed like The Ban of Hope. Can anyone honestly say they are less worried - less concerned - less depressed about the future of the nation today than they were in August 2001? Especially anyone that hopes to have another 30 - 50 years living in this nation?

We mourn the loss of so many innocent souls on September 11. But as time goes on, it feels like we're mourning the loss of our country's health as well. We shouldn't accept it as permanent. We have to find a way to get better as a nation. What we're doing is not working. After five years, we have to start trying some new strategies. And in order to do that, we have to accept new leaders. Our nation, more than anything, needs hope again. Today it seems that hope is flickering, an old candle greatly in need of replacement. We need hope that shines brightly like a roaring bonfire, beckoning all to warm themselves at the edge. We need leaders that can inspire such hope.

If we really believe our nation stands for values that should remain eternal, we greatly need a transfusion of life blood - and that is hope.

From Andrew Sullivan:

Next week, I'm informed via troubled White House sources, will see the full unveiling of Karl Rove's fall election strategy. He's intending to line up 9/11 families to accuse McCain, Warner and Graham of delaying justice for the perpetrators of that atrocity, because they want to uphold the ancient judicial traditions of the U.S. military and abide by the Constitution. He will use the families as an argument for legalizing torture, setting up kangaroo courts for military prisoners, and giving war crime impunity for his own aides and cronies. This is his "Hail Mary" move for November; it's brutally exploitative of 9/11; it's pure partisanship; and it's designed to enable an untrammeled executive.

I'm just not buying any of this. Way too over the top, even for this White House. Destined to fail, and doomed to tear apart the Republicans in the process. I think this is a head fake - whatever the REAL unveiling will be will seem tame in comparison, and easier for moderate Republicans to accept.

The brand looks ready to suffer a self-inflicted, but catastrophic, injury tonight.

Would he still be smiling?

What's more important:

To get The Path to 9/11 historically accurate?
or
To broadcast The Path to 9/11 on September 11th?

Harvey Keitel says ABC knew there were problems and went ahead.

I wonder, too.

So what is Tony Blair waiting for before stepping down?

Is he waiting until the November elections in America? Is he trying to just prop up Bush for a few more months?

I don't get these people.

I don't think these people get the grassroots.

If these people don't get their heads around the message voters sent in Connecticut - lip service isn't going to cut it - the Democratic Party is going to be a LOT smaller in the future.

It's days like these where I can't decide which Joe - Lieberman or Biden - is the bigger problem for the Democrats. It is THAT close.

Yes, soldiers sacrifice, but rest of us want tax cuts

As a fellow Vietnam War veteran I could not agree more with the portion of the Aug. 30 Opinion page article by Terry Garlock (“We are not earning our soldiers’ sacrifices”) relating to the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of all of our armed forces who have served, are serving, or will serve in Iraq.

They and their families, friends and loved ones constitute the one segment of our society which is truly sacrificing in the conduct of military operations in Iraq.

What is unfortunate is that while the aforementioned are paying dearly , with over 2,600 dead and 20,000 wounded, the vast majority of the citizens of this great nation are not sacrificing at all.

Many citizens of this country, while, in large part, paying lip service to the sacrifices made by those fighting in Iraq while going about their daily routines, have been convinced by our elected national representatives that this nation can conduct a war that will undoubtedly cost in the neighborhood of $500 billion or more before our involvement ends while receiving a reduction in their income taxes.

The argument of the politicians goes something like this: “It is your money and you can spend it more wisely than the government,” and, “Lower taxes make the economy grow.”

Asking the American public if they would prefer lower to higher taxes mirrors the reply of a 5-year-old when asked if he/she would prefer a candy bar of their choice ( tax cut) or a bowl of healthy vegetables ( personal economic sacrifice).

The truly sad part of this tax equation is that the upper 1 percent of income earners receive 40 percent of the tax benefit while the remaining 99 percent are barely able to keep up with the cost of yearly inflation.

We, as a nation, have somehow been conned into believing that all is serendipitous, do not worry, it all works out in the “long run.”

Wrong! As economists are wont to relate, “We are all dead in the long run.” Someone will pay for the staggering national debt related to the funding of the Iraq war (Remember one of the early “trust me” predictions prior to March 2003: This war will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues?) and it will not be you or I; it will be our children and their children for generations to come.

As we slowly approach the November elections, please ask those running for office, regardless of party, just how they propose to lift the burden of debt from future generations.

The men and women of the armed forces have made, and will continue to make, their painful sacrifices to ensure the security of this nation. They are doing their part to provide a viable national security. What will the rest of us do to ensure the future economic security of this great nation for generations to come?

Finally, a word concerning the sacrifices of the men and women of our armed forces. Someday, somehow the military involvement of the United States in Iraq will come to an end.

At that point in time we will have to judge if the cost of our military and monetary sacrifice was an essential component in providing a stable, democratic Iraq which will be a shining beacon of light in a troubled part of the world; or, will the Iraq left behind, be it democratic or autocratic, be no more of a friend, and actually a greater threat, to the United States and our allies than the regime of Saddam Hussein. Let us hope and pray for the former outcome.

Wade J. Williams
Colonel, USA (Ret)
Peachtree City, Ga.

Here it is verbatim. Is this really worthy of Bush telling America that a detainee at Guantanamo told an interrogator:

"I'll never forget your face. I will kill you, your brothers, your mother, and sisters."

Hey, I wonder if that line will be in ABC's horseshitamentary? No wonder the networks didn't pre-empt their soap operas for Bush's speech - the writing is better in the soap operas.

Glad Tom Ridge could find a way to make money helping the nation. Of. Albania.

I guess I didn't realize that Tom Ridge was expert in so many things.

Ridge's main priority will be to help Albania meet its goal of joining NATO in 2008, Berisha said. Ridge has also been hired to help Albania attract U.S. investment, fight money laundering and reform its justice system, he said.

The former Pennsylvania governor will also help the country develop its agriculture and information technology sectors, Berisha said.

And he's going to do it all from the comfort of his own home...

Under the agreement, Ridge will make occasional visits to Albania, but will primarily work with the government from the United States, Sejamini said. Experts employed by Ridge will also provide advice, he said, but gave no details.

Sounds like blogging isn't the only work you can do in your pajamas...

Can't we all just agree that it's a Horseshitamentary? (Congratulations ABC on developing this genre...)

What would Jesus do if he was a terrorist hostage?

I am very encouraged by the number of "tagged" bloggers that posted their thoughts about Labor Day, and the depth of those posts. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for bloggers for this holiday. Perhaps Labor Day can become more valuable as a focal point for labor policy because bloggers want to make it so. Perhaps, in some way, bloggers can do their share to resurrect Labor Day to the status that we perceive that it once was. Perhaps, if we continue to prod each other's thoughts about Labor Day, we'll see shared possibilities that we can work together towards.

On the other hand, perhaps we'll revert to just seeing it as a day off and let it go at that. It is our decision as bloggers. This year's request was a last-second test of how interested bloggers are in the topic. Based on the depth of the sentiment of some of those that participated, I think it's worth doing something more next year for Labor Day, and over the course of the year I hope we all can make suggestions and blog about the possibilities of just that.

One of the keys to that would be to try to establish a more specific meaning of the day. That takes consensus, and shared experience. Several bloggers noted the lack of such shared meaning. Perhaps Ole Blue the Heretic said it best:

"I realize that Holidays have significance of some sort, but for ourselves it must have meaning too, because it makes the better in some way."

This while admitting that Labor Day "has really never meant anything to me about the true meaning of Labor Day..." Ole Blue is probably in our majority. And he shows us that there is so much work left to do if Labor Day is ever to really mean anything for workers and labor other than a possible day off.

Labor Day is seen as almost old-fashioned in a way. Many bloggers, such as I've Made a Huge Tiny Mistake, recognize that for those that work in the service industry, there really isn't a day off. For those in the service industry, it's almost a "cruel joke".

Many bloggers recognize that workers are losing some of their position with employers, as are unions. What ever happened to "Look for the Union Label"? Policy, both in government and private industry, continually eats away at the workers' benefits and weakening unions. What can be done by bloggers to change that?

For those that are unemployed, Labor Day may serve as a bitter reminder of just that. Shakes writes with honesty about that. Perhaps we celebrate Labor Day improperly. Perhaps, for Labor Day, employers should hire - not give the day off. I guess I wonder - what are employers celebrating with the day off for Labor Day? What do they see as the benefit?

My appreciation to sumo merriment and The Opinion Mill for some history of the day and the labor movement. And everyone should review what the labor movement has given us.

And wonder - shouldn't we be learning and relearning this somewhere, on a regular basis? Where are the institutions to teach and instill this knowledge?

Bloggers have the intelligence and creativity to change these things, if we wish, but it requires focus and effort. That crucible of intelligence and creativity and focus and effort for Labor Day and labor issues does not really exist today - on Labor Day, 2006 - and all you have to do is go to Google News or Memeorandum and you'll see the evidence of that vacuum. Or, more specifically, no evidence of that formula effectively speaking out. Today's news is dominated by Steve Irwin and Iraq and election scenarios. Yes, David Sirota and Nathan Newman make points that are newsworthy, but on Labor Day - the official, federally paid holiday - shouldn't there be more stories to educate or lift up labor and workers? Isn't it time to do more - and make union in our efforts as bloggers?

At this point I have about enough energy to link all those who wrote about Labor Day based on my request last week. I recommend giving ALL a read...:

Fact-esque: Labor Creates All Wealth
Ole Blue the Heretic: Labor Day Meaning
I've Made a Huge Tiny Mistake: “What Does Labor Day Mean To You?”
Loaded Mouth: What does Labor Day mean to you?
Crushed by Inertia: Todayborday is Labor Day
Shakespeare's Sister: Labor Day
State of the Day: Labor Day Tag
Ang's Weird Ideas: PSoTD What Does Labor Day Mean To You?
No More Apples: HAPPY LABOR DAY, Y'ALL
Daddy Democrat: On Labor Day
Sumo Merriment: How Labor Day Came To Be...And What It Means...
The Culture Ghost: On Going Labor Day Post
Rook's Rant: What Labor Day Means To Me
Fester's Place: Labor Day Thoughts
Bark Bark Woof Woof: Labor Day
What Do I Know?: Hard Working Americans
Mockingbird's Medley: LABOR DAY IN THE 21st CENTURY...
The Opinion Mill: Labor Day: Back to the future
Rox Populi: Labor Day
Annie's Annals: What does Labor Day mean to me?
Masson's Blog: Labor Day: What does it mean to me?
Can't Keep Quiet: What Does Labor Day Mean to Me
GnostiNews: What does Labor Day mean to you?
Audacity: Labor Day Thoughts
Froth Slosh B'Gosh: Labor Day
Left in Aboite: Labor Day reflections
The Donnybrook: What Does Labor Day Mean To You?
Upper Left: I may not be all that...

If I somehow missed your post, please let me know so I can include it. There's some great historical information, some really interesting personal perspectives, and a general sense of loss about the holiday amongst many of us. I'll post more as my head clears.

Everyone who is a worker is a consumer of some sort. Almost everyone who is a consumer has work in either their future, current, or past tense lifestyles. They are related - the amount we are valued determines consumption to a point. But rarely do workers use that relationship to their advantage. There is no "Working Consumer Union", with the stated goal of improving the workers' world through consumerism.

I'm not an economist, and am speaking out of ignorance, but there seems to be a great need for a popularly appreciated formula of risk, applied knowledge, and human labor value in determining reward as it pertains to the employees within the entire hierarchy of any organization. I understand there's a lot of room for variance. Still needed.

There's a great sense of patriotism related to Labor Day. This weekend I heard fireworks a couple of different times. I saw emails saying we should fly the flag. Okay, fine, but Labor Day is a universal concept to my way of thinking, and the American worker will be better off when the Chinese worker and the Indonesian worker and the Haitian worker and every other nation's workers get the kinds of worker benefit - hours, safety, fairness - that we fought for in our own workplaces 100 or 75 or 50 years ago. A great way for unions to be patriots? Export those ideals.

HotPoop.com or whatever they call it...

Attention Thomas Kean Jr., Joe Lieberman, etc.:

I think a call for Don Rumsfeld to resign WITHOUT THE CALL FOR BUSH TO FIRE HIM is a sign that you are not willing to take on Bush on the big issues. If you believe that Rumsfeld needs to leave, that should be the call, not a parsing that he resign. Bush has said several times that he believes Rumsfeld is serving him well. If you don't agree with that, you don't agree with Bush - so say so.

Attention media covering bozos that say Rumsfeld should resign but do not say that he should be fired: ask them why they make the distinction, and after they make the distinction, ask them what the point is of requesting Rumsfeld to resign would be. It's really only two more questions, surely you have enough breath and writing energy to ask the question and record the response.

Ezra Klein has a point. The Dems are in good position to pick up 4 seats in the U.S. Senate, but that's not enough. Of course, macaca-esque statements could put more Republican "safe" seats at risk, so the question is...

When do Republican "safe" Senate incumbents shut down their public operations? When do they try to run out the game? No more press conferences, no more public appearances... I bet, for some, within 30 days.

Goodnight, Bob O'Connor, Mayor of Pittsburgh.

On Monday I hope to highlight many of the quality postings from this topic "tag". There's some great stuff being posted, and I think it's valuable discussion. Thanks to all that are participating.

Almost every year of my life, I have looked at Labor Day as some kind of marker of the end of summer. The public school system trains us this way, as it is the bell that rings in school around most of the country - either school starts right before or right after the holiday.

The vacation industry also reinforces that thought - many vacation accomodations have summer and then post-Labor Day prices, as demand drops off when kids return to school. And so, vacation is often thought of as something that occurs between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

Labor Day began as a way to rally workers to improve their lot with employer interests. As I posted earlier, 100 years ago unions won the acceptance of the 8-hour work day, which is something most take for granted as a standard - although today, it is more likely a goal than a reality. And yet, there will be no major celebrations, no publicly celebrated parties, no great public acknowledgement of this anniversary of the 8-hour work day, which brought rise to greater offtime and the leisure, information, entertainment and other industries that have been rewarded by it.

Last year I started wondering - what is the point of the federal holiday of Labor Day? What are people celebrating? I *think* I understand what the Federal Government believes citizens are celebrating with Thanksgiving, with Christmas, with Presidents Day, etc. But what is the belief - and reality - of our national celebration next Monday?

For some, a three day weekend. The end of summer. The return to school. No mail. A day of work while recognizing that others get the day as a paid holiday. All that and more, and yet, I suspect most Americans do not think even one minute about "labor" during the Labor Day holiday weekend.

I'm beginning to have sad feelings about this. It's not sad towards Americans, many of which are one or two generations removed from any widely recognized labor practice advancements that would improve their lot in life. No, it's sad towards the vested interests whose responsibility, I believe, should have been to focus the holiday for the purposes of the cause. Vested interests focus the Christmas holiday for the population, vested interests focus the 4th of July for the popuulation. But vested interests - primarily the labor institutions that are supposed to be advancing the causes of their working membership - have not advanced Labor Day. Alternatively, perhaps, the employer vested interests are succeeding - as the watering down of Labor Day as the de facto "End of Summer" holiday, any potential launchpad for initiatives for the working class is camouflaged, any potential bullhorn is muted. In fact, union-opposing interests use the holiday as a point to attack unions.

In any case, Labor Day as a celebrated holiday about labor and working is practically unexperienced.

I think it is a failure of creativity and a failure of focus that Labor Day has fell to such disrepair. Perhaps there's a reason why the garden of Labor doesn't grow for unions, and Labor Day is just an annual reminder of that. I don't know. But I do know that labor - and the pursuit of improving the lot of workers - could use this holiday much better to promote goals. And I don't think unions are equipped to do that.

So what to do? I have two differing thoughts on where our country should go from here with Labor Day.

The first is - an effort to end Labor Day as a national holiday. I'd like to see a national politician suggest doing just that. Let's have a debate on the merits. Why do we have it? What should we be doing with it? How much does it cost? What is the benefit? Do we just want to have an "End of Summer" holiday and leave it at that? I think we could use the debate - if only to strengthen our own ideas as to what labor is and what workers deserve. Not unions. Workers.

Of course, I really don't want the holiday eliminated. I want it celebrated and used like Christians use Christmas and lovers use Valentines Day - to promote what is good and beneficial to the cause. But that doesn't mean political speeches, and it doesn't mean proclamations and legislative resolutions and other meaningless folderol that masquerade as attention.

That means creative people, doing creative things, to promote creative benefits and value for the working class.

You know what does have the creativity to make Labor Day a real holiday for workers? The blogosphere. You know what has some outreach capability? The blogosphere. You know what could drive Labor Day into a higher profile annual marketing spot for improving actual specifics of every day working?

I think you do. And I think we should. Or else we should put Labor Day the official holiday to rest.

Apparently, anti-union forces see Labor Day as a great time to promote anti-union discussion.

Ben, Ben, Ben...

FBI agents combed the offices of six Alaska state lawmakers on Thursday as part of a criminal investigation, according to local news reports and lawmakers not targeted in the probe.

State Sen. Tom Wagoner said FBI warrants showed the agents were seeking information on the states's largest oil service company, VECO, and the recently passed overhaul of state oil-production taxes. Among the lawmakers who received a warrant from the FBI was state Senate President Ben Stevens, a Republican who is the son of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, the news reports and other lawmakers said.