Why trust him in the 10th? You had Bradford (got the final out) and Oliver to go at least an inning. Surely not aces, but apparently you trust them more than Julio. So, why? I don't understand. The Yanks blew a second game late btw, so are 1-2. In fact, they too put Procter in the second game in a thankless position before he was ready (didn't pitch for a week, dealing with baby being ill) though they had other options.
The decision by Massachusetts to require universal health care looks promising -- the devil is in the details, but state experimentalization and security is where broad social movements often begin. Also, in the news is a (shocking) NYT piece on how useful eating together as a family turns out to be, even if it is often hard to juggling everyone's different schedules and so forth.
But, obvious things are useful to talk about as well, and it does underline a broader point on the social value of meals as a whole. For instance, the various messages sent by the "t.v. dinner" was remarked upon in the 1950s when it first was introduced. Also, comments were made on the ingredients of box cakes -- housewives did not want them too easy, they wanted to consider themselves actually doing something. So, the company required the addition of eggs or something.
As to obvious, the Libby prosecution has turned up news that he was authorized by the President (via the Vice President) to selectively release formerly classified data to Judith Miller. As with the "shocking" (as in surprising ... it is also on some level shocking) news that the President actually wanted war, this really is not surprising.* But, there are tons of things out there that people know, but do not really discuss.
This is a major way to promote falsehood, so reports of the Libby variety here points to a changing of the conversation. Ironically, Libby wants to change the conversation too: he was charged for misleading/lying to investigators, not releasing classified information. So, authorization does not save him, except from further charges. But, the willing to be confused can be.
[Thus, even those who should have known better, was honestly surprised at the length of the Bush Administration's incompetence and heavyhanded authoritian government. But, I read Molly Ivins' book Shrub before the election of 2000, and it foreshadowed things pretty well.
I thought the guy an idiot, but the other scary stuff was good enough to keep from voting him as well. But, even in 2004, people of good will could lie to themselves. Bush was really flawed and all, but Kerry was worse. This is the net result of knowing the truth, but failing to honestly and forthrightly discuss it. A philosophy that helped in days of segregation as well -- in fact, honestly discussing it was in bad form. Maybe, a bit traitorous.]
The basic understanding that the President misled us into law is now accepted as current wisdom. The rub is we do with this knowledge ... most do not seem to want to truly face facts. Generally, the sentiment seems to be that what he did was basically in bad form, or at worst rather upsetting. I'm not exactly sure what to compare it to, but surely (as reported in a blurb at the end of a NYT story reporting a teen victim of Internet predators testifying in Congress) many would be more appalled at the deputy press secretary of Homeland Security trolling for teen girls on the Internet. (Yet again, it was actually some middle age guy or something -- unfortunately, a governmental agent). That is disgusting. What the President did is worthy of "concern."
This is shocking. It amazes me really that we (as in progressive sorts) feel quite comfortable talking about how the President misled/lie us into war and other nasty things. But, if this is true, it is no small matter of political dispute. It is not just a government official doing things we ideologically find horrid -- like mistreating gays or having a lousy welfare policy. It hits to the core of legitimacy. Thus, a censure, at the very least, is mandatory. Now, I am leery of censures that label a President a law-breaker, since it reeks of a bill of attainder.
So, maybe a resolution underlining how Congress feels the President violated basic separation of power commands (a political "crime" of sorts, but not criminal per se) is more appropriate. But, this is a special situation ... in fact, really, impeachment investigations are appropriate. I know what that means. On some level, it scares me -- the population, for instance, clearly does not think impeachment is appropriate. But, the alternative scares me too. We are legitimizing lying us into war -- we are making it merely a somewhat serious political misdeed. It is like saying murder is bad and all, but not worthy of prosecution.
I cannot accept that.
---
* The Downing Street Memoranda are not news anymore, though a recent piece released more detail, including the suggesting faking Saddam into shooting down a plane painted with U.N. colors (you know, like those dressed up soldiers involved in the invasion of Poland by Germany). The DSM (no, not the mental health manual) was first widely released in an early edition of Lawless World, a book respecting international law that is on the side panel.
But, as the author Sands notes, the matter is now widely known -- at least, by the media. So, when the NYT released another article on the matter, of course, it was not deemed surprising. In fact, overall, we know that Bush fudged the truth. Sadly, this is deemed an unfortunate but bearable fact.