Democrats, Republicans try to agree on summit seat assignments

It's obviously not as important as the Cuban missile crisis, but a serious issue nonetheless. What shape table will be used?

No wonder nothing is getting done in Washington because Congress and the President are still arguing over the furniture. This isn't a fucking marriage. Just choose a table, now.

The one above belongs to Apple©, but it is completely unsuitable because it obviously is expensive enough (custom built) for Steve Job's people, but not US elected officials.

An intense argument has been raging ahead of Thursday's health-care summit: Will President Obama and members of Congress sit around a U-shaped table or a round one?

How about they sit around the room in those ubiquitous white plastic chairs with a coffee table in the center. That might work. If uncomfortable enough they might just speed the process along before their asses go numb.

I've another suggestion. Each party assign one person to the 'table choice' committee and then grab the first person found out on the street as a tie-breaker if needed. Give the 'table choice' committee a single day to choose, locate and and have it installed. If the committee can't handle the job, fire the two on the government payroll.

I used to run meetings and often would literally disallow any sitting. Just stand around a table, do what we came for and leave. No one ever fell asleep either.

...
Note: Headline links to source. Clicking on image will enlarge it (usually).

The Israel Lobby - Mearsheimer and Walt Weigh In

This is very much a must read IMHO. Jeb gives an honest, thoughtful, dispassionate look at the connection between the Israel Lobby and Washington.

Last night, I watched an interesting hour-long interview with both of the authors (I'll post it below) in which Walt gave a very compelling explanation of the [Israel] lobby's influence in Washington. He started off by noting that during the Cold War, the US maintained connections to Israel for strategic and moral reasons. Strategically speaking, Israel was considered a bulwark and a useful ally against Soviet expansion. Walt also suggested that the US felt compelled to support the Jewish homeland on moral grounds, as a response to the horrors of WWII and preceding decades of anti-Semitism.

Over time, however, both of these justifications for supporting Israel have gradually eroded. Rather than being a strategic asset, Israel has become a liability. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Israel has become less of an important partner; in fact, its continued rivalry with its Arab neighbors has made close association with it increasingly problematic. The moral justification has also diminished. With Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, aiding Israel can no longer be easily justified on moral grounds.

Via Foreign Policy Watch.

US reviewing space cooperation with China after anti-satellite test

This was gonna be a post on the order of "funny how this is leading to negotiations", but decided to include something else too.

First the negotiations angle.

The United States has said it is reevaluating possible space cooperation with China, including joint moon exploration, following Beijing's recent anti-satellite weapon test.

China's test of a satellite-killing missile last month was "inconsistent" with an agreement between US President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao to forge cooperation in the civil space area, the State Department said.

"Any future civil space cooperation with China will need to be evaluated within the context of China's ASAT (anti-satellite) test," department spokesman Edgar Vasquez told AFP.

No real surprise there. And then these two paragraphs.

Washington has protested the test both to China's ambassador in Washington and to the foreign ministry in Beijing and has asked for an explanation of exactly what occurred.

It is concerned that the test, which destroyed one of China's own orbiting satellites with a ballistic missile, has scattered debris in space that could endanger the manned International Space Station and other orbiting satellites.

OK. Seems to make sense. A bunch of junk flying around probably isn't particularly safe for useful equipment flying around too. Of course the universe hasn't supplied its own junk like, oh I don't know, meteorites?

Ah, but then the irony kicks in.

The test made China only the third country in the world -- after the United States and the former Soviet Union -- to down an object in space.

Washington and Moscow stopped the practice in 1985, in part over concerns about the debris left in space.

Do what we say, not what we've done.

(read more)

Must Read IMHO

You might want to save if for a lazy Sunday brunch because it is teh long article by David Swanson and Jonathan Schwarz. Those two authors' names should give you a clue.

To whet your appetite:

A recent ABC/Washington Post poll showed that the public (despite very little help from ABC News or the Washington Post) has it right. A majority picked the "should" option in response to both of these questions:

"Do you think Congress should or should not hold hearings on how the Bush administration handled pre-war intelligence, war planning, and related issues in the war in Iraq?"

"Do you think Congress should or should not hold hearings on how the Bush administration has handled surveillance, treatment of prisoners and related issues in the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Congress is gearing up to investigate whether Halliburton might have cheated on its contracts a little. Hello?

Of course we need to investigate the war profiteers. But our top priority has to be the fraud that launched the war to begin with. Most readers of this article know it was fraud, but a third of the country still doesn't and won't until it's on their televisions for several days in a row. And unless there is accountability for it, the next president may feel free to lie us into a war of his or her choosing. In fact, unless there is enough exposure and accountability, the current war may never end.

(read more)