With Afghanistan and Pakistan back in the news again — two countries that Senator Joe Biden referred to in a press conference as "the forgotten war" and "the abandoned frontier," respectively — and the ongoing occupation of Iraq still destabilizing the region, this seemed like an appropriate time to repost a thought-provoking article by former JKblog editor Violet Bliss Dietz that originally appeared on this site on February 22, 2007.

And now for some history that should probably have been more prevalent in news media coverage and analysis in 2002 and 2003.   JK has repeatedly talked about the importance of understanding the nature of the ongoing conflict into which we have sent American troops. In doing so, he has referred several times to a book by Vali Nasr, titled "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future".

In the preface to his book, Mr. Nasr recounts an incident that he observed, which I recall as well, observed through the global eye of television. I interpreted it much differently than he did. Unfortunately for our soldiers, our government did not understand the significance of such an event either.

“A bullet in the heart of our troops.” That’s how Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison described the effort by Senate Democrats to discuss a bill that would end funding for the Iraq War. Imagine that. A discussion by a democratic legislative body about the war, how it’s funded and what the implications of that war are for the American people and our economy, is akin to a bullet in the heart of our troops? That is truly a low and horrible charge to make.

This disturbing line of thought shows that the Republicans in the Senate haven’t really changed all that much since nominal though only marginal control ofCongress turned over to the Democrats last year. Republicans in ‘05-’06 would routinely refer to Democrats who wanted a timetable for withdrawal of our troops as “cut and runners,” and accuse them of favoring “surrender to the enemy.” The Republicans preferred a quiet, compliant Congress that didn’t ask hard questions about whether or not the war was actually achieving any demonstrable goal or meeting any kind of provable progress. Nope. Republicans let it be known that debate itself was wrong and somehow anti-patriotic.

The American people were not fooled by this type of reasoning. They turned the Congress over to Democratic control in November of 2006 largely because they were fed up with how the war was being run and the lack of progress there.

This war has inspired books with names like “Fiasco” and “Hubris” and “State of Denial” precisely because it’s been conducted without a plan, and without the proper equipment needed to keep our troops as safe as possible. Our troops have done everything asked of them, made incredible sacrifices to serve their country,and often endured financial and family hardships in order to fulfill their military service commitments.

Pres. Bush signed the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act on Feb 15th. The Army Times explained some of the benefits of the new law in an article written by Rick Maze that was published on Feb 20th.

New law will help small-business owners

President Bush signed into law an expansion of small-business help for veterans and reservists on Thursday. (Feb 15th)

The bipartisan initiative, now Public Law 110-186, creates new grants and loan programs aimed specifically at small businesses harmed by mobilization of reservists who are either owners or key employees, and it extends help for small-business owners, including veterans’ business outreach centers that would play a greater role in transition counseling for people being released from active duty.

One of the new initiatives is a pre-deployment loan that would allow Guard or reserve members who own small businesses to borrow money to help keep their businesses going while they are away — before they suffer financial problems.

Senator Kerry, Chair, and Senator Snowe, Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, introduced this bill last year. Senator Kerry released a statement on the bill signing, saying: “For our country’s 24 million veterans and 1.1 million reservists President Bush’s signature on this hard fought piece of legislation is more than just ink on a piece of paper, it means they will have access to real tools to help them start or grow a small business. Our veterans who put their lives on the line for our national security deserve economic opportunity when they come home, and this bipartisan achievement is one small way we can repay them for their hard work and sacrifice.”

One year from this past Sunday, millions of Americans will lose television reception unless they take action first. Screens will go blue or fuzzy and families will race to turn off the harsh, familiar sound that comes when a TV has no reception. Nearly 15 million Americans will lose reception unless they update their TV setup to receive the new digital signal.

Why the disruption? Because TV is going digital.

On Feb. 17, 2009, broadcasters will shut off their "over the air" analog transmissions and shift to exclusively digital feeds. Some have called this the biggest technical advance in television since the advent of color.

For the most part, the move to digital broadcast is a very good thing. Digital gives viewers a crisper picture. Also, moving to digital transmissions take up less of the public airwaves — the spectrum of frequencies that we use to broadcast all sorts of signal, from walkie-talkies to commercial radio.

Each frequency is like a lane on a mega-highway. Right now, television uses both digital and analog frequencies, which blocks a significant fraction of the highway and impedes other traffic. Because digital transmissions take up less space than analog, the shift will free up new capacity. Some of this will hopefully go to more channels and more local programming. Other parts will hopefully go to emergency first-responders to help policemen, firemen, and others coordinate their response to disasters.

But while we make this transition, we want to make sure that no family loses their TV reception.

Massachusetts has always been a state closely tied to fishing and the fishing industry. Many of the first settlers came to these shores because of the abundance of seafood off of coastal Massachusetts and the many rivers and waterways that were home to huge numbers of native fish species. People have been fishing these waters for hundreds of years.

I grew up a few miles from the Ipswich River that flows through the towns north of Boston. One of my brothers was an avid fisherman from an early age, and he learned how to fish by spending many an early morning on the banks or peacefully settled in a small boat on that river. He used to catch pickerel, yellow perch, sunfish and the native catfish, called “horned pout.” The State Division of Wildlife would stock the river in the spring with rainbow trout, and that attracted a lot of fishermen to the area.

People still fish on the Ipswich River, but now there are warnings about actually eating the catch:

Well, we can't speak for all of them, of course -- but we do know for a fact that at least one Senator actually does, and in fact he addressed that completely understandable question directly in the course of his dKos diary thread last Friday:

---------------

I don't mind Senator Kerry.

I even voted for him and donated to his campaign in '04. I just a) don't believe JK is hunched over his laptop blogging, and b) hate it when politician diaries make the rec. list that is 1)usually an ask for more cash and 2)a warmed over email that we all got anyway.

But that's just me.

by spartan68 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM PST

---------------

He interacts with us, and I guarantee you

his comments are in his words. No idea who types it, but sheesh -- we're communicating with a Senator. He doesn't do drive by's here.

by beachmom on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:18:29 PM PST

-------------

it's a good question

Wanted to reply to Spartan68 – and unfortunately I’m probably going to have to stop checking in the rest of the night soon, and I apologize – but you raise a good question: I’ve done several live chats at Slate for the Small Business Committee I Chair in the Senate, and done sort of a town hall deal with Jane Hamsher during my book tour – but are there things we can do so that when I come here you actually know it’s me and not a staffer or some prefabricated quotes? Seems pretty fundamental that we know we’re actually having a dialogue; and Teresa, who spends more time in the netroots than I do, though I’m not bad for an old guy, has always pointed out to me that you’ve always got a certain percentage of skeptics who figure this is all a show when politicians pop up here. How do we break through sort of that disconnect?

by John Kerry on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:42:29 PM PST

Unlike most politicians, when JK posts a diary on Daily Kos, he actually reads and responds to the comments posted in-thread. People posting on dKos wanted to know about the Democratic superdelegate situation. This was his his response:

I’m glad people are talking about this superdelegates question because I think there’s a big divide here between one campaign that bottom line, flat out wants to see the nomination decided by the voters in primaries and caucuses who have turned out in unprecedented numbers, and the other campaign that’s content to see this thing decided by the insiders and the superdelegates – even if that means overturning the verdict of the voters in all these states. I think that outcome would be very dangerous for our Party. I think it would cause a grassroots revolt that could really hurt us in November.

I also want to throw something out there because I know that if I’m hearing it from reporters, you’re hearing it out there: the RNC did a press release that asked whether Ted Kennedy and I would cast our votes as superdelegates for Hillary Clinton because she carried Massachusetts. This argument has been echoed by the other campaign. But you know, it got me thinking -- in Maryland, where Barack won overwhelmingly, will Clinton superdelegates like the Governor and Sen. Mikulski vote for Barack? In Maine, will the Clinton superdelegate Gov. Baldacci vote for Barack who won Maine with over 60%? Or Sens. Murray and Cantwell in Washington state? If you want to ask that question of me, you could sure ask it of a lot of superdelegates. It’s an artificial question, and I don’t think we need to repeat GOP talking points here.

Bottom line, the big difference: Barack’s campaign is ahead today because of the votes of the people in huge numbers in the states, period. And that’s how this nomination ought to be decided.

Senator Kerry posted a diary addressing the Daily Kos community about his support for Barack Obama’s campaign this morning. Here’s what he had to say to the Kossacks there:

I’m heading off to Pakistan with Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel this weekend to observe their long awaited elections and make it very clear that the United States and the world are watching what happens there – but before I leave, I wanted to report back to you a few thoughts on the other election the world is watching, right here at home.

No denying that this election has been personally exciting – in my travels for Barack I’ve seen general election sized crowds (and I know something about what those look like!) coming out because so many people – and so many new people – are looking for something different.

But momentum’s a funny thing; you have it until, well, until you don’t have it. So, you bet things are going well, you bet there’s a head of steam – but Barack Obama also needs a big push and he needs it now: the next 3 weeks can be decisive in this campaign if you make it so. (Wisconsin is close, and as yesterday’s public polls underscore, he’s the underdog in Ohio and Texas.) So today, I’m asking for your help.

My generation is the generation of debt. A college education has become more vital to success then ever before, yet access to higher education has never been more inaccessible.

The cost of public college tuition has increased 32% from 2000 to 2004, and private school tuition has increased 21% during that same period.

Due to the lack of adequate funding, more students than ever are forced to borrow to pay their bills. More than 60% of undergraduate students at four-year colleges have to take out loans. The average student debt in 2004, with private loans factored in, was more than $19,000. And these numbers have nowhere to go but up.

57% of college students have to work full or part time in order to help pay for their education. Many studies have shown that this has a negative effect upon their GPA.

I am a 20-year-old college junior, interning at Senator Kerry’s campaign office. I am a full-time student, with three part time jobs. By the time I graduate, I will be about $100,000 dollars in debt. And if I want to pursue a graduate degree, this number will only double by the time I am done.

No other western democracy requires its youth to carry such a debt in order to get an education. While I was studying in London, British students were shocked to learn that I would owe such a large amount for my education after I graduate.

No generation before mine has had to carry such a burden of college debt. Fifty years ago, a 21-year-old graduate having 100,000 dollars of debt would be unheard of; now it is common practice.

It shocks me as an American, and someone who studies government, that a country founded upon opportunity for all would make college so inaccessible.

(As leaked to the ever-voracious, hard-news-hungry Washington punditry posse yesterday by intrepid reporter Mary Ann Akers in her inside-the-Beltway WaPo gossip blog, The Sleuth...)

John Kerry's SUV Hybrid Sitting On Used Car Lot

If you're in the market for a hybrid SUV once owned by a famous, environmentally friendly politician, Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid is for sale for about $26,000.

Catholic University graduate student Julie Egermayer found out about Kerry's SUV when she called Koons Ford auto dealership in Falls Church, VA., over the weekend. Egermayer's car was totaled recently in a fire in the alley behind her apartment building in Washington, so she decided to replace it with a Ford Escape Hybrid. And not one necessarily previously owned by a big-name politician.

The Ford dealership told Egermayer it didn't have any '08 models of the hybrid SUV on the lot. When she asked about a used one, the salesman lit up like a lottery winner. "They were so excited. The salesman said, 'Yes! We just got one from a very important person,'" says Egermayer.

Egermayer didn't really have to twist the car salesman's arm to get him to tell her whose SUV it was. And no matter how impressed she was that Sen. Kerry owned the car -- her fiancé, Ari Rabin-Havt, worked as deputy director of Internet communications on Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign -- she wasn't interested.

"If I bought John Kerry's car, the warranty would expire at the end of this year," she explained. Better to have Joe Blow's car with a warranty than John Kerry's without.