Introducing for the first time (which is a lyric from tonight's song!), a new regular feature between now and the end of 2009, to get us through these dark nights when there's no baseball in Philadelphia and no common sense in Washington -- the greatest songs of the our-not-so-great decade, counted down in no special order or rhyme or reason. We kick off with The New Pornographers, the Vancouver-based ersatz supergroup of the greatest genre of them all, power pop. "The Laws Have Changed, off 2003's Electric Version CD, is my favorite from them, partly because of the contribution of chanteuse (and solo star in her own right) Neko Case, and partly because I still foolishly hope that some of America's laws -- regarding healthcare, anyway -- will change one of these days. My only complaint about the New Pornographers is their name -- I'm convinced that's why they won't stock their CDs at my local public library. Also, be warned that the video here is unofficial and a little loopy, in a good way.

Feel free to suggest your own choices for best songs of the decade, and I'll try to feature a reader selection every week. Also, feel free to address one of my pet peeves, which is that we went through the entire decade without, you know, NAMING IT! I blame Bush for that.

The world won't end until at least 2010.

Old Blackwater -- excuse me, Xe -- just keep on rollin'*, maybe even with the knowledge of the commander-in-chief:

At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help run a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.

The source, who has worked on covert US military programs for years, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has direct knowledge of Blackwater's involvement. He spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. The source said that the program is so "compartmentalized" that senior figures within the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the type of work that Blackwater is reportedly doing here, so much as with the fact that it's Blackwater -- a corrupt, rogue outfit -- that's doing the work. Here's one reason why they may not be the best choice for Pakistan:

In one of the statements, John Doe 2, who worked for Blackwater for four years, alleged that Mr Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe” and that his companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life”.

As it looks like the Obama administration is preparing to step up activity in the region, it would be good for the president to filter Blackwater in the process.

(*Dated song reference of the day)

I think I'm supposed to be overjoyed at this news:

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch just may have stumbled onto a way to save the newspaper business.

According to the Wall Street Journal (which like this blog is published by News Corp.), Murdoch has had talked with Microsoft (MSFT) about a deal in which News Corp. would remove its newspaper content from Google’s (GOOG) search engine, while continuing to include it in Microsoft’s Bing search engine. The story is attributed to “people familiar with the matter.”

The story said the talks are in a very early stage, and might not result in a deal; a key issue is the price Microsoft would pay News Corp. to feature its content, which includes not just Barron’s and the Journal, but also the New York Post, the Sun, the Times of London, the Australian and various other publications. Unclear is whether the deal might also include MySpace and Fox television properties.

This is a little bit like Dorothy and Toto going through 90 minutes of high drama in the "Wizard of Oz." then finding out she only had to click her heels three times to get back to Kansas. After all the non-stop debate over how advertising might or might not support news over the Internet, not to mention and paywalls, non-profit models, etc., the solution all along was an old-fashioned Macy's-v.-Gimbels kind of old-fashioned business war, with Google in the role of Macy's and Microsoft as Gimbels? Talk about your Christmastime miracle on 34th Street!

In the best-case scenario, a bidding war between Microsoft and Google and maybe other rivals over online newspaper content -- if extended beyond Murdoch's News Corp. to other struggling media outlets -- could keep newsrooms alive for several years and get them over the hump of the financial crisis...

For now, that is. The truth is, these dollars from heaven for online news  are just a Band-Aid, albeit a desperately needed one. This exciting development will only save the business, longterm, if the news companies spend those dollars wisely, by investing in an entirely new eco-system of news, not only more oriented towards the Web as the prime means of delivery but also radicaly different in outlook, built around a community-oriented running conversation and not the old, one-way print-oriented, look-down-on-the-audience dictation that has alienated some former readers and simply bored others.

And to be blunt, the chances are that newspapers would not radically transform the way they do business. Just look at the recent changes at the Washington Post, where the old-fashioned way of doing things is still in charge, even with everything that's happened in the news business over the last decade and all the promises that radical change is around the corner. Because this Microsoft-Google money, if it indeed exists, can and most likely will vanish just as quickly as it appeared.  And then what? Newspapers that wallow in their old ways will now have squandered our last chance to save ourselves.

Four years ago, I wrote this about newspapers:

If we don't change, we will die - and it will be our fault.

Nothing has changed since then. And if the Microsoft-News Corp. deal is simply the newspaper version of "cash for clunkers," it will be more true than ever. 

It's late November and he really should be back in school (OK, maybe not), but apparently torture advocate John Yoo still has the Inquirer's megaphone. Many of us were hoping that Yoo's time inside Philadelphia's newshole had expired.

This week, he calls for the firing of Andy Reid....just kidding, it's about the 9/11 trials, what else did you expect One-Note Johnny to write about? As was the case with Yoo's last column a while back, he brings up most of the same wrongheaded notions we've already been discussing here for the last couple of weeks:

The only benefit of the trials mentioned, usually by unidentified administration sources, is improving America's international image. But America's place in the world did not suffer after World War II when President Harry S. Truman used military commissions throughout occupied Germany and Japan, or during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln used them to try Confederate spies and saboteurs. America's victories in those wars, sometimes against prevailing opinion, were far more important to its world standing. Defeating al-Qaeda will do far more for the United States' image than trying Mohammed in civilian court.

I've finally doped out Yoo's writing style, which is to toss so many half-truths and head-scratchers into one piece that you get exhausted trying to swat them all down. Never mind that the commissions in Germany and Japan were international in nature (with a major U.S. component, to be sure) and addressed war crimes as they were defined before the Yoo years, which is lethal and immoral behavior by leading figures in nation states engaged in declared wars, or that Lincoln's version of military commissions was actually struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1866, a process Yoo ought to know a little about, having received the judicial back of the hand from the Supremes himself.

The thing I'm most baffled by is his assertion that the Union fought the Civil War and the United States battled in World War II "against prevailing opinion." Really, John? Where on earth was opinion "prevailing" in favor of Hitler occupying most of Europe, Japanese aggression in Asia or keeping slavery in the American South long after it had been banned by England and other civilized nations? Hitler's bunker, maybe, and few Klan rallies, but where else?

I think that is thowaway line -- rather, it's an important insight into Yoo's worldview. The pride of Episcopal Academy, and his conservative ilk, seem to think that most of the world is against real American values -- even when Nazism or slavery is in play, which may be why they are so, so terrified that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or his co-defendents will rise up in their Lower Manhattan courtroom and give some kind of "Manchurian Candidate"-eque speech that will convert the world to their ridiculous cause.

In fact, it looks like right-wingers' worst bed-wetting fears may come true:

The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

This article actually made me realize another advantage of the 9/11 criminal trial that hadn't even occurred to me at first. There are millions around the world who don't even think that it was al-Qaeda behind the attacks, that it was some kind of international Jewish conspiracy or an inside job by the Bush administration. Now, we will have al-Qaeda admitting its guilt in an American courtroom during a trial that will show Ali and his cronies as simply the small-minded, small-time civilian-killing cowards that they are. Only someone who thinks that "prevailing" opinion is against justice and decency wouldn't get that.

But that's probably not even the right question to be asking John Yoo, accomplice to torture and other criminal acts. The question is why are you still around?

I'm sure you all know this, but this year's MLS Cup, the championship of Major League Soccer, is the best showcase that the league has ever had in its history. The game features the L.A. Galaxy and the league's bona fide superstars, import David "Bend It Like" Beckham and homegrown Landon Donovan, against upstart Real Salt Lake before a big crowd in soccer-mad Seattle.

So of course, to ensure that the match gets a big audience and helps further the growth of the sport here, the MLS Cup starts...at exactly the same time as NBC's "Sunday Night Football," only the most popular sporting event on regular U.S. television. What's more (as you actually do know), this week's SNF features the Eagles, ensuring no audience whatsoever in Philadelphia, the city where the MLS is allegedly trying to build support for our new team, the Philadelphia Union, launching next March.

How could people sit in a room and consciously make a decision that stupid? Admittedly, November is one of the most crowded times in the sports year, thanks to college and high school football on top of everything else, but sometime like Friday night at 9 (Happy Hour in Seattle!) would have worked a lot better. Are MLS executives on the same intelligence level as the kind of people who also think that ACORN stole the 2008 election?

Now that that's off my chest, laugh at this. It proves that sometimes a pretty obvious joke can still be funny if it's executed well.

Today's magic number must be 26 -- as in 26 percent.

Because as if you ever needed proof that 26 percent of America -- that would be one out of every four people you see walking down the street, plus someone else's right ankle -- is totally bat-guano out-of-their-freakin'-minds crazy, check out this new poll just out:

The poll asked this question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?" The overall top-line is legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.

Interestingly, it pairs nicely with this:

Respondents were asked: "When the president of the United States is traveling overseas, do you think it is appropriate for him to bow to a foreign leader if that is the country's custom or is it never appropriate for the president to bow to another leader?"

The numbers: Appropriate 67%, Never appropriate 26%. Even a majority of Republican respondents were okay with the bow, by a 53%-40% margin. Democrats weigh in at 84%-9%, and independents 62%-30%.

Now, how much do you wanna bet that those 26 percent in those two polls are EXACTLY THE SAME PEOPLE!!! These are people who might as well walk the earth in a bubble made of plastic and little speakers blaring Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh 24 hours a day. People who will buy into any two-bit conspiracy theory that gets repeated enough -- remember that a) Obama won the 2008 election by 9.8 million popular votes and b) the known number of actual known fraudulent votes cast because of the voter registration crimes by ACORN workers who got paid for name like Mickey Mouse is zero and c) it's a long way from 0 to 9.8 million. And people who are easily distracted by the shiny object -- like the alleged symbolism of a presidential bow -- that will always lead the Drudge Report over the real issues of the day.

Now, 26 percent of America is indeed a lot of people. There's a bit more than 200 million voting-age Americans right now, so we're talking about more than 52 million red-blooded adults, enough folks to fill 1,000 Citizen Bank Parks with roughly 6 or 7 million more people to spare. Enough to put on a fairly impressive rally on the Mall in Washington if just a tiny percentage of them turned out. But there's another way to express 26 percent, and that would be as "NOT 74 PERCENT," the too-silent majority group in this country that's a bit more inclined towards real commonsense solutions, to use a term that's been misappropriated by a former Alaska governor.

But what if that 26 percent has influence beyond the trivial world of ACORN and presidential bowing? Check out where else these 26 percenters turn up:

When asked what kind of health care bill Congress should pass, 51 percent of Americans said a bill that contains a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option." Sixteen percent said a bill without a public option, while only 26 percent said they want no bill at all. Seven percent did not know or had no answer.

Now that's actually important. By the way, look who else is at 26 percent:

Just 11 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents believe Palin could be an effective president. Overall, 26 percent of Americans say she could be effective in the job.

Of course, you could argue that the 26 Percenters have been around for a few years, going back to the Bush administration:

Six in 10 Americans say the United States should join the Kyoto treaty on global warming, rejecting President Bush's economic arguments against the accord....However, in an ABCNEWS.com poll conducted a week ahead of Earth Day, 61 percent said the United States should join the treaty, while just 26 percent opposed it.

Which may explain this:

President George W. Bush's approval rating dropped to a record low, making him the least popular president since Richard Nixon, according to a new Newsweek poll....Twenty-six percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, while a record 65 percent disapprove, including almost a third of Republicans, Newsweek said.

Now, I happen to think that 52 million Americans are people who ought to be heard, who have a right to make their views known and to stage protests if they need to. But too often -- aided by a media that tends to give a lot of extra weight to the 26 Percenters, especially when they make for a good story -- we're allowing the tail to wag the dog in these United States of America. This week, for example, we may learn that a handful of senators thwarts the electorate's expressed desire for a healthcare bill, because of fear of this 26 percent.

It's true -- as more and more conservatives started pointing out around, oh, around 2006 or so -- that this nation is a republic and not a straight democracy. Legislators are elected to weigh what's most popular along with what is legal and also with what they think is morally right.

But when all is said and done, we need leaders who will fight like hell for the dreams of the 74 percent of America, not ones who kowtow to the sometimes paranoid fears of the 26 percent. That would be what I would call our 26 Percent Solution.

...from 28 years ago:

Consider this first sentence from a Washington Post story dated November 25, 1981: "Americans enter the 1981 holiday season with gloomy expectations for themselves and increasingly critical views of Ronald Reagan's handling of the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." Sound familiar?

At the time, the country had just plunged into a recession. Unemployment in November '81 stood at 8.3 percent - nearly a full point jump from Reagan's inauguration - and it was clear that things would get far worse before they improved.

Reagan had, months earlier, pushed his massive tax cut program through Congress, but voters were increasingly tuning out his pleadings that - given enough time - it would help combat the economic downturn.

Having forced myself to relive the Reagan presidency over the course of 2008 and then watching Obama in real time, I -- like the author of this piece in the New York Observer -- have been struck by the amazing similarities in the story arc between the two presidencies, despite the fairly radical differences in philosophy. If the past is prologue, the Democrats will suffer in the short term -- i.e., next year's mid-term elections -- but Obama can prosper politically when (OK, maybe the word is "if") the job market rebounds. That economic turnaround may have little to do with Obama's policies (the stimulus?...that's probably only what's keeping unemployment from hitting 11 or 12 percent right now).

But that would be a parallel to Reagan as well -- as I wrote in "Tear Down This Myth," the economic surge of the mid-1980s was more a factor of things outside the Gipper's control, including the business cycle, a worldwide plunge in oil prices and the inflation-killing tight money policies of then-Fed chairman Paul Volcker, an appointment and a policy that was launched under Jimmy Carter. Reagan's big 1981 tax cut didn't have a huge impact on the broader. short-term economy, although it did kick off the massive shift of wealth in America from the middle class to the upper 1 or 2 percent. Meanwhile, whether it's 1984 or 2010, Americans tend to vote the result (the current unemployment rate), not the actual policy.

Also, Obama may realize that -- just like it turned out for Reagan -- that he'll never have as much support in Congress as his first year, which probably explains why he's pushed so hard this year for healthcare reform. So if all this pattern holds, we can only hope that Obama won't trade arms for hostages with Iran and then forget about it during his second term.  

Help me figure it out:

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

Is it possible for the answer to be "both"? (h/t to occasional Attytood Reader JB)