Perfectly Reasonable

Busy, busy, busy

2006-11-09T23:51:00.000-08:00

No time to post for the last three weeks. Possibly won't make the time to post again, ever. But I have to say, I'm much less cranky after the outcome of Tuesday's election. The air hasn't seemed this sweet in a long time. And I live in LA.

I came across a quote by Thomas Jefferson that seemed apt:

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.

I don't know if we've won back our principles fully, but we're a lot closer than we were on Monday. The best part about the win is that the 'through the looking glass' feeling of the last six years is diminished. The country didn't turn progressive overnight, but sanity has prevailed. That gives me hope. Cheerio.

Evert time we torture, an angel gets its wings

2006-10-17T14:40:00.000-07:00

Today, with the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 we are officially a country where the executive branch of the government can 'disappear' anyone it wants, for any reason, torture them as he sees fit without threat of recourse, and abandon due process that has been in place for more than 200 years.

This post offers a good summary of what this means:

The bottom line is simple: The MCA preserves rights against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, but it severs these rights from any practical remedy.

This means that the President can have his "alternative sets of procedures"-- i.e., torture lite-- if he can persuade CIA personnel to violate the law with the promise that they will never be prosecuted or punished for doing so. When Rickard suggests that someday CIA officials will have to answer to judges and juries, he assumes precisely what the new bill acts to forestall-- judicial inquiries into the conduct of CIA interrogations.

This is the great irony (and chutzpah) of the President's repeated claim that he only wanted to clarify the law so that the CIA and other officials wouldn't have to break it. The CIA will still be violating the law if it does what the President wants it to do. However, because the Military Commissions Act severs rights from remedies, the Executive branch has the sole power of enforcement. The President decides whether he thinks people in the Executive branch are violating the law, and even if he believes they are violating the law, the President also decides whether he will order them to stop. By now we know the answer to this question. He will not order them to stop. Quite the contrary: the President has made clear in his repeated endorsement of these "alternative" techniques (techniques that he will not name in public) that he will push CIA officials to break the law. Because the Executive branch holds all enforcement powers within itself, the only thing that prevents cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is the conscience of CIA personnel and executive branch lawyers.

Remember the pasty faces of these jackals in this picture. They were instrumental in crapping on the constitution in the name of 'security.' Has there ever been a group of 'lawmakers' who has done more to undermine the legal foundation of our country?Where's Saint McCain? Why isn't he attending this blessed event, since he gave his approval (after a media-event one day objection to torture and subsequent roll over)? My guess is, he's under Bush's table, with his mouth full.

Oh, and if I hear another Republican talk about their party's Moral Values(TM), my foot will meet their ass. Not surprisingly I try to stay away from face to face encounters with such swine. Here's a money quote:

"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

So, that means, if we torture someone, anyone, even if they are not found guilty or don't have a trial at all, and even if the information they give us is worthless, America is spared death and the little baby Jesus will smile.

W T F

This is so much more important than the Mark Foley scandal. But if perverts preying on teens is what the braindead media want to give to the masses, and it is what sweeps these criminals out of office, then fine. Next time, they can sweep away the handful of Democrats who voted for this shameful bill.

For anyone who thinks that this only applies to Terrorists who are Guilty, guess again. Many of the prisoners in Gitmo are guilty of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And there is no provision in this travesty of a law that says torture is only for brown skin people with funny last names (not that it matters who gets tortured in the grand scheme of things-it's all bad). We already know that this administration has been spying on Quakers and other American peace activists. This law strips away their protections, by saying that the President has the discretion to do whatever he sees fit to obtain information.

Jesus wept. Or, better, the line from a Woody Allen film (I can't remember which one): "If Jesus came back to earth and saw what was being done in his name he would never stop throwing up."

How low will they go?

2006-10-03T14:42:00.000-07:00

Dennis Hastert went on Rush Limbaugh to spin away his cover up of predatorgate. And what he said shows that he still doesn't get it.

SPEAKER HASTERT: There were two pieces of paper out there, one that we knew about and we acted on; one that happened in 2003 we didn't know about, but somebody had it, and, you know, they're trying -- and they drop it the last day of the session, you know, before we adjourn on an election year. Now, we took care of Mr. Foley. We found out about it, asked him to resign. He did resign. He's gone. We asked for an investigation. We've done that. We're trying to build better protections for these page programs.

But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we've tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism -- and we've worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it -- and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well.

So, let's see: Hastert covers up the situation for political reasons and plays dumb. And now we are to believe that this is all coming out now to GET HIM. Yeah, it's the kid's fault. The kids are working with the Democrats to bring down the Republicans. I see. The kids must have SET UP poor little Foley by being so innocent and young and eager to 'work' with him. And now Hastert is the victim because these damn nubile pages are taking him off message and not letting him win the election by scaring the shit out of Americans about terrorism. And, as a kicker: If I have to resign over Foley, then the terrorists have won.

What a F***ING PIG. This is who's running Congress. Are there ANY adults in charge in Washington?

The whole lot of them need to resign and have the Pages take over; the pages, at 15 or 16, show ten times the maturity these cretins do.

Et tu, Mrs. Bush?

2006-10-02T12:46:00.000-07:00

Turns out Laura Bush is going to be campaigning with Tom Reynolds (R-NY), who is part of the Foleygate predator scandal.

Oh, I do so hope she brings back those horse masturbation jokes when she speaks.

From the torture-friendly NYT copy editor

2006-09-30T17:38:00.001-07:00

Along with victories, G.O.P. takes a few blows.

And one of those 'victories' would be their 'success' in shitting on the Constitution by allowing Bush to detain anyone he wants, at any time, for any reason he wants and not give them due process under law that has been guaranteed for more than 200 years.

But we wouldn't want to sully a newspaper with nuances like that. Way to go, liberal media.

Foley on Clinton

2006-09-30T17:36:00.000-07:00

"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

--Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), commenting on President Clinton, following release of the Starr Report, September 12, 1998.

Who will protect the children now?

2006-09-29T23:25:00.000-07:00

The GOP always, ALWAYS brings in the worst possible person(s) to lead a particular mission.

- Halliburton oversees Iraq reconstruction.
- Enronites in the Department of Commerce.
- Longging interests wrote the Healthy Forests Act.
- Alberto "Waterboard" Gonzales as the public defender of the Constitution.
- Karl Rove asked to "run" Katrina recovery.
- Henry "Stay the course in Vietnam" Kissinger advises Bush and Cheney on Iraq.

And now, we learn, a guy who has sex chat with young things on the internet was co-chair of the Committee on Missing and Exploited Children. Some in the GOP are screaming at the Dems for making the Foley scandal a big deal, screaming, what about the Congressional page program now? What about Foley's initiative to protect children now?

Simple, and I don't know why they haven't thought of it before. Someone whose career is on the skids, and would like to make a change. Hmmm, who could lead the committee to protect the kids? Ah. Of course.

Oh, and in case there's an opening for director of of the national Henhouse, may I submit a candidate.

Page boy scandal: House leadership knew

2006-09-29T22:39:00.000-07:00

Of course. From the Washington Post:

The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."

Sure they were. I mean, the creep Foley was only in charge of protecting vulnerable children from predators. But that was just his sheild. His party leadership protected him, and continued to do so and kept letting him have access to pages even when they knew about his antics. Right, they care about the kids. Yeah.

These people don't give a shit about ANYONE except their own. All of us are just pages. We're servants, objects to be moved around. Their constituents are not people. They're dumb shmucks to be bought off or manipulated. Their problems are just wedge issues for their campaigns.

Disgusting. Yet, after yesterday the thought of some fine, fine men in the GOP going down... er, um, I mean leaving office because of this really warms my heart.

GOP=Grand Old Pedophiles

2006-09-29T15:41:00.000-07:00

It's all about the hypocrisy of the family values party. They win elections by 'protecting our kids' from 'perversity'. How much more can it take for people to wake up and realize they've been had, on every level?

The GOP hall of shame:

* Thomas Adams, longtime Green Oaks mayor and former chairman of the Lake County (IL)Republican Central Committee, was charged Monday with possession and distribution of child pornography.
* A Bush appointed DHS spokesman was arrested for trying solicit sex on the internet from an undercover detective posing as a 14 year old girl. He was arrested while actually online with the detective.
* Republican Mayor of Spokane, Jim West, was recalled after being arrested for soliciting young boys to have sex with him from his government issued work computer.
* Republican political consultant and ad producer Carey Lee Cramer was found guilty of charges he sexually molested two young girls. Cramer is best known as the man behind the Anti-Gore ads in the 2000 election.
* Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
* Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
* Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
* Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.
* Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano was arrested for sexually molesting a 14-year-old girl.
* Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
* Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
* Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
* Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
* Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
* Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
* Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
* Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
* Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
* Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
* Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
* Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.
* Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
* Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
* Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
* Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
* Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
* Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
* Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
* Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.
* Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
* Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
* Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
* Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
* Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
* Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
* Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
* Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
* Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
* Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
* Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
* Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
* Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
* Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
* Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
* Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
* Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
* Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
* Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
* Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
* Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

And there's the latest, besides Foley.

Is it my imagination, or does the straight jacket of morality make conservatives the kinky sex seekers? Not only that, but they appear to seek abusive relationships, which is part of what fuels pedophelia: the kick of using someone more helpless.

Democrats, however, get ordinary, run of the mill blow jobs from adult interns under the desk. And the world goes crazy. I'll bet the mainstream media makes a big deal about the fact this guy was seeking sex from a male, and not the fact that he is a hypocrite creep.

Maybe the GOP should run Larry Pierce for Congress. At least he's honest.

Then again, if the GOP loses their 'values voters,' what do they have to run on? Shredding of the Constitution and War Without End? Nah, those two trends will run their course, one can hope.

Another GOP hypocrite bites the dust

2006-09-29T13:18:00.000-07:00

Rep. Foley (R-FL) resigns over emails to a boy.

Yesterday, the news broke that he wrote emails to a 16 year old former page, which do kind of cross the line of 'friendly' into the realm of creepy, including asking the boy for pictures of himself and praising the physique of his male friend.

But what may yet surface must be horribly damaging. Even Rep. Bob Ney, who was indicted and plead guilty still didn't resign.

Rumors had been circulating about Foley being gay for at least three years, to my knowledge. He was a key homo basher, which makes him suspect to begin with.

The Workforce Investment Act passed by a 224 - 200 vote after Republicans defended the hiring language. [It] would repeal workplace protections in job training programs signed into law by President Reagan and written by then-Senator Dan Quayle. Specifically, it would allow religious organizations, which receive federal funding to operate job training programs, to discriminate in employment based on religious grounds - including objections to an individual's sexual orientation.

House Democrats argued that the bill amounts to government-sanctioned discrimination. "This provision is offensive, ugly, wrong," said Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat. "It is a slippery slope from here on out and I fear this is just the beginning." LGBT civil rights also decried the legislation which still needs Senate approval.

"Republicans are attempting to force taxpayers to pay for their own discrimination," said Eric Stern, Executive Director of National Stonewall Democrats. "No American should have to pass a religious test in order to receive a federally funded job. The valuable work of our religious institutions should not be corrupted by discriminatory policies advanced by Republicans."

The vote followed an "action alert" Tuesday by the conservative Family Research Council urging its members to contact their representatives to vote for the measure. "Organizations that oppose homosexuality and abortion often need extra protection when receiving federal aid or using federal facilities," said Tony Perkins, FRC President.

Among the Republicans who voted for passage of the legislation were Charlie Bass (NH), Judy Biggert (IL), Mary Bono (CA), Mark Foley (FL), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Nancy Johnson (CT), Jim Kolbe (AZ), Jim Leach (AZ), Deborah Price (OH), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Joe Schwarz (MI) and John Sweeney (NY), all of whom received endorsements and financial support from national LGBT organizations last November.

And on the child-chasing front, here was his cover: being a leader in fighting those who would exploit youth over the internet.

H.R.5749
Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth from exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] (introduced 7/10/2006)

It's not a question that he was gay. It was pretty much an open secret in Washington for years, just as there is nobody in Hollywood who hasn't known about Tom Cruise. But I am not trying to equate gayness with pedophelia. I'm simply saying that, this is what the closet does. It perverts, it warps, it damages anyone who refuses to come out, and, when they are in the public eye, it makes them sponsor hateful amendments for gays, introduce legislation to 'protect' kids from internet predators, become priests (and I'm not saying this is true of all or even most priests, so lay off), and, of course, join Scientology and jump on sofas.

I believe it's a better than even chance that Foley will find Jesus in a BIG way, and come back an even bigger pervert.

CNN top headlines

2006-09-28T15:48:00.000-07:00

* Killer hunted after officer, dog slain | Now Live
* Rumsfeld: Insurgency was underestimated | Video
* Iran's millions fund insurgency, military official says
* CNNMoney: GM exec: We need more Hummers
* SI.com: Police close T.O. probe
* Cops: Priests fleeced flock for millions
* Frequent-flyer cashes in miles for space trip
* Porn star candidate campaigns on campus Video
* Charlie Sheen to become highest-paid sitcom star
* Uptown house for sale at $37.5 million
* Jon Stewart's I-Report makes him a hottie Video
* In Case You Missed It Video | Get podcast
* CNN Wire: Latest updates on world's top stories

But nowhere do I see: U.S. Constitution, 1789-2006, died today in Washington, D.C. Nope, can't find that one anywhere.

But that's great news about Charlie Sheen. Kind of makes up for what Congress did by knowing ol Chuck can buy more hookers now. Hooray!

USA: We Torture (since 2006)!

2006-09-28T14:44:00.000-07:00

I was going to come up with some incisive analysis on this, or at least a slapdash rant on how our Constitution died today. Or some insight into habeus corpus, and how Our Leader will now have the power to disappear anyone he chooses, at any time, including you and me.

But nothing I could write would come close to matching Orwell. From 1984, book III chapter 3:

'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is
this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We
are not interested in the good of others; we are interested
solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or
happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you
will understand presently. We are different from the
oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing.
All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were
cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian
Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they
never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They
pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized
power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just
round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings
would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that
no one seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a
dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes
the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The
object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture
is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin
to understand me?'

I'll be back

2006-09-27T23:37:00.002-07:00

Life has been getting in the way. Hey, I don't do this full time ya know. But I'll have something semi smart to say soon.

In the meantime, I cannot believe that our congress is about to legalize torture and shred the constitution. I mean, I cannot believe we're even having the debate, to the extent that it's a debate. More like Bush's buttboys in congress ramming it through, and the Dems rolling over and pissing themselves, just so they don't look weak.

And one of our hopes for taking back the Senate, Brown in Ohio, was one of the few Dems to vote YES on the House bill. WTF? This will depress his volunteer base (assuming there are enough people even paying attention to the issue), because it will look like he's either a craven politician or someone who really believes that we have to give up the rule of law in order to be 'safe.'

As I understand it, this bill means that the president would have sole discretion to say who is an enemy combatant and what should be done with them. And, although its supporters say this isn't the case, I haven't heard any convincing arguments or proof that U.S. citizens couldn't be held indefinately, without filing Habeus Corpus, without the due process that they have had in the past. And, despite the great fanfare about the 'Mavericks'(TM) McCain, Warner and Graham, it does not outlaw torture because it does not fully define what torture is: again, it gives the president lots of wiggle room to define it as he pleases.

Little by little, bit by bit, I'm seeing this country of mine dismantled. We may have even crossed the tipping point. If so, it was nice while it lasted.

Okay, so, I guess I did have a few minutes to write a post after all. Soon, more on this.

Rest in peace, Ann Richards

2006-09-13T22:50:00.000-07:00

Former Governor of Texas, Ann Richards died today, of cancer. She was proof that not every politician from Texas is a patrician creep who uses the Bible as a weapon. She and Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower (not pols, but fellow Texans) shared a similar sensibility, an everyman kind of populism that pokes the pols who peddle hypocrisy in the eye with a stick. She will be remembered most for her line at the 1988 Democratic convention, about Bush senior: "Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

When I worked on the Kerry campaign two years ago, staffers from around the state had a conference call with Ann, kind of a pep talk - much needed, since Kerry was trailing badly in Wisconsin at the time. Perhaps everyone was tired, but after she finished talking (and she was fiesty and inspiring as ever) there was just silence. She said, finally, "Is anyone there or are y'all asleep"? Some might have been asleep, given that it was a 16 hour a day job. She sounded a little disappointed, and then gave us a final 'chin up' before signing off. What I wanted to say was, "You're great, Ann!" But I didn't. So I'll say it now. You're great, Ann, and you will be missed.

Is it 9/12 yet?

2006-09-11T21:49:00.000-07:00

I've avoided television today -- I usually avoid it, but today I've actively avoided it, to save my eyes from the horror of the news whores eagerly fellating the commander's shriveled, malignant nutsack, simply because he happened to be in power (installed by the Supreme Court several months before the tragedy), and despite the fact that he did nothing to prevent it and everything to ensure that terrorism will flourish.

It is a cliche that 9/11 changed everything. But in one sense I belive it is true. It showed what we really are as a nation, the good and the bad.

The news machines will focus on the 'good,' I am sure. Therefore I will give my short list of the bad, in no particular order:

- We have a middle east in turmoil and al-Quada throughout a country, Iraq, that once kept them out.
- We have gone from having the world's sympathy and support, to being thought of as a rogue nation, unpredictible and bellicose (in other words, thought of as terrorists ourselves).
- We have saddled future generations with debt from a misguided and illegal war against a nation - the ONLY nation in the region - that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Bin Laden.
- al-Qaida, which could have been strangled and starved five years ago, now thrives, and is considered a potent warrior, an honorable foe against the jihadist U.S. (see above).
- The imperial presidency is back, via illeal wiretapping, the power to detain anyone, anytime, and supported by a compliant press that would make Nixon seethe with envy.
- That same administration is incapable and unwilling to do lead in a real crisis (see: Katrina).
- However, that administration is able to use a national tragedy to its political advantage, again and again, in the most blatant and in-your-face way possible.

There was a must-read commentary in the Guardian Friday. Here's a key passage, emphasis mine.

I would ask Bin Laden whether he had something special up his sleeve for the fifth anniversary. Why waste money, he would reply. The western media were obligingly re-enacting the destruction and the screaming, turning the base metal of violence into the gold of terror. They would replay the tapes and rerun the footage ad nauseam, and thus remind the world of his awesome power. Americans are more afraid of jihadists this year than last. In a Transatlantic Trends survey, the number of them describing international terrorism as an "extremely important threat" went up from 72% to 79%. As for European support for America's world leadership, that has plummeted from 64% in 2002 to 37% this year.

Bin Laden might boast that he had achieved terrorism's equivalent of an atomic chain reaction: a self-regenerating cycle of outrage and foreign-policy overkill, aided by anniversary journalism and fuelled by the grim scenarios of security lobbyists. He now had only to drop an occasional CD into the offices of al-Jazeera, and Washington and London quaked with fear. The authorities could be reduced to million-dollar hysterics by a phial of nail varnish, a copy of the Qur'an, or a dark-skinned person displaying a watch and a mobile phone.

A feature of democracy is freedom of information and speech. News of violence cannot be concealed since concealment fuels the climate of fear. The state should not censor news of terrorist incidents. As Milan Kundera asserted, "the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting". But there are ways of not forgetting. A feature of democracy is also to reject arrest without trial, reject the use of torture, and reject retaliatory violence against people or groups. Democracy can apparently sacrifice these legal principles to guard against the 10% of terrorism that is bang. Why not restrain the publicity that fuels the other 90%, the aftershock? The boundary between news and scaremongering may be hard to define. But so is any boundary between liberty and security. What is so sacred about publicising terror as against habeas corpus?

I am not bragging when I say that I do not run into too many Bush supporters. My career and my interests do not bring me face to face with them. And the Bush lovers in my own family have the good sense not to discuss it during my yearly visits. But there was one conversation I had with an Air Force officer two years ago. I was visiting New York, and had gone out to dinner with a group of people. One of those evenings where everyone there knows exactly one other person there. In this case, everyone seemed to be lefty and/or lesbians or gay men. I sat across from a guy who was very quiet (to this day I don't know who he knew there; maybe he just wandered over to the wrong table and was too shy to leave). Anyway he was about my age, late 30s, and clean cut. I learned that he had left the Air Force, and lived in Rhode Island and had two small kids. But he didn't reveal much else, and as the talk became more focused on the upcoming Presidential election and 'WTF are we doing in Iraq' he became even quieter. I sensed a Republican in our midst. I decided to draw him out.

Sure enough, after hemming and hawing about how he votes not on party lines, but for 'the right guy for the job,' he revealed that he did, in fact, support the War on Terror (TM) and anything that Bush might say that perpetual war should entail. Especially destroying Iraq. I was very respectful and armed with my logic and facts (yes I thought it would work), and he volleyed these facts with his distortions and GOP talking points, but politely. Soon the others got involved, as if a nest of robins became aware of a fat tabby at the bottom of their tree. They pounded him verbally, over and over again until he shut up. I felt sorry for him, but I felt like it was a lost opportunity. He was smart and well educated, and should have known better than saying things like, "We need to kill every possible terrorist in the world, wherever they are," and, "I trust Bush because I want my kids to be safe," without really exploring HOW one kills every potential terrorist, or HOW Bush was keeping them safe (and with it was the implicit assumption that liberals want to see his kids killed). But he was teachable, I thought. Until the shouting started. At that point all we could do is shut up and grumble over our overpriced fish.

Has the Air Force officer's opinion about the state of the world changed, two years later? Maybe. But I think it's more likely he retreated into his safe world of dittoheads who don't challenge him, and is especially likely to ask who will be attending before accepting any dinner invitation. Don't want to get attacked by a group of raving leftwing nuts, you know.

So John Q. Couch Potato now gets the ABC 9-11 mockumentary, and media rim job for Bush today. People still want their kids to be safe, but not enough Americans, I'm afraid, are willing to think critically about terrorism (or, for that matter, much of anything). At dinner tables around the country, will there be intelligent discussion of the matter? Will enough people say, "WTF are we doing in Iraq?" or come to the conclusion that Osama got everything he really wanted: a fearful nation willing to give up anything to feel safe? Doubt it.

And where is Osama today? Safe, in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And because of Pakistan's truce with Afghanistan, nobody there will look for him. The search is stone cold. But he can feel free enough to send us his videos, from a comfortable and well equipped television studio. And, notice how they are always, ALWAYS conveniently timed to U.S. elections?

He really doesn't need to say anything on those videos. All he needs to do is laugh. His mission is accomplished, and we are the ones who accomplished it, better than he had ever hoped.

Defeat terror, ban everything

2006-09-10T08:27:00.000-07:00

This NYT editorial(sorry, you have to go through the TimesGate), suggests that we ban nearly every carry on item on flights. You know, to make us safer.

I've just about had it with this s**t. At what point do people start flying only when they absolutely have to? Of course, you know, the airlines will demand bail outs as their passengers decline. I believe it will happen. I like to travel, I really do. But it's the travel part of travel I hate; if my body could be Star Trek-transported that would be fine.

I'm flying today, and I'm less paranoid than I was a few days ago. Now I'm just tired of giving up so much of my personal liberties for the honor of flying. This liquid ban was just about the last straw. What's next? Disrobing and issuing us paper jump suits? Why don't we just ban all flights completely? That will ensure that no planes will be blown out of the air.

And again, I have to say, all that security Kabuki theater is getting a bit old. Why do I have to take off my sandals - sandals, not shoes - to go through the screener? What could I possibly be hiding there?

And the UK banning laptops as carry-ons (which I hear they now allow again)... this did nothing except bring a windfall for baggage handlers. If I get to the airport today and find that I have to check my Mac, guess what. I'm renting a car and driving the 3,000 miles. When did we become a nation of such pu**ies?

The death of daily news

2006-09-09T07:52:00.000-07:00

I should probably mention that the reason I'm in Miami, aside from the fact that I just can't get enough of that 90 percent humidity, is a conference, sponsored by the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association.

This morning there was a plenary session on the death of newspapers in the U.S. They had nothing positive to say; daily newspapers are consolidating, have been for years, cut backs in reporting bla bla bla. I've known about this depressing deep dive for a while.

When I was in journalism school, I was hesitant to go into daily papers. Basically it was the sausage factory aspect of the biz, covering the city hall beat, churning out stories I didn't care about, etc. It was too much of a 'job,' especially for a militant dilittente like me. Yes, there is the chance to do features, but still, it was the job aspect I disliked.

Now, I skim two papers a day; the NYTimes and the LA Times, if anyone has left their pre-read copies in the recycle bin at Starbucks - Did I mention that I'm cheap, AND that I will never pay for the NY Times after their cheerleading for the war? I prefer to get my news online, and, when I can stand it, CNN.

But I wonder whether media consolidation can be doing damage to readership as well. It's typical that companies, when faced with slumping sales and profits, cut back on that which they need the most, advertising. It's as if the decision is, well, nobody is buying our product, so why promote it? Clearly, the advertising must have led to our slump. Likewise, newspapers faced with declining readership have been cutting back on reporting. But do they stop to consider that wire service pieces, no national political coverage, puff pieces and a lack of serious analysis may cause FURTHER decline? When they cheapen their work, people will continue to leave for other media sources, including, now, blogs.

The most depressing moment of my academic career was a news reporting class, where the professor asked us what a newspaper actually was. There were all kinds of answers, usually lofty things like 'the conduit of democracy,' or the 'nexus of freedom,' or 'wisdom in newsprint.' The crusty prof. ignored all of those and wrote on the board: "It's a business." We were crestfallen.

Well, duh. Of course a for-profit company needs to profit. So, consolidation and contraction are the keywords in mainstream news now (and triviality, but I'll save that for another post). So, there are is the alternative and online press. Surely THAT must be an oasis, right? Mmmm. Not so much.

I had been a stringer for PlanetOut for over two years. A nice gig, not a lot of money, but was fun and it kept my toe in the water of the gay press while doing more lucrative things. They bought out the Advocate, consolidated, let go of the news director and all of their stringers. Now they are running AP wire stories that happen to have a gay or lesbian angle (such as, today, Brad Pitt saying he won't marry until everyone has the right to marry). Except I read that story already, somewhere else. Is anyone reading PlanetOut for news anymore? I'm not. They are a media empire of course, and they do some great original coverage of travel and lifestyle issues. And the Advocate print publication covers lgbt news, and fluff when necessary. But one outlet for original lgbt news and politics coverage is now gone.

Should I care? Well, I write for many publications, but it seems like there is now a big hole in the national gay press. So for me, as a consumer, it blows. I can't imagine that I'm the only one.

Now, I'm waiting until podcasters are owned by big media. You know the day is coming.

I'm alive

2006-09-08T17:03:00.000-07:00

No crash. Now, about the flight home...

A few thoughts on flying and dying

2006-09-05T17:39:00.000-07:00

I'm going to a conference in Miami tomorrow, and, for the first time in my life, I am afraid of flying.

I flew exactly a month after 9/11/01 at the height of the hysteria. But I didn't worry about terrorism then. I figured AQ had blown their wad for a while. The uniformed national guard troops with their empty guns patrolling every airport corridor was amusing, I admit. Then again, I was concerned about the usual stuff. Like the pilot's announcement that the flight had been delayed because lightning had hit the plane's wing earlier in the day, and they had to wait a few hours for the glue to dry. That's right... for the glue to dry. This was told to us after we were strapped in and hauling ass down the runway. In a turboprop, which I hate to begin with. I prayed. I'm an agnostic.

But now, five years after the Event That Changed Everything (TM), I do fear a terrorist attack that will incinerate me as I reach for my plastic glass of ice and splash of cranberry juice, as I squint to see what Will Farrell is doing on the mini screen in front of me. This is not fear that comes from the pathetic boy who cried wolf screeches from the administration that they nabbed this guy or foiled this plot - plots that later turned out to be half baked at best. No, it's because, after five years, Nothing Has Changed (TM).

Okay, a few things have changed. We can't take hair gel in our carry ons. But when you look at it closely, all of the efforts - Homeland Security, TSA, taking off your damn shoes - are smoke and mirrors.

The Adminstration gets an F from the 9/11 commission for it's failure to do, well, anything regarding airline security.

From it's findings on aviation security:

- In the 9/11 Commission’s December 2005 report card, Bush Republicans got an “F” on airline passenger pre-screening. Four and a half years after 9/11, there is still not a unified terrorist watch list for screening airline passengers.

-Four and a half years after 9/11, most air cargo is still not screened. Washington Republicans have still not made the investments necessary to ensure that air cargo carried on passenger aircraft is screened for explosives. In addition, the Republican-led Congress continues to severely underfund the installation of in-line explosive detection systems at airports across the country and needed R&D for improved explosive detection systems.

Isn't that impressive. Think of that when you're taking off your shoes for the TSA rent-a-cops. And though I don't often travel by boat - well, never in fact - the results are equally dire:

Four and a half years after 9/11, only six percent of containers entering U.S. ports are screened. A weapon of mass destruction detonated in a container at a seaport could cause a tremendous number of casualties, and an estimated economic loss ranging from $58 billion to $1 trillion. And yet, due to the neglect of Bush Republicans on port security, only six percent of containers entering U.S. seaports are currently being screened.

Four and a half years after 9/11, fewer than half of the ports of entry have radiation portal monitors. The 9/11 Commission report concluded that terrorists have the “opportunity to do harm as great or greater in maritime and surface transportation” than the 9/11 attacks. And yet Washington Republicans have been slow to deploy radiation portal monitors – at both sea and land ports of entry. Under the Administration’s policy, all ports of entry wouldn’t have radiation portal monitors until 2011.

Bush Republicans have been grossly underfunding port security. Over the last five years, the Republican-controlled Congress has only appropriated about $800 million for port security grants – whereas the Coast Guard has stated that $5.4 billion is needed for enhancing port security over 10 years. Furthermore, in his Fiscal Year 2007 budget, President Bush proposes eliminating the $173 million Port Security Grant program by rolling these grants into a larger grant program – thereby forcing port officials to compete for funding against other critical infrastructure.

But back to the airport, where I will be passing through tomorrow. Turns out, surprise, that bureaucratic bungling has slowed the implementation of bomb screening machines at airports.

And then there's this: Our 'Ally,' Pakistan says Osama Bin Laden is free to roam the country. Right, Osama who? Will we bomb Pakistan and remove Musharraf? That would be about as likely as bombing Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the hijackers came from. Priorities.

So, if something happens to me tomorrow, this will be my last post. Hey, is anyone reading anyway? And you must blame Bush for this. I will, although I have enjoyed all my tax cuts. Oh wait. I didn't get any tax cuts.

Another milestone

2006-09-05T00:51:00.000-07:00

The death toll of American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan combined surpasses the death toll for 9/11. Oh, and that doesn't count the tens of thousands of Iraqis, who had nothing to do with 9/11. Happy labor day.

Fun with Tom

2006-08-23T12:44:00.000-07:00

I made the mistake of turning on CNN today (that goes without saying, as one could say that any day one turns on CNN). The sound was off, so I saw images of Tom Cruise, running. But what caught my attention was their banner headline:

Tom Scat

Have we really come to this, I wondered? Is it such a slow news day that the cable whores are investigating celebrity feces? Or even worse: is it an in-depth look at one of Tom Cruise's fetishes? I turned it off.

How fortunate was I to learn that the headline meant (I think), was Tom Cruise was told to get lost by Paramount.

Sumner Redstone, who owns Paramount, is nearly as freakish as Cruise. But my first reaction is this: I don't want to see Tom Cruise in a movie. It destroys the whole story for me. Ditto with Mel Gibson, and even the less bizarre celebrities. When I see Tom Cruise in a movie (which I don't anymore), I don't think, hmmm, what an interesting character. I think, there's that Scientologist closeted homo schmuck. I can't believe them in the role because they are media clowns, not actors.

When did we sink so low that films must be propped up by zillionaire flakes who think they can do anything at all and still have the public love them? F**k them and their fat paychecks. I don't even want to know about their moronic antics. I don't even want to see their faces on the screen.

Advice to studios: start casting good lesser known or unknown actors and take your chances. If and when the airwaves become saturated with their antics, cut them off and start trolling regional theaters for actors.

Our dear leader

2006-08-22T12:06:00.000-07:00

According to U.S. News, Bush likes to fart for laughs.

He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides.

I'm so glad that so many voted in 2000 for 'the regular guy, the kinda guy you have a beer with.' And, they didn't add, 'the kinda guy who likes to fart on me, and laugh. That's what I look for in a leader.'

Who could imagine FDR doing this? Or Kennedy? Hell, or Reagan?

A sign of the new gloom?

2006-08-19T14:35:00.000-07:00

I consider myself frugal, and I find most Americans to be pretty wasteful. My one indulgence is tea and a muffin at Starbucks @ $3 a day. That adds up to $21 a week (though I don't go every day) and a staggering $1,000 a year. Ouch. But it's worth it to me, because I like to get out of the house early in the morning, take a walk, and read the paper among other people (and the pre-read newspapers in the bin by the front door are free at Starbucks). Still, I could do without it.

But I never pay full retail, have bought some nice things at second hand stores, and have taken trips to Europe on a tight budget and had a blast anyway. I am a freelance writer; I would rather live frugally and not have to waste away in a corporate hellhole 50-60 hours a week. But if I had a higher and more stable income, I would still be frugal - I hope. Frankly there is little that I must consume.

Which brings me to a book of hints for living small. There are some good ideas, like taking walks for enjoyment, rather than compulsive recreational shopping (America'a pastime). What's interesting is where this book came from: Northwest Airlines. And even more shocking is the books intended readers: their employees, who have seen their pay and benefits slashed.

The helpful tips - including dumpster diving, which I have never done - are more than a little insulting coming from a company that has squeezed its employees tighter than a boa constrictor. But it also may be the sign of things to come. Except for the top brass at most companies, the workforce is highly expendable, and guaranteed less and less every year. Pensions? Sorry. Health care? Good luck. Seniority perks? Sorry old man, you cost too much; let's get a 20something in here at half the pay. Company loyalty? Ha, move to Japan.

It can be disputed that the United States doesn't actually MAKE much anymore. At least not like it used to. We buy from China, where workers make pennies per hour. We outsource call centers and programming to India. This has been going on for a while; it's nothing new. But fortunately we have had the housing bubble to mask the fact that the economy has stagnated. We have done little in the past six years but sell our overpriced real estate to each other, using toxic, nothing-down, interest only loans. That, in turn, has driven up prices, which has made home owners who bought when their home price was merely high, versus stratospheric, feel rich. They have taken out HELOCs and financed their boob jobs, their exotic vacations, their Hummers, from their little ATM they call their home.

Now the music has stopped. ARMs are resetting. House prices are stagnating and falling in some areas, and inventories are way up. The one thing propping up our economy is on the downward slide. Without real estate, there is nothing else. Ford's stock is now junk (if not their cars), GM is in big trouble, and the only jobs that we've created in big numbers in the past six years have been low-wage service positions, and real-estate related jobs (brokers, mortgage bankers, appraisers, home improvement stores, etc.) The media are starting to notice that there's the beginning of a perfect storm. In California, ground zero for the housing souffle, signs are pointing to an ugly, ugly 2007 and 2008. And that will affect more than the people who bought at the top and find themselves underwater on their $500K shack. It means the 'wealth effect' from rising real estate that has kept restaurants, spas, malls, you name it, humming for the past few years, will be over. That means job losses beyond the real estate industry. And the mainstream media are finally catching on.

And one economist is predicting a 70 percent chance of recession next year.

I can't wait for GM, once the gold standard for employee pay and benefits, to start giving their employees tips on "cooking with roadkill."

Here's something scary

2006-08-18T11:17:00.000-07:00

Bombs on a plane? Snakes on a Plane? This bit of news scares me more than just about anything right now.

It's not completely surprising that the U.S. is just above Turkey in the number of people who believe in evolution. But, still, it's stomach churning.

It is not a coincidence that the U.S. has been losing its scientific edge for some time now. And if we're still forced to debate the teaching of evolution, which was, I thought, decided eighty years ago, how can we possibly remain a superpower? Scientific invention, I would argue, has been the engine of growth and prosperity for this country. When kids are taught to ignore their science teacher, and instead take the book of Genesis literally, well, we're screwed.

I'm not a scientist. I hated math. Still do. But it's pretty clear that a nation of scientific ignoramuses cannot compete in the world marketplace of ideas, let alone cope with some of the biggest problems we face. Take global warming. There's no dispute about it within the scientific community. But will we have the skill base to actually come up with solutions for it? Or will our population sit back, look at the rising waters, the raging hurricanes and dust bowl farming conditions, and shrug, "oh well, it's God's will." This is what scares me.

And then there's the voting habits of said population. When 36 percent of this country still approves of the most criminal President to ever sit in the White House, just because he's a 'good Christian man,' I tremble.

More GOP Racism

2006-08-17T23:54:00.000-07:00

They just can't help themselves, can they? Tramm Hudson, the GOP stooge running for Catherine (Cruella) Harris' seat in Florida says black people aren't good swimmers.

But, Tramm, they are good dancers, aren't they? You know with natural rhythm, right? How, generally, is their shucking and jiving? Your 1920s southern white base would like to know. Loser.

More on Senator Macaca

2006-08-17T23:29:00.000-07:00

Huffington Post has more on the moron.

His sister wrote a book in which she details his abusive past. Among other things, the young sociopath:

- Held her over the railing at Niagara Falls.

- Welcomed her boyfriend into the house by slamming a pool cue against his head.

- Hurled his brother Bruce through a sliding glass door.

- Wanted to be a dentist because he saw dentistry as a perfect profession - getting paid to make people suffer.

Let's see. Inducing terror, check. Belittling and bullying, check. Violent, check. Sadistic, check. Oh, and he wore a confederate pin for his high school yearbook picture.. So, further burnishing of racist credentials, check. Oh and those cowboy boots he wears... well, they're a style he picked up from his tour of duty (during Vietnam) on a dude ranch in Nevada. Fake cowboy AND chickenhawk? Check and check!

Hell, skip the election for Senator AND for President. Just give him the keys to the frigging White House as soon as W drinks himself into a coma. He's a worthy successor, and quite symbolic of his devolving party and the nation.

Illegal, unconstitutional. Why is that so hard to understand?

2006-08-17T15:04:00.000-07:00

Leave it to Jack Cafferty to tell it like it is.

My favorite part is Jack saying that Bush broke his oath of office, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Spot on.

Of course the right wing noise machine is out in full force. The judge who slapped down Bush's warrentless wiretapping plan is: crazy. Liberal. Black. A woman. A terrorist sympathizer.

Nope. She's just doing the job that the Republican Congress has abdicated. That is, checking the power of the executive branch, holding it accountable and preventing the country from becoming One Nation Under Bush.

The GOP Congressional thugs are squaling too. Dennis (Jabba) Hastert arose (with help, one presumes) to declare that the London bomb plot was thwarted by illegal surveillance. Nope. And it wasn't thwarted by U.S. intelligence anyway.

The matter is clear: Bush broke the law in a power grab, and lied about it. There is no evidence, none, that going around FISA will lead to more arrests and more thwarted plots. 9-11 represented a failure on many levels. The first would be ignoring the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." memo. All of the information was there. Nobody was able to, or cared to, put it together. The Dems need to say this again and again. The informationally challenged American public may be susceptible to throwing away Constitutional freedoms out of terror whipped up by the Bush regime. But if that happens, to use a term by Dick (Darth) Cheney, 'the terrorists will win.'

Good news, though. It's election season. A new law to go around this ruling and make Bush king will not pass this Congress. The Dems will fight it (unless of course the polls show them that they shouldn't). And in five months there will be a new Congress, in Dem hands.

Prioritizationing in Journalisming

2006-08-17T13:34:00.000-07:00

NEWS: JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey. Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.Court decision of national importance.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.JonBenet Ramsey.

Meet the GOP frontrunner for 2008

2006-08-14T13:31:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post reports that during a speech, Senator George Allen of Virginia singled out a campaign worker of Indian descent, called him an endearing nickname, Macaca, and welcomed him to the "real world of Virginia and the United States."

BTW, Macaca is considered a step above "camel jockey". The putz has the IQ of dirt, but he knew what he was saying.

This is a Senator who's on the short list for the GOP nomination for President in 08. Very, very much in the George Bush mold. Let's see how he's doing so far:

-Cute nicknames that make him seem like a cut-up, but really used to demean the other person, check.
-Clueless racial stereotyping, check.

And, though it's not mentioned in the article, Allen is 1. a darling of the Religious Right, 2. came in dead last in his law school class, and 3. known as a 'friendly' guy you'd want to have a beer with.

Yep. I'd say he's THE top contender. Way to go, Allen.

CNN: Because you only have 24 hours a day to be terrified

2006-08-14T12:44:00.000-07:00

I made the mistake of turning on CNN for two minutes today. A producer was riding all modes of public transportation, with a 'fear expert' or some sort telling her how easy it is to die on this bus, this subway train (supposedly this Amtrak train, this boat and this ferry too, but I didn't get that far because I had to quickly cower in the corner and vigorously suck my thumb). Later, after I had cleaned the urine stain from my pants, I turned on the TV again. There was a 'scare expert,' I don't know his name, talking with Wolf Blitzer. I caught the end of their conversation that went something like this:

Scare Expert: So the number of ways that terrorists can attack and kill us is nearly infinite.
Wolf Blitzer: Thank you for that report. Truly scary, scary stuff.

AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I just have one suggestion for CNN. They should reconsider that Target: USA phrase. If you ignore the colon it becomes an imperative, an order to terrorists.

Some might argue...

2006-08-11T18:49:00.000-07:00

From ThinkProgress, Ned Lamont is now the Al Quada candidate:

Today on CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts discussed the impact of the foiled British terror plot with Hotline senior editor John Mercurio. Roberts asked Mercurio, "How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have already argued, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"

Mkay I don't feel like being nice. When the revolution comes, the corporate boards, the corporate masters and the peabrain newsreading shills for the GOP will be the first against the firing squad wall.

Maybe second, after Cheney.

But the Cheney regime would have been much, much, MUCH less effective without an army of stenographers to spew his culture of infinite destruction talking points. They have the blood of thousands of innocent people, worldwide, on their hands. They cheerled us into an illegal war and occupation. They gave, and continue to give, this murderous regime ruling the United States a free pass.

This is one of their tactics: setting up the stinkbomb, attributed to nobody, but made legitimate, they think, by the phrase, "Some might say," or "Some have argued," or "It has been said that..."

And the interviewee, some dirty Commie (AKA someone not on the Bush crime family payroll) has to respond to the comment. But the comment is simply an opinion wrapped in pretty transparent conservative foil. Clowns like Chuck Roberts use this tactic all the time, leaving their victims stumbling for an intelligent response that would dignify such slander:

"SOME might say that voting against the Patriot Act will embolden the terrorists."
"SOME have said that John Kerry is a traitor to his country."
"SOME would argue that voting for a Democrat will cause a plague of locusts to rain down on this country."
"SOME have argued that Dick Cheney is our grand overlord and to not submit to him will unleash the gates of hell fire."

The only correct response, for any of my readers who might be interviewed on Fox, FoxLight(AKA CNN), MSGOP or the others, before the revolution comes, would be something like this:

"WHO is saying that, exactly? I can only respond to such an absurd slander if I know who said it."

OR

"Well, SOME have argued that you, (INSERT NEWS READER'S NAME HERE), enjoy licking the unwashed testicles of mountain goats while humming "We are Family." I'm not arguing it. SOME have argued. How do you respond?"

What a surprise

2006-08-10T17:48:00.000-07:00

Bush seeks political gain from foiled plot.

And the money quotes:

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

Nothing makes me feel safer than the administration's glee over scaring us into submitting to them.

I'd like to believe this will backfire. I'd like to believe that the majority of people, at SOME point, wise up for good. I guess I'm an optimist.

But here we are, with Bush crowing about his 'success' at foiling the plot. Excuse me, what exactly did HE do? It was Scotland Yard, right? Doesn't matter. The GOP uses this as the opening gun for the midterm election race. Maybe the Dems, this time, will not be caught - gaping mouthed and wide eyed - grasping for a way to say that, they, too, "stand firm against terror, just as much, uh huh, you betcha." Maybe this time they will:

-Loudly denounce the GOP for its political opportunism.
-Mention that the plot was foiled with good old police investigations, which they favor, rather than bombing an unrelated country into glass.
-Point out that at least several of the plotters were from Pakistan (you know, our 'friends').

Will they or the the TERRATERRATERRA media ask the most relevant question? That is:

How is babysitting a civil war in a country that posed no threat to us keeping us safer?

I hope the Dems will. But I can guarantee the braindead media will not.

America is...

2006-08-10T13:07:00.000-07:00

Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger. Safer. In danger.

Congrats

2006-08-08T21:30:00.000-07:00

Ignoring the kickoff for the Holy Joe Sore Loser Traveling Road Show for a moment, congratulations to Ned Lamont and everyone who made his victory possible tonight. The dinosaurs in the beltway establishment are having aneurysms right now. And they should. This is what people powered politics looks like.

Lieberman, party of one...

2006-08-08T21:24:00.000-07:00

Joe's concession speech:

Good evening.

I just congratulated my challenger Ned Lamont on his success.

The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken.

But who cares what they say? Screw them. I deserve this seat. It's mine! I want it! And I am going to hold my breath until I win!

Good night and god bless America.

What's with Condi and the war/baby metaphors?

2006-07-28T18:54:00.000-07:00

The Shoe Lady said that bombs are 'birth pangs".

And, extremists want to strangle democracy in its crib.

Forget diplomatic relations for a second. Has Condi ever expressed interest in childbearing? If so, someone should notify the D.C. department of family services.

And on the second diplomatic trip to the Middle East... does anyone think this will go over any better than the first? Perhaps she'll at least get another invitation to play the piano.

Otherwise, she's probably praying that there's a Prada outlet store in Beirut, so the trip won't be a total waste.

He's not the disease, he's the symptom

2006-07-20T00:02:00.000-07:00

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

— H. L. Mencken

Anti-marriage amendment fails; fundies claim victory

2006-07-18T14:21:00.000-07:00

They knew it would be defeated, just as it was in 2004, just as it will be when they desperately trot it out in the next election year. Of course it was important to waste two precious days in Congress to find out what we already knew, so the far right politicians can get their fundie base all raptured up and have SOMETHING to run on this year, besides a botched, illegal war, corruption, incompetence and rubber stamping the President. From the AP

"The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage," said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., sponsor of the amendment. "And the people have a right to know whether their elected representatives agree with them."

The proposed amendment says that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Yeah yeah. Mister Larry makes 'jackoff' gesture with his hand.

Let's say that Musgrave is sincere in what she says about the man-woman thing in the Bible. She very well may be (although good luck on bringing out voters to the polls again and again on that - even fundies need food on the table, don't they?). If she is serious, I'm sure she and her colleagues would want Americans to follow ALL of the dictates of the Bible:

1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) Check. The Repubs have the man/woman thing covered. Wait... one OR MORE women? Party on!

2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21) I'm sure there are plenty of letcherous Congressmen who would be for that one. Where's the amendment for it.

3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21) Oops. Well, maybe some of the pro-execution states, Texas for example, would be for it.

4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) Any mixed marriages in Congress?

5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) Bummer. That's going to hurt.

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) That's going to get complicated, but let's see them bring up legislation for that one.

Fair is fair. If you take one verse out of the Bible but ignore the rest of what the Bible says about the issue, isn't that, um... what's the term I'm thinking of?

Hypocrisy?
Discrimination?
Gay-motivated hate?
An electoral loser?
An frightening merging of church and state
All of the above?

In Texas, we always grope a head of state after we''ve shared a pig with her

2006-07-17T23:30:00.000-07:00

The supposed leader of our country gets a little familiar with the Chancellor of Germany.

I have nothing funny to say about this. It would be creepy if he were a fratboy doing this to a Gamma Chi at a kegger. But as one world leader to another - a woman, who comes from a country where people respect personal boundaries - well, words fail, almost.

Think about this. The clown has such a sense of entitlement that he can get away with this, without even thinking about it. Also consider how DRUNK he looks in the picture. The titular leader of our country turned the G8 summit into a freaking frat party. I only wish she had turned around and hit him.

They did break pig together last week, so maybe this kind of behavior is acceptable.

Um, no. It isn't. Can't think of an instance where it would be.

Okay maybe I can think of something amusing. Here are the top five things we can be glad that he DIDN'T do to her.

5. Grab her breast and make a honking noise.
4. Crawl under the table and climb up her dress.
3. Masturbate in public.
2. Fill his left nostril with mashed potatoes, hold the right nostril shut and blow it out onto her.
1. Roll around on the floor and scream 'Jesus loves me because I made poo.'

He's saving those for the next summit.

Mr. Bush, would you kiss Condi with that mouth?

2006-07-17T15:58:00.000-07:00

Who knew? Our dear leader not only eats with his mouth open,he has a potty mouth as well. Here are a few bon mots from the Connecticut Cowboy:

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this [shit] and it’s over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

And this:

Bush expresses amazement that it will take some leaders as many as eight hours to fly home — about the same time it will take Air Force One with Bush aboard to return to Washington.

"You eight hours? Me, too. Russia’s a big country and you’re a big country," Bush said, at one point telling a waiter he wanted Diet Coke. "Takes him eight hours to fly home. Russia’s big and so is China. Yeah Blair, what’re you doing? Are you leaving."

And this:

Bush also said that when he next spoke to G8 leaders, he would keep it brief. "I’m not going to talk too long like the rest of them. Some of these guys talk too long. Gotta go home. Got something to do tonight," he said.

Because, you know, the other world leaders have nothing to do, except maybe play Warcraft or watch American Idol.

At first I thought, hmmm. Slow news day. But no, there is a battle raging that could eventually involve Syria and even Iran. That's big news.

So, maybe there is an ulterior motive behind this reporting. Maybe this is the Zeitgeist we've all been waiting for. After much of the blogworld knew about how Bush cut birthday cake with John McCain as New Orleans was being wiped off the map, the general public didn't. Reporters knew it. But in their ongoing deference to the idiot king, they felt their corporate masters wouldn't (or still won't) let themsay explicitly what they knew (and we know): Bush is the most pathetic waste of space that has ever occupied the office.

So, I'm encouraged to see stories like this dribble out, where the snark is just barely concealed. It's all the facts, but the underlying narrative is "This is the leader of the U.S., a philistine who swears, chews with his mouth open, and needs a geography lesson. He is a 60 year old with all the maturity and critical thinking of a toddler."

But beyond the immaturity and cloddishness that we've seen for six years, let's focus for a second on the critical thinking and leadership skills. I return to the money quote:

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this [shit] and it’s over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

Here you have his thinking summed up in one ignorant Bushism: Lean on Syria, and presto. Problem solved. Now let's have some beers!

What's even more disturbing than this simple minded approach to foreign policy is, the lapdog (Blair) agrees with this. No mention of Israel's actions in Gaza nor their destruction of Lebanon and the killing of innocent Lebanese citizens. Nope. See, it's all so simple. "Get the terr'ists to stop doin' shit. Now I'm gonna get me some more gravy." It also shows how disengaged and disinterested both B and B are.

We have two world leaders with a frightening, wicked-stupid misunderstanding of the situation that amounts to a tacit admission that they have no idea what to do about this conflict.

But maybe somebody does. FDR once said that in politics things don't happen by accident. Someone is running this show. And it isn't the clod with his mouth full, nor his lover, Condi, nor his lapdog. More on who's salivating over a full-on regional war in a later post.

But for now, a few more words about the clod. With a Republican Congress, not even ten stained blue dresses could get rid of this dolt. In 2000 he vowed to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House.' We're still waiting. Oh, and we would love to know what he has to rush back home to do tonight. Is it Condi? Is it Jack (Daniels)? Or both.

Are there 12-step programs to rid someone of his 'Latin-ness'?

2006-07-17T14:58:00.000-07:00

One of our leaders apparently would go for that. From the Congressional record:

Steve King R-IA 5th
House of Representative Floor
May 16, 2006

Illegal Immigration

....Also, Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for producing multi-lingual ballots of any kind here in America. There is a requirement when you are a naturalized citizen that you demonstrate proficiency in English. And so therefore if you come into this country legally and you acquire citizenship, which is a requirement for voting in America, you will have been required to demonstrate proficiency and literacy in English.

That means then that you can go into a voting booth and vote in any voting booth in America on an English language ballot, not another language ballot. And the only other scenario by which one might be sitting in the United States and eligible to vote and not have command of the English language would be if they were born here in the United States, they had birthright citizenship, which I reject that idea, but it is our practice today, someone with birthright citizenship, and by the time they get to be 18 and register to vote, they go into the voting booth and they had not had enough exposure to English to be able to understand a simple ballot, and so we would give someone who was born in America, an American citizen, lived in an ethnic enclave, never learned English, and give them that interpreter in the voting booth so we can find a way to coddle them and be an enabler, just like an enabler for an alcoholic, hand them a bottle of booze so they do not cure themselves....

Emphasis mine. Boozers... Spanish speakers... what's the difference? They're both menaces, right?

New from Ronco! The Mexican Zapper!

2006-07-13T13:10:00.000-07:00

How much would you pay for this?

I don't know. Maybe a low introductory price of 180 billion?

Given the downward trajectory of our public discourse, we could soon see a late night commercial on the "Mexican Sausager.'"Illegals go in, and out comes a perfectly formed sausage , perfect for parties, dinner, or a late night snack. Sausage Illegals taste just like bratwurst... only spicier!"

Just you wait. Good thing I don't watch TV anymore.

If Babs (queen mum) Bush were giving the eulogy at Ken Lay's funeral

2006-07-13T13:01:00.000-07:00

From what I understand, the man was on his way to prison. So this (chuckles) is working out very well for him.

Or maybe not. She's only insensitive when they're poor, black and/or haven't destroyed lives.

Rise and long fall of the Incumbocrat

2006-07-03T18:40:00.000-07:00

Joe Lieberman's most salient quote today at his press conference, where he announced that he would run as an Independent (excuse me, 'Petitioning Democrat') if he loses the August Dem primary against Ned Lamont:

I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.

What are those greater loyalties? None other than Joe, himself.

There are many reasons to hate Joe Lieberman, and I won't go into them here. Oh, well, okay, but just a few:

-The pedantic moralizing.
-Stabbing the party in the back at every chance.
-Favoring restrictions on reproductive choice.
-Favoring to keep the unaffordable Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.
-The Elmer Fudd-on-downers voice.
-The flip flopping on issues like Social Security.
-UNQUESTIONING SUPPORT OF THE WAR.
-"In a time of war we criticize the Commander in Cheif at our own peril."

But possibly the most important reason to vote this droopy Likud dishrag out of office is his Incumbantitis. He is not the first arrogant, entitled, out-of-touch pol who thinks he should be re-elected because, well, he's already there and deserves it because he says so. But he is just the most, whiny, desperate, craven and transparent example of this.

He said on CNN that he would run as a Petitioning Democrat (there is no such thing) if he loses to Ned Lamont in the primary because, and I am paraphrasing, that he knows best, better than the voters who will turn out on a hot, August day for a primary. Here's a clue, Joey. The voters who turn out will be motivated to vote for someone they like, a real Democrat. And they won't be voting for you. Why not accept the will of the voters and walk away like a man?

Actually, he probably knows this well, and his internal polling must suck. So now, instead of having a 50/50 chance of winning the Dem primary outright, it is more likely that he, looking like a traitor - no, a whiny, entitled, pompous, ass-face - will lose. But he doesn't care. Because he will be able to coast until November, and save some money, and be on the ballot then anyway. To hell with process. To hell with the rules if he doesn't like them. To hell with the will of the people. If the voters of his party don't want him, this moldy oldie will find a way around them. Because Joe knows best.

And it's all about Joe, I-CT (I for Incumbocrat).

More on the Iraqi rape/murder story

2006-07-01T18:35:00.000-07:00

And it isn't pretty.

BEIJI, Iraq (AP) -- Investigators believe American soldiers spent nearly a week plotting an attack in which they raped an Iraqi woman, then killed her and her family in an insurgent-ridden area south of Baghdad, a U.S. military official said Saturday.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the attack appeared "totally premeditated" and that the soldiers apparently "studied" the family for about a week before carrying out the attack.

According to the official, the Sunni Arab family had just moved into a new home in the religiously mixed area about 20 miles south of Baghdad. The Americans entered the home, separated three family members from the woman, then raped her and set fire to her body, the official said. The three others were also slain. A senior Army official who also requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing said one of the victims was a child .

Top ten Bush Administration/Fox News/Ann Coulter responses:

10. Rapes always increase around the fourth of July. Nothing to see here.
9. Iraqi civilians need to understand: you're either with us, or you're fucked and incinerated.
8. The woman was asking for it. So was the kid.
7. Those women are ALWAYS enticing our men, with their sexy black burkas.
6. At least the soldiers didn't burn the American flag. THAT would be a crime.
5. At least the soldiers aren't faggots. THAT would be a crime.
4. We're raping them over there so we don't have to rape them here.
3. Bill Clinton lied about sex... everyone knows THAT is worse.
2. It's just another example of why we need to repeal the estate tax.
1. G****** liberal media! You revealed the Pentagon's secret strategic plan, Operation Rape, Torture and Incinerate (ORTI)! Journalists should be tried for treason.

Hey Clarence Thomas. STFU!

2006-07-01T14:22:00.000-07:00

One interesting side note to the Hamdan decision last week was that the great silent one spoke up. Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely opens his mouth in oral arguments, and almost never drafts an opinion, and whose opinions usually amount to "yeah, whatever Scalia says," was incensed that the majority of the court decided NOT to allow Bush to create his own dictatorship. Mad enough to finally speak up.

And what did he say? He used the opportunity to squat down and release a turd on Justice Stevens:

[In the Hamdan decision,] Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens' "unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare"; but Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas's official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service.

A man who served in WWII is unfamiliar with the realities of warfare? The gall. The unmitigated nerve.

It would be so nice to see Stevens open up a can of whoop ass on Thomas. I'm thinking a retort like, "and YOU sir are unfamiliar with the realities of being a black man."

This is the new Conservative Nation: up is down, black is white (no pun on race intended), a fratboy who went AWOL from the national guard is a war hero and a war hero is war criminal. And oh yeah, this is a good one: Americans are liberators..

Lies and spin, that's all the conservatives have left. And the the work, to the extent that the U.S. public is awake. And the public is now in that hazy netherworld between REM sleep and consciousness, still.

But for now, Clarence Thomas, go back to hiding under daddy Scalia's (big, no huge) robe. Go back to being a dittohead and leave the writing and opinionmaking to someone with a brain.

Meet the man standing between us and fascism

2006-06-29T20:10:00.000-07:00

Justice Anthony Kennedy is now the swing vote in the 9-member Supreme Court. He voted with the "liberal" four today in the Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld decision, which smacked down Bush for holding enemy combatants indefinitely without a trial.

What's good:

-Bush is humiliated in front of the world as the majority of the court upholds the rule of law, the military code of conduct. It shows that the SC is the last hope for holding Bush accountable; unless Congress falls into the hands of the Democrats in November (and I do mean 'fall into'; they are doing little to nothing to show any kind of resistance to the right wing steamroller).

-The highest court ruled that Bush, nor any president, can act as judge jury and executioner. In essence they said that a time of war doesn't mean a descent into lawlessness.

-The Geneva Convention is not, contrary to the head torturer in the land, Alberto Gonzales, 'quaint.'

What's bad:

-Three members of the court (four, if Robert's hadn't recused himself for already ruling for the President while sitting on the DC court of appeals) think it's just fine to let Bush do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, just because he says so.

-Alito and Roberts have morphed with Scalia-Thomas to form a moster with four heads and one brown shirt, one that that can be counted upon to make the most regressive decision every time. Thom-Rob-Scalito never met a human rights law it liked, and will always, ALWAYS rule to overturn it and misinterpret the constitution to give greater power to the state - that is, as long as someone with an R sits in the Executive branch. This is not, to anyone who followed the confirmation hearings, surprising. At least Roberts' record was thin; he was appointed primarily as a stealth candidate with good hair and nice teeth. But as for Alito, who has a long history of ignoring settled law, immigrants are for deporting, blacks and the disabled are for firing, 10-year-old girls are for strip searching, and coat hangers are, well, not just for coats.

-Given Bush's flouting of any law he doesn't like - with signing statements and illegal spying which he vows to continue - he can simply ignore this ruling. Who is going to enforce it? Congress? Ha.

-Seven of the nine members of the court were installed by Republican presidents, including two of those "liberal" four. John Paul Stevens is over 80. Ruth Bader Ginsberg has cancer, which is in remission, for now. Sandra Day O'Connor, a former swing vote, has been replaced by one of the most fascistic, ideological judges alive today. God help us if one of the four, or Kennedy, retires or dies in the next two years. God help us. Because we know the rubber stamp Congress that let these two thugs sail through confirmation, knowing exactly how they would vote, won't help us.

-Lest we forget, and we must never forget, that Bush was installed in office by the SC in a 5-4 decision.

So, yes. It was a good day for those of us who believe in the rule of law. Still, God help us.

Ebert gives Inconvenient Truth critics thumbs down

2006-06-29T00:46:00.000-07:00

I haven't loved film critic Roger Ebert lately. His reviews have been erring on the side of nice, and safe, and he gives way more thumbs up than he used to. King Kong was the best movie of 2005? Why? Because what we really need is three hours of nonstop stampeding dinosaurs?

Nevertheless he's a smart guy. And when he smacks down the flat earth society, I have to take notice. Check out his critique of Gore-hating global warming deniers (emphasis mine):

What I fail to understand is why global warming should be a liberal or conservative issue. It is either happening or is not, and we can either take action to try to slow it, or we cannot. That is why a great many conservatives have agreed with Gore on this.

When I am told "this is another one you're trying to blame on Bush and Halliburton," all I can say is, somebody is listening to way too much talk radio on which they are told global warming is being blamed on Bush and Halliburton. Actually, Gore blames neither and mentions neither. "It got worse on his watch as vice president." Yes, it did. "He flies around on a jet to warn against it." Yes, one of thousands of jet flights every day.

One person says that when Gore finds a "100 percent agreement" among scientists about global warming, that proves he is wrong, because 100 percent of scientists do not agree on anything. Then they quote scientists who disagree with Gore. What he said was, a random sampling of 935 recent articles published in peer-review scientific journals shows agreement with the basic findings reported in his film.

Many people inform me that they just read a story saying that the South Pole was tropical many eons ago. So it was, as reported in "March of the Penguins." I don't know what they want me to do with this factoid. Applaud our actions to bring that condition around again as quickly as possible?

I cannot get into a scientific discussion here. There will be no end to it. All I can say is, the Gore documentary made a deep impression on me. I urge you to see it. You will not be seeing a "campaign film," or "sour grapes," or "Gore still being bitter." George W. Bush has repeated for six years that global warming "requires more study." If Gore has spent six years studying it, aren't his findings worthy of attention? Yes, I'm "being political." But saying the issue "needs more study" is a political statement when energy groups are among your major supporters and your family is in the oil business.

Actually, the film didn't do a lot for me, but I'm the choir. He wasn't trying to preach to me; I knew most of this stuff. And I do agree just a bit that I could have used a little bit less of Gore looking concerned and Presidential (if only because I want to scream about the fact he is not actually the President). And yes there were parts of it that seemed like sour grapes or digs that he would make a better leader. That may have been unintentional; from the very mention of Hurricane Katrina, I think most people, even some Republicans had to do a 'what if' scenario putting Gore in charge. And very likely their scenario would have a much less tragic ending.

But so what. Gore should be President. Only the most hardened conservative dead enders truly believe now that Gore would have made all of the mistakes of the woeful faux cowboy thug that elbowed his way into the office. Doesn't matter. The film is good, and it's important, and like Ebert said, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Just like eliminating hackable electronic voting machines shouldn't be a partisan issue. Unfortunately the Republicans have made it so.

BTW, Gore was great on the the Daily Show tonight. I do believe that he won't run. But he nearly raised an interesting point. Some people don't believe in his message because they hate him and what they think he stands for (liberalism). He has celebrity status so his message can get out there, but if who he is becomes a liability for the message reaching a majority of people then maybe there should be another, less controversial messenger.

Then again maybe all that's needed is a slim majority to pay attention and do the right thing.

Photo op rule: When you pose with a soldier whose life you ruined, smile big!

2006-06-28T00:25:00.000-07:00

Rove is NOT off the hook

2006-06-14T13:24:00.000-07:00

I'm getting very tired of the newly energized, slathering "journalists" ecstatically reporting that Rove is off the hook. No, Time magaine is saying, way down at the bottom of the story, that Fitzgerald said, absent any new developments he does not anticipate bringing charges against Rover.

Here's the key paragraph.

Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove. (emphasis mine)

A bit of a difference. I read this as, "If I find out later the fat fucker lied to me, all bets are off."

Remember that Rove will be a witness in Scooter Libby's trial. However, if Rove doesn't cooperate, it could easily change. And remember, Fitzgerald can't get to whether or not a law was broken when Plame's name was leaked until, at the very least, the Libby trial is over.

Oh and this case is NOT over either. Joe Wilson is considering whether to bring a civil suit aginst Pigman for outing his wife, Valerie Plame and destroying her career. Civil suits are much easier to win than criminal suits.

But the big question has not been answered and I don't think we're likely to get the answer soon. Why dos Fitz not anticipate bringing charges? Is it:

A. He doesn't have enough evidence for an airtight case, or
B. Rover rolled over and fingered Cheney. (Ooh, that phrasing just gave me an awful mental image. Must soak head in Clorox).

What's that about the blind leading the blind?

2006-06-14T12:38:00.000-07:00

At Bush's truly BIZARRO press conference today, the highlight was, as always, his jovial bantering with the press. Take this exchange:

This exchange happened with Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times:

Bush: You gonna ask your question with shades on?

Wallsten: Yes...

Bush: But there's no sun out here.

Wallsten: It depends on your perspective.

Bush: Touché.

Wallsten is legally blind.

Maybe Bush forgot this - the guy has covered the White House for years - or maybe didn't know. More likely, given his history, it was just fun banter with a blind press guy.

What's next? Bush joshes with a wheelchair bound reporter: "You have trouble going through a metal detector in that thing." A legless reporter's new nickname will be 'Stumpy.' A reporter, bald from chemo, will be referred to as 'Cancer boy.'

This is the leader of our country. He demands respect. He gives none. Beyond moronic and childish. This is the behavior of a sociopath.

Another perspective on homophobia

2006-06-05T14:39:00.000-07:00

Today was the big gay bashing day in D.C. Yes, as the Dow dropped 200 points we heard blowhard senators and the chimp in chief declare how they will defend the definition of marriage. Not marriage itself, but the definition of it. As if our government is now in the business of protecting semantics.

Of course this is a crude and desperate political move. When in deep shit, find the nearest scapegoat and maybe your base will vote for you.

But at the heart of the hate is homophobia. Fear of gays, and more important, fear of gay sex. Hatred of it, yes. But beneath that, fear. No, abject terror.

Which brings to mind the University of Georgia study. In 1996 researchers showed a group of "straight" yet homophobic males and straight nonhomophobic males four minute clips of gay pornographic films.

They strapped a "peter meter" (plethysmograph) around the penis of each man in the study which measures the increase in circumference due to penile arousal. The results were:

Degree of tumescence (hardness) in homophobic straight men was 54% definately aroused, 26% as moderately aroused, and 20% no penile arousal.

The control group of men whose psychological screening revealed they were straight men comfortable with their sexuality and not threatened by gay males, the results were: Definate arouseal 24%, moderate arousal 10%, and NO arousal, 66%.

So, now, when confronted with your friendly neighborhood homophobe (or homo-hater), consider that there is a better than 50 percent chance he goes to bed at night thinking of man-on-man action. Kind of makes sense when you think about it. We obsess about that which we fear the most. And what we fear the most, from a Jungian perspective, is the aspect within us that we hate.

Your neighborhood homo hater is obsessing about gays getting rights becase he dreams about Jake Gyllenhal, naked except for cowboy boots, with a rubber ball in his mouth. Mkay, maybe that one is just for me. But you get my point.

Self-delusion and self-loathing make terrible starting points for public policy.

Sanctity of marriage

2006-06-03T08:59:00.000-07:00

Monday is the big gay bashing day in Washington. But our chimp in chief got a head start on his radio address today:

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

Any one with more than two brain cells - and this has to include some of the rabid religious right, RRR(TM) - has to know that this is a desperate pandering move, pure and simple. The GOP has nothing else to run on. Under their influence the country is bleeding from every pore. So they need wedge issues to keep their base in line and bring out the meanest, basest human instincts. The issues they have to run on are gays (again) and Mexicans (gays 2.0). The Federal Marriage Amendment will fail (needs two thirds of the votes in Congress). I think it will backfire. The bible thumpers they're pandering to still have to buy gas. And more, a failure will look like another broken promise, and aside from getting two right wing Supreme Court justices, the administration hasn't delivered much to the RRR.

So, no. The Talibaning(TM) of America might work in a time of peace and prosperity. But not now.

If the Republicans were really serious about turning back the clock, and remaking the U.S. in the image of the Donna Reed Show, they should go all the way. If it's really about the sanctity of marriage, and if marriage is between a man and a woman and for the sole purpose of procreation, well, they need to go whole hog:

- Ban divorce
- Ban oral, anal sex, and anything that won't lead to fertilization of an egg among opposite sex couples
- Ban masturbation within marriage
- Ban pre-marital sex (all pre-marital activity should be limited to frottage and should be conducted in the back of a 57 Buick)
- Jail infertile couples or those who choose to have no children

Also, since Bush said "marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots," one has to assume he is also in favor of polygamy, concubines and dowries. In that light, the GOP should dictate all marriages be intended for either settling disputes between tribes or exchanging property.

And those are just starters. Then again, I hate to give them ideas.

BBC vs. CNN

2006-06-02T09:21:00.000-07:00

Friday, June 2nd, 9 a.m. PST headlines

BBC
-Iran nuclear bomb in 10 years
-Man shot in UK anti-terrorism raid
-Maoists hold huge Nepal rally
-Hard labour for Abu Gharaib abuse
-Iraqi PM angry at U.S. violence

CNN
-Kelsey Grammer's new blue role
-Anna Nicold Smith: Yes I am pregnant
-Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie at it again
-Man prepares for double marathon... in a freezer
-Paralyzed pup pops a wheelie

Us Murkin's needs to show them Brits a thing or two about journalisming.

Credit card Republicans

2006-05-31T10:12:00.000-07:00

The GOP is at it again with the tax cuts. I suppose they think they've already gone far enough down this unaffordable and irresponsible road, why not rape and plunder some more? Especially since they'll be losing control of at least the house after November, if conventional wisdom holds (though I'll believe it when I see it). The last time Republicans held so much power in Washington for so long was the 1920s, when Congress cut taxes many times. And then, in 1929 there was prosperity that had never been seen... um, oops, no, never mind.

So, then, what is the GOP's game plan? Pretty simple I think.

1.Create a financial crisis.

2. The people scream for action.

3. GOP whips out the Balanced Budget Amendment(already written and just sitting in Hasterts desk just like the Patriot Act).

4. The act overwhelmingly passes with bipartisan support.

5. Republicans cut every social program in sight. Grandmas die in wheelchairs. More homeless people on the street, including possibly one of your former co-workers. More murders, carjackings and robberies.

6. The nation quickly becomes the world's newest banana republic.

7. Labor, cheap. Rich, profit. Masses, angry and elect Democratic president and Congress in 08.

8. Dems do the responsible thing and rescind the tax cuts, and even raise taxes. But the damage done from the GOP takes years to undo, and thus the public and the right wing noise machine blame the Dems for the mess.

9. Backlash. GOP sweeps to victory, just as the measures of the Democrats begin to pull the country out of a depression. GOP takes credit for the recover.

10. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Pandering to the base, part 778

2006-05-19T13:29:00.000-07:00

Denying that it's pandering to right wing xenophobes, the Republican-led Senate just voted to make English the national language

On a related note, President (Nookulur) Bush is expected to be indicted for violating the new English-only law.

Cafferty bitchslaps the 'lunatic fringe' of the GOP

2006-05-18T22:44:00.000-07:00

I love Jack Cafferty, the other grumpy old man of CNN. No I don't agree with him on every issue, but he does have a way of cutting right through the bullshit. Oh by the way he's a Republican (an old-school, pre-American Taliban variety).

Check out his rant about the hypocrisy of the GOP that believes our most pressing issue as a nation is banning marriage equality, and has to hold its antigay hearing in secret. Here is the dustup between Senator (no BS) Feingold and Senator Arlen (all BS) Specter.

And here is the transcript of Cafferty's rant:

Jack Cafferty: Wolf, Today's lesson in hypocrisy comes to us courtesy of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They met in a different private room behind closed doors today and approved a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. at one point the thing got pretty ugly. A shouting match, between the Republican Chairman Senator Arlen Spector and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, who said he was against the Amendment as well as Spector's decision to hold the vote in a private room out of the public's view.

These guys are shameless. Feingold eventually stormed out telling Spector "I've enjoyed your lecture Mr Chairman. See ya."

Senator Spector in a real show of courage, says that he is "totally opposed to the Amendment", but he voted for it anyway saying that it deserves a debate in the Senate. Majority Leader Bill Frist says the full Senate will now debate a Constitutional Amendment which has absolutely no chance of passing. Frist hopes to have a vote by June 5th.

This is all being done by the republican majority in an effort to appeal to Right-wing nuts in the Republican Party ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections. Ignore all of the pressing issues facing the country, and instead go grovel at the feet of the lunatic fringe. Senator Frist should be very proud of himself. That's leadership. Here's the question: Is now the time for the Senate to consider a constitutional Amendment on gay marriage?"

The Republicans show their cowardice once again by hiding in a private room. Good for Feingold. Frist and the word "leadership" in the same sentence is scary. Lunatic fringe sounds about right to me. This should be called the "James Dobson" amendment.

Yep. So well said, I have nothing to add, except this: For a long time I have been screaming about how backward the braindead masses are. And surely my countrymen will disappoint me again. But on the issue of gays, the public is moving toward tolerance, and much faster than I thought possible. Meanwhile the knuckle dragging beltway GOP (aided by much of the beltway Dems) are lagging public opinion. It may be a winning issue now, but not for long. That's why they're already launching Discrimination 2.0, The Mexicans Edition.

Also read Feingold's reaction to the event.

Attorney General's grandparents were illegals

2006-05-18T01:37:00.000-07:00

No, that's not what he said. He said this on CNN:

BLITZER: Give us your -- tell our viewers who aren't familiar your personal story, how you got to where you are, your grandparents, your parents. They struggled, they came here. I don't know if they came here legally or illegally, but give us the story.

GONZALES: Well, three of my grandparents were born in Mexico. They came to Texas. My parents -- both of my parents were born in Texas, extremely poor. My mother...

BLITZER: But when they came to Texas, were they legally documented, were they unlegally documented?

GONZALES: You know, it's unclear. It's unclear. And I've looked at this issue, I've talked to my parents about it, and it's just not clear.

It's unclear? No, it's quite clear. If his grandparents came here legally he would have said so, proudly, over and over. But he didn't, and they didn't. And if they were legal there would be a public record of this.

I know it's a little difficult to decode the lies and spin of the GOP. But let me try. Here is what Alberto really wanted to say:

My abuelos came here with a coyote and they had some little brown muchachos with the free medical care at the free hospital. Those muchachos got the free education that all the hijos of illegals get. Those little brown ones grew up and created me. I got my affirmative action education so I could become a lawyer and I stuck my lips and tongue so far up George Bush's ass that I could taste the bourbon in his mouth. But it paid off! Because he made me AG and I'm somebody. Now I can enforce rules that send those brown folk back, and I can declare that it's legal to torture brown folk in the middle east. I can do anything I want, because I got mine. Do you hear me? I'm important! I've made it! I've got mine!! And as for all the new wetbacks coming here, well they are felons and so are their muchachos. So they can all fuck off and die. I've got mine and nobody is going to take anything away from me!! So you can stop asking me questions about my fucking abuelos. Got that?

I hope I cleared that up.

BTW: What the hell is 'unlegally documented,' Wolf. Does CNN need to send you back to English class?

The "final solution" to immigration

2006-05-16T19:24:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of talk suddenly about what to do with illegal immigrants (even though they have been coming here for decades, NOW is the time to deal with them). I won't go into all of the options - increased border patrol, employer sanctions, guest worker program - all of those were discussed in Der Leader's speech last night. And polls indicate that his knuckle dragging base was not impressed, and in fact is downright angry.

Perhaps it's because his base would like something more, um, drastic to deal with the problem. Something like this scholar proposes on the right wing blog, Worldnetdaily.com.

Dear Jorge plans to address the nation tonight, a speech wherein he will almost surely attempt to deceive citizens into believing that he does not wish the mass migration from Mexico to continue unabated. He will likely offer some negligible resources for law enforcement and border security – resources which will never materialize – in return for an amnesty program that will grant American citizenship to the Mexican nationals who have helped lower America's wage rates by 16 percent over the last 32 years.

And he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it's just not going to work."

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

In fact, the hysterical response to the post-rally enforcement rumors tends to indicate that the mere announcement of a massive deportation program would probably cause a third of that 12 million to depart for points south within a week.

Get that? Using the Holocaust as a model for mass deportation. Just, wow.

Anyone can say this in public and I have to respect their right to do so. Freedom of speech and all that. Funny how the internet gives racists, flat-earthers, racists and Holocaust lovers legitimacy.

And how it exposes them as a key part of the GOP's base.

This kind of ugliness and stupidity may always be with us, unfortunately. It's important to expose it, and tie it to the party that brung it and nurtured it; the GOP. And electorally, here's to a bright blue southwest from here on out.

A modest proposal

2006-05-11T12:35:00.000-07:00

I will let others with strong law backgrounds explain the illegality of the USA Today Spying Story. I don't have time or patience to post a begininning civics class lesson to explain why this is unconsitutional and the largest overreach of government power in my lifetime. And I don't feel like explaining why this makes me fear my own government far more than I fear terrorists. If you need more critical analysis, the best place to go is Glenn Greenwald's blog.

I am here to propose a childish act of protest. Because if you're like me, you reached the outrage fatigue wall some time ago (me, I was close to peak outrage in December, 2000), and you feel like there is pretty much nobody in government trying to save this train wreck.

I use my mobile phone almost exclusively. The land line is for the fax, the DSL, and for collecting messages from telemarketers. It is likely, given that this administration has declared itself above the law repeatedly, that the scandal goes beyond phone service providers being paid off to share the data from your land line conversations. What the cell providers have given or haven't given will be part two of this story. Part three will be specifics on who was tapped. Cindy Sheehan and John Kerry, among other political enemies, have been spied on; I would bet any amount of money on it.

So where are we? Well, a few weeks ago I would have said we have been flirting with fascism. Today I say we are there. And what can we do? Well, since money is the ONLY thing that speaks in this country, switching your land line service to Qwest (the only company that denied the administrations bribes to get them to share your info) would be a start.

You could petition your congressmen and senators to investigate. But we know that won't do any good. There are only a few in Congress who are even remotely in the business of doing the people's work. John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Barney Frank.... um, and about five or six others. The rest of Congress is busy debating the really important things - flag burning, making it illegal to sing the national anthem in Spanish, extending the $70 billion tax cuts for the rich, and finding ways to avoid working during their strenuous 96 annual workdays. So they're a little distracted right now. Plus, most of the Democrats will be anxiously calling their pollsters and consultants to figure out how long they can sit on the fence on this one. Answer: indefinitely.

The U.S. is now a fascist state. And for the moment we are pretty much alone. But thank god, childish acts of disobedience are still an option. So here is my proposal. Instead of 'good bye' or 'talk to you later,' or, 'I'll bring the lube' or whatever you say just before you hang up the phone, say something that will scramble the NSA spying program. Say:
"Death to America,"
"Long live Bin Laden,"
"Praise Allah," or
"Terrorists are fucking hot."

You can choose your own salutation. My point is, if enough of us do this, NSA will be swimming in terrorist keywords. How can they investigate all of us? If a government can turn on its own people, its people can turn on the government, even if the method is juvenile. Because turning on citizens is what this story is all about. We the people - not al Quada, not Islamofascists, not criminals - are the enemy.

Are we there yet?

2006-05-11T11:51:00.000-07:00

This is from research conducted by Laurence W. Britt, who studied seven fascist regimes.

Early Warning Signs of Fascism

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause.
4. Supremecy of the military
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and government intertwined
9. Corporate power protected
10. Labor power supresses
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections

Any of these sound familiar? How about all of them?

W T F?

2006-05-07T16:12:00.000-07:00

You know his presidency can't be going well when he says the best moment of the last five years was catching a fish.

No I am not making this up. And we know he his not being sarcastic, because he isn't capable of those higher linguistic skills. He actually told Reuters that the best moment in the last FIVE FUCKING YEARS WAS CATCHING A FISH:

U.S. President George W. Bush told a German newspaper his best moment in more than five years in office was catching a big perch in his own lake.

"You know, I’ve experienced many great moments and it’s hard to name the best," Bush told weekly Bild am Sonntag when asked about his high point since becoming president in January 2001.

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound (3.402 kilos) perch in my lake," he told the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.

Well there are certainly many worse things he has done. I started wondering what, for me, was his best moment as president. I think it was the last State of the Union address when he took a strong, resolute stand against 'human-animal hybrids.' That was probably the only policy of his that I could conceivably support. Then again, in fifty years when having a mantelope as a pet becomes fasionable, I may want one.

Other than that, all the other moments of his presidency were absolute shite.

But back to the statement itself: WTF. Could he be kidding? Is it more of his common man schtick? That's the only plausible explination. Although it is little late for the 'I'm just a common bumpkin like you" routine. I swore when I started this blog that it wouldn't be one of those 'Bush sucks' rantfests but, frankly, this one is too nauseating to pass up.

Yes it's hard work being the Decider. So much decidenating to do. Sometimes, fucking over the entire world pales in comparison to kicking back and reeling in a... did he say 7.5 pound PERCH?? Do they even grow that big?

Oh right. I forgot. He lies. Fortunately, this time, no humans died. Just a (likely 1 pound) perch.

UPDATE: The world's record for the largest freshwater perch caught is four pounds three ounces. LIAR!!!

FEMA follies

2006-04-28T01:09:00.000-07:00

This is just great. Repubs like Susan Collins (R-ME) don't want to mend FEMA, they want to end it.

On The News Hour on PBS Mark Shields decried the deplorable Katrina trailers and Rich Lowry said something like, 'that's proof that government doesn't work.'

In 1994 Tom Delay said, "By the time we finish this poker game, there may not be a federal government left! Which would suit me just fine."

So now we have a call to dismantle FEMA, because it doesn't work. Yes we've seen how dysfunctional it is. So instead of fixing what's wrong, we have to start over, with a new name and a new bureaucracy. What a joke.

Is there anyone who thinks the proposal would solve anything? The problem is, this administration doesn't want to solve anything. Seeing government fail the people - after the GOP has wrecked it and staffed it with cronies - is the end result of a great conservative self-fulfilling prophesy.

Ronald Reagan started all this when he came to Washington and said, "Government is the problem". And the Republicans have been proving him right ever since. Oh not because government is inherently stupid; it's because the GOP makes it so. And with the right wing spin machine going nonstop, millions of people have come to believe that "government doesn't work" and "why do I pay taxes for nothing?"

It's called starving the beast. Except the whole beast is not quite starved. Only the part of it that could actually help people. The rest of the beast is still thriving, as long as its function is launching illegal wars and fattening the pockets of defense contractors and cronies.

It's the GOP playbook, perfected by this maladminstration. So they want to dismantle FEMA. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah it was back during the first Bush maladministration, when FEMA was a joke. After the Hurricane Andrew debacle in 1992, there were calls for ending FEMA. But it didn't require demolition. It simply required leadership from those who chose to govern, and a staff of those who knew what they were doing.

In today's NY Times Paul Krugman explains that Clinton ended the practice of using FEMA as a dumping ground for cronies and political hacks. And guess what? It worked superbly well. Bush 2.0 has returned to the cronyism, only doing it one better - always has to outperform his father.

Krugman says:

So what's the point of creating a new agency to replace FEMA? The history of FEMA and other agencies during the Clinton years shows that a president who is serious about governing can rebuild effective government without renaming the boxes on the organizational chart.

On the other hand, the history of the Bush administration, from the botched reconstruction of Iraq to the botched start-up of the prescription drug program, shows that a president who isn't serious about governing, who prizes loyalty and personal connections over competence, can quickly reduce the government of the world's most powerful nation to third-world levels of ineffectiveness.

I have nothing more to add except this: The majority of the public now sees what many of us have seen all along; that he's a screw up of the highest order. But sometimes there's method to the incompetence. The destruction of government, at least the government that we need on a daily basis, is intentional. It won't change by renaming FEMA. It won't change at all, until the next Democratic administration can clean up the wreckage.

Kraft shareholders stand up to fundie pressure

2006-04-26T18:38:00.000-07:00

Good.

Ninety nine percent of Kraft shareholders smacked down one shareholder, Dr. Marcella Meyer, who, under pressure from AFA and other fundie groups, came up with a proposal to end sponsorship for the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago:

The gay rights movement is not a charitable activity; rather, it is a political movement designed to promote increased acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle,

When you hear the term "homosexual lifestyle" you know you're either dealing with a virulent bigot or someone deeply ignorant. Perhaps we can let that slide. But then she went on to say:

The "gay games" event will be appealing to immature young people attracted by the excitement, fun, and even glamour of the event. Some of these young people are likely to experiment with homosexual behavior as a result of this appeal

Sure. Little Tammy will watch those sprinters sweating and huffing across the finish line and think, "Great athletes! And what a fun event! I think I'll blow off pre-algebra homework and perform some really awesome cunnilingus on my pal Tiffany."

Remember, this woman has a "Dr." in front of her name.

Ad Age reports on the smackdown:

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- A shareholder proposal to end Kraft Foods' support of the 2006 Gay Games VII was overwhelmingly rejected by the food company and its investors at its annual stockholders' meeting yesterday.

It's a rare occasion when a marketing sponsorship can take the stage at a shareholder meeting. But Kraft's decision to support the eight-day event in Chicago this July with a $25,000 donation rankled Kraft stockholder Dr. Marcella Meyer of Chicago, who proposed in a proxy statement that Kraft "disassociate itself" from the Gay Games themselves and any other future activities supporting homosexual activities and lifestyle.

I know it's really just good business on Kraft's part. But credit where credit is due. Kraft has been especially resistant to the increasingly desperate and shrill cries of the Rabid Religious Right for its sponsorship of the gay games as I reported here last year. Glad to see they're still not backing down.

I do hope we've seen the high water mark of the movement of intolerance and ignorance, at least where LGBT rights are concerned. Fewer and fewer Americans believe their old crap: that gays recruit kids, that they spread AIDS, that they have a 'lifestyle' that is wildly irresistable and therefore must be kept away from good 'normal' people who might be tempted into changing their orientation after seeing two men kiss.

And corporations are less and less likely to be swayed by their demands. But let them keep demanding and screaming. The more they screech, the more people see what a crock of shit the Radical Religious Right is peddling.

UPDATE: Here is the story I wrote on it Friday with info on Bank of America.

We know you're there, Democrats. We can hear you breathing.

2006-04-24T00:12:00.000-07:00

Yessir, this is what we need from an opposition party. As rhetoric builds Democrats in Congress lie low on Iran.

Most aides refused to speculate whether Democrats might support a military operation in Iran. Several aides acknowledged, however, that some Democrats in Congress could support a military strike . . . Any military action Democrats supported, one aide said, would not include the use of nuclear weapons.

I think I understand what's going on. Have you ever heard people say they would rather vote for 'nobody' rather than the parties on the ballot they have to choose from? Could it be that Democrats are trying to build that 'nobody' image? Is there a way that you could write in 'empty suit' or 'nonentity' on your ballot and the boards of elections would immediately know that you want your vote to be cast for a Democrat? Maybe that is the calculation the party is making.

I understand the theory of not stopping your opponent when he's shooting himself in the foot. But that's about electoral politics. Trouble is, here in the real world, not everything is about electoral politics. You have to stand for something if you want to be considered a leader. Not just because you will be well liked and be reelected, but because you have the chance to save the damn country.

After rolling all of us on the biggest foreign policy debacle since... well, maybe ever... now the Administration is salivating over bombing Iran. It's a compulsion really. They don't know how do do anything different. It's either tax cuts for the rich or bombing a non-threatening country to smithereens. It makes them manly. It gives them purpose. It lets smirky prance around in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. How small does a guy's dick have to be...? Oh never mind.

So the Administration is about to unleash armageddon, and the Dems are hiding under the bed, so that when it gets really bad (oh you didn't think our stature was bad enough?) the Dems can sit back and click their tongues and clutch their pearls and look like a real viable option to the party of Doctor Strangelove come November. Sure, that will happen.

Yeah go ahead run those Iran focus groups, Dems. And be sure the interviewers have a question about what the voters really think about Dems. And be sure one of the answers is 'ciphers'.

Be afraid of this

2006-04-15T20:45:00.000-07:00

Howdy. I have been immersed in a huge writing project so I haven't found much time to blog this week. Are you disappointed? Is anyone even reading this?

To tide you over until my next thoughtful post here is a web site that expouses many of the views I hold, in a far more, ahem, innovative way. Maddog, the'commentator' is not unlike me, if I were older, heavier, a performance artist, and had no dignity. It's hard to tell whether he's serious about this (I'd be very scared) or whether he's in on the joke.

He tapes his anti-Bush commentary while playing percussion instruments and rapping. That's right. I'm smacking my head realizing I could have created my Perfectly Reasonable posts in song form while playing the bongos and screeching. Now it's too late; that niche is already filled. Anyway check it out for a laugh.

Hat tip to www.somethingawful.com.

Sensitive much?

2006-04-10T14:06:00.000-07:00

A great thing about being a journalist who blogs is, I can take a story I reported on and say what I really think.

In the past month I've reported on two instances where gay thought leaders and LGBT rank and file have had a hairtrigger response to incidents where the anti-gay alarm was sounded but evidence of homophobia was, at best, inconclusive.

Most recent is the issue of a Chrysler ad featuring a 'fairy' who supposedly turns a straight man gay. In PlanetOut I reported that:

In a new Chrysler ad, a fluttery fairy zaps buildings and trains into cute-looking gingerbread houses and toy trains, but is unable to transform a black Dodge Caliber.

When a male passerby snarls, "Silly little fairy," the fairy retaliates by turning the man's button-down shirt and jeans into white shorts and pastel polo shirt draped with a sweater. With the flick of a wand, the fairy also transforms the man's tough dog into four Pomeranians with pink leashes. The formerly macho man then shrieks in horror.

The 30-second TV commercial, part of Chrysler Group's "Anything but Cute" advertising campaign, is anything but funny to some gay groups that say Chrysler is out of line for coaxing laughs from gay stereotypes.

But I've seen the ad, and find it more stupid than offensive. Check it out here

I understand that fairy is used as an anti-gay slur, but mostly for anyone born before 1950. Beyond that, the fairy doesn't seem to turn the guy into a gay stereotype so much as a geek. Or more accurately, a tennis preppy circa 1985. Come on, white socks pulled up to the knees, and white sweater over the shoulders? This image seems like it was taken from some 80's comedy about a prep snob - maybe something with Tom Hanks or John Candy, the actual name of the film isn't coming to me now. But please, look at what the guy is wearing - and his HAIR - and tell me this is a gay stereotype. That look would earn laughs on the mean sidewalks of West Hollywood.

The other story is about a high school kid who reported on his blog that he was expelled from school for including a shirtless cuddle scene between two male students in a video project for English class. The video was Brokeback Mountain set in high school, and the kid, Brandon Flyte, lamented that it was the homophobic administration that did him in. Word spread at internet speed through the blogosphere and within a day the kid was oppressed gay youth du jour and the administration deserved to be firebombed.

Not so fast. Over the next few days more facts began leaking out and the kid started backpedaling on his story. Was he expelled for the video or for his poor attendance record? Was he even really expelled at all? It was all a bit of a mystery. But by that time the gay blogosphere had already made up its mind: clearly it was another example of homophobia that must be denounced. Based on what? The blog of a seventeen year old who's upset about coming under disciplinary action. Yeah that's a reliable source. Of course the administration's story, as reported in a local newspaper a day later, had a few holes in it too. But what's interesting is that the gay press and the local press ran with the story based on a single source - the kid's blog. Hey it's a kid crying homophobia, and there's homophobia in society. Why would he lie?

As more facts and counter-accusations came to light - mostly secondhand since I couldn't get the school to talk to me directly - I began reporting in a said/they said fashion, but the story was ultimately (and correctly) killed by the editor.

Homophobia exists. Just like racism exists. And sexism. And the other isms. We can find real examples of them every day. Big, egregious ones. That's why issues like these have a 'boy cried wolf' quality to them. Need I mention U.S. Rep Cynthia McKinney's muted cry of racism after she hit a Capitol Hill security officer who stopped her after she breezed through the checkpoint without showing I.D. Incidents like these water down legitimate charges of anti-(fill in the blank) bias and gives ammunition to those predisposed to believing that aggrieved blacks, gays, jews, you name it are merely 'whiners'. Pick your battles. Find out all the facts. Then call foul when it's really a foul. In other cases, move on.

Illegal immigration: winners and losers

2006-04-10T11:40:00.000-07:00

I caught a few minutes of CNN's coverage of the immigration rallies around the country today. A spokesman for an immigrant coalition in NY was interviewed and I was struck by the fact that she was Asian. Of course legal and illegal immigrants come here from every part of the world. But in the mind of most Americans, illegals means 'Mexicans,' just as most brownish pseudo-Latin looking people are 'Mexicans'. Okay, Mexico contributes an estimated half of our 11 million illegals in this country, and living here in Los Angeles it's hard not to take a little bit of the "U.S. is becoming Mexico North" rhetoric seriously. So for the sake of keeping this short, I'll lay out my current thoughts on immigration with an eye to Mexico. Understand though, that my thoughts on immigration and enforcement of laws pertain to all nationalities.

Who wins when undocumented Mexicans flow into this country?

1. The undocumented immigrant, for starters. He/she is not coming here for our fine cheeses, Disneyland and access to Hummers. He/she is coming to work, at a higher wage than is available at home. You can't blame them for wanting to do this, and I don't. Generally un- or semi-skilled, and lacking a college education (or even a high school education), these workers take, let's face it, mostly shit jobs. But are they, as Bush and so many others parrot, 'jobs that Americans don't want'? Yes and no. More on that later.

2. Companies and idividuals that hire them. Why pay a housekeeper the kingly sum of $5.50 an hour when you can pay her $4. Or $3, without providing health insurance?

3. Mexico. Not only do illegals pump dollars into the U.S. economy, they routinely send money back to their families, and this becomes part of the Mexican economy. Could this be why Vicente Fox has done, and will do, absolutely nothing to curb the tide of Mexicans crossing into the U.S.? Perhaps.

Who loses?

While I hate to agree with the xenophobes who want all the undocumented workers out, part of their argument, that the American worker loses, has some validity. When low skilled jobs that high shool dropouts would have taken are now going to illegals - U.S. natives who might have qualified for them are not going to look for the next best job, say, as a fund manager at Lehman Bros. Unless they can boost their skills, get a degree or win the lottery they are going to be on the dole, at least until they are kicked off. The meat packing industry and construction especially hire a great number of illegals, and companies in those industries could pay Americans minimum or well above minimum. But can we blame companies for trying to get away with cutting corners? No, if you accept the fact that business are inherently not ethical and that their only reason to exist is to keep turning larger and larger profits. Who allows them to continue hiring illegals? The U.S. Government.

Who also loses? Legal, unskilled immigrants. There was a reason Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration. It weakened his bargaining power. Why would agribusness want to deal with a labor union when they could just pay workers under the table and not pay them benefits?

For five years I taught ESL (English as a second language) here in Los Angeles. I'm guessing the nationality breakdown paralleled that of U.S. immigration; 50% Mexican, 30% other Central and South American, the rest Eastern European and Asian/Pacific. The only groups not represented were African and Hatian. Many of them were legal, some were not. We didn't ask. But I can tell you they were hard working, law abiding people who just wanted to get ahead. I wanted them to get ahead too. Legally. The road to citizenship is a degrading, confusing minefield, and worse after 9/11. But some manage to do it. Seeing a group of immigrants sworn in en masse (there are several huge ceremonies every year here) is a truly moving experience. So, citizenship is golden.

But let's face it, walls will not keep out people who come here illegally in search of a better life or a chance to work. We can't shut our borders. It's not going to happen. And a guest worker program isn't going to slow the tide of illegals. Instead it will speed up the rush to the U.S. But it will not, however, produce a rush to gain citizenship, which I think should be the gold standard. As long as there are employers willing and eager to hire illegals and who will not face punishment for hiring them, immigrants will come for them. Taking away the unenforced employer sanctions and actually rewarding companies for hiring undocumented workers will ensure that even more come.

An amnesty program does sound more humane and sane (and workable) than deporting all 11 million illegals. It is more humane. But guest worker programs alone, without tying them to some sort of citizenship path is creating a permanent underclass of immigrants. Yes they can come out of the shadows, but they will still be earning shit wages. And it sends a signal to other Mexicans (and other nationalities, but again I'm focusing on Mexico) that they can come over the border, and if they aren't caught, can use the U.S. like a low-wage employment agency. The winner in that scenario? You guessed it. Business. Employers LOVE the idea of making illegals legal just so they can continue paying them shit without breaking the law. What? You thought Bush would propose anything that didn't benefit corpratists and screw the U.S. working poor?

And what about those working poor U.S. citizens? We're constantly told that immigrants do work that Americans won't do. Bullshit. They'll do the jobs, but at fair wages, and with benefits. What's not discussed in all the grandstanding on immigration is how the minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, and if Clinton hadn't pushed hard for it, it wouldn't have been raised at all. Republicans kill minimum wage increases at every turn. Meanwhile, adjusted for inflation, the American worker has less buying power than he did in 1968. But the executives and CEO classes have seen their wages soar.

The immigration issue is, as most issues are, more complex than the corporate media will portray it. This is less about racism (it's about that too - racism and xenophobia are very convenient political tools for the right, although we'll see about the backlash), and more about the slow strangulation of the working and middle classes and the rise of the corporatists.

Frankly I'm glad the Senate 'compromise' bill failed last week. Any legislation coming out of either house during an election year will be ineffective at best and racist pandering at worst. But the dialogue should continue, and our leaders should try - ha right - to elevate the discourse.

Instead of talking about guest worker programs as a 'compromise' we should be advocating the dismantling of any system, structure or program that allows businesses to exploit its workers - be they legal or illegal immigrants or U.S. natives - and restart a dialogue about fair labor practices, higher wages for all, health care for all and neoliberal (read: not NAFTA) trade policies that benefit all. Oh yeah, the right will tell you that higher wages will mean higher prices at the supermarket. Perhaps. I for one would be willing to cut back a little if it meant that we really had a rising tide that raised all boats.

And as for Vicente Fox I have one message: Get your country's fucking act together. The reason your people are coming here is because you don't have industries, and worse, you don't seem to want any. A sane U.S. President (that will happen) would put the screws to you until you demonstrate some willingness to boost your own economy and raise labor standards for your own people. You have a corrupt oligarchy with a ruling elite that becomes richer by the day while the middle class is sqeezed out and the poor scrape the ground for crumbs.

Hmmm, a ruling elite, corrupt and ineffective government and a sqeezed out middle class. Sounds familiar. Maybe the U.S. IS becoming more Mexican, and not in a good way.

The rise of the religious right (and fall of the U.S.)

2006-04-06T11:50:00.000-07:00

I recently stumbled upon a blog where Mary Aguilar recounted her interviews with citizens in heavily Bush-loving states. Her conversations at the gas pump series is quite eye opening, especially for those of us who live in areas where reason and logic and reality tend to prevail. This interview with Mary Fowler, a member of the Christian Right, is chilling:

Where do you get your information about the war?

The Bible and the 700 Club. I also listen to preachers who know what's going on. Pat Robertson.

What do you like about Bush?

He's a praying man of god. He's a family man and he does care. He gets blamed for everything. If this country would turn back to god, things would get better. You can't go on killing babies and allowing homosexual stuff to stay. We do love the people, but we don't love their actions.

Do you think talking about homosexuality does anything to improve healthcare or poverty?

I guess for me I've always had to trust the lord for the next job, which is usually housecleaning. If you have your eyes on him, he'll take care of you. The government can't help us.

Do you always vote?

Yes, I volunteered for the Republican Party and I enjoyed it very much.

Have you always been Republican?

When I first registered, I was a Democrat. Just from studying in school, I thought that's what I wanted to be because I believed in government for the people, by the people and of the people. But after I was saved, I realized the Republican beliefs are me so I switched and I'm glad I did.

What does it mean to be a Republican?

Republicans pick the people who believe like we do.

You mean believe in the Bible?

Yes and godly principles. If we kick god out, we'll be like other countries that have AIDS, sickness and poverty. God created the earth, he created the rules and he knows what's best for everybody.

Unfortunately, we have AIDS, sickness and poverty in this country.

Yes, because we allow homosexuality.

You blame homosexuality for AIDS, sickness and poverty?

Well, sometimes people are innocent. This nation is in trouble. The ACLU are run by communists and funded by communists. What does that tell you? They want to take god away from us.

The ACLU once helped Pat Robertson's son set up churches. They also helped Jerry Falwell fight church restrictions three years ago. If they wanted to take god way from you, why would they help Pat Robertson's son and Jerry Falwell?

I haven't heard about that. I'm sure there are a few good people in the ACLU.

I've interviewed a lot of people on this trip and while they want freedom of religion, none have said they want to take god away.

When they first started the country, those that didn't believe in Jesus were put in jail. Once a country is dedicated to god and founded on its principles, it has to stay that way.

What issues are most important to you?

Getting the right Supreme Court Justice in you. I want god back in the schools. They kick god out of schools and they wonder why we have drugs and sex in the schools.

Mary Fowler explains it all for you

Kind of puts Bush's ultra high mid-thirties approval rating in perspective. Want to know who STILL supports him? Mary Fowler. And there are many many - millions - of Mary Fowlers out there. Mary Fowlers who get their updates on the war from the Bible (did you know that the New Testament is a great place to find breaking news stories from Iraq?) and the 700 Club. Mary Fowlers who believe that anyone who doesn't believe in the Jesus should be jailed. Just change Jesus to Muhammed and you've got the Taliban.

Nothing wrong with that, per se. It's a free country and Mary is free to believe what she wants. She is free to hate me just for who I am. And I am free to call her a moron. Unlike her, I don't want to jail people who disagree with me. Although I admit a burning urge to beat them about the head with their holy books.

The problem is all those millions of Mary Fowlers now have more political clout than any time in U.S. history. It used to be that such Dominionists eschewed politics, believing that it was dirty (it is), and insisted on setting their sights above the temporal realm. Their reward was in the hereafter, they believed, so there's no need to rush out to the polls because politicians were not, after all, men of God.

Ah, those were the days.

What's happened in the last 25 or so years is their increasing influence in electoral politics, reaching its apex (we can hope) in 2004, where fundamentalist churches mobilized their flocks to vote for the most inept, most criminal President in our nation's history, just because he's a 'Man of God.' Who says he's a man of God? He does. And the Republican spin machine has said that. Therefore it must be true.

Yes there was a time - pre-Reagan - when the GOP was the party of wealthy businessmen who wanted less regulation, and main street business owners who wanted to pay less taxes. Other platforms were not invading countries that don't threaten us, and not running up a deficit.

Ah, those were the days.

Back then, the religious right hadn't found itself as a movement. Dominionists, fundamentalists and hard right evangelicals either split their vote between D and R (because neither party overtly courted their vote). Or, they just stayed home and prayed for salvation when others were heading to the polls.

Then the GOP got savvy and wily. Democrats, progressives and liberals have been caught unaware, having no idea how to counterattack the GOP's insistence that they are the one and only true holy party. And the GOP has played Mary Fowler like a grand piano, promising to roll back civil rights, a woman's right to choose, rights gained by sinful gays... just enough promises to keep Mary Fowler voting for their REAL agenda: corporate welfare and the plundering of the treasury in favor of boosting the fortunes of the super elite. Quite masterful, really.

Kevin Phillips, author of 'God's Own Party' explains this fateful convergence of church and politics in excruciating detail.

They want to impose their morality on me, but on issues that really matter to all of us - keeping the U.S. solvent, keeping the middle and working classes from sliding further into oblivion, and slowing or stopping the rape of our planet, for starters - they don't care. Not their problem. Why? Because they're waiting for the Rapture.

Again, it's a free country and Mary Fowlers have every right to vote. But I wonder: Will this be the high water mark of willfully ignorant, intolerant haters who want to turn the nation into their own dark theocracy? Will reality-based Christians and others show Mary Fowler how she's been used by the GOP as if she were a ten dollar whore? Because that's what needs to happen. We, the rational, need to bring Mary Fowler into reality and help her vote for sane lawmakers and leaders (unlikely), or, send her back to her barcalounger on election day, where she can fear the great spook in the sky - alone - rather than actively destroying this country.

Hey creationists: We've got fossils!

2006-04-06T11:39:00.000-07:00

Once again, we win, you lose:

Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

A model of the 375 million-year-old fish, which exhibits changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.

Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.

But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.

The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.

Or do you think some prankster trudged up to the tundra to place the fossils there as an April fool's joke?

From the day late/dollar short files

2006-04-04T20:56:00.000-07:00

John Kerry calls for immediate pullout from Iraq.

From the NY Times Wednesday:

So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines — a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections.

Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

I don't want to be too snarky about this. It's great that Kerry is now finally stating the obvious and joining the Dem wave that Rep. Jack Murtha started months ago. Better late than never. Now if he could only admit that his voting for this illegal war was a big mistake, and... uh, go back two years in a time machine and say it, we may actually be on our way toward climbing out of this disaster instead of looking at years of it.

Another reason for Russ in 08

2006-04-04T19:53:00.000-07:00

He supports full marriage equality.

If he had been running for pres in 04 and taken this stand I would have been glad, but it would have been political suicide. The trend shows, however, that this gay marriage boogeyman is losing its scare factor. A few smart and progressive politicians are starting to take notice. And now with the Mexicans, there is someone new for haters to hate. It's hard to scatter hatred around. Anti-marriage bigots are on the wrong side of history. Russ knows this.

Nevertheless it's still a galvanizing issue and still not a winner for Dems in a national election. So why is he doing this? I don't think he's taking this stance so early just to endear himself to the LGBT community (although it will). I think he's taking it because he knows it's the right thing to do. I've been watching him for several years and he's been willing and eager to stick his neck out for what's right. He was the only senator to vote against the first Patriot Act (because he read it). He has called for the censure of Bush (while his Democratic colleagues have tut tutted him). And now this.

And even those who are lukewarm on the idea of marriage equality, or somewhat against it, might cheer someone with the cajones to take a stand on an issue that every Dem wanted to run away from two years ago and what will be for some time a controversial issue.

By the way, I was reminded by Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry that the phrase 'gay marriage' should not be used. It's marriage. Or marriage equality. Saying gay marriage suggests something new and radical. Marriage equality says equal rights and nondiscrimination. Spread the word.

Straight Talk McCain flip flops for Falwell

2006-03-29T18:35:00.000-08:00

Can we please at long last stop the talk of John McCain being such a Maverick? Yes, once in a while he separates from the party. (But then what does John think about that signing memo that says Bush doesn't have to abide by his anti-torture legislation... no indigation from Straight Talk. A real profile in courage there, Johnny) Fact is, McCain has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate. And now he's trying to woo the same religious right wack job that he once dissed.

When McCain ran for president the last time, he denounced Falwell as one of America's "agents of intolerance." But now that McCain is gearing up to run for president as the GOP's establishment candidate, he has told Falwell that he spoke "in haste" in 2000.

"It just came down to pure old politics in South Carolina and other states," Falwell said.

Falwell and McCain first made peace in a face-to-face meeting a few months ago. In a sign of their improved relationship, McCain has agreed to be the graduation speaker at Falwell's Liberty University on May 13.

Yes, pure politics indeed. He was against Falwell before he was for him. Nothing like an possible invitation to speak at Falwell U to get a political hack to kiss and make nice with the American Taliban.

He was against a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. But that was then. Now he has Bible thumpers to woo, and needs Falwell to do his speaking for him. From the same article:

According to Falwell, McCain is not pushing for a federal marriage amendment at this time. But McCain "reconfirmed" to Falwell that he would support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman if a federal court were to strike down state constitutional bans on gay marriage.

McCain's outreach to conservatives on marriage is politically important because of the way he sharply denounced a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage when it was considered in 2004. McCain called it "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" because it "usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

The Shrub in Chief pulled every dirty trick to take Mr. Straight Talk out of the race in 00. He has a reason to be pissed and hold a grudge. Oh, but wait. Here they are, having a religious revival style hug.

The Rude Pundit expressed it very well here Mister Straight Talk is not a Maverick. He's a political opportunist/whore par excellence. And this is the meme that should be circulated RIGHT QUICK, since he seems to be the media-appointed front runner in 08.

My hope is that kissing the ass of the Theocrats won't work, and that they will see right through it. But let's not sit back and take the chance that they won't.

Et tu, Bay Buchanan?

2006-03-29T10:01:00.000-08:00

Very reasonable to send back all 11 million illegals? That's what Bay Buchanan, right wing pundit and sister of Pat Buchanan, says.

But there are others who are bringing a dose of sense to Rep. Sensenbrenner's idiotic proposal to make felons out of illegal immigrants. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) had some wise and heartfelt things to say about the debate:

It is an interesting story, as we watch the news reports, of the people who are gathering across the United States. Over 110,000, some say close to 200,000, came out in Chicago a few days ago; 500,000 in the city of Los Angeles. There is hardly a major city in America where people have not stepped forward because of their concern about this immigration bill.

Who are these people? They are people we always see but seldom come to know. They are our neighbors. They sit next to us in church; they send their kids to the same school as our kids. They probably cooked your breakfast this morning. They probably washed your dishes and cleaned your hotel room. They are watching your children at daycare and they are changing your aging mother's soiled bed in the nursing home. They make sure your putting green is perfect, and they stand for hours every day in a damp and cold place, watching a production line of chicken carcasses come by, so you can invite friends for a barbecue this weekend.

So as we watch this complex issue be dumbed down by grandstanding politicians jockeying for electoral advantage, there is one important thing that most of them won't say. Although these immigrants are breaking the law, it's true, but they are also being exploited, they are also being exploited - by their employers, and mostly by all of us. That was Durbin's point, although he is too classy to make it so directly. You like cheap goods? You need someone to wipe your baby's ass every day, really cheap? Don't want the yard work to take too big a bite out of your monthly budget? Well, there's always someone to help.

I wonder how many of the those who are pounding their fist for the government to keep out or send back these illegals have not benefited from their labor. Probably not many. Bay, sweets, who's you're housekeeper?

Protesting immigration reform - finally a movement

2006-03-27T16:00:00.000-08:00

image courtesy of HuffPost and the AP

CNN reports on the continuing rallies around the country:

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Tens of thousands of students walked out of school in California and other states Monday, waving flags and chanting slogans in a second week of protests against legislation to crack down on illegal immigrants.

In Washington, 100 demonstrators wore handcuffs at the Capitol to protest a bill that would make it a felony to be in this country illegally and would make it crime to dispense aid to the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants.

Good for them. The bill proposed by Sensenbrenner is a nasty piece of work. I am not taking sides on this post. I have a bit of thinking to do on an issue that is complex and filled with land mines. But I will say this: in general I like mass protests. It shows that people are paying attention. It shows that they care.

However, you have to wonder...

Where are the mass protests against right wing Supreme Court nominees who will decimate the civil liberties we've come to expect? Where are the protests against an adminstration that has declared itself above the law? And were was the civil disobedience in December 00, when five on the Supreme Court threw out all jurisprudence in favor of partisan politics and installed the junta we have today - a decision that just about everyone around the world who was paying attention found appalling? Did I miss the huge demonstrations about the Patriot Act? Or the renewal of the Patriot Act? All of those are far bigger threats to our democracy than immigration. Of course immigration is important, but the Constitution is the foundation on which we as a society live.

Even the protests over this illegal war (immpressive yet underreported) basically stopped after the bombing started three years ago. With few exceptions, the citizens of this country are way too docile and way too complacent. Declining poll numbers don't mean squat if the Pres has declared himself king. Where are the sit ins and Ghandi style subversive movements to remove our leadership which is failing us daily with criminal negligence?

The protests of the past weekend (and lasting through today in Los Angeles) are encouraging to see, even if I haven't sorted out all the talking points on this issue. Stay tuned for that. They're encouraging mainly because it could be a sign of resistance to come on issues that matter even more.

Illegals, the new gays

2006-03-24T17:33:00.000-08:00

Here's a problem. Your party has many seats in the balance in 06. Yet the public is not buying Iraq lies anymore. They don't view you as the best and smartest to handle national security. They didn't like your plan to dismantle social security.

And now, one of your key issues in 04 is going away:

The public backlash over gay marriage has receded since a controversial decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 to legalize those marriages stirred strong opposition, says a poll released Wednesday.

Gay marriage remains a divisive issue, with 51 percent opposing it, the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found. But almost two-thirds, 63 percent, opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

[Snip. . .]

The number of people who say they strongly oppose gay marriage has dropped from 42 percent in early 2004 to 28 percent now. Strong opposition has dropped sharply among senior citizens and Republicans.

I stated a few posts ago that the GOP would run on gay marriage fear again. But if they can read polls, this may not be quite the issue it was. There are some politicians in the Dem party who can tell which way the wind is blowing. Gubernatorial candidates in NY and CA are running on pro-same sex marriage platforms. (from my own story)

So, GOP, what do you do when the old hits have lost their pizzaz? Find someone else to demonize.

Mark my words, this will be the wedge issue of 06. Well that's not an out there prediction because it already is a wedge issue. But all the talk about immigration reform is nothing but window dressing. There is no real impetus for the GOP to really fix illegal immigration. That is, to impose and inforce strong sanctions against companies and individuals that hire illegals. No, it's much easier to whip up public fury over the 'brown throngs' invading our homeland.

It's an oldie but a goodie. Immigrant bashing was used here in CA more than a decade ago with prop 187. But Pete Wilson found that bashing immigrants helped drum him out of office and resign the GOP to the hinterland statewide. Be careful with that one, Fristie.

Another conservative for sanity

2006-03-23T14:31:00.000-08:00

I've been busy so I haven't posted much this week. I'll let this conservative blogger speak for himself about the wrecking ball that is the modern GOP.

John Cole (more a libertarian than conservative mourns the loss of his party thusly:

The right wing of the Republican party has sold the libertarian/centrist wing of the party a bill of goods, and the modern ‘conservatives’ are clearly nothing more than statists who, rather than redistributing wealth like their brethern on the left, instead have decided that the state must have excessive rights in order to ‘protect’ us all from whatever the imagined fear du jour might be. Meanwhile, no one is left protecting us from the religionists and the the state itself.

In the new Republican era, only fetuses , tax shelters, and ‘traditional’ marriage deserve protection. According to the actions of the current Republican party, the rest of us need to be wiretapped, monitored, have our homes inspected for whatever reason without warrants, and are incapable of making decisions on our own. My 20 year affair with the Republican party is coming to an end. I am not voting for any Republican in 2006 at any level, and I will be hard pressed to vote for this party in 2008- unless, of course, Cindy Sheehan is the Democratic candidate. These ‘conservatives’ need abut 10-15 years in the wilderness.

I'm sure he's not alone. This is not your father's Republican party. So the first step is simple. STOP VOTING FOR THEM.

Midterms strategy: Keep the base happy

2006-03-20T16:39:00.000-08:00

In the Weekly Standard Fred Barnes outlines the GOP's 2006 strategy for keeping their wrecking ball of a party in power .

Do notice that, unlike the Dems, there is nothing in there that says "do nothing and hope that the opposition self destructs." Oh they have a lot of nothing all right, but they're going to be pushing it aggressively. In addition to smearing traitors and cowards, they will be crapping on civil liberties to keep their wacko fundamentalist base from defecting.

There's another part of the 2006 Republican strategy. This spring and summer, Republican leaders in the Senate and House plan to bring up a series of issues that are popular with the Republican base of voters. The aim is to stir conservative voters and spur turnout in the November election. Just last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt met with leaders of conservative groups to talk about these issues.

House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion.

So to reiterate, this is all they've got:

They have to run on this; unfettered free trade, launching wars based on lies and tax cuts for billionaires aren't quite as popular as they used to be.

I wish more real Christians (not the American Taliban variety) but Church going moral people with brains, would come out and cry BULLSHIT at being used again and again as paties to help the GOP further strangle the constitution and enrich the already obscenely rich.

Could it work? Sure. Midterms are low turnout elections. Conventional wisdom says the base of each party is the most motivated to turn out, and swing voters and those without a huge stake in the outcome tend to ignore them. So what should a party do? Motivate their base. It worked in 04: Bush had a record of astounding and near surreal failure in 04, and he was re-elected (even if you believe Ohio was rife with fraud as I do, it must be admitted that he shouldn't have even come close to being reelected). So the red meat for the rabig base strategy should work even better in 06.The GOP have a god agenda and a powerful get out the vote effort and zillions of fundie foot soldiers.

And what do rank and file Democratic 'leaders' have to keep their base happy? Well, they might just, if everyone is nice, call for hearings on Bush's illegal domestic spying, but only if he doesn't mind too much.

Democrats have the ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, and this year they might just do that. Because a demoralized base does not rush to the polls to punch the name of a spineless loser. That is, unless the voting punch cards have their pictures as well. Then you might see a lot of people on the left, who have been kicked in the stomach by their party, enjoy the chance to repeatedly stab a Democrat in the eye.

Tom Cruise vs. South Park

2006-03-17T13:46:00.000-08:00

This round: Cruise 1, South Park 0

I have to wonder at this point why Tom Cruise is worried about his reputation. Everyone in Hollywood has known he's gay for decades. People in the heartland - well my mother and her friends in Ohio, and they're not exactly Hollywood insiders - think he's a raving lunatic, and probably gay. Then again if he were to come out at this point, I don't think the gay community would want to claim Mister Scientology poster boy, Mister Sofa Jumper, Mister perscription drug historian as one of their own.

Because nature should earn money

2006-03-17T13:20:00.000-08:00

No big surprise here. The nominee to succeed Gail Norton as Sec. of the Interior (that's the department that's supposed to protect pristine land from development, among other things), is a big business whore.

Could all Dems PLEASE oppose Mr. Pave the Forests? No I doubt we'll even get 20 votes against him.

Worst opposition party. Ever

2006-03-17T12:52:00.000-08:00

Well what do you know. The party that used to be about fiscal responsibility has raised the debt ceiling for the fourth time in five years.

But that's not all.Congress then agreed to break spending limits just hours after it agreed to raise the debt ceiling. In NYTimes.

But the kicker in the NYT story is Harry Reid's determination that Bush will go down as the Worst. President. Ever.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Thursday that given Mr. Bush's record, "I really do believe this man will go down as the worst president this country has ever had."

No argument from me. But if you believe this Harry then why aren't you and your merry band of Dem pussies opposing this fucktard at every turn? And how about that censure proposal. Still waiting on the R's to launch an investigation into spying? Do you really want to stop the destruction of everything this country used to stand for? Or is it just easier to drop a verbal grenade, then run and hide? And I noticed that you couldn't even keep the Dems together in opposing this budget buster. Talk is cheap Harry.

Worst president ever. And worst opposition party ever.

House GOP blocks funding for port security

2006-03-16T18:36:00.000-08:00

feel safer yet?

Today the House of Representatives narrowly defeated an amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness.

Why? Of course I know that the right wing is filled with craven ghouls who care only about further enriching the ultra rich while playing the fundamentalists like banjos in order to do so. But on this... why? Are they saying that the response to Katrina was a disaster because the government had too much money? Are they planning to outsource port security to Halliburton (actually that's not too unlikely)?

Could it be that they actually WANT a catastrophe? Do they think that, since Bush would not have a second term if not for 9-11, that another attack would actually help him (and them) again? Or... OR... they expect that another major attack will give them the chance to blame it on Iran? It worked with Iraq. This sounds like tinfoil hat territory but I'm really grasping for a rationale here. What I hate most about this regime is how they've made conspiracy theories I would have laughed at six years ago seem at least somewhat plausible.

On a day that the U.S. debt ceiling was raised to it's highest level ever - in order to continue sinking more money into an illegal, illogical and poorly executed war - they deny money needed to keep our ports safe and protect citizens in catastrophes.

If the Dems can't use this to their advantage then they're through. Yeah I've said that before. But this time...

Been there, bombed that

2006-03-16T13:49:00.000-08:00

So now that Emperor Bush's polls are in the toilet, there's a new shock and awe campaign, an airborne assault "Swarmer".

U.S. forces, joined by Iraqi troops, on Thursday launched the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said.

"More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the military statement said of the attack designed to "clear a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra," 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Doesn't this have a big deja vu feel to it? Don't massive air strikes feel, so, oh, three years ago? And really wasn't the major combat phase over in May 03? Seems I recall dear leader saying so.

Let's see if this results in a bump in the polls. It might. The public has big doubts about the administrations competence. If there's one thing the U.S. can do well, it's bomb the shit out of something.

Candidate's new platform: Death to Elton John

2006-03-16T13:04:00.000-08:00

A few weeks back I posted about Merrill Keiser, Jr., a truck driver and self-described Biblicist who is running for U.S. Senator in Ohio on, of other Christian things, the ever-popular 'death to homosexuals' platform.

Now he's being more specific. In an audio interview he mentions out and proud Elton John and Mary Cheney as deserving death for their wicked same-sex love.

For those of you who worry about a loving Christian vigilante taking Mr. Keiser's advice, here is a list of upcoming concert dates for the wicked Elton. Catch him while he's alive. In fact I think I might just do that, since he's playing in Las Vegas and I'll be in town soon. My first and only Elton show was in Ohio way back in 1984. BTW, I joined the Elton John fan club when I was 10 years old, long before he came out. I think there are still fan club souveniers at my mom's house, although she's been doing some heavy cleaning of the basement lately so who knows.

Feel free to post your favorite Elton John song. Mine: Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy.

Profiles in courage

2006-03-16T10:43:00.000-08:00

A few Dems have tentatively dipped their toe in the water to back Feingold's censure of the President for illegal spying. They are, so far:

Boxer (CA)
Kerry (MA)
Menendez (NJ)
Harkin (IA)

Good for them. Now, about the rest of the spineless beltway wimps. Put your fingers in the wind and notice that it's blowing against the president, hard.

Several recent polls, including the AP-Ipsos poll, have found Bush's approval ratings in the 30s. The Pew poll found Bush's job approval at 33 percent, the lowest ever in that poll.

Listen again: that's 33 percent. And then there's this: Do you believe the R's when they say the censure of the President is a 'gift' to their party? Believe them when they say it will make D's look partisan and weak on fighting terror. Then look at the polls coming out. A plurality of Americans SUPPORTS Feingold's censure resolution.

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?

All Adults - 3/15/06

Favor - 46%
Oppose - 44%
Undecided - 10%

Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide March 13-15, 2006. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.

And that's with just one guy leading the charge, and with the corporate media reading the GOP talking points that say the issue is a loser for Dems.

If Dems stand together and forcefully explain why the President cannot be allowed to break the law with impunity, do you think more might support censure? I do. Or would you rather sit back and wait until those numbers hit 70 percent without speaking out?

What Molly Ivins said

2006-03-14T18:32:00.000-08:00

The lady says it better than I did:

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.

Feingold blames 'cowering' Dems for inaction

2006-03-14T16:02:00.000-08:00

Again, go Russ.

I should warn you though, it's Fox News.

There are also some reports of Dems fuming because they feel Russ blindsided them. Well get over it. Yes, maybe he could have tried to get their support before introduce this resolution. Maybe he did and the finger in the wind Dems said they wanted to wait until 90 percent of the public got behind it. Maybe he doesn't even care about the politics of it and he's doing this purely on principle because he will not sit back and let the Constitution be trashed, even if he is hung out to dry. If that's the case, swoon. Anyway. Whatever. The fact is, this does make the Dems look bad. But that's their fault, not his.

If they don't get behind him then they are basically saying that it's okay for the President to do whatever the hell he wants, any time, anywhere. They are saying that the Constitution is just a piece of paper and laws, well, let the Republicans decide whether they should be followed or not. Already the R's are coming out and saying Russ is helping the terrorists. Here is the mewling, slavish and dishonest Bill Frist:

I think it's a crazy political move and I think it in part is a political move because here we are, the Republican Party, the leadership in the Congress, supporting the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, who is out there fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and the people who have sworn, have sworn to destroy Western civilization and all the families listening to us. And they're out now attacking, at least today, through this proposed censure vote, out attacking our Commander in Chief.

What Dems still don't understand is how to frame a message. Feingold has it right on messaging: This issue is about the separation of powers and the rule of law. If it is framed as a security debate, as the WH wants, Dems lose. But if Dems don't speak up, then guess what... it will be framed as a security debate and they will lose anyway.

It's not too late. CALL YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSPERSON and tell them to back Feingold in this measure.

No incumbents in 06!

2006-03-14T10:34:00.000-08:00

It's all so depressingly predictable. Yesterday Sen. Russ Feingold introduced a measure to censure the President for circumventing the FISA law to spy on Americans.

It is no surprise that R's would come out against that. And it's also no surprise that D's are leaving Feingold to twist in the wind.

Bush ignored FISA. He broke the law. He is claiming he has the inherent authority to go around any law he sees fit. And yet the D's will not hold him to account, for fear of looking... what? Weak on terrorism? Too partisan? Too angry and complain-y?

They want to look 'perfectly reasonable'.

Here's what they really look like.

Spineless. Finger-in-the-wind. Craven. Cowardly. Beaten. Perpetual losers. Republican lite. Empty suits. Enablers. Co-conspirators.

Do the R's care about looking reasonable? No. They care about winning at any cost.

The AP article lays out the sad terrain of today's politics.

Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, preventing a floor vote that could alienate swing voters.

The article goes on to say:

Throughout the day, Feingold's fellow Democrats said they understood his frustration but they held back overt support for the resolution. Several said they wanted first to see the Senate Intelligence Committee finish an investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush authorized as part of his war on terrorism.

A Washington Post article had this to say:

Several Democratic strategists said surveillance issues are not Bush's most vulnerable spot, and they fear the party may appear extremist.

On the Ed Schultz show yesterday Minority Leader Harry Reid was asked whether as party leader he would support the Feingold resolution. Reid praised Russ for being 'brilliant,' and a 'great scholar.' And that's it. No pledge of support. WTF?

The D party held together to block the Dubai ports deal (except for Lieberman, more on that gasbag in a moment) only because there was significant Republican opposition to the deal. Nearly three quarters of the public disapproved of the deal. I guess that's the magic percentage that will move D's into action. They held together last year (still with some exceptions) on not privatizing social security because more than two thirds of the public opposed turning over their safety net to, say, Enron.

But why not exercise more caution. Don't want to ruffle any feathers. Here, how about these ideas for the Dem's to campaign on:

-We're against killing puppies.
-We hope the sun will continue to rise in the east.
-We believe oxygen is good to breathe.
-It's important to be nice to your mother.
-Murder should still be illegal.
-If you smoke, try to quit.
-Please don't kick us too much; look how reasonable we are!

I think 75 percent of the public could get behind those issues (with the possible exception of the last one -- and I would like to kick most of them, HARD).

Even my own Senator, Feinstein, is waffling on whether to support Feingold. But she was pretty eager to censure Clinton for his blow job.

And then there's Holy Joe Lieberman. There is a special place in hell for this DINO. Digby has a post contrasting his unwillingness to scold Bush for breaking the law, but was more than happy to slap around Clinton for his blow job.

It is sad, gut wrenching and galling when a party can only get on board issues which resonate with Republicans (like those who hate the idea of Arabs running our ports), but can't speak with one voice on even bigger issues -- and I think the President claiming he has absolute authority to ignore any law he wants to is a HUGE issue-- just so they won't look partisan. Did the current crop of R's in power EVER worry about looking too partisan?

As much as I loathe Nader now, he was right when he said country has two Republican parties. Have the D's seen the polls? Bush is mired in the mid-30s approval. He is radioactive in many parts of the country, even in states that voted for him by overwhelming margins. Yet they still can't oppose him. With a weakened failure as a President and the majority of Americans saying they even favor Democrats over R's on national security - a huge seismic shift - 06 is the best chance to take back the House and/or the Senate. Yet the D's are not playing to win. They're playing not to lose. They want to hold their breath until the midterm elections are over, content to not make waves, not be too controversial, not stand for anything, and maybe the public will vote for emptiness over evil. I don't think it will work. With a handful of exceptions - Pelosi, Waxman, Conyers, Boxer (although I'm still waiting even for HER to support censure), Feingold and a few others - the entire bunch of incumbent Dems needs to go.

Our government is run by two classes: villains and their enablers. When it comes down to it, really, which is worse?

Feingold moves to censure Bush

2006-03-12T10:16:00.000-08:00

This morning on This Week, Russ Feingold said he would introduce a measure to formally censure Bush for illegal wiretapping.

Stephanopoulos: Tomorrow in the Senate you'll introduce a resolution to censure George W. Bush. Let me show it to our viewers. It says, "Resolved: that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans." That is a big step-Why are you taking it now?

Feingold: It's an unusual step. It's a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered. There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the president can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered.

Yeah yeah I know; censuring this criminal is like giving a jaywalking ticket to a mass murderer. This resolution, even if it passes, does nothing but make a record of the fact that the Senate disapproves of his actions. It is a long step short of impeachment. But I think it's a canny move. Impeachment will help coalesce (somewhat) the Bushbots. Censure keeps it in the news and opens the door to impeachment.

If it works it would be historic. Only one President has ever been censured--Andrew Jackson in 1834. Rep. John Conyers and other Democrats have also introduced a motion to censure to the President and Vice-President over their waging and handling of the Iraq War, along with their stonewalling of Congressional investigations.

Feingold only needs a simple majority of 51. Whether he gets this or not -- he would need to peel off at least five R's, and we can expect that Holy Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson won't go for it -- it's important because it keeps Bush's illegal actions in the news. It also will put the Senate on record: "Are you rubber stamps for illegal actions of an emperor, or are you an independent body willing to exercise your oversight duties." My words.

We can guarantee several things will happen:

-The right wing blowhards (and R senators) will be all over the talk shows next week calling this a 'political stunt' or 'political theater'
-Bill Frist, the craven and astoundingly dishonest party shill and Senate majority leader, will refuse to bring it to a vote on the floor.
-Cheney will snarl; Bush will stumble, drunk.
-Hillary and others will try to burnish their moderate cred by issuing equivocating statements about this; all rhetoric, no action.

I'll say it officially here. I want this man to be our next President.

If anyone is reading this... (Hello are you out there?) support Russ by calling his offices:

Please show your support for Senator Feingold by emailing him using this online form, or by contacting one of his offices by phone or fax:

Washington, DC
(202) 224-5323
TDD (202) 224-1280
Fax (202) 224-2725

Middleton
(608) 828-1200
TDD (608) 828-1215
Fax (608) 828-1203

Milwaukee
(414) 276-7282
Fax (414) 276-7284

La Crosse
(608) 782-5585

Wausau
(715) 848-5660

Green Bay
(920) 465-7508

Good news for religious virgins who are raped

2006-03-10T17:26:00.000-08:00

South Dakota will make an exception for you.

On PBS's News Hour, South Dakota State Senator said he would make an exception to the abortion ban: for pious virgins who raped and sodomized in the worst way (is there a best way for this?):

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Whoa. Careful Bill, or your fellow fundies will start accusing you of being soft on crime (of killing the unborn)!

Too bad there weren't follow up questions, like:

-Who determines whether the girl is Christian enough?
-Will it be a trial, with witnesses to her piety?
-Do virgins who go to church maybe once a month get the same exception? Or do they have to be brutalized even worse to make up for their religious lapses?

Gee I thought the right wing wanted to decrease court cases.

It's time to stop the denial. These people are serious. And they believe their time has come. They hold the levers of government. They believe they are on a mission from God. It's also time for liberal, moderate and otherwise reason-based women who care about their reproductive rights to stop voting GOP or not voting at all because they think they're safe. On more than one occasion I've heard a young single woman say she wanted to keep abortion legal but it didn't matter if she voted because, "they would never overturn Roe."

It's also time to start reading a seminal (no pun intended) book. Two decades ago it was released as a science fiction book.

But this is really the society these fundies would like to see. Once again it's fiction writers who are ahead of the curve.

Is Russ Running?

2006-03-10T01:10:00.000-08:00

This post is certainly intriguing.

Count me in as an early adopter of the Russ in 08 idea. I've been talking about him for years. A Feingold/Boxer ticket, in fact would be ideal. Except for one thing: they're two of a precious handful of Democrats in the Senate who have shown any sustained courage. We NEED them there just as much as we need them in the executive branch. The only solution: cloning.

Cronyism, part 8897

2006-03-09T18:39:00.000-08:00

First the good news: Michael (Skeletor) Chertoff is getting an advisor.

Bad news: that 'expert' is a 28 year old staffer whose only qualification is arranging presidential travel.

What? You didn't think they would start breaking their old habits now, did you?

Yes, the 28-year-old former White House staffer Doug Hoelscher was named as the executive director of the Homeland Security Advisory Committees. In his new position, Hoelscher will gather expert advice “on behalf of the president and the Homeland Security secretary” from 20 other advisory boards covering “key areas of homeland security, including threats to infrastructure and preventing terrorist attacks that use weapons of mass destruction.”

Hoelscher came to government in 2001 as a low-level White House staffer, arranging presidential travel, according to news reports.

He discussed his job as President Bush’s travel arranger with the Des Moines Register in 2002:

Doug Hoelscher, a University of Iowa political science major and native of Williams, …is living out his dream at age 25. He works as a political coordinator for the president, dealing mostly with Bush’s domestic travel. “Ever since a young age I’ve had an interest in politics,” he said.

Hey that's awsome, dude!!

The press release announcing his appointment praises his qualifications and claims he will now be providing “strategic counsel” to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff:

“The department relies heavily on the expertise and advice of our advisory committees,” said Stewart Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy. “Outside perspectives benefit the policy and decision making process, and the Administration has named a qualified and talented professional to cultivate these partnerships. Doug will provide strategic counsel to the Secretary and increase overall coordination between department leadership and our homeland security partners, and I look forward to his contributions and counsel.”

Bush crony appointed to a leadership post. Hmmm. Where have I heard that before? Perhaps here and here and here to name a few. Don't forget Harriet "you're the best President EVER" Miers and Michael "Heckuva job brownie" Brown.

But at least Brownie had some emergency management experience under his belt (along with being legal council to the Arabian Horse association). This guy will be able to tell the head of homeland security, um... let's see... how to get the best rate at the Hilton in Des Moines. Or, lessee... which hotel has the most cable channels and the yummiest breakfast buffet.

W. T. F. ?

Call me old school, or a pre-911 thinker or whatever, but an advisor to the head of Homeland Security - the department in charge of... you know, HOMELAND F***ING SECURITY is NOT A BLOODY TRAINING POSITION.

Doesn't matter. Because...

Bush. Just. Doesn't. Give. A. Shit.

Ann Richards diagnosed with cancer

2006-03-09T18:19:00.000-08:00

The former Gov. of Texas (lost to dubya in 94 - oh how the world might be different now if she had won) is fighting cancer of the esophagus.

Ann is an example that Texas politicians are not all ass backward ChurchyChurchy hatemonger dumbfucks. She's whipsmart, and one of the more progressive pols in the state (though it may be telling that she moved to New York City in 2001 - did she have enough of the BS?). And when I was campaigning for Kerry she gave a great, insiprational conference call to the staff. She's been through health issues before. Let's hope she can weather this. Say a prayer, if that's your thing.

A reminder of her wit, (talking about Dim Son's dad in 1988):

Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

So true, Ann.

Ex-apprentice announces run for Congress

2006-03-09T17:44:00.000-08:00

Never watched the show, but let's hope this means the GOP bench in eastern PA is pretty thin.

A guy known for getting dumped by Trump is the voice of change:

"We offer voters legitimate change," Bhakta said. "I am not a politician. I am someone from a business background who wants to make a change."

A businessman and an outsider... hmmm where have I heard that before. Someone who wants to bring 'dignity' back to the White House. Oh. Right.

DPW, Bush Cronies Still Win

2006-03-09T12:45:00.000-08:00

The headlines say that DP World will divest itself of U.S. interests. That means the unpopular port deal is dead. The Republicans in Congress told Shrub this already today. So that's it, right? The American citizens win, yes?

Not so fast. Here's a little gem from CNN's home page:

Dubai Ports World has agreed to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to a United States entity, said Sen. John Warner, reading a statement from DP World. He said the reason is "to preserve" the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

Ignore the preserving relationship crap and tell me if this doesn't sound like DPW is setting up a shell company in the U.S. where it will still collect money (from American taxpayers in fact). And tell me that the Pres. is going to just give up on this when he was ready to use his first veto to keep this deal. We still don't know everyone who stood to benefit from the deal, and how much, but you know there are entities that will make a lot of money. Carlyle group comes to mind. You knew that one of two things would happen: Either the GOP would cave in to the Pres., or the biddnessmen would find a way to keep their money while looking like they were pulling out. Seems the latter has happened, doesn't it? This is all show and no substance. I wonder how it will go down with the public? Depends on whether the mediawhores tell us it's all over.

If anyone is willing to stay on top of this it's Lou Dobbs. Stay tuned.

Spike Nails Rice

2006-03-08T01:18:00.000-08:00

I've always thought Spike Lee offered far more compelling social and political critique as a filmmaker. I often cringed when he opened his mouth, however. For example, saying that the government blew up the levees in New Orleans as a genocide campaign against black people - at least without any evidence - really undercuts his case of racism by making him sound nutty. This time he's right on the money in dissing Condi (undercooked) Rice for going on vacation while people were dying and New Orleans was being wiped off the map:

"People say, 'She's so successful' and 'Look at her position as a black woman.' She is a black woman who grew up in Birmingham, Alabama, and said that she never experienced a day of racism in her life.

"Condi, stop smoking that crack!

"I know you love your Ferragamo shoes, but come on. While people were drowning in New Orleans, she was going up and down Madison Avenue buying Ferragamo shoes. Then she went to see 'Spamalot.'"

Condi: the Imelda Marcos of national security and international relations.

The Republicans are revolting

2006-03-07T20:36:00.000-08:00

You're darn right. They stink on ice.

RIMSHOT

No really, a few are jumping ship. Finally. After five years. It only took a shady 'look the other way' deal where the security of our already unsecured ports would be handed over to a country that harbored terrorists, plus over seventy percent of Americans who disapprove of the deal, for the Congressional Repubs to buck their leader and do one right thing.

The move marks the latest step in a Republican revolt in Congress unlike any other in Bush's five years in office. The president has yet to veto any legislation, and GOP leaders have been careful to avoid sending him anything that he wouldn't sign.

Now, eight months before an election, they have decided to challenge him.

"We're not going to let the Democrats get to the right of us on national security," Republican Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), the House
Homeland Security Committee chairman, said recently.

No the Dems aren't moving to the right of you. They're showing, by default, that you're a bunch of incompetent whores who kiss the ass of the President who doesn't give a shit about anyone but his daddy's friends in the Carlyle group.

But, given the cave in on the NSA investigation just hours earlier, I'm still not holding my breath on this one. I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but I am sure the GOP can read polls just like the Dems. But the amount of arm twisting by the WH must be tremendous. Are some of them finding camel's heads in their beds?

Is bestiality the new black?

2006-03-07T19:03:00.000-08:00

Could South Dakota be seeing more stories like this as a result of its anti-abortion law?

Oh wait. Probably not. Because the SD legislature has no intention of making men accountable for the children they sire. Just the women have to suffer for their, you know, ovaries and stuff.

So I guess fucking sheep will continue to be done just for the pleasure of it (if not the sheep then surely the man).

Great last paragraph:

"I think it's disgusting," Sheriff Joe Arpaio said. "I think of Ghandi who said you judge the morality of a country by the way they treat their animals. . . . I do look at (bestiality) as some type of animal cruelty."

Gotta love a Ghandi-quoting sheriff. How likely is it he's a vegetarian?

More on Senate GOP doormats

2006-03-07T17:10:00.000-08:00

Bloomberg has the story on the cowardly, craven White House bitches that call themselves Senators.

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is miffed:

``This committee is basically under control of the White House,'' Rockefeller told reporters after the two-hour meeting today in Washington. ``It's an unprecedented bout of political pressure from the White House.''

But the slavish Pat Roberts (R-Whore) is toeing the party line:

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said any inquiry would be detrimental to national security.

``We should fight the enemy, not fight each other,'' Roberts, a Kansas Republican said. ``The program is extremely important.''

And what about that 'maverick moderate Republican,' Olympia Snowe (R-Doormat)? In December she vowed to investigate the President's illegal wiretapping, but today folded to White House pressure.

What's so depressing is that this is not surprising. There are no moderate Republicans anymore. They own this government. And the WH owns Congress, because the GOP will do nothing, nothing to block this President, even investigating a clearly illegal action like spying without a warrant. The press shrugs, the public shrugs ("well I have nothing to hide"), and our Constitution rots like a month old corpse.

Congressional Oversight = Under the Carpet

2006-03-07T15:18:00.000-08:00

CNN is reporting that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has decided not to investigate the warrantless wiretapping. Information is sketchy at this point, but supposedly it was a party line vote.

There will be a new subcommittee dedicated to oversight of the program and the committee will push for legislation that would ratify this power-grab, requiring re-authorization ever 45 days and sunsetting after 5 years. "Moderate" Republican Senators Roberts, DeWine, Hagel and Snowe backed this measure.

So the President seized this power without any oversight, and the Senate has barely given him a slap on the wrist and in fact has given him the go-ahead to keep on doing it.

Feel kicked in the stomach yet? A party line vote. This is reason number 7,899 why we need to take back both houses of Congress this year. If we wait until President Feingold (or Bayh or whatever Dem wins in 08) to set things right, it will be too fucking late.

Oh, and think you're immune from being spied upon? Well be careful paying that credit card bill. NSA is watching what you pay.