Blue Notes

Top Races - Opponents

2006-10-24T12:52:00.000-04:00

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

they are freaking crazy

2005-06-13T15:41:00.000-04:00

ok, a couple frightening stories on the christian evangelist right in the blogosphere today...

first, there's the move by the "christian" coalition to force gays to wear "warning labels". this doesn't even warrant a comment, in my opinion, so i'll let john at americablog (imminently more qualified than me on this issue) do the honors.

second, we have a wonderful woman who is attempting to create - i kid you not - a christian american flag... and it's REALLY ugly.

these people are out of control.

reflecting on 9/11

2005-06-13T12:20:00.000-04:00

i'm in a really strange mood today. i read an article this morning about these 9/11 widows/children who were paid these multi-million dollar settlements and who have since essentially spent nearly all of the money. it got me thinking about 9/11 in general. nothing specific, but even though i wasn't personally affected, nor were many millions of americans, i still feel as if there's been a palpable sorrow hanging over our country since that happened. there's an edginess, or a desire to unplug and not pay attention to anything but the superficial. this isn't something that's universal, there are plenty of people out there like me, who continue to poke and prod and follow what's going on in the world and here at home. but on a higher level, there's all of this unsettled sorrow/anger.

right after 9/11, we were all sort of surrounded by this magnetic patriotism/togetherness. we had been attacked, and we rallied together around our leadership and our country to fight back. but we still haven't had the satisfaction of closure. that closeness has sort of disintegrated into sniping and backbiting and even greater internal division here at home.

instead of hunting osama, we've been distracted by iraq. there's been no resolution whatsoever for all the pain and shock that we experienced as a nation on that day in 2001. we're still burying/cremating little body parts that have been identified with dna. and i feel like that pain/shock has kind of evolved itself into a general numbness/glassy eyed feel in this country. people still seem to be emotionally exhausted on a very core level. we are still all silently searching for that resolution that will at least bring some closure, but nothing that we're doing as a nation is bringing us closer to that. instead, our fear and sadness has been exploited, and our numbness has been taken advantage of by some avaricious people who have used all of this to their own personal advantage.

but even while many millions of people know this, we aren't able to shake ourselves out of the stupor that we've sunk into. our schools are getting worse, our health care is getting worse and much more expensive, our financial situations are more perilous than they've been in decades, our personal debt levels are increasing, our salaries aren't keeping up with inflation, the real value of our income is dropping, and our strength as a nation is being sapped. but we, as americans, continue to be distracted by the likes of young white women gone missing, runaway brides, and the inane insanity of the jacko trial and tom cruise's warped scientological worldview.

i'm not blaming anyone here. i'm just worried that we're losing our direction, our positive idealism, and our moral strength as we slip into the morasse of our small, guilty, personal pleasures. our country lost a lot on 9/11, and what i'm worried most about is that our compass has been dislodged and we have become a nation of depressed, prozac be-smiled, willfully distracted individuals. i don't know what will get us out of it. but i hope we shake it off before we lose our way completely.

Thou doth protest too much?

2005-05-18T09:25:00.000-04:00

"I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met and in this instance it was not," said Bush spokesman Scott McClellan today, according to Reuters. "The report has had serious consequences," he said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

Mr McClellan is absolutely correct. And any statements or actions that might damage US relations with the rest of the world or - even worse - endanger the lives of US citizens and service members demands accountability.

Here's the beginning of the President's remarks from March 17th, 2003 - I've highlighted some pertinent points - via the White House:

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall

8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

I anxiously await a retraction from Mr. McClellan regarding our "pretty darn good" intelligence on Iraq's WMDs and its "imminent threat." You know, since it's cost the US so many lives and damaged our relations with the rest of the world.

Don't even get me started on the President's dare to the terrorists to "Bring it on...."

As usual, Salon's War Room closely follows the unfolding hypocrisy of this story...

I've taken the liberty of bolding one particularly interesting fact that seems to be lost amidst this manufactured circus (again, via Salon):

Did the Newsweek report really cause the riots in Afghanistan? That's the conventional wisdom, peddled hard by McClellan and others in the Bush administration. In the Washington Post this morning, Howard Kurtz says at the top of his piece -- without attribution -- that the Newsweek story "sparked riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere." As the story began to bubble over yesterday, we did the same. But as the New York Times reports today, evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship is a little more tenuous than all that. Last week, Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan believed the protests in that country had resulted from developments there, not from a story in Newsweek. "He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine," Myers said.

Interesting. There's an old saying that I think pertains to this situation:

"He who hath smelt it, hath surely dealt it."

Bill Moyers: My New Favorite Hero

2005-05-17T12:36:00.000-04:00

"Of course you know, this means war." That's pretty much the gist of Bill Moyers' latest speech to the National Conference for Media Reform. Here's a little taste:

First, let me assure you that I take in stride attacks by the radical right-wingers who have not given up demonizing me although I retired over six months ago. I should put my detractors on notice: They might just compel me out of the rocking chair and back into the anchor chair.

Who are they? I mean the people obsessed with control using the government to intimidate; I mean the people who are hollowing out middle-class security even as they enlist the sons and daughters of the working class to make sure Ahmad Chalabi winds up controlling Iraq's oil; I mean the people who turn faith-based initiatives into Karl Rove's slush fund, who encourage the pious to look heavenward and pray so as not to see the long arm of privilege and power picking their pockets; I mean the people who squelch free speech in an effort to obliterate dissent and consolidate their orthodoxy into the official view of reality from which any deviation becomes unpatriotic heresy. That's who I mean. And if that's editorializing, so be it. A free press is one where it's OK to state the conclusion you're led to by the evidence.

One reason I'm in hot water is because my colleagues and I at "Now" didn't play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.

Jonathan Mermin writes about this in a recent essay in World Policy Journal. You'll also want to read his book "Debating War and Peace: Media Coverage of U.S. Intervention in the Post-Vietnam Era." Mermin quotes David Ignatius of the Washington Post on why the deep interests of the American public are so poorly served by Beltway journalism. "The rules of the game," says Ignatius, "make it hard for us to tee up on an issue without a news peg." He offers a case in point: the debacle of America's occupation of Iraq. "If Senator So-and-so hasn't criticized postwar planning for Iraq," Ignatius says, "it's hard for a reporter to write a story about that."

Excellent reading over at Salon.

Here's one of his most damning points:

Instead of acting as filters for readers and viewers sifting the truth from the propaganda, reporters and anchors attentively transcribe both sides of the spin -- invariably failing to provide context, background or any sense of which claims hold up and which are misleading.

And here's a point of view that I've expressed on numerous occasions:

In Orwell's "1984" the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society's dictionary, explains to the protagonist, Winston, "Don't you see? Don't you see that the whole aim of newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050 at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we're having right now. The whole climate of thought," he said, "will be different. In fact, there will be no thought as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking, not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

Hear me: An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions, and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, so that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.

Thankfully, some real journalists - like Moyers - are finally taking a strong stand against the erosion of own democracy.

You tell 'em, Sir!

2005-05-15T13:09:00.000-04:00

I would comment on the Pentagon's base closing plans...but I believe General Wes Clark sums it up best:

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Saturday that the Pentagon's plan to close military bases around the country and reorganize troops will isolate the military from the American people and the rest of the world.

Clark said the plan to pull U.S. forces back home from abroad and centralize bases takes jobs away from smaller towns.

"We're losing influence abroad when we bring those troops home, and we lose the interaction with America when we create these super bases," Clark said in a speech to the Arkansas Associated Press Managing Editors Association.

Right to Secrecy

2005-05-10T17:24:00.000-04:00

An appeals court ruled in favor of Cheney's right to secret energy meetings. The news comes amidst rising gasoline and oil prices, higher dependency on foreign oil, and approval for drilling in Alaska.

I'm shocked, I tells ya! SHOCKED!

Appeals Court Sides With Cheney in Lawsuit By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't have to disclose the advice his energy task force got from the industry, an appeals court ruled Tuesday in what probably was a final blow to a politically charged lawsuit over public access to White House decision making.

The task force met in 2001 and produced pro-industry recommendations for sweeping energy legislation now before Congress. The Bush administration fought hard to keep the panel's workings secret, arguing that public disclosure would make it difficult for any White House to solicit candid advice on important policy issues.

Once seen as a potentially huge political liability for the Bush administration, the task force lawsuit ended up being more Washington political theater, with cameo appearances by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and former Enron Corp. Chairman Ken Lay.

The two private groups that sued failed to establish that the government had a legal duty to produce documents detailing the White House's industry contacts, the court said in an 8-0 decision.

The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch alleged that energy executives and lobbyists effectively became members of the task force, while environmental groups and others were shut out of the meetings. Outside participation made the task force a federal advisory committee with an obligation to disclose its operations, the groups argued, a position the court rejected.

"The outsider might make an important presentation, he might be persuasive, the information he provides might affect the committee's judgment," U.S. Appeals Court Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote. "But having neither a vote nor a veto over the advice the committee renders to the president, he is no more a member of the committee than the aides who accompany congressmen or Cabinet officers to committee meetings."

In a statement, Cheney's office said the court guarded the confidentiality of internal deliberations and that the Constitution protects such deliberations as essential to informed decision making.

David Bookbinder, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club, said the decision "is not going to be helpful in assuring open and accountable government."

The appeals court directed U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case. Sullivan earlier had ordered the White House to produce some documents.

The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch could ask the appeals court to reconsider or could ask the Supreme Court to take the case, as it did once before. Either option would be considered a long shot.

Cheney's task force issued a report that favored expanding oil and gas drilling on public land, rejuvenating nuclear power and lifting the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The focus of the lawsuit: several thousand task force e-mails and 12 boxes of documents.

Scalia took a hunting trip with Cheney while the Supreme Court was considering an appeal of the lawsuit. Scalia then issued a forceful defense rejecting calls for him to step aside and let the other eight justices rule.

Democrats hoped the Supreme Court would uphold an earlier ruling by the appeals court and force the administration to reveal potentially embarrassing details about its relationship with energy company executives ahead of the November election. But the high court sent the case back on a 7-2 vote, saying there was a "paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation."

Lay was involved because he met with Cheney — a fact the White House acknowledged to Congress in 2002 only after Enron collapsed in scandal. Lay's contact was among six meetings between Enron executives and Cheney or his task force aides.

The day after meeting with Lay, Cheney said the Bush administration would not support price caps on wholesale energy sales in California.

Even the investigative arm of Congress got into the act, filing a lawsuit seeking the identities of the people with whom the task force met. Under pressure from congressional Republicans, the Government Accountability Office did not pursue the case.

University of North Carolina political science professor Terry Sullivan said the Bush White House's position supporting confidentiality was sound in principle but could be unwise politically.

"There is a balance between the need for confidentiality and how that process works when it is being carried out; it's a Caesar's wife problem," Sullivan said. "For example, it certainly was embarrassing to have the likes of Ken Lay advising them."

Filibuster Primer

2005-05-06T14:07:00.000-04:00

Kagro X and the folks at Kos have put together a great primer on the Filibuster issue in the Senate that, by all accounts, is expected to be triggered in the next week, when Senators return from their current recess.

Here's the executive summary of what's covered in the diary:

There's been no shortage of coverage of the nuclear option, here or elsewhere. Everyone knows this issue is a real turd in the punchbowl. But as we head into the weekend - and into the weekend talk shows - it might pay to recap just how underhanded the Republicans have been in selling this piece of crap. Therefore...

Weekend pundits: Here's a wrap-up of how the Republicans are:

1) Breaking the rules of the Senate
2) Lying about previous filibusters and attempts to change the rules
3) Writing inconvenient words out of the Constitution
4) Hiding from their own "nuclear" terminology
5) Lying about the legal theories supporting their power grab
6) Dealing in bad faith with Democratic Senators and the public

Check out the rest of the diary for an expansion on these topics.

Darfur, Through the Eyes of Children

2005-05-05T10:51:00.000-04:00

Skippy points us to the following, found at the Human Rights Watch site:

On mission along the border of Chad and Darfur, Human Rights Watch researchers gave children notebooks and crayons to keep them occupied while they spoke with the children’s parents. Without any instruction or guidance, the children drew scenes from their experiences of the war in Darfur: the attacks by the Janjaweed, the bombings by Sudanese government forces, the shootings, the burning of entire villages, and the flight to Chad.

The kids' drawings can be seen HERE.

Kerry On

2005-05-04T16:58:00.000-04:00

Counter to the current defeatist thinking of the Left, I still believe that John Kerry was a good candidate and I was proud to not only support him, but work for him. And if the Democrats are to survive, they need to do something important that the Republicans do: Democrats need to stop being defensive about our losers and treat them like winners.

The Democrats eat their own after every defeat. Instead of building upon any foundation they've built, they tear it down and start from scratch every 4 years. Unlike the Republicans, who never throw anyone away. Looking at you, Oliver North. Looking at you Trent Lott. Looking at you Newt Gingrich. Looking at you Bob Dole.

The best example of this is Richard Nixon. Kennedy beat Nixon in an extremely close race in 1960...and Nixon bounced back to win the Presidential election in 1968. Not only that, Nixon went on to win RE-ELECTION...before resigning in disgrace, of course.

Why does this matter? Well, because there are already rumblings of another Kerry run for the White House in '08. Sounds risky? Not as much as you might think.

Of course, Salon expresses doubts:

It doesn't make a lot of sense if you think of the 2004 election as a once-in-a-generation political shift, as a good old fashioned butt-whipping or as a race that seemed for a moment to be Kerry's to lose. But inside John Kerry's head, the logic for a second run may well be there. If you accept the vote count from Kenneth Blackwell, Kerry lost Ohio -- and with it, the election -- by just 118,000 votes. He lost to a sitting president in a time of war; the war may still be going on next time around, but -- so long as Dick Cheney and Condi Rice don't run -- the Republicans won't have that "don't change horses in the middle of the race" argument anymore. And with any luck, Osama bin Laden won't drop a bombshell -- figuratively or literally -- a few days before Nov. 4, 2008. Kerry has said the release of a videotape from bin Laden four days before the 2004 vote stopped his momentum in the polls and underscored Americans' concerns about changing commanders in chief in the midst of a war.

That doesn't mean that Kerry could win in 2008, even if his people are beginning to talk him up on "electability" grounds already. The Massachusetts senator would have to win the Democratic nomination first, and a senator from New York -- among others -- may stand in his way. But U.S. News says that Democratic donors and labor leaders are telling everyone who will listen that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance in 2008 -- and not all of them are doing it behind the scenes.

I think it actually makes A LOT of sense. People love a comeback. Defeat humanizes politicians and it offers some humbling lessons which can make a candidate stronger the NEXT time around. And if the Democrats really want to draw a line in the sand, grow a sack, and prove they're not a bunch of equivocating pansies, the best way to do so would be to run our guy again. It sends a strong message: we were right the first time, and we are right this time. It's consistent. It's bold. And best of all, it's completely unapologetic.

Democrats need to stop saying "sorry" for losing races, take a page from the GOP handbook, and start standing up for themselves. If Kerry runs again, it would validate the 56,249,864 voters whose votes counted and the hundreds of thousands of voters whose votes were somehow lost, supressed, or "miscounted."

The fact that Kerry hasn't gone into hiding and hasn't backed down from the tough fights makes me hopeful that not only was he the better choice last time 'round; he just might be the best choice next time 'round, as well.

Of course, we do need to teach him how to deliver a joke. Perhaps a few open mike nights between now and then are in order...

Soc. Sec. Lingo: Progressive Indexing

2005-05-04T12:15:00.000-04:00

It's becoming increasingly difficulty to cut through the fuzz that's collecting around the Social Security debate. In today's Boston Globe, Robert Kuttner does a good job explaining why Progressive Indexing (an idea currently being flogged by the Preznit) isn't going to be so great on those of us in the middling income brackets. The editorial is straight forward, concise, and informative, so give it a look.

Here's a couple grafs to whet the appetite:

''Progressive indexing" is a disguised benefit cut, but the disguise is pitifully transparent. Here's how it works:

Under the present Social Security system, both workers and retirees are protected against inflation. During the four decades of my working life, Americans' real incomes and consumer prices have gone steadily up. So if I retire, say, in 2016, I will get an initial Social Security check based not on my income when I first earned a paycheck in 1966 but on my lifetime contribution to the system adjusted for current prices. And the inflation adjustments continue after I retire. (This cost-of-living guarantee is why Social Security beats any private alternative.)

Bush wants to keep the postretirement adjustments but slash the inflation adjustments that occur during a person's working life except for the poorest Americans. The result would be a steep reduction in benefits for middle-class workers, since their anticipated retirement benefits are steadily eroded by inflation. People's initial Social Security check would be progressively reduced relative to what current law promises.

[snip]

For example, someone with an income of $36,500 -- roughly the median -- would get a 13 percent benefit cut by 2030, a 21 percent benefit cut by 2050, and a 40 percent cut by 2080, depending on when retirement began.

An upper-middle-income earner with a current income of $90,000 would get steeper cuts: 24 percent by 2030, 41 percent by 2050, and 60 percent by 2080. And these cuts would apply whether or not you diverted part of your payroll taxes to private accounts. These would be cuts in the guaranteed part of the benefit.

"When the President Talks to God"

2005-05-04T07:56:00.001-04:00

If you follow music very closely, you've probably heard of Bright Eyes. On one hand, a lot of people dismiss him for being too emo, and on the other a lot of people love his music. I won't deny having a couple of his songs on my iPod. But last night, he had a great peformance on the Leno show, with an apparently unscheduled song (Leno announces before the performance that he'll be playing something different) called "When the President Talks to God". They let him go, and they broadcasted it later that evening. You can watch it in it's entirety HERE. (wmp)

Here are the lyrics:

"When the President Talks to God"

When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women's' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends

When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God

When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?

I doubt it

I doubt it

(Via the Kos diaries)

"Every club audience is a swing state."

2005-05-03T17:45:00.000-04:00

John Rogers over at Kung Fu Monkey points out that politicians could learn a thing or two from stand-up comics...and I ain't too proud to link to it.

Here's a little slice o' Rogers' wisdom:

Now who the hell am I to even think I have something to contribute here? Well, let's say the candidate's job is to walk into a room of complete strangers and get them to like him. Connect with him. Wow, the few rare politicians who can do that, they're worth their weight in gold.

I did that for twelve years. So did hundreds of other people you've never heard of. We're stand-ups, and that's the ENTRY-LEVEL for the job.

A good stand-up can walk into a room, a bar with no stage and a shit mic, in the deep goddam South or Montana or Portland or Austin or Boston, and not only tell jokes with differing political opinions than the crowd, can get them to laugh. With all due respect to our brother performers in theater, etc., we can walk into a room of any size from 20 to 2000 complete strangers with no shared background and not just evoke emotion ... we can evoke a specific strong emotion every 15 seconds. For an HOUR. A good stand-up can make fun of your relationship with your wife, make fun of your job, make fun of your politics, all in front of a thousand strangers, and afterward that same person will go up and invite the stand-up to a barbecue.

In short -- every club audience is a swing state.

Mission Accomplished

2005-05-03T16:43:00.000-04:00

Candidate George W. Bush, from the October 3rd, 2000 debate, on the "proper" use of the US military. I've taken the liberty of emphasizing some of his key points.

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

Well, let's see how the actions of Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush compares to the rhetoric of candidate George W. Bush (hint: not so good). From Salon:

Turns out these days Uncle Sam's about as popular as detention on American high school campuses. For the third straight month the U.S. Army failed to reach its recruiting goals.

"As of April 30 the Army had achieved only 85% of its target for the first five months of the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1," according to the Associated Press. "Opinion surveys have indicated that a growing number of young people and their parents are wary of the Army's recruiting pitch at a time when soldiers in Iraq are killed and wounded virtually every day. Spring is typically one of the more difficult periods of the year for military recruiters."

The shortfall is not only an embarrassment for the Pentagon, but it puts real strain on the armed forces as it's stretched around the world, particularly in the Gulf region. Some experts have fretted that if the military continues to come up short on recruits, and U.S. troops remain committed to Iraq for years on end, that the possibility looms that a draft may be needed. Politically, it's highly unlikely. But as recruiting numbers continue to sag, the option cannot be ruled out.

And it's not like the Army is falling just short of its monthly goals. It's not even coming close. According to one military spokesman quoted by the AP, the Army fell 32 percent short of its March goal of landing 6,800 recruits. That means despite a nationwide concerted effort to hit its goals, and a country of roughly 10 million 18 to 24-year olds, the Army, wielding all kinds of incentives, was able to sign up only 4,600 recruits in March.

News on the Army and Guard front is even worse: "The Army National Guard and Army Reserve have had even more trouble recruiting. In March the Army Reserve signed up barely half the 1,600 soldiers it sought [Empasis added]."

So, if the goals of incoming President Bush were to raise morale, boost recruitment numbers, avoid nation builidng, prevent our troops from being overextended, better equip our troops, and provide a clear mission and a solid exit strategy for military operations....well, the record kind of speaks for itself.

Luckily, in Bizarro World, this is all GOOD news...

Know When To Hold Em...

2005-05-03T16:10:00.000-04:00

...Know when to fold em.

E.J. Dionne is absolutely correct. The game of ~~reforming~~ doing away with Social Security has been fixed from the beginning by the Bush Administration and it's allies. Anyone who supports the program (e.g. Dems) need to back away from the table. You can't beat the house when the odds are stacked so heavily against you:

Bush's "plan" is still not a plan, just a few ideas. If the president is serious, let him first persuade members of his own party to agree to a detailed proposal so everyone knows what the trade-offs are. If what he has in mind is a good idea, Republicans will be eager to sign on. And if Bush can't get Republicans to go along, might that say something about the merits of his suggestions?

Opponents of Bush's cut-and-privatize project -- they include not only Democrats but also skeptical Republicans -- do have a responsibility. Their task is to subject half-baked concepts to the criticism they deserve and insist that they be fully baked before serious discussions can begin. Social Security, the most successful government program in our history, should not be overturned lightly.

[snip]

Bush has refused to put his own tax cuts on the table as part of a Social Security fix. Repealing Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $350,000 a year could cover all or most of the 75-year Social Security shortfall. Keeping part of the estate tax in place could cover a quarter to half of the shortfall. Some of the hole could be filled in by a modest surtax on dividends or capital gains.

But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich by making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from the beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy are a pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him.

Bush isn't really planning on hearing a debate. He's only hoping to hoodwink a couple pliable Democrats into coming to a compromise that none of them should remotely be considering. Then he can do what he wants (i.e. privatize the entire shebang), and our kids and grandkids will pay for it while the corporate interests who will most surely be involved line their pockets with the inevitable "fees".

On Evolution and Religion

2005-05-02T14:12:00.000-04:00

Richard Dawkins:

[Without religion], we'd all be freed to concentrate on the only life we are ever going to have. We'd be free to exult in the privilege -- the remarkable good fortune -- that each one of us enjoys through having been being born. An astronomically overwhelming majority of the people who could be born never will be. You are one of the tiny minority whose number came up. Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. The world would be a better place if we all had this positive attitude to life. It would also be a better place if morality was all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them, rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment.

Amen to that.

Read the rest of the interview at Salon.com (registration required)

Good natured ribbing

2005-05-02T13:18:00.000-04:00

First Lady Laura Bush on her husband:

"He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year, when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse," she said.

From Earthtimes.org:

George (President Bush) is usually in bed by now. I'm married to the president of the United States and here's our typical evening: Nine o'clock and Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep. I'm a desperate housewife ... left watching 'Desperate Housewives' -- with Lynne Cheney (the Vice President's wife)."

She then went on to tell how the vice president's wife went to a Chippendale's (men's strip club), "along with Condoleezza Rice and (top presidential adviser) Karen Hughes."

"But it was OK. (Supreme Court justices) Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sandra Day O'Connor saw us there. I won't say what went on, but let's just say that Lynne's Secret Service nickname now is 'Dollar Bill.'"

Hahahahaha! Double standards are hilarious!

Who REALLY Supports the Troops?

2005-04-28T19:57:00.000-04:00

Operation Truth a vote in the Senate today on a supplemental $213 million bill that would fund the production of armored humvees for Iraq. How did the votes break out? Well, let's see...

YEAs: 61 NAYs: 39
Akaka (D-HI) Allard (R-CO)
Alexander (R-TN) Bennett (R-UT)
Allen (R-VA) Bond (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT) Brownback (R-KS)
Bayh (D-IN) Bunning (R-KY)
Biden (D-DE) Burr (R-NC)
Bingaman (D-NM) Chambliss (R-GA)
Boxer (D-CA) Coburn (R-OK)
Burns (R-MT) Cochran (R-MS)
Byrd (D-WV) Cornyn (R-TX)
Cantwell (D-WA) Craig (R-ID)
Carper (D-DE) Crapo (R-ID)
Chafee (R-RI) DeMint (R-SC)
Clinton (D-NY) Dole (R-NC)
Coleman (R-MN) Domenici (R-NM)
Collins (R-ME) Ensign (R-NV)
Conrad (D-ND) Enzi (R-WY)
Corzine (D-NJ) Frist (R-TN)
Dayton (D-MN) Graham (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH) Grassley (R-IA)
Dodd (D-CT) Gregg (R-NH)
Dorgan (D-ND) Hagel (R-NE)
Durbin (D-IL) Hatch (R-UT)
Feingold (D-WI) Inhofe (R-OK)
Feinstein (D-CA) Inouye (D-HI)
Harkin (D-IA) Isakson (R-GA)
Hutchison (R-TX) Kyl (R-AZ)
Jeffords (I-VT) McConnell (R-KY)
Johnson (D-SD) Murkowski (R-AK)
Kennedy (D-MA) Roberts (R-KS)
Kerry (D-MA) Sessions (R-AL)
Kohl (D-WI) Shelby (R-AL)
Landrieu (D-LA) Smith (R-OR)
Lautenberg (D-NJ) Stevens (R-AK)
Leahy (D-VT) Sununu (R-NH)
Levin (D-MI) Thomas (R-WY)
Lieberman (D-CT) Vitter (R-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR) Voinovich (R-OH)
Lott (R-MS) Warner (R-VA)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Wyden (D-OR)

YEAs: 61	NAYs: 39
Akaka (D-HI)	Allard (R-CO)
Alexander (R-TN)	Bennett (R-UT)
Allen (R-VA)	Bond (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)	Brownback (R-KS)
Bayh (D-IN)	Bunning (R-KY)
Biden (D-DE)	Burr (R-NC)
Bingaman (D-NM)	Chambliss (R-GA)
Boxer (D-CA)	Coburn (R-OK)
Burns (R-MT)	Cochran (R-MS)
Byrd (D-WV)	Cornyn (R-TX)
Cantwell (D-WA)	Craig (R-ID)
Carper (D-DE)	Crapo (R-ID)
Chafee (R-RI)	DeMint (R-SC)
Clinton (D-NY)	Dole (R-NC)
Coleman (R-MN)	Domenici (R-NM)
Collins (R-ME)	Ensign (R-NV)
Conrad (D-ND)	Enzi (R-WY)
Corzine (D-NJ)	Frist (R-TN)
Dayton (D-MN)	Graham (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)	Grassley (R-IA)
Dodd (D-CT)	Gregg (R-NH)
Dorgan (D-ND)	Hagel (R-NE)
Durbin (D-IL)	Hatch (R-UT)
Feingold (D-WI)	Inhofe (R-OK)
Feinstein (D-CA)	Inouye (D-HI)
Harkin (D-IA)	Isakson (R-GA)
Hutchison (R-TX)	Kyl (R-AZ)
Jeffords (I-VT)	McConnell (R-KY)
Johnson (D-SD)	Murkowski (R-AK)
Kennedy (D-MA)	Roberts (R-KS)
Kerry (D-MA)	Sessions (R-AL)
Kohl (D-WI)	Shelby (R-AL)
Landrieu (D-LA)	Smith (R-OR)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)	Stevens (R-AK)
Leahy (D-VT)	Sununu (R-NH)
Levin (D-MI)	Thomas (R-WY)
Lieberman (D-CT)	Vitter (R-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)	Voinovich (R-OH)
Lott (R-MS)	Warner (R-VA)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Wyden (D-OR)

Sure are a lot of "R"s in that "NAY" column, aren't there? Keep that in mind the next time a winger tries to tell you that Dems don't support the troops.

And just to break it down even further, this shows a solid 44 of 45 Senate Democrats voting for this, and only 16 of 54 (!!) Senate Republicans. Yeah, they care. Assholes. (via Kos)

No support for the US Troops

2005-04-28T13:57:00.000-04:00

The Bush Administration has ensured that former US POWs who were tortured in Iraq during the first Gulf War will NOT be compensated and will NOT receive the justice they deserve ... and had already been awarded. Unconscionable.

From the LA Times:

POW's Claims Against New Iraq Government Rejected
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer

9:53 AM PDT, April 25, 2005

WASHINGTON — U.S. pilots and soldiers who were taken prisoner and tortured by the Iraqis during the Persian Gulf War of 1991 lost their legal battle to hold Iraq liable today, as the Supreme Court turned away their final appeal.

The justices heeded the advice of the Bush administration and let stand an appeals court ruling that threw out a nearly $1-billion verdict won by the Gulf War POWs two years ago.

The court's refusal to hear the case spares the administration from having to go before the Supreme Court to argue against American POWS who were tortured.

The 17 ex-POWs had sued Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein under the terms of a 1996 antiterrorism law that opened the courthouse door to claims from Americans who had been injured or tortured at the hands of "state sponsors of terror."

Their story was little known because the Persian Gulf War was witnessed by most Americans as a TV spectacular in which U.S. forces pounded and destroyed Iraq's army in just a few weeks.

But during that time, the POWs said they were beaten and had their bones broken by their Iraqi captors. Several of the men nearly starved in the weeks they were held in cold, filthy cells, including at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

By the time the ex-POWs had won their claim in court, the United States had invaded Iraq and toppled the Saddam Hussein regime. And to the surprise of the former U.S. prisoners, the Bush administration went to court seeking to nullify the award they had won.

The government's lawyers argued that Iraq, now under American occupation, was no longer a "state sponsor of terror." Moreover, President Bush had canceled the sanctions against Iraq and moved to shield its $1.7 billion in frozen assets. This money was needed to rebuild the nation, Bush said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington agreed with the administration last year and ruled that "weighty foreign policy interests" called for dismissing the lawsuit brought by the Gulf War POWs.

The former prisoners' last hope had rested with the Supreme Court. In their appeal, they argued that U.S. law and the Geneva Convention forbid the torture of war prisoners and prohibit nations from absolving perpetrators of torture of their legal liability.

"Our country does not have a good record for holding nations accountable for how they have treated American captives," Col. Clifford Acree, the lead plaintiff, said recently.

He was shot down over Iraq on Jan. 18, 1991, the second day of the Gulf War. He was injured when he ejected from his jet. He was blindfold and beaten by the Iraqis until he lost consciousness.

"What message do we send for the future?" he asked in a recent news briefing, if the POWs' lawsuit is dismissed by the courts.

The ex-POWS had won the support of a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Sens. George Allen (R-Va.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.). They filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to restore the verdict won by the ex-POWs.

But last month, Bush administration lawyers urged the court to dismiss the case. They said "the Presidential Determination (by Bush that canceled the sanctions) reflects a most profound shift in the (government's) foreign policy toward Iraq — from viewing it as an enemy to a state subject to our protection."

In a one-line order today, the high court turned down the appeal in Acree vs. Iraq and the United States.

"The court's decision is unfortunate. (It) sends the wrong message to those who would torture or kill Americans," said Paul Kamenar, counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, which filed the brief for the lawmakers on behalf of the ex-POWS.

While the judge who heard the case had awarded the POWs damages that totaled nearly $1 billion, their lawyers had told government officials they would have settled the claim for a small fraction of that amount. But the lawyers said administration officials refused to discuss a settlement.

Today's dismissal ends the lawsuit with no money for the plaintiffs.

More on the Filibuster Issue

2005-04-28T12:24:00.000-04:00

This time from a speech by ~~President~~ Vice President Gore. Why can't we elect guys like him? (via the hamster)

"This fight is not about responding to a crisis. It is about the desire of the administration and the Senate leadership to stifle debate in order to get what they want when they want it. What is involved here is a power grab -- pure and simple.

And what makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for total one-party domination of all three branches of government. They seek nothing less than absolute power. Their grand design is an all-powerful executive using a weakened legislature to fashion a compliant judiciary in its own image. They envision a total breakdown of the separation of powers. And in its place they want to establish a system in which power is unified in the service of a narrow ideology serving a narrow set of interests.

Their coalition of supporters includes both right-wing religious extremists and exceptionally greedy economic special interests. Both groups are seeking more and more power for their own separate purposes. If they were to achieve their ambition -- and exercise the power they seek -- America would face the twin dangers of an economic blueprint that eliminated most all of the safeguards and protections established for middle class families throughout the 20th century and a complete revision of the historic insulation of the rule of law from sectarian dogma. One of the first casualties would be the civil liberties that Americans have come to take for granted.

Indeed, the first nominee they've sent to the on-deck circle has argued throughout her legal career that America's self-government is the root of all social evil. Her radical view of the Social Security system, which she believes to be unconstitutional, is that it has created a situation where, in her words: "Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren."

Read the whole speech here.

By the way, from the looks of Al's new website, he might be tossing his hat into the ring for the '08 race!

The Rise of National Socialism

2005-04-28T12:12:00.000-04:00

Digby is digging around in the past to try to teach us a little bit about the present. One of his latest posts truly did make the hair on the back of my neck stand up...

[Digby quoting Fritz Stern]"Twenty years ago, I wrote about “National Socialism as Temptation,” about what it was that induced so many Germans to embrace the terrifying specter. There were many reasons, but at the top ranks Hitler himself, a brilliant populist manipulator who insisted and probably believed that Providence had chosen him as Germany’s savior, that he was the instrument of Providence, a leader who was charged with executing a divine mission. God had been drafted into national politics before, but Hitler’s success in fusing racial dogma with a Germanic Christianity was an immensely powerful element in his electoral campaigns. Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics, but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas.

German moderates and German elites underestimated Hitler, assuming that most people would not succumb to his Manichean unreason; they didn’t think that his hatred and mendacity could be taken seriously. They were proven wrong. People were enthralled by the Nazis’ cunning transposition of politics into carefully staged pageantry, into flag-waving martial mass. At solemn moments, the National Socialists would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: In his first radio address to the German people, twenty-four hours after coming to power, Hitler declared, “The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”

Read the whole thing.

The Filibuster and the Nucular Option

2005-04-28T12:00:00.000-04:00

What Josh said:

There is a certain logic to the proposition that anything that comes to the senate should go to a vote of the entire senate. The only problem is that both Houses of the United States Congress have operated for more than 200 years by the committee system, which says that that logic isn't the one we follow. Nominations and laws die in committee all the time. Just ask Bill Weld. It's happened, literally, for centuries.

Don't get me wrong. Individually, these rules have been bent or broken here and there. The WSJ article itself notes that something similar happened with Ken Adelman's nomination in 1983. But when you take together the nuclear option business, this new part of the Bolton drama, and other recent developments, you see a leadership (and really, because that's who's controlling this, a White House) which wants to win every time at any cost and is pretty much indifferent to the existing rules if they get in the way.

In the words of the immortal Napoleon Dynamite: "Idiots!"

Day Tripper

2005-04-27T14:40:00.000-04:00

From Salon:

The Secret Service may have thought it was clearing things up when it turned over to Reps. John Conyers and Louise Slaughter security logs showing Jeff Gannon's comings and goings from the White House. It hasn't worked out that way.

As Raw Story noted almost immediately, there are all sorts of holes in the documents the Secret Service released. The documents show that Gannon got access to the White House roughly 200 times in less than two years, but they also show days in which Gannon is listed as arriving but not leaving and leaving but not arriving. Our inbox is full of hopeful speculation: Was Gannon somebody's overnight guest at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?

It's not impossible, we suppose, but we'll assume, until we see some evidence to the contrary, that the Secret Service just did a bad job of keeping track of who was coming and going at the White House. That's not exactly a comforting thought, either -- especially given Gannon's rather tawdry background -- and a group of internet sleuths calling themselves ePluribus Media have just raised a whole new set of questions about the matter. They've compared the Secret Service "access control" records with video clips of White House press briefings, and they say they've found five tapes that show Gannon at briefings inside the White House on days that the Secret Service says he wasn't there at all. The group asks: Did the Secret Service screw up that much on its own, or did someone at the White House figure out a way to help Gannon get in without appearing on the Secret Service logs?

Meanwhile, Conyers and Slaughter are asking some questions of their own. When Scott McClellan was pressed on Gannon's access back in February, he said: "Well, let me explain a few things. First, as the press secretary, I don't think it's the role of the press secretary to get into picking or choosing who gets press credentials. Also, I don't think it's the role of the Press Secretary to get into being a media critic, and I think there are very good reasons for that. I've never inserted myself into the process." But according to Conyers and Slaughter, the Secret Service documents show that McClellan's media assistant, Lois Cassano, requested 48 of the day passes Gannon used to get into the White House. In a letter they sent to McClellan this week, Conyers and Slaughter ask whether he'd like to "revise" his claim about not getting involved in the process.

Incidents of Terrorism on the RISE

2005-04-27T12:17:00.000-04:00

Jeebus, can't this administration do ONE EFFING THING right?!

According to the Washington Post today, there were 655 incidents of terrorism last year, shattering the record of 175, set in 2003.

And not only that, but the administration is trying to hide this information:

"The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Number of wars Pres. Chimpy has started: 2
Number of wars Pres. Chimpy is winning: 0
Cost of wars to America: astronimical

Sons of bitches.

Splash Day

2005-04-26T16:09:00.000-04:00

Long time no blog. But I'm back.

This one writes itself:

BUSH ASKS ABOUT 'SPLASH DAY'

President Bush raised eyebrows on Tuesday when he asked locals in Galveston, Texas: "Do you still have Splash Day?"

"Splash Day" is the annual "adult oriented enormous beach party" celebration on the Gulf Coast.

BUSH: Do you still have Splash Day?

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: You have to be a baby boomer to know what I'm talking about.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: I'm not saying whether I came or not on Splash Day. I'm just saying, Do you have Splash Day?

(LAUGHTER)

Bush was unaware "Splash Day" is now a fully gay and lesbian event on the beaches.

I love it. First he's holding hands with a man, and now this!

You forgot Poland

2005-04-13T12:26:00.000-04:00

Poland's government decided on Tuesday to withdraw its troops from Iraq at the end of 2005, making official an earlier proposal, Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski said.

"At the time of the expiry of the Security Council's mandate -- meaning at the end of 2005 -- the operations of the Polish stabilization mission should be finished," Szmajdzinski told a news conference after a cabinet meeting.

Poland, a close ally of Washington in Europe and one of the few supporters of its war to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003, has about 1,700 soldiers in south-central Iraq, where it runs a multi-national stabilization force.

Szmajdzinski said Prime Minister Marek Belka's government, which opinion polls show losing power in elections due by October, would not commit Polish troops to any other missions.

"Belka's government will surely not make any new military commitments. We are carrying out an exit strategy from Iraq."

Despite popular opposition at home to Poland's military engagement in Iraq, where 17 Polish soldiers have been killed, all mainstream parties have remained committed to finishing the stabilization mission in the Gulf state.

Shays Uprising

2005-04-12T13:00:00.000-04:00

Connecticut Republican Chris Shays has always been a moderate voice of reason within the Republican Party and I have long respected his independence and consistency on the issues. And the fact that he co-authored the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Bill helps put him on my short list of current Republicans who still deserve some respect. So I happily read his comments on Sunday, blasting Tom Delay's hypocritical ethics violations and demanding that Delay step down from his leadership position in order to preserve the bruised integrity of the Grand Old Party. To wit:

"Tom's conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting this Republican majority and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election," Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., told The Associated Press in an interview, calling for DeLay to step down as majority leader.

DeLay, R-Texas, who was admonished by the House ethics committee last year, has been dogged in recent months by new reports about his overseas travel funded by special interests, campaign payments to family members and connections to a lobbyist who is under criminal investigation.

A moderate Republican from Connecticut who has battled with his party's leadership on a number of issues, Shays said efforts by the House GOP members to change ethics rules to protect DeLay only make the party look bad.

"My party is going to have to decide whether we are going to continue to make excuses for Tom to the detriment of Republicans seeking election," Shays said.

And there you have it in a nutshell. It's not quite a revolution yet. And, as much as I respect Shays' courage, I think it will take more than the criticism of this soft-spoken conservative to really spark some change in his party's leadership. But this is how it begins. Power-hungry lunatics have taken over the Republican Party and the only ones who can ultimately stop it...are Republicans. Maybe they're enjoying the short-term benefits of power, but power at the expense of your principles can only take you so far. And Republicans need to take a good, long hard look at what the Party has actually become. Not what the paid political hacks say it is, but what it actually is, when all the bullshit is stripped away.

2006 will be the battleground upon which the Republicans will have to decide who they truly want representing them. By sticking with Delay, the GOP is making a conscious decision to stand by a flagrant abuse of power and hypocritical and unethical pattern of corruption, greed, lies, cronyism, and personal vendettas. But if more Republicans show some backbone and adhere to their own Party's (supposedly)core principles, perhaps our democracy stands a chance of surviving. Only when sane, reasonable Republicans decide to come back to the table and start cooperating with Democrats - only then can we move forward as a united country. For Republicans, this is a true test of integrity. This isn't a question of cutting off the nose to spite the face; this is a question of ridding their body of the cancerous plague that is Tom Delay.

Frank Rich on 'The Culture of Death'

2005-04-10T11:04:00.000-04:00

As usual, a must read.

My God... These People are NUTS

2005-04-08T00:23:00.000-04:00

The NYT has an article (via Kagro X at Kos) about the theo-conservative conference entitled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" that took place in Washington yesterday. If you're hair isn't curled yet, it will be after you read what these people - including, by the way, House Majority ~~Criminal~~ Leader Tom DeLay - want to do to the balance of power in our country. Take a look, but watch out, this is creepy:

Mr. DeLay alluded to Congressional authority to "set the parameters" of courts' jurisdictions and its obligation "to make sure the judges administer their responsibilities."

The organizers of the conference and Congressional staff members who spoke there called for several specific steps: impeaching judges deemed to have ignored the will of Congress or to have followed foreign laws; passing bills to remove court jurisdiction from certain social issues or the place of God in public life; changing Senate rules that allow the Democratic minority to filibuster Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees; and using Congress's authority over court budgets to punish judges whom it considers to have overstepped their authority.

"I am in favor of impeachment," Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a panel discussion on abortion, suggesting "mass impeachment" might be needed.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, where have these people come from? And why aren't they called out as lunatics at every turn? We've got to fight these people for every friggin inch. They are essentially saying that they want to dismantle the Republic as we know it.

Checks and Balances? Gone.

Filibuster? Toast.

Religious freedom? See Ya.

Separation of Church and State? Toodles.

Judicial Review? HA!

This is serious business. And they are sure that what they are doing is God's Will, which makes it even scarier.

Hammer falling

2005-04-07T12:40:00.000-04:00

Start taking bets as to when Delay finally drowns under the tidal wave of mounting evidence that he's a greedy, lying jackass.

He pays his family a pretty hefty allowance.

According to press reports, DeLay's wife, Christine, and daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro, accepted over a half of a million dollars from Americans for a Republican Majority (ARM), a political action committee (PAC) directly controlled by DeLay for "long-term strategic guidance" and "personnel decisions."

The cash was paid out since 2001, meaning that DeLay's family added an average of $100,000 dollars to its combined income from funds raised specifically for getting Republicans elected to office.

Campaign finance reformers have criticized the payment of this large sum of money as beyond the normal standards for members of Congress who employ family members.

But padding family income with campaign contributions is only a scratch on the surface.

Separately, DeLay's daughter received an additional $30,000 from Texans for a Republican Majority (TRM), a DeLay controlled PAC modeled after ARM. DeLay Ferro's records related to payments from TRM were subpoenaed by a grand jury in Austin that indicted three officials of that organization on 32 counts in 2004.

Two of those indicted also worked closely with DeLay at ARM.

But, wait! There's more!

Evidence for this role at TRM indicates that DeLay lied about his work in that organization and that his involvement with illegal activities deserves further investigation.

DeLay's position as House Majority Leader and his reputation as an iron-fisted party loyalist who has openly threatened GOP House members who didn't toe the party line on various issues make the political action committees he controls very influential.

But, wait! There's more! Delay has also aided foreign countries!

DeLay is also being scrutinized for accepting privately funded trips to Russia, Britain, and South Korea in 1997, 2000 and 2001 respectively. The trips were paid for by corporations in those countries through Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist connected to DeLay through Ed Buckham, founder of Alexander Strategy Group. Buckham's firm has numerous large international and national corporate clients.

There's lots and lots more. In a CNN interview, the porky money grubber blamed these accusations of ethics violations on "seedy" attempts by the "liberal media" to embarrass him. Oh, Tom. Poor, poor Tom. Liberals don't need to attempt to embarrass you - you're doing a fine job of that yourself.

Evidence Over Theory, Every Time

2005-04-07T11:16:00.000-04:00

Here's a great diary over at Kos about actual, real evidence that the human species diverged from chimpanzees approximately 5-8 million years ago, flying in the face of the creationist "theory" that man was created in God's lab (called "Eden") only 6,000 years ago.

Pertinent graf, emphasis mine:

'Show me the proof' huh? Well, there it is. ERVs aren't just evidence folks, they're more than a smoking gun; ERVs are a high quality video surveillance tape of common descent pulling the trigger. The creationist response? Not much. Usually some vague assertion about 'common design', or that some ERV or other has been found to do something other than just lay there uselessly in the genome. Let's be clear about this; the critical fact here isn't that ERV's have no function, although as best we can tell the vast majority don't have any function at all. The critical fact is how they got to be in the same place on both the chimp and human genome in hundreds of places. Since the point of insertion is controlled by chance and local chemistry, the odds of seven distinct ERVs each inserting in the same exact respective places in both genomes, each genome being several billion base pairs long, and each of the seven inserting hundreds of times, is significantly greater than the chance of winning the lottery 25 consecutive times in a row ...

It's well worth the read.

I Love San Francisco

2005-04-06T22:14:00.000-04:00

Though I was born and bred in Boston, I lived in SF for a couple of years after college. While there, I witnessed some incredible protests against the War in Iraq. Seeing those thousands upon thousands of people marching, clogging intersections, and acting out in (mostly) peaceful civil protest showed me why the peace movements of the 60s were sparked in Berkeley. Northern Californians have a grand tradition for that sort of activity, and it was exciting to see it unfold in person.

Yesterday, they were at it again. This time, it was over the Governator holding a $1,000-$100,000 per plate dinner to raise funds for his re-election campaign. The labor groups hoped to rally 5,000 or so protestors at the hotel where the event was to take place. They got just a few more than that. California, Stockton, Grant and Pine Streets were all closed down by the crowd, and there were reportedly more off-duty cops, firemen, and nurses protesting than there were police trying to maintain order.

In the words of Bob Brigham, the professionalism of the protest was "pure West Coast".

Check out the extended account of the event here.

Let's Go Red Sox

2005-04-03T20:03:00.000-04:00

Clap clap clap-clap-clap.

Baseball's back, baby.

Update, 4/6/05: Mariano Rivera, Property of the Boston Red Sox.

RIP - Mitch Hedberg

2005-03-31T16:25:00.000-05:00

One of my all time favorites.

Rest In Peace, Mitch.

Back, and to the ... Right.

2005-03-31T15:21:00.000-05:00

He never saw it coming.

It's Over (at least, we're hoping...)

2005-03-31T10:30:00.000-05:00

According to Jesse at Pandagon, Schiavo's body finally shut down at a little before 10am, this morning.

RIP.

And now, her loving parents can make further spectacle over her body.

Least. Dignified. Death. Ever.

Holy Crap. When You Put It That Way...

2005-03-30T23:52:00.000-05:00

Just as I suspected all along about those terrorist loving "libruls"...

Some hypocrisy knows no bounds.

(via Oliver Willis)

This is Great

2005-03-30T16:43:00.000-05:00

Via Juls (et al.) at Kos. Here's the original source.

What Kind of Twisted...

2005-03-29T13:56:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I'm going straight to hell, too.

Just look for yourself...

He's Back

2005-03-29T11:27:00.000-05:00

Krugman's back from vacation with another must read. He's swinging for the fences today...

"America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here."

So go read it.

Schindlers say "Thanks, Wackos!"

2005-03-28T22:48:00.000-05:00

NYT:

The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of donors to their legal expenses, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

Kick 'Em When They're Down

2005-03-28T20:59:00.001-05:00

Much like Trot Nixon's approach when facing the ~~Anaheim~~ Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in the ALDS...

"When you get a guy hanging over a cliff, hanging on with his fingers, you don't want to let him up," Boston outfielder Trot Nixon said. "You want to step on his fingers."

...the Rude Pundit knows that, in certain situations, one needs not only to knock one's enemies down, but also kick them bloody senseless once they hit the floor...

"But of course the delicate question is how the Democrats use the glazed eyes of Terri Schiavo against the Republicans. And, as with most matters political, the Rude Pundit has the ready, easy solution: it's all about the inference of language. If a Democrat is up against a Schiavo Republican (and, good, wise, vaguely left pundits everywhere should start calling the wacked-out, ultra-Christian Republicans by this nom de guerre), don't bring out Schiavo's corpse. Instead, just say that you support the government staying out of "the most intimate decisions a person" (or "family") "can make." Or some such shit. You see what that does? It evokes Schiavo without saying her name and, frankly, it also covers things like abortion rights, gay rights, and more. If the Schiavo Republican wants to question you about it, then you have free rein to bring up Schiavo. Despite the cries to the contrary that the Schiavo matter will go away, rest assured: by 2006, the Republican party will have either been eaten by its most rabid members or be silent on Schiavo to the point of suffocation."

The GOPer Winger Nutjob Fundies and the congressmen they love are all on the floor after this Schiavo mess. Let's not let them up without a good beatdown first. As my mom asked me earlier today, "Just who the hell do they think they are?"

On Hitting the Nail on the Head...

2005-03-28T20:43:00.000-05:00

Isn't it awesome when someone points something out that should've been so obviously clear for so long, and then it actually is, and you think to yourself, "Damn, why didn't I think of that?"

Well, Amanda's got one right here...

I have also noticed that two values that BushCo likes to fling around are "life" and "freedom", but I have also noticed that the two are opposite values in their rhetoric. You can have freedom or life, but not both. They are pretty consistent in this viewpoint, and if they evoke freedom, you can be sure they are covering up for someone's death, and if they evoke "life", you can be sure they are trying to take away your freedoms.

(from Crooks and Liars...via Respectful of Otters)

This got me laughing.

2005-03-28T20:37:00.000-05:00

I'm laughing at this comic for reasons only one other person out there might understand.

(via oliver willis)

It's the hypocrisy, stupid

2005-03-28T14:20:00.000-05:00

It's not about whether we (as outsiders) think Terri should live or die; it's about leaving a private family matter private and upholding the rule of law. I would never want to be in the situation that Terri Schiavo's family is forced to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want Congress meddling in an intensely emotional and personal tragedy.

And, not surprisingly, Tom Delay knows from personal experience. From Salon:

Over the course of the last two weeks, House Majority Leader has referred to the withdrawal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube as "barbarism," "murder" and an "act of judicial terrorism." A question one might ask: If withholding life support from Schiavo is such a crime, why did DeLay acquiesce in the decision to withhold life support from his own father in 1988?

As the Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend, DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay, was gravely injured in 1988 in an accident involving a homemade tram that was supposed to carry family members from the DeLays' home to a lake down a steep hillside.

DeLay, then a third-term congressman, flew home to be at his father's bedside. Weeks later, as the elder DeLay's organ began to fail, the family decided to deny the man treatments that would have extended his life. The congressman "went along" with that decision, his mother told the Times.

DeLay refused to talk to the Times about the case. A spokesman told the paper: "The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's." The spokesman meant that DeLay's father needed "a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," while Schiavo "only" needs a feeding tube. But the DeLays' situation was different in another way, too: When the DeLays were forced to confront their own horrible decision, they were able to do so peacefully and in private -- without a member of Congress using their pain to score political points and accusing them of murder in the process.

Voting Errors

2005-03-25T15:44:00.000-05:00

In 2000, widespread voting irregularities and problems caused confusion and errors in the Presidential Election, throwing its validity into doubt and sparking a call for election reform...which never happened. Ultimately, the Supreme Court stopped the vote count, no solutions were presented, Florida's vote remained screwed-up, and the broken American electoral system remained unfixed.

In 2004, problems persisted in highly contested states, such as Ohio, where outdated machines and understaffed precincts caused numerous reports of voting errors - including some precincts which recorded more votes than voters (I'll let you guess which candidate benefitted from those glitches). Yet, no revote, no electoral reform, no solution offered to fix the problems.

But Fox screws up the vote on American Idol and it's instantly corrected the next night with a complete revote! Yay! Democracy in action! The system works! It just makes me wonder - if an entertaining popularity contest of would-be celebrities garners more respect and faster, more decisive action than the American Presidency, why aren't we voting for the next American President on reality TV? I feel that that may be the only way to save democracy and insure a truly fair vote these days. Or, you know, we could implement true electoral reform where votes really count.

Making Our Case

2005-03-25T15:33:00.002-05:00

Digby has a killer post about the larger picture surrounding this Schiavo case and what the Dems need to do to assert themselves. Check it out (emphasis mine, along with a little formatting adjustment):

"These people want to dictate how you live your private life. They want to tell you who you can marry, how to raise your kids, what religion to practice (and you must practice it) and what "values" you must hold. And they want to use the strong arm of the government to do it. Sure, there are problems in our society. Yes we are living in a fast paced society in which it is difficult to raise children and the world is changing so quickly that it's hard to keep your balance sometimes. But most Americans don't wish for others to make decisions for them about how to live their day to day lives, regardless of the challenges. It's just not the American character.

[snip]

"It's just this simple:
The Republican party wants to tell you how to live your personal life while they systematically remove all government cooperation in ameliorating the risks this fast paced world creates.

The Democrats want the government to leave you to make your own personal decisions while having it help you mitigate the social and economic risk our fast paced world creates.
It is a stark choice. There is no reason we cannot begin to make the affirmative case for ourselves on this basis."

We've got to start making our case.

"Crass," "shameful," "opportunistic," "cruel," and "dishonest"

2005-03-24T18:15:00.000-05:00

Atrios over at Eschaton brilliantly revisits Bill Frist's October 2004 comments:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday over a comment the Democratic vice presidential candidate made regarding actor Christopher Reeve.

[snip]

Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, called Edwards' remark "crass" and "shameful," and said it gave false hope that new treatments were imminent.

[snip]

"I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve -- I think it is shameful -- in order to mislead the American people," Frist said. "We should be offering people hope, but neither physicians, scientists, public servants or trial lawyers like John Edwards should be offering hype.

"It is cruel to people who have disabilities and chronic diseases, and, on top of that, it's dishonest. It's giving false hope to people, and I can tell you as a physician who's treated scores of thousands of patients that you don't give them false hope."

I think his hypocrisy speaks for itself.

General Clark

2005-03-24T17:30:00.000-05:00

While the GOP is busy trampling on state's rights and individual tragedy in their ghoulish cirque macbre, I wanted to draw a little bit of attention to General Wes Clark's progressive website Securing America. I strongly believe that General Clark represents one of the greatest hopes for the future of the Democratic Party, and I would proudly support him in any of his future endeavors. He is man of integrity, compassion, strength, and wisdom.

I'll let the General speak for himself, as he offers his vision:

Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems -- our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short-term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We must seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And we must institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government.

He concludes:

To do this we will have to get the resources and responsibilities right. In the first place, this means allocating responsibilities properly between public and private entities. Neither government nor "the market" is a universal tool -- each must be used appropriately, whether the issues are in security, education, health or retirement. Then we must reexamine private versus public revenues and expenditures. We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long-term public debt. Finally, it means properly allocating public responsibilities to regulate, outsource, or operate. This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization and progressive financing with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.

As we work on education, health care, and retirement security we must also improve the business climate in the United States. This is not simply a matter of reducing interest rates and stimulating demand. Every year, this economy must create more than a million new jobs, just to maintain the same levels of employment, and to reduce unemployment to the levels achieved in the Clinton Administration, we must do much more immediately. This is in part a matter of smoothing the business cycle, with traditional monetary and fiscal tools, but as we improve communications and empower more international trade and finance, firms will naturally shift production and services to areas where the costs are lower. In the near term we should aim to create in America the best business environment in the world -- using a variety of positive incentives to keep American jobs and businesses here, attract business from abroad, and to encourage the creation of new jobs, principally through the efforts of small business. These are not new concerns, but they must be addressed and resourced with a new urgency in facing the increasing challenges of technology and free trade. And labor must assist, promoting the attitudes, skills, education and labor mobility to enable long overdue hikes in the minimum wage in this country.

Theocracy Now! (Updated)

2005-03-24T14:55:00.000-05:00

Shorter MoDo:

"Holy shit! The Christian Mullahs have taken over."

Frank Rich, too:

"It is a full-scale jihad that our government signed onto last weekend, and what's most scary about it is how little was heard from the political opposition. The Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe pointed out this week that even Joe McCarthy did not go so far as this Congress and president did in conspiring to "try to undo the processes of a state court." But faced with McCarthyism in God's name, most Democratic leaders went into hiding and stayed silent. Prayers are no more likely to revive their spines than poor Terri Schiavo's brain."

And Syd Blumenthal!

"The Schiavo case is unique among all medical cases, including some 35,000 others involving people in persistent vegetative states. It is the only one in which the parents, who are not legal custodians, have been granted by an act of Congress and the president a federal court review of state court rulings. Wresting jurisdiction from the state judiciary is an unprecedented usurpation, a travesty of the federal system, displacing the Constitution with an ill-defined faith-based "culture of life," enthroning by edict theology above the law, not to mention what ambulance-chasing personal injury attorneys call forum shopping in the courts.

Meanwhile

2005-03-22T13:49:00.001-05:00

A high school student who went on a shooting rampage on an Indian reservation in northern Minnesota on Monday identified with Adolf Hitler, according to a report published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today.

The newspaper said the suspect, Jeff Weise, wrote last year in an online forum used by neo-Nazis: "I guess I've always carried a natural admiration for Hitler and his ideals, and his courage to take on larger nations."

He killed his grandparents, five fellow students, a teacher and a security guard, as well as himself, the authorities have said.

Officials said that the barrage erupted at the 300-student Red Lake High School about 3 p.m. The grandparents were apparently killed at their home earlier in the day, and the authorities were investigating whether guns used in the shooting were taken from the grandfather, a veteran officer on the tribal police force.

Thankfully, this Republican controlled Congress has fought hard to protect life and keep guns out of the hands of children. Oh, wait. They haven't. And when they had the chance to extend the federal ban on assault weapons, they allowed it to lapse. I guess not all life is worth protecting to the GOP. We'll see. I'm sure Congress will act just as quickly as they have in the Schiavo case, moving swiftly to pass some sort of meaningful gun legislation that will help curb the rising tide of gun violence in this country. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Stepping out of the mainstream

2005-03-22T13:29:00.000-05:00

I mean, we always kind of knew that the GOP was really out of step with the mainstream, no matter what they said. But the facts continue to prove us right. Of course, we all know they don't care about facts, but Salon points them out anyway:

But the ABC poll laid everything bare: By the wide margin of 63 percent to 28 percent, Americans support removing the feeding tube. Even more telling, 70 percent thought congressional intervention was inappropriate, while 67 percent said that Congress acted "more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved."

More facts:

At least the Washington Post finally ended its silence on the polling issue, with today’s A6 article, "Analysts: GOP May Be Out of Step With Public." Notice two things about that story, though. First, the Post reports in the lead that Americans are "divided" about the Schiavo case, suggesting some kind of public opinion tug-of-war. Not true. To date, every single poll commissioned has come back with the same result: Americans, by margins that range from 20 to 30 to even 40 percent, support Michael Schiavo's decision to remove his wife's feeding tube. How is that "divided?" Second, notice how the Post has to rely on "analysts" to read the polling data. The Post's reporters shouldn't need an analyst to tell them the obvious: When nearly 70 percent of the American public disagrees with you, you're out of step with the mainstream.

The most disturbing part about this extreme case of government meddling is the fact that Dubya took quick and decisive action, as Salon notes:

On Aug. 6, 2001, George W. Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief that carried the headline: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The president went fishing. On Sept. 11, 2001, Andy Card told Bush: "America is under attack." The president continued to listen to a second-grade class read "The Pet Goat." On Dec. 26, 2004, Bush learned that a massive tsunami had caused unimaginable devastation all around the Indian Ocean. The president waited three days before making any public comment.

But let the record show, when important issues demand presidential action, George W. Bush is a man of action. The House of Representatives passed emergency legislation in the Terri Schiavo case just after midnight this morning, and the president was on it immediately.

I think we begin to see clearly the President's priorities, as well as what they really mean by "culture of life." And their "culture of life" has nothing to do with "quality of life."

And I thought Republicans were about keeping the Government OUT of our private lives. Hm. I guess they lie about that, too. I'm shocked.

Ayatollah Delay

2005-03-22T10:12:00.000-05:00

Juan Cole on the Islamization of the Republican Party:

The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them. President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model.

[snip]

But the most frightening thing about the entire affair is that public figures like congressmen inserted themselves into the case in order to uphold religious strictures. The lawyer arguing against the husband let the cat out of the bag, as reported by the NYT: ' The lawyer, David Gibbs, also said Ms. Schiavo's religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic were being infringed because Pope John Paul II has deemed it unacceptable for Catholics to refuse food and water. "We are now in a position where a court has ordered her to disobey her church and even jeopardize her eternal soul," Mr. Gibbs said. '

[snip]

Like many of his fundamentalist counterparts in the Middle East, Tom Delay is rather cynically using this issue to divert attention from his own corruption. Like the Muslim fundamentalist manipulators of Hisba, Delay represents himself as acting on behalf of a higher cause. He said of the case over the weekend, ' "This is not a political issue. This is life and death," '

Republican Hisba will have the same effect in the United States that it does in the Middle East. It will reduce the rights of the individual in favor of the rights of religious and political elites to control individuals. Ayatollah Delay isn't different from his counterparts in Iran.

Tom DeLay gives me the howling fantods.

I'm a Diehard Red Sox Fan, but...

2005-03-21T19:57:00.000-05:00

Reading that a Gulfstream used to shuttle Tito Francona around may have also been used to render terror captives abroad kind of wierds me out.

Last June, the Boston Red Sox chartered an executive jet to help their manager make a quick visit home in the midst of the team's championship season.

But what was the very same Gulfstream--owned by one of the Red Sox's partners, but presumably without the team's logo on its fuselage--doing in Cairo on Feb. 18, 2003?

Perhaps by coincidence, Feb. 18, 2003, was the day an Islamic preacher known as Abu Omar, who had been abducted in Italy the previous day and forced aboard a small plane, also arrived at the Cairo airport.

Omar, whose given name is Osama Nasr Mostafa Hassan, was imprisoned by the Egyptians and, he claims, brutally tortured. The public prosecutor in Milan, Armando Spataro, who is investigating Omar's apparent kidnapping, expects to file charges within a few days, according to an Italian official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Spataro made headlines last month when, attempting to identify the plane that transported Omar from Italy to Egypt, he served a warrant on the Italian commander of the air base at Aviano, Italy, which is home to the U.S. Air Force's 31st Fighter Wing.

Spataro declines to say whether the Gulfstream that landed in Cairo, which bore the tail number N85VM, departed from Aviano around the time of Omar's disappearance.

But Federal Aviation Administration records obtained by the Tribune show that Gulfstream N85VM has been many places around the world that the Red Sox have almost certainly never gone.

Between June 2002 and January of this year, the Gulfstream made 51 visits to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, site of the U.S. naval base where more than 500 terrorism suspects are behind bars.

During the same period, the plane recorded 82 visits to Washington's Dulles International Airport as well as landings at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., outside the capital and the U.S. air bases at Ramstein and Rhein-Main in Germany.

The plane's flight log also shows visits to Afghanistan, Morocco, Dubai, Jordan, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, Azerbaijan and the Czech Republic.

Egypt, Afghanistan, Jordan and Morocco are among the countries to which the U.S. is known to have "rendered" terrorism suspects. Under the increasingly controversial practice of "rendition," terrorism suspects arrested abroad have been forcibly returned to their native countries for interrogation, sometimes with methods that are barred by U.S. law.

Pretty safe to say that plane wasn't in Azerbaijan on Sox business...

Ha-ha

2005-03-21T16:13:00.000-05:00

The Republican National Committee announced that the Republican Party is changing its emblem from an elephant to a condom. The National Chairman explained that the condom more clearly reflects the party's stance today because a condom accepts inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you are actually being screwed. - Karl-Thomas Musselman

Support the Troops

2005-03-21T12:34:00.000-05:00

If it's a choice between supporting the war and supporting the warriors, isn't it more important to pump money into supporting the warriors?

Not according to the Bush administration which plans to cut Veterans' benefits.

You can read about some of the negative effects right here to just get an idea of how damaging this is to the brave men and women who have fought for this country. They deserve more than lip service. They deserve more than what they've gotten. They deserve more than excuses and ineffectual responses like "we're doing all we can." American veterans deserve the best this country has to offer.

Proponents of the Bush budget say that VA spending has increased - and while that's technically true, the VA budget has always been historically underfunded and the "increase" in spending in no way keeps up with the massive increase in veterans that we have recently created, nor does it keep up with the increasing needs of the aging veterans' community. And even Republicans acknowledge that veterans are getting screwed:

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, described the proposed budget as "lean" and acknowledged the funding levels would "not be sufficient to allow the VA to continue to operate as it has."

What's worse: the cuts would only save a few hundred million dollars - pocket change compared to the billions of dollars in the budget. From the Winston-Salem Journal:

Cuts to the 119 state veterans homes across the nation would save nearly $300 million, according to documents provided by the VA. They are part of a plan to shift the VA's health-care focus to veterans who need help the most, specifically those with service-related health problems or low incomes, said Terry Jemison, a VA spokesman in Washington.

The effects on the homes would be devastating, said Donald Mooney, a Washington spokesman for the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group. "It would just put a lot of state veterans homes out of business," he said.

In some states, he said, the cuts would affect more than 80 percent of the veterans population.

don't you think we could save those same millions of dollars from elsewhere in the budget? Maybe, instead of saving money by hurting veterans' homes, MAYBE we could save some money by NOT charging tax payers millions of dollars for state-sponsored propaganda.

Veterans across the country are outraged, and rightfully so. When Americans sign up to serve this country, this country made a promise: you take care of us, we will take care of you. It's not a conditional promise, like "we'll take care of you...but only if your right knee is shot in combat." It's a promise made to reward selfless service. And at a time when average Americans are being told NOT to make sacrifices during time of war, it is unconscionable to ask our nation's veterans to make yet another sacrifice.

Support the troops and demand that the VA receives the money it needs to treat ALL of our nation's veterans.

Universal Healthcare, GOP style...

2005-03-21T11:03:00.000-05:00

From AmericaBlog (just quoting wholesale here, as I'm short on time):

The GOP just guaranteed every American universal health coverage - Hillary would be proud
by John in DC - 3/21/2005 10:27:00 AM

Robert, a reader over at DailyKos, recently wrote a comment over there regarding Schiavo that is actually quite brilliant (I can't find the link to his post, but will summarize it below).

If the Republicans believe their "culture of life" requires the federal government to intervene and assure adequate medical care any time an American is at risk of bodily harm, then we can assume this "culture of life" applies to other Americans when they too need critical medical care yet something stands in their way.

For example:

- poor people, the homeless, the underemployed, illegal immigrants who can't afford to pay for their medical help
- the elderly who don't have enough money to pay for the kind of expensive medical attention they may need later in life
- parents of newborns facing catastrophic illness
- regular Americans who can't afford health insurance, have no health insurance for any other reason, or who have health insurance that doesn't cover their current major or catastrophic illness.
- any American who ends up facing any kind of major illness or threat to their health and who can't afford to pay for adequate treatment. STRIKE THAT, money is irrelevant, this is the Culture of Life we're talking about. That should read "any American facing any kind of major illness or health threat, period - regardless of ability to pay" - in Schiavo's case, money isn't the issue, yet they're still guaranteeing federal help. And after all, isn't the Culture of Life more important than dollars anyway?

In other words, the GOP just guaranteed every American universal health coverage. And if that's not what they're guaranteeing, ask them why not? Is the Terri Schiavo case about the "culture of life" - or is it simply about Tom DeLay and the radical right grandstanding when they don't really give a damn about anybody's life?

Some enterprising Democrat should write up the Culture of Life Act (Terri's bill) immediately and introduce it, guaranteeing universal health coverage to ensure that every American is guaranteed their "culture of life."

It's a great strategic idea...

The "Culture of Life"

2005-03-19T14:55:00.000-05:00

This Schiavo thing has been hashed out everywhere. So I won't pile on any more except to say that the government should have nothing to do with a family's decision in a case like this. The condition of Terry Schiavo is a tragic one, as is the fact that her husband and parents had to go to court to settle their differences of opinion. But ultimately, that's as far as the issue should go, at least publicly. Congress calling the Schiavo's in to testify is another example (along with the steroid hearing) of grandstanding politicians sticking their noses where they don't belong in an effort to distract us from issues that need to be addressed but haven't been.

But back to this "culture of life" stuff coming from the right on this. Here's a quote from yesterday:

"The president believes that when there are serious questions or doubts in a case like this, that the presumption ought to be in the favor of life," Scott McClellan said.

And here's an example (actually a whole slew of them) of how much the president really values life. Check the link, it's probably not what you think. Some hypocrisy knows no bounds. (via Jeremiah at Kos)

Update: More now about public opinion and the politics behind this story.

Chimpy Has Derailed

2005-03-18T14:48:00.000-05:00

Wow.

Something Positive

2005-03-18T13:44:00.000-05:00

Ok ok, I've got something...

Last night on the phone, Benari and I were discussing how impressed we were with the actions and determination of Minority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). I don't think either of us expected him to be such a galvanizing force among the Senate Democrats, and we're currently seeing coordination and a level of party unity (with a couple notable exceptions) that is unlike anything we ever saw under Daschle.

In fact, Daschle's defeat in November may have been a blessing in disguise for the Democrats, because they seemed unable to make any of the kind of headway under his leadership that we have seen in only a few months under Reid.

Among recent activities, Reid has:

come out against the FEC's stated intent to regulate the internet with regards to political causes (also covered here);

battled with GOP leadership over Judicial Appointments and the "nuclear option";

come out vocally about Greenspan's political hackery and AG Alberto Gonzales' horrendous record on human rights;

and opened a full time Democratic rapid response center/war room.

Since taking on the mantle of Minority Leader, Reid has done everything he can to lead boldly by example, as a good leader should. He has been strong, proactive, and outspoken. Let's hope he continues to be a thorn in the side of the GOP's "progress" in Senate until he assumes "Mjority Lader" status in 2007...

More on the FCC

2005-03-18T13:13:00.000-05:00

Here's a follow up about the FCC from Altercation, but this time it's a telecom attorney weighing in:

Name: Witheld
Comments:
I've been a telecommunications lawyer with twenty years experience both at the FCC and in front of state regulatory commissions. Because I represent entities with pending cases there today, please do not publish my name. That said, I heartily endorse Ben Scott's critique of Chairman Michael Powell's thoroughly anti-consumer tenure. Michael Powell is the worst kind of regulator. He arrogantly assumes he knows everything, and therefore is completely close-minded to any legitimate input. The most notable example you barely mention, which is Powell's strident opposition to competition for residential and small business consumers. You might ask why this is the case, when Powell lards his long, pompous speeches with fulsome paeans to consumers? Mr. Powell single-handledly has eliminated the requirement that large incumbent phone companies like Bell South, SBC and Verizon, share their bottleneck facilities with competitors. These facilities are called "UNE-P", and is the only mechanism in place allowing competition. Powell's legacy of eliminating these facilities has yet to be quantified, but already competition for these consumers is evaporating. How can this occur? Simple. Powell is allowing the incumbents to charge "market" prices for these facilities, effectively in March, 2006. What are these prices like? Not surprisingly, they exceed the retail prices charged by the same incumbent providers. This is why the nation's largest competitive providers of residential service, MCI and AT&T, are quickly exiting the market and being purchased by Verizon/Qwest and SBC for chump change. But you ask, doesn't Powell say internet phone service and cell phones will provide the competition once MCI and AT&T (and dozens of other companies) exit the market? He does, but don't believe it. Very few people have abandoned their local phone service and totally rely on cell phones. The only people that do are the kinds of folks that did not have phone service to begin with (students, transients ,etc.). What about Internet phone service (called in industry parlance "VoIP")? This is a margin product today, and is frankly not getting too much penetration. One only need consider AT&T's utter failure in that market (far less than 100,000 customers over six months after entering and marketing the service) to see this is not going anywhere. What about cable TV companies, another competitor cited by Powell? Nationwide, cable providers service 3% of consumers, and are quite slowly rolling out services. The sum, as you will see over the next year, is Powell's legacy of remonopolization take hold.

Is Martin more pro-consumer? In reality, he is. Martin originally voted against Powell's scheme to eliminate competition. However, after the Bell Companies put on a full court lobbying blitz at the White House, Martin was forced to follow Powell's lead. Absent a White House that were not in cahoots with the large monopoly providers, I suspect Martin would do a good job at the FCC. Alas, we know this is not true. The future of competition in America is therefore bleak, since the Bush Administration and its appointees only look out for the large special interests. Get ready for more consolidation and less competition over the next four years.

Not much good news to report these days.

Delay-ed

2005-03-17T19:44:00.000-05:00

It, of course, goes without saying that I think Congress should be a little more focused on its own members' ethics violations before getting all huffy and holier-than-thou over some athletes' ethics violations.

DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has dismissed questions about his ethics as partisan attacks, but revelations last week about his overseas travel and ties to lobbyists under investigation have emboldened Democrats and provoked worry among Republicans.

With some members increasingly concerned that DeLay had left himself vulnerable to attack, several Republican aides and lobbyists said for the first time that they are worried about whether he will survive and what the consequences could be for the party's image.

If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there," said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers. "The situation is negatively fluid right now for the guy. You start hitting arteries, it only takes a couple." The consultant, who at times has been a DeLay ally, spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he could not be candid otherwise.

At least six Republicans expressed concern over the weekend about DeLay's situation. They said they do not think DeLay necessarily deserves the unwanted attention he is receiving. But they said that the volume of the revelations about his operation is becoming alarming and that they do not see how it will abate.

Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that DeLay remains generally strong within his party and is an effective leader and operator, but that "signs are emerging that both the number and nature of charges being raised against him could put him in serious political peril."

"While he is far from a nationally recognized figure, Republicans worry that all it takes is more national news coverage to change that, and there seems to be a new episode every week or two," Mann said. "We've seen throughout congressional history that a series of seemingly small ethical missteps can snowball."

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said DeLay "has always had, and continues to have, the strong support" of the party. "His leadership and dedication to maintaining and growing our numbers are a significant reason for our Republican majority," he added.

Republican leaders had thought they had built a fortress against future trouble by changing House rules in January and by changing the House ethics committee's Republican membership in February to include members closer to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and DeLay. In one previously unreported example of the tight connections, Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.), one of the committee's new members, was co-host of a 2002 fundraising breakfast to benefit the DeLay-founded political action committee that is now the subject of a grand jury investigation in Texas. The grand jury is looking into whether the PAC improperly used corporate funds to influence the outcome of state legislative races.

DeLay's legal defense fund received contributions from two of the new ethics committee members, Smith and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). The committee admonished DeLay three times last year. Republican leaders later sought the rule changes that made it more difficult to bring new ethics charges against Republicans.

Democratic leaders have introduced a resolution to repeal the rules and said they plan to try to force Republicans to publicly defend the changes at a time when the news media are reporting about DeLay's relationship with lobbyists now under criminal and congressional investigation.

The rule changes require at least one member of each party to support an investigation before it is begun. Under the old rules, if the chairman and top Democrat did not agree on what to do with a complaint within 45 days after it was determined to be valid, an investigative subcommittee was automatically created. Now, a complaint is automatically dismissed if the committee does not act within 45 days.

Democrats opened their protest Thursday, at the ethics committee's first meeting under its new leadership, by preventing the panel from organizing. The committee must adopt rules to function, and those were voted down by a 5 to 5 party-line vote, leaving the House with no mechanism for investigating or punishing members.

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), the committee's top Democrat, said in a telephone interview yesterday that he will not release his freeze on committee action unless the House undoes the rule changes, and he said he has begun recruiting Republicans to back him. He said he may use a tactic known as a discharge petition, which could force a bill to the floor if enough Republicans back him.

"This will have to be resolved on the House floor," Mollohan said. "These rules undermine the ability of the committee to do its job. Republicans are not going to want to be part of impeding the work of the committee."

The ethics committee, formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is the only panel split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, giving the minority party leverage it does not have anywhere else in the House.

Ron Bonjean, Hastert's communications director, said the party's leaders have no intention of giving in. "It's very clear we're at an impasse caused by Democrat partisan politics," he said. "The House has already voted on rules for this Congress, and there is no credible reason to do it again."

The ethics protest came after a week of unrelenting bad news for DeLay, who was briefly taken to a hospital Thursday after he experienced what his staff called fatigue related to a heart arrhythmia. Two Sundays ago, CBS's "60 Minutes" aired a 12-minute segment reminding a national audience that a Democratic district attorney in Austin is continuing to suggest he might indict DeLay as part of an investigation of the involvement of money from Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee founded by DeLay, in the state's redistricting controversy.

On Wednesday, the New York Times said documents entered as evidence in a civil trial in Austin "suggest that Mr. DeLay was more actively involved than previously known in gathering corporate donations for" the committee, known as TRMPAC.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that DeLay and other members, including some Democrats, had accepted trips from the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, which had registered as a foreign agent. That would make the trips a violation of House rules, although both DeLay and the group said he was not told about the registration until last week.

Dan Allen, DeLay's communications director, said his boss was a natural target for Democrats. "Congressman DeLay is a fixture of the conservative movement who's been a very effective leader that works with Republicans to get results," he said. "That alone makes him a target of the Democrats and their allies, but it is also the reason he enjoys the steadfast support of House Republicans."

Smith, the new Texan on the ethics committee, said the TRMPAC fundraising breakfast -- which invited supporters to spend as much as $10,000 for "underwriter" status -- would not interfere with his new duties. "When someone joins this committee, they make a solemn vow to protect the integrity of the House of Representatives," he said through an aide. "That means that every decision has to be based on the merits, not partisanship."

Juiced

2005-03-17T18:47:00.000-05:00

So, Jared and I were discussing this via e-mail, and I think it's something that bears posting about.

The Government's hearings on steroids in baseball .

To be honest, while I think steroids are cheating and should be banned from sports, I don't see how it demands government intervention or even how it even relates to the government - aside from Dubya being a GM for the Rangers when Conseco was juicing. The fact that we're having immediate hearings on steroids with all the other serious issues we SHOULD be having hearings on upsets me greatly.

Why aren't we having a Gannon hearing? Why aren't we holding hearings on tax-payer funded, state-sponsored propaganda?! Why aren't we having a hearing on the Valerie Plame leak? Why aren't we having a hearing on Halliburton receiving no bid contracts in Iraq, even after overcharging American taxpayers more than $108 million?! Why aren't we holding a hearing to find out what happened to the lost $9 billion of last year's $87 billion supplemental?

Oh, but sports stars are juicing? Strike up the band, spin the merry-go-round, and let's have a circus!

With all of the serious funny-business going on within the government right now, I find it pretty insipid that our lawmakers have decided that now is the time to crack down on America's pastime. What's that old saying about getting one's own house in order?

Don't be fooled. This is just one more example of Congress acting like they're addressing a problem, when what they're really doing is diverting our attention away from the serious issues facing our country right now.

And, with all due respect to my favorite sport (and to my beloved World Champions), athletes using steroids shouldn't be considered one of those serious issues.

Try, Try Again

2005-03-17T18:40:00.000-05:00

Last year, President Bush nominated William G. Myers III to the Federal Appeals Court and Myers was subsequently blocked in the Senate. So what does Bush do? He nominates the guy again this year, and accuses the Dems of being obstructionist if they don't give him the ol' rubber stamp. The Boston Globe has an editorial about it today that's good, so I'll copy it below in its entirety. It says pretty much everything I want to say about this, so it saves me the time:

A YEAR ago, the Democratic minority in the Senate blocked the nomination of William G. Myers III to the federal appeals court in San Francisco, finding that the former lobbyist for the mining and grazing industries lacked the temperament and experience for a lifetime judicial appointment. President Bush has renominated Myers. He is no more qualified now than he was in 2004, and he should be rejected again.

During the first Bush term, the Senate confirmed more than 200 judicial nominees, more than were confirmed during Ronald Reagan's first term or the previous President Bush's single term. There are fewer vacancies in the federal judiciary than there have been in 14 years. It is simply not true, as the administration has charged, that Senate Democrats are using obstructionist tactics to weaken the federal bench. Democrats in the first Bush term filibustered against fewer than a dozen nominees.

Myers has never been a judge at any level, never been a law professor, never even participated in a jury trial. As the top lawyer in Bush's Interior Department, Myers regularly did favors for his former paymasters in the mining industry. In one case, Myers reversed a Clinton administration ruling that a proposed gold mine would pollute the environment and intrude on a sacred tribal site. He did so without consulting with tribal officials, although they had asked for a meeting with him.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regularly hears cases that touch on critical land-use issues such as the Clinton administration's roadless rule protecting the national forests and leases for oil and gas drilling on federal lands. Myers's views on such matters can be summed up in the opinion he once expressed that federal management of public lands is like ''the tyrannical actions of King George in levying taxes" on the American colonies without their representation. In his opinion, both the Endangered Species Act and the wetland provisions of the Clean Water Act are examples of ''regulatory excesses."

The standing committee on the federal judiciary of the American Bar Association reviewed Myers, and not a single member rated him ''well qualified." The National Congress of American Indians, which has never before opposed a judicial nominee, wants to see Myers rejected, as do more than 180 labor, environmental, civil rights, and women's organizations. Bush should never have sent his name back to the Senate, where it appears that Myers's only hope is if the Republican leadership cynically changes the body's filibuster rules to win approval for this manifestly unqualified nominee. A lifetime job on an important appeals court is no position for an ideologue who won't even listen to the other side.

It is disingenuous for the GOP to be accusing the Democrats of obstructionism in this case, especially given the fact that Bush has essentially had his way with his nominees. For more on the false obstructionist charges, here's a bit by Media Matters taking on false charges by Michael Reagan.

George Will (a conservative writer) comes out against altering the filibuster rules here.

Armando has a diary at kos about other nominees that are up for a second try.

Additionally, there are claims that the use of the filibuster is unprecedented. Those are also tackled by MM here. The Republicans were even more active with judicial blocks during the Clinton years, though they often killed nominees in committee or by pocket filibuster, as they held the majority. The filibuster is an important tool for a minority in the Congress, and since many of their other options have been removed by Republican leadership rule changes, it is their (and our) last line of defense.

Cobb-Badnarik-Kerry File Suit over Ohio Voting Fraud

2005-03-17T16:09:00.000-05:00

From RawStory (via Kos, of course):

The lawyers for Green presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, along with Kerry-Edwards 2004 have added election tampering to a civil suit filed against the state of Ohio over problems with the state's recount, RAW STORY has learned.

The suit...alleges that a manufacturer of voting machines, Triad Election Systems, which serves 43 counties in the state, is tampering with the recount. It is unclear exactly what recourse the plaintiffs' seek; the filing adds on to an original suit to have the recount take place before Ohio electors meet, which failed in the courts. Green Party spokesman Blair Bobier said the party hoped to reform the recount process and suggested Ohio should secure or impound voting machines.

Follow the RawStory link above for PDFs of the complaint.

New FCC Chairman

2005-03-17T15:57:00.000-05:00

Alterman picks up on the radicalism of the new guy today in Altercation (quoting his friend, Ben Scott):

Nothing will come for a vote without [Kevin Martin's] say-so, and he’ll get to pick and choose what to do and when to do it. No individual on the planet will have more power over what’s on TV, who owns your radio station, how fast your broadband is (or whether you can get it at all), how many cell phone companies you have to choose from, and how much it all costs, than 38-year-old Kevin Martin.

[snip]

He’s been the number one advocate for the broadcasters at the Commission, except for when he’s a crusader against their indecent behavior. Needless to say, Martin has not distinguished himself as a friend of the public interest. Nor has he shown a great penchant for expanding access to new technologies to broaden the diversity of viewpoint and culture in the media system. He’s pretty much fallen in line with the talking points of the National Association of Broadcasters. All these sticky questions may explain why the White House picked him. Because he’s an FCC Commissioner already, the promotion to Chairman means he can skip the unpleasantries of a confirmation hearing in the Senate and the inconvenient questions about contradictory and failed policy decisions it might bring.[emphasis mine]

So it looks like the Bush administration is getting smart. By picking a wacko from inside the FCC already, they can more easily gloss over all the crappy decisions he's already supported by avoiding any hearings involved in confirming him.

Alterman has links to blanket coverage on this, so check it out through the above link.

What He Said

2005-03-17T10:43:00.000-05:00

AmericaBlog is right:

How to tell people to go screw themselves
by Chris in Paris - 3/17/2005 04:09:00 AM

Reading the news, you might think that How to Lose Friends and Alienate People was written either by or for Bush and the GOP. It's tough to chose which action is the worst because we have such a crowded field.

Proposed FDA director who has overseen recent scandals
Wolfowitz to head the World Bank
Bolton to the UN
Drilling in ANWR
Planned cuts in Social Security
Bilking tax payers of millions in Iraq via Halliburton
What else? It seems to go on and on.

Ahh, just don't worry about it the Robert Blake, Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson trials are just so much more important. BTW, what's in American Idol?

Not to mention the new FCC chief... who happens to be to the right of Powell... oy.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

2005-03-17T10:06:00.000-05:00

Remember to kiss your favorite Irish-person today.

Did I mention I'm Irish?

GOP: "We don't care."

2005-03-16T18:18:00.000-05:00

So...on a personal note, let me commend the honorable Martin T. Meehan, for voting in favor of the Gannon Resolution...which the House Republicans voted down.

In fact, let's commend all those who voted in favor of the resolution:

Voting in favor of the resolution were: (All Democrats) Rep. Conyers, Rep. Berman, Rep. Scott, Rep. Watt, Rep. Jackson-Lee, Rep. Waters, Rep. Meehan, Rep. Schiff, Rep. Sanchez, Rep. Van Hollen

.

But, alas, the fix is in.

3/16/2005
Judiciary Committee quashes Democrats’ effort to demand credentialing info on ‘Gannon’
Filed under: General— site admin @ 5:42 pm

RAW STORY

The House Judiciary Committee voted against adopting a resolution demanding Bush agencies turn over all credentialing information related to James D. Guckert 21-10, the discredited conservative reporter and prostitute who wrote under the nom de guerre “Jeff Gannon.”

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the resolution was imperative to ensuring that the line between reporters and activists remains clear.

“If we don’t investigate this matter thoroughly,” Conyers said, “where and when will be draw the line? I plead with my committee members in the Judiciary to support this very plain but necessary [amendment].”

F. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the committee, said he felt that “the Administration, in my opinion, has substantially investigated this matter.”

“The Secret Service has determined that Mr Guckert did not pose a danger to the President or his family,” Sensenbrenner said.

Sensenbrenner outlined his opposition to the measure in terms of not wanting to interfere with “competing investigations” by the Administration he said were already underway.

“I would reiterate the fact that the Administration has substantially complied with the request for information,” the Wisconsin Republican said.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee said the matter demanded an investigation.

It “cries out for a House investigation,” she said. “I frankly believe that this is no less serious than my colleagues thought the Clinton investigation was to them.”

Jackson Lee said Gannon had engaged in a possible “penetration of the White House.”

Heh. She said, "penetration." I'm sure the double entendre is lost on no one.

Now. Down to business. If you're outraged by the vote, then bright and early tomorrow morning, call each representative who VOTED AGAINST the resolution.

Voting Against: (All Republicans) Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Coble, Rep. (Lamar) Smith, Rep. Gallegly, Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Chabot, Rep. Lungren, Rep. Jenkins, Rep. Cannon, Rep. Bachus, Rep. Inglis, Rep. Hostettler, Rep. Green, Rep. Keller, Rep. Issa, Rep. Flake, Rep. Pence, Rep. Forbes, Rep. King, Rep. Franks, Rep. Gohmert.

You can also make a note of those not present: Democrats: Rep. Boucher, Rep. Nadler, Rep. Lofgren, Rep. Delahunt, Rep. Wexler, Rep. Weiner, Rep. (Adam) Smith, Republicans: Rep. Hyde, Rep. Feeney.

Call early. Call often. Have friends call. Be respectful. Leave lots of messages. Feel free to e-mail them as well. Let them know you're outraged. Find out why they don't care that a male prostitute had unfettered access to secret White House and CIA documents.

Rep. Howard Coble: (202) 225-3065, (336) 333-5005, (336) 626-3060

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101

Rep. Lamar Smith: 202-225-4236, 512-402-9743, 210-821-5024

Rep. Steve Chabot: (202) 225-2216, (513) 684-2723

Rep. Chris Cannon: (202) 225-7751, (801) 851-2500,(801) 955-3631

Rep. Spencer Bachus: 202 225-4921, 205 969-2296, 205 333-9894, 205 280-0704

Rep. Randy Forbes: 202-225-6365, 757-382-0080, 804-526-4969,434-634-5575,

Rep. Jeff Flake: (480) 833-0092, (202) 225-2635

Rep. Elton Gallegly: (202) 225-5811, (805) 497-2224,(805) 686-2525

Rep. Trent Franks: 202-225-4576, 623-776-7911

Rep. Louie Gohmert: 202-225-3035

Rep. Bob Goodlatte: (202) 225-5431, (540) 432-2391, (434) 845-8306, (540) 857-2672, (540) 885-3861

Rep. Mark Green: (202) 225-5665, (920) 437-1954, (920) 380-0061,

Rep. John Hostettler: (202) 225-4636, (812) 465-6484, (765) 793-2161,(812) 232-0523,(812) 882-0632

Rep. Bob Inglis: 202-225-6030, 864-232-1141, 864-427-2205, 864-582-6422

Rep. Darrell Issa: 202.225.3906, 760.599.5000, 909.693.2447

Rep. William Jenkins: (202) 225-6356, (423) 247-8161

Rep. Ric Keller: (202) 225-2176, (407) 872-1962, (888) 642-1211, (888) 642-1211

Rep. Steve King: (202) 225-4426, (712) 732-4197, (712) 224 4692, (712) 325-1404

Rep. Dan Lungren: (202) 225-5716, 916-859-9906

Rep. Mike Pence: (202) 225-3021, (765) 640-2919

All contact info was taken from their main congressional websites. Every US Congressman can be found here.

Please feel free to circulate this around the web. Now, get crackin'!

Shit: Senate Votes for ANWR Drilling

2005-03-16T15:09:00.000-05:00

Feck.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster -- a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

Lorax has reason to maintain some hope, however.

So much for so-called conservatism.

Venezuela and its 'Anti-Bush'

2005-03-16T13:27:00.000-05:00

I was cruising metafilter today and came across a post about Chavez and Venezuela, and the move by Bush to contain this guy.

I don't know how many of you have seen The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, but I highly recommend it as a peek behind the scenes of a failed coup attempt against Chavez (thought to be backed by the US), who has arguably brought some measure of democracy to a traditionally oligarchical distributive society in Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez assumed the presidency in Venezuela after a landslide victory in the 1998 elections there, and has kept power ever since by winning the hearts and minds of the enormous underclass of his country. He has attempted, and succeeded by some measures, to break the oligarchy of the extremely wealthy and powerful upper class by investing a portion of the oil revenues of Venezuela back into education and health care programs for the poor.

And basically, the Bush administration hates him and sees him as a threat for the following reasons:

Buschcon concerns are especially focused, however, on Chavez, for interesting reasons. Venezuela is a major oil producer whose popular and populist --- indeed now officially socialist ---- President Chavez is determined to defy Uncle Sam’s ancient claim to special low-cost access to Latin-America’s natural resources. It supplies nearly a sixth of US oil imports and the US buys 60 percent of Venezuela’s oil output. The Chavez government seeks full state government control over Venezuela’s oil sector and uses oil profits to --- imagine ---- eliminate poverty.

[snip]

In a region where anti-imperialist talk is cheap and policy tends to diverge from left-populist rhetoric, Chavez appears to be the real left deal. His accomplishments include a significant ongoing political mobilization of the poor and a considerable expansion of social welfare programs and investment that is improving the standard of living of Venezuela’s disadvantaged majority.

So Chavez is a guy who cares about the disadvantaged in his country, over the advantaged elite, and he's got oil revenues to back his philosophy. This definitely shouldn't equal "threat" in the eyes of the Bush Administration, so there must be something else going on which would prompt a tougher approach to the Chavez situation:

A strategy aimed at fencing in the government of the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter is being prepared at the request of President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, senior US officials say. The move signals a renewed interest by the administration in a region that has been relatively neglected in recent years.

[snip]

“Chávez is a problem because he is clearly using his oil money and influence to introduce his conflictive style into the politics of other countries,” Mr Pardo-Maurer said in an interview with the Financial Times.

[snip]

Mr Chávez, whose government has enjoyed bumper export revenues during his six years in office thanks to high oil prices, has denied that he is aiding insurgent groups in countries such as Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. But a tougher stance from the US appears to be in the offing, a move that is likely to worsen strained bilateral relations.

[snip]

Suggestions that Mr Chávez backs subversive groups surface frequently, although so far also with scant evidence. Colombian officials close to President Alvaro Uribe say Venezuela is giving sanctuary to Colombian guerrillas, deemed “terrorists” by the US and Europe.

Tough to say who is right/wrong in this situation. Depending on which source you look at, Chavez is either a savior, a "new Castro", or an iron fisted totalitarian.

Honestly, I'm sort of torn over the whole topic because I'm too cynical to believe or disbelieve one side or the other completely. I'm also pragmatic, and there seems to be very little pragmatism on either side of this issue. But as for the coup attempt, I have a friend who knows the documentary makers of "Televised", and they've claimed it's legitimate.

So who knows, but I think it's something interesting to keep an eye on, considering the Bush track record with uncooperative, oil producing countries.

Ahnuld not a Hater

2005-03-16T12:43:00.000-05:00

AmericaBlog links to an article about the Governator's appearance on Hardball during which he unequivocally stated that he would not allow hate and discrimination to be written into the Constitution of California.

Appearing last night on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, the governor was asked if he would "move to try to change the Constitution" should the California Supreme Court rule that the state can no longer deny marriage to same-sex couples; he replied, "No, absolutely not."

It's good to see that he's not a total wanker conservative. Maybe Shriver has had some influence somewhere along the way.

Getting drilled

2005-03-16T12:41:00.000-05:00

There are many political outrages to discuss today, not the least of which is President Bush's announcement that he plans to tap Neo-Con warmonger Paul Wolfowitz to head up the World Bank. But, as Salon points out, there's more trouble a'brewin':

At the request of the Bush administration, Republicans in the Senate have tacked a provision onto a budget resolution which would open the refuge to drilling. Since budget resolutions can't be filibustered, now the advocates of opening the refuge only need 51 votes to let oil companies into the still-pristine land of muskoxen and caribou.

On the one hand, the Administration contiunes to encourage Americans to waste their precious resources on larger and larger gas-guzzling SUV's, and on the other hand, they're hyping up an energy crisis that they themselves are helping to create so that they can put more money in the pockets of their oil companies. It seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? How else can we explain the fact that the current energy policy does NOTHING to explore or invest in alternative forms of energy production, nor does it put any sort of common sense requirements in place to make oil and gas consumption more efficient. Instead of a conservative energy policy that encourages Americans to conserve energy and regulate oil consumption, we have an energy policy that says "Burn all the oil you want - we'll drill for more!"

Whatever the cost to wildlife, the Times says, the limited amount of oil there wouldn't do much to fix our energy problems, adding: "Any number of modest efficiencies could achieve the same result without threatening the refuge. Simply closing the so-called S.U.V. loophole -- making light trucks as efficient overall as ordinary cars -- would save a million barrels a day. Increasing fuel-economy standards for cars by about 50 percent, to 40 miles per gallon, a perfectly reasonable expectation, would save 2.5 million barrels a day."

But,it won't just be environmentalists who lose if they start drilling in Alaska. Consumers will lose, too (it costs money to drill for oil - costs which are conveniently passed on to the consumers)...and once we've used up our limited oil supplies, what then? Let's see an energy plan that doesn't focus entirely on helping the oil industry turn a quick profit. Maybe it's time that we had an energy policy that was actually CONSERVATIVE.

Next Step Towards Constitutional Monarchy

2005-03-16T10:23:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Jeb Bush is on deck. They're talking Veep now, but we'll see if that changes. This is worth paying attention to:

"Nationally prominent Republicans are talking to each other about the possibility of getting Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to accept the vice presidential nomination in 2008 since he has ruled out running for president that year," Robert Novak reports.

Meanwhile, Florida GOP leaders "still hope that Bush might change his mind about not running against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson's bid for a second term in 2006. Nelson is considered vulnerable, but no strong Florida Republican has indicated an interest in running against him."

Via PoliticalWire.

Bolton to the UN: Worst Pick Ever

2005-03-16T09:42:00.000-05:00

Ian Williams at the Nation offers a good explanation of why Bush's nominee for Ambassador to the UN is such a crappy, and "perverse", selection.

Here's a taste:

The man who ordered a CIA probe on Hans Blix for not finding weapons in Iraq when ordered, who contrived the dismissal of the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and who in 1999 wrote for the American Enterprise Institute of "Kofi Annan's UN Power Grab," has recently been trying fire Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for not finding nuclear weapons in Iran. Americans, and the rest of the world, should worry. If his appointment is confirmed, Bolton's task is likely to be to bully the UN into supporting an Iraq-style fiasco in Iran or Syria. [emphasis mine]

I'm really beginning to think the Bush adminsistration makes it's moves HOPING to piss off the world. Here's more:

Possibly among the immediate casualties of Bolton's appointment will be some thousands of dead Darfurians. A resolution that would refer the continuing mayhem in Sudan to the International Criminal Court has already been stalled for months by the die-hard resistance of the Bolton faction in the State Department, but twelve members of the Security Council were cautiously optimistic that they had averted an American veto. Although it is clear that this is the one sanction actually feared by the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias it has employed, Bolton has already shown that in his obsessive war with the International Criminal Court, he does not care about the views of allies. Indeed, his fervent opposition to international restrictions on small-arms trade, landmines, biological weapons, child soldiers and nuclear testing suggests that he is quite prepared to accept significant casualties for his views--as long as they are other people's. [emphasis mine]

What a frickin' sicko. We're truly living with some demented-ass "leadership" these days. No doubt about it.

James Guckert is a (Media) Whore

2005-03-16T01:15:00.000-05:00

Just didn't want anyone to forget that, for a guy who spent two years as a right-wing shill persecuting others, he's playing the part of a victim pretty well.

Witness the sad rantings of a man tormented and oppressed by the mean ol' liberals right here. Poor widdle fake weporter!

Read with delight the questions that have gone unasked at White House press briefings on his website.

Here are some questions I'd ask: why isn't this guy being questioned about the Valerie Plame CIA leak?! Hmmm? Why has the MSM abandoned this story, just when it was getting interesting? How did "Gannon" know about the beginning of the Iraq war hours before it happened? How did he get press credentials before Talon News was even created? And - seriously - why was a gay prostitute allowed to hang out with the White House press corps for TWO YEARS, without anyone saying anything? I mean, at the very least, don't you think being a male escort would raise some eyebrows? Especially in a White House that is so homophobic, Liz Cheney becomes outraged if her daughter Mary is referred to as a lesbian.

I'm all for second chances. But when you've proven yourself to be a liar, a hypocrite, and a shill, you sorta forfeit your claim to righteous indignation. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that...

And as AMERICAblog reminds us:

Don't forget, Wednesday morning, 10AM, you can watch the House committee meeting and vote on GannonGuckertGate on the Web
by John in DC - 3/16/2005 12:01:00 AM

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON GANNON RESOLUTION ON WEDNESDAY AT 10 A.M.

BROADCAST LIVE ON THE INTERNET

http://judiciary.house.gov/

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Tomorrow, March 16, at 10 a.m. the House Judiciary Committee will vote on a House resolution which will direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to respond to remaining questions on Gannongate. The resolution was introduced by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and twenty-eight Members of the House of Representatives. The American public deserves the full truth as to who at the White House paved the way for Mr. Guckert to have repeated and staged access to the President.

WHAT: Full committee markup of Gannon Resolution of Inquiry (H. Res. 136)

WHO: House Judiciary Committee

WHEN: Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 10 a.m.

WHERE: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

**Broadcast live on the Internet, http://judiciary.house.gov/

Paging Father Shanley

2005-03-15T19:47:00.000-05:00

Is THIS where you got all those ideas?

HUH?

Crazy Evangelicals

2005-03-15T17:42:00.000-05:00

~~Jesse~~ Amanda (she's new at Pandagon, fresh from MouseWords!) breaks down this crazy essay about how women shouldn't be allowed to play sports, because they make girls mannish, unattractive to his repressed self, and un-Biblical... or something:

Most men I know admire a woman who is reasonably healthy and fit; they are also attracted to a woman who is somewhat “soft” and cuddly. This does not mean she should be delicate like tissue paper; no, a woman should be reasonably strong, and the normal duties of life will make her that way. This is what we learn from the Proverbs 31 woman. However, if you look at pictures of female athletes who play sports or observe them on the playing fields, you will notice that many develop strong, muscular bodies. Female athletes also sneer, wince, push, and fight just like the men. I notice these things all the time in pictures in our hometown newspaper. The sneers are most obvious; they make young women very unfeminine. The masculine uniforms and sweaty bodies aren’t very attractive, either.

Oh no!! Sneering!

Given that sports may very well foster pagan and humanistic attitudes, I urge parents to think deeply about this issue and about whether or not any members of their families should participate in organized sports programs. As a minimum, I hope you will agree with me that we should keep our daughters away from competitive sports and spend our time training them how to be Biblically feminine women, wives and mothers. [emphasis mine]

But but but... but we see here that Jesus loves playing organized sports with girls!

So which is it?

Boxer on ANWR

2005-03-15T17:32:00.000-05:00

I was on my way home this afternoon and heard Sen. Boxer (D-CA) on the Ed Shultz show talking about the ANWR vote tomorrow morning. Apparently, the Dems are one vote short of blocking the drilling bill. So they'll be working through the night to secure the vote. Let's hope they can find it.

Boxer also mentioned that there is only enough oil in the ANWR area to satisfy our nation's oil thirst for 6 months. So the GOP wing nuts are trying again, as they have been for years, to open a beautiful pristine area (originally guarded for protection by Eisenhower, a Republican) for industrial oil drilling for 6 measly months of potential oil.

If you ask me, there's some deals cut somewhere. This isn't about energy independence, or boosting our reserves, or any of the other idiotic excuses you've heard from the Right. This is about short term profit for some insiders. That's just my hunch, but with oil prices exploding, a 6 month supply isn't going to drive them down any, and that could potentially mean a tidy little profit for whatever company greases its way into the ANWR drilling area. If I'm really off base with that, let me know. I have no factual evidence, just the hunch backed up by the fact that everything this administration/government does is somehow crappy for the average guy and beneficial to the crony insiders they call friends.

Krugman, Lieberman, Social Security, etc.

2005-03-15T10:01:00.000-05:00

As usual, Krugman's on point. He's just the next in line to jump on Lieberman for essentially siding with the Republicans both on the bankruptcy bill and on social security "reform".

On the bankruptcy bill, Joe voted for cloture, but against the floor vote. The vote for cloture is the damning one, as it helped close the debate of the bill. The floor vote essentially didn't matter after debate had been closed. The best chance the Dems had to stop the bill was in the debate, before the cloture vote. Thanks, Joe.

And when it comes to social security, Joe has been dutifully repeating GOP talking points, ostensibly to appear as if he is being bipartisan and cooperative. Problem is, the GOP is neither bipartisan nor cooperative, and Joe still hasn't learned this. All he's doing is offering them political cover for their misguided, and fairly evil, plan to privatize ss and leave millions of people exposed to higher risk.

John Chait, filling in at TPM this week, discusses this further.

Additionally, there's a bit of a pile-on of a Sebastian Mallaby column in the Washington Post this week as well. The column is here.

And here are the critiques by Matt Yglesias, Josh Marshall, John Chait, and Bob Somerby (via Atrios).

Senator Rick Santorum (R-VA(?!?))

2005-03-14T23:48:00.000-05:00

During my time on the Kerry campaign in Chester County, Pennsylvania, I found a warm space deep deep down in the cockles of my heart... maybe even in the sub cockle region... for all things that would, could, will, and might help the upright citizens of that great state take down, once and for all, Senator Rick Santorum (try googling santorum, too. It's fun).

So that brings me to Chuck Pennacchio's site. Chuck is running for Rick's seat in 2006, and has some information he'd like to share with you about Rick's supposed "Pennsylvania residency", plus some other dirt you might find interesting. Check it out, and pass it around (also cross posted at, where else, DailyKos). And may Rick Santorum lose next November. Badly.

Is it hot in here? (Updated)

2005-03-14T18:03:00.000-05:00

Kossack Jerome a Paris highlights and consolidates a couple different accounts of the apparently very real, and very accelerated, process of global warming currently underway. The most notable evidence of which is the formerly snowy, but now bare, peak of Mt. Kilimanjaro, shown here.

As usual with dailykos, it's a great diary, and one that points the reader to a few good articles and hard, scientific studies.

UPDATE: Here's some more on the climate problem. This time, we focus on the glaciers in the Himalayas.

California Declares Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

2005-03-14T17:32:00.000-05:00

Amen to that, though appeals are sure to follow. But in the mean time, chaulk another win up in the pro-rights, pro-equality, pro-American values column.

In his opinion, the judge wrote the following:

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,'' Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,'' Kramer wrote. [emphasis mine]

That's right. A tradition of discrimination (of any kind) is not made constitutional simply because it has been a tradition. If that were the case, women wouldn't have the vote, and african americans wouldn't have freedom. The judge sees this issue for what it is, a question of equal rights under the law.

And lest any right wingers who might read this happen to be confused by my "pro-American values" comment above, I mean all those values that promote personal freedom (including freedom from hate and discrimination, as in this case), equal rights, and the glorious American tradition of being able to live in whatever way you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of your neighbor.

This isn't over yet by a longshot, however. Some California legislators are working to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot in November. If it passes, the courts are of no help. So if you are reading this in California, get up and work against writing discrimination into your state constitution. California is too cool to have that happen to it.

We're going to win this one in the end. Just remember, as California goes, goes the nation.

Want Someone New to Read?

2005-03-14T16:02:00.000-05:00

Check out Singularity. They've got some good, off the beaten path stuff over there. ...found via Skippy.

Ask Karen Hughes

2005-03-14T14:30:00.001-05:00

Let's hope that Congressional Democrats actually press Karen Hughes on the issues and ask her the tough questions. They don't even need to think that hard about what questions to ask; Salon's questions are pretty good.

Ingraham to the woodshed

2005-03-14T14:28:00.000-05:00

Jeff Koopersmith, who I just discovered today (thanks again, First Draft), is a new must-read.

"Ingraham herself is insipid, hatefully so, as she insults everything and everyone "liberal." She spits the word "liberal" from her frost pink lips as if it were poison, and never misses the opportunity to label Ted Kennedy a "fat drunk," forgetting the tragic losses he and his family endured mostly as a result of people who think and thought like Ingraham, who believed out of sheer ignorance and arrogant hatred that that the Kennedys were targets of "true Americans." Unfortunately those targets were found, twice -- not to mention the loss of another Kennedy brother (Joseph) during World War II. Why do we never hear Ingraham speak of the two war heroes? Why is there never mention of Jack and Joe, Jr. as she gloats over the heroism of our boys and girls in the Arab today desert as if she served in the military as well?"

Just the kind of winger-smacking goodness I need on a weekly basis.

More on Propaganda

2005-03-14T12:26:00.000-05:00

So I'm digging through the NYT article Benari links to below, and one part that sticks out is the bit about the General Accounting Office's audit of the administration's "news" bit creation and packaging:

"Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

[snip]

"The G.A.O. concluded that the two agencies "designed and executed" their segments "to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by private sector television news organizations." A significant part of that execution, the office found, was Ms. Ryan's expert narration, including her typical sign-off - "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" - delivered in a tone and cadence familiar to television reporters everywhere." [emphasis mine]

Ok, so the G.A.O. sees this stuff for what it really is, and calls the administration out on it, which is exactly what the G.A.O. is supposed to do.

So what is the administration's response? Well, obviously, to ignore the G.A.O...

And on Friday, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert propaganda and "purely informational" news segments made by the government. Such informational segments are legal, the memorandum said, whether or not an agency's role in producing them is disclosed to viewers. [emphasis mine]

Ah. I see. Since they don't agree with part of the G.A.O.'s findings, it's best to ignore ALL of their findings. Just like ignoring those pesky international treaties, right Mr. Attorney General?

Seriously, though, who needs accountability and oversight when you control every branch of government and have the Main Stream Media's nuts in your sweaty, vise-like grip (via Holden)? Not our current administration, that's for sure.

And Atrios correctly points out that the MSM news outlets are just as culpable. After all, they're running these propaganda packages as actual news (and could well be getting paid to do so!). How lazy and dishonest can you get?

Children of the Fallen

2005-03-14T10:05:00.000-05:00

Over 1,000 children have lost a parent to the war in Iraq:

"The Pentagon doesn't keep these statistics, but using figures compiled by the Scripps-Howard News Service and other sources, NEWSWEEK has calculated that as of last week 1,043 American children had lost a parent in Iraq. To put it another way, nearly two years after the invasion on March 19, 2003, among the 1,508 American troops who have died as of March 11 were an estimated 450 fathers, and 7 mothers."

And for what? Really? For what?

This? This?

And though people may finally be coming around, it's too little, too late for those 1,000+ kids and their parents. And the scary thing is, I'm sure our president sleeps quite soundly at night. Even for all of this.

Propaganda Watch

2005-03-12T22:46:00.000-05:00

Your tax payer dollars at work.

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.

It is also a world where all participants benefit.

Read the entire New York Times Article.

Moral Bancruptcy

2005-03-10T18:59:00.000-05:00

You win some, you lose some.

Sadly, as Salon points out, no one really cares if the House Dems have documented 150 pages worth of abuses of power by the House Republicans.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have won their first real victory for big business in 2005.

"The short answer is fairness," declared Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Those who can pay their bills should pay their bills. That's the American way."

Hmm. I always thought that upholding certain unalienable rights - among them Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness - was the American Way. I mean, when I think about Superman fighting for "truth, justice, and the American way," I tend to think of things like establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

But paying off credit card debt seems to be pretty American, too. So pay up, scumbags! It's the American way!

Great news for diplomacy!!

2005-03-08T17:52:00.000-05:00

No. Not really.

So:

President Bush on Monday nominated John Bolton, a blunt long-time critic of the United Nations, to be U.S. ambassador to the world body in a move that raised doubts about Bush's new emphasis on diplomacy.

That's awesome. I'm sure he'll really be able to gain some much-needed international support.

Oh, wait. What was that he said about the UN?

"The (U.N.) Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," Bolton said in a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association.

Yeah. That's wicked diplomatic. Way to reach out with an olive branch.

This does not bode well. Plus, the dude has a giant, 1970's porn 'stach.

You Pull Out, We Pull Out!

2005-03-07T22:18:00.000-05:00

(Via Raw Story) In a fit of political pique, two community colleges in California have ceased their participation in a study-abroad program in Spain because the Spanish government chose to withdraw its troops from Iraq after the Madrid train bombings in March of 2004.

According to one of the trustees who voted for axing the program, "Spain has abandoned our fighting men and women, withdrawing their support." The former head of the Republican Party in Orange County continued, "I see no reason to send students of our colleges to Spain at this moment in history."

I think this is a great idea. Why don't we take it a step further, and cancel ALL the programs in ALL the countries that have pulled out of the "Coalition of the Willing"... hell, let's cancel programs to countries that never helped at all, too! And then, just to screw those anti-freedom bastards even further, let's just cancel all our courses in the languages of those countries. I mean, if you can't go there to study, why learn the language, right? That'll teach those pro-terrist, anti-murican, non-coalition-joining for'ners!

I just hope Poland doesn't pull out... 'cause that's the only foreign language program they'll have left... I mean, other than the one to Uzbekistan.

Idiots.

Media takes it sitting down from Gannon

2005-03-07T19:01:00.001-05:00

According to Matthew Cooper, the White House correspondent for Time Magazine, Washington has been lapping up this case of sex and subterfuge in the city.

"It's got everything that gets gossip going. It's got sex, it's got national security, how did he get so close to the president? The pseudonym, it's got intrigue, so it's the kind of thing that gets people talking," Mr Cooper said.

So, why isn't Time writing a story on it? And why hasn't this received more attention? The mainstream media has dropped this story, like a right-wing lawyer dropping a c-note for Guckert in a motel room.

Where are the answers to the serious questions? And how is it that not only was a he a working (gay male) prostitute with ties to a National Security leak, but no one in the White House is being questioned about it?

The BBC story opens:

The Bush administration has already come under fire for paying commentators to espouse its views.

And now journalists themselves are questioning whether their profession is being undermined.

The answer is OF COURSE THEIR PROFESSION IS BEING UNDERMINED. The White House placed an actual male prostitute in the middle of the White House Press Corps, and no one noticed for 2 years!!

The media is ignoring this story, but not because of partisan politics or even laziness. No, the Mainstream Media is ignoring this story because it reveals its own incompetence. And every working journalist who currently identifies themselves as a "professional" should feel shame and embarressment at how easily they were rendered useless.

Bankruptcy Legislation? More Like a big F-You to Middle Class America

2005-03-07T18:53:00.000-05:00

The Rude Pundit is pissed off about this, and you should be, too.

The Senate is teeing up to pass the so-named "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005," which, if we were living in a reality based community, would prevent abuse of bankruptcy laws and protect consumers. But we aren't living in a reality based community, and this bill is about nothing but screwing over the little guy, again.

This bill shifts the idea of debt from one that says you can discharge your debt through bankruptcy, to protect your future earnings, to one that says that your future earnings are fair target for your creditors, even if bankruptcy is declared.

In addition, some experts say, the changes proposed in the Senate bill would fundamentally change long-standing American legal policy on debt. Under bankruptcy laws as they have existed for more than a century, creditors can seize almost all of a bankrupt debtor’s existing assets, but they can’t lay claim to future earnings. The proposed law, by preventing many debtors from seeking bankruptcy protection, would compel financially insolvent borrowers to continue trying to pay off the old debts almost indefinitely.

“Until now, the principle in this country has been that people’s future human capital is their own,” said David A. Moss, an economic historian at Harvard University. “If a person gets on a financial treadmill, they can declare bankruptcy and have what can’t be paid discharged. But that would change with this bill.”

Sounds good, huh? As it is, I'm only scratching the surface here. This is a 500 page bill, with tons of crappy ideas for hurting the little guy, so please read on through the links, and also DailyKos, which is doing a typically fine job dismantling the nuts and bolts on this issue. But let me sum up with a choice quote from the Rude guy:

"The bankruptcy bill is class warfare in its purest form: it states that the poor and middle class are bad and that the rich are good. And maybe it's time to start considering how we respond to such blatant, intentionally barbarous acts by those in power."

P.S. - TPM has a special section up with blanket coverage of this issue... including posts by Justin Spitalnick, who I went to college with, so check it out.

Santorum Hearts Sweatshops

2005-03-07T10:33:00.000-05:00

This has me incensed. Sen. Santorum (R-PA) has introduced a bill that allows expansion of sweatshops, attacks workers' overtime benefits, and undermines state minumum wage laws, all at once!

"That's impossible," you say. "How could someone be so detached that he would want to screw over the American worker while claiming to be helping?"

Well, I don't have the answer to that, but I do have a place to find details on this bill, which, while it proposes to raise the mimium wage by $1.10, is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing (pdf file).

1) Santorum wants to do ban states from requiring a guaranteed wage for employees who receive tips, like waitresses and bartenders. As if waitresses and bartenders need more financial uncertainty added to their lives... and what about valets? What about the coat check girl? Are they supposed to just survive on tips, too? This is insane.

2) The bill also abolishes the 40 hour work week. Instead moving to an 80 hour, two week schedule. And here's where that makes a difference. Currently, if I work 50 hours one week, and 30 hours the next week, I still make 10 hours of overtime, for the 10 hours over 40 that I worked the first week. under this new bill, I wouldn't make any overtime, because my hours would add up to 80 hours over the course of the two week period. This means that employers could eff around with workers' schedules, driving them hard in the busy weeks and cutting them back in the slower weeks, because the incentive for the regularly scheduled week (i.e. overtime) would be gone, or at least totally hampered.

3) And finally, the wonderful senator from Pennsylvania (though he doesn't actually live there... ever.) has proposed that businesses with revenues less that $1 million be exempted from that little minimum wage increase I mentioned above. According to Labor Blog, this means that, while 1.2 million workers would receive the minimum wage benefit, another 6.8 million workers would lose minimum wage protection entirely. Pretty sweet plan.

And additionally, businesses with revenues below $7 million would be exempted from fines under a set of health, safety, pension, and other labor laws.

Sounds like the promotion of sweatshops to me.

Atrios is campaiging today to flood the good Senator's offices with calls about this issue. He's got all the numbers posted HERE. So if you have five minutes, give em a call to ask about this issue.

And be sure to check in on Labor Blog's coverage of this issue HERE.

6 degrees of TANG to GANNON

2005-03-04T16:01:00.000-05:00

From Daily Kos:

Follow this timeline.

Now go forth and fill in the blanks. Because this story has more holes than Sonny Corleone midway through The Godfather.

The truth is out there and it's closer than we think. The fact that this story has died down is upsetting, since a collective short attention span is the greatest stumbling block we face. The initial firestorm all erupted over the span of 2 weeks. Here are some of the most revealing moments:

Sept. 8, 2004 - First CBS report on Killian memos. To protect a lady's honor, Southern Gentleman Burkett intimates that an officer named Conn gave him the TANG memos but Conn denies it. They report Dan Bartlett told John Roberts in the morning that "I have no reason to doubt their authenticity" so many times in the same way Roberts notes it in his book. Presumably this was the comment decided upon by he and Rove to make that day. Bartlett also says, "The memorandum in your possession shows that he spoke to the commander who made that order to talk about his personal situation and the fact that he is going to Alabama. So at every step of the way, President Bush was meeting his requirement. Granted permission to meet his requirement. And that's why President Bush was honorably discharged." Because Bartlett had used the forged copies to say that Bush fulfilled his TANG requirements, Roberts told his superiors, the memos are authenticated. Had Roberts been "played"? The trap, whoever forged the documents, was ready to close on Rather and destroy the potency of the TANG/AWOL issue.

September 8, 2004 - Within 18 minutes of the end of the TANG report, posts from "Buckhead" appear on FreeRepublic.com, saying he thinks something is phony. Within a few hours, Buckhead is putting forth forensic analyses of fonts and proportional spacing, claiming the memos are forged and actually word-processed. (help me find link on this)

September 9, 2004 - Media trumpets forgery claim, discrediting Rather and whole TANG issue.

September, 10 2004 - Jeff Gannon receives a "scoop" from unknown person that Mapes was the CBS producer responsible. BEFORE writing his own scoop, Gannon tells Sean Hannity about Mapes. Hannity: HANNITY: "Now, Jeff Gannon, who is a terrific Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News, actually shot me an e-mail today, and he's about to break a story in an exclusive about these CBS documents." HANNITY: "And apparently they're also, according to Jeff Gannon, the -- Talon News -- this woman, Mary Mapes, this Dallas producer, is under pressure for the [CBS] network, and now there's doubts about their authenticity has taken place." [The Sean Hannity Show, 9/10/04]

SNIP

Sept. 11, 2004 - Dallas Morning News reveals inclusion of Staudt in 1973 Killian is incorrect and proves it to be a forgery. This was one of the main tip-offs inserted presumably by Bartlett and Rove to expose the forgery.

Sept. 15, 2004 - Marian Knox, Killian's secretary, recounts errors in TANG forgeries for the Dallas Morning News, including the inclusion of the Staudt name in the forged "sugar-coat" memo of 1973 and the word "billets" instead of "barracks".

Sept. 17, 2004 - Another Gannon story on Mapes with supposed inside source at CBS: "Sooner of (sic) later something like this was going to happen. When you see how hard they've been working this National Guard story, you know they weren't going to come up empty-handed one way or another."

SNIP

Sept. 20, 2004 - CBS News retracts claim of authenticity for Killian memos. Burkett admits a fellow Guard officer did not give him documents and tells of Lucy and the Unknown Man giving him the memos.

Sept. 21, 2004 - NY Post reports rumors that Roger Stone got the forgeries to Burkett. He has no comment. MacCauliffe repeats the Stone charge and asks the White House and RNC what they know about Stone and the documents. Stone later denies allegation but never provides an alibi for where he was on March 3, 2004, the day the Unknown Man gave Bill Burkett the envelope with the TANG Forgeries inside.

Sept. 21, 2004 - USA Today article on both parties accusing the other of forging the memos.

SNIP

Sept. 23, 2004 - Gannon also went after Mapes in this 9/23 Talon News story--now scrubbed

Sept. 24 2004 - After lawsuit, White House releases 1971 document showing the TANG Killian memos could have had superscript type in 1972. Republicans had been attacking TANG forgeries because they had superscript "th" and by withholding this document they had let Rather twist in the wind. Lost in the whole uproar is the fact that Mrs. Knox verified that there were original memos that she typed (on a manual with only a primitive superscript capability) and someone must have forged the CBS copies.

Sept. 2004 - GOP House members, presumably getting call from White House, or seeing Stone rumor reports, DROP calls for a Wire Fraud investigation, as does the retiring William Safire. (could use a link on original story of GOP calling for Wire Fraud investigation)

Sept. 2004 - Media ignores Stone angle and trumpets the Fall of Dan Rather. No further mention of Stone at all.

The most important elements in all of this are these two facts: doubts were raised about the authenticity of TANG memos by Right Wing bloggers within 18 MINUTES of the CBS report. That's some pretty speedy detective work, Columbo. Second, Mrs. Knox - Killian's secretary - verified that she did type similar memos, implying that while the documents may have been forged, the sentiments expressed therein were TRUE. Aaaaand, after the CBS backlash, the White House released a 1971 document showing the TANG Killian memos could have had superscript type in 1972. So, someone in the White House knew all along that the disputed memos could have been typed by Knox AND that they could have appeared as they did, since they released similar looking documents mere days after the controversy erupted. I don't think I need to bring up the fact that the WH released the documents after emphatically stating on several prior occasions that they had released EVERYTHING they had already....

It's a near perfect crime, confusing the facts with sketchy details that derail and undermine the true argument: Dubya never actually met his National Guard requirements and then was rewarded with an early release from his duty.

The Right Wingers have already undermined the Fourth Estate's credibility by flogging the Rather/TANG story to death. I think the Lefty bloggers can flog a not-quite-dead-yet horse as well as the next partisan hack. So, get flogging! There's some smoke - let's start a fire.

On Deck: Krugman

2005-03-04T11:27:00.000-05:00

The call-outs of Greenspan's hackery continue, this time on the editorial page of the NYT: take it away, Paul.

This is just a great week. Democrats showing they actually have balls for a change.

This week we've seen... Conyers forcing a discussion on actual election reform, Durbin and Bayh are standing up strong against the Bankruptcy bill (which looks as if it will pass, sadly) and FOR our soldiers' well being, and Byrd charging against the Frist's ~~idea~~ threat to do away with the filibuster (as Frist calls it, the "nuclear option"... sicko). Not to mention Harry Reid, as Benari does below.

The Dems are starting to flex their muscles and look like an actual opposition party. It's about time.

Oh, and if you haven't seen his debut yet, check out the newest journo on the national scene... Dino Ironbody. He's going places, watch out Gannon/Guckert!

Reid it and weep

2005-03-04T09:21:00.000-05:00

I have to admit, I wasn't exactly thrilled when the Democrats chose a pro-life, soft-spoken old white dude from Nevada in the form of Harry Reid as the Senate Minority leader...but I am happy to have been proven wrong about him.

Already, Reid has been more than willing to stand up to the Administration on every issue from protecting Social Security to blocking federal nominations of extremist judges. And he's coined some nifty phrases, as well, like calling the growing deficit a "birth tax." The deficit is, in effect, a birth tax for the next wave of Americans, placing a financial burden on future generations. What's shocking is how well and easily articulated the phrase is. It's been awhile since I've heard a Democrat distill the argument down to one nifty soundbyte.

And now Reid has stood up to the recent carelessness of Alan Greenspan, a man who's opinion I had trusted after the spectacular boom of the 90s, but who betrayed our trust by helping promote an irrepsonsible fiscal policy which has yielded the largest deficit in American history.

Read all about here.

Don't let the facts get in your way

2005-03-03T17:21:00.000-05:00

Salon has a terrific article on how the current administration has carefully and methodically (and successfully) chipped away at the foundation of journalistic integrity, as the Fourth Estate ultimately pays the price for the Presidential Propaganda machine's wrong-doings.

It's a brilliant strategy on the part of Rove and his evil team of spin doctors. After planting their own phony stories and fake journalists - and thereby muddying the murky waters with dubious facts - they then question the (already lazy) press on its fuzzy facts and effectively confuse the public.

"It's basically gaming journalism," says Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. "It shows withering contempt for journalism. What's frightening is that it's been done with total disregard, or lack of concern, about being exposed."

Moreover, they revealed their complete and utter contempt for the media by having a male escort pose as a faux journalist, creating an actual, honest-to-goodness media whore.

According to David Brock, author of "The Right Wing Noise Machine" and CEO of Media Matters for America, a progressive, not-for-profit advocacy group, the White House's ultimate aim is to raise doubts about the information independent journalists produce. "Their explicit goal is to get us to the point where there are blue [state] facts and red [state] facts," Brock says.

By creating these Red State and Blue State facts, they have effectively eliminated the actual facts. And, as John Adams once famously said: "Facts are stubborn things." At least, they used to be stubborn things for Republicans. But no more.

"They have an ability to confuse an issue and neutralize the facts that aren't in their favor," says Brock. "When a reader looks at a story and does not know what to make of it, then Fox has done its job."

That's how groups like the Swifties were so successful in their smear campaigns. When you're lying, you have nothing to lose. But John Kerry - a man who had the facts and the truth on his side - can only lose, because baseless allegations must get equal time in order to appear "balanced." Calling John Kerry's character into question - when he was telling the truth - diminished him, even though the charges were completely false. In the end, the truth was the ultimate casualty. And God help any who the truth favors.

It's like that ol' saying about mudwrestling a pig; you both get dirty, but only the pig likes it.

Putin on the Ritz!

2005-03-02T09:46:00.000-05:00

I'm sure Dubya would describe irony as "what ya do to get wrinkles out of your pants," but I'm sure if he knew what the word really meant, he'd see the humor in his latest exchange with the Ruskie leader, Vladimir Putin.

As Salon reports:

When George Bush sat down with Vladimir Putin in Bratislava last week to deliver his long-awaited lecture on civil liberties and freedom of the press, Newsweek says Putin shot back with an attack of his own: "We didn't criticize you when you fired those reporters at CBS."

Bush was apparently slack-jawed, and senior White House aides were angry. "Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather," one administration official told Time. "It was like something out of '1984.'"

Note to attentive readers: When the Administration accuses someone of doing something wrong, it means they're doing it themselves. So, if they feign shock over "1984"-like propaganda tactics, it means they're employing "1984"-like tactics. And it took a Red to point out that the Emperor has no clothes...and that he's been using his state-controlled media to try to convince everyone that he's fully dressed.

Meanwhile, everyone's favorite gigolo is back in action! Ah, yes. Right-Wing stooges never die; they just start a new website.