« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »

July 31, 2005

No phones, no lights, no motorcar.....

not a single luxury...

I'm off for a few days to go camping with my family. No computer. No cell phone. No TV. We're staying in some cabins so it's not exactly roughing it, but I won't be blogging or have access to email.

I'll be back late on Tuesday.

Be good to each other.

Posted by Carla at 07:02 AM |

July 30, 2005

You gotta see this!

The incestuous and circular pathway from rightwing lie to "news" story dissected and painstakingly examined by Maha Blog's Barbara O'Brien over at The American Street:

How to Fake News: A Primer

Way too much to summarize here. Just go read it!

Posted by Kevin at 07:45 PM |

NeoConned

Italian law enforcement promptly and efficiently tracked down and arrested the one abortive London bombing suspect who managed to flee the country. The latest word is that this suspect is fighting extradition back to the UK. Which obviously means that the Italians are working within the recognized parameters of the relevant laws.

Mind you, this was a terrorist bombing suspect who was on the run and actively avoiding law enforcement.

How do the NeoCons in power deal with something like this? They send the CIA to violate the sovereignty of an ally by kidnapping a cleric who doesn't appear to have been actively hiding from law enforcement and then apparently "rendered" him to Egypt.

That contrast is bad enough. But, the NeoCons went further by using American tax dollars to have the CIA officials live the highlife.

Uruknet reports:

• The CIA agents took rooms in Milan's 5-star hotels, including the Principe di Savoia ("one of the world's most luxuriously appointed hotels") where they rang up $42,000 in expenses; the Westin Palace, the Milan Hilton, and the Star Hotel Rosa as well as similar places in the seaside resort of La Spezia and in Florence, running up cumulative hotel bills of $144,984.


• They ate in the equivalent of 5-star restaurants in Milan and elsewhere, evidently fancying themselves gourmet undercover agents.


• As a mixed team -- at least 6 women took part in the operation -- men and women on at least two occasions took double rooms together in these hotels. (There is no indication that any of them were married -- to each other at least.)


• After the successful kidnapping was done and the cleric dispatched to sunny Egypt, they evidently decided they deserved a respite from their exertions; so several of them left for a vacation in Venice, while four others headed for the Mediterranean coast north of Tuscany, all on the taxpayer dole.


• They charged up to $500 a day apiece, according to Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post, to "Diners Club accounts created to match their recently forged identities"; wielded Visa cards (assumedly similarly linked to their fake identities); and made sure they got or used frequent flier miles. (The Diner's Club, when queried by Tomdispatch, refused to comment on any aspect of the case.) Our master spies "rarely paid in cash," adds Whitlock, "gave their frequent traveler account numbers to desk clerks and made dozens of calls from unsecure phones in their rooms."


• To move their captive in comfort -- for them -- they summoned up not some grimy cargo plane but a Learjet to take him to Germany and a Gulfstream V to transport him to Egypt, the sorts of spiffy private jets normally used by CEOs and movie stars.

Ironically, having had arrest warrants issued for their arrests, the CIA officials involved are now actively on the run from law enforcement.

Of course Bush partisans such as the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board have tried to claim that Clinton pioneered the practice of rendition. But, those assertions are just that - hollow assertions sans a shred of fact.

With all due respect to our Italian friends... it's a damn shame that the world has to look to Italy rather than to the United States to see the rule of law being respected.

Posted by Kevin at 06:38 PM |

The TSA, airport insecurity and corporate welfare... Typical GOP incompetence

This morning I watched Viewpoint, a political discussion and public affairs program, on our local NBC affiliate in Portland, KGW. One of the issues discussed was the pending reduction in Transportantion Security Administration staff at Portland International Airport (aka: PDX).

In 2002 PDX had 600 TSA staff members who processed passengers. Apparently the TSA reduced it's staffing level since then because the current number is reported to be 490.

The TSA is planning on reducing their staffing level at PDX to 341 any day now. It has faced heavy criticism at times for security lapses, employee incompetence and invasive search practices (more on that below). The Port of Portland, which runs PDX, describes this cut as "catastrophic."

Prior to 9/11 the various airlines using PDX had 375 screeners. And that was under a considerably more lax level of passenger scrutiny. This year PDX is on track to break all previous records for passengers departing at 7.75 million.

More passengers, vastly stricter security requirements, fewer people to perform the security checks. I thought these NeoCons were supposed to be business-friendly?

Congress capped the number of passenger screeners that the TSA can have at 45,000. Which is why the TSA is shuffling their staff. Now Congress is talking about reducing that number. The House has voted to cut 2,000 next year and the Senate has voted to cut 6,000 next year. Presumably they'll settle for a figure somewhere inbetween.

Why is the Republican-controlled Congress gung-ho about cutting TSA staffing levels? Perhaps the gigantic Bush deficit has something to do with it? If so then why in the hell did they all vote to pass the Energy Bill with Tom DeLay's $1.5 billion giveaway to Halliburton and other Mega Oil companies?

Let's say that with benefits and everything each TSA airport screener costs $50,000 to employ for one year. At that rate even the Senate's proposed 6,000 staff cut would only save $300 million. That would only take a small bite out of Tom DeLay's corporate welfare scheme.

Meanwhile the TSA has struggled:

• Humiliated passengers & and fraudulent arrests


• Unsafe working conditions cover up


• Passengers robbed by TSA screeners all across the country

So my question is this: How exactly is any of this crap from the Republican Congress and White House actually benefiting Americans? It seems to me that they are robbing us blind to enrich their corporate cronies while claiming that they're protecting us.

Posted by Kevin at 11:30 AM |

Patting Frist on the back

There are those who seem skeptical of Bill Frist's motivations to buck Bush on stem cell research.

Some think that Frist is only doing it to position himself for a Presidential run in 2008. Some think he's trying to distance himself from Bush's tanking approval ratings. Others believe that he finally found his inner doctor and decided that science isn't as bad as his campaign funders would have him believe.

I'm sure it's the pragmatic politico in me, but I really don't care what his motives are.

Funding and expanding stem cell research is the right thing to do. I have loved ones that can potentially benefit from this research. Perhaps Frist does too.

I spend a lot of time on this blog tearing new assholes for conservatives who I believe deserve it. It's only right to pat this particular conservative on the back for stepping up and doing the right thing.

Well done, Senator Frist.

Posted by Carla at 09:52 AM |

July 29, 2005

Rowboat Veterans for Truth

Forget everything you know from your US History classes. It's all a liberal ruse to lull you into a state of complacency. The whole story of General George Washington has gone untold until now. Fortunately the great patriots who toiled far away from the possibility of being of being shot in the line of duty have come forward with their version.

That no good poltroon George Washington isn't the great Father of our Country that you've been led to believe. You've had the wool pulled over your eyes long enough.

Just in time to rescue a weary nation from the depths of copious, fact-laced historical data, I give you The Rowboat Veterans For Truth:

Friends and fellow countrymen, it's time to set the record straight. "General" George Washington is no war-hero.

He’s resting his entire campaign on his so-called heroics in the Revolutionary War, and his famous Delaware River crossing.

His campaign wagons about a handful of Revolutionary veterans throughout the 13 States, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. George Washington wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "rowboat band of brothers."

But if bother you ask his boat mates, they’ll tell you. The truth is, the man is unfit for command, and as president he would quite literally leave our young nation up the creek, without a paddle.

Speaking of “no paddles”, look closely at this famous picture of a paddle-free G.W. relaxing while his comrades do all the rowing.

Rowboat Vets for Truth is here to share the real story, to correct the misleading use of our images, against our will, in paintings, woodcuts and pamphlets across the colonies.

The Rowboat Vets for Truth will counter the outrageous claims made by Mr. Washington and the liberal printing presses in Boston and Philadelphia.

We speak from personal experience - our group includes men who served beside Washington in combat against unarmed Germans on Christmas night, 1776. Though we come from different backgrounds, shoe menders, haberdashers, stable boys, candle holders to the wealthy. etc., and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: George Washington lacks the potential to lead.

We regret the need to do this. Well, sorta. For a long time, most Revolutionary veterans kept silent. However, now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.

It's time to set the record straight.

This organization bravely outs the lazy and cowardly George Washington as the less-than-combatish veteran the US history books and hundreds of years of biographical study claim him to be. Fortunately they don't have to rely on the truth. They've got great paintings of Washington's likeness and a website.

Posted by Carla at 06:49 PM |

Operation Red Herring

Scrappleface:

The White House today called for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to release all of their tax records and other personal documents so Americans can gain insight into the judicial philosophy and character of those who will help choose the next Supreme Court Justice.

I say Bush should release all of his records. Every scrap of paper from his past: tax records, business records,military service records and all other personal paperwork..the whole enchilada. The American people need to gain insight into the character of the man whose nominating an individual to join the Supreme Court of the United States of America!

The American people deserve to know the ideology of the President. They should understand his character. Is he fit to nominate a justice to the US Supreme Court? Does he have the character it takes to send someone to the greatest deliberative body in the world, the US Senate?

I demand to know. The American people demand to know.

Posted by Carla at 11:04 AM |

Friday dog blogging: Christmas in July

It seems the pet of choice for many in the blogosphere are cats. I'm an all around animal lover so I don't mind cats. But I really love my dog.

Princess (not the name I'd have chosen for her..but she responds to it so we didn't change it) is a rescue dog. We picked her up three years ago from a rescue ranch in Northern California.

We don't know much about her history before she came into our lives. It's obvious to us that she was abused, however. She's very skittish around new people. She's been known to take weeks to get used to someone new. She has scars several places on her head. She's also mostly deaf in her left ear.

She has abandonment issues as well. She refuses to eat if we leave and lays by the door until we return.

Last Christmas she discovered our tree skirt. It's very soft and turned out to be the perfect place for a dog nap.

Posted by Carla at 10:46 AM |

Why do we put up with this?

Condi Rice's State Department now says that, contrary to earlier assertions, John Bolton was in fact interviewed as part of an investigation.

John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, neglected to tell Congress he been interviewed in a government investigation into faulty prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials in Africa, the State Department said.

Neglected is such an innocent sounding adjective. The reality is that Bolton lied when he stated, in response to a Senate questionaire for his nomination hearing, that he had not testified to a grand jury or been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years.

State Department spokesman Noel Clay said:

Bolton "didn't recall being interviewed by the State Department's inspector general" when he filled out the form. "Therefore, his form, as submitted, was inaccurate," Clay said. "He will correct it."

Bolton didn't recall being interviewed as part of an extremely high profile political issue? I can't believe that. To believe that would mean that Bolton is pretty much of a complete moron unaware of what goes on around him. He may be many things, but a complete dolt doesn't appear to be one of them.

This really goes to the same issue that Carla touched on this morning with her post about illegal Payola being tolerated because it's so pervasive and has been around so long. I hear the exact same excuse given for lying politicians like John Bolton. "All politicians lie" is the insipid excuse I hear time after time. Of course many of them lie! The electorate tolerate it time after time.

Well I don't tolerate it. I never have! And I don't see any way for this great nation to survive into the future as anything more than a pathetic shadow of itself unless we the people start holding politicians to a higher standard.

John Bolton lied! No amount of smoke and mirrors will hide that fact. No insipid excuses or rationalizations by Rice's staff will change that reality.

Posted by Kevin at 09:37 AM |

Snowing payola

My knowledge of the music and radio industries is essentially nonexistent. Bush's knowledge of how to defeat terrorism may be the only issue with less savvy than my music/radio industry understanding.

But I know a snow job when I see it.

This hack at the Times is telling us that enforcing laws against music radio payola is bad.

Why, pray tell?

Because payola has always been around and like gravity, it can't be defeated.

Gawd.

Posted by Carla at 08:04 AM |

July 28, 2005

Happy Birthday

Carla!!

Posted by Kevin at 07:00 PM |

OH-2: GOP candidate/blogger lying about association?

The blogosphere has been all over the attempts to swift boat Major Paul Hackett in the Ohio 2nd Congressional District special election.

Blogger Eric Minamyer (a Republican) shamed himself by his disgusting questioning of Hackett's service in Iraq. Minamyer has since backed off claiming that he's now satisfied that Hackett served in a combat capacity.

Hackett's opponent, Republican Jean Schmidt claims that she has nothing to do with the blogosphere and is not in any way endorsing Minamyers blog.

According to Ohio 2nd blog, Minamyer was an advisor to the Schmidt campaign. Schmidt admitted as much on this radio program.

But Minamyer claims he is not a spokesperson for Schmidt:

"I also want to reiterate that I am not a spokesman for Jean Schmidt and have never been one. The news article and Schmidt campaign manager Joe Braun's post to OH2 echo that. I stated that on camera as well but it was not used."

Perhaps he wasn't an "official" spokesperson. But he's definitely worked for Schmidt in some capacity. He's not just some run-of-the-mill private citizen who happens to be questioning Hackett's service.

Posted by Carla at 04:49 PM |

DLC hurts Democrats

I'm a liberal. As such I have a very specific set of values and morals that I consider to be part of my political fiber. I vote for candidates and issues that reflect these values.

I'm often castigated and debased by conservatives for being a liberal. I've often wondered if those who debase my liberalism have ever bothered to look past the steaming pile of festering conservative punditry to get to the truth of what it means to be a liberal.

Unfortunately it's evident that there's a fetid, putrid heap to wade through on the Democratic side as well. It's known as the DLC.

Sirota takes note of the stench eminating from the wholly owned subsidiary that is the DLC:

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business—even as a majority of Americans now , oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda.

The DLC isn't an organization that represents anything but GOP-lite. It's an organization that takes in cash and sells out to whoever will give them the most. If that was my set of values I'd vote Republican.

The big DLC claim to fame is the presidency of Bill Clinton. Except that Clinton didn't run as a soft Republican. He won on a populist message that was founded on the progressive values of fundamental fairness and equal opportunity for all citizens. Those values have nothing to do with the DLC.

One of the main raps against the Democrats is the idea that they don't articulate what they stand for. The responsibility for this rap lays, in my opinion, squarely at the feet of the DLC. They muddy the waters with their mushy conservative rhetoric in an effort to pander for votes.

The Republican Party has moved hard to the right in the last decade. This has pushed the "center" far to the right as well. The DLC claims to aim for the center..but no such thing exists. It's an offering to the public of "we don't suck quite as bad as the real Republicans do".

Americans want a viable alternative to corporate shills, Wall Street hackery, big oil corruption and the Christian conservative mockery of civil rights. They want an alternative to the Iraq War, undermining labor and workers, anti-choice screeds and politicians who've sold out to the highest bidder.

They want advocates for the enviornment. They want regulation of corporations and people willing to stand up for workers. Americans want to vote for candidates willing to be honest brokers of peace and liberty. Voters need to see that liberals will stand up for the progressive values of choice, locally controlled education and justice for all.

Hillary Clinton says that there ought to be a "ceasefire" between factions of the Democratic Party. I say to Hillary...get stuffed, woman. Until you're ready to stop pandering to those who pretend they represent the rightwing disguised as "moderate/centrists" you can forget about winning anything.

Especially my support.

Posted by Carla at 11:34 AM |

Answer the man!

Setting aside the definition of matters of controversy for a moment....

Brian Keegan at Centerfield lays out a worthy query:

If it's better for the states to decide than the feds, isn't it even better to let each and every person in each of the different states make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by all sorts of governmental "one size fits all" pronouncements?

Let your fingers do the answering in comments.

Posted by Carla at 09:53 AM |

Where is Ari Fleisher?

Pissed on Politics asks a very good question: Where is Ari Fleisher?

Did he not say 30 minutes after the first attack on 9/11, "We have intelligence information that the President is a target..."

Where did we get this intelligence when all the other intelligence around us was failing?

Ari where are you and how come the 9/11 commision didn't find you?

Excellent questions indeed. This isn't the only issue where questions remain about Ari. His role in PlameGate remains murky and frought with apparent contradictions.

Posted by Kevin at 08:19 AM |

"For a small piece of paper it carries a lot of weight..."

Bush Wins Major Victory on Central America Trade Vote

After some of the most heated Congressional debate ever on a trade issue, the House of Representatives has narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement - 217 to 215 - giving President Bush a major victory. There were sharp exchanges between Democrats and Republicans over the legislation which aims to eliminate trade barriers between the United States, and six Latin American countries.

In the final hours, President Bush made an unusual visit to Capitol Hill trying to persuade still undecided members of his Republican Party to vote for CAFTA.

"Money money money money -- MONEY!
Some people got to have it hey, hey, hey - some people really need it..."

Eighty percent of goods from Central America already enter the United States duty free. CAFTA would eliminate or gradually phase out remaining tariffs with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua and includes a separate pact for the Dominican Republic.

"Hey, listen to me, y'all! do thangs, do thangs, do thangs - bad thangs with it..."

CAFTA nations import about $15 billion in American goods. The Bush administration says the agreement will increase U.S. agricultural and manufactured exports to the region by at least $2 billion.

"For the love of money
People will steal from their mother

For the love of money
People will rob their own brother..."

Debate pitted the most fanatic of free-trade advocates against lawmakers who see CAFTA as a giveaway to multinational corporations, and a disappointment in the area of labor standards.

"For the love of money
People will lie, rob, they will cheat

For the love of money
People don't care who they hurt or beat..."

After Mr. Bush's visit to Congress, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay accused Democrats of politicizing the debate over a crucial trade agreement:

"The president is looking out for the national interest. And it is in the national interest that CAFTA passes," he said. "It is good for our national security, in supporting these fledgling democracies at our back door. It is good in our effort against illegal immigration. It is good for our economy."

"For the love of money
A woman will sell her precious body..."

Congressman Charles Norwood, June 17, 2005:

Georgia chicken farmers are trying to sell poultry in Central America under a 160% import tariff, while Central American farmers sell their chicken in America tariff-free. Any five-year old will tell you that’s cheating. So what are we going to do about it?

The global trade crowd says we ought to reward these “competitors” by offering them the chance to cheat us on textiles and sugar, by approving the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. In return, they agree to stop cheating us on chickens after another 18 years during which they put our poultry industry out-of-business. Amnesty for trade cheats, just like the same crowd’s proposals on amnesty for illegal aliens.

The argument then and now for this economic stupidity is the same. We lose some jobs and markets, but overall, our exports will increase, as foreign countries that currently protect their markets through high tariffs agree to lower them on some things - as long as we agree to lower ours more, or eliminate them entirely.

The first, the granddaddy of all the giveaways, passed Congress in 1994 – the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. Mexico and Canada were our largest trading partners, and this deal would further “open their markets to American goods.”

The undeniable end result is a net loss of dollars and jobs to Americans. A few people gained; the majority lost.

It’s the same argument as every other trade deal. We were told we would lose textile jobs to Mexico under NAFTA, but other industries would prosper, so to heck with those backward textile folks.

CAFTA is just one more in an unbroken chain of bad trade deals that sacrifice our industries, markets, and jobs, with a deceitful promise that other industries will prosper as a result. Then we sacrifice those industries in the very next deal.

"For a small piece of paper it carries a lot of weight
Oh, that mean, mean, mean, mean, mean green... Almighty Dollar!"

Posted by Jeff at 06:23 AM |

July 27, 2005

Stop telling us what we don't want to hear, you America-hating commie!

Quotable:

I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I wanted a President who knew what the meaning of "is" was. I was tired of political operatives who spent endless hours on cable news channels parsing words. I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and new ethical standards to Washington.

So where are we? The President has flip-flopped and backed away from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in these leaks. Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson. This is wrong.

Former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson debunks the myths and lies the Administration is using to cover their crimes. This was given during the hearings held by Senate and House Democrats (they weren't official hearings, since Republicans weren't interested in the public hearing anything bad about their dear leader.

These are the same folks who insist that we are fighting for freedom and that security is of the utmost importance. They show this by refusing to hold hearings on a leak done out of spite because someone criticized the administration (which is something one can do without reprisals in free countries). They show this by refusing to acknowledge that this leak compromised an intelligence agent's cover as well as our security.

The GOP is insisting that Plame was not really undercover. Which is stupid, since investigating yellowcake in Niger isn't best done with a "I WORK FOR THE CIA" T-Shirt on. But who knows? Maybe it's going to be a new Administration policy.

Johnson dispatches of this lie several times:

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. At the time I knew her only as Valerie P. Even though all of us in the training class held Top Secret Clearances, we were asked to limit our knowledge of our other classmates to the first initial of their last name. So, Larry J. knew Val P. rather than Valerie Plame. Her name did not become a part of my consciousness until her cover was betrayed by the government officials who gave columnist Robert Novak her true name [emphasis Sheelzebub's].

Okay, so we're talking about someone whose cover was so open that she allowed her classmates to only know her as Valerie P. even after they graduated. Just in case there were some Rove apologists who couldn't keep up.

Although Val started off with official cover, she later joined a select group of intelligence officers a few years later when she became a NOC, i.e. a Non-Official Cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. She was using cover, which we now know because of the leak to Robert Novak, of the consulting firm Brewster-Jennings & Associates. When she traveled overseas she did not use or have an official passport. If she had been caught engaged in espionage activities while traveling overseas without the black passport, she could have been executed.

Back to the annoying paraphrasing, but I know that some of the apologists will start spinning. Save your time, folks. Let's get it straight--that snivelling shill, Robert Novak, and that filthy traitor, Karl Rove, put Plame's investigation--and her life--in peril.

Did I mention that it's a felony to knowingly out an intelligence officer?

But Jennings has to make sure we know. The right-wing lapdogs are so used to chanting the same tired lies over and over that he's going to chant the truth over and over.

We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover, then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department. Some reports, such as one in the Washington Times that Valerie Plame's supervisor at the CIA, Fred Rustman, said she told friends and family she worked at the CIA and that her cover was light. These claims are not true. Rustman, who supervised Val in one of her earliest assignments, left the CIA in 1990 and did not stay in social contact with Valerie. His knowledge of Val's cover is dated. He does not know what she has done during the past 15 years.

Yeah, but--but--her neighbors knew, I bet! What a great story to tell at parties!

Val only told those with a need to know about her status in order to safeguard her cover, not compromise it. Val has never been a flamboyant, insecure person who felt the need to tell people what her "real" job was. She was content with being known as an energy consultant married to Joe Wilson and the mother of twins. Despite the repeated claims of representatives for the Republican National Committee, the Wilson's neighbors did not know where Valerie really worked until Novak's op-ed appeared [emphasis Sheelzebub's].

Problem is, the administration just doesn't care. They yelp about security and terrorism, but keep agents from doing their jobs of gathering. . .intelligence. I'm not a fan of the CIA, but I'm struck by the Bush administration's apparent willingness to defy their own logic. I'd love to know how an administration that claims to be concerned about terrorism and national security would shrug off the fact that Rove's leak compromised our security. Plame's cover company is as good as useless now, and anyone who had been associated with it is in danger. As is she. How, exactly, does this serve our need for national security?

The answer is, it doesn't. But then, it was never about our national security. If it was, we wouldn't be in Iraq tilting at windmills and nonexistent WMD's. We'd be gathering intelligence on Al-Qaeda and going after their top thugs. Then again, it's not like the Bush administration listens to intelligence, unless the reports tell them what they want to hear.

We're not doing that because it was never about national security. Bush and his cronies have left a trail of slander and fear-mongering a mile wide and deep. Between Dick "Chicken Little" Cheney's dire prediction that a Kerry victory would get us attacked by terrorists, to the lies that Iraq had WMD and posed an imminent threat, to the right-wing's accusations of anti-Americanism to anyone who didn't pucker up and kiss Bush's feet, to Rove's catty hissy fit over the weakness of Democrats in the face of terror, it's obvious that it was never about freedom. It was never about security.

Get it through your heads now. It's about keeping control and winning elections through fear.

Posted by at 08:36 PM |

Quote of the day

"Funding is tough to come by these days," he says. "The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money. What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. It needs to become a priority again."

--Lance Armstrong, who has hinted that he may run for elected office in Texas.

Posted by Carla at 03:02 PM |

FEAR! TERRA! E-VIL! BE AFRAID!

This must be a Movie of the Week, one of those melodramatic "news report"-like thrillers --

Report: Bin Laden Cocaine Plot Fell Through

Usama bin Laden tried to buy a massive amount of cocaine, spike it with poison and sell it in the United States, hoping to kill thousands of Americans one year after the Sept. 11 attacks, The Post has learned.

The evil plot failed when the Colombian drug lords bin Laden approached decided it would be bad for their business — and, possibly, for their own health, according to law-enforcement sources familiar with the Drug Enforcement Administration's (search) probe of the aborted transaction.

The feds were told of the scheme earlier this year, but its existence had never been made public. The Post has reviewed a document detailing the DEA's findings in the matter, in addition to interviewing sources familiar with the case.

Sources said the feds were told that bin Laden personally met with leaders of a Colombian drug cartel to in 2002 to negotiate the purchase of tons of cocaine, saying that he was willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to finance the deal.

It was not clear where the meeting took place.

Bin Laden hoped that large numbers of Americans dying from poisoned coke would lead to widespread terror.

"They wanted to kill thousands of people — more than the World Trade Center," said a source.

Although the drug lords would have reaped millions of dollars in profits by selling the cocaine to bin Laden, they knew that if his plan succeeded it might effectively destroy the market for their coke in America for years, sources said.

But that was only one reason they declined bin Laden's offer.

The other was their fear of retaliation from the U.S. government once its citizens started to die from the drugs, according to sources.

Whoops, tricked again -- dateline Tuesday, July 26, 2005. Just another day in the undead-life of Fox News.

Posted by Jeff at 12:06 PM |

Missing woman update (color-blind edition)

No, Natalee Holloway's so yesterday. This is about Latoyia Figueroa, who is still missing after 8 days.

Natalee doesn't have a seven year old child wondering where she is, nor was Natalee (to the best of our knowledge) 5 months pregnant.

Here's an overview of the important details in this “missing woman” case:

1) Latoyia (we should only use her first name) is not white.
2) She does not have blonde hair.
3) She was not scheduled to get married last weekend.
4) She's from West Philadelphia.
5) There may actually be a lead or two in her case.
6) HER UNBORN BABY, HER UNBORN BABY, HER UNBORN BABY.
7) To the best of our knowledge, no one from Texas has yet offered to bring in cadaver dogs to search for Latoyia, nor have forensic dive teams volunteered to scour the Schuylkill or Delaware rivers.
8 ) Also to the best of our knowledge, the FBI hasn't been requested to participate in the investigation (even though Philly actually is in the US of A), nor have any DNA samples been rushed to Washington, DC.
9) HER UNBORN BABY, HER UNBORN BABY, HER UNBORN BABY.

Hat tip to Richard Cranium at All Spin Zone.

Posted by Jeff at 11:58 AM |

Jessica Simpson switches teams?

Famous Republican Jessica Simpson seems a bit twitterpated about the coverage of her trip to Iraq with hubby (who creeps me out to no end) Nick Lachey.

It seems Nick and Jessica saw some nasty stuff while visiting the troops and want to know why none of the footage made it into their TV special:

Simpson says, "It was unbelievable. They didn't show a lot of what really went on with the enemy attacks and the shelling. There was so much stuff that went on and somehow the tapes got mysteriously misplaced.

"It put everything in perspective for me. It really did teach me the definition of sacrifice. I can't even fathom being out there right now. I was ready to come home."

Apparently Jessica hadn't heard of the US government manipulating film footage to make things seem shiny and happy in Iraq.

Or maybe she was just used to having so much sunshine blown up her skirt that she didn't know better.

Welcome to the reality based community, Ms Simpson.

Posted by Carla at 10:01 AM |

The Wicked Witch of East County has a chance to redeem herself

Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis (R-Wood Village) has an opportunity to redeem herself in the eyes of Oregonians.

Minnis is hungry for higher office in Oregon. Her thwarting of the civil unions bill is Minnis' little pet project in order to ingratiate herself with the fringe right wing of the state, who push Republican candidates in the primaries.

But as I've mentioned before, righwingers can't win a statewide election in Oregon. They get through the primary only to be throttled by a moderate or even lefty candidate. Oregon is a blue state that is pushing to get even bluer.

This is Minnis' opportunity to shake off the bonds of the hard right and prove her moderate chops.

Representative Mary Nolan (D-Salem) has introduced House Bill 3508 which includes civil unions, anti-discrimination. It also includes "reciprocal benefits", which the GOP originally wanted to pass as a substitute for civil unions.

I think civil unions are a cheap substitute for full and equal rights. But these issues have become symbolic now. Minnis can show that her leadership isn't beholden to the rightwing fringe of the state by allowing this bill to go to the House Floor for a vote.

Posted by Carla at 09:39 AM |

Hammer down, Mr. Yushchenko!

Now THIS is a leader:

"...instead of travelling the 300km from Kiev to the Polish frontier in a Soviet-style motorcade of armoured vehicles, police escorts and the like, Yushchenko went in an unmarked family sedan.

Big mistake - as any rank-and-file Ukrainian driver could have told him.

Traffic cops halted the presidential vehicle, Yushchenko later fumed at a news media conference, every 30 minutes or so over the four-hour trip. The Yushchenko family's late-model German sedan was, he said, functioning perfectly and he wasn't speeding.

The stops were nothing more than repeated shake-downs for bribes, the Ukrainian leader charged.

From his subordinates Yushchenko demanded - and received - a plan to dissolve the DAI and by the beginning of July the deed was done, the executive order signed.

Ukraine's once-feared traffic police ceased to exist."

Sure, the under-paid traffic cops were just trying to survive. Now they'll just have to find a better way. Life will go on. The article says driving conditions are pretty much the same now, just without the police hassle.

But when it comes to political leaders, I'll take action over grandstanding and hot air any day.

Posted by Jeff at 09:23 AM |

Today's Doonesbury moment

SCENE: Press conference; reporters asking Senator about ongoing committee investigation; Senator is incoherently garbling metaphors.
Reporter: "Is the committee looking for any new metaphors?"
Senator: "We won't have these hearings turned into a witch hunt for silver linings. We've been down that road before, and it's a mine field."

Jean Schmidt (R), at debate with Paul Hackett (D), last night: "We have to keep our eye on the ball or the ball will come back to harm us."

Tim Tagaris live-blogged it for us all:

Social Security:

The moderator asked directly if they supported privatization.

Paul: No.

1.) The government shouldn't spend Soc. Sec. money on anything else.

2.) Raise the income level. Increase the income level to $150,000. "If freedom isn't free, the wealthiest have to pay their share too."

Jean:

I've repeatedly stated what I am for or against with Social Security.

I won't cut benefits, I'm opposed to raising the cap and the retirement age, and I am opposed to privatization.

"Raising the cap won't solve the problem. You only push the problem another few years out."

In other words, she literally has no solution, at all. I'd be curious to see how her stance on privatization has changed if anyone can dig that up.

AHHHHH!

She just said it, she is "for personal savings account." And she did it all drawn out like, like it was something different than privatization.

And now, 70s flashback continues -- here's Alice Cooper with "Elected"!

Posted by Jeff at 07:51 AM |

Fuggetaboutit

John Roberts is answering questions about his prior membership in the Federalist Society with the claim that he "doesn't recall" being a member.

And what's scary--or should I say, insulting--is that this is treated like it's a valid answer.

"He's given speeches at Federalist Society forums. But he doesn't have any recollection of ever paying dues or joining the organization," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Oh, well then. That's good enough. Too bad David Duke had no idea that this was a viable strategy in that tricky Ku Klux Klan snafau.

I mean, who cares if someone gives speeches and is listed on an organization's flipping steering committee? If he doesn't recall joining, it's all well and good, and we should just accept it like good little sheeple.

The nominee himself did not explain Monday how his name came to be listed on the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. The Washington Post obtained a copy of the document and reported that it says Roberts, then a partner at the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson, was a member of the steering committee of the society's Washington chapter.

"The Federalist Society has a long-standing practice of not disclosing our dues-paying membership rolls out of respect for the privacy of members," said Eugene B. Meyer, the group's president.

Steven Calabresi, a Northwestern University law professor who helped found the Federalist Society while a Yale law student in 1982, said the organization is loose-knit and hardly rigorous in record keeping. The group has about 35,000 members.

"My impression is that we're fairly informal about who dues-paying members are," he said.

And apparently the steering committee members as well.

If Roberts were a member, it would hardly be surprising. Most of Bush's nominees to federal appeals court judgeships have had connections to the Federalist Society — as do conservative Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Within the administration, Federalist Society members have included former Attorney General John Ashcroft, White House chief of staff Andrew Card and John Bolton, Bush's nominee to become ambassador to the United Nations.

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

You know, the thing that infuriates me the most isn't the fact that he was a member--it's the way he and the neocons insult our intelligence.

Posted by at 04:05 AM |

July 26, 2005

Trouble in Afghanistan?

Amir Shah, Associated Press writer reports: Hundreds of protesters chanting "Die America!" and throwing stones tried to batter down a gate at the U.S. military's main Afghan base Tuesday, adding to anxieties in a country worried that fighting with insurgents could disrupt elections.

This at the Bagram Air Base north of Kabul.

The clash in Bagram was unusual. The area an hour's drive north of the capital has been largely peaceful since a U.S.-led military campaign toppled the Taliban regime in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida terrorist camps.

Why were the Bagram residents rioting?

"We have supported the Americans for years. We should be treated with dignity," said Shah Aghar, 35. "They are arresting our people without the permission of the government. They are breaking into our houses and offending the people. We are very angry."

Silly Afghanis. Your "sovereignty" is an illusion. President Bush wields ultimate power and authority in Afghanistan... or at least the portions of it controlled by coalition forces. "President" Karzai is an emasculated puppet.

Now think about this for a minute. These are NORTHERN Afghani's who are pissed at Americans. They were never, ever part of the Taliban or of al Queda. Bagram was held by the Northern Alliance prior to the fall of the Taliban.

If we lose the hearts and minds of Northern Afghani's... aren't we left holding an empty bag? Won't Afghanistan be a sure killing field for future American soldiers sent to pacify the population as surely as it was for the Soviet military sent to pacify the Afghan population in the early 80's? That conflict spawned Osama bin Laden. What might Bush's arrogance spawn?

Posted by Kevin at 08:56 PM |

What does he mean by "Strict Constructionist"?

Buried near the bottom of a widely syndicated AP news article today on the contentious Defense Spending Bill in Congress was this jewel:

The White House says it will oppose any restrictions on the president's ability to conduct the war on terrorism and protect Americans.

This from the same White House which has repeatedly stated a fondness and strong preference for judicial "strict constructionists", which is widely understood to mean someone with a fundamentalist or literalist understanding of the Constitution.

Interesting how Bush talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to the Constitution. Nowhere does it grant him the kind of authority he seeks to exercize over issues of war and peace, as any intellectually honest "strict constructionist" would tell you.

The sad reality is that Bush had many accomplices in his quest to subvert the Constitution in this area. Namely, large majorities in both houses of Congress when they tried to abdicate their solomn Constitutional duty and obligation by voting to grant Bush a blank check to go to war with Iraq where, when, why and how he choose.

A strict constructionist reading of the Constitution, coupled with the reasoned commentary on the issue by several of the signers to the Constitution, reveals that their vote is not legally binding because they lack the Constitutional authority to give away their Constitutional authority.

The resolution purported to delegate to the president a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8. But the authority to determine whether use of armed force is “necessary and appropriate” (quoting the resolution) “is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature... the executive has no right, in any case to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war” (quoting Madison, “Helvidius” 4, 1793). “... Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war...” (Jefferson, to Congress, 1805). The executive’s role is “nothing more than ... first General and Admiral,” whereas deciding whether to go to war is the legislature’s function (Hamilton, The Federalist, 69, 1788).

Hamilton? He's like Mr. Uber-strict constructionist. Yet Bush's express wishes fly directly in the face of strict constructionism.

In fact we know that this war is not Constitutional, the cowardice of the legislature not withstanding, because if it were then conscientious objectors would have no choice but to go to war. Yet, I work with a Marine Reservist who doesn't have to go because he is a conscientious Objector. He told me that if Congress formally declares war on Iraq then he'd have to go... and that he'd do so willingly because it would then be a legal war.

We're hoping to arrange an interview with this young Marine. He has agreed to be interviewed. Now we just have to hook up and do it. Stay posted for more...

Posted by Kevin at 08:08 PM |

Thank you, Mr. President

Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett is running in Ohio's staunchly Republican 2nd District against Jean Schmidt. From atrios:

Hackett's opponent, the awful Schmidt, thinks the way to support the troops is to "stand with the president." I always associated that kind of thinking with certain military dictatorships I won't name. Hackett tells her to buzz off:

Schmidt commends Hackett for his service, but believes Hackett should "stand with the president" by "supporting the Iraqi war effort and our troops that are over there," her campaign manager Joe Braun said. (Through Braun, Schmidt declined to speak with Salon.) When asked to answer that charge, Hackett is blunt: "The only way I know how to support the troops is by going over there." He doesn't hesitate to criticize Schmidt's support of the war: "All the chicken hawks back here who said, 'Oh, Iraq is talking bad about us. They're going to threaten us' -- look, if you really believe that, you leave your wife and three kids and go sign up for the Army or Marines and go over there and fight. Otherwise, shut your mouth."

Can't help feeling that John Kerry would be President today if he'd only had the balls to say that to the Swift Boat crowd last year. But that's the past. Paul Hackett is a better future.

Naturally, the Swift Boat tactics live on. Don't seem to be workin' this time, though!

More info here, including news that the conservative Cincy Post has endorsed Hackett.

Posted by Jeff at 01:27 PM |

Let's pretend we can wipe out terrorism by paying absolutely no attention to why it happens

Ted Lapkin believes that terrorism can be eliminated if we just continue on our merry path of "war". Actually looking at the results of a war to see if it's accomplishing the stated goals can't happen.
That would require taking your head out of your ass and looking around to assess the situation. An exercise that Lapkin appears completely ill-suited to manage.

Instead, Lapkin serves up the tired, worn out pap that pats the status quo on the back while loosing daggers against those who wish to address the causes of terrorism:

The aftermath of the London terrorist bombings has demonstrated that the antiwar Left is severely afflicted by the political equivalent of battered-wife syndrome. With each new beating, the scarred and bruised victims of spousal abuse tend to excuse and rationalize the actions of their tormentors. A stubborn unwillingness to accept the proposition that their partners are violent louts plunges these woeful women into a morass of self-deception that spawns only further violence.

The far Left has similarly proved unable to liberate itself from the web of rose-tinted delusions that it has spun about the nature of Islamic extremism. After each al Qaeda outrage, leftist ideologues are quick to castigate their own countrymen for a catalogue of sins, both real and imagined. With a perverse combination of self-loathing and adoration of the enemy, the radical Leftist mantra preaches that if only we were nicer, the jihadists could not fail to love us. It’s our own fault if Osama bin Laden doesn’t realize what good people we are.

For Lapkin, the outrages of Al Qaida are to be addressed not by an understanding of why Al Qaida does them..but by setting forth an angry vomit against the left for working to end terrorism.

Al Qaida as an evil entity isn't the issue. The world is chock full of evil. Whining that the US doesn't sometimes have a hand in that evil is simply more head up the ass ostriching that perpetuates the problem.

The mantra that the US never does anything wrong is easy, lazy and elitist. Blathering on about laying constant claim to the moral high ground is part of the insufferable hubris of the right that undermines us even more.

Osama doesn't care if we're good people or bad people. Lapkin doesn't concern himself with such trivialities, however. There are fires to stoke against the liberals. There's a war to use to bludgeon political enemies.

And if the causes of Islamist terrorism were being falsely diagnosed by leftist ideologues, then the policy proposals being advanced by these same voices were morally bankrupt as well. Rather than pursue the fanatics had who visited such death upon the innocent of London, George Galloway, a radical member of Parliament, urged Britain to adopt the Spanish model of crumpling under pressure.

How many false premises can one man pack into one paragraph? A shitload, apparently. "If" the left misdiagnosed the causes of Islamic terrorism? The left has been telling you since day one what the issues are, Ted. Some on the right are finally starting to get on the bus with us in an effort to end terrorism. The rose tinted glasses you like to cast aspersions about are sitting on your own face.

And Spain? Conveniently missing from Ted's diatribe is the fact that the Iraq war supporting Spanish government was tossed out on it's ass not because it embraced the war, but because the government lied to the people about the perps of the Madrid train bombings.

But the far-left views the world through a political prism that distorts this essential reality. Fixated by a knee-jerk hostility towards all things American, the likes of Ali, Fisk, and Galloway refuse to recognize the existence of this conflict, much less the stakes that are involved. Their primal instinct is to appease bin Laden and his cohorts rather than oppose them.

Those much smarter than I have already articulated that the right goes after the left a very clever way. They attack the left where the right is the weakest. In other words Lapkin knows that the right is viewing the world through a carefully crafted political prism that distorts the essential reality of why suicide terrorism occurs. The knee jerk hostility toward anyone or anything not articulating through that prism is the right's greatest weakness. Their primal instinct to saber rattle a war that's escalating terrorism is a major Achilles Heel.

The best way to deflect from these weaknesses is to project them on to the left. Until recently it's been a rather successful enterprise. Unfortunately why they sit back and deny the causes for escalation of terror attacks, more are slaughtered.

(Hat tip:Tom Carter)

Posted by Carla at 11:55 AM |

Cruci-Fiction

In response to my post entitled Help Wanted in which I opine the fate of my sister's heavily sheltered children, commentor "Dawn" had some things to say that I feel deserve to be dealt with here, rather than buried in a comment.

Dawn begins:

There is one point missing here: If your sister were an atheist, you wouldn't expect her to send her kids to a Christian school, church activities, etc., on your say-so. Yet for a Christian parent to send their children to government schools is to send them into an environment where any expression of their faith is not only discouraged, but often punished. I know, I've had my children in government schools prior to homeschooling them. And no, public schools do not necessarily offer any programs, including physical education, to homeschoolers. Christian students in government schools can get suspended for so much as wanting to give thanks for their own food. In addition, Christianity seems to be presented in the history textbooks I have read as the root of all evil in the world. No mention is made of the true (religious) meaning of Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving while other religions' holidays are explained and celebrated with great respect.

I didn't articulate an expectation for my sister to send her children to public school. Nor to stop homeschooling, for that matter. I articulated a concern for their lack of exposure to the real world via interaction with children outside their religious sphere as well as media (meaning literature, movies, television, etc) that reflects more than just their singular religious beliefs.

You are mistaken on the issue regarding public schools offering classes to homeschooled children. They most certainly do in the area where my sister lives. She told me herself that the principal of the local public elementary school has offered the classes to homeschooling parents in the area.

As far as Christian students getting into trouble for saying grace..I find that accusation highly suspect. Christian students can meet in public school buildings to hold before and after school Bible studies and clubs all over this nation. Your contention that saying grace is grounds for suspension is unfounded.

In terms of the "true meaning" of Christmas or any other holiday for that matter, it's not the job of the public schools to offer religious instruction to children. That's the job of the parents and family. It doesn't mix with the study of arithmetic or history or reading or spelling. It's also excludes those children whose beliefs differ from the mainstream. Public school is inclusive of all, not just those from one major belief set.

This notion of Christian holiday martyrdom that Dawn proffers is little more than self victimization. The idea that somehow no one wants to awknowledge the poor, disaffected Christians that completely dominate our American society is ludicrous.

There seems to be a general open-season on Christians who try to (Gasp!) raise children in the Christian faith. Try to extend the same tolerance to Christians that you would to Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, or homosexuals trying to raise their families according to their conscience. You wouldn't expect a lesbian to send her children to a school or other activities where they would meet with open ridicule and hostility and have no recourse. I assume also that if you adopted a lesbian lifestyle you would be terribly offended if your sister deliberately gave your children literature that presented a fundamental Christian point of view on homosexuality.

Christians are more than welcome to their faith and to raise their children within it. Perhaps Dawn could offer insight into which individuals in the US are currently speaking out against Christians practicing and raising their children in their faith..?

Christians are subjected to open ridicule in the public school system? Since when? The dominant religion in the US is Christianity. The vast majority of students who attend public school have Christian backgrounds and were raised all or in part in the Christian religion. Are these people just self loathing folks who beat themselves up for being Christians?

Dawn also assume wrongly that I am offended if my sister gives my children openly Christian evangelical literature. She already has and I embrace it. I want my children to learn about the beliefs of others. It's important to me that they understand and respect that not everyone thinks the way they do. In other words I'm attempting to teach them empathy. A skill that more in the world could duly benefit from, in my view.

There is time enough for your niece's and nephews to be exposed to the "real" (non-Christian) world when they are adults and able to make their own choices. Your intolerance is showing by the fact that you consider only non-Christian activities, schools, etc. as "real." Give your sister the same tolerance for her religion and beliefs as you would give anyone else.

This is one of the things that makes debating with so many Christians exasperating. I never once articulated that I want my nephews to be exposed only nonChristian things. I also never articulated that "real world" means "nonChristian".

"Real world" in my view means that there is a diversity of beliefs and ideas in the world. Unless we understand that and deal with it as humans, we put ourselves in a position of fear of the unknown or the misunderstood. And as long as we put our children in the place of knowing nothing about society-at-large, by the time they reach adulthood they are ill equipped to deal with societies problems and issues.

Intolerance is a funny thing. And I'll bet Dawn never saw that log in her own eye....

Posted by Carla at 09:18 AM |

Summer blockbusters don't come any bigger!

Tickets aren't on sale yet, but coming soon -- it's the Abu Ghraib Film Festival of the Damned!

Pentagon Rejects Order to Release Abu Ghraib Abuse Images

Jul 25 - Facing a court-imposed deadline to release photographs and video documenting numerous instances of torture and abuse at the now infamous US-run Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq, lawyers for the Department of Defense Thursday sent the court a letter stating their intention to file papers explaining why it will not adhere to the judge’s orders, civil liberties groups announced Friday.

The legal brief explaining the reasoning behind the decision will be sealed, meaning most of the information will not be made public, the letter said.

People who have seen the videos, including members of Congress and reporter Seymour Hersh, have reported they include scenes involving far worse abuses than have so far reached the public, including rape and lewd acts committed against and in front of prisoners.

From Billmon:

The Cheneyites, of course, are reacting to this whiff of accountability like vampires confronted with the odor of garlic: hissing, snarling, baring fangs -- the full monty. They've even threatened to tell Shrub to veto the Pentagon spending bill rather than bear such insolence. (I can't wait to hear Little Boots explain why he was against paying the troops before he was for it.)

You can imagine how the Veep might have reacted when told that video clips of screaming, pre-pubescent Iraqi boys being anally raped -- while a bunch of leering degenerates in uniform stood around and watched -- might well reach the CBS Evening News before the critical amendments reached the Senate floor.

I doubt "go fuck yourself" even begins to cover it.

Maybe they can make it a Midnite Movie Double Feature -- remember those? Audition 2 (starring Donald Rumsfeld), followed by Rick Santorum: Pet Detective...

Posted by Jeff at 06:25 AM |

July 25, 2005

Civil Unions: the new separate but equal?

Last week I spent a great deal of time mulling the legislative process when it comes to civil unions for gays and lesbians in my state. I'm a strong and vociferous advocate for equal rights. Perhaps it's my overdeveloped sense of justice, but I don't understand the need by some in society keep others down or as lessors.

It's been explained to me why so many people are squirmy when it comes to "marriage" for homosexuals. Marriage is considered an institution of religion. Organized religion in general tends to frown on homosexuality, at least in western society.

My response to this argument is "so what"? Organized religion has historically embraced slavery and the subjugation of women. We've overcome these tenets of religious bonding in the past. Sanctioned homosexual unions are the next rung of the societal ladder.

If the foundation of society is building families (as I heard Rick Santorum blather to Katie Couric this morning on The Today Show) then it is incumbent upon us as a society to open every opportunity for all people to do so.

It occurs to me that keeping homosexuals from marrying is a way to keep them down. Somebody has to be the top dog in the civilization food chain. It's inconvenient and uncomfortable for those at the top of the chain to be dislodged. There's wealth and power to be had at the top of the chain. If an entire segment of society has a foot firmly planted across their collective necks it's highly unlikely that many will squirm free to disrupt the societal heirarchy.

After speaking on the phone last Friday to my state representative it's quite clear to me that civil unions are little more than legalized (and eventually legally entrenched) bigotry. It's the new "separate but equal". Once civil unions are legalized and become commonplace it will be an excuse for the elite conservative bigot class to look around and say "How generous and fair we are! We've allowed gays to have recognized civil unions under the law!"

We'll then have a series of Plessy v Ferguson style court rulings that justify this position. It's not unreasonable to believe that it could be another fifty years before gays and lesbians are afforded the same rights as heteros. And then have wait for a court brave enough to buck the conservative social bigotry with a Brown v Board of Education style ruling.

It's difficult to be patient and wait for society to come to grips with it's bigotry. Losing battle after battle in an effort to gain equality is a frustrating and exasperating exercise.

Inroads are being made outside of the United States.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada all recognize gay marriage. The ball is rolling. These nations as well as the others who will be legalizing gay unions will start using this issue as a bludgeon against the United States. If Bush hasn't completely eroded our moral authority in other issue areas (a significiant "if", certainly) the US will attempt to use it to force the hand of nations not complying with what the US government wants. Those nations will be holding the woeful US policy toward gays and lesbians in our own country against the government. Leverage cuts both ways.

Civil unions are a short term gain to be sure. In the long run I believe that they will be a significant hindrance to true equal rights for all. I hope the gay community and advocates of my peer group begin to see the danger that settling for civil unions can pose to equal rights.

Posted by Carla at 12:58 PM |

Back in black

Good article, but --

The justice Roberts would replace, Sandra Day O'Connor, wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld last year, "A state of war is not a blank check for the President." Judging from his decision in Hamdan, Roberts might well write the executive that blank check.

Well, duh, why else is he gettin' nominated?

I have returned from PC Hell and let me say this: Windows XP Service Pack 2 is the ultimate evil... or penultimate, since Windows Vista is coming soon. Either way, Bill Gates owes me. But I don't expect the check is in the mail.

Posted by Jeff at 09:21 AM |

Look out Keanu

Via Shakes Sis I came across this silly little quiz at Blue Pyramid that tells what book you are.

You're Siddhartha!
by Hermann Hesse
You simply don't know what to believe, but you're willing to try anything once. Western values, Eastern values, hedonism and minimalism, you've spent some time in every camp. But you still don't have any idea what camp you belong in. This makes you an individualist of the highest order, but also really lonely. It's time to chill out under a tree. And realize that at least you believe in ferries.

Lonely? Me? Not likely. LOL

But I am always looking for a new angle on life.

Me and the Buddah. Not bad.

Posted by Carla at 07:21 AM |

July 24, 2005

Sunday afternoon gardenwhore blogging

I love having cut flowers in my house. Clipping posies off of my own flower bushes to bring inside gives me a sense of accomplishment. I enjoy making the arrangements, too.

There's also the added bonus of brightening up the house and making it smell great.

These roses and dahlias were all clipped this afternoon. They almost glow right out of that vase.

(More after the flip)

I've also been waiting impatiently for tomatoes. The ones I can get in the grocery store are mediocre at best. I can make an entire meal out of a tomato, salt and pepper and cottage cheese. It's a perfect midday meal for a hot day, in my opinion.

Unfortunately my impatience isn't paying off:

I've got tomatoes up the wazoo. But note the Kermit-The-Frog-like palor of the fruit....

Below is a pot I put together this Spring with Coleus, Maidenhair fern, Bacopa and Impatien. It's so full that the pot is invisible under all of the foliage. I'm especially proud of how it turned out. Plus I think it looks smashing nestled next to my less than stellar hydrangea. One of these days I'm going to figure out how to grow that stuff properly.

Posted by Carla at 03:31 PM |

Soldiers frustrated with being at war all alone

Some of our soldiers are feeling the pressure and frustration of carrying the burden of war while the President and the GOP ask nothing from the country at large:

While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added, saying that the absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel.

"For most Americans," said an officer with a year's experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early."

David C. Hendrickson, a scholar on foreign policy and the presidency at Colorado College, said, "Bush understands that the support of the public for war - especially the war in Iraq - is conditioned on demanding little of the public."

The Bush Administration has been painfully aware that the support for the Iraq War has been a mile wide and an inch deep. The moment there's a draft or a substaintial tax increase to cover the costs, they knew support would erode. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration vastly underestimated everything else about the Iraq invastion and occupation as well.

In the meantime, our troops shoulder the burden of a "war on terror". A war that's increasing, not ending, terrorism.

Posted by Carla at 09:00 AM |

WaPo: Roberts may be more Souter than first thought

This mornings Washington Post has a pretty fascinating look at what appears to be a nonpolitical life story if SCOTUS nominee John Roberts.

Most interestingly, those closest to Roberts (even those who self identify as liberals) don't seem especially worried that he might be a conservative ideologue in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

Posted by Carla at 08:47 AM |

July 23, 2005

Color me partisan

If being against US soldiers participating in the disgusting acts outlined here makes me a partisan hack..then fine..I'm a partisan hack:

Via the Boston Herald, May 8th, 2004:

Signaling the worst revelations are yet to come, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the additional photos show "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman." [...]

The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the scandal is "going to get worse" and warned that the most "disturbing" revelations haven't yet been made public.

"The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here," he said. "We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

And from investigative reporter Seymour Hersh:

The women were passing messages saying "Please come and kill me, because of what's happened". Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking.

I am literally sitting here with tears in my eyes.

Supporting the troops DOES NOT MEAN that we turn our back on rape and sodomy of women and children.

Posted by Carla at 09:51 PM |

PSA

I absolutely could give a flying rat's ass that Jude Law was schtuping the nanny.

This has been a public service announcement.

Posted by Carla at 07:15 AM |

From lie to shining lie

When George W. Bush was running for President in 2000 against Al Gore, he made a campaign stop at the elementary school that my children attended. I found out about the event because the Friday before the event, my children came home from school with tales of men in black clothing cruising the school roof while carrying big guns.

After I called the school I contacted my Republican senator to wrangle an invitation to the "town hall meeting" event.

It was held in the school gymnasium. Bush's stage was set up in the middle of the room, all decorated with red, white and blue balloons, streamers and signs. Some in the audience cheered. Others clapped politely (guess which one I was?). He gave his regular education stump speech. And then proceeded to take questions from preselected GOP shills in the crowd. Anyone who pays attention to local politics knew that each person he selected to ask a question was a local, loyal Republican operative.

Following this prepackaged, canned and boring as hell event I exited the building through the front doors of the school. Off to my right stood Karen Hughes chatting away on her cell phone. I took a chance and asked the Secret Service agent if I could meet Ms Hughes. He approached her and after a few minutes she walked over to greet me.

I held out my hand and introduced myself. I told her that while our politics were completely different, I thought it was wonderful that a woman was so high up in helping to run a Presidential campaign.

She smiled one of those slick, oily Texas charming smiles that play extremely insincere in this part of the country. She then proceeded to tell me that Governor Bush was the only Presidential candidate who had a woman so high up on his campaign staff.

At first I didn't think I'd heard her correctly. I repeated what she said just to clarify. She responded in the affirmative.

I asked her if she was familiar with Donna Brazile the woman who was running Al Gore's campaign?

Karen never stopped smiling. She seemed to recover her memory of Ms. Brazile rather quickly after that.

This story occured to me the other night when I was going over in my mind all of the misleads and lies and coverups with Iraq and now with this Rove/Libby situation. Karen Hughes lied to me when there was absolutely no need to do it.

I wasn't going to vote for Bush anyway so I filed the story away as a little anecdote. But it all fits together. They lied about the education successes in Texas. They lied about Bush's National Guard service. They lied to my face about a completely insignicant campaign thing. They lied about what the Clinton Administration told them about Bin Laden during the transition. They lied about intelligence leading up to Iraq. They lied about Rove and Libby being involved in the Plame outing.

Even when telling the truth makes sense and is easier, they lie. It's in their very pores. It's evident that telling the truth is completely foreign to them.

What else are they lying to us about?

Posted by Carla at 07:00 AM |

July 22, 2005

And The Winner Is...

Ann Coulter won the award as Stupidest Man of the Year at the 3rd annual World Stupidity Awards in Montreal.

Other winners included:

• George W. Bush: Stupidest Statement of the Year after telling a news conference: "They never stop thinking of ways of harming America, and neither do we."


• Paris Hilton: Stupidest Woman of the Year Her TV show The Simple Life was named Stupidest Show of the Year.


• Fox News: Media Outlet Which Has Best Furthered Ignorance.


• The World Stupidity Awards: Stupidest Award Show of the Year.


• Canadian government: Dumbest Government of the Year, proving that Canada can compete with the rest of the world.

Posted by Kevin at 06:00 PM |

Waxman: Eleven Security Breaches

Representative Henry Waxman laid out Eleven National Security Breaches in the Valerie Plame case.

They range from Rove's leak to Novak and Cooper to undisclosed White House Officials giving information to Novak, Walter Pincus, Dana Milbank and various other reporters.

The GOP spin cycle has been on overdrive trying to find a way to discredit Matt Cooper's Time Article fingering Rove to the grand jury. Cooper was a newbie on the White House beat and as a neophyte to this sort of hardball politics might be easy prey for the vultures of the Republican Party.

But in order to keep this spin up, the White House will have to attempt to discredit and smear some of the most established reporters in Washington including Tim Russert, who doesn't strike me as the kind of guy willing to bend over for a Republican smear party.

But back to Waxman's fact sheet. This White House Thuggery Machine literally has no scruples about undermining the National Security interests of the United States of America. They'll compromise CIA agents. They'll ruin people financially and socially. It really doesn't matter to them.

It obviously doesn't matter to their supporters either.

I've said this before...but I am certain that there's a significantly large group of people that would still vote for Bush even if he was caught on videotape raping and murdering someone. Their spin would run something like this: it's not Bush's fault he raped and killed. It's the fault of the person raped and murdered for being in Bush's line of sight. And that videotaper should be strung up for taping such an intimiate moment for the President.

There is no morality or ethics here. Only power.

(Hat tip: Truthout)

Posted by Carla at 04:50 PM |

Wanna lil cheese with that whine?

Over at Watchblog, Chops wonders why the media didn't jump on a story from the Moonie Times claiming Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Akaka (D-HI) took an earful from troops at Gitmo about harsh comments from Senate Democrats.

Chops' has his knickers in a twist because the press didn't cover this like they covered Rumsfeld getting his ass handed to him by a soldier for not providing proper equipment to soldiers in the field.

When I used to have a boss, I would sometimes get mad at him/her for scolding me if I did something incorrectly. I don't like to be told I'm wrong. That doesn't mean I didn't deserve it or need it..in order to get back on the correct course. Some guys may have pissed and moaned because the boss (the American people) don't like Americans being associated with torture and mistreatment of detainees.

Not quite the same thing as the Secretary of Defense (whose job it is to make sure the troops are properly outfitted) getting an earful from soldiers for not doing HIS job.

But here's the part of the Times story that Chops probably didn't get to (cuz it's neatly tucked toward the bottom of the page):

A spokesman for Mr. Kennedy had no comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Akaka confirmed that the senator met with soldiers from Hawaii but did not recall receiving any complaints during the meeting.

Gasp! Could the rightwing rag knows as the Washington Times have made up a story to try to reflect badly on two liberal Senators out visiting the troops?

Posted by Carla at 04:24 PM |

That was the Clash with "Know Your Rights"...

"...and what can you play after that but the Dead Kennedys' "Kill the Poor!"

The Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled that the state is not obligated to help counties pay for hiring lawyers for poor criminal defendants.

Well, they didn't literally say kill 'em, just served notice that the poor are even more SOL than previously thought.

Posted by Jeff at 12:29 PM |

Give Skippy some PK love

Skippy is trying so very hard to get to one million hits.

Let's send him some PK love.

Click here!

Posted by Carla at 11:45 AM |

The seat of power needs a good smack

Updating yesterday's story on Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis' gutting of the civil union's bill, it's my understanding that there aren't a great array of options given the abbreviated time frame.

Minnis' excuse for her quite obviously hardball rightwing stance on the bill is she thinks it's too much like marriage.

Karen Minnis can't be a stupid woman. Even with the sorry state of the Oregon Republican Party, one would think some brains would be required to be the political leader of the Oregon House. But she's going to have to come up with a better excuse than "it's too much like marriage". Oregon's Legislative Counsel (corrected from "council"..thanks TJ, my bad) Committee has already determined that the civil unions bill is within the Oregon Constitution that includes a ban on gay marriage.

The problem isn't really that Minnis thinks civil unions are too much like marriage. The problem is that Minnis is hungering for higher office. Achieving higher office in Oregon requires getting through a primary. Republican primaries have lately been won by ultra conservatives...who find themselves on the losing end of a moderate to liberal Democrat.

The moral to this story? Don't rely on Karen Minnis if you're looking for good public policy in the State of Oregon. However if you're looking for an individual willing to sell Oregonians down the river in an attempt to get to a higher office, Minnis is your girl.

What's left for supporters to do? A couple of things that don't look especially promising.

The bill currently sits in the Budget Committee, where it can't be amended. Minnis' lackey Wayne Scott runs the Budget Committee. He'll probably keep it there and not let it out. It can be voted from the House Floor out of committee and to the Floor for a direct vote. But this would require at least 4 GOPers to buck Minnis. Not likely.

If it passes the House it would go to the Senate. The Senate votes to concur or not. If they don't, the bill goes to Conference Cmte where 3 House members and 3 Senate members meet to try to make the bill palatable to both sides. Chances are Minnis' lackeys in Conference Cmte would force the bill to die there as well..because they will force an impasse.

It doesn't look good.

This is why the Oregon Republican Party will continue to fail. Individuals like Karen Minnis put their own personal power and gain above the wants and needs of the citizens of Oregon. In the short term this move probably gains her a shot at the Republican Primary, only to lose to an uber conservative who will then lose to a Democrat.

In the meantime, it's Oregonians who really lose.
NWPT58

Posted by Carla at 11:04 AM |

A good American always fears

I'm not afraid.

I don't ride the subways with trepidation. I don't worry about airliners crashing into buildings. I'm not apprehensive about going to tourist attractions and historic places (unless you count an annoyance with crowds as apprehension).

So I look at the fear and justifications behind therenewal of the Patriot Act and I have to wonder why.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House voted by a wide margin Thursday night to renew expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the collection of antiterrorism measures passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The final vote was 257-171. The bill makes permanent 14 of 16 provisions in the act set to expire next year and extends two others for another 10 years.

Passage came with the specter of terrorism fresh in lawmakers' minds after another round of bombing incidents in London earlier in the day.

These measures seem like so much smoke and mirrors to me, a pat on the head to reassure us plebes that everything is all right and Big Daddy Government Suit will take care of everything. But Big Daddy Government suit was wooing the Taliban, the same group who is our sworn enemy. Big Daddy Government Suit has been playing footsie with the Saudis, who spawned the uber fundamentalist branch of Islam that Osama Bin Laden loves so. Big Daddy Government Suit exorts us to go shopping, gives us tax breaks on SUVs, and sends people off to invade and occupy a sovereign nation with shifting and false justifications as to why. Big Daddy Government Suit would rather we keep troops in the Middle East to maintain access to oil. Better to stay enslaved to oil, destroy our environment, and make oil tycoons rich.

You'll just have to forgive me if I look askance at Big Daddy Government Suit.

Where's Osama? We've been concentrating so hard on Iraq--a nation that was never a threat to us, a nation that did not have ties to Al Qaeda--that the real threat has been free to plan, and plot, and kill. Al Qaeda is not on the run--it's their style to hide under rocks like the snakes they are.

Where's our intel? Granted, the administration would either rather not listen to what they have to say--part of Big Daddy Government Suit's "I'm not trying to hear that" policy--or they blithely compromise our agents out in the field. And then they tell us we are in terrible danger, awful danger,imminent danger. Terrorists could be anywhere and could strike at anytime. We must be vigilant. To protect ourselves, we should give up the rights to privacy, resign ourselves to a long occupation in Iraq, We should accept the fact that we can hold people in prison indefinitely, without charges, with no chance of contacting a lawyer or his family. We should accept a debate on the merits of torture as part and parcel of our brave new world of freedom.

We're freaking out over what happened in England, but this isn't the first time they were bombed. Terrorism is nothing new to them, thanks to the IRA. It's nothing new to the Spanish, the Germans, or the Italians, either, all who have or had home-grown groups with a love affair of bombs and guns. (It's not unheard of in Japan, for that matter.)

We have our own terrorists as well, and our own acts of terrorism. Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, the Army of God, the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, "Leaderless Resistance," oh, the list goes on. Their attacks have been lethal, terrorized people, and left maimed and broken survivors in their wake. But Big Daddy Government Suit felt no panic when these nice white Christian boys did the killing.

But now that it wasn't white boys doing the killing, now that it was olive-skinned Muslims, we have a crisis. Instead of responding by looking at what went wrong the first time and fixing it (there's really no shame in law enforcement agencies sharing information and following up on tips), we are using terrorism as the bogeyman to keep us in line, keep us cowed, and keep us afraid. Because fear justifies Big Daddy Government Suit's rampage.

But even some of Big Daddy Government Suit's allies have had enough:

Lawmakers narrowly turned back an effort by Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Virginia, to renew the expiring Patriot Act provisions for four more years, rather than making them permanent -- an amendment that drew spirited support from archconservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California.

Rohrabacher said he supported the Patriot Act in 2001 because of the threat faced by the country after 9/11, but only under the belief that once the emergency was over, "the government would again return to a level consistent with a free society."

"We should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed," he said, drawing applause from his colleagues.

This is exactly what Big Daddy Government Suit is trying to do. Keep the sense of crisis up, the sense up panic up to red. That way we can stand for human rights by ignoring them, fight for democracy by supporting anti-democratic governments, and fight for freedom by destroying it.

Posted by at 05:33 AM |

July 21, 2005

Like a game show contestant with a parting gift....

I could not believe my eyes....

It's getting really late here and it's been a long night. But I couldn't go to bed without noting this

Rove, Libby Accounts in CIA Case Differ With Those of Reporters

By Richard Keil

July 22 (Bloomberg) — Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.

Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor.

These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent.

and this

For Two Aides in Leak Case, 2nd Issue Rises

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 22, 2005

This article was reported by David Johnston, Douglas Jehl and Richard W. Stevenson and was written by Mr. Johnston.

WASHINGTON, July 21 - At the same time in July 2003 that a C.I.A. operative's identity was exposed, two key White House officials who talked to journalists about the officer were also working closely together on a related underlying issue: whether President Bush was correct in suggesting earlier that year that Iraq had been trying to acquire nuclear materials from Africa.

The two issues had become inextricably linked because Joseph C. Wilson IV, the husband of the unmasked C.I.A. officer, had questioned Mr. Bush's assertion, prompting a damage-control effort by the White House that included challenging Mr. Wilson's standing and his credentials. A federal grand jury investigation is under way by a special counsel to determine whether someone illegally leaked the officer's identity and possibly into whether perjury or obstruction of justice occurred during the inquiry.

People who have been briefed on the case said the White House officials, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, were helping prepare what became the administration's primary response to criticism that a flawed phrase about the nuclear materials in Africa had been in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address six months earlier.

If this turns out to be true, Rove and Libby both lied to the grand jury AND were working together to orchestrate the coverup by going after Wilson.

More thoughts on this tomorrow. I need to get some rest.

Posted by Carla at 10:55 PM |

Minnis pulls a fast one

Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis has just pulled herself out of the frying pan and into the fire.

According to Bryan at
Gayrightswatch, Minnis gutted Senate Bill 1000 and sent it to committee for a quick vote on party lines, and off to the Budget Committee, where it sits at the moment.

This woman needs to be replaced. This sort of underhanded sneaky bastard type stuff may work for bills that aren't in the spotlight...but it won't work with this one.

Minnis' sneakily sent the bill during the House lunch recess. Not against House rules...but definitely beneath the radar in an attempt to circumvent the open process of the Oregon Legislature.

Posted by Carla at 02:00 PM |

classic summer fashions for you!

Marketing genius:

Being in style don't come cheap, y'know.

Posted by Jeff at 12:05 PM |

Maybe someone will drop a house on her

Despite growing pressure from Governor Kulingoski, Democrats, Republicans and civil union proponents, Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis still continues to thwart the will of the people by refusing to bring SB 1000 (civil unions) to a vote.

Last evening's Salem rally on the steps of the Oregon Capitol was estimated at 400-1000 strong, demanding Minnis schedule the bill.

According to this morning's report on the Thom Hartman morning radio show at KPOJ (Portland's Air America affiliate), supporters of the civil union bill plan to canvas Minnis' home district of Wood Village. Supporters of the bill have also raised money to take out a full page ad in the local paper.

Minnis represents the politically moderate region of Wood Village. The county voted heavily Democratic for national races in 2004. Minnis' region isn't far removed from the rest of the county. Minnis' hard rightwing politics and stubborn refusal to allow a vote on civil unions should bring out a strong Democratic challenger to run against her next cycle.

There is buzz that Minnis also has designs on higher office. Right now, Madame Speaker is creating all sorts of political enemies. Given her wingnuttery politics it's unlikely she'll persuade the citizens of western Oregon to vote her into such a position.
NWPT58

Posted by Carla at 09:06 AM |

Their songs don't suck enough

Driving stresses me out. If there were no other cars on the road it would be fine. Sadly everyone else think they get to drive when it's my turn. I haven't been able to convince them otherwise.

Unfortunately the geography near my home is also under heavy construction for the forseeable future.

Between the cars and the Caterpillars and the sweaty guys in orange ODOT vests, driving around here is a pain in the ass.

To relieve this stress I have found that singing along to the radio helps. It seems to relax me.

Last evening on one of the local pop stations, the local DJ crew was chattering between songs about Blogcritics Top 13 most overrated songs of all time.

Their top 5:

1. American Pie-Don McClean
2. Light My Fire-The Doors
3. Free Bird-Lynyrd Skynyrd
4. Hey Ya!-Outkast
5. Pour Some Sugar On Me-Def Leppard

That's the best they could do? Please. The most overrated song of all time has to be Together Forever by Rick Astley. That song makes me want to pull my eardrums out through my nostrils. It's just that bad.

And what about Macarena by Los Del Rio? It's like nails on a chalkboard.

For posterity's sake, here are my top 5 most overrated songs of all time:

1. Together Forever-Rick Astley (UGH)
2. Achy Breaky Heart-Billy Ray Cyrus
3. Macarena-Los Del Rio
4. Ice Ice Baby-Vanilla Ice
5. Joanna-Kool and the Gang

Now THAT is a proper list of suck ass music.

Please feel free to contribute your suggestions for additions to this list in comments.

Posted by Carla at 08:15 AM |

July 20, 2005

Simply Brilliant

"Actually, we are missing the point here. The point being that Joseph Wilson is merely one of the many people who provided one of the by now innumerable pieces of evidence that this administration lied about why we went to war in Iraq. When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote that Bush planned to invade Iraq from the day he took office, the administration went after O'Neill. When Richard Clarke disclosed that the Bushies wanted to use Sept. 11 to go after Saddam Hussein from Sept. 12 on, they went after Clarke. They went after Gen. Zinni, they went after Gen. Shinseki and everyone else who opposed the folly or told the truth about it. After they got done lying about weapons of mass destruction and about connections to Al Qaeda, they switched to the stomach-churning pretense that we had done it all for democracy. Urp." - Molly Ivins

(hat tip to Pen and Sword)

Posted by Kevin at 09:23 PM |

Karl Rove leaked a CIA agent to the press for political gain.

Karl Rove leaked a CIA agent to the press for political gain.

Cutting through the muck of the GOP talking points to boil this down takes a big shovel and a pair of hipwaders. The bottom line, however:

Karl Rove leaked a CIA agent to the press for political gain.

All the excuses, namecalling, mudslinging, backbiting bullshit perpetuated against Wilson and Plame and even the prosecutor is a way to deflect from what really happened:

Karl Rove leaked a CIA agent to the press for political gain.

Bush's "wag the dog" naming of his SCOTUS nominee last night was a way to get Rove's name off of the front pages for a few days, maybe even until the Friday intel dump. Rather than taking his time and deliberating/interviewing this week as promised, Bush rushed the nomination to get people talking about something, ANYTHING but the fact that:

Karl Rove leaked a CIA agent to the press for political gain.

The GOP spin is good. I've read on some self identifying "moderate" blogs that the left is bad and awful and horrible to fingerwave at Rove. "The investigation is still underway". "We don't know what really happened because they're not done investigating". We do know one, indisputable, irrefutable fact:

Karl Rove leaked a CIA agent to the press for political gain.

Did Rove's actions damage national security? Via Josh Marshall (warning: PDF) A group of former intelligence officers knows they did, and sent a letter to the legislative leaders of both branches/parties telling them so.

Karl Rove leaked a CIA agent to the press for political gain.

Posted by Carla at 09:19 AM |

"Are you, like, in the band, too?"

She asked from behind me, and her hand traced down my shoulder. I turned and immediately registered sweet young thing who likes musicians before my eyes could even focus. "No, I'm not playin' tonight, anyway..." I was dressed like the band, though, black jeans, hiking boots.

That was 1991. A million years ago, give or take. But sometimes there are painfully funny flashbacks: Bad Album Covers (free registration required here http://www.boston.com/ae/music/gallery/bad_album_covers/.

This one's truly unsettling, though --

-- can't believe Moby hasn't used it yet. Or did I miss that remix?

Posted by Jeff at 09:04 AM |

Top 5 Myths About Civil Unions in Oregon (and everywhere else)

5.MYTH: SB 1000 requires Oregon schools to teach on the subject of homosexuality

FACT: SB 1000 does not compel or recommend any sort of “gay” curriculum related to Oregon schools. This was never an accurate claim by opponents of the bill. However, in the interest of clarifying that point, all references to public education at the elementary and secondary level have been eliminated from the bill and amendments were made (see section 12) to explicitly state that “advisory agencies and councils may not recommend programs of education of elementary or secondary students relating to discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

4.MYTH: SB 1000 could force churches, religious schools or institutions to hire gay employees

FACT: SB 1000 does not infringe on the religious independence of Oregon’s faith community nor does it require churches, etc. to hire gay employees. SB 1000 was amended twice, based specifically on the testimony provided to the Senate Rules committee by religious organizations and institutions, to address the concerns of some in Oregon’s religious community.

SB 1000 provides churches and religious institutions in Oregon with the maximum amount of flexibility to discriminate based on sexual orientation in areas including, but not limited to: the ability to discriminate related to the employment of any employee of the church, even if a person’s job is not directly related to the mission of the church (such as a janitor), as well as settings such as religious camps, religious bookstores, religious thrift shops, rel