« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 31, 2005

Haiku for whores

I was going to play Fisk the Wingnut again, but Lauren's commenters had some hilarious limericks goofing on this snivelling member of the American Taliban.

I'm more of a haiku fan, myself.  Such as:

Fear the vagina!
The clitoris spawns evil
cold showers can’t kill

Any others?

Posted by at 02:12 PM |

Halloween Fantasies & Delusions (pt. 1)

Good article on possible future events, post-Fitzmas, but ending with this:

"But should we expect, given the Republicans' attempts to belittle and politicize the case thus far, that President Bush will pardon his senior administration official if Libby is convicted on these serious charges? The 1992 Christmas Eve pardons of Iran/contra defendants by former President George Bush Sr. provide cause for concern. Let us hope that the current President Bush will not undermine the rule of law in this way."

Pardon? He can frame it and hang it on his wall, right next to his Medal of Freedom plaque. It'll look spec-TAC-ular! I'm sure social planners at the White House have already pencilled in a long weekend in December 2008 for a "Beg Your Pardon?" Christmas bash.

Posted by Jeff at 07:35 AM |

Bush throws the right a bone(r)

Scalia redux:

Alito's conservative stripes are equally evident in criminal law. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says.

Alito is a conservative's conservative..apparently completely content with a wife's uterus being the sole property of her husband.

Who wants to take bets as to when the first rightie will screech about how the Senate shouldn't stand in the way of a President's nominee?

Posted by Carla at 06:40 AM |

October 30, 2005

Just a thought

Now that Scooter Libby (who the hell goes by that kind of nickname after age 10??) has been indicted, folks on the right and left are lining up to give George Bush advice on how to save his Presidency from the trash heap of history

Here's the thing--he doesn't care. And frankly, it should be obvious to anyone who's watched this administration run amok that the damage they've caused is pretty significant.

They lied about WMD's in Iraq. They then kept changing the reasons why we had to invade and occupy another sovereign nation. Then they tried to blame faulty intelligence when they tried to spike the intelligence. They put a CIA operative in danger, and gave us quite a show as Bush backpedaled his statement that he'd come down like a ton of bricks on the leaker. They shortchanged the army, screwed soldiers and veterans, questioned the patriotism of anyone who looked askance at their policies, and spent money we didn't have while giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

I don't want just an apology, or a resignation, or new blood in the White House administration. I think it's high time we impeached George Bush for the lies leading to the Iraq war and the danger he put Plame--and the US--in. Because he might not have been the leak, but he's been happy to give the leak succor, and I'm sick to death of it.

I think this warrants an impeachment more than orals in the Oval Office.

Posted by at 04:08 PM |

The definition of insanity

A nation gripped by fear laid down upon it not by terrorism but by the political machinations of a reelection juggernaut may finally be jolted from it's paralysis.

The indictment of the aid to Vice President Cheney this week and the masterful press conference of the prosecutor have finally, it seems, given the nation pause.

The big questions: why was a top White House official giving classified information to reporters? Why did the White House pay so much attention to an unknown former diplomat? And why out his wife? And if the yellowcake uranium from Niger story is a put up job, then which other arguments for invading Iraq were put up jobs as well?

Jonathan Alter offers some perspective in today's Newsweek:

According to Fitzgerald, Libby had conversations with at least seven other government officials about Joseph and Valerie Wilson that he did not disclose to the grand jury. Why were top White House officials and Vice President Cheney so concerned about an obscure former diplomat like Wilson? Because he had the temerity to offer public dissent. By showing how evidence of Saddam's WMDs had been cooked, Wilson undermined the very reason Augie Schroeder and the rest of the U.S. military went to war. He was more than "fair game," as Karl Rove called him. He was a mortal threat.

This has been the Bush pattern. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill presciently says a second tax cut is unaffordable if we want to fight in Iraq—he's fired. Bush's economic adviser Larry Lindsey presciently says the war will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion (an underestimate)—he's fired. Army Gen. Eric Shinseki presciently says that winning in Iraq will require several hundred thousand troops—he's sent into early retirement. By contrast, CIA Director George Tenet, who presided over two of the greatest intelligence lapses in American history (9/11 and WMD in Iraq) and apparently helped spread "oppo ammo" to discredit the husband of a woman who had devoted her life to his agency, receives the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Some might write this off to the hard ball game of politics in Washington. Except the demand for loyalty above everything else has up until now obscured the fundamental incompetence and dangerous insulation from critical discussion at the highest levels of the US government.

We've been watching the quagmire of Iraq unfold mercilessly before our eyes. The massive onslaught of hurricanes leaving so many of our fellow citizens helpless while a hapless FEMA neglects it's duties. A national debt that has once again spiraled out of control while another Republican President signs spending bill after spending bill...tax cut after tax cut.

This has been allowed to take place under our noses because of men like Karl Rove...who instill fear of brown people in robes to the electorate. And then put up their guy as the only patriot who can possibly deal with the scourge. To prop Bush up as this lone patriotic figure is a feat indeed. A man without curiosity or a breadth of intellectuality is a tough sell. Absolute loyalty and lockstep message control has to take place.

And in the meantime anyone who speaks up is an unAmerican, unpatriotic, yellow-bellied leech who is sucking off the very teat of the freedom provided to them by the Cowboy-in-Chief.

Alter's piece in Newsweek also includes a quote from a father who lost his son in Iraq:

"When you do something over and over again expecting a different result," Augie's grieving father, Paul, told me, "that is the definition of insanity."

Indeed. When Americans reelected George W. Bush to the presidency after a truely horrible first term expecting him to do better, that was insanity. But maybe...finally...the people and the press have decided that being whipped into a state of fear-riddled paralysis is no way to live. And no way to elect a President.

Posted by Carla at 07:05 AM |

Plamegate timeline, Perrspectives style

Perrspectives has compiled an outstanding timeline of the Plamegate saga, which you can access here.

The timeline includes the major relevant news stories, links that show the genesis of the scandal, the Times and Wiki timelines, key White House briefings and some other extras. If you're looking for a superb outline on what's gone on and what's going on a la Plame, there's your clickage.

(via Blue Oregon)

Posted by Carla at 06:54 AM |

October 29, 2005

Does Oregon have ANY Democrats in Congress???

Congressman David Wu has made several votes over the last couple or so years that have raised eyebrows in his district. Earlier this year he voted for the anti-family, anti-veteran, anti-poor bankruptcy bill. Now we learn that he has again voted for corporate interests over citizens. I'm focusing on Wu because he is my representative. But, he has had plenty of company in Congress.

NewsHog first alerted me to this story and Cernig has more details there. But, here's the gist of it:

The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 331-90, contains a provision that establishes a national fund for developing affordable housing, by skimming 5 percent off the profits of the government-sponsored home-finance companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The funding would be a boon to the nonprofit housing sector – worth up to an estimated $1 billion within two years – but it comes with strings attached: nonprofit organizations would not be able to tap into the fund if they have recently engaged in activities that encourage people to vote. - The New Standard

As always, context is everything. In 1993, the year before the so-called Republican Revolution, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act. The Act, initiated and passed by Democrats, requires nonprofits across the United State to provide voter registration services in order to receive housing and other social services money. This new Bill effectively guts that provision. In so doing it overtly sides with corporate fatcats over the poor in America.

The Final Roll Call vote results tell the tale of the tape:

• 209 GOPers vote for and only 15 vote against. Kudos to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas for demostrating once again that common sense and a conservative world view aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.


• 122 Dems vote for and only 74 vote against. Every single Oregon Democrat vote FOR this bill.

I would like to suggest yet once again that this pattern of Democrats voting in favor of corporate interests and against fundamental access by citizens is part and parcel of why folks like Howard Dean and Paul Hackett are perceived as such a threat by the powerbrokers in the Democratic Party. The reality is that Ralph Nader was telling the truth when he described the Democrats (as a party) as Republican-lite.

In this case there was a substantial minority of Congressional Dems who refused to rubberstamp this heinous piece of legislation. But at the end of the day they were a minority and as such are not reflective of the majority.

Posted by Kevin at 12:59 PM |

Sorry I'm not home right now, I'm walking into spiderwebs...

...leave a message and I'll call you back...

I've some new tenants taking up residence on my deck out back:

Spiders are one of the gardener's best friends. And while I personally find them creepy and icky...they're always welcome in my garden.

Posted by Carla at 08:59 AM |

October 28, 2005

Friday Random Ten: Grouchy Carla Edition

It's been a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad week for my bank account. My oven crapped out and now with the holidays breathing down my neck, I've got an unexpected major expense. And can I just buy a regular free-standing range? Noooooooo. I have to buy a "slide-in" because of my kitchen lay out. The cheapest, low-end one I can find is $800. Argh.

Just get it fixed, you say? It's going to cost almost as much to fix it as to buy a new one. Apparently parts and labor on this range is just a little less than Exxon/Mobil's profit for last quarter.

So instead of dwelling...I'll list my old fogey music:

1. No Doubt--ExGirlfriend

2. Matchbox 20--Bright Lights

3. Queen--Fat Bottom Girls

4. Alison Krauss--I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow

5. Led Zeppelin--Black Dog

6. Aerosmith--Crazy

7. Steve Miller Band--Fly Like An Eagle

8. Paul Simon--Me and Julio Down By The Schoolyard

9. The Eagles--Take It Easy

10.Sheryl Crow--Maybe Angels

Posted by Carla at 01:19 PM |

Defrauding Oil-For-Food served Bush's interests

Paul Volker's list of corporations that participated in cheating the Iraqi oil-for-food program is good as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. And because of that it gives a skewed picture of who all was actually complicite in turning the program into a farce.

The Bush administration actively turned a blind eye to illegal oil shipments that served it's political agenda, as I wrote about this last January.

It seems clear to me that Republicans are using the oil-for-food scandal for three primary reasons. First, it distracts attention from the Administration's own complicity. Second, by focusing on foreign corporation's complicity it provides a convenient red herring for American corporations in the global economy where they compete against the very firms being targeted as having enriched Saddam illegally. And thirdly, it plays directly into the far right's paranoia about the UN.

By demagogueing the issue, Republican politicians like Norm Coleman are serving the interests of their corporate backers. If they genuinely cared that Saddam was being enriched illegally then they would be holding the Bush administration accountable. But they're not and I don't seriously believe they ever intend to.

Posted by Kevin at 09:59 AM |

October 27, 2005

All I want for Fitzmas...

...is an in-dict-ment.

Or what all the good boys and girls will be sending out for Christmas:

(Shop AmericaBlog for all your Christmas needs)

Posted by Carla at 04:44 PM |

The sneaky efforts to recall Judge James

For nonNorthwest readers, Measure 37 is a ballot iniative passed in Oregon in November. In a nutshell, 37 requires government to compensate landowners if the government passes a law that devalues their property.

The passage of 37 has caused major problems for the State of Oregon. It's confusing, vague and often inequitable wording was throwing the various local governments into a mess.

Recently, Judge Mary James overturned Measure 37 based on a laundry list of reasons. A great summary of the Measure and the reasons cited by Judge James for overturning it can be found here at BlueOregon.

In what is turning out to be typical for conservatives nowadays, the rightwing fringe of Oregon politics is rattling it's sabers against James.

Yesterday I came across a blog kept by local radio talk show host Victoria Taft. Taft's show runs as part of a lineup of dubious rightwing talkers such as Sean Hannity and Larry Elder. I've not listened to Ms Taft's radio show, so I have no idea the views she espouses on air. If her blog is any indication however, she's pushing the regular hardcore rightwing fringe views that continue to be out of step with most Oregonians.

Taft is using her blog to pimp the recall of Judge James. What Taft neglects to mention on her recall post are the hard right Constitution Party connections to the recall. The main perp behind the effort appears to be Constitution Party candidate Bob Ekstrom.

Ekstrom is one of the big fish of the western Constitution Party movement as well as one of it's more prominent national leaders. Here's a little taste of Ekstrom's apparently deep seated political views:

Today, few Americans are prepared to strike out in a radically different political direction as part of a small band even if they recognize the ultimate rightness of the project. However, the number of those few is steadily increasing. The Constitution Party stakes its future on that trend.

What fuels that trend? Moral degradation, unsustainable economic practices, cultural upheaval, the continued shedding of innocent blood at America’s abortuaries, the spiritual hypocrisy of wanting a God blessed America while we boot Him from every public venue, the erasure of our borders, the shrinking of anything private, the expansion of all things bureaucratic, the bankruptcy of public education, the loss of private property rights, the growing sense that the two big parties aren’t the answer to the problem – that they are the problem, and more.

Who are the people who make up this small but growing band of political pioneers? Homeschoolers, those who worship God and do not worship the state, those who visualize abortionists on trial, constitutionalists, people who have to be free, sound money advocates, and gun owners. These are dedicated people who fit the “Live Free Or Die” and the “Don’t Tread On Me” pattern. The Constitution Party can go somewhere with these kind of folks. The Republican Party has abused this constituency for a long time thinking that “They have no where else to go.” We will see.

Perhaps Taft is unaware of her the political leanings of the people who's efforts she's pimping. Putting doctors on trial for performing legal abortions? Allowing religion to permeate our government institutions? Or maybe this is sort of antichoice, anti-freedom thing Ms. Taft envisions for the State of Oregon.

James' recall effort thus far appears to be little more than a rightwing conservative attempt to threaten judges who won't do their job. And make no mistake, overturning inappropriate and illegal laws is one of the main reasons we have judges. The rigthwing tends to forget that government is intentionally set up to have checks and balances. They don't get to push laws that go against the basic legal framework of the State. Even if the majority of voters passed it.

Posted by Carla at 10:59 AM |

Miers withdraws

Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism.

Let the rightwing freaks on parade begin.

Posted by Carla at 07:07 AM |

October 26, 2005

White Sox win!

I've never been a big baseball fan. I rarily watch games during the regular season and have only attended one pro game - an exhibition game between the Padres and the Marineers. But, I enjoy watching the playoffs. And this year was a great one to be an October fan.

At the beginning of the World Series I countered Mike's prediction over at The Big Board of the Sox in 7 games with a prediction that they'd win in 6 games. But, they surpassed both of our predictions to win in a four game sweep on the Astros.

And how about that Sox rookie closer Bobbly Jenks? What a fairy tale ride he has been on! He began this season playing in the minor leagues for a AA team in Birmingham. He ended the season on the pitcher's mound as his team won the World Series.

I know that Bobby Jenks' 6'3" doesn't quite match up to Randy "The Big Unit" Johnson's 6'10". But, what he lacks in height he makes up for in girth at a whopping 270lbs. What I'm trying to say is that I think Jenks should be redubbed "The Big Unit." With that girth and the consistent 100 mph pitches it's seems a very apt description.

Posted by Kevin at 09:42 PM |

Bizarre

I realize this is supposed to be a sexy, glamour photo. But does it look to anyone else like her head is strangely too large for her neck?

It looks like her head is floating up in the plants while her body is turned the wrong way. Weird.

Posted by Carla at 10:32 AM |

She's not goosestepping to their beat

Does it bug anyone else that the real reason so many conservatives want Harriet Miers to withdraw is because they don't know for sure that she'll be a hardcore, Scalia-style vote?

Their excuses that somehow she doesn't have the intellectual acumen or the breadth of experience to do the job is meaningless. If Miers were a proven rightwing ideologue with a track record of relentless social conservativism, she'd be a shoe-in with the GOP. They wouldn't care if her law degree was written by Crayola.

It's unlikely Bush could name anyone to the court that I'd be comfortable with. I find conservatism in general to be an onerous ideology which often plays to the most base human instincts. But I'm not in the business of selling people short by attempting deceit to soft pedal the real reasons I dislike conservatism.

Why do the Phyllis Schlafly's of the world pretend that anyone with two brain cells to rub together, can't see through their quite obviously transparent move to dump a person who might not goosestep to their beat?

Posted by Carla at 09:40 AM |

Justice for Jane Doe--OC Gang Rape Three to be sentenced as adults

Greg Haidl, Keith Spann, and Kyle Nachreiner, the Orange County three who were charged with videotaping their gang-rape of a passed out girl (warning: very graphic description) will be sentenced as adults.

It was a brutal blow to family and friends of the defendants. Just days before, they were so optimistic that they provided another odd moment in an already surreal case -- more than 20 of them happily posing for a group photo outside of Briseno's courtroom. Nachreiner supporters from Rancho Cucamonga wore sunglasses inside the courthouse, giggled and then amused themselves by trying to intimidate a reporter.

Briseno's decision likely means the trio will go to state prison for the 2002 videotaped sexual assault of an unconscious minor during a Newport Beach high school party. But the judge also granted the defense one more lengthy delay. Sentencing is now set for Jan. 20, some 1,295 days after the crime.

The defense attorneys for the three used every misogynist, slut-baiting stereotype to excuse the perps. Ghengis Khan himself would have curdled at it. They also went out of their way to intimidate, slander, and terrorize Jane Doe.

[The Haidl defense] called Jane Doe 1 a "slut" who enticed an "innocent . . . little boy" (that would be six-foot-plus Greg Haidl, who has had six known separate criminal episodes in the past three years). In hopes of forcing Jane Doe 1 to decline prosecution, they probed her entire life—tailed her, posted inflammatory fliers in her neighborhood, spread savage rumors about her family, sued investigating police agencies, and released her private medical records to members of the media. Some jurors weren’t bothered; some actually received post-trial checks from Haidl in return for a promise to act as consultants at the retrial, which could begin later this year.

I don't wish violence on these three or their scumbag defenders. But I do want them to be held accountable.

Posted by at 08:57 AM |

October 25, 2005

The Bush Quiz: Water Getter-Ridders Edition

This was sent to me via email. The original can be found here via Paul Slansky of the New Yorker.

There are 20 questions. The first seven are here. You'll find the other 13 on the extended entry. Answers available in comments. The "water getters" thing will become clear (unless you take a shot for every time you miss a question. It'll make the quiz more fun..but by the end you'll be toasted...some of these are tough)

1. Who is Ben Marble?

(a) The Pentagon official who said that George W. Bush’s staged videoconference with U.S. troops in Iraq made him “livid.”

(b) The Texas liquor-authority agent who arrested George W. Bush’s intoxicated nephew John for resisting arrest.

(c) The former White House speechwriter who said that Harriet Miers, the Supreme Court nominee, told him that George W. Bush was the most brilliant man she’d ever met.

(d) The Gulfport, Mississippi, onlooker who twice interrupted Dick Cheney’s conversation with reporters to tell Cheney, “Go fuck yourself.”

2. True or false: During Sky News Ireland’s coverage of George W. Bush’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina, the network paraphrased his comments with the caption “BUSH: ONE OF THE WORST DISASTERS TO HIT THE U.S.”

3. To what was George W. Bush referring when he said, “The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who’s spending time investigating it”?

(a) The investigation into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s stock sale.

(b) The investigation into the role of the White House aide Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame case.

(c) The indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on money-laundering charges.

(d) The indictment of the former Bush Administration budget official David Safavian on charges of lying and obstruction of justice.

4. What did Dick Cheney say when asked why he didn’t cut his Wyoming fly-fishing vacation short until several days after Katrina hit New Orleans?

(a) “Go fuck yourself.”

(b) “I didn’t stop smoking until after my fourth heart attack, so some things take a while to sink in with me.”

(c) “I came back four days early.”

(d) “The trout were biting big-time.”

Who said what about stranded flood victims?

5. Barbara Bush.

6. Wolf Blitzer.

7. Bill O’Reilly.

(a) “So many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway. This is working very [chuckling] well for them.”

(b) That many of them were “drug-addicted.”

(c) “So many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor, and they are so black.”

8. While speaking to hurricane victims in Mississippi, Laura Bush twice mistakenly referred to the storm as:

(a) Catalina. (c) Condoleezza.

(b) Corina. (d) Karenina.

9. What was notable about the memo sent by FEMA’s director, Michael Brown, to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff hours after the flooding of New Orleans began?

(a) His repeated references to FEMA as the “Federal Emergency Management Association” instead of “Agency.”

(b) The lack of urgency in his request that a thousand workers be sent to the region “within forty-eight hours,” and his suggestion that those workers bring cash, because “A.T.M.s may not be working.”

(c) His prediction that the disaster could be “just the thing” to lead an “already shaky” George W. Bush to start drinking again.

(d) His suggestion that the agency see about setting up “foster barns” for the region’s Arabian horses.

10. Who is Norris Alderson?

(a) The Food and Drug Administration official who resigned in protest of the agency’s refusal to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill.

(b) The veterinarian with no experience on women’s-health issues who was initially named to run the F.D.A.’s Office of Women’s Health.

(c) The lawyer who was named to run the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency despite having minimal experience in immigration, customs, or law enforcement.

(d) The Manhattan shopper who confronted Condoleezza Rice at Ferragamo, where she was spending thousands of dollars as the situation in New Orleans was deteriorating, and demanded, “How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless?”

11. Three of these statements were made by George W. Bush. Which one did Michael Chertoff make?

(a) “One of the things that people want us to do here is to play a blame game.”

(b) “So please give cash money to organizations that are directly involved in helping save lives—save the life who had been affected by Hurricane Katrina.”

(c) “Louisiana is a city that is largely underwater.”

(d) “We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job.”

Who did what?

12. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

13. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

14. Representative Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).

15. Representative Richard Baker (R-La.).

16. Representative Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

17. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

(a) Said that God “finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans.”

(b) Complained about the people who refused to evacuate, and suggested that “there may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving.”

(c) Said of Dick Cheney, “I would like to believe he’s sick rather than just mean and evil.”

(d) Said that if anyone, including George W. Bush, spoke another word trying to blame local officials for the magnitude of the disaster, “I might likely have to punch him. Literally.”

(e) Approached three newly homeless children in the Astrodome and said, “Now, tell me the truth, boys, is this kind of fun?”

(f) Said of George W. Bush’s photo op in San Diego as New Orleans flooded, “The President was enjoying the day; he was strumming a guitar. I don’t deny him the pleasures of office, but people were drowning.”

18. What did George W. Bush say to reassure people about Harriet Miers?

(a) “She’s the most brilliant woman I’ve ever met.”

(b) “She’s got the best heart of anyone I know, just a super heart.”

(c) “She helped hide the bodies in my National Guard record.”

(d) “She is plenty bright.”

19. What prompted George W. Bush’s response “I’ve got a life to live, and will do so”?

(a) A question about the propriety of taking a five-week vacation when U.S. soldiers were dying in Iraq.

(b) A question about why he was out bike-riding instead of talking to the war protester Cindy Sheehan.

(c) A question about why he flew to California instead of Louisiana after he heard about the New Orleans flooding.

(d) A question about the propriety of wasting so much fuel on trips to New Orleans that had no purpose but to make the public think he was in charge.

20. What did George W. Bush say that the government had to do in response to the New Orleans flooding?

(a) “We’ve got to solve problems. We’re problem-solvers.”

(b) “We’ve got to do the work. We’re work-doers.”

(c) “We’ve got to fire Brownie. We’re Brownie-firers.”

(d) “We’ve got to get rid of that water. We’re water-getter-ridders. Of.”

Posted by Carla at 04:49 PM |

2000

Posted by Carla at 04:31 PM |

Rosa Parks passes away at 92

Rosa Parks passed away yesterday. She was 92 years old.

Parks had a long history of activism and public service. Contrary to popular belief, she didn't refuse her bus seat on a spur-of-the-moment. It was planned as a way to spur change.

» Civil-rights activist, born in Tuskagee, Alabama, USA. After briefly attending Alabama State University, she married and settled in Montgomery, AL, where by 1955 she was working as a tailor's assistant in a department store. Contrary to most early portrayals of her as merely a poor, tired seamstress, who on the spur of the moment refused to surrender her seat in a bus to a white passenger, she had long been a community activist. She had served as secretary of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and had worked for the Union of Sleeping Car Porters. She had also been involved in previous incidents when refusing to leave a bus seat. By forcing the police to remove, arrest, and imprison her on this occasion, and then agreeing to become a test case of segregation ordinances, she played a deliberate role in instigating the Montgomery bus boycott (1955–6). Dismissed from her job at the department store, in 1957 she became a youth worker in Detroit, MI. As she eventually earned recognition as the ‘midwife’ or ‘mother’ of the civil rights revolution, she became a sought-after speaker nationally.

Parks wasn't the first person to refuse to give up her seat--but she was the "best" candidate to spur the community into action. She was not the first person to be angry about the treatment of Black people on the bus--the Montgomery Bus Boycott was an idea that had been brewing for a long time.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott officially started on December 1, 1955. That was the day when the blacks of Montgomery, Alabama, decided that they would boycott the city buses until they could sit anywhere they wanted, instead of being relegated to the back when a white boarded. It was not, however, the day that the movement to desegregate the buses started. Perhaps the movement started on the day in 1943 when a black seamstress named Rosa Parks paid her bus fare and then watched the bus drive off as she tried to re-enter through the rear door, as the driver had told her to do. Perhaps the movement started on the day in 1949 when a black professor Jo Ann Robinson absentmindedly sat at the front of a nearly empty bus, then ran off in tears when the bus driver screamed at her for doing so. Perhaps the movement started on the day in the early 1950s when a black pastor named Vernon Johns tried to get other blacks to leave a bus in protest after he was forced to give up his seat to a white man, only to have them tell him, "You ought to knowed better."

The simple version of the story leaves out some very important people, such as Jo Ann Robinson, of whom Martin Luther King, Jr., would later write, "Apparently indefatigable, she, perhaps more than any other person, was active on every level of the protest." [3] She was an educated woman, a professor at the all-black Alabama State College, and a member of the Women's Political Council in Montgomery. After her traumatic experience on the bus in 1949, she tried to start a protest but was shocked when other Women's Political Council members brushed off the incident as "a fact of life in Montgomery." After the Supreme Court's Brown decision in 1954, she wrote a letter to the mayor of Montgomery, W.A. Gayle, saying that "there has been talk from 25 or more local organizations of planning a city-wide boycott of buses." By 1955, the Women's Political Council had plans for just such a boycott. Community leaders were just waiting for the right person to be arrested, a person who would anger the black community into action, who would agree to test the segregation laws in court, and who, most importantly, was "above reproach." When fifteen year old Claudette Colvin was arrested early in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat, E.D. Nixon of the NAACP thought he had found the perfect person, but Colvin turned out to be pregnant. Nixon later explained, "I had to be sure that I had somebody I could win with." Enter Rosa Parks.

Parks had taken an interest in Claudette Colvin's case. She was active in the NAACP. Popular myth portrays her as someone who was thrown into the civil rights movement. That's not the case. Parks was active in it for years. Although she worked as a seamstress, it was not work she chose; she was educated but couldn't find a job to match her skills. Black women were hired for domestic and menial jobs.

Parks was also sitting in the Black section of the bus. The rule was Blacks had to give up their seats for standing Whites. Park's protest highlighted the great absurdity of these 'rules'. Everyone in her row was expected to give up their seats for one White man, since it was forbidden for a White person and a Black person to sit in the same row together. Three out of the four people in her row gave up their seats. Parks remained sitting. She was subsequently arrested and charged.

The boycott sparked legal action against the organizers, attempts at false 'compromises', terrorism, subterfuge, and court challenges. Rev. Martin Luther King was one of 89 Blacks charged under an old law prohibiting boycotts--he was ordered to pay $1000 in fines and court costs or serve over a year in prison. 'Compromises' that were nothing more than the status quo were offered. King and another boycott organizer, E.D. Nixon of the NAACP, became targets of terrorists; their homes were bombed. Blacks citizens created a carpooling system; those with cars provided transport for those without. They were routinely pulled over and charged with minor infractions. Their liability insurance was revoked several times.

Once the Supreme Court decided on the matter, things did not just end there. Snipers shot at the newly-integrated buses. Whites tried (and failed at) starting their own bus system. There was a wave of bombings against churches, the homes of prominent Blacks, and black businesses. The perpatrators never served one day in jail.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott spawned the creation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, with Martin Luther King as its president. It inspired and launched the civil rights movement.

For that, we owe Rosa Parks and everyone in the movement our gratitude.

Posted by at 03:49 PM |

Natalee Holloway's body found!

"The remains of a woman believed to be in her early 20s were found in recent days in a rural Mississippi chicken house, and authorities said Monday they may be a missing Illinois State University student.

Police in Downstate Normal -- where 21-year-old Olamide Adeyooye disappeared two weeks ago from an off-campus apartment -- were notified Sunday or Monday about the possible link. Illinois authorities are sending dental and medical records to the coroner in Newton County, Miss., about 70 miles east of Jackson and Interstate 55."

"Oh... missing -- woman of color. Not Natalee. Never mind. Put it back on Fox News..." And Amurka rolled over and went back to sleep.

And, in other news you may not find on TV, George Galloway gives an advanced tutorial in how to react when under political attack:

Today Mr Galloway repeated denials that he had ever received any oil cash, and told Mr Coleman to "put up or shut up" by either bringing a prosecution or dropping the allegations. The Respect MP accused Mr Coleman of orchestrating a "sneak revenge attack" motivated by a desire to avenge his "humiliation" at the hearing in May.

"I am demanding prosecution, I am begging for prosecution," Mr Galloway told Sky News. "I am saying if I have lied under oath in front of the senate, that's a criminal offence. Charge me and I will head for the airport right now and face them down in court as I faced them down in the senate room.

"Because I publicly humiliated this lickspittle senator Norman Coleman - one of [George] Bush's righthand men - in the US senate in May, this sneak revenge attack has been launched over the past 24 hours."

Posted by Jeff at 12:16 PM |

Why do they hate America?

The White House is pressing Senator McCain to insert an exemption into the defense spending bill which would allow the CIA to torture people. The exemption is needed to give Bush maximum flexibility in waging his war on terrorism, according to VP Cheney and CIA director Porter Goss.

It's interesting to me how this bunch who so clearly favored so-called federalists consistently push for such patently unAmerican policies that are much more inline with the kind of arrogant presumption among the British royalists that led the federalists to rebel.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
I can hear the Bush loyalists now. "Oh, but that only applies to American citizens."

Really? Well... no, of course not. The fact of that matter is that many of those who later rebelled against the crown had tried to assert their natural rights without resorting to rebellion.

Perhaps the most damning line from the Declaration of Independence:

He [the king] has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

Hmmm... can you say Gitmo? The only reason the detainee camp was set up at Gitmo was to evade American judiciary powers. And now he wants formal permission to conduct torture there and anywhere else he deems necessary.

That's not what this great nation was founded on, as the evidence so clearly shows.

Why do they hate America?

Posted by Kevin at 10:49 AM |

Tuesday stuff: Things to chew over

I'll be out most of the day brainwashing America's youth to goosestep to the liberal agenda. Here's some stuff to chew over while I'm away today:

Movie Review: I meant to write about this last weekend and I forgot. I went to see A History of Violence about 10 days ago. I don't often go to the movies at the theatre (I have Netflix and I'm the Queen of Pay-Per-View Ti-Vo). This is definitely a film to rent if blood and guts on the big screen isn't your thing.

This film is one of the bloodiest, most violent non-horror films I've seen in quite some time. Viggo Mortensen (sans the greasy Aragorn locks and clean shaven) is intense and electrifying. Every time he was on the screen I couldn't take my eyes off of him. The film is set in a small town in Indiana, where Mortensen leads a quiet life with his family. One day some thugs try to rob his cafe at gunpoint..and Viggo goes into James Bond mode, disarming the thugs and shooting their brains out.

TV crews show up en masse and Viggo is splashed all over the evening news. All of a sudden some mobsters from Philly show up..claiming they know Viggo from way back. The conflict with Viggo's family and the mafia kicks in after that.

The best part of the movie is the William Hurt character, Richie Cusak. He looks and acts like a really pissed off Quaker. It's genuinely hysterical.

All in all it's a fair film..not great. Definitely a matinee or a rental.

Also, I finally got around to purchasing and starting The Assassin's Gate. It's already sparked some really fascinating conversation between Kevin and myself...which I hope we'll be writing about in the coming days.

And finally...the GOP has to know they're in trouble when even Howard Kurtz thinks their strategy is lame ass:

"Some perjury technicality"?

Did Kay Bailey Hutchison really say that?
She must have. It was on 'Meet the Press.'

Is this the Republican strategy for dealing with any CIA leak indictments? Saying no real crimes were committed, just a teensy weensy bit of perjury? Turning Patrick Fitzgerald into Ken Starr?

I hasten to add that I have no idea whether anyone will be indicted. I've never met Pat Fitzgerald, and had problems with the way he threatened reporters with jail, but as the U.S. attorney in Chicago who went after some Daley cronies, he has a sterling reputation.

It is true that prosecutors who can't prove the original crime often wind up bringing perjury and obstruction charges. But lying to investigators, or to a federal grand jury, strikes at the heart of the law-enforcement process. This happens to be the message that GOPers pounded over and over again when Clinton dissembled over Monica, so surely they take it seriously. Or is that only when a Democrat is president?

When you lose Howard.....

Posted by Carla at 07:58 AM |

October 24, 2005

I report, you decide.

Before we started Preemptive Karma, Kevin and I used to participate in a Senate Simulation game on AOL. It was held on the AOL News message board system (later moved to Games..where it fell apart, hence our need to find a new forum to discuss/debate politics).

When I joined the SIM Senate, I jumped right in to the debate fray. I've loved debating and talking politics since I can remember. I especially enjoy debating those with whom I disagree. The SIM Senate was a perfect place to engage such individuals.

Which leads me to why I bothered to comment on this post that I came across today via Instapundit. The author of the post, Bill Crawford, opines on a piece written by Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald:

So moral authority gives you the right to speak out, right? Wrong. Here is Pitts October 21, 2005 writing about the father of a murder victim who supports the death penalty:

"The spots -- devastating in their power and staggering in their cynical use of the moral authority that comes with loss -- have put Kaine on the defensive by making him out to be soft on the death penalty."

Apparently Mr. Pitts only supports the use of moral authority when it fits into his liberal world-view.

Except that isn't what Pitts was saying at all. He never once states that those who support the death penalty because their children have been murdered don't have the right to speak out. He is stating (quite obviously) that Kilgore's use of them in his campaign commercials is cynical because of Kilgore's foresworn moral objection to the death penalty because of his Catholicism:

Them's fightin' words in Virginia. Because Virginia, which executes people with a gusto rarely seen in any state this side of Texas, loves its death penalty. Hence, Kaine's conundrum: He's a Catholic who says he has moral objections to state-sanctioned execution. But he has promised voters he would absolutely uphold the law if elected.

Which led me, of course, to respond in the comments section of this blog.

I don't know if this makes me a masochist or just really hard core argumentative.

I report, you decide.

Posted by Carla at 12:09 PM |

"Culture of Corruption"--GOP style

People Powered Howard is at it again.

As one of the few Democrats who manages to be honestly direct on a regular basis, Howard no doubt pisses off the rightwing establishment by cutting to the chase:

The Bush White House is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history since President Warren G. Harding's, said Howard Dean during his first visit to Maine as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's comments Saturday came as top White House advisers are being investigated for their roles in the outing of a CIA operative and Tom DeLay, the former second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, faces conspiracy and money-laundering charges.

"The first thing we're going to do is we're going to have ethics come back to Washington again," said Dean, the keynote speaker at Saturday night's annual fundraising dinner for the Maine Democratic Party at the Lewiston Armory.

Bring ethics "back" to Washington? When has Washington ever been an ethical place?

That said, his point remains. The Republican Party has completely abandoned any pretense of ethics. They've managed to do in 10 years what it took the Dems 40 years: completely corrupt themselves right in the public's face.

The least we can do is put the government back into some sort of balance..forcing the two major parties to keep a closer eye on one another.

The leadership of the GOP is in a mess. The Executive Branch is rife with corruption at the highest levels...right next to the President and Vice President. The Legislative Branch has it's entire leadership tainted by the stink of Abramoff scandal. And now we know that the Senate Majority Leader is probably a big, fat liar, which puts him in league with his Republican colleagues.

This is the current crop of conservatives. Hungry for power, lustfull for to make their ideology a reality no matter what the cost in terms of law and order.

And no checks on their power.

Posted by Carla at 10:10 AM |

Count Bloodcount, at your service!

And so Halloween is upon us in earnest, and there's nothing more fright-tastic or scare-ific than how the news is about to get managed, tortured, and abused -- the better to distract you from any indictments! -- in the next couple weeks. Ready; set; SCARE!

FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations
Booooo! The FBI's watching yoooouuuuu!

Britain confirms first case of bird flu.
What will you do, when the big bad flu comes after you?

Look Scooby! over there!
Osama Bin Laden Is Dead And Buried: Multan Newspaper (Pakistan)

And the undead shall walk the earth, fearing no prison or punishment in their re-animated state:
Delighted to be indicted: Congressman DeLay smiles in the face money-laundering charges

"Asleep yet?"
"Nope!"
"Well, ring if you need anything... cup o' cyanide or like that..."

Posted by Jeff at 07:47 AM |

October 23, 2005

Welcoming George Will to the Reality Based Community

Dear Mr. Will:

It is with great excitement that I welcome you to the Reality Based Community. It seems you've finally awoken to the silly, unjustifiable, pungently dishonest and fundamentally illogical excuses made by those who support George W. Bush.

Your column today truely highlights your epipany:

Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.

Very interesting insights, George. Ironically those same statements about dignifying arguments and deficits of understanding would appropriately cover much of the Republican Party. Beginning with 9/11 and Iraq, the Republican Party has twisted, lied, bungled and otherwise completely wrecked itself with the majority of the American people and most of the world.

While I realize you've probably considered we liberals a nagging pain in the ass in the past, perhaps now you'll finally be able to understand our very real concerns about the direction this country is heading based on the policies enacted by the Republican Party.

The current brand of conservatism has moved our nation away from world partnerships and back into a robber baron class system. While it's likely you support that in part, it's refreshing to see that you're capable of moving outside the conservative box (even though your chief complaint is about a lack of true conservatism) its at least a step in the correct direction.

Love,

Carla

Posted by Carla at 07:01 PM |

Are the righties planting stories to submarine Miers?

This is weird.

World Net Daily:

Miers panel to hear 'explosive testimony'?

Gag order lifted for ex-lottery boss claiming Miers kept 'lid' on Bush Guard controversy

Released from a gag order, Larry Littwin – the controversial former director of the Texas Lottery under Harriet Miers – is free to appear at the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings to give "potentially explosive" testimony damaging both to President Bush and his nominee, according to WND columnist Jerome Corsi.

As WorldNetDaily has reported, Littwin allegedly was fired by Miers because he wanted to investigate improper political influence-buying by lobbyists for GTECH, the firm contracted to run the lottery.

Corsi believes that Littwin, according to an examination of hundreds of contemporary Texas newspaper accounts, will be able to establish under oath that the GTECH contract was preserved on a no-bid basis by then-chairwoman of the Lottery Commission Miers in order to "keep the lid on" the National Guard controversy involving then-Gov. Bush.

World Net Daily is a notorious planting ground for the rightwing smear machine. Their "journalism" is dubious at best, so whether there's a real story there or not remains to be seen.

Clearly someone (or lots of someones) is clearly unhappy with Miers as the SCOTUS nominee and wants to get some dirt out there on her. Fascinatingly this seems to be from the right..given that it's World Net Daily.

Pass the popcorn. This is turning out to be some hella good political theatre.

(hat tippage to Seeing The Forest)

Posted by Carla at 09:55 AM |

How much is your blog worth?

PK is enough to get me started on that lifestyle to which I'd like to become accustomed:

via Roxanne

Posted by Carla at 08:15 AM |

October 22, 2005

Saturday Garden Blogging: Composting edition

I finally broke down last Spring and bought a composter. And then I let the damn thing sit there all Spring and Summer instead of putting it together and composting.

I've been out most all day doing garden clean up. We had a windstorm here at the front end of this week and it made a hella mess.

My pole beans were up on a trellis in a raised bed. The wind blew the whole thing over and the trellis collasped into a heap into the next bed over. I got part of it cleaned up yesterday but did the bulk of it this morning. And once I get started, I can't stop. I started moving from bed to bed..pulling out the dead plants and cleaning out leaves and debris.

Before I knew it, my entire yard waste can was crammed full. Yard waste pickup isn't for another week and a half and I still have to try and mow the grass (ok, my son does the mowing. I live vicariously through him). So I decided to put the composter together.

Basically, I have a big ass Darth Vader mask in my backyard on the ground near the end of my deck. I opened up the top, dumped in the dead marigolds, tomato plants, leaves, etc..leaving my yard waste container still about 2/3 full. But at least I'm composting now.

By the way if anyone has any good composting tips, lay 'em on me.

Posted by Carla at 02:50 PM |

Loving The Lion King

Last evening I went with my family to see The Lion King at Keller Auditorium in Portland.

My kids have been to the theatre before. They're fortunate enough to attend school in a district where parents and teachers have occasionally sent kids to plays during the school day. But The Lion King is a full blown musical production. And it's beautiful.

Just over a year ago I took in the London production of this show. It's better than the one I saw last night at Keller (with the exception of the young woman who plays Nala, who was easily the best singer in the company and her acting wasn't too shabby either).

This production is a wonderful way to introduce kids to musical theatre. Most of the songs are familiar. It's got a dark side...but most good stories have that dark conflict that needs to be resolved. The costuming and puppetry are beautiful and creative.

The best part of all: I spent the evening with my family doing something special and amazing.

Posted by Carla at 08:38 AM |

October 21, 2005

Waxing nostalgic

From my DC trip last May, the door of the House Majority Leader:

I like knowing that name isn't on that door anymore.

Posted by Carla at 03:11 PM |

Jib-Jab rides again: Big Box Mart

The clever kids over at Jib Jab have a hilarious new animation. It's an homage to the lazy, fast food economics of shopping at deep discount stores.

An excerpt:

Oh Big Box Mart, what do you have for me?
Cuz our shopping carts are empty and we're on a shopping spree.

I come to the Big Box Mart, cuz I do have lots of needs,
And they sell crap the cheapest with their discounts guaranteed.

Go check it out.

Posted by Carla at 02:39 PM |

"Feminists for life"..the ultimate contradiction in terms

I've spent a lot of time since Kev and I started this blog thinking about feminism.

For me, being a feminist means giving women choices about their lives and what they want to do with them. If a woman wants to get married, stay at home and raise a family..that option should be open to her. If a woman wants to go to college and expand herself intellectually that option should be hers as well. Feminism is inherently about choice.

Which is why Feminists for Life is a complete contradiction in terms. This post is a prime example:

The words that pro-choicers use now a days really upsets me. One phrase in particular. "Women should have the same reproductive freedoms as men." They make it sound like men can give birth, and kill their babies whenever they want, but women are these poor slaves shackled to a wall, forced to bear, and raise, these horrible monster children. They fail to realize that Women will *NEVER* have the same freedoms as men, because men can't, and won't ever be able to, give birth. Instead of trying to make themselves 'equal' to men, they need to seriously realize that, due to basic differences of our bodies, we will never be able to be equal. We will always be as good as each other, but we will never be equal.

What they *should* be saying, in my opinion, is "Women need to define themselves, and their bodies, as a species apart from men, and not treat treat them how men, and the male-dominated society says we should treat them, but as we feel our hearts tell us to."
Or something like that. I can't quite get the words in my head to reflect the words on the screen... but still, it just makes me so mad! Even the best-operated transexual will never be equal to women. Again, not better or worse, the same in quality, just not equal.

Gender equity IS about women having equal opportunities as men..not being equal to men. No, men can't bear children. But blathering on about how women "are killing their babies" diminishes the role and responsibility of men while guilting women into bearing an unwanted child. Not only is this the antithesis of feminism...it's degrading to both men and women.

And since when are we not the same species? Men and women are both Homo Sapiens. Women will never be the same as men. That isn't the point. But women must be afforded the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities. This is feminism.

It's not about children being "horrible monsters". It's about a woman taking responsibility and control of her own situation. It's about self-determination because we know what is right for ourselves. Forcing women to carry unwanted fetuses and bear unwanted children (who for the current crop of rightwing power brokers are worthless once they've passed the cervix) takes away the inherency of feminism.

Women must have the right to self determination. This is a basic civil right. Reproductive freedom is the doorway to the inalienable right to pursuit of happiness. Women must be allowed to take responsibility for their lives.

This group is against one of the cornerstones of feminism, in my view.

Posted by Carla at 07:00 AM |

October 20, 2005

Rove throws Libby under the bus

They're starting to cannibalize each other:

White House adviser Karl Rove told the grand jury in the CIA leak case that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, may have told him that CIA operative Valerie Plame worked for the intelligence agency before her identity was revealed, a source familiar with Rove's account said yesterday.

In a talk that took place in the days before Plame's CIA employment was revealed in 2003, Rove and Libby discussed conversations they had had with reporters in which Plame and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV were raised, the source said. Rove told the grand jury the talk was confined to information the two men heard from reporters, the source said.

The reporters in question are Judith Miller and Tim Russert..both of whom said separately that they didn't reveal the name to Libby and Rove.

The unraveling of the once disciplined, well-oiled Bush machine is causing consternation among the conservative media as well. Their latest meme is the criminalization of conservatives. As if it's the fault of liberals that so many conservatives are under indictment for various scandals.

If you don't want your people to be considered corrupt...stop associating yourself with corrupt people. It's common knowledge that Karl Rove is a mealy mouthed, slimy, no good jerk who will do absolutely anything to win. He did it in Texas. He has a history of being a really bad guy. Stop associating with him. Stop giving him power. It's not that tough to figure out.

Posted by Carla at 07:29 AM |

The Assassin's Gate

I've heard about this book in several places this week. Once on the Al Franken radio show and once over at Crooked Timber.

It appears to be an expose' on the conspiracies and controversies leading up to the Iraq invasion.

Has anyone read it?

Posted by Carla at 07:25 AM |

October 19, 2005

Absolut Corruption

Graphic by Maria at 2 Political Junkies (click on graphic) via TomPaine.com

Posted by Kevin at 09:44 PM |

Chertoff: FEMA to blame for Katrina problems

Well...well...well...

So much for the rightwing theory that the Katrina screw ups were all about Nagin and Blanco.

Chertoff sings:

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Emergency Management Agency's lack of planning, not the failures of state and local officials, was to blame for much of what went wrong with the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told member of Congress today.

The assessment by the most senior administration official to answer legislators' questions since the hurricane struck in late August contrasted sharply with testimony offered earlier by former FEMA Director Michael Brown. Brown had blamed the "dysfunction" of Louisiana state and local officials for the problems that hobbled the relief effort.

"From my own experience, I don't endorse those views," Chertoff said.

He told lawmakers that he found the governors and mayors of the region to be responsive as the crisis unfolded.

I wonder if Chertoff had Bush's blessing to shove the whole thing off on Brown. Or will Chertoff eventually be forced to cop to the ill preparedness and screw ups of Homeland Security?

Florida is about to get slammed by Wilma. Hard.

Who are they going to blame for the mess after that?

Posted by Carla at 07:28 PM |

Hillary's opponent gaffes again

If this woman was paid by the screw up...she'd be swimming in loot:

That's a difference between Democrats and Republicans _ we don't want them next door molesting children and murdering women," said the Westchester County prosecutor, according to Wednesday's Elmira Star-Gazette newspaper.

--Jeanine Pirro, New York Senate Candidate

Is she really this stupid?

That kind of rhetorical nonsense might play well in Oklahoma (hello Tom Coburn), but in New York?

Jeez.

Posted by Carla at 02:25 PM |

The naughty, naughty poor

Shorter Dan Seligman: The poor are poor because they keep acting like people who don't have money.

It's getting rather old to chalk off poverty to bad behavior, as if scads of money and some class cred don't go a long way in easing things for our own middle- and upper-class wayward mistakes. Couple this with the usual paranoia about a non-existent liberal media, and you'd normally have a typical bash-the-poor article. This article is different, though. In this article, Seligman proves us pinkos right in his own odd, roundabout way.

But let's get right to the fisking.

The [series] mainly consisted of 11 long articles whose cumulative message was gloomy. In the stage-setting first article, readers were told that we live in a meritocracy, but even so, life remains unfair. How so? "Merit, it turns out, is at least partly class-based. Parents with money, education and connections cultivate in their children the habits that the meritocracy rewards. When their children then succeed, their success is seen as earned." You can always count on the Times not to be taken in by upscale kids merely because they have superior educations and solid work ethics .

Damn those poor people! It's their own fault for not going to a good prep school and getting into Harvard.

When Jonathan Kozol visited schools in poor areas, he found backed-up toilets, malfunctioning heating systems, asbestos, fungus, and leaky roofs. For starters. Some classes are taught--or, more accurately, staffed--by permanent substitute teachers. They don't have enough textbooks, let alone current textbooks.

What poor family can get a kid the medical care he or she needs when they get asthma from the fungus and the mold? What kid is going to think, yeah, I want to stay in school when you can't even use the toilets because they stink so badly?

Smoking. According to the federal government's "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report," high school dropouts are almost three times as likely to smoke as are college graduates.

Ahem. . .that wouldn't have anything at all to do with the fact that Tobacco companies target poor neighborhoods, would it? That billboards are usually not allowed in wealthy city neighborhoods or towns? Those are reserved for the poor, and often minority, neighborhoods.

A Chicago Lung Association survey found 27% more billboards in predominantly African American wards in Chicago than in white wards. 59 In Washington, D.C. , few alcohol and tobacco billboards were found in ward 3, which is predominantly white; however, 78% of billboards advertised alcohol or tobacco in wards 7 and 8, which are heavily African American. A similar pattern of targeting ethnic and poor neighborhoods was found in St. Louis ,Atlanta , and San Francisco .

Based on the evidence cited elsewhere in this report, it is reasonable to assume that the higher density of tobacco billboards in poor, ethnic neighborhoods is responsible for smoking by large numbers of young people in racial and ethnic populations in urban areas. This is a matter of great concern given the recent report that smoking prevalence increased substantially from 1991 to 1997 among African American high school students (from 12.6% to 22.7%) and among Hispanic students (from 25.3% to 34.0%).

But okay. Smoking means you'll be poor. Or if you're poor you're more likely to smoke, therefore you deserve to be poor. Unless you're wealthy. Then it's okay. Or something like that.

Bad driving. Socioeconomic status is the strongest determinant of vehicle-occupant deaths on the road, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Men and women who have not completed high school are three times as likely as those who have been to college to be killed while in a motor vehicle. Noncollegiates are more likely to drive after drinking alcohol and to not use seat belts.

Besides the fact that men and women who haven't completed high school are more likely to come from poor families, live in poor neighborhoods, and go to the previously-mentioned poor (and horrific) schools, it's their fault for driving badly because they're poor. A rich person would never get on drugs or become an alcoholic, or they'd have the good grace to check into a nice facility to help them dry out. If the poor can't afford that, it's their problem. Certainly, if they were wealthy and got sauced, they'd be driving a Volvo and would walk away from the accident. Not to mention the charges, since they could afford a good lawyer.

Besides which, if a stupid person is going to drive a Chevy Nova and not a Volvo, they deserve what they get.

Overeating. Data from the latest (1999-2000) National Health î Nutrition Examination Survey tell us that women with less than a high school education are 26% more likely to be obese than those with a college degree.

A friend of mine is a pediatrician in a hospital in a poor city. She sees a lot of the people Seligman is talking about. She treats a lot of obese kids, and used to think they were the products of permissive parents, until she stuck around. "There are no grocery stores there," she said. "None." She said if you don't have a car, you can't drive twenty miles to get to a grocery store, unless you're willing to take your kids and commute on a couple of buses, get your groceries, and lug them and your kids back home. On the buses. Possibly between shifts, which means you won't do it, because you can't afford to miss work.

So their options are fast food and whatever fare they can get at convenience stores. Not the cheapest option, but when it's the only one, you go with it.

Spousal abuse. A survey article in the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association reports that income is inversely related to prevalence of domestic violence.

Other studies show that spousal abuse is evenly distributed across class lines. AMWA certainly has some studies that would make a good conservative go apopoleptic, including their findings that men who own guns were more likely to threaten their partners with them. But the survey article's take on it was a little different from Seligman's--instead of inferring that people were poor because they were violent, they inferred that batterers were violent because they were poor. It does make one look askance at the "marry your way out of poverty" solution put forth by the right, though.

Teenage pregnancy. Teenage pregnancies have declined somewhat in recent years but still run around 850,000 annually and are still heavily concentrated in low-status populations. Says the publication Family Planning Perspectives: "Being disadvantaged is associated with an early age of first intercourse, less reliance on or poor use of contraceptives, and lower motivation to avoid having a child."

Again, it's a matter of deciding that they are poor because they are teen mothers, or they became teen mothers because they are poor. But no matter, here's an interesting study that shows pinko nations that actually have decent social welfare and assistance programs for the poor have lower rates of teen pregnancies. And I'm not just talking about a lower rate difference of five percent or so. Sweden, that scourge of libertarians everywhere, has a teen pregnancy rate of four percent. The US has a teen pregnancy rate of 22 percent. If anything, this gives credence to the argument that we should extend a helping hand rather than preach about values and good behavior.

Delinquency. Studies based on the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth show that low social class correlates strongly with (a) likelihood to drop out of high school and (b) delinquency among both males and females.

Well, let's review. . .Jane goes to a school with a leaky roof, backed up toilets, overcrowded classrooms, a few outdated textbooks, and "permanent substitute" teachers. She lives in a firetrap that is supposed to pass for public housing. Both her school and her home have mold and aggravate her asthma, which she can't get treatment for because she doesn't have health insurance. Her diet isn't great because her folks work two jobs to make ends meet and still can't make the trek out to the grocery store, which is a real hike if you don't have a reliable car.

Um. . .delinquency is shocking because. . .why?

So let's review--if you hit your spouse, smoke, drive badly, or are overweight, you're probably poor. And you're poor because you've been naughty.

Seligman makes the common error of taking consequences of poverty and labeling them causes. Aside from all of the moralizing and finger-wagging on his part, he does manage to show that the only way to help the poor is to actually give the poor some assistance, decent schools, a healthy place to live, and everything else that people need to thrive.

Posted by at 10:31 AM |

Weekend plans?

Apart from that, not much goin' on. You?

Posted by Jeff at 10:10 AM |

No one to Plame but themselves

The conventional wisdom on the Plame outing has been that the The Intelligence Identities Protection Act isn't applicable to those who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. Larry Johnson of No Quarter begs to differ:

Valerie Plame was a "covert agent" as defined by the law. In her cover position as a consultant to Brewster-Jennings, Ms. Plame served overseas on clandestine missions. Just because she did not live overseas full time does not mean she did not work overseas using her status as a non-official cover officer.

Unfortunately, the organized plot by White House officials to expose Valerie Plame also permanently ended her ability to ever serve overseas in an official cover position. At a minimum, U.S. tax payers invested at least $250,000 (that is in 1985 dollars) in training Valerie as a case officer. Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and others not yet revealed destroyed by their reckless acts her career, a CIA front company, and a network of intelligence assets.

Johnson includes a copy of Intelligence Identities Protection Act in the post linked above. Plame's status as a covert agent when she was outed is already established.

More telling than this however (which Johnson points out as well), is the President of the United States is willing to tolerate people in his Administration who out CIA agents during a time of war.

Even more to the point, this behavior is "normalized" by the codependents in the conservative media. From their lips, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to blow the cover of a CIA operative if her husband has done political damage to the boss.

It also seems evident that the people involved never thought the investigation would get this far. RAW STORY is reporting that Vice Presidential aide John Hannah is now fully cooperating with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, after being threatened with an imminent indictment.

Cheney aide Lewis Libby may have the biggest of the Plame problems. A lawyer for Judith Miller is saying that Libby is in trouble if he made claims to the grand jury that he had never talked to Miller about Plame.

On a side note, Karl Rove is cancelling appearances at Republican events. Perhaps as damage control for the party due to his own possible indictment?

Posted by Carla at 07:15 AM |

October 18, 2005

Book em, Danno

From the subscription only NYT:

Before Friday, DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land, Texas, will likely spend about an hour being fingerprinted and photographed, she said. He'll also be required to state his attorneys for the record.

Travis County allows some defendants to do a ''walkthrough'' booking
process, in which the defendant is photographed and fingerprinted. But
DeLay's bond amount would be preset so he could immediately pay it and avoid
a stay in jail.

Oh man...what a great "Write Your Own Caption" that mug shot will make.

Posted by Carla at 07:23 PM |

"I'm Jeanine Pirro. This is as good as I get"

"I got to tell you, was it my best day? Absolutely not," she said before adding emphatically, "Am I better than that? Absolutely not."

--New York Senate candidate Jeanine Pirro, who hopes to overcome a massive drought in the polls against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Posted by Carla at 03:16 PM |

Suicide?

A British military investigator in Iraq, Captain Ken Masters, was found hanged in his quarters in Basra, Iraq. Captain Masters was a member of the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch (SIB).

The Independent:

Captain Masters, who was married with two children, was commissioned from the ranks in 2001 and served most of his career with the SIB. His family is believed to be living in Northern Ireland. He was not receiving any medical or psychological treatment and no suicide notes were found when his body was discovered at the main British military base in Basra. Emphasis is mine.

The only other British soldier to die in Iraq under similar circumstances was... (drum roll)... also a member of the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch.

Hmmm...?

This coming from the same Basra where just under a month ago two British soldiers were arrested by local police. The British government has charged that the Basra police are heavily infiltrated by al Queda. They've even charged that the crowds that gathered and threw stones at British soldiers afterwards were orchestrated by al Queda. What they haven't explained is why two British soldiers were driving around Basra "under cover".

Call me a conspiracy nut if that helps. But, something just doesn't add up here.

Posted by Kevin at 02:14 PM |

Judith Miller - more questions than answers

Via TomPaine.Com, David Corn offers up some interesting commentary on the case. But, by far the most interesting thing I've read lately about it is Kevin Featherly's essay questioning Miller's assertion that she had security clearance from the federal government.

And given that we now know Miller had access to government secrets, isn't it in the least bit possible that the secret source Judy Miller is now protecting is, in fact, herself?

Holy something-or-other, Batman! Now that's a possibility that had simply never occurred to me. If true then it is highly troubling on many fronts. If reporters are actively hiding government secrets then who in the hell can we trust to expose the never ending supply of dirty little secrets that politicians seem to begat as a matter of course?

Featherly ends on a note that I heartily concur with:

A Final Note The Society of Professional Journalists, of which I am a member, is planning to hand Judith Miller its prestigious First Amendment Award at its national convention on Tuesday.

I'd like to make a request of the SPJ: Suspend the award.

It may be that Judith Miller deserves it. But there are an awful lot of questions about whether she was working to protect the interests of a free press, or whether she was acting in her own interests, or in the interests of the government that had given her special access to its secrets.

I would request that SPJ investigate this case prior to committing itself to this award, possibly tainting it for all time. SPJ frequently launches investigations in the interests of journalism, for instance when university administrations crack down on campus reportage--and it doesn't always find in favor of reporters.

This is a case where that kind of investigation is more than merited.

My proposal? Hold off on giving this award to anyone until 2006. If Judy Miller is telling the truth, it is hard to imagine a more deserving case of protecting press freedoms will emerge next year. She could legitimately recieve the award--with all due apologies--in 2006.

If she is being evasive, if she is protecting the wrong interests in this case--comforting the comfortable rather than the afflicted--she doesn't deserve any reward.

Hear, hear!

Update: Jazz over at Running Scared seems to concur with Daily Kos that Ari Fleischer may have cut a deal with Fitzgerald and will finger the players.

Posted by Kevin at 01:55 PM |

Poor Bill...somebody has stepped on his falafel...

Waaaaaaaaaaa:

O'Reilly calls the ongoing battles "tremendously wearing and debilitating," adding, "I don't need the approval of the press, but I just wish they'd stop the viciousness.

Welcome to your karma, Bill.

Posted by Carla at 01:31 PM |

Tuesday good reads

I'll be out most of the morning indoctrinating the minds of America's youth. Here are a few good reads to keep you company:

Pen and Sword: Draft beer, not Condi

Think Progress: Email contradicts Pentagon spin

Crooked Timber: Vices and Virtues of the Welfare State

Maha: Plame on

Rising Hegemon: In a historical moment rivalled only by last night's selection of Meat Loaf...

See you this afternoon.

Posted by Carla at 07:19 AM |

October 17, 2005

More liberal media

Headline:

Court Won't Let Bush Push Tobacco Penalty

So Dear Leader was chomping at the bit to go after the tobacco settlement money?

Bush new Chief Justice was just seated and has a huge influence on which cases are heard and which isn't. As the SCOTUS has refused to hear the case...the appellate court ruling stands.

We're supposed to believe that Bush wanted to go after the big tobacco settlement? Would this be because the Bush Administration has such a vast and storied history of penalizing corporate malfeasance?

Not likely. They'd have to commit Hari Cari to do it.

Posted by Carla at 12:30 PM |

Talk to the hand..maybe it'll believe you

John Hinderaker is complaining that the stories on Karl Rove's role in the Plame investigation is nothing more than a hatchet job.

In an attempt to back up his assertion, Hinderaker uses a flawed Weekly Standard opinion piece by Stephen Hayes and a weak editorial by William Kristol to claim that it's the liberals fault that Republicans are cast as criminals. Rove, Libby and even DeLay have actually done nothing wrong. It's the leftwing liberal media using it's power to castigate the poor, downtrodden conservatives who are wielding the sword of truth and the shield of good government.

I wonder if Hinderaker has to hide out to write these posts. There is no way he could be doing this with a straight face:

JOHN adds: It's an astonishing thing. There is only one really significant point about the Plame story: former Ambassador Joe Wilson lied about his own trip to Niger in the pages of the New York Times, as part of the Democratic Party's effort to bring down the Bush administration. This fact cannot be seriously disputed, yet it is virtually blacked out in the mainstream media.

Except the "Wilson lied" claim has been seriously disputed and DISPROVED. Wilson said that at the behest of the Veep's office, the CIA was asked to send someone to investigate the Niger uranium issue. The CIA sent Wilson. There is no lie.

But even Wilson had been lying, it still doesn't explain the need to go after Wilson's wife. All the conservatives had to do was prove that Wilson didn't tell the truth about the Niger uranium issue.

Only they couldn't. Because Wilson wasn't lying.

They were.

Posted by Carla at 10:37 AM |

One Nation Under... Corporations

An interesting, in a geeky way, story this morning on Yahoo caught my interest.

Biggest Wi-Fi Cloud Is in Rural Oregon is an AP piece about wireless local area computer networks. The entire point of Wi-Fi is to allow mobile devices such as laptop computers and PDA's access a local network wirelessly. The coverage area for a Wi-Fi LAN is called a "cloud". Alright... enough geek-speak.

The AP story relates how the largest Wi-Fi cloud in the nation is found in northeastern Oregon. Which is very handy for onion farmer Bob Hale.

"Parked alongside his onion fields, Bob Hale can prop open a laptop and read his e-mail or, with just a keystroke, check the moisture of his crops."

'"Outside the cloud, I can't even get DSL," said Hale. "When I'm inside it, I can take a picture of one of my onions, plug it into my laptop and send it to the Subway guys in San Diego and say, 'Here's a picture of my crop.'"'

So why does Morrow County, which doesn't have a single traffic light, spans 2,000 square miles and is home to only 11,000 residents have access to the biggest Wi-Fi cloud in the nation?

The short answer is: politics. The long answer is: corporate ownership of politicians. And you are paying the price.

Consider the town of Hermiston, the county seat of neighboring Hermiston County, which borders Morrow County and is covered by the Wi-Fi cloud. Their police department has been able to reduce overtime pay because officers are now able to file crime reports from their cars rather than having to drive into the station and rack up overtime writing up reports at the end of their shifts. Guess who pays for that overtime. Citizens pay it via taxes.

The possibilities for Wi-Fi are virtually endless. But, big corporations which are racking in $$$ with competing systems for internet access such as DSL and Cable, such access is only one small part of what Wi-Fi offers, have put up stiff resistance to efforts to introduce large-scale Wf-Fi clouds to heavily populated metropolitan areas.

In Philadelphia, for instance, plans to blanket the entire city with Wi-Fi fueled a battle in the Pennsylvania legislature with Verizon Communications Inc., leading to a law that limits the ability of every other municipality in the state to do the same.

One Nation Under... Corporations and their legislative stooges. And YOU are paying the bill.

Posted by Kevin at 10:20 AM |

D'oh! Those crazy Minutemen

The Minutemen weren't welcome in Vermont. Protestors told them they weren't wanted, that their valiant attempts to save our Great Nation against the hordes of swarthy immigrants was a cover for racism.

What's a protector of the American Way (of Life) to do?

Get lost, that's what.

Some of the men stood at a break in the path, which is crossed by the Canadian border close to where they stood. But the group's leader, Bob Casimiro of Weymouth, Mass., was not sure which way to send them.

He pointed down the path toward a footbridge. The Minutemen started walking.

''Stay within sight," he told them. Within minutes, they were out of sight.

Just what we need. More time and resources wasted rescuing a bunch of Clint Eastwood wannabes from the woodlands of New England.

''National security is a big part of this," said [executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform]. ''As far as I'm concerned, I don't care where it is, I just want the border secured. We cannot survive as a nation with porous borders like that. It affects our economy, and it affects our culture. We're just rapidly becoming a nation other than the one I grew up in."

You know, I was going to trash this comment and call it bigoted, but then I remembered that the Wampanoags, the Apache, the Lakota, and every other First Nation on this continent felt the same way. If only they had something like the Minutemen. Not THE Minutemen of the time, who didn't give a fig about the First Nations, but their own version.

Back on the bike path, the three Minutemen trudged on in the rain. Finally, they knocked on Amy Audet's door to ask directions.

The border, she told them, was in the opposite direction.

Priceless.

Posted by at 07:58 AM |

October 16, 2005

The latest scuttle on the Plame investigation

For those who just can't get enough opinionated analysis of the most minute details I offer a couple of very interesting analysis of what's going on in special prosecutor Fitzgerald's Grand Jury. And although I rarily read it, a hat tip to Power Line for both of these links:

First is Andrew McCarthy who is apparently a friend of Fitzgerals and a former prosecutor himself.

Next is JustOneMinute where speculation is that Rove's chances of being indicted are 50/50 while Libby's chances are much higher.

Posted by Kevin at 09:00 PM |

October 15, 2005

How to sell yourself into slavery...by Vox Day

Via Amanda, I came across this ridiculous, Dobsonesque, he-man/woman-hater piece of rightwing advice by an man sporting the handle Vox Day.

Vox Day opines the loss of the subservience of women to their uterus and wonders out loud why any woman would be so foolish as to wait more than two decades to wait for motherhood:

And a woman foolish enough to wait more than two decades before attempting to have children has no one to blame but herself. As for the likelihood that the technological future will eventually solve such problems, it is worth noting that no society that possesses artificial wombs, robot sex dolls, multiplayer video games and 24-hour sports networks is one in which men are likely to show a tremendous amount of interest in relationships or the opposite sex.

There you have it, ladies. It's your own fault if you wait until your breasts begin to succumb to gravity to let a man knock you up. If you're not looking sexy enough to get him to put down the remote control or the PS2 controller long enough to inseminate you, it's your own damn problem. You should have been barefoot and pregnant during those years you wasted in college.

But Vox doesn't leave young women hanging. He offers up his advice to get your man early and often:

1. Don't engage in casual dating relationships after 18. They're fun, and they'll also prevent you from pursuing more fruitful relationships.

So if you do manage to get into a good college...your goal had better to be to find a potentially rich guy who'll knock you up in a hurry before you breach the magic age of 20. Don't forget..ESPN is only a remote click away. Gotta get busy before Sportscenter comes on.

2. Make those potential long-term relationships your top priority. If you put college or your job first, there's a reasonable chance that a job is all you'll have at 40 ... and 60. Consider the president's new Supreme Court nominee. The unmarried and childless Creepy McCrypto is on the verge of becoming one of the two most powerful professional women in the country – does she really represent the ideal American woman?

"The ideal American woman..."? Does this guy masturbate to reruns of Leave It To Beaver? Apparently Vox (who claims to be a member of Mensa, btw) didn't bother to access his alledgedly vast intellectual skills to study at any length the life and career of Sandra Day O'Connor who is married and has 3 children, along with her SCOTUS career. But even more stupidly insulting is the idea that somehow a woman can't enjoy a life of intellectual pursuits because this might yield an empty bed and empty womb. Somehow a man is able to manage this life. But a woman cannot. What utter hogwash.

3.Settle earlier rather than later. I can't tell you how many women I know who blew off good men in their late teens and early 20s who now regret doing so. Those who are not still single at 35 are now married to men generally considered to be of lower quality than the men they spurned before. Remember, your choices narrow as you get older, while men's choices broaden.

Here's some real advice: Don't settle at all. Be with the person that you love and who loves you. You deserve it. And do it when you're ready..not when some troglodyte faux Mensa libertarian says so.

4. Let everyone know that marriage and children is your ultimate goal. Too many women, fearing the wrath of the Sisterhood, secretly wish for them while publicly and piously professing feminist-approved cant to the contrary.

What this creep knows about feminism and sisterhood could fit on the head of a pin. Feminism is about choices. It's about empowering women to take control of their lives and do what's right for them. While it might make Mr. Vox feel manly and superior to give marriage priority women his lame-assed list of how to get knocked up by 20, it's about as anti-empowering as it gets. If Vox is really interested in making the lives of marriage priority women easier, he could direct his mysogonistic energies into healing his own skewed view of women.

Vox has a total of 10 pieces of advice ranging from severely distrubed to mildly amusing. The idea that a young woman who wants marriage and family to be a priority would follow these pieces of utter crap is sad indeed. Not only would she sell herself short by "settling" for whatever she can at an early age...she's undercut her own ability to make good decisions about her life.

Women whose main goal is to get married and have a family should definitely work toward that pursuit. But marriage is a commitment not to be taken lightly (and should be considered for life if at all possible)..and children are a lifetime commitment. Choosing an individual to spend the rest of your life with is not an easy decision for a mature, capable woman who's seen her fair share..let alone a girl barely out of her teens. Advising young women to "settle" early is not only irresponsible..it's downright wrong.

And exactly when does Vox Day hold men to this same type of advice? Should marriage priority men be 'settling' early? After all...when men get older their sperm loses motility and the chances of impregnating a woman drop quite a bit. Should these men be giving their remotes and PS2's a batterectomy in an effort to attract a sweet, young thing who can sire a litter?

Posted by Carla at 12:35 PM |

Abu Graib On The Bayou?

Getting worked up about violations of prisoner's civil rights isn't always easy. After all, they were found guilty and sentenced - they're criminals, right? Why should anyone get worked up if some rapist or child molestor gets the rough end of the stick while in prison?

But what if I told you the prisoners in question were arrested for such minor offenses as sleeping in public, begging and public intoxication? What about if they were never actually found guilty but are still waiting to be brought before a judge? Even if found guilty, they would only have spent 10 days at most in jail. Many would have been released on bond and some would never have been prosecuted. What if many of these prisoners are being abused in custody and seem to have been arrested on trumped-up charges just to provide cheap work-crews for messy, back-breaking and oftimes hazardous clean-up duties?

Would you feel differently then?

Cernig over at NewsHog has the rest of this intriguing story.

Posted by Kevin at 09:04 AM |

October 14, 2005

Question for armchair economists

Here's a question that's been rattling around my head since Monday: What kind of impact does massive private individual donations to foreign disaster relief have on our domestic economy?

I mean... if all of that money was basically money that could be spared, what might have been purchased with it which would have helped drive our economy. Alternately... if it was a sizable portion of discretionary (thanks, Spyder) cash then wouldn't that necessarily limit the amount of domestic discretionary spending on basically "wants" rather than "needs"?

I'm not at all against digging deep to help someone in need. It's not about that. I'm just curious how it impacts our economy.

I guess what sparked it was a piece I heard on NPR as I was driving home work and they rattled off all of these major natural disasters over the last year or so - the Tsunami in Asia, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the recent earthquake in Pakistan. So I wondered what the cummulative effect of all that very generous giving will be. The hurricanes of course were domestic. So, that's a matter of shuffling money. Sure, it probably had a regional effect. But, not in terms of the overall economy. Or at least not much. But, the Tsunami and now the earthquake are situations where money is being pumped out of our economy and into another economy.

Posted by Kevin at 01:16 PM |

Bush in the hood

From the "Today" show this morning:

RUSSERT: And Matt, the most astounding number in this: 2 percent – just 2 percent - of African-Americans give George Bush a positive rating for his performance as President. The memories of Katrina very much in their minds.

Russert clearly has spent extensive time inside the minds of African-Americans. But nothing like the outreach program W is about to start himself:

Give it up for DJ 2%! Rock da house, POTUS!

Posted by Jeff at 12:40 PM |

Humility

Wednesday and Thursday were huge days for me at work. I gave lectures to upwards of 150 people per day on those two days. And they were good. I was definitely on my game.

Driving home from work on those two days I was really patting myself on the back. I am a woman who gets to help shape the opinions and ideas of thousands of people every year. I'm a powerful person! People at my work respect me!

I looked in my mirror last evening completely confident of my self importance and elevated status in the world.

This morning when I got up I had to clean dog puke off of the kitchen floor, almost stepping in it before I got it wiped up. I just finished cleaning two toilets and two showers. I also wiped out my oven and cleaned out my refrigerator.

Later I'll scrub my kitchen and dining room floors.

The most powerful thing about me today is my smell..from sweating while doing all this housework.

Posted by Carla at 12:19 PM |

Support Miers

I think that Democrats should support Harriet Miers nomination as an Associate Justice. Perhaps doing so would be a gamble for them. But, I think it's one worth taking and here's why.

The LA Times has a very interesting piece today which suggests that the scant paper trail we do have for Ms. Miers, her writings as head of the Texas Bar Association, reveals "a glint of liberalism." It is that same scant paper trail that has conservatives so nervous, and for good reason. As president of the State Bar Miers...

• called for increased funding for legal services for the poor and suggested that taxes might have to be raised to achieve the notion of "justice for all."


• used her monthly column in the Texas Bar Journal to condemn politicians who were trying to score points by disparaging the legal profession. She suggested the criticism was myopic, and noted that it was coming, by and large, from Republicans.


• praised the benefits of diversity, called for measures that would send more minority students to law schools, and said that just because a woman was the head of the state bar did not mean that "all unfair barriers for women have been eradicated."


• was upset that although poverty was rising in Texas, impoverished families received a disproportionately small share of welfare and Medicaid benefits.


• was an unapologetic defender of her profession, even the oft-maligned "trial lawyer."

"Lawyers are about seeking the truth, preserving a system to achieve fairness and justice and protecting the freedom of individuals against the tyranny of the majority view," she wrote.

As the LAT piece notes, Ms. Miers is believed to have undergone something of a political evolution since those days. But, long-time friends state that, "She's just not an ideologue."

Consider the Bush White House's strategy thus far. They're holding her religious faith up as a reason why conservatives should support her. But, so what if she's an evangelical! So what if her church is almost universally pro-life as Rove via Dobson suggest! Isn't ex-prez Jimmy Carter an evangelical? Isn't the demonination that Jimmy Carter proudly associates with (Southern Baptist Convention) almost universally pro-life, not to mention pro-GOP?

Other than her religious affiliation, what has the White House offered by way of assurances to their conservative base? They say to trust Bush. That's it! There is nothing that I can see which supports the notion that Ms. Miers would tilt the court to the right. And frankly, there is zero chance that Bush will nominate an open liberal to the court. It won't happen!

Look at Bush's continually eroding approval ratings. He has every incentive in the world to regain popular support however he can. And if throwing a bone to the vast swath of moderate Americans is in fact what he's trying to do with the Miers nomination, what possible political advantage could opposing Ms. Miers give Democrats?

I think it would be as foolish for Democrats to to react in a knee-jerk fashion to Harriet Miers religious affiliation as it would be for Republicans. So far most conservative Republicans seem all too aware that Ms. Miers' affiliation guarantees absolutely nothing in terms of "judicial philosophy." If Democrats are serious about regaining political power then they can't afford to continue to ceed realistic strategy to the conservatives like they've done for the past decade.

The Harriet Miers nomination offers a superb opportunity for Democrats to frame a huge swath of the GOP power structure as extremist hypocrites more interested in enforcing their narrow ideology upon the nation than they are in governing... which, incidently, is the task to which most of them were actually elected to do.

Let a huge chunk of Senate conservatives vote against Ms. Miers. If the Dems get behind her and cooperate with the other Senate Republicans in confirming Ms. Miers... that will effectively frame the conservatives better than just about anything Democrats could do between now and the mid-term elections next year.

What do Democrats have to lose?

Posted by Kevin at 09:30 AM |

2% equals...?

A new NBC/WSJ poll has President Bush's job approval rating among blacks at 2% according to a WaPo column by Dan Froomkin.

There's some question as to the validity of that number. A new PEW poll has it at 12% (PDF warning). If we average the two figures we still come up with an astounding 7%.

"African Americans were not supporters, but I don't think that they outright detested him -- until now," Hart said. "The actions in and around Katrina persuaded African Americans that this was a president who was totally insensitive to their concerns and their needs."

With the hot spotlight of public attention already shining on spinmeister Karl Rove, limiting his capacity to spin anything, what are the implications for 2006?

Posted by Kevin at 07:43 AM |

October 13, 2005

Rubber! You're glue!

Tom DeLay is sweating bullets.

How do I know this?

Republicans attack where they themselves are weakest. DeLay has put this ad (Bad Ronnie, Bad) into heavy rotation on the Texas airwaves.

The ad claims that Earle is a corrupt, out-of-control politico.

Which is essentially like Kate Moss complaining that Courtney Love is a drug addict.

The ad doesn't seem to be keeping Earle from continuing to pursue DeLay.

Posted by Carla at 09:15 PM |

You've Come A Long Way, Ladies

If Dear Leader was hoping to rally the vaginally endowed with his selection of a woman as his latest SCOTUS nominee, Tina Brown makes it her business to disabuse him of that notion:

It's easy to forget that Margaret Thatcher -- whose "Don't go wobbly on me, George" famously stiffened the spine of Bush One before the Persian Gulf War in 1990 -- was there first, even down to a husband who was not so much invisible as comical. England's Iron Lady celebrates her 80th birthday tonight with a guest list dominated by the adoring circle of powerful male admirers whose loyalty she rewarded with seats in the House of Lords when she was prime minister.

The former chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Lord Palumbo, who lunched with Mrs. T six months ago, told me recently what she said when he asked her if, given the intelligence at the time, she would have made the decision to invade Iraq. "I was a scientist before I was a politician, Peter," she told him carefully. "And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof -- and then you check, recheck and check again. The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."

Happy Birthday, Lady T -- and hail to you and all the women who've gone before! You won us the freedom to say that if opting for a Harriet Miers means we risk getting not just a sycophant but a stem-cell-banning, abortion-denying, Bible-thumping presidential sycophant, maybe we'd just as soon have a guy.

Indeed.

But just to set Tina straight: appointing sycophantic, stem-cell banning, anti-choice Bible thumpers is what Bush does.

It's a demonstration of how far we've come however that women don't feel compelled to support Miers just because she lacks a penis.

Posted by Carla at 08:52 PM |

The weather's going to hell

The survivors of the 7.6 earthquake in Pakistan are facing a serious winter threat.

Survivors of the biggest earthquake to hit northern Pakistan and India in 100 years face being cut off before help reaches them as the approach of winter brings snows which will close roads not already damaged, Oxfam said.

Snow is starting to fall on the Indian side of divided Kashmir, just across the line of control from where the 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck near the Pakistani city of Muzaffarabad on Oct. 8. The official winter season begins in two days, Oxfam said in an e-mailed press release.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf last night conceded the government had been slow in sending relief to the region after the quake, which killed more than 24,000 in both countries. He blamed damaged roads and destroyed communications in the north, the most mountainous region in the world. The delay raises the risk of survivors being trapped without aid.

This means that the aid that's been collected so far may not do any good unless we can get supplies there.

One thing the quake did was push the rivalry between Pakistan and India to the back burner, at least for a while.

KOLKATA, India, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Hundreds of people joined an emotional prayer meeting in eastern India on Thursday to mourn the victims of last week's earthquake that killed thousands in rival Pakistan.

You can donate money to disaster relief efforts at the Red Cross.

Muslim, Hindu, Christian and Sikh priests read from their holy scriptures, sang hymns and lit joss sticks at a Catholic church in Kolkata, formerly Calcutta, in the memory of the people killed by the quake centred in Kashmir.

"Our hearts go out to all of those who lost their lives and our condolences to their families," Idris Ali, president of the All India Minority Forum said.

"We specially prayed for our bereaved brothers and sisters in Pakistan."

About 300 people attended the prayer meeting, some of whom were visibly distraught and moved to tears when speakers mentioned the plight of the earthquake victims.

Ali said they were collecting donations and relief materials to be sent to the affected regions.

Mexico and Central America are still struggling with the aftermath of floods and mudslides from Hurricane Stan.

Guatemala was hit hardest, with 654 known victims, likely be considerably more with the 1,400 disappeared in regions buried under tons of mud.

A similar situation exists in El Salvador, complicated by the eruption of Ilamatepec Volcano and more than 70 persons dead.

The torrential rains also ravaged parts of Mexico, with 42 dead, 29 in the state of Chiapas where a river of mud buried the town of Belisario Dominguez, even as Stan left 11 dead in Nicaragua and seven in Honduras.

Stan's passage through the region destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes, miles and miles of highways and roads, and dozens of bridges, and authorities estimate it will be a long time before the damaged infrastructures are repaired.

The US and other nations are sending aid.  Cuba is also sending help. The island nation is sending doctors.

Guatemala, Oct 12 (Prensa Latina) A brigade of 100 Cuban doctors has arrived to assist the victims of tropical storm Stan in Guatemala, where there are now more than half a thousand collaborators from this country.

The health professionals are part of the "Henry Reeve" Specialized Contingent in Natural Disasters and Serious Epidemics, from which another two groups integrated of 100 doctors each travelled to Guatemala last Saturday and Sunday.

If you want to donate to disaster relief efforts, you can do so at the Red Cross.

Posted by at 07:38 AM |

Paragraph of the day

Speaking of loyalty and the Bushes, have you noticed that many of the same partisans who said Democrats should shut up, sit back and respect President Bush's choice when he nominated John Roberts rapidly abandoned that respect-the-president philosophy as soon as Harriet Miers' name came up?--Scott Maxwell, Orlando Sentinel

Posted by Carla at 06:48 AM |

Fascism: it's not your Fatherland's socialism

Dave Niewert at Orcinus writes one of the most intelligent blogs on the internets. If you're not reading him on a regular basis, you're cheating yourself out of a constant and consistent education.

In today's piece, Dave slays the rightwing dragon of fascism as a leftwing phenom:

So, let's do a reality check: Both Hitler and Mussolini pretended to have socialist aspirations as part of their propaganda efforts during their rise to power, largely as a way of encouraging working-class support. But they were unquestionably right wing politically by the time they obtained power, and in fact were viciously anti-left-wing as well.

Those who repeat the "Nazis were socialists" claim are, in fact, falling for (and repeating) Nazi propaganda from the 1920s.

Mussolini was indeed an active socialist at the beginning of his political career. But he was remarkable for shifting his alliances and adjusting his ideology accordingly as he climbed the ladder of power; and by the time he had completed his climb, he was an outspoken and lethal anti-socialist.

Hitler's fascists, somewhat in contrast, only adopted a limited socialist rhetoric as a sop to its efforts to recruit from the working class. Hitler quickly jettisoned these aspects of the party as he obtained power, particularly in forming a ruling coalition with conservative corporatists. There was little doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were devoutly anti-leftist: their Brownshirts made a career of physically attacking socialists and communists wherever they gathered, and the first people sent to the concentration camp at Dachau in 1933-34 were socialist and communist political leaders.

This particular myth has been quite a craw sticker for me. Dave's demonstration of the folly of this argument (not to mention the regurgitation by the rightwing of Hitler's own talking points) is excellent.

My first baby steps into the chatroom fray began in the old Newsroom at America Online. I have vivid memories of the rightwing AOL whackos pixeling on and on about fascism's leftwing roots. They've been spoonfed this pap over and over without bothering to fact check their Limbaugh.

Most likely, many of these lost souls still embrace that same belief today. It's easy to turn on the radio and blissfully soak up the LimbaughHannityO'Reilly sludge. It's simple and it doesn't require much in the way of higher cognition to buy into it.

The unfortunate side effect of having a brain soaked in this tar however, is a complete inability to see real fascism: nation/party above the individual, loyalty to a single leader and submission to nationalism and a corporatist state (legislative power given to corporations and these same corporations have a critical role in the governmental decision making process).

That definition is eerily familiar....

Posted by Carla at 06:41 AM |

October 12, 2005

USMC captain in Control Room film labeled "TRAITOR?" for taking job at Aljazeera

No shame whatsoever:

During the October 11 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, the network suggested that former Marine Corps captain Josh Rushing may be a "traitor" for taking a job with Qatar-based news network Aljazeera. While co-host Alan Colmes was promoting Rushing's upcoming appearance on the show, saying that "a former U.S. Marine captain will be here to defend his decision to take a job at a television network that is frequently criticized for its anti-American coverage," a picture of Rushing appeared on the screen, with text below it asking, "TRAITOR?"

No wonder the nation so strongly feels we're headed on the wrong track.

(via Atrios)

Posted by Carla at 04:36 PM |

Laura Bush on Harriet Miers

The White House's strategy for propelling Harriet Miers thru Senate confirmation is leaving some scratching their heads. Let 'em scratch. What caught my attention in this USA Today (via Yahoo) piece was a statement by Laura Bush:

The White House also has suggested the criticism of Miers' credentials smacks of sexism. In an interview Tuesday on NBC's Today show, first lady Laura Bush - who encouraged her husband to nominate a woman - said, "I think that's possible" when asked whether questions about Miers' legal intellect were sexist.

Well, obviously the reverse is equally possible. If Ms. Miers was nominated more because she has a vagina than because of her legal intellect then that is sexism too. If anything it's more condescending because it presumes that she's just not capable of more than being a token vagina for political purposes.

Posted by Kevin at 04:29 PM |

October 11, 2005

The mystery of ultra-skinny women

I will be away most of the day at a work thing. I won't be back to post until late this afternoon.

In the meantime, I've noticed that among the list of things the Hollywood crowd does differently than most of us is weight.

What is sexy about that? This woman looks like a walking skeleton to me.

I'm not obese by any stretch of the imagination. But I wouldn't be considered petite, either. I've got curves. But I haven't met many men who would take a skinny, bony woman over one with some meat on her bones.

Sure they have pretty make-up and someone has fixed their hair up nice. But who wants to wrap their arms around a bag of bones?

I just don't get the attraction.

Posted by Carla at 09:02 PM |

Oh yes He does

When we think of God smiting stuff...it's usually with a plague or pestilence..or some kind of badass weather.

But how often does God smote stuff for the common good?

Angels 5, Yankees 3

Thank you mighty Creator. You just may get this Deist to believe in intercession.

Posted by Carla at 03:35 PM |

Is he talking about Iraq or the US?

Boston Globe:

They want to bring down our government, bring down our entire economy. They want to put in place a huge theocracy."

Mitt must be watching all the reruns of Justice Sunday starring

Tony Perkins

Who doesn't seem all that removed to me from Anthony Perkins character in Psycho:

They have the same name and they even part their hair the same way.

I'm just saying...

Posted by Carla at 11:09 AM |

Oh George...you're so dreamy!

This makes me want to gag:

"You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect," Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997. She also found him "cool," said he and his wife, Laura, were "the greatest!" and told him: "Keep up the great work. Texas is blessed."

I still havent' decided what I think about Miers on the SCOTUS. But please..."the best governor ever.."?

Coupled with this:

In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.

I'm starting to wonder if Miers hero worship of Dear Leader is bordering on psychosis.

Creepy.

Posted by Carla at 08:44 AM |

October 10, 2005

Do the right thing...but how?

Being a liberal in a family of rightwing Christian conservatives can be a trying experience. It's especially trying, I think, for my daughter.

I've tried to raise my children to be open to the ideas and beliefs of everyone. Not necessarily to take the beliefs as their own. But to allow themselves the opportunity to understand and be empathetic to what other people go through and why. I've also attempted to provide a strong moral code borne not of religion but of a belief that doing the right thing yields good and doing the wrong thing yields evil.

Last weekend we went out to visit my sister. As I've blogged before, she and I have extremely different attitudes about child rearing. My daughter is very sensitive to their beliefs and doesn't wish to offend. But at the same time doesn't want to be made to feel like she's bad or "less than" for doing something that in our family view breaches no moral or ethical standard.

This brings me to a discussion I had with my daughter on the drive out to my sister's:

Daughter: Mom..what do I say when B (her cousin, my sister's son) asks me what I'm going to be for Halloween?

Me: You tell him what you're planning to be for Halloween. He's asking you so you tell him the truth.

Daughter: But Mom, when I tell him I'm going to be a witch, he'll say that's evil and bad.

Me: Do you think being a witch is evil and bad?

Daughter: It depends on if you're a good witch or a bad witch.

Me: Well..I think you can say that to him. I also think you can talk with him about people having the ability to use their talents to do good or to use their talents to do evil.

Daughter: But his family believes all witchcraft and witches are evil and bad.

Me: Maybe you could use this as an opportunity to share your own beliefs with your cousin. After all, you know all about his beliefs. It doesn't seem like he gets to hear about your's very often.

Daughter: What if Auntie gets upset for me telling him something that his Mom and Dad don't want him to believe?

Me: I guess you'll have to let me know and I'll talk to her.

I wish I had greater words of wisdom for my child. I don't know how you explain to a girl that the people she loves are intolerant and closed minded. I don't know which words to give her to let her feel free to talk about herself with her relatives without her being in danger of being scathed by them. She already expects them to be intolerant. But I don't know how to make sure she gets through the experience of their intolerance toward her beliefs without feeling crushed.

Or if I can at all, for that matter.

Posted by Carla at 03:04 PM |

Meet the F**ckers...or how Howard Stern is getting the shaft

So there I was listening to Howard Stern while commuting to work Friday morning. Stern, of course, has had numerous conflicts with the FCC over alleged indecency. Knowing this background, I found the comments of one caller very interesting. The caller said the transcripts of the segments for which Stern and others have been fined are all available online on the FCC's website and that the transcripts are readily available to young children. So I decided to see if that was true.

First I tracked down the FCC website and found the search function for the site. Sure enough, I easily found transcripts for a broadcast of the Howard Stern show for which the FCC levied a $495,000 fine. I just plugged "ass, stern" into the handy dandy FCC search engine and there it was at the top of the list.

Then I remembered Carla's post about anti-abortion activist and facilitator of home-grown anti-abortion terrorists Neal Horsley's on-air comments during an interview on the Alan Colmes radio show (part of FOX News) about having engaged in bestiality when he was growing up. More to the point, Horsley's on-air statement that, "...If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it" struck me as rather gratuitous and arguably much more information than was necessary to make his point.

So I decided to see if I could find out how much the FCC had fined FOX News for Horsley's comments. Nothing. Apparently nobody deemed his comments offensive or indecent, which I find... curious.

Having struck out on Horsely's graphic rationale for having had sex with a Mule, I decided to test how easily a young child could access the transcripts that the FCC found so offensive and indecent as to warrant half million dollar fines. Especially since a key reason cited by the FCC for fining under these statutes is the possibility that children could be exposed to indecent content. I limited myself to the same 6:00 AM thru 10:00 PM timeframe that the FCC has decided is when kids are most likely to be exposed to "indecent" content.

I have internet access thru AOL and one of the perks that AOL offers is parental controls so that parents can censor or restrict what their kids can access while online. There are four default settings available:

• Kids only, 12 & under


• Young Teen, 13 - 15


• Mature Teen, 16 & 17


• General, 18 & over

Each default setting can be fine-tuned by the parent. But, I decided to keep it simple and just go with whatever restrictions AOL had for each setting. Creating new screen names each with a different parental control setting was easy enough. Here's what I found:

On the most restrictive setting, for kids age 12 and under, I easily accessed the FCC search engine and opened up this transcript of graphic a rap song about anal and group sex. I was unable to open up any .wp (Word Perfect) files or any .pdf files due to the restrictions AOL imposed. But that only proved to be a minor inconvenience because other fully accessible formats were listed alongside the prohibited formats. In fact, many of the transcripts appear to be available in several different formats. So, the .wp and .pdf restrictions didn't seem to prevent me from accessing any transcripts during my brief search.

On the next most restrictive setting, for kids ages 13 to 15, I easily found and accessed this transcript of an unedited version of "Erotic City" by Prince which had been broadcast in Arizona.

On the least restrictive setting, for 16 and 17 year old teenagers, I easily found and opened this transcript about implied bestiality. This one is interesting in part because the complaints were against FOX television stations Inc., and in part because the FCC determined that the implied bestiality was NOT indecent.

This last one is interesting because it was a televised segment. The FCC cited in part the fact that the prostitute remained fully clothed and was never shown actually approaching the horse, as reasons why it wasn't in violation of indecency laws. This rationale would seem to beg the question of: Why was Howard Stern found in violation for this RADIO broadcast of bestiality? Obviously nobody actually saw the woman in the Stern segment approach a dog, and she certainly was never shown without her clothes on.

If merely describing gratuitous sex acts in an open forum is indecent... then isn't the FCC itself in violation of decency standards? Maybe they're even in violation of the new Children's Internet Protection Act if public schools and libraries don't do a better job of censoring than AOL's parental settings do.

And why wasn't Horsley's "...If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it" comment censored while saying crap seven times was? Rationalizing bestiality won't corrupt young children but hearing the word "crap" a few times will?

Which is the more natural human bodily function - taking a crap or porking farm animals?

And why is FOX getting a pass while Stern and others get the shaft?

Posted by Kevin at 02:59 PM |

Another reason it sucks to be a Republican

The Repubs are having some trouble recruiting good candidates for upcoming races:

Promising candidates in states as disparate as Florida, West Virginia and Nebraska have spurned pleas from the White House and party officials. The latest came last week, when Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) decided not to run for the Senate against the longtime Democratic incumbent, Robert C. Byrd, despite an intense drive to recruit her.

"The wind is not at our back, it's in our face," said Glen Bolger, a GOP pollster. "If you're a candidate making an assessment about challenging an incumbent, having wind in your face is clearly a negative factor in the decision."

The string of rejections comes as some conservative leaders have been deeply demoralized by Bush's nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court. That has added to GOP fears that two key elements of Rove's plan for expanding the Republican majority — recruiting strong candidates and mobilizing the party base — could be unraveling.

That anxiety heightened amid new speculation that Rove could face criminal charges from an investigation into who disclosed the identity of a CIA operative to journalists in mid-2003.

The Miers thing appears to be the single greatest schism-causing factor for the Republican Party in quite some time. Whether or not you think Miers should be seated on the bench, it's objectively noteable that her nomination is ripping at the fabric of the GOP. The fact that they're fraying coupled with Bush's unpopularity and the "stay the course" attitude of the leadership is creating a series of anvils for them.

Interestingly..the recruitment story was written up on the same day in another paper:

Republican politicians in multiple states have recently decided not to run for Senate next year, stirring anxiety among Washington operatives about the effectiveness of the party's recruiting efforts and whether this signals a broader decline in GOP congressional prospects.

Prominent Republicans have passed up races in North Dakota and West Virginia, both GOP-leaning states with potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Earlier, Republican recruiters on Capitol Hill and at the White House failed to lure their first choices to run in Florida, Michigan and Vermont.

These setbacks have prompted grumbling. Some Republican operatives, including some who work closely with the White House, privately point to what they regard as a lackluster performance by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the group that heads fundraising and candidate recruitment for GOP senators.

But some strategists more sympathetic to Dole point the finger right back. With an unpopular war in Iraq, ethical controversies shadowing top Republicans in the House and Senate, and President Bush suffering the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, the waters look less inviting to politicians deciding whether to plunge into an election bid. Additionally, some Capitol Hill operatives complain that preoccupied senior White House officials have been less engaged in candidate recruitment than they were for the 2002 and 2004 elections. These sources would speak only on background because of the sensitivity of partisan strategies.

Will the Democrats be able to capitalize?

Posted by Carla at 09:13 AM |

October 09, 2005

Why?

Dean over at Today's Democracy asks why a president Bush pardoned any of these individuals:

• Gene Armand Bridger, Elkhart, Ind. Offense: Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and mail fraud; 18 U.S.C. 2, 371, and 1341. Sentence: May 29, 1963; Western District of Michigan; five years probation
• Cathryn Iline Clasen-Gage, Rockwall, Texas
  Offense: Misprision of a felony; 18 U.S.C. 4.
  Sentence: Aug. 21, 1992; Northern District of Texas; 18 months imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
• Thomas Kimble Collinsworth, Buckner, Ark.
  Offense: Receipt of a stolen motor vehicle that had been transported in interstate commerce; 18 U.S.C. 2313.
  Sentence: Aug. 22, 1989; Western District of Arkansas; three years probation and a $5,000 fine.
• Morris F. Cranmer, Jr., Little Rock, Ark.
  Offense: Making materially false statements to a federally-insured institution; 18 U.S.C. 1014.
  Sentence: March 30, 1988; Eastern District of Arkansas; Nine months incarceration in a community correctional facility, with the condition that he work for the Arkansas Department of Health.
• Rusty Lawrence Elliott, Mount Pleasant, Tenn.
  Offense: Making counterfeit Federal Reserve notes; 18 U.S.C. 471.
  Sentence: April 26, 1991; Western District of Missouri; 12 months and one day imprisonment; two years supervised release, and a $500 fine.
• Adam Wade Graham, Salt Lake City, Utah
  Offense: Conspiracy to deliver 10 or more grams of LSD; 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(v), and 846.
  Sentence: Nov. 23, 1992; District of Wyoming; 30 months imprisonment, later reduced to 11 months and 21 days of imprisonment, and five years supervised release conditioned upon performance of 250 hours community service.
• Rufus Edward Harris, Canon, Ga.
  Offenses: 1.) Possession of tax-unpaid whiskey; 26 U.S.C. 5205 and 2604. 2.) Possession and selling tax-unpaid whiskey; 26 U.S.C. 5601, 5604, and 5205.
  Sentence: 1.) June 17, 1963; Middle District of Georgia; two years imprisonment. 2.) May 28, 1970, amended July 24, 1973; Northern District of Georgia; five years incarceration subsequently reduced to two years probation.
• Jesse Ray Harvey, Scarbro, W.Va.
  Offense: Property damage by use of explosives and destruction of an energy facility; 18 U.S.C. 844(i) and 1366(a).
  Sentence: April 17, 1990; Southern District of West Virginia; 25 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
• Larry Paul Lenius, Moorhead, Minn.
  Offense: Conspiracy to distribute cocaine; 21 U.S.C. 846.
  Sentence: Sept. 29, 1989, District of North Dakota; 36 months probation conditioned upon three months service in community confinement and payment of $2,500 in restitution.
• Larry Lee Lopez, Bokeelia, Fla.
  Offense: Conspiracy to import marijuana; 21 U.S.C. 952 and 953.
  Sentence: July 19, 1985; Middle District of Florida; three years probation.
• Bobbie Archie Maxwell, Lansing, Mich.
  Offense: Mailing a threatening letter; 18 U.S.C. 876.
  Sentence: Sept. 6, 1962; Middle District of Georgia; 12 months probation.
• Denise Bitters Mendelkow, Salt Lake City, Utah
  Offense: Embezzlement by a bank employee; 18 U.S.C. 656.
  Sentence: May 21, 1981; District of Utah; two years probation conditioned upon payment of restitution.
• Michael John Pozorski, Schofield, Wis.
  Offense: Unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm; 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) and 5871.
  Sentence: Sept. 14, 1988; Western District of Wisconsin; four years probation conditioned upon 90 days residence in a community treatment center and payment of a $750 fine.
• Mark Lewis Weber, Sherwood, Ark.
  Offense: Selling Quaalude tablets (one specification), selling, using, and possessing marijuana (three specifications), U.C.M.J., Articles 92 and 134.
  Sentence: Aug. 20, 1981; United States Air Force general court-martial convened at Little Rock Air Force Base, Little Rock, Arkansas; 30 months confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of $334 pay per month for 30 months, reduction to the rank of airman basic, and a dishonorable discharge.

I wonder how many of them are closely related to Bush's political donors?

Posted by Kevin at 06:13 PM |

He's back

Our friend Mathew Pruitt is back online with a brand new blog: West Sound in the Center.

He recently moved to Washington state. So, all of our Northwest readers go check him out. He's one of us now.

Posted by Kevin at 12:26 AM |

October 08, 2005

The Blame Game: Now with dice!

Sent to me via email:

Austin-American Statesman:

It was precisely when the Republicans started saying not to play the blame game that Gordon Fowler and Bill Christofferson decided it was time to play it big-time.

The two yellow-dog Democrats have turned the Blame Game into a board game based on the Hurricane Katrina disaster and resulting screw-up.

"All the people who were to blame decided we shouldn't play the blame game, and we decided, 'Yes, we should, but don't blame us,' " said Fowler, an Austin writer and painter.

The Blame Game board game sells for $10 plus shipping at www.zzzingers.com, with all the money going to Hurricane Katrina victims.

Lemons..meet lemonade.

Posted by Carla at 07:03 PM |

October 07, 2005

That voice you heard came from downstairs, George

Dear Pretender President Bush,

I really must apologize.  In all of my wildest imaginings, I had no idea that you believed that God told you to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.  I just thought you were being a good minion of the Devil in your wanton invasions and occupations, which is why I always made fun of you.  (Nobody likes a brown-noser.)

In the programme Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

Now look, honey.  God told you to do no such thing, and you know it.  God tells you to do tiresome things like give to the poor and comfort the sick and fight for justice, to stop getting lots of stuff and start connecting with people.  Where's the drama in that?  God wouldn't suggest that we all go shopping after several thousand people are murdered by a pack of drooling zealots, and he'd never get with invading countries to get oil for our Hummers.  Those suggestions came from below, if you know what I mean. 

I've gotta tell you, both you and that whinging sack Osama Bin Laden are starting to irritate the Big Horned Guy Downstairs.  He's a little tired of God getting the credit for the evil you two do.  Can you for once put the credit where the credit is due?  I realize "The Devil told me do it" is cliche, but it's accurate. 

Sincerely,

Her Infernal Majesty

President-for-Life Sheelzebub

Posted by at 11:20 AM |

C'mon ride the (terra) train!

Despite the unprecedented crackdown in New York, security experts say it is impossible to completely safeguard the city's 467 subway stations.

Police officials said that they've been finding painted white bricks in subways with the warning, "If this was a bomb, you'd be dead."

But Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne said the bricks were believed to be a protest of the random bag searches.

But, I told my friends and family this week, stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting, it'll be All Terra All The Time! for the next few weeks on every news channel. BushCo. needs the mother of all diversions to distract America from pending possible indictments, DeLay's indictments, Frist's insider trading investigation, Abu Ghraib photos which may be released, the embarrassment of 9 Senators voting in favor of torture. Interesting times, indeed!

Speaking of diversions...

HE TRIES TO NESTLE HIMSELF BACK TO SLEEP. AMES NUDGES HIM.

AMES
We can't afford a war.

BREAN
We aren't going to have a war. We're going to have the
"appearance" of a war.

AMES
I'm not sure we can afford to have the "appearance" of
a war.

BREAN
What's it gonna cost?
(HE SHRUGS AND STARTS TO ROLL OVER TO GO TO SLEEP.)

AMES
But, but, but, "they" would find out.

BREAN
Who would find out?

AMES
...the... (HE GESTURES OUT OF THE WINDOW)

BREAN
The American "people"?

AMES
Yes...

BREAN
Who's gonna tell'em?

AMES
...but...

BREAN
What did they find out about the Gulf War? One shot:
one bomb, falling though the roof, building coulda been
made of Legos.

HE ROLLS OVER AGAIN.

AMES
(AS IF REHEARSING IT TO HIMSELF)
...you want us to go to War...

BREAN ROUSES HIMSELF, SHRUGS, TAKES OUT A NOTEBOOK, AND BEGINS TO WRITE.

BREAN
...that's the general idea.

AMES
Why?

BREAN
Why not, what've they ever done for us...? Also: they
sound... Ah, you see, this is why we have to mobilize
the B-2 Bomber...

AMES
...they sound what?

BREAN
Shifty. Who knows anything about em...

AMES
Hold on, hold on, hold on --

BREAN
Well, I'm gonna hold on, but you want to win this
election, you better change the subject. You wanna
change this subject, you better have a War. What do
you need? It's gotta be quick, it's gotta be dramatic,
you got to have an enemy. Okay? What do you need in
an enemy? Somebody you fear. Who do you fear?
Somebody you don't know.

AMES
Who?

BREAN
Well, I'm working on it....

Posted by Jeff at 08:01 AM |

Friday Random Ten--Cherry Edition

[This may be my first and last attempt at this. I'm thinking Norbizness may give me a mighty ass kicking on my choice of music. He may not appreciate my old-fogeyness.]

1. Bad Moon Rising, Creedence Clearwater Revival

2. Nick of Time, Bonnie Raitt

3. Hey Jude, The Beatles

4. Go Your Own Way, Fleetwood Mac

5. American Idiot, Green Day

6. The Old Apartment, Bare Naked Ladies

7. I Go Blind, Hootie and the Blowfish

8. You Really Got Me, Van Halen

9. Sugar On My Tongue, Talking Heads

10. Loves Me Like A Rock, Paul Simon

Posted by Carla at 07:27 AM |

Play the game! National Budget Simulation

Ever wondered what it was like to manage the federal budget?

National Budget Simulation

This website gives you your chance. You can either do the short or the long version.

[FYI: I did the short version. My first try yielded a $800 billion deficit increase. Feeling too much like a Republican, I tried again. This time with eliminating more of the tax breaks and making some shallow cuts in social programs..deeper cuts in the military. I ended up decreasing the deficit by $400 billion.]

Posted by Carla at 07:20 AM |

Thought for the day

As seen over at The Catharine Chronicles:

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." --Hebrews 13:2

Posted by Carla at 07:17 AM |

October 06, 2005

Breaking: Rove to testify again

Looks like Karl might be a little nervous about the way things are shaking out on the Plame situation:

AP:

Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation. The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.

The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

Is Rove hoping to get a plea? Is he rolling over on Libby?

Lawrence O'Donnel (who originally outed Rove as Matt Cooper's source on Plame) makes a prediction:

Prediction: at least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators.

One possible reason for the Rove rush to testimony?

Reuters:

The federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of a CIA operative is expected to signal within days whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, legal sources close to the investigation said on Wednesday.

When questioned, Rove's attorney Bob Luskin refuses to deny that Rove got one of the letters.

(h/t: AMERICAblog)

Posted by Carla at 12:57 PM |

Lostus Frustratus

Looks like we're back to Lostus Frustratus.

The storyline has once again moved to a snail's pace. It's practically at the soap opera level.

Last season, the flashbacks of the pre-crash lives of the Survivors seemed to build on the post-crash story. It may turn out to be the case with Locke's flashbacks from last evening as well. But the flashbacks were so lengthy that the post-crash storyline is unable to move forward.

***********WARNING: Spoiler alert!****************

The move down the hatch does have it's intrigue, however. Jack's failure (or success...who knows?) at the end of last night's episode is interesting. Now that there's a good supply of food (how is the hatch replenished?) and an ample armory, our Lords of the Flies will most assuredly have a whole new level of things to kill for.

It also seems that we know where the source for Hurley's numbers came. He must have been one of the caretakers of the hatch security system.

Is Desmond one of the bad guys? Are The Others those who formerly conducted the experiments as shown on the film or are they those who conducted experiments (and their progeny) and are now forgotten?

All this said...they're going to have to start moving the storyline along faster..or this show will go the way of Twin Peaks.

Posted by Carla at 11:36 AM |

Where nuthin' says lovin' like torturin' some Muslims!

Alabama's Senator Jeff Sessions does Alabama proud by voting in favor of torture:

Senate Supports Interrogation Limits
90-9 Vote on the Treatment of Detainees Is a Bipartisan Rebuff of the White House

The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.

Why does he endanger our troops this way? Why does he hate Amurka? Is he running for President or something?!?

Posted by Jeff at 11:18 AM |

BBC:God told me to invade Iraq--Bush

This can only be described as "bizarre":

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

I thought God quit speaking to people in the 70s after LSD went out of favor.

Posted by Carla at 08:12 AM |

The widening rift

Following the logic of Kev's post just below, the evidence of a large and expanding rift in the Republican Party is beginning to surface.

The Miers nomination has some factions of the conservative set quite clearly pissed off, perhaps rightfully so. I've been working over the last few days collecting articles about Miers. Her paper trail is indeed essentially nonexistent. But the conflicting information about Ms. Miers views on topics ranging from abortion/Roe, gay rights and poverty have got to be giving the Dobson set a heart attack.

Last night's senate vote to place strict limits on detainee interrogation techniques is a hard move away from Bush as well. 46 members of the once lock-step Republican Party voted to strip authority for the military to use "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment while in US custody.

Personally, I'm disgusted that such a law is necessary. We have to tell our President and our military that we are better than our enemies by forcing a rider on to a military spending bill. Which, if he House passes, is under threat of veto by the President because of the anti-torture language.

However it seems that a significant number of Republican Senators are disgusted too. Finally. Whether it's Bush's tanking poll numbers or a more genuine shift in public opinion, the Republican Party is no longer standing in unison behind the President or with each other.

And its going to get worse.

Posted by Carla at 07:52 AM |

October 05, 2005

Someone call FEMA

It's starting to look like conservatives in the Senate might revolt over the nomination of Ms. Miers. WaPo reports on a pair of very testy meetings between inside-the-beltway conservatives and Bush's representatives.

At one point in the first of the two off-the-record sessions, according to several people in the room, White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism." Irate participants erupted and demanded that he take it back.

What's interesting to me is how when it was Roberts' nomination that was being debated we all heard many times how Bush had won reelection and how everyone knew that he'd promised over and over to nominate "strict constructionists" and therefore Democrats and other critics ought to acquiesce to the alleged will of the people. Yet it's patently clear that the GOP elite aren't interested in whether Ms. Miers is a strict constructionist or not. This snit is about ideology!

Phyllis Schlafly summed the opposition up best by observing, "(w)e feel this is a disappointment in President Bush. If it's going to be a woman, we expected an equal heavyweight to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal stance, and we did not get that in Miss Miers."

Michael Reynolds at The Mighty Middle argues, with a heavy dose of wry humor and an unerring feel for the bottom line, that both ideological sides are playing a grand game of charades when in fact the real issue is a-b-o-r-t-i-o-n. But, given how the bulk of the conservative opposition to Ms. Miers comes from social conservatives I wonder if Abel might not be closer to the truth when he suggests that there's been a paradigm shift and that now it's about gay rights.

Of course there is always my hypothesis that Bush just isn't giving obvious enough eye winks when he tells conservatives to "trust me" about Ms. Miers.

Posted by Kevin at 11:19 PM |

Wednesday blogroll additions and shuffling

New additions to the blogroll:

Crooked Timber
In my view this is one of the best blogs on the internets. The writing is top notch and I have yet to visit there without finding something completely fascinating. If you're not reading them, you should be.

AMERICAblog
The daily laundry list of what's happening in politics makes this blog a consistent must read.

Atrios
For awhile it seemed like Atrios was phoning it in. No more. He's back to his full scale snark.

Talking Points Memo
Another great source for what's going on in politics. I'm not crazy about their TPM Cafe. But Josh Marshall seems to have great connections when it comes to breaking news.

Talk Left
Hands down the best source for law/legal related news from the left perspective.

We've also moved Jeff Huber's Pen and Sword to "must read" status. Jeff is a frequent commentor here at PK. But more importantly, his blog is one of the many uniquely leftist military blogs that monkey wrenches the "right wing soldier" conventional wisdom.

Posted by Carla at 03:16 PM |

Birds of a feather...

While perusing the Washington Post's various commentaries this morning I began to wonder if there might not be a common thread amongst the disparate issues being pitched. A common thread which might shed more light on each of the varied issues.

Indulge me for a moment...

George Will essentially argues that George W. Bush isn't bright enough to make an informed decision on the merits of a future Associate Justice Harriet Miers and that therefore Senate Republicans needn't take this nominee very seriously.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution.

Harold Meyerson points out that president Bush has a track record of favoring loyalists over conservative intellectuals.

But the conservative intellectuals have misread their president and misread their country. Four and a half years into the presidency of George W. Bush, how could they still entertain the idea that the president takes merit, much less intellectual seriousness, seriously?

Robert Samuelson observes that when Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" he was stark naked and in fact is more accurately described as furthering a "cynical conservatism" agenda.

The outlook is for tokenism. Just what conservative values Bush's approach embodies is unclear. He has not tried to purge government of ineffective or unneeded programs. He has not laid a foundation for permanent tax reductions. He has not been straightforward with the public. He has not shown a true regard for the future. He has mostly been expedient or, more pointedly, cynical.

David Ignatius tries to paint NYT reporter Judith Miller as a passionate idealist who was the victim of poor editorial control.

When Miller emerged from prison, she urged passage of a federal shield law, and she's right about that. But while we're waiting for a media-friendly Congress, we journalists should look more closely at our own rules. Reporters and their sources shouldn't determine a newspaper's agenda, much less whether a reporter should go to jail in defiance of a grand jury subpoena. That's a job for editors and their publishers.

The common thread? Judith Miller. Or, more precisely, why she spent 85 days in prison when the source that she was allegedly protecting, Scooter Libby, had already released her before she was found in contempt of court.

Kevin Featherly has written a superb essay on The Strange Case of Judith Miller which leaves one with more questions than answers. Her proffered explanation doesn't hold water, as Kevin eloquently explains. What does seem to hold water is the notion that what she was really holding out for was the agreement with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to narrowly limit the scope of what she would be questioned about. Which leaves me to wonder who Ms. Miller was really protecting?

As George W. Bush's legal council surely Ms. Miers was intimately involved in the Plamegate scandal. Which means that if Ms. Miller was protecting someone other than Scooter Libby, Ms. Miers is on a very short list of people that know who and why.

Posted by Kevin at 09:39 AM |

George Will: justify my love

I'm still sorting out my thoughts on Harriet Miers. George Will has sorted things out for himself and seems pretty pissed off:

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

Uh..no offense George, but isn't that what many said about confirming Roberts? All of a suddent that senatorial "consent" role is looking a little more important.

But Will saves his harshest rhetoric for the President himself:

He [Bush] has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

George Will has finally reached the inescapable, inevitable conclusion that many of us liberals reached ages ago: George W. Bush is an incapable, hypocritical individual who is emminently unqualified to make the important leadership decisions necessary for the President of the United States.

Unfortunately, Will is unlikely to draw the next inevitable conclusion: conservatism is rife with individuals like Bush. It has to be in order for conservatism to gain political victories.

"Cutting pork" and "less government" are the cornerstones of conservativism, but not the American electorate, in general. We Americans like our government big, expensive and flush with the ability to answer to our whims and needs. We have an inherent distrust of the private sector..and rightfully so.

As long as conservatives lower taxes, drive up the debt and keep allowing lots of government programs and pork to stay in place, they'll get elected.

Will believes Miers is completely unqualified on many levels to be elevated to the position of Supreme Court jurist. If Will is correct, it would be a fitting tribute to the inability for Bush to make competent choices/decisions. The jewel in the crown of this disastrous presidency, as it were.

Posted by Carla at 08:30 AM |

President-for-Life Sheelzebub makes supreme judgement

Your infernal majesty,

I am rather befuddled at our pretender-President's nomination of Harriet Miers.  The woman's never even been a judge.  George W. Bush (may God bless him) has stood up for fairness and justice by opposing affirmative action and promoting a meritocracy.  At least I thought he did.  Now I'm confused.

What are your requirements for a Supreme Court Justice?

Sincerely,

Wondering

Hey, Won.

People are forever asking me about old Shrubo.  But he's done something that I can sorta get with this time. 

Look, I hate affirmative action as much as the next fascist.  Fairness isn't our strength.  We thrive on being unfair, favortism, nepotism, bribery and other financial hijinks, and handing out jobs to loyal brown-nosers.  In my case, blatant link whoring did the trick. 

So I've got no problems with Harriet.  It's high time that we got someone in there who did as they were told and stopped actually interpreting the law and thinking.  That's very annoying to a despot.  We've got golf games, manicures, parties, and speaking engagements to attend.  We can't be worrying about some judge going all pinko on us and doing things like telling us we can't listen in on people's private conversations.  (How else will I discipline the folks in the NSA who step out of line?  Threatening to make them listen to random conversations about bunions and the neighbor's dog gets them on the straight and narrow double-quick. let me tell ya.)

Yes, I know some Democrats are freaking out over this, but most of them will fall into line, even if they do grill her.  Look, even old Johnny-boy got in, and he didn't even bother answering any questions or giving up any of his prior papers. 

Why on earth are you even worried about this?  Go shopping and help the economy.  Put it on your credit card.  If it's good enough for the govenment, it's good enough for you.

Posted by at 06:50 AM |

October 04, 2005

One of these things is just like the other.

Joshua Green has an excellent article on Roy Moore in Atlantic Monthly (except George Wallace's stand in the schoolhouse door was in Tuscaloosa, not Birmingham).

"Later that evening Moore was the keynote speaker at the annual conference of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative judicial group in California that is active in Christian circles. It was here, among his fellow seekers of a return to a constitutional utopia, that Moore gave the clearest glimpse of how he views himself and his crusade.

Before a room of 500 people Moore launched into the usual description of how he'd been railroaded by the federal courts. But then he stopped and announced that he'd brought something special. He turned to the giant video screen behind him and told the audience that he was going to show them his cross-examination by Bill Pryor, then the state attorney general, in the Ten Commandments case.

Cameras had been barred from the proceedings, Moore explained in a voice of deepest solemnity, but someone had sneaked in and recorded them anyway. Judging from the angle of the shot, the cameraman had hidden high above the courtroom floor. Moore had somehow managed to get hold of a bootleg tape and had extracted the scene of his cross-examination. He had superimposed the grainy video of his testimony on an American flag, fluttering in slow motion, and scored the scene with soaring orchestral music:

PRYOR: And your understanding is that the federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn't that right?
MOORE: Yes.
PRYOR: And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?
MOORE: That's right.
PRYOR: No matter what any other official says?
MOORE: Absolutely. Without—let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgment of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read.
PRYOR: The only point I am trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that in fact, if you do resume your duties as chief justice, you will continue to do that without regard to what any other official says. Isn't that right?
MOORE: ...I think you must.

When the lights came up, Moore was standing at attention with his hand over his heart, tears shining in his eyes. The audience roared.

Yes, Mr. Twain?

Then the king he hunched the duke private -- I see him do it -- and then he looked around and see the coffin, over in the corner on two chairs; so then him and the duke, with a hand across each other's shoulder, and t'other hand to their eyes, walked slow and solemn over there, everybody dropping back to give them room, and all the talk and noise stopping, people saying "Sh!" and all the men taking their hats off and drooping their heads, so you could a heard a pin fall.

And when they got there they bent over and looked in the coffin, and took one sight, and then they bust out a-crying so you could a heard them to Orleans, most; and then they put their arms around each other's necks, and hung their chins over each other's shoulders; and then for three minutes, or maybe four, I never see two men leak the way they done. And, mind you, everybody was doing the same; and the place was that damp I never see anything like it.

Then one of them got on one side of the coffin, and t'other on t'other side, and they kneeled down and rested their foreheads on the coffin, and let on to pray all to themselves. Well, when it come to that it worked the crowd like you never see anything like it, and everybody broke down and went to sobbing right out loud -- the poor girls, too; and every woman, nearly, went up to the girls, without saying a word, and kissed them, solemn, on the forehead, and then put their hand on their head, and looked up towards the sky, with the tears running down, and then busted out and went off sobbing and swabbing, and give the next woman a show. I never see anything so disgusting.

Well, by and by the king he gets up and comes forward a little, and works himself up and slobbers out a speech, all full of tears and flapdoodle about its being a sore trial for him and his poor brother to lose the diseased, and to miss seeing diseased alive after the long journey of four thousand mile, but it's a trial that's sweetened and sanctified to us by this dear sympathy and these holy tears, and so he thanks them out of his heart and out of his brother's heart, because out of their mouths they can't, words being too weak and cold, and all that kind of rot and slush, till it was just sickening; and then he blubbers out a pious goody-goody Amen, and turns himself loose and goes to crying fit to bust.

-- Huckleberry Finn, 1884

Posted by Jeff at 12:55 PM |

Parsing Democracy

Members of the interum Iraqi Parliment made a subtle yet enormous change to the draft constitution in hopes that the change will ensure passage on October 15th. At issue is exactly how the draft constitution can be legally defeated.

The interim constitution drawn up under US administrator Paul Bremer in 2003 says the following about the issue: "The general referendum will be successful and the draft constitution ratified if a majority of the voters in Iraq approve and if two-thirds of the voters in three or more governorates do not reject it."

Kurdish and Shia MP's on Sunday said that it would now take 2/3 of "registered" voters casting a no vote to defeat the constitution.

So that means that if one less than 2/3 of all eligible Sunni voters show up on election day in any one of the three provinces that the Sunni dominate, and every single one of them votes "No" on the draft constitution, that will be counted as a "Yes" vote even if every single registered voter in the other two vote against it.

This is the sort of "American ideals of freedom, liberty and spreading that around the world," which Senator Jeff Sessions (R) railed about recently... apparently.

Nearly 2000 dead and tens of thousands wounded... for this.

Aren't you proud?

Posted by Kevin at 12:07 PM |

Presenting -- Roy Moore & His Holy Mojo!

"Hellllllooooo Jesusland!" Roy Moore announces run for governor.

Ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore announced his return to the political arena Monday, declaring himself a Republican candidate for governor in 2006.

(snip)

"As our taxes continue to rise, the education of our children continues to decline," Moore said. "And at a time when morality seems to be disappearing, our courts are preoccupied with telling children they can't pray and telling public officials they can't acknowledge the God that is the source of our morality."

Moore said his campaign could be summed up with one theme: "Return Alabama to the people."

He criticized federal courts, Montgomery lobbyists, lawmakers and tax increases. He promised to protect Alabama from gambling, immorality and same-sex marriage. He called for term limits for legislators, a prohibition on legislators holding other government jobs and legislative sessions every two years rather than annually.

(snip)

Not everyone was pleased with the speech Monday.

Joyce Fecteau was there wearing a hat, shirt and buttons emblazoned with anti-abortion messages. She was upset that Moore didn't specifically mention abortion in his first speech as a gubernatorial candidate.

"I'm mad. Abortion is a very big issue. Abortion kills little Alabamians," Fecteau said.

Abortion? That's so... 1999, as issues go. Last tax increase in Alabama was probably during Reconstruction. But Roy's followers are more excited by playing the Victimhood card.

Riley's proposed tax reform referendum didn't just lose -- it got a totally brutal stoning at the polls. But at least he tried to do the hard thing. It upset some conservatives, predictably.

Roy has already made Mississippians VERY happy about the gambling -- "Sure, you guys can have all that sin revenue! We'll just stay over here and watch our state struggle to make ends meet, 'cause that's what makes Jesus smile."

Here's my assessment of the governor's race. Please, no wagering.

Republican Primary: Riley vs. Moore

Held today, I'd take Riley on the strength of his great job in the Katrina aftermath. Held in '06, with months of All-Roy All-the-Time news coverage -- tossup. The Repub. party isn't sure it can trust Roy to be a team player, and may be feeling it doesn't really need his holy mojo to beat the Dem. candidates.

Democratic Primary: Former Gov. Don Siegelman vs. Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley

Siegelman may be running just for ego (and income), but there's no denying a large segment of Alabama voters, when in doubt, will choose a man. If Lucy can successfully unite the Dems behind her, and win over some doubters, she can beat Siegelman. The party may blow it for both candidates, though, by trying to gauge the political winds and waiting too long to lead.

General Election -- I predict:

a) Moore wins easily over Siegelman, or;

b) Moore edges Lucy Baxley in hotly-contested election followed by acrimonious lawsuits, or;

c) Riley defeats Siegelman by comfortable margin, or;

d) Baxley defeats Riley in close race.

Posted by Jeff at 11:11 AM |

Hold that tiger...here come Calvin and Hobbes

Calvin and Hobbes are back.

The Complete Calvin and Hobbes is set to be released this month. Every screwy, hilarious, abstract and bizarre panel is yours for the expensive price of $150.

And worth every cent.

Calvin is the super smart, bratty boy with a vast, soaring imagination. Hobbes is his companion and foil..part stuffed toy, part imaginary best friend. Their exploits are legendary epics, at least in the mind of little Calvin.

I loved this strip during it's tenure. And even though it will probably bite in to the Christmas budget a bit, this C&H anthology will be making it's way to my home soon.

Go read the homage in today's Post.

Posted by Carla at 09:02 AM |

October 03, 2005

Rove and Libby: Imminent perp walks?

Two of Team Bush's highest profile players may be in some very hot water. Definitely a lot steamier than the White House first indicated:

WaPo:

As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated.

With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.

It's been unclear for quite some time that any crime was committed by the outing of Valerie Plame. But Fitzgerald might not be going down that path anyway:

Many lawyers in the case have been skeptical that Fitzgerald has the evidence to prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is the complicated crime he first set out to investigate, and which requires showing that government officials knew an operative had covert status and intentionally leaked the operative's identity.

But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

There is also rampant speculation that Bush himself is directly involved in the leak.

Unindicted coconspirator?

Posted by Carla at 10:54 PM |

Recording Industry picks on the wrong woman

With a mighty hat tip to fellow Oregonian William Bragg for being the first place I heard about this...

Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, is countersuing the RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud, etc.

Apparently Miss Andersen was sued by the RIAA for alleged illegal downloading of rap songs, which she says she can't stand to listen to, and that besides that fact, she never downloaded any songs, much less the rap songs that RIAA claims she did. But when one of the RIAA lackeys admitted to her that they knew she hadn't downloaded any songs, and that they knew this because they'd paid a company to break into her computer, bypass her security and snoop thru her files, but that they were going to continue pressing her to pay them anyway because if they stopped it would only encourage others to fight back... well, that pissed her off.

There's far too much to list here. So, I'm going to force you to click on the link above and follow William Bragg's link to yet another blog which has posted a very extensive list of what Miss Andersen is charging the RIAA with. And believe me, it's a loooooong list. My reasons? Not only is William a fellow Oregonian and I like feeding him traffic from time to time. But, he has the supreme wisdom to agree with me that the world somehow went horribly awry when David Lee Roth and Eddie Van Halen's egos clashed and the band broke up. So naturally he is an unimpeachable source of goodness and wisdom in this crazy post-Van Halen world. Besides which... as I say, there's too much to list here. Just follow the yellow brick road... er... I mean the links.

Posted by Kevin at 01:16 PM |

In search of progressive divination

The lack of an articulated cohesive and common vision by the Democratic Party is something I've nibbled around the edges for awhile on this blog.

The leaders at the national level (with the possible exception of Dean...who is frustratingly villified for taking often direct and no-nonsense stands) offer up an often confusing and muddled defensive stance. The electorate is very wary of putting a group into the seat of power that can't articulate exactly where they want the country to go. Even as the Republicans find their Party leadership mired in scandal, the Democrats stand by seemingly hapless to step in to the potential vacuum.

Shakes Sis touches on the need for Dems to find a "spiritual leader" of sorts. A "Martin Luther King" style orator who's voice can echo throughout the landscape the left's vision of the American Dream. It's a reasonable idea. But it's putting the cart before the horse.

Before the Dems hire a high TV-Q spokesmodel to carry forth their vision, they actually have to find a vision.

Hunter suggests a three pronged, sound byte approach:

Strong Families. Strong Communities. Strong Nation.

If it sounds "Republican", it shouldn't. It represents the three core principles of the Democratic message. And it's easy to explain.

Strong, viable families build strong communities. Strong communities build strong economies, and strong states, and support the basic framework of American resilience, competitiveness, and high quality of life. Those, in turn, build a strong, prosperous, well protected, well respected nation.

I have no problem with a simple, stylized message like this. But frankly...where's the beef? Hunter's ideas for strong family are education (which gets a cursory mention), health care and gay marriage. While I'm a big believer in these ideas..there's a whole lot more to "strong families" than that. While Hunter's bare bones idea seems workable..I doubt the rank and file of the American electorate is going to rush to pull the "D" lever on this basis.

Families need the basics, first. They need to be able to feed and clothe themselves. They need to be able to provide shelter for themselves. They need good jobs with good wages and benefits. They need to have enough income to support themselves and drive the economy. Democrats need to articulate how they will support families by using government to get this to happen. Next, education must warrant much more than a cursory sound byte. It's the building block for families and communities.

In the end though..the Democrats have to present themselves as the alternative to the Republicans, rather than Republican-lite. There are those who call for the Democrats to "move to the center". I submit that they've been in the center for years...and that's why they keep losing.

Hunter suggests three prongs (or categories) as the basis for launching the vision: strong families, strong communities, strong nation.

What specific ideas should the Democrats articulate under each category?

Posted by Carla at 09:50 AM |

Preemptive Karma makes the Washington Post

Thanks to Technorati, apparently:

Preemptive Karma made the Post's "Who's Blogging" box on the Miers nomination.

Yay us!

And a hearty welcome to Post readers.

Posted by Carla at 08:54 AM |

Bush taps Harriet Miers for SCOTUS

President Bush has nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court to replace retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Thoughts from bigger guns:

Talk Left:

NBC's Today Show, however, just opined that she has no paper trail, and that may be the point. She vetted Roberts and other potential nominees for Bush, so that gives some indication. Sen. Schumer essentially said she was an unknown. She should have papers produced in the White House, but they can claim executive privilege as to some, if not all.

Also, half of all Supreme Court nominees had no prior judicial experience. Being a real lawyer, however, would be a help.

Prof. Jonathan Turley of Georgetown Law School just said that she was a bad appointee since being a member of the Dallas City Council for one term and running the Texas lottery hardly qualifies someone for the Supreme Court.

I see another Michael Brown in the making here. "Advise and consent"?

Atrios,

quoting John Podhertz of National Review from last week:

I am going to assume that this is a classic Bush head-fake gambit. If I'm wrong, I will spend the weekend banging my head against a concrete wall. This is the Supreme Court we're talking about! It's not a job for a political functionary!

Scott at MyDD:

The news is out this morning that Bush has decided on White House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. It's notable that Miers has never served as a judge, so she has even less of a record than John Roberts.

RedState.org:

We've got a lot to learn about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. To hear the White House tell us, "With her distinguished career and extensive community involvement, Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience and diversity to the Supreme Court."
Diversity. Sure she does. In fact, she gives money to Republicans *and* Democrats.[Miers donated to the campaigns of Al Gore for President and Lloyd Bentsen for Senator, which cracks me up to no end--Carla]

Powerline

Harriet Miers, that is. I'm sure that she is a capable lawyer and a loyal aide to President Bush. But the bottom line is that he had a number of great candidates to choose from, and instead of picking one of them--Luttig, McConnell, Brown, or a number of others--he nominated someone whose only obvious qualification is her relationship with him.

And...the Washington Post has Miers' profile.

Posted by Carla at 07:00 AM |

October 02, 2005

US Generals: US Troops in Iraq part of the problem

Are these unpatriotic US generals trying to hand the insurgency a victory?

LA Times:

The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops was imperative.

American officials backtracked on their expectations of what the U.S. military can achieve in Iraq months ago. But this week's comments showed that commanders believe a large U.S. force in Iraq might in fact be creating problems as well as solutions.

We liberals have been right about this from the outset. It's taken the military awhile to come around to our way of thinking, but it's apparent that they are. Funny how exercising all of these conservative ideas makes liberals out of so many.

A year ago..."centrist" and conservative blogs would have scoffed at the idea of US command making such statements. When those who have served in this region start coming out with people like Cindy Sheehan in force, the Republicans will still claim they did the right thing.

The question is: how many will still follow them?

Posted by Carla at 10:01 AM |

Damn you Armstrong Williams!

NYT:

Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

Is there no ethical standard these guys won't wipe their butts with?

But in the "always coming out smelling like a rose" tradition, there is no sanction against the Department of Education. Given the Republican propensity for shoveling their crap under the rug as quickly and efficiently as possible, Congress will do nothing about it either.

Posted by Carla at 09:53 AM |

October 01, 2005

The woes of adolescence

My 14 year old son recently joined the debate team at his high school. He participated in debate at the middle school level, but this high school stuff is much more involved and intense. He's doing tournaments almost every weekend. To prepare, he's been attending several practices a week after school.

Part of our evening routine is to debrief about our day's events. A couple of nights ago we had this exchange:

Me: So how did debate practice go?

Son: Not so great, Mom.

Me: Why? What happened?

Son: We were doing a CX (cross-examination style debate) and I made my opponent (a girl) cry and leave the room.

Me: You did? What did you say?

Son: I asked her some questions during the debate that she couldn't answer. She got flustered and frustrated. Then she started crying and left the room.

Me: Wow. What did the coach say?

Son: She said I ask really good questions for a novice debator.

Me: It sounds like you do ask good questions.

Son: It's going to be tough to get girls to go out with me if I make them cry during CX.

Me: That could be.

Poor kid. It already sucks to be 14. Then to kick a potential date's ass to the point where she runs crying out of the room..that's a killer.

I wonder where he ever figured out that arguing skill? LOL

Posted by Carla at 01:43 PM |

Saturday AM funnies

Posted by Carla at 07:07 AM |

I didn't know. I don't recall. Where am I?

Someone needs to tell Jerry Falwell that obeying the law is actually quite godly. He likens the recent indictment against Tom DeLay as to Richard Nixon's enemies list and a political witch-hunt (ironic on a couple of levels, considering the source).

Problem is, this indictment came because of "stacks of evidence". It's painful for uber-right to acknowledge this, but the law applies to them, too.

But let's recap what got the law so interested in DeLay's activities:

The indictment stems from the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority, a political-action committee created by DeLay. The group, known as TRMPAC, is accused of trying to circumvent Texas laws that make it illegal to use corporate or union money in political campaigns.

Labeling it a money-laundering scheme, Earle claims TRMPAC took $190,000 in corporate donations and routed it — along with the names of seven statehouse candidates — to the Republican National Committee (RNC) in September 2002. The RNC then sent $190,000 in contributions to those same seven candidates, who couldn't legally have accepted corporate money.

At the heart of the conspiracy charge against DeLay is whether he knew about the transaction. Experts on Texas law say that knowledge alone might be all that is needed for a conviction under state law.

DeLay, who stepped down as House majority leader when the indictment was issued Wednesday, and his lawyers maintain he knew nothing about the money exchange at the time it happened and the indictment is a political vendetta against him.

Besides the laughability of the political vendetta charge--the GOP has been quite handy with political vendettas, after all--insisting you knew nothing leaves me rather skeptical. Come on. The man went on golf trips paid for by these folks. He was in bed with them. If he didn't know about the money exchange, then he's too stupid to be in office.

DeLay likely knew all about the money, however:

But in the first public acknowledgments of what evidence against DeLay might exist, Gibson, 76, a former sheriff's deputy and state insurance investigator, said there were ample indications of the congressman's involvement.

He said DeLay provided the district attorney with a written statement that was given to the grand jury to consider but that DeLay declined to sign a sworn document or testify under oath. "[DeLay] just gave a statement saying he did nothing. And he didn't know how that money got back down here and all that stuff," Gibson said. "We believe different from other paperwork we got."

And then DeLay's defense shifts.

"He had knowledge of it after it happened," DeGuerin said after the Wednesday indictment. "It wasn't something that he did in advance, or suggested, or anything like that."

Give me a break. If you know the group you're working with is taking bribes, and you get your butt into office based upon your supposed integrity, wouldn't you call them on it. DeLay is no working stiff, and he'd have the power to put things right. How coincidental that when he discovered this after the fact, he sat on his hands and whistled show tunes.

And frankly, no, I don't buy the defense that he just had no idea. Gosh, no one has any idea about anything these days. Ken Lay had no idea that Enron was cooking the books and robbing investors and employees blind. Ronald Regan had no idea and no recollection about Contragate. John Roberts insisted he wasn't a member of the wingut Federalist Society, and then said he couldn't remember when confronted with a committee list with his name on it.

I'm going to try that sometime. I'll knock over a liquor store, and then claim to have not known about it. I'm sure that would work for me, and other regular folks like me. It sure does seem to work for the suits in Washington.

Posted by at 05:46 AM |