« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
December 31, 2005
Iraq votes on US troops to stay or go
A win-win solution for IraqSaturday, December 31, 2005
President Bush's Dec. 18 speech stated that there were two options for the United States in Iraq: Win or lose. If the population does not support the occupation, winning (peace) can only be accomplished by an indefinite troop deployment. Whereas in losing, the United States would be viewed as a "Paper Tiger."
Since Iraq elected a governing body by a democratic process (approximately 65 percent participation), it presents a third option: a national vote on the presence of U.S. troops.
By winning the vote, the U.S. presence would be justified. If the United States loses the vote, the troops would be brought home, gaining the moral high ground and becoming a trusted negotiator in Middle East disputes.
This would be a win-win solution for President Bush.
LOREN E. THOMPSON Northeast Portland
The President is fond of telling us that we've saved a nation from their brutal dictator and brought them democracy. Iraqis are now free, he tells us.
So why not let them decide if our troops should remain or leave? It's their country, after all.
Posted by Carla at 02:30 PM |
Racy Blogger Leaves US Attorney's Office
If only I could reveal the seamy underbelly of the judiciary, I too could be in the New Yorker.
Alas...this guy beat me to it:
A young federal prosecutor who was revealed as the author of a spicy blog about the judiciary is leaving the inner circle. David Lat, who had been the anonymous writer of "Underneath Their Robes," left his job as an assistant U.S. attorney in Newark. Lat, 30, sent an e-mail Friday to fellow staff at the U.S. attorney's office, telling them that it was his last day. He said he would soon be going to work in Washington.The blogger initially claimed to be a young, female lawyer going by the pen name of Article Three Groupie, or A3G. Article III is the section of the Constitution dealing with the judiciary.
It wasn't until an interview for a November issue of The New Yorker magazine that Lat revealed his true identity.
Unfortunately the blog has been scrubbed.
Posted by Carla at 02:03 PM |
December 30, 2005
Drooling toward 2006.
At my house New Year's Day, right now we project a traditional Jan. 1st meal:
collard greens (for financial fortune)
black-eyed peas (for good health)
cornbread (if you don't know why, you've clearly never had good cornbread)
And we have some baby-back ribs which may get grilled and glazed. Rumor has it this glaze is fantastic. And very versatile. You can brush it on almost any type of fish, as well as ribs, chicken, and beef. It also keeps very well (if stored in the refrigerator in a sealed container).
GLAZE:
1 head of garlic
1 tablespoon olive oil
2/3 cup water
1 cup pineapple juice
1/4 cup teriyaki sauce
1 tablespoon soy sauce
1 1/3 cups dark brown sugar
3 tablespoons lemon juice
3 tablespoons minced white onion
1 tablespoon Jack Daniel's whiskey
1 tablespoon crushed pineapple
1/4 teaspoon cayenne pepper
1. Preheat oven to 325 degrees.
2. To roast the garlic for the glaze, cut about 1/2-inch off the top of the garlic head. Cut the roots so that the garlic will sit flat. Remove most of the papery skin from the garlic, but leave enough so that the cloves stay together. Place the head of garlic in a small casserole dish or baking pan, drizzle the olive oil over it, and cover it with a lid or foil. Bake for 1 hour. Remove the garlic and let it cool until you can handle it.
3. Combine the water, pineapple juice, teriyaki sauce, soy sauce, and brown sugar in a medium saucepan over medium/high heat. Stir occasionally until the mixture boils, then reduce the heat until the mixture is just simmering.
4. Squeeze the sides of the head of garlic until the pasty roasted garlic is squeezed out. Measure 2 teaspoons into the saucepan and whisk to combine. Add the remaining glaze ingredients to the pan and stir.
5. Let the mixture simmer for 40 to 50 minutes or until the glaze has reduced by about one-third and is thick and syrupy. Make sure it doesn't boil over. When the glaze is done, cover the saucepan and set it aside until the fish (say, 4 1/2-pound fresh Atlantic salmon fillets, or 2 lbs. chicken breasts) or whatever is ready.
6. To cook the fish, preheat your barbecue or kitchen grill to medium-high heat. Remove any skin or bones from the fillets. Brush the entire surface of each fillet with a light coating of the fat-free butter-flavored spread or spray. Lightly salt and pepper both sides of the fillets and place them on the hot grill at a slight angle, so that grill marks will be made at an angle on the fish. Cook each fillet for 2 to 4 minutes, then turn them over, placing them back on the grill at an angle once again. After 2 to 4 minutes, turn the fish over at a different angle so that the grill marks will criss-cross. Cook 2 to 4 minutes more, flip again, and cook until done. The entire cooking time should be somewhere between 8 to 15 minutes depending on the thickness of your fillets and the heat of the grill. Be careful not to burn the fish, and quickly move the fish away from any flare-ups.
7. When the fillets are done, remove them from the grill and spoon a generous portion of glaze over each one. Serve hot with a baked potato and vegetables, if desired.
If by chance you don't make it to your favorite emporium of fine spirits, and you just need to know what you can make with what you have on hand, try the Webtender.
It seems we've found what W's been drankin' for Christmas, him bein' so Christian 'n all: 3 Wise Men.
Posted by Jeff at 10:02 AM |
Who Would Jesus Pop?
The year's end often motivates we humans to opine our fates. It can be a catalyst for navel gazing of the highest order.
During my travels throughout the greater metro area this week, I noticed a bumper sticker with the words Who Would Jesus Pop? pasted across the rear window of a car.
It made me giggle at first...the play on words and the obvious irony. But it also got me thinking about the way religion has changed in this country over the last several decades. The way its wielded over so many. A giant blunt instrument that pushes people into places they've said they hate.
These thoughts came to me again this morning while reading Mannion, who was opining not so much his fate, but the value of mankind in general:
In trying to decide whether life has any meaning at all and if humankind is a vile and noisome parasite uselessly and absurdly struggling to survive and perpetuate its kind without any good reason for what it's up to, so pointless is its existence that mass suicide or a huge asteroid striking the planet could only be considered a favor to the universe, one should not look at natural disasters that cruelly and remorsely wipe out thousands of lives in the blink of an eye with no apparent detriment to the continuation of either the species or the earth, nor should one look at man-made disasters like wars, famines, accidents at nuclear power plants, and smaller-scale mayhem like car accidents and drive-by shootings which, though leaving behind lower body counts, are just as evil and senseless to the individuals involved.No, all natural disasters prove is that Nature has different reasons and different ends in going about its business than do human beings. That Nature wants a volcano where human beings wanted a city doesn't mean that it was pointless for human beings to want the city, only that Nature was more insistent. Anyway, on the whole, in confrontations between human beings and Nature, human beings win most of the arguments, thanks to things like sun block, central heating, GORE-TEX, and bulldozers.
Were Mannion to sit down for tea with the Reverend Pat Robertson, I'm thinking Rev Pat would write Nature=God with his pretzels or finger sandwiches. After all...we heathen, nonChristian, parasites have been scrubbed from the earth a few times before by the wrath of God/Nature.
The Old Testament is rife with God's pissed off'dness beating down on the hapless humans who didn't do things His way. The God of the Rapture Right is an angry dude who is ready to strike down the nonbelievers through pestilence and war, keeping the cream of the believers to His bosom for all eternity.
So then..is it really humans whose worth we should be measuring? Or is it that vengeful God/Nature that keeps ending humans? And what of the humans who take up against their fellow humans..cheering the beating down of those who don't believe as they do? Where do they fit in the worthiness plan?
Posted by Carla at 07:41 AM |
Pick on someone your own intellectual size
The vomitous spew that substitutes for Little Green Footballs blog has received a belated holiday greeting from Vanity Fair's James Wolcott.
Hackery is no substitute for a good smack by Jane at Firedoglake. Apparently the latest Rasmussen poll is creaming the jeans of the most ardent Bush apologists. Jane gives them the reality based taser.
If only they could have Project Runway with the Jesus Fish as a Polo style logo...this dude would be in Fat City (via Amanda at Pandagon).
I think I'll be cutting and pasting Ron's Fair Use Notice to cover my Preemptive Karma ass.
Posted by Carla at 07:11 AM |
Picking presidential nits
President Bush has gone to great lengths to emphasize the fact that his secret spying program is limited to phone calls and emails which originate here in the United States but which are sent out of the country. He and other administration officials have repeatedly stressed that point-to-point calls and emails which both begin and end inside the United States are not being spying upon without the legally required search warrant.
Doesn't Bush's distinction presume that terrorists are going communicate terror plans with foreign sources? And doesn't that kinda run contrary to the whole point of a terror cell as an entity which doesn't need or require outside direction?
Posted by Kevin at 07:10 AM |
December 29, 2005
The ACLU rocks my world
The good people at the American Civil Liberties Union have taken a full page ad in today's New York Times. The ad lobbies for a special counsel to investigate Bush and the NSA warrantless surveillance:
This is a partial photo of the add courtesy of Talk Left.
The full ad can be seen here.
I wonder if my $50 Oregon Tax Credit is ACLU eligible?
Posted by Carla at 02:20 PM |
Don't bring me down--Question of the day
What happened to the girl I used to know,
You let your mind out somewhere down the road,
Don’t bring me down,no no no no no,
I’ll tell you once more before I get off the floor
Don’t bring me down.--ELO
Yesterday while out trying to purchase my daughter some jeans that actually fit (I never cease to be amazed how fast 12 year olds grow. I'm pretty sure I can actually see her getting taller throughout the day), one of the local radio stations was asking folks to name the all time worst films.
This isn't an exceptionally new or fresh idea. But it got me thinking about movies that left me feeling depressed or bummed out.
A History of Violence is one such film. It's a good film. Well worth watching. But its such a dark piece. The ending bugged the hell out of me and left an unsavory feeling.
The Fellowship of the Ring is a big time downer film. Having never read Tolkien's books, I was at the mercy of the film trilogy for the unfolding plot lines. The end of Fellowship marks the end of Gandalf the Grey, Boromir and the Fellowship, leaving the two hobbits to venture to Mordor on their own. Gloom, despair and agony.
Hitchock's The Birds is entirely creepy. The birds go after people with crazed abandon. And then all of a sudden they just stop. The trapped people leave the house with all those birds sitting around watching them...creepy. But no real rhyme or reason for the end of the attacks. Blech.
Phenomenon kicks you in the teeth and never really lets you get back up again. It's a fluff piece in many ways. Travolta isn't exactly at his Pulp Fiction best here. But this nice guy who would quite obviously never harm anything or anyone is the town pariah. Even after his death the idiots don't truely seem to appreciate who he was.
What movies bugged the hell out of you and left you feeling entirely creeped or depressed?
Posted by Carla at 08:53 AM |
In other news, water is still wet
Headline du jour: DeLay is a big, fat, liar.
Newspapers that prints comments from DeLay or his spokespeople as gospel without actually doing any journalistic-type fact checking might just as well be bird cage liner. That's all they're good for.
Posted by Carla at 07:41 AM |
December 28, 2005
Bush pressures newspaper editors...lobbyists buy off winger journalists
One of the most corrupt administrations in US history keeps up the march.
President Bush has been summoning newspaper editors lately in an effort to prevent publication of stories he considers damaging to national security.The efforts have failed, but the rare White House sessions with the executive editors of The Washington Post and New York Times are an indication of how seriously the president takes the recent reporting that has raised questions about the administration's anti-terror tactics.
Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor, would not confirm the meeting with Bush before publishing reporter Dana Priest's Nov. 2 article disclosing the existence of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe used to interrogate terror suspects. Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, would not confirm that he, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman had an Oval Office sit-down with the president on Dec. 5, 11 days before reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed that Bush had authorized eavesdropping on Americans and others within the United States without court orders.
But the meetings were confirmed by sources who have been briefed on them but are not authorized to comment because both sides had agreed to keep the sessions off the record. The White House had no comment.
"When senior administration officials raised national security questions about details in Dana's story during her reporting, at their request we met with them on more than one occasion," Downie says. "The meetings were off the record for the purpose of discussing national security issues in her story." At least one of the meetings involved John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, and CIA Director Porter Goss, the sources said.
National security issues...right. The White House knows it's gone way over the line. They're trying to cover their asses by silencing the press. This was a story that had already been held for a year. The White House had plenty of time to prepare for its release. They don't want reports of their illegal and immoral activities reported to the public.
And the buy off of "journalists" is another link in the chain of White House malfeasance. Like Armstrong Williams..just another way to get propaganda in the public realm while masquerading it as news:
The admission by two columnists that they accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff may be the tip of a large and rather dirty iceberg.Copley News Service last week dropped Doug Bandow -- who also resigned as a Cato Institute scholar -- after he acknowledged taking as much as $2,000 a pop from Abramoff for up to two dozen columns favorable to the lobbyist's clients. "I am fully responsible and I won't play victim," Bandow said in a statement after Business Week broke the story. "Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . . For that I deeply apologize."
Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation has acknowledged taking payments years ago from a half-dozen lobbyists, including Abramoff. Two of his papers, the Washington Times and Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, have now dropped him. But Ferrara is unapologetic, saying: "There is nothing unethical about taking money from someone and writing an article."
Ferrara is taking the Bush approach of admitting his transgression while systematically claiming that it isn't wrong. Much the way that Krauthammer claimed in his column that Bush circumvented the law without actually committing a crime.
I'm dumbfounded that anyone could still support this administration. In my view it would at this point, demonstrate a lack of character and common decency to do so.
Posted by Carla at 10:05 AM |
December 27, 2005
What was hot... or not in 2005
The Pew Research Center has released their analysis of public opinion trends for 2005 and some of it is very interesting.
- Bush's popularity tanked - Bush's approval rating hit new lows in November with just 36% of the public thought he had lived up to his campaign pledge to restore integrity to the White House. By December, a variety of factors shored up the president's approval rating in some major polls although not in others. However, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that by a 47%-38% margin, the public judged that this year the president would make Santa's "naughty," rather than "nice" list, up from 40% who thought so in 2004 and 31% in 2003.
- Hurricane Damage - Most Americans gave the federal government an F on its handling of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath.
- Iraq Disillusionment - Following a small post-election bounce, public approval of the president's handling of the situation in Iraq resumed its downward drift, hitting a low of 37% in October and has remained in the mid-30s since then.
- Reaganomic Anxiety - Even before the 2005 hurricane season the public was apprehensive about the economy. In May, only 44% of Americans rated their personal financial situation good or excellent, down from 51% in January; only 35% approved of the president's handling of the economy. In Katrina's wake, fully 71% of the public (the most in two decades) reported following news about gas prices very closely. As prices receded and economic reports re-brightened in December, prices at the pump were still closely watched by 61% of the public and 40% of Americans said they were finding it hard to make ends meet.
- Anti-Hegomony - 42% said that America should "mind its own business internationally"—on par with numbers expressing that view after the ends of the Vietnam War and the Cold War. 66% of the public said that the U.S. is less respected than in the past. When asked why, 71% cite the War in Iraq as a "major reason" for global discontent with America. By contrast only 54% cite the War on Terrorism as a major reason. Oddly, 78% of journalists cite U.S. support for Israel as a major reason while only 39% of the public agreed.
- Domestic Considerations - While terrorism still ranked high among the public's concerns, domestic priorities rose in prominence. At the start of 2005 Americans already disagreed with White House priorities—tax cuts, tax simplification, tort reform—ranking Social Security, health care, aid to the poor and the budget deficit more important. By October, half of the public said Bush should give domestic issues priority over the war on terrorism and a large majority (69%) said the next president should offer different policies.
- Schiavo Backlash - Public opinion delivered a surprise verdict on a bill rushed into law by Congress in March that would have required federal courts to intervene in a state court decision allowing removal of a feeding tube from a long-comatose Florida woman. Initial reaction was highly negative and four months later, three quarters of the public still felt that Congress should have stayed out of the case, a view essentially unchanged late in the year.
- Devolution - While 48% say that life evolved over time (26% said it was via natural selection and 18% said God guided it), 42% said that life has "existed in its present form since the beginning of time". According to an NPR segment I heard this evening on this Pew analysis, those basic percentages haven't changed for a number of years. What's changed is that more Americans (64%) are open to alternative explanations being taught alongside evolution in school, with a sizable minority (38%) favoring evolution being completely replaced with creationism. However, the polling analysis indicates a degree of confusion over what the terms "creationism" and "evolution" mean.
- Social Security - Despite a nationwide push, President Bush's plan to allow individuals to divert part of their payroll taxes to private accounts stumbled. While 70% of the public signaled support for private Social Security accounts in the fall of 2000 and nearly 60% in the fall of 2004, by May 2005 fewer than half (47%) did so, and only 3-in-10 Americans approved of Bush's handling of Social Security.
- The Feds - Both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government took a beating in the public eye. Congress continued its downward slide with only 45% of the public holding at least a somewhat favorable view of the body by mid-October, including a mere 7% who declared a "very" favorable opinion. Overall the federal government scored no better: Its favorability rating fell from a high of 73% as recently as April 2003 to 46% in December.
One section of the Pew analysis that I found particularly interesting as an Independent was the section on religion and politics.
By very similar margins a slim plurality of Americans see religious conservatives as having too much control over the GOP (45% agree, 42% disagree) and non-religious liberals as having too much control over the Dems (44% agree, 42% disagree). However, Independents are more critical of the influence of religious conservatives on the GOP than they are of the influence of secular liberals on the Dems. Most Independents (54%) think religious conservatives have too much influence over the GOP, while fewer (43%) think secular liberals have too much sway on the Dems.
Update: Over at Indie Castle I dig deeper into Indies on the issues
Posted by Kevin at 06:28 PM |
Twisted brother
I wish the real world would just stop hassling me...
"Contrary to the administration, I also believe that as a matter of political prudence and comity with Congress, Bush should have tried to get the law changed rather than circumvent it. This was an error of political judgment. But that does not make it a crime. And only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend it is anything approaching a high crime and misdemeanor." --Charles Krauthammer, December 23, 2005
Which part of "circumvent" the law isn't a crime? Circumventing the law, by definition, means to commit a crime.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."--US President Oath of Office,US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
The circle is now complete.
Krauthammer breathlessly blasted Bill Clinton for lying about an extra marital affair. His columns reeked of pious indignation against Clinton's actions.
Krauthammer and the rest of the punditry Bush defense squad have become exactly what they say they hated: staunch defenders of a President who has clearly broken the law and thwarted his oath.
I personally believe that Clinton's indiscretion didn't rise to an impeachable offense. It was a personal act in a personal situation. I understand the argument against my position (For those of you who want to hammer about it in comments, feel free. I've hashed it out before and really see no need to do it again).
In my view, what Bush is doing is exponentially worse than anything blowjob Clinton lied about. He's not only breaking the law..he's bragging about it. And it's not about personal indiscretions. It's about issues of policy and conduct within the framework of the Presidency of the United States.
Krauthammer is forced to admit that Bush has committed a crime...whether he likes it or not. The real world is catching up to the thuggery of the Republican Party. Even their defense team is doing some Freudian dance of subconscious knowledge that Bush's law breaking is something they're going to have to come to terms with.
Posted by Carla at 10:49 AM |
Purely coincidental.
"As far back as I can remember, I've always wanted to be a gangster. To me, being a gangster was better than being President of the United States."
Jane at firedoglake notes some curious goings-on.
The nomination of Viveca Novak's husband to the FEC is nothing if not a giant "fuck you" to Fitz, and if it happened in say the Gotti organization it would definitely raise the eyebrows of a prosecutor. It's also a big "who's your daddy" moment for Viveca Novak, as she is probably out of a job and now the key defense witness for a man who is now going to be her husband's boss. Those who want to argue they nominated him purely on his merits with no notion of any larger implication? Please. This is Karl Rove we're talking about here.
"For us to live any other way was nuts. To us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks, who took the subway to work every day and worried about their bills, were dead. They were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something, we just took it. If anyone complained twice, they got hit so bad they never complained again. It was routine. You didn't even think about it."
-- Henry Hill, Goodfellas
Anyway, here's wishing everyone a Joyous Fitz-ukah-wanzaa Season! Won't you sing with me?
"See indictments, yes indictments,
and they'll be handed down soon.
In the air there's a feeling of Fitzmas...
Rule of Law, Rule of Law!
It's Fitzmas Time in the city...!"
Posted by Jeff at 08:36 AM |
December 24, 2005
Hand to hand combat in the Christmas War
Historically the holiday season has been one in which Americans embrace peace on Earth and good will toward men. Peace and good will have become the latest casualty of the righwing radio war on America...via their war on Christmas.
Enter Wil Wheaton... actor cum Vegas poker celeb:
This year we had our dinner a few weeks early, and it looked as though it would be a typical family gathering. But that all changed when I walked through the living room on my way to get some eggnog. I asked my younger sister, who was flipping through the channels on the television, what she was looking for."I'm trying to find Court TV," she said.
"Why?" I said.
"Because the governor is supposed to announce whether he is granting clemency for Tookie Williams at 3 p.m.," she said.
I was surprised to hear she cared, because my sister has always been pretty nonpolitical. "I don't think he will grant clemency ...," I began to say. But before I could add, "because he's going to try to win back his hardcore base with this," she spat at me, "He'd better not!"
My sister was a death-penalty proponent? That was news to me. I didn't want to upset the family gathering, so I decided to just let this one go.
"OK," I said, "I guess we'd better not talk about this."But just then, my father walked into the room.
"Wil thinks Tookie Williams shouldn't be executed," she said.
Oh boy.
"What?" My dad said. Not to my sister, to me.
Here we go.
"Well," I said, "I don't believe in the death penalty, so ..."
You know those optical illusion drawings, where you're looking at a smiling man, then suddenly he's become a werewolf? Faster than you could say "Fox News," my dad was screaming at me, Bill O'Reilly-style.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth! He killed four ..." -- he stabbed at the air with four fingers on his left hand -- "four people in cold blood and deserves! to! die!"
I briefly made eye contact with my stepson, Nolan, who sat just behind my father on my parents' couch. His face flushed and he quickly looked away. My sister had stopped her channel surfing on a shopping network, and he looked awfully interested in putting a sapphire ring on easy-pay. While my dad continued to scream about biblical vengeance, I went into shock. Just minutes earlier, we'd stood together outside on the deck and laughed with each other as he congratulated me for a great finish I'd had the previous day at a poker tournament in Las Vegas. In fact, I'd cut my trip short, specifically so I wouldn't miss the family Christmas.
What a difference five minutes makes. While he screamed at me, I wanted to ask, "Who are you, and what have you done with the man who raised me to be tolerant, patient, peaceful and charitable?" Instead, I said, as calmly as I could, "Dad, I just don't believe in the death penalty. It is unevenly applied to poor people, and clearly doesn't work as a deterrent."
"It doesn't work as a deterrent because they allow these scum to stay alive for 25 years before they give them what they deserve!" I hadn't seen my dad this angry since I was a sophomore in high school and my friends and I woke up my mom after midnight one night because we got a little worked up in a Nintendo game of "Blades of Steel."
"Dad," I said, "living in prison for 25 years isn't anything to be happy about ..."
"Like hell it isn't!" he bellowed. "They get satellite television, and weights, and free meals, and jobs, and a library ..."
"And raped, and beaten by guards, and sold as slaves by prison gangs," I said. "That really sounds good to you? Because it sounds like a pretty lousy life for violent criminals, which is exactly what they deserve."
He violently shook his head at me and drew a deep breath. "The victims' families get to watch that animal die! If they don't get to watch him die, how can they get the closure they deserve?" Before I could reply, and he could launch into another round of talking points, I was unintentionally saved by my brother, who called our dad to come outside and help him with the turkey on the barbecue.
Wil could be taking a page out of my family's own notebook.
We avoid political discussion among our family members like it was the black plague. Nothing squelches a happy family gathering faster than a discussion of the war in Iraq or the conservative vs liberal political landscape.
I also share his frustration at the way many of our elders have enveloped themselves in rightwing talk radio and Fox News. They've abdicated their responsibility as thinking beings...mired in propaganda and one-sided babble.
Its slowly starting to turn. Air America and liberal political books have worked to dent the rightwing echo chamber. Every once in a while, the Democrats have a spark of courage (which they showed consistently this last session..thwarting much of Bush's top tier legislative agenda). But there's a long way to go.
Mostly, I relate to Wil's alarm at the way these self-anointed pundits have further polarized us as a nation. Its almost to the point where we can't have a substantive and serious discussion among ourselves as a people. This is a dangerous turn in American history. If we can't have sober discourse about what's happening in our nation, then will most certainly go the way of Rome.
Perhaps this so called War on Christmas that O'Reilly and his ilk have contrived, and so many Americans seem to be rejecting as silly propaganda is the worm that will turn this thing around.
Posted by Carla at 10:28 AM |
December 23, 2005
Archery league: political chat with weapons
A few years ago I started participating in an archery league with my son.
There are quite the cast of characters that shoot in our league: lawyers, doctors, truck drivers, microprocessor engineers, homemakers...you name it. It's a real soup to nuts group.
Last night's league generated the first politically oriented banter that I've noticed:
Man: (overheard by me while he was addressing someone else): You must be a Democrat.
Me (injecting myself into someone else's conversation): I am.
Man: That's your problem to deal with.
Me: It's my privilege, actually.
Man: You must be terrible with money.
Me: I'm great with money.
Man: All the Democrats want to do is take our money away and spend it.
Me: As opposed to Bush, who will tell you he isn't taking your money..takes out loans against your money and makes you a wholly own subsidiary of the Chinese.
(other archers stop and stare..some start giggling)
Man: Well I won't have to worry about that. At least I have my Social Security.
Me: Social Security, eh? You can thank the Democrats for having it in the first place. And you can thank them again for keeping the Republican's grubby paws off of it.
(Other archers are guffawing now)
Man walks away red faced.
***Full disclosure*** He easily outshot me in archery. Guess he had to compensate.
Posted by Carla at 02:53 PM |
On the move
Two of our favorite blogs have picked up stakes and moved to new URLs.
Long time PK blogrollee The Higher Pie has made the transition to a more internets friendly URL. Please click over Ryan's way.
Graphics master The Heretik also has a shiny new home.
But you can still find the same great images and interesting writing.
Adjust your blogrolls accordingly.
Posted by Carla at 08:19 AM |
Opinions are like...
_____________, everyone has one.
Feel free to fill in the blank with your own ideas.
Whilst you're pondering the noun for this simile, consider offering up an opinion laced recommendation or two for my 2006 reading project.
My blogobud Roxanne is in search of some good book titles for her 2006 reading list. Roxanne's is an admirable and ambitious project indeed.
I'm a little less motivated than she (possibly because I have two teenagers--ok, one is 12, close enough-- a job, a dog, a good sized hobby garden and an aspiration to write more journalistic style stuff) to do a lot of heavy lifting in the book realm. Or maybe I'm just lazy.
I don't want 2006 to whittle by for me however without doing some worthwhile reading. I'd like to set aside a portion of my measly salary to purchase two or three subscriptions to good periodicals.
I already get Newsweek. It arrives every Wednesday (which is a problem as its released on Sunday. Usually the news is old by then...but some of the lesser current events and indepth pieces are very good). Half the time I don't get to finish the magazine because my son snags it up as a resource for Extemporaneous debate.
I also subscribe to the monthly Sunset Magazine which I consider an invaluable gardening resource for those of us out west. Sunset's lesser value to me (but no less interesting) include recipes, architecture, information on wines, great western vacation spots and profiles of various western regions.
Lately I've been purchasing Vanity Fair at the exorbidant newstand price. The writing is very good and I've found myself reading it pretty much from cover to cover. VF is on the top of my periodical consideration list right now.
I'm also considering a subscription to Portland Monthly, mostly because I feel like I don't always keep up well with my home region and I'm guilting the hell out of myself about it. But every time I read it I feel like I'm getting the cotton candy version of the city...where's the beef?
Essentially what I'd like to have is at least one good periodical that covers international/national news, one that covers the western region of the US and one that deals with my locality: the Portland, Oregon region.
Suggestions?
Posted by Carla at 08:09 AM |
Biff rocks.
David Letterman, last night: "Biff Henderson's on top of this Bush/domestic spying and wiretapping business, right, Biff?"
Biff (stage manager) picks up phone and dials. "Hey, Bush? Mind your own f+@$in' business, dumbass." Hangs up. Walks off.
Biff is a Vietnam veteran. One can only wonder why he hates Amurka.
Posted by Jeff at 05:36 AM |
December 22, 2005
April Fools at Christmas?
Or maybe she just likes being a fool all year around....
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo."--Ann Coulter as quoted atEditor and Publisher
Conservatives like to complain that its the liberals who spew hatred. They need to purge that Coulter log from their own eye.
Pity the poor NSA agent who has to do surveillance on THAT. Ugh.
Posted by Carla at 01:08 PM |
Santa Palpatine
Yikes
Apparently this hat, known as a "camauro" has been part of Papal dress since the 12th Century. But as Shakes Sis notes, he looks like Senator Palpatine in a Santa hat. Scary.
I wonder if that hat costs as much as his Prada shoes?
I can't get passed the idea that a man sworn to poverty wears Prada.
Posted by Carla at 09:56 AM |
"What you can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a science"
The O gets one right:
But intelligent design isn't science, either. Science is based on observations that can be tested, repeated and proved. Religious creation theories are grounded in the divine, which is unknowable. Marrying the two is a matter of private faith, not public instruction.Oregon, to its credit, hasn't gotten caught up in the latest debate. "Oregon has been pretty quiet," said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, a group that defends evolution theory and monitors state policies.
But Branch added, "You can expect a fight when the scientific standards come up for review."
The Oregon Department of Education says it's already getting calls from both sides. It also hears from educators worried about violating the law.
In truth, current state policy is far less hostile to religion than educators or the public might think.
"You can talk about religion in social studies classes, or literature classes," Education Department spokesman Gene Evans said. "You can even talk about intelligent design in a science class, if you talk about it in terms of current events.
"What you can't do is teach intelligent design as a science."
I'd be sincerely surprised if there was a hard push in Oregon to have ID taught in science class. There are certain hard right winger quarters in pockets around the state. But among these socially conservative groups there are those who believe religion and the state must be remain apart.
Not to mention the pushback from the larger portion of the state that aren't hard right conservative would probably be immense.
When I was a school girl on the east side of Oregon I can recall our social studies class spending a large chunk of time studying the various world religions. Christianity was one of them. My religiously conservative parents embraced the opportunity for me to learn and study about these other faiths.
And as hard core conservative as they are, I don't think they'd support the teaching of intelligent design in a science class.
That might be a question to pose over the family get together at Christmas. Who knows? Maybe we could test another scientific theory: the velocity of mashed potatoes as they're flung across the room.
Posted by Carla at 08:26 AM |
She gets letters: Liberal enemy
It's good when the wingnuts can get things off their chest:
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:34:31 EST [12/20/2005 07:34:31 PM EST] From: SliceHater@aol.com To: carla@preemptivekarma.com Subject: Liberal enemy
Carla, your wisdom and knowledge is only exceeded by your lack of cranial capacity as it relates to your biased liberal views concerning President Bush.YOU are blinded by your rage and hatred for the Right, and I assure you that your credibility is no stronger than the ignorant opinions of your ilk, i.e. Polosi, Kennedy, Shumer, etc. You liberals -and I must say I have a hard time saying liberal without inserting the F word before it - would never have survived in WW II without having most Americans kick the living crap out of you had you bad-mouthed this country and president then as you do now. Your party consists of many dye in the wool ex-hippies who long for the days when they had love fests and dreamed unrealistic dreams of peace through diversity and understanding instead of strength. Well, come on... take another drag off your bong, or weed, and rejoice in your ability to get things wrong again and again. Liberals are slowly taking my beloved country down the drain, but I will fight you and your liberal morons until my dying breath. The democrats have a new attack against the republican party every single day, staying up night after night in hopes of coming up with another winner. They (the left) and the willing mainstream liberal press are at odds with the truth and this country. I can hardly wait until the next election when you and your cronies
lose once again because, frankly, your kind just don't get it, do you? Have a nice day..........%$#*&()$#@%^LIBERAL.
Two things:
During World War II we had a liberal President who went to war against the people that attacked us and declared war against us.
Paragraphs are our friends.
(Happy Holidays, SliceHater.)
Posted by Carla at 07:49 AM |
December 21, 2005
Update:Woman convicted of filing false police report on rape is sentenced
Following up on this Monday post regarding the Oregon woman convicted of filing a false police report on a rape, Kevin Hayden at American Street clarifies a few of my muddled details:
To add clarity, the young woman will now be subject to a presentencing investigator who will inspect her life to determine whether she’s a serial criminal, whether she’s the issue of a fit and functional family, or whatever. The investigator’s report will include a recommended sentence based on his or her interpretation of her life.
This means that the community service/restitution sentence that I thought was stayed isn't the case...and that the presentencing investigation will take place instead. I believe that the defense attorney asked for a stay on this presentencing investigation pending outcome of the appeal and was denied.
This seems inane to me. This woman's sentence is under appeal as is the entire conviction. Why is she having to serve a sentence for conviction that by many accounts is shaky and is going to a higher court? What if the conviction is overturned after she's served the sentence? Will the City of Beaverton be forced to make restitution to her for her time and effort?
Posted by Carla at 12:48 PM |
Senate rejects ANWR--Gordon Smith fails Oregonians again
The Senate failed to break a filibuster of the Defense Appropriations Bill that included a provision to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
The Senate blocked an attempt to open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling Wednesday, foiling an attempt by drilling backers to force the measure through Congress as part of a must-have defense spending bill.It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had given senators a choice to support the Alaska drilling measure, or risk the political fallout of voting against money for American troops and for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Democrats accused Stevens, the senior Republican in the Senate, of holding the defense bill hostage to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"It took a lot of guts for a lot of people to stand up," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said after the vote.
Republican leaders fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. The vote prompted GOP leaders to huddle in private over their next move.
Two Republican Senators refused to vote for cloture: Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Noticeably missing from that short list: Oregon GOP Senator Gordon Smith.
Historically, Oregonians have come out strongly against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Smith should know better.
Posted by Carla at 11:30 AM |
Lose weight, or be reduced to dating Black men! Oh, the horror. . .
I spent the past few hours sputtering after Lorraine from Hoarded Ordinaries sent me this story about a New Hampshire doctor who's taken to berating his obese female patients (not male) by painting a picture he considers to be horrific: If you don't lose weight, no man will want you, except for a Black guy, and you know what they're like.
The woman who filed a complaint with the state board of medicine, alleging that Dr. Terry Bennett said she was so fat only a "black guy" might like her, just got the standard version of "Dr. Bennett's diatribe on obesity," Bennett said in an interview yesterday. He said the quote included in her complaint condensed his philosophy and took it out of context.
Bennett, who runs his own family practice in Rochester, said he delivers the same speech to all of his overweight female patients, warning them that not only their health, but their personal lives are at stake if they do not tackle their weight problem. The talk and the logic behind it, according to Bennett, go like this:
Overweight men are much more likely to die than overweight women, so an overweight woman married to an overweight man risks being an early widow. American men "don't like obese women,"Bennett said - except one group: African-American men. But because there's a general dearth of single middle-aged African-American men in New Hampshire, the woman is likely to end up on her own.
"Black men are the only males that don't have a strong anti-obesity preference," he said. "They mostly grow up in fatherless households where they are surrounded by big, loving women, and they talk about fat as sugar."
Bennet insists that the complaints take his comments out of context, and that his assertions are racially based, but factual. He also insists that anyone who doesn't like what he has to say is being racist, and determined to be offended.
"The notion that a black person would find you attractive while a white person of the same age and same gender would not, that's a fact," he said. "If you are going to pick that apart and charge that statement is racist, I subject that you are the racist."
Here. You all be the judge:
In the obesity complaint, Bennett is quoted as saying: "If your husband were to die tomorrow -who would want you? . . . Well, men might want you, but not the types that you want to want you -Might even be a black guy!"
Oh, no! The horror! It's a pity those falling-from-grace/cautionary tales in dimestores aren't still a big thing. Dr. Bennett has missed his calling--he sure would be good at writing them. She had it all, but started gaining weight. Then her husband left her and she was reduced to being with a Black man and living in a housing project!
Bennett insists he's not racist, because he was the physician for the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia, which is much like the idiots I knew in Japan who went there and insisted that they weren't racist because they knew plenty of Japanese people. Except both nations have their own problems with racism, and to be White in either nation is not nearly the hardship as it is to be Black. Saudi Arabia is not known for its progressive treatment of minorities.
Bennett also insists that this is his typical lecture to "obese females" he sees in his practice. One wonders what he tells obsese men--or does it matter, since looks just aren't that important to women, according to the [pseudo] scientifically-based facts? He chalks it off to women being in "denial" and "looking to be offended," because heaven forbid anyone tell a high-and-mighty doctor that he's coming off as racist and misogynist. If you're not getting the message, the problem is with you, not the messenger, who's so not racist or misogynist at all. It's just you refusing to face facts and being way to eager to be offended. Not the defensive and whiny doctor, who'd rather snivel about how it's everyone else who's being racist, and he's is not racist because the Saudis think he's a swell fella.
But the Rev. Arthur Hilson, a leader in the African-American community in Portsmouth, said Bennett was perpetuating old cultural stereotypes of African Americans, such as the "mammy"image of the "heavyset woman with a bandana wrapped around her head." Moreover, Hilson said, he didn't understand what the place of race was in a question of a woman's weight and her health.
"Black women come in all sizes and shapes, just like white women and Asian women," he said. "If the issue is health and weight, what do black people or black men's preference have to do with health?"
Well, that's it in a nutshell. One would think that a doctor would encourage his obese patients--both women and men--to change their diet and excersize for the sake of their health. What exactly does he say to his obese male patients? Or do they get a free pass from this crap? I hardly see how predicting a future of spinsterhood, or a future of being with "only" Black men, is helping these women. And I don't see how "only" a Black guy wanting you is a bad, horrible thing. I just don't think I would have hit rock bottom if Taye Diggs, or Lenny Kravitz, or Gary Dourdon were to give me the time of day.
Note to Dr. Bennett: I'm not obese, and I'm not Black, but I found your assertion to be offensive. The onus is on you to make sure you're heard. When you offend the patients you're trying to reach, the problem is yours, not theirs.
Posted by at 09:20 AM |
Watch out. Here comes the real scandal.
Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, facing trial on fraud charges Jan. 9 in Florida, is negotiating a possible deal with the Justice Department, in which he would agree to plead guilty and cooperate in the wide-ranging political corruption investigation focused on his dealings with members of Congress and executive branch officials, people familiar with the talks said last night.Abramoff would provide testimony about numerous members of Congress and their staffs if he and the Justice Department reach an agreement, the sources said. Negotiations have been ongoing for several months, people knowledgeable about the discussions said, but pressure is mounting because of the pending trial.
If Abramoff is able to reach the plea deal, this thing will blow Congress to smithereens. The breadth and depth appears to mostly have its place within the Republican Party..but the Dems will get nicked on this one too.
Posted by Carla at 08:59 AM |
This one goes to eleven.
Yep, the Mighty Wurlitzer is cranking up past the pain threshold already:
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true.
Think Progress has the breakdown. But I advise everyone to get their earplugs ready, because the next couple weeks will be all CLINTON! BLOWJOB! all the time.
Posted by Jeff at 06:28 AM |
December 20, 2005
"Let's get READY to RUMMMMMBBBLLLLLLE!"
"Now entering the ring: the newest member of the Axis of EEEEE-VILLLLL! VE-NE-ZU-ELA!"
Venezuela gives Exxon ultimatumVenezuela has given the world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, until the end of this year to enter a joint venture with the state.
Failure to do so will almost certainly result in Exxon losing its oil field concessions in the country.
Posted by Jeff at 12:20 PM |
If we can't test eyeshadow on rabbits, the terrorists win
FBI counterterrorism investigators are monitoring domestic U.S. advocacy groups engaged in antiwar, environmental, civil rights and other causes, the American Civil Liberties Union charged yesterday as it released new FBI records that it said detail the extent of the activity.The documents, disclosed as part of a lawsuit that challenges FBI treatment of groups that planned demonstrations at last year's political conventions, show the bureau has opened a preliminary terrorism investigation into People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the well-known animal rights group based in Norfolk.
The papers offer no proof of PETA's involvement in illegal activity. But more than 100 pages of heavily censored FBI files show the agency used secret informants and tracked the group's events for years, including an animal rights conference in Washington in July 2000, a community meeting at an Indiana college in spring 2003 and a planned August 2004 protest of a celebrity fur endorser.
National security rests on whether or not Pamela Anderson is wearing fur.
In the name of keeping America safe from the terrorists...W has to spy on Americans who participate in anti Iraq War and peace activism.
After all, if we have peace...Bush is out of a job.
Posted by Carla at 09:29 AM |
Snoopgate
Yeah, its got a name.
Apparently courtesy of Jonathan Alter..we have Snoopgate. Which makes me think of Snoopy as Joe Cool.
But Snoopgate isn't the sweet Peanuts character that its name envokes in my head. It's a full blown scandal:
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker.
What a miserable jerk. He tries to use great tragedy to grab power and do whatever the hell he wants. And when he's caught he scurries like a cockroach into the dark.
Bush's crocodile tears about national security are so much bullshit. He's worried about covering his ass.
Posted by Carla at 08:29 AM |
What's hap'nin', brother?
Marvin Gaye's What's Goin' On. Takes me to another place. Now that's art. But I can't work with that in the background, it commands my attention, even through other noisy distractions and VICTORY interruptions.
What has been hap'nin'?
Tony, what's up 9/11 over at Dept. of Transportation? Homeless people took a wheelbarrow full of coal off a railroad car. They made a fire in a 55-gallon drum. Under an interstate overpass. They used ALL the coal. The flames were shooting up over the road, 30-40 feet in the air. A couple inches of concrete got TERRA burned off the bridge. The interstate got closed.
Dad had a mini-stroke last week. Today he goes for an MRI and carotid artery scan.
Alaskan Wilderness is about to get BLOWJOB drilled. Looks unstoppable now. Damn shame.
A friend of ours has a sister who just got out of the clinic. Depression; drugs; suicide attempt; etc. She's WAR ON TERRA moving in with a guy she met there. He has a history of domestic violence. Trouble brewing, ya think?
Transit strike in NYC SABOTAGE BROOKLYN BRIDGE 9/11.
CBS Evening News sent W a big sloppy wet kiss of Year in Review last TERRA week. "The President started the year strong, traveling to tout his Social 9/11 Security plan..." When they started CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB! moaning and breathing heavily, I changed the channel. Some things aren't meant to be watched in primetime.
Oh, and by the way, W broke the law and lied to us all. And of course made more speeches about sacrifice and patience.
What's that? That whispering sound? "High crimes, misdemeanors -- impeach!"? Where's that coming from? MONICA LEWINSKY What? Louder, I can't hear you...! Is it an echo from 1998? 9/11 BLOWJOB Wait, I see where it's coming from -- that... giant Wurlitzer! CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB And they're turning it up to 11! MORAL VALUES SWALLOW THE LEADER BLUE DRESS 9/11 WEARS BOXERS TO KEEP HIS ANKLES WARM VICTORY 9/11 CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB ! CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB !! CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB !!!!! BLOWJOB !!!!! BLOWJOB !!!!! BLOWJOB !!!!! BLOWJOB !!!!!
As the Freewayblogger says, "We're all wearing the blue dress now."
Posted by Jeff at 06:53 AM |
The Ministry of Logic
What passes for logic on the right is akin to looking in a funhouse mirror--what you get is a vague shape of reality, twisted and bent.
Not only has the right wing shrugged off the leak outing CIA operative Valerie Plame, who was out in the field, investigating some leads in George Bush's precious war on terror. They're shrugging off the fact that Bush ordered the unauthorized surveillance of private citizens' phone conversations.
Bush insists that we need to listen in to such exciting phone conversations as the Saga of Aunt Ida's Bunions because it will help keep us secure from Al-Qaeda, the very people we ignored in favor of invading Iraq.
My outrage turned to exasperation, however, when I read read this account of his defense, which turned into an offense against any dissenters. Apparently, outing a CIA operative is not a big deal. But leaking a gross violation of the civil liberties of private citizens is unconscionable.
Blistered by allegations he violated federal law by ordering wiretaps without court approval, President Bush shot back Monday that disclosure of the secret program was a "shameful act" and a blow to counter-terrorism efforts.
No, what was a shameful act was the fact that you're so boring and pathetic that you had to listen in on phone conversations of private citizens with no warrant.
He asserted that the Constitution and the resolution authorizing force against al-Qaida gave him the right to conduct such eavesdropping, and suggested that such efforts could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks if they had been in place sooner.
Only in your mind, kiddo. Maybe if you stuck to hunting down al-Qaeda and refrained from invading and occupying a sovereign nation, we would have caught the spineless morons who were behind 9/11.
"The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy. ... We're at war, and we must protect America's secrets," Bush said during a hour long news conference. He offered assurance to the public that "I am doing what you expect me to do, which is to safeguard civil liberties and at the same time protect the United States of America."
We violate your civil liberties to safeguard them. We protect war by censoring you. Next up: George Bush set up a Ministry of Love. We may as well set up a Ministry of Logic, considering the woeful lack of it in the right's "arguments" these days.
You know, I'm getting bone tired of the yapping dogs who take what he says as gospel truth and questions nothing. How much more obvious does it have to be that this man and his lackeys are un-American? They don't give a whit about freedom, civil liberties, or preventing terrorism. If they did, they wouldn't be so eager to give our enemies recruitment fodder in Iraq.
And for once, can we just drop the "if you do this, the terrorists win" drek? I get pissy when people insult my intelligence, and it's pretty obvious this has nothing to do with terrorists. Peace activists are th targets of survelliance, and are considered to be a threat (Via Kevin Drum and Jeff here at Preemptive Karma).
A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period.
Quick! Bar the door, hide the children and pets! The peaceniks are coming! Those Quakers are nothing but trouble. They'll stop the military from scooping up cannon fodder from giving good American citizens the opportunity to serve their country.
But if you criticize the war, the terrorists win. So you're probably a terrorist and should expect to be stalked.
Posted by at 06:37 AM |
Woman convicted of filing false police report on rape is sentenced
[Update: The O has their story up on the sentencing. The O reporter says that the city attorney's office didn't seek a specific sentence. Since I was sitting in the back perhaps I heard wrong..but I could have sworn that they said something about community service and restitution.
One commentor here noted that the judge was blaming the young woman for the conviction. I don't think so. I think he's blaming the defense attorney.]
The wheels of justice move ever so slowly.
In the case of the Oregon woman convicted of filing a false police report in regard to an alleged rape, they crawl.
Given that the original incident happened in early 2004..its taken a long time to get here..and its far from over. An appeal of the conviction has been filed.
The young woman was sentenced today in Beaverton Municipal Court. I attended her sentencing.
Municipal Court is a strange animal. The majority of folks get less than a minute with the judge. Most don't have attorneys present and some are there to have counsel assigned. Some plead a case on a parole violation or a fine...still getting just a moment in front of the judge before they're sent over to the clerk to fill out paperwork. Perry Mason it ain't.
The young woman's case was different. The defense attorney and the young woman appeared along with the city attorney before the judge, who was Peter Ackerman. Ackerman is the same judge that heard the case against the young woman. I sat in the back (regretfully) and was unable to hear some of the proceedings.
The city attorney had sent sentencing recommendations to both the judge and the defense. From what I could hear, Ackerman is requiring a "presentencing investigation", in which the woman is interviewed. There was no explanation in court as to what this investigation means or how it applies to the sentencing. Despite the defense attorney's request, it appears this investigation will take place even though the case is on appeal.
Ackerman also sentenced the woman to community service and (I believe) monetary restitution to cover the court's costs. I couldn't hear this part entirely. The defense attorney requested that the judge stay the community service/restitution sentence pending appeal. The judge acquiesed.
Prior to sentencing, Ackerman also indicated his anger toward the media coverage of this case. He noted that he had received "threats". He also chided the defense attorney for not providing a defense "expert" on rape to talk about the young woman's reaction to her rape.
Ackerman seems to be hinging his decision based in large part on the woman's reactions after the rape.
I remain skeptical about this conviction.
I interviewed the police department public information officer about this case late last week. He too seemed frustrated with the media coverage, believing that the Oregonian story was unbalanced and didn't provide the judge's statements at the time of the conviction. He also couldn't answer my specific questions regarding the nature of the conflicting statements and how the judge reached "reasonable doubt", due to the appeal. He further expressed surprise that the judge's decision hadn't been released in writing.
I've been working hard to not make a rush judgement on this. An attorney friend of mine cautioned me early on: "A judge heard both sides of this and didn't believe her". But the more I find out, the more questions I have about how this decision was reached.
I'm still waiting to hear the appeal date. I plan to attend provided my schedule allows.
Posted by Carla at 12:29 AM |
December 19, 2005
Better Red than Liberty
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.--BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755
In last night's speech and today's press conference, President Bush decided to again use fear to push his agenda. He cited the attacks on 9/11 to justify his use of warrantless eavesdropping.
I've been looking over Article II today, and I have yet to find anywhere in which the President is given authority to spy on US citizens without a warrant.
The Republicans like to tell us that they believe in a "strict constructionist" Constitutional interpretation.
Constructionism is easily abandonded when it doesn't suit the agenda, it seems.
And those who support Bush have no problem using their fear as an excuse to abandon their principles of constructionism...or to violate the basic civil liberties of American citizens.
At least that's what the red writers tell us:
But there's more to the story than that. In 2002, when the president made his decision, there was widespread, bipartisan frustration with the slowness and inefficiency of the bureaucracy involved in seeking warrants from the special intelligence court, known as the FISA court. Even later, after the provisions of the Patriot Act had had time to take effect, there were still problems with the FISA court — problems examined by members of the September 11 Commission — and questions about whether the court can deal effectively with the fastest-changing cases in the war on terror.
People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check." And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.
FISA court allows for emergency eavesdropping without a warrant, as long as the paperwork is filed after the fact. The paperwork York is babbling about comes after the surveillance had taken place. Nothing inhibits these quick emergency eavesdrops. This is fear mongering.
And Orin Kerr tries to tell us that it's Constitutional to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. Using the 4th Amendment..Kerr stretches precedent to maximum capacity. I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on this blog...but it appears that Kerr is trying to use unsettled SCOTUS precedent on eavesdropping. Not even Bush tried that in his speech or his press conference. Kerr does what the rest of the rightwing hackosphere has done with FISA..elminating the provision that requires an after-the-fact filing of paperwork to obtain a warrant.
And then there's Ann Althouse, who trots out this old saw:
Members of Congress were briefed about the program in the past and did not see fit to take a position about it one way or the other. They were content to let the President act and but feel pressured to do something now that the program is no longer secret. Let's see what they do.
Not so much, Ann. Pelosi says she filed a classified grievance letter. Reid says that the vast majority of Senators (including most who serve on the Intelligence Committee) heard about the program via the NYT. Feingold had no idea and neither did former former Senator Graham, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Reminds me of the blathering that the rightwing did about Congress having the same intelligence on Iraq that the President did. That turned out to be a lie too.
These people are trying to use fear to take away our liberty.
Posted by Carla at 02:51 PM |
Double-Talk from the President
I listened to Bush's news conference this morning. There were any number of things which struck me as logically fallacious. But, I want to focus on the domestic spying thing.
Bush asserted that he'd authorized the NSA spying program without any court approval "because it enables us to move faster and quicker. We've got to be fast on our feet." At one point he talked about how people change phones and phone numbers quickly now days as a reason why he couldn't wait for court approval of such domestic spying. Although it was pointed out by commentators after the news conference that any administration can go to the FISA court after the fact and seek approval that way... something that Bush apparently hasn't done.
Bush emphasized that only international calls were monitored without court order — those placed from within the United States and going overseas, or those placed from other countries to individuals living in this country.He stressed that calls placed and received within the United States would be monitored as has long been the case, after an order is granted by a secret court under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
So apparently we're supposed to believe a couple of truly incredible assertions:
1. That phones and phone numbers aren't changed so fast on calls within the United States to warrent spying without court approval.
2. That he has the legal authority to order spying upon American citizens without any court approval... provided they are calling or emailing outside the United States.
Update: Backsplash has a really good post on this.
Posted by Kevin at 09:04 AM |
December 18, 2005
Even Santa isn't safe from a good Swift Boating
Posted by Carla at 05:27 PM |
President-for-Life Sheelzebub gives award to religious protesters, Wal-Mart customers
President-for-Life Sheelzebub gave boxing gloves to both the consumers and the religious protesters involved in the latest conflict over Christmas.
The gloves, adorned with a picture of Jesus in a Santa hat, were to remind them to fight for their rights and their loot on Black Friday every year.
"It's about time those pinko comsymps who think that Christmas was supposed to be about giving to those less fortunate and helping those in need were drowned out by a loud catfight. Especially those namby-pamby Christians who keep yapping on and on about loving their neighbor and all that crap. Have you been to the mall lately? There's no room for love, okay? Sheesh."
Her Infernal Majesty picked out Dick Ottersad of the Church of the Divide for special praise. "You know, Dick, I've gotta say, I've never seen headquarter's message spread in such a wonderfully sly and ironic fashion before. Mammon is thrilled and would love to take you to dinner. "
Otterstad, who protested at Wal-Mart dressed in a Santa suit, had urged shoppers to remember the reason for the season.
"You were so right to do that!" her Infernal Majesty said. "I am so glad you reminded them--Santa Claus and mindless consumption are the reason for the season. It's about time we realize that."
The President-for-Life turned to the shoppers who passed him by and said, "And you people should be proud of yourselves. You took Mr. Ottersad's symbolic message to heart, remembered the reason for the season, and got yourself further into debt to help my CEO friends buy new private jets. You truly are good Americans."
Posted by at 03:29 PM |
The Republican Party: Suspending reality and law since at least 2001
Its got to suck to be Condoleeza Rice today.
Our Secretary of Shill is sitting in the hotseat on Meet the Press this morning..giving a disgraceful laundry list of excuses.
Most noteably, Rice was on today to defend King Bush's decision to allow the NSA to monitor domestic communication without a warrant. Rice tried to cite the FISA statute (see Talk Left for a series of posts on FISA and the FISA court), which pretty clearly wasn't followed. Bush never went to the FISA court for the necessary follow ups.
Rice is also ponying up the argument that they "briefed Congress"..which is also clearly not the case. Its clear that some members of the leadership were briefed to some degree. Its also clear that Democrats expressed concern over this program. But none of those being briefed were being asked for permission to implement..they were being told. None could go public as it would have been against the law.
The excuse that Congress shouldn't be outraged because some of them were told and had no real power to stop it...another meaningless notion.
Posted by Carla at 08:38 AM |
December 17, 2005
The fragility of human life...
...hits home with the untimely death of actor John Spencer.
Spencer died of a heart attack at age 58. He was taken from us much too soon.
These sorts of losses serve as a reminder that life can be short. Sometimes exceedingly so.
Posted by Carla at 11:47 AM |
December 16, 2005
Republicans fracturing under the weight of screwups and corruption
The Republican Party caucus is coming apart at the seams.
1. Some of the more heinous provisions of the Patriot Act go down in flames (despite the White House's hefty lobbying efforts) because the GOP leadership is too selfish and stupid to accept a Dem proposal for a short term extention.{Yay! Score on for the good guys]
2.Bush's decision to let the NSA wiretap American citizens without the benefit of a warrant may come back to bite him in the ass. Remember kids, Presidents breaking the law is an "impeachable offense"....or does it only count for bj's?
3. McCain goes toe to toe with Bush on torture..and Bush blinks. Not that McCain can win me over anymore...he lost that when he glad handed Bush in 2004. Besides, standing firm on torture is the least an American Senator can do.
4.The Defense Appropriations bill is in trouble because Ted Stevens attached an ANWR drilling rider. It would appear Stevens' move has caused a filibuster threat that includes Republicans, which the GOP leadership likely can't fight off.
5. W couldn't talk about "ongoing investigations" before he could.
Posted by Carla at 03:30 PM |
Secret wiretaps=impeachable offense?
If you still support the Bush Administration after reading this story, then your partisan political sickness may be terminal:
President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.
The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials. Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried that vital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.
There is no defense for actions such as these.
Wiretapping US citizens without a warrant?
This is against the law. There is absolutely no excuse for the President of the United States to violate the civil rights of US citizens..even to stop terrorism.
I can't imagine that this isn't an impeachable offense.
I recognize that there are a lot of scared Americans out there. Terrorism is a scary business.
But terrorism has been with us for centuries. And we've had US citizens die from terrorism on our soil prior to 9/11. When Eric Rudolph murdered abortion doctors and bombed the US Olympics in Atlanta..did we allow secret wiretaps of suspected abortion doctor killers and other suspected whacked out US citizens? When Tim McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City...did we start those activities then? When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered their classmates at Columbine High School, did we start secret wiretaps of suspected angry high schoolers?
This is insanity. Any quarter of American society that supports allowing the POTUS to secretly wiretap Americans without having secured a warrant is either so blindly partisan or so blindly scared that they are beyond the reach of common sense.
Posted by Carla at 09:14 AM |
'I won't vote for Mr. Bush, but I'll take a bullet for him"
- Marine Second Lieutenant Ryan McGlothlin On Nov. 16, at age 26, he was killed in Iraq
"While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief (George W. Bush)" - Zell Miller
Talk is cheap, Mr. Miller.
Posted by Kevin at 09:14 AM |
Keystone Kops: Police Academy 10
READY READY READY TO -- ROCK AND ROLL! Iraqi security forces are locked and loaded, all right:
Official: Al-Zarqawi caught, releasedAuthorities didn't realize prisoner was terrorist mastermind
Iraqi security forces caught the most wanted man in the country last year, but released him because they didn't know who he was, the Iraqi deputy minister of interior said Thursday.
Hussain Kamal confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- the al Qaeda in Iraq leader who has a $25 million bounty on his head -- was in custody at some point last year, but he wouldn't provide further details.
A U.S. official couldn't confirm the report, but said he wouldn't dismiss it. "It is plausible," he said.
Let's see, he's got a prosthetic leg, and his face has been plastered all over everything for a couple years now. Nope, must be one of those unbefreakinlievable coincidences. Well, it is the season of miracles.
Posted by Jeff at 06:29 AM |
December 15, 2005
If the Kurds are skeptics, what should we be?
In a couple of interesting pieces carried on KurdishMedia.com we get an inside look past the PR machine in the White House.
We vote, then we throw you out points out what skeptics have been saying about Iraq, and a few things that I've not heard before.
A former prime minister, Iyad Allawi - widely known in Baghdad as "Saddam without a moustache" - saying on the record that human rights in President George W Bush's Iraq are worse than they were under Saddam.The favorite Anglo-American election candidate supposedly capable of pulling it all off is once again Allawi - a truculent secular Shi'ite who was once a Ba'athist (he has kept the good connections) before he became anti-Saddam and a US intelligence asset. The White House may forget it, but Iraqis don't; Allawi gave the go-ahead for the American leveling of Fallujah and the American bombing of holy Najaf in 2004.
But perhaps most telling is the polling figures cited:
Recent polls have revealed that at least half of the Iraqi population is still not convinced of the merits of Western-style democracy, at least the White House-promoted version.Half believe that the occupiers should have never set foot in Mesopotamia. Sixty percent think that they turned the country into an even bigger disaster than it was after the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the first Gulf war in 1991 and 12 years of United Nations sanctions. And two thirds of the population wants the occupiers out. Half the people polled by the BBC said Iraq needed a strong leader (a "Saddam without a moustache"?) And only 28% said democracy was a priority.
The other piece is even more interesting because it's forward looking rather than assessing what has been.
What to expect in Iraq after the December 15 elections lays out in highly pessimistic terms what the future for Iraq looks like.
As Iraq prepares to elect its first permanent, post-Saddam Hussein government on December 15, 2005, the political class is preparing for the regionalization, and potential fracturing, of the state. Sectarian violence, a constitution that favors federalism over the functioning of the state, and pressures on the U.S. to begin withdrawing military forces are colluding together to ensure Iraq's fragmented future will not come without violent dispute.
The Kurdish north looks to be the most likely region to secede, mostly because of it's oil reserves and vastly less chaotic civilian situation.
Last year, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (K.D.P.), which controls a portion of the Kurdish region in the north, signed a deal with Norway's DNO ASA to drill for oil near Zakho. On uncertain legal ground, drilling for the project began on December 9, 2005. The central government reacted with surprise and indignation as it claimed the K.D.P. did not consult with Baghdad before signing the deal.The Kurds claim that all new oil projects fall under the jurisdiction of the regional government in which the project will exist. Baghdad points to a clause in the constitution that says the regional governments must act in consultation with the central government when signing any new oil deals. The Kurdish region will not share any proceeds from the new project with the central government, as the constitution does not appear to require it to do so.
The sectarian violence bedeviling the Iraqi Arabs is getting worse. And not all of it is due to insurgents.
Iraq is more dangerous now for Iraqis than it was two years ago. According to Kanan Makiya in the New York Times, the Iraqi daily casualty rate was 26 in early 2004; by the fall of 2005, it had reached 64. Most of this increase can be contributed to sectarian violence as Sunni Arab insurgents attack the Shi'a population, and Shi'a militias respond in kind. Even the transitional government's forces appear to be contributing to the sectarian violence. For instance, an Interior Ministry-run prison was raided in November 2005, and 173 prisoners were discovered, most of whom had been tortured. The prisoners were primarily Sunni Arabs. The Interior Ministry is run by Bayan Jabr, a former Badr Corps commander.
But hey... let's debate whether an evergreen tree covered with tinsel and ornaments is a "holiday" tree or a "Christmas" tree.
Posted by Kevin at 01:08 PM |
I am the Grouchy Old Woman of Christmas
I realize I've been making light of the War! On! Christmas! wingnuts, but I do think in all seriousness they've been missing the point and then some. Maybe it's because I read this essay in Newsweek yesterday and I saw my feelings about the holiday articulated in perfect prose. Read it--it's spot on and anyone yelping about store associates who say Happy Holidays and how Liberals are out to destroy Christmas should just take a few deep breaths, count to ten, and then ask themselves how consuming themselves into debt and stress is at all Christian or representative of the baby Jesus. Or the grown Jesus for that matter. Last time I checked, shopping was not on the list of Ten Commandments that some folks would like to post up at courthouses. Really. All this shopping madness, coupled with the War! On! Christmas! hysteria really makes me dread this season. My sister and I agreed last year that we wouldn't exchange gifts for Christmas anymore, bless her soul. It's not as if she's got the time to shop for my pinko self; she and her husband have their hands full with the kids and the house and their jobs and life in general. (You know, I'm starting to wonder if all most parents really want for Christmas is a quiet afternoon and a nap. Sheesh, I'd like that.) I really don't want to be a source of additional stress. And I'm just not a fan of shopping malls, myself. I went Christmas shopping last Sunday, and while the day out was nice--my friend and I had a nice leisurely lunch, I heard all about her new, family-oriented, tatooed artist boyfriend, I was not particularly thrilled to be dodging wandering shoppers drunk on charging lots of plastic crap that would collect dust. Actually, any gift-giving occaision gives me the hives, and the reason is actually quite simple--I've got more than enough crap. I'm trying to get rid of it. I'd love to go to a Yankee swap where I just give my old stuff away and get nothing in return. (That's actually called St. Vincent de Paul, and I've been making quite a few trips over there.) I don't need anything else. Truly. I don't. And I don't want to be the cause of anyone's holiday stress where they try to find the perfect gift for me. It's not like I live like a monk, I'm quite happy to buy myself a pair of earrings I like, or a necklace, or a book, or a sweater that catches my eye and that I'll wear. I just hate mandatory gift-giving. The very idea of it drives me crazy, and people don't take you seriously if you say that what you'd really like is a gift to Project Bread in your honor or you'd rather not have anything. Unless it's something they can wrap, it doesn't count. When I was in college, my then-boyfriend got royally irritated with me when I told him what I wanted for my birthday. It was all quite simple--just cook me dinner. "No, seriously," he said, as if there was some little trinket that I really wanted but was being coy. As if. It is physically impossible for me to be coy, as any man I've been involved with (who's got half a clue) can tell you--I start twitching when I try it. I can't remember my college boyfriend got me--I just know that I didn't get the dinner cooked by him, which is what I wanted. I even told him why--it would be nice to just hang out, have a quiet night in, and eat something that he made me. If he wanted to make it special, he could light a candle. Boom. He's done, I'm happy, life is good.
So these days roll around, and I get tired. I have to think--quick! THINK! What do I want? What do I need? Think about it and tell folks and maybe I'll get it. And if I don't want or need anything, I'd better come up with something anyway. And I know that most people around me feel the same way--there are only so many sweaters anyone needs, and that's the big fallback item for some folks. Lately, I think people just don't know what they want or need because they don't actually want or need anything. I'm starting to think that we all want to get off this ridiculous merry-go-round, but it's not something anyone wants to mention because it can inspire resentment in some quarters. (Thankfully, my folks seem to get it and accept the fact that I'm The Grumpy Old Woman of Christmas.) Mentioning this to people outside of my family gets me a ration of grief, though. It's like I'm ruining Christmas by saying that please, don't buy me a gift (I never bought for people outside of my family and whomever I was going out with at the time, anyway). If there's one thing people hate worse than not getting a gift, it's getting their karma sucked away from comsymps like me.
Posted by at 09:02 AM |
Yes, comrade, there is a Santa Claus
Ahhh, that heart-warming Christmas season feeling, bringing back warm memories of yesteryear. Say, December 1969.
"He sees you when you're sleeping... he knows when you're awake... "
And other gifts that keep on giving, naturally. "Told you not to get me anything...! Oh. Well, I must admit I'm not a bit surprised..." Bah humbug to you too, Kevin Drum!
Devastating Diebold hack proven. "More EGGNOG, I SAID!"
So, give it to me straight, Doc, I can take it. Tell me the worst. Is any of this even making it into the mainstream media?
Google News headlines, yesterday:
But today there's this: Bush takes blame for Iraq war on bad intelligence
So, there's that. Oh, and this just in: irony, like democracy and Generalissimo Francisco Franco, is still dead.
Posted by Jeff at 08:11 AM |
Tidbits galore!
I'll be away today helping my brother move into his new condo during the day. And then by night I'll change into my groovy nonwork duds and head over to a meet and greet at Acme Bar and Grill on SE 8th and Main for Democrats Rob Brading and Arnie Roblan..both running for the Oregon House.
There are some juicy and delicious tidbits in the blogosphere that definitely need digesting, so check them out:
AmericaBlog gets Ford Motor Company to do the right thing.
Jeanne gives the big reason why holding detainees without due process is not just a huge violation of civil liberties..but probably creates more terrorists.
Oregon Senator Ron Wyden plans to filibuster the Patriot Act
Amanda outs Dawn and Steve's efforts to make sure rape victims have every opportunity to be turned into criminals.
Shakes Sis continues her uncanny ability to ask the questions on everyone's need to know list: Got any cool scars?
Josh Marshall reports on how the Bush Administration continues to do stupid shit to other nations. And the frothing rightwing nutters wonder why international leaders score points with their constituents by talking smack about W. Jeez.
"You know Dasher and Dancer and Prancer and Vixen..." just like in the Bible. See LabKat.
Posted by Carla at 07:12 AM |
December 14, 2005
The Mahablog challenge
The always excellent Mahablog has issued a challenge to her readers. I think its a challenge worthy of PKers as well:
You’re on, toots. The only oppression of Christians in this country of which I am aware has been at the hands of OTHER Christians. Here’s an example. But if you can find a SINGLE EXAMPLE of Christian Americans being oppressed by non-Christians, or of any government officials at federal, state, or local level locking churches or throwing Christians in jail because of their beliefs — not for something they did, like break a law — then please tell us. Tell us here. Provide links. That goes for anyone else breezing through this blog. Put up or shut up.
Outstanding.
There is a serious persecution complex among quite a few Christians in this country. But are there any real examples of Christians being jailed in this country because of their beliefs? Is there a single example of a Christian being persecuted here in the US (specifically meaning to be harassed by ill treatment or persistently harmed)due to their beliefs?
To echo Maha: put up or shut up.
Posted by Carla at 01:30 PM |
Six Degrees of Tom DeLay
How many licks does it take to get the Tom DeLay center of Duke Cunningham's bribery case?
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, subpoenaed on Monday records of California businessman Brent Wilkes and three Wilkes-controlled companies that made a political contribution to a Texas fundraising committee set up by DeLay.Late Tuesday, Earle also subpoenaed records from a civil lawsuit involving DeLay from a decade ago in which an ex-business partner accused him of lying.
Wilkes was described in a federal indictment as one of four defense contractors who bribed Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who pleaded guilty and resigned in late November.
The subpoenas focused on a $15,000 contribution by a Wilkes subsidiary, Perfect Wave Technologies, to DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority.
DeLay's legal junkyard dog Dick DeGuerin is complaining of a fishing expedition on the part of Earle. Unfortunately for Tricky Dick, his client is involved in all sorts of odious goings on. Whether it turns out to be illegal is a separate question. At the very least, the ethical part of this stinks to high heaven.
But House Republicans are addicted to DeLay's cash flow like a crack whore. They won't disavow their pimp until it becomes so politically deadly that it might cost them their seat.
Oregon's congressman Greg Walden is one such addict. Walden approved the weakening of ethics rules in the House to attempt to make it easier for DeLay to hold his Leader status.
Just another "trick" to keep the cash flow going.
Are the Oregonians of District 2 so blindingly red that they'll keep Walden in his seat despite his unethical behavior?
Perhaps its time for Howard Dean's to translate to a 36 county strategy for Oregon.
Posted by Carla at 11:46 AM |
If you don't celebrate Christmas, the terrorists have won!
The War on "Holidays" heats up...with another whacko Republican lawmaker intent on shoving the "true meaning" of Christmas down the throats of Americans whether they like it or not:
The huge tree festooned with lights in front of the Capitol should be called a Christmas tree rather than being labeled a holiday tree as it is now, the GOP-controlled Senate said in a resolution Tuesday.Debate over the measure grew heated, with Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, criticizing "elites" for attacking people of faith and forcing the tree to have a politically correct designation.
"What holiday are we talking about when we put the tree up? We're talking about the Christmas holiday," Cropsey said. He also said terrorists are less likely to celebrate Christmas.
But do terrorists celebrate "holidays"? Enquiring minds want to know.
Hmm...I wonder if a nativity ever graced the homes of Tim McVeigh? Did the Baby Jesus ever rest his head in a manger where Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris lived?
Did Santa ever visit Eric Rudolph?
So much for terrorism being a religion specific enterprise.
Posted by Carla at 07:44 AM |
December 13, 2005
Another reason why Dems have trouble at the national level
They keep hiring this clown.
[Update: There seems to be confusion as to who I'm referring to. The piece on the front page of the link was written by Al From. The link is more direct now]
Posted by Carla at 08:03 AM |
Dead-enders in the War on Christmas
Sam Seder nails it down for us:
SEDER: Listen, as far as the war on Christmas goes, I feel like we should be waging a war on Christmas. I mean, I believe that Christmas, it's almost proven that Christmas has nuclear weapons, can be an imminent threat to this country, that they have operative ties with terrorists and I believe that we should sacrifice thousands of American lives in pursuit of this war on Christmas. And hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.PHILLIPS: Is it a war on Christmas, a war Christians, a war on over-political correctness or just a lot of people with way too much time on their hands?
SEDER: I would say probably, if I was to be serious about it, too much time on their hands, but I'd like to get back to the operational ties between Santa Claus and al Qaeda.
PHILLIPS: I don't think that exists. Bob? Help me out here.
SEDER: We have intelligence, we have intelligence.
PHILLIPS: You have intel. Where exactly does your intel come from?
SEDER: Well, we have tortured an elf and it's actually how we got the same information from Al Libbi. It's exactly the same way the Bush administration got this info about the operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam.
Read the rest of the transcript. Happy Saturnalia, everybody!
Posted by Jeff at 05:35 AM |
December 12, 2005
This is sick
Jedmunds is right. This is sick.
From Battlepanda:
The Cory Maye case is just about the ugliest nexus of race, civil rights violations, southern juries and our criminal justice system that I can think of.
Let's summarize: Cops mistakenly break down the door of a sleeping man, late at night, as part of drug raid. Turns out, the man wasn't named in the warrant, and wasn't a suspect. The man, frigthened for himself and his 18-month old daughter, fires at an intruder who jumps into his bedroom after the door's been kicked in. Turns out that the man, who is black, has killed the white son of the town's police chief. He's later convicted and sentenced to death by a white jury. The man has no criminal record, and police rather tellingly changed their story about drugs (rather, traces of drugs) in his possession at the time of the raid.
Cory Maye is now on death row in Mississippi.
You read that right. He's on death row. Apparently trying to protect his daughter from what he thought were maurading punks wasn't a good enough excuse.
He was convicted in 2004. Here is the text of the AP newsstory covering the verdict (since it's not easily web accessible).
Columbia, Miss. January 25, 2004.
A Jefferson Davis County will pay with his life for the 2001 shooting death of a Prentiss police officer.
Cory Maye, 23, showed no reaction when a Marion County jury of eight women and four men found him guilty of capital murder Friday for the death of Officer Ron Jones.
Jones was one of eight officers conducting a search warrant looking for illegal drugs at two apartments on Mary Street in Prentiss on Dec. 26, 2001. Shortly after Jones entered Maye's bedroom, he was shot in the chest, just below his bullet-resistant vest.
"It's been two years since he was killed and the hurt will never go away," said Jones' father, Ronald Jones, who was the Prentiss police chief at the time of h