« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »

January 31, 2006

Check out the reality based SOTU:Liveblogging at Washblog!

Once you've let your ears bleed watching Bush blather on about how gumdrop boats run smoothly over milk chocolate rivers on marshmallow dreams...head on over to Washblog for a great *liveblogging* session with Washington Congressman Jim McDermott.

McDermott will be posting his Real State of the Union about 45 minutes after Bush's speech.

Posted by Carla at 06:30 PM |

Why do they hate our freedom?

"I am who I am. I'm my own person. And I'm not like any other justice on the Supreme Court now or anybody else who served on the Supreme Court in the past" - Samuel Alito during Senate confirmation hearings.

Why is Alito unlike any current or past justice? Because of his single-minded dedication to the extremist Unitary Executive Theory which essentially says that the president is the sole arbitor of how, why or when laws, statutes or treaties are obeyed in whole or in part by his or her administration.

John Yoo, the former justice department official who wrote the crucial memos justifying President Bush's policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance without warrants is a fellow Unitary Executive Theory zealot. Sidney Blumenthal explains:

Sidney Blumenthal: "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"

John Yoo: "No treaty."

Got that? If president Bush deems that he's got to torture you, he can accomplish his task by having your child's testicals crushed and it's perfectly legal according to the Unitary Executive Theory that Yoo and Alito believe in. Blumenthal continues:

The "unitary executive" is nothing less than "gospel", declared the federal judge Samuel Alito in 2000 - it is a theory that "best captures the meaning of the constitution's text and structure".

And...

In his application to the Reagan justice department, Alito wrote that his interest in constitutional law was "motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren court decisions ... particularly in the area ... of reapportionment" - which established the principle of one person, one vote.

No need to even ask how he would have ruled on Bush v. Gore in 2000.

In the Reagan justice department, he argued that the federal government had no responsibility for the "health, safety and welfare" of Americans (a view rejected by Reagan); that "the constitution does not protect the right to an abortion"; that the executive should be immune from liability for illegal domestic wiretapping; that illegal immigrants have no "fundamental rights"; that police had a right to kill an unarmed 15-year-old accused of stealing $10 (a view rejected by the supreme court and every police group that filed in the case); and that it should be legal to fire, and exclude from funded federal programmes, people with Aids, because of "fear of contagion ... reasonable or not".

Well... so much for the Bill of Rights. Alito apparently believes that the president can dole them out, or not, as he alone sees fit.

I'm not okay with this.

Question: According to Bush himself, the fact that we are allegedly at war gives him broad discression (ie. Unitary Executive Theory) to interprete the law. Assuming that the War on Terrorism isn't concluded by then... according to Unitary Executive Theory what authority can compell Bush to step aside once his term of office is over in 2008?

Posted by Kevin at 03:07 PM |

I got yer divisiveness right here

Apparently, a filibuster was seen as terribly divisive.

Let's forget that so many voters called these senators, some had to switch off their phones. Their voice mailboxes were full. They were flooded with calls and faxes from people who wanted them to read the phonebook, recite Shakespeare, do whatever to stall the nomination.

Yeah, it wasn't a nice suggestion, but politics isn't the place to be if you're looking for nice. We vote for people so they will represent us and our interests. Stepping out of the way and allowing the confirmation of a far-right justice--a justice whose nomination was orchestrated by the Federalist Society--is not in the people's best interest.

Besides which, the GOP has been quite happy to use the filibuster in the past. Why on earth is everyone so intent on being nice? Yes, the GOP would have likely ramed the confirmation through, but the Democrats would have shown the people who support them that they wouldn't go down without a fight.

Oh, there's a divide, alright. It's between the Democratic senators and the rank-and-filers who are getting sick of supporting them and being let down.

Posted by at 02:38 PM |

World Can't Wait--tossing us out to the margins

I'm as disgusted with the Bush Administration as anybody.

Their foreign policy has made us an enemy to countries that used to be our friends. Their arrogance has created a larger cancer of terrorists and terrorist activity. Domestically, those in the middle to lower class are suffering due to their economic policies. National security is shaky. Policies in regard to essentially every aspect of American life are sold out to corporations who pad the Republican Party campaign coffers.

I understand all of these things.

But standing up on a soapbox during Bush's State of the Union and pretending he can be drowned out while simulcasting over America's TV networks just looks ridiculous and silly.

Stamping our feet and demanding that Bush resign at this point is absolute nuttiness. It makes those who ask look like spoiled toddlers..demanding that their parents buy them an ice cream.

If it looks like this to me..a dedicated and engaged progressive, imagine how it appears to rank and file Americans who take only a cursory glance at the daily news?

What a waste of energy.

This demonstration reminds me of the way that the Libertarian Party fumbles around. They field a candidate for President each cycle, claiming that he's viable. And why is he viable? Because they say so. But the Libertarian Party has done nothing to prove themselves at the state and local level..to show the electorate that they've got what it takes to govern.

Protesting is an important exercise and I don't want to diminish its necessity. But honestly..aren't we protested to death? The general public is keenly aware that there are some fundamental problems with Bush's presidency and policies. Polls already reflect that. Standing outside and screaming about how Bush has to go reflects so badly on us however...that we don't exactly come across as a palatable alternative.

All this energy wasted on demonstrations and protests could be channeled into something much more effective: organization. Progressives must continue to rebuild at the state and local level. Our beliefs and values have been allowed to languish in places closest to home. We must rebuild these first. Build the foundation and then work upward toward DC.

Yes we think Bush is an abomination of governance. Yes we believe that he's done serious harm to this nation that will take generations to fix. But we can't convince the American electorate that we're the better alternative merely staging protests and stamping our feet. We have to prove that we're better.

Acting like spoiled children isn't going to demonstrate that proof.

Posted by Carla at 11:53 AM |

RIP Coretta Scott King

The beautiful and inspirational Coretta Scott King has died at the age of 78.

When I was in college, I attended a lecture that Ms. King delivered at the school (that's 20 years ago, for those of you scoring at home). Her lecture was meant to inspire us as college students to service.

What moved me however were her words on justice. I don't remember now the specific phrasologies, but she spoke about the importance of justice in our society. She talked to us about our responsibility to ensure that all citizens were given equal access under the law..and how far we'd come. But even more how far we have to go.

Following the lecture, Mrs King attended a reception in her honor at the college president's home. At the time I was barely 20 years old, deep into my studies and an insulated college existence. Mrs. King was the first real "famous person" I had been in the same room with. I remember swallowing my feelings of intimidation and shakily introducing myself..greeting her hand with my sweaty palm.

She had the kindest eyes and her smile was so warm. There were a lot of people waiting to introduce themselves to her...she was in for a long night. But she didn't rush me. She took a few minutes to ask me about myself and my studies..my plans for the future. I remember telling her about how much were words on justice impressed me. She smiled again and thanked me.

I watched her work around the room for the next hour or so..warmly greeting the young men and women who were so thrilled to meet her. She exuded a glowing strength that I've seen in very few others.

Her lecture was one of the seminal moments that demonstrated to me the human potential.

Rest in peace, Coretta Scott King.

Posted by Carla at 09:15 AM |

Freedom of Speech

Just seen a few minutes ago as I commuted to work:

A late model full sized Chevy pickup with a canopy and sporting "disabled veteran" license plates. Taped to the inside of the canopy window was a piece of printer paper which said,

This Veteran
Supports Impeachment

Now!!

Another piece of printer paper taped on the opposite side of the window was a spoof on a Bush/Cheney '04 bumper sticker,

Bush/Cheney
for Prison

Posted by Kevin at 07:21 AM |

Must-see TV

SOTo'Up Drinkin' Game

Drink a beer after every lie.

Drink a beer every time Bush says "freedom," "sacrifice", "brave men and women", or talks about September 11 as if those attacks had anything to do with Iraq.

Drink two beers after every wildly unrealistic assessment that has no basis in fact (healthcare savings accounts, just one beer each, or you'll be comatose).

Drink a beer and a shot every time he says "nukular."

Anyone still standing after fifteen minutes wins a Medal of Freedom.

Posted by Jeff at 07:13 AM |

Top 10 things W won't tell you about the State of the Union

From Juan Cole (italics commentary mine):

1. US economic growth during the last quarter was an anemic 1.1%, the worst in 3 years.
Clinton's fault.

2. The US inflation rate has jumped to 3.4 percent, the highest rate in 5 years.
Illegal immigrants' fault.

3. The number of daily attacks in Iraq rose from 52 in December, 2004 to 77 in December, 2005.
Michael Moore's fault. Wait, whatever happened to that annual report on Terrorism? Look, there's a memory hole right over there...!

4. A third of US veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 40,000 persons, exhibit at least some signs of mental health disorders. Some 14,000 were treated for drug dependencies, and 11,000 for depression.
Jane Fonda's fault.

5. Increases in American consumer spending come from borrowing.
Ted Kennedy's fault.

6. The $320 - $400 billion deficits run by the Bush administration may push up the cost of mortgages and loans.
"Hey, all that economists and numbers babble means nothing -- I can qualify for a $495,000 crib! WHERE DA HOOD AT!" See #5.

7. 58% of Americans think Bush is painting Iraq as rosier than it is. A majority thinks we should never have invaded the country.
Liberal media's fault. "But we got all those schools painted -- why do you hate our troops?"

8. The US military is at a breaking point.
I just can't make any jokes about this.

9. In fact, the US and Iran are tacit allies in Iraq.
Jimmy Carter's fault. "Uh-UH! Ahmed Chalabi is our friend! and he owes us!"

10. More money would be needed to finish the US reconstruction projects begun in Iraq.
"Sacrifice, Mr. President? You better break off some cash, yourself, Mr. Oil Man. You didn't spend all of it on weasel-dust and ho's! Big-Time Dick? Exxon just reported 26% jump in revenue and a nearly 30% increase in earnings per share -- cough up those dividends, asshole!"

Posted by Jeff at 06:39 AM |

January 30, 2006

Compassionate Conservative = Oxymoron?

As Alan Greenspan moves closer to retirement there are some lessons to be learned from his tenure at chief officer of our central bank.

In the late 90s Greenspan directly challenged economic orthodoxy by not raising interest rates when unemployment edged towards 4%. Orthodoxy stated that unemployment that low would cause inflation. But, Greenspan gambled that it wouldn't and he was right.

Of course unemployment figures too much below 4% - say, 1% - would most certainly cause inflation, which of course would pose a direct challenge to wealth accumulation. There is another economic risk with too low of an unemployment rate: the ability of employers to find and hire the most qualified applicant for any given job. If unemployment were at or near even 1% then employers would have to take whatever live body responded and hope the applicant would prove useful. By the same token the existance of at least a small unemployment rate is a benefit to prospective employees because it allows them to find and accept the job they feel best suits them and their needs.

Given the fact that to thrive a free market/capitalist economy requires at least some unemployment, what then should society's reaction to unemployment be?

Does the Conservative's advocacy of Welfare Reform equal "compassionate conservatism"?

Posted by Kevin at 10:33 AM |

**Filibuster** GOP may not have votes for cloture

On KPOJ this morning, Thom Hartman announced that the Republican Party may not have the votes to break the filibuster on SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito.

Breaking ranks with the Republican Party and is Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. He's announced he's voting against Alito.

So what about those senators, known as the Gang of 14, who formed a bipartisan bond to not allow filibusters (mostly) and not allow Frist to use the Nuclear Option? According to Armando, CNN says the Gang of 14 will not allow a filibuster. Except the report is coming from the dubious Ed Henry, who isn't exactly CNN's most reliable.

Clearly the push by the progressive grass roots is making a big difference. Last Friday, the Republicans were announcing that they had over 70 votes to end a filibuster. By Sunday it was down to the low 60s. Now at least some don't think the votes are there.

Hartman is also reporting that Washington Senator Maria Cantwell has not announced..and is wavering back and forth. Washingtonians NEED TO CONTACT HER for her no vote on Alito and to support the filibuster:

Washington Office:
SH-717
Washington, D.C. 20510-4705
Phone: (202) 224-3441
Fax: (202) 228-0514

Main District Office:
915 Second Ave., Ste. 3206
Seattle, WA 98174
Phone: (206) 220-6400
Fax: (206) 220-6404

The Gang of 14 also needs a push. Their info is below the fold:

Dems

*Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Washington Office:
SH-706
Washington, D.C. 20510-0703
Phone: (202) 224-4041
Fax: (202) 224-9750

Main District Office:
1 Constitution Plz., 7th Fl.
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: (860) 549-8463
Fax: (860) 549-8478

*Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
Washington Office:
SH-311
Washington, D.C. 20510-4801
Phone: (202) 224-3954
Fax: (202) 228-0002

Main District Office:
300 Virginia St., #2630
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 342-5855
Fax: (304) 343-7144

* E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
Washington Office:
SH-720
Washington, D.C. 20510-2706
Phone: (202) 224-6551
Fax: (202) 228-0012

Main District Office:
100 Centennial Mall North, Rm. 287
Lincoln, NE 68508
Phone: (402) 441-4600
Fax: (402) 476-8753

* Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Washington Office:
SH-724
Washington, D.C. 20510-1804
Phone: (202) 224-5824
Fax: (202) 224-9735

Main District Office:
500 Poydras St., #1005
New Orleans, LA 70130-
Phone: (504) 589-2427
Fax: (504) 589-4023

* Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Washington Office:
SH-722
Washington, D.C. 20510-1102
Phone: (202) 224-3934
Fax: (202) 224-6747

Main District Office:
300 Ala Moana Blvd., #7-212
Honolulu, HI 96850
Phone: (808) 541-2542

* Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Washington Office:
SD-257
Washington, D.C. 20510-0403
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Fax: (202) 228-0908

Main District Office:
500 Clinton Ave., Ste. 401
Little Rock, AR 72201-1745
Phone: (501) 324-6336

* Ken Salazar, Colorado
Washington Office:
SH-702
Washington, D.C. 20510-0605
Phone: (202) 224-5852
Fax: (202) 228-5036

Main District Office:
2300 15th St., Ste. 425
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 455-7600
Fax: (303) 455-8851

Repubs

* John S. McCain III, Arizona
Washington Office:
SR-241
Washington, D.C. 20510-0303
Phone: (202) 224-2235
Fax: (202) 228-2862

Main District Office:
5353 N. 16th St., Ste. 105
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 952-2410
Fax: (602) 952-8702

* Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina
Washington Office:
SR-290
Washington, D.C. 20510-4001
Phone: (202) 224-5972
Fax: (202) 224-3808

Main District Office:
101 East Washington St., Ste. 220
Greenville, SC 29601
Phone: (864) 250-1417
Fax: (864) 250-4322

* John Warner, Virginia
Washington Office:
SR-225
Washington, D.C. 20510-4601
Phone: (202) 224-2023
Fax: (202) 224-6295

Main District Office:
5309 Commonwealth Centre Parkway
Midlothian, VA 23112
Phone: (804) 739-0247
Fax: (804) 739-3478

* Olympia Snowe, Maine
Washington Office:
SR-154
Washington, D.C. 20510-1903
Phone: (202) 224-5344
Fax: (202) 224-1946

Main District Office:
Three Canal Plz., #601
Portland, ME 04112
Phone: (207) 874-0883
Fax: (207) 874-7631

* Susan M. Collins, Maine
Washington Office:
SD-461
Washington, D.C. 20510-1904
Phone: (202) 224-2523
Fax: (202) 224-2693

Main District Office:
202 Harlow St., #204
Bangor, ME 04401
Phone: (207) 945-0417
Fax: (207) 990-4604

* R. Michael DeWine, Ohio
Washington Office:
SR-140
Washington, D.C. 20510-3503
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519

Main District Office:
37 W. Broad St., Ste. 300
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 469-5186
Fax: (614) 469-2982

* Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Washington Office:
SR-141A
Washington, D.C. 20510-3904
Phone: (202) 224-2921
Fax: (202) 228-2853

Main District Office:
170 Westminster St., Ste. 1100
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: (401) 453-5294
Fax: (401) 453-5085

Posted by Carla at 09:03 AM |

Carla's Adventures in Blue Star Land

It was a quiet Sunday here yesterday. There was a fairly constant downpour for most of the day and I had all the housework done. So I ventured away from my usual blogreading and stumbled upon the Blue Star Chronicles.

I've butted heads with some rightwing women from time to time. I hold out hope that someday I'll run across one willing to drop the ad hominem and truely engage me, but that day wasn't yesterday.

Beth, the author of the blog, had some rancorous things to say about Hamas. Unfortunately among the rancor, Beth was unsurprisingly throwing facts out the window:

Hamas leaders say they won't renounce their violent ideology. Hamas Says It Will Not Change.

The U.S. administration and Israel are saying they will not deal with Hamas unless and until they denounce their committment to destroying Israel.
[snip]

Judging from this 'Martyr's Oath' and Hamas stated organizational purpose of destroying Israel and Jews, I think Mr. Carter's plan does not have a very good prognosis. I don't know that pumping enough money and power into a terrorist group will persuade them to stop bombing Israel. Besides, how much is enough?

Avoiding conflict creates unavoidable conflict. I would have thought that would have been obvious from his negotiations with Iran in 1980.

This over-the-top screeching seems like panic to me. Bush has been pushing for democracy in the Middle East. Republicans have what they asked for..why the gnashing of teeth? So being me, I tried to help bring a little rational discussion to the mix by explaining that Fatah lost because they are corrupt and because Hamas has in fact softened its stance on Israel, followed by 2 news articles backing up my statements.

I was somewhat politely engaged by commentor YankeeMom, who attempted to use a noncontexted part of one of my articles to claim that Hamas hadn't softened its stance.

Then I was subsequently attacked as a "Jimmy Carter clone" (I guess that's supposed to be an insult. Would that I could negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel, start Habitat for Humanity and be a wildly popular international figure. But I digress.)And that Hamas is exactly like the Nazis. Then scoldingly told that the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

Which of course we do (Iran hostages in the late 70s, Iran/Contra, and currently with the Sunni insurgency--who many on the right consider terrorists).

This back and forth continued for awhile..with Beth attempting to remind me that the only reason I get to have political speech is that her son is in the military. To which I kindly replied..no..I have political speech because its the law. And I find it unfortunate that she feels the need to use her son's service as a bludgeon.

So now I've made the front page of Blue Star Chronicles...without having one honest attempt to engage me on the factual evidence I cited.

But it killed a rainy, boring Sunday, I guess.

Posted by Carla at 07:56 AM |

Sam Alito: Brought to you by the folks who defended torture and domestic spying.

Just a reminder to contact the key Democratic senators and urge a filibuster. People for the American Way have a handy e-fax form for you to use--they'll blast the fax.

And if anyone thinks this is unreasonable, that Alito has been chosen for his judicial experience and knowledge, and not for ideological reasons, is ignoring the fact that the Federalist Society orchestrated the whole thing.

Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a team of conservative grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and legal strategists met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists.

The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the records of 18 potential nominees — including Judges John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and trained more than three dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports on the president's eventual pick.

"We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast.

Now, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, coming four months after Chief Justice Roberts was installed, those planners stand on the brink of a watershed for the conservative movement.

Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power. It was a philosophy promulgated by Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration, that became the gospel of the Federalist Society and the nascent conservative legal movement.

So, senators: here's your smoking gun. Now read the phone book out loud.

Posted by at 06:21 AM |

Horse sense.

An old farmer who was a bit addled refused to give up his farm. He lived alone, took care of himself, but absolutely hated to spend any money, and most of all he railed about the expense of horse feed. He got the bright idea that by feeding his one remaining old draught horse a little less each day, he'd get used to eating less, till eventually he could live on nothing. So time went by, the horse got thinner and weaker, till one day the farmer fed him one bite only. Next day, he'd be down to nothing at all, and he thought "Finally!" But the poor old horse dropped dead that night.

And what did the farmer say next morning? "Stupid horse, if only he could've waited ONE MORE DAY...!"

Why bring this up now, you say? Oh, I dunno.

According to Robert Burns, one of my favorite military writers, a recent study says that the Army has reached the breaking point.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld isn't buying any of this Henny Penny talk.

Rumsfeld has argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.

"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on Dec. 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."

This is the same Donald Rumsfeld who said we sent enough troops to Iraq in the beginning and denied there was an insurgency going on in that country until about ten months into it.

Thanks to Jeff Huber for the above. Two of my favorite horse sense riddle/jokes (answers in comments):

Q) A man rode into town on June 3rd, stayed a week, and rode out on June 3rd. How is this possible?

Q) How do you make a small fortune in the horse industry?

Posted by Jeff at 06:18 AM |

January 29, 2006

Peter Principle in action

Imagine that you've been entrusted to manage the dispersal of $120 million in Iraqi oil revenues for the purposes of reconstruction, but $97 million of it can't even be accounted for and auditors can only find documentation to account for a mere $8 million of the $120 million total. What happens to you?

If you're the hand-picked puppet of George W. Bush you get an award.

Imagine that you are a disgraced expert on Arabian horses with a contrived resume claiming experience in emergency services that you don't in fact have, but despite that (or perhaps because of it) you've been appointed by George W. Bush to head FEMA. Imagine further that you've badly mismanaged the federal response to the greatest natural disaster in generations. What happens to you?

While New Orleans is going to hell in a handbasket, Bush and Brown are in San Diego, which is NOT experiencing a natural disaster, and Bush proclaims: "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job."

Imagine that you are allegedly a fiscal conservative who manages to get in the White House with the help of some of your father's friends on the Supreme Court even though you lost the popular vote handily. The outgoing Democratic administration hands you a huge budget surplus which you promptly turn into a massive budget deficit. What happens to you?

You win another contested election on the strength of an Ohio vote that simply isn't believable but IS managed by your political allies.

That, my friends, is known as the Peter Principle in action.

America seriously is capable of soooo much more than this rank incompetence.

Posted by Kevin at 03:20 PM |

"...the principle of a nation of laws and not men."

In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves.--RA Butler

I read that quote today on Google.

In today's Republican "wolf eat lamb" politically disciplined goosestep march, its especially courageous to see conservatives who are willing to revolt:

These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president, who wanted to give the president virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror. Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. They did so at their peril; ostracized, some were denied promotions, while others left for more comfortable climes in private law firms and academia. Some went so far as to line up private lawyers in 2004, anticipating that the president's eavesdropping program would draw scrutiny from Congress, if not prosecutors. These government attorneys did not always succeed, but their efforts went a long way toward vindicating the principle of a nation of laws and not men.

The entire piece is a fascinating read, well worth your time. I excerpted this section mostly because what I've highlighted in bold text.

This is the crux of the progressive concern with the Bush Administration.

Since the beginning of Bush's presidency, the Administration has been skirting the edges of ethics and legality. From the ethically questionable closed door energy policy meetings, the cherrypicked intelligence regarding Iraq to the unconstitutionally illegal domestic spying, Team Bush has pushed law and ethics to the brink in favor of their political power agenda.

They've run their political machine roughshod over anyone who gets in their way. Those that speak up..whether they've been loyal conservatives or hardline liberals, all are cast into the same pit as "traitors" to the war President.

That's why the filibuster of Alito matters so much. Its a stand..albeit slow in coming. Even though its highly unlikely to keep Alito off the court, it demonstrated a willingness to look the wolves in the eye..to be sheep no more.

The few courageous conservatives who stand for what is right are especially laudable. It takes a great deal more to stand up to your own. And when you know its futile..when you know they'll try to tear you apart and ruin you..that's the gutsiest of all.

Progressives should be embracing these men and women who stand up for our nation of laws. While we may have our ideological differences, these people are doing what's right.

I'm taking the time today to personally email these people and thank them for their service to our country. While they might not be fighting overseas in the military, what they're doing is as brave and as honorable.

Posted by Carla at 10:43 AM |

Phone, fax, email, and be a PITA

I'm going to try and call the sentators who are still against a filibuster against Alito, or who will still vote for Alito, even though I'm getting tired of calling and emailing and writing to get a pat on the head and see so-called liberals dive to the right. It happened with Iraq, it happened with the USA Patriot Act, and it happened with Roberts.

Many Democrats deride us naughty progressives as being divisive and unreasonable, for not being pragmatic enough. We're told that the only way we can win elections is by bolting to the side of totalitarianism and compromising our rights away.

So, I'm glad that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are finally pushing for a filibuster. I'm not surprised that Kerry, who made the statement, was deemed elitist by conservatives since he made the statement from Davos. This, despite the fact that even Saxy Chambliss also made comments about the filibuster from Davos. Attending Davos makes one an elitist unless you're a Republican, apparently.

Contact the senators listed here and urge them to vote no on Alito and to back a filibuster. We do seem to be making some headway in this. We have until Monday afternoon to call, fax, or email them. You'll want to note that a few of them have said they won't accept calls from people who aren't in their districts. 'Kay, fine. Remember that the next time the DLC asks you for money or support.

Right now, we've got a pack of senators who will either kindasortamaybe vote no but who insist that it's just so rude to filibuster. It's just so mean, and besides, the wingnuts will use the nuclear option.

To which I'd ask: would you rather go down fighting and keep your base, or would you rather go on all fours, whislte Dixie for the GOP, and have people vote you out of office because either a) you betrayed them yet again or b) you gave tacit approval to the right wing through your (non )actions?

Posted by at 09:23 AM |

Toby Keith is a registered Democrat

Well kiss my grits:

Q: With this new album, is it a relief not to have to deal with the controversy from the "Angry American" song?

A: Yeah, well, you know, my song was more for the police action that took place in Afghanistan — chasing a bad guy down that had killed a bunch of Americans. That bled over into the Iraq war, and a lot of people want to paint me with that (conservative) brush. But I'm a lifetime Democrat, and that really pisses them off. They want me to be this big right-wing nut. I'm just a patriotic guy that was angry after 9/11 and knew our troops were going to have to go into Afghanistan because that country wasn't going to do the right thing and turn (Osama bin Laden) over to us.

I wonder how long it will take the right wing to Dixie Chick ol' Toby now that they know he's on the dark side?

(via Red State Rebels)

Posted by Carla at 07:55 AM |

GOP leadership race: the ultimate ugly trifecta

The kids in the GOP can't seem to find a leadership candidate who isn't up to his gills in muck.

First there's Roy Blunt. Blunt is so tight with former leader Tom DeLay that DeLay's stink is on Blunt's breath.

And then there's John Boehner, whose been greasing the skids for his big donors by generating sweet policy deals for them.

Finally, let us not forget the dark horse, Arizona's John Shadegg. Shadegg reeks of Abramoff.

The Republican House Leadership race is down to a slimeball crook, a scumbag crook and a weasley crook.

Posted by Carla at 07:01 AM |

January 28, 2006

Item #42 on the gay agenda can be checked off the list

The liberal elitist Hollywood gay agenda is moving forward into the red states, as planned.

Agenda Item #42: Get movies about gay cowboys into red state suburban theatres.

Agenda Item #42: check!

And that is what Jack Foley, president of distribution for Focus Features, which is distributing "Brokeback,'' calls the "unspoken truth" about a movie that has succeeded in markets where few would have expected it to.

"This movie is playing to heartland America," he said.

"Brokeback'' -- an odds-on favorite to clean up in Academy Award nominations, including best picture, on Tuesday -- is not just an art-house favorite or a cultural statement or a milestone in filmmaking. It is a bona fide hit making money in places, and with audiences, that make an East Bay movie house look like the Cannes Film Festival.

As of Sunday, the latest day for which figures were available, "Brokeback Mountain" had appeared in 1,196 theaters and earned $42.1 million in seven weeks. For a movie that cost just $14 million to make, that's already some serious profit.

Terrell Falk, vice president of marketing and communication for the huge theater chain Cinemark, notes that the film has done well in red-state strongholds like Pearl, Miss.; Lubbock, Texas; Ames, Iowa; and Ogden, Utah.

Ogden, Utah? Does Orrin Hatch know about this?

Posted by Carla at 11:15 AM |

FEMA comes through........for Nebraska

The corn is saved!

Statement on Federal Disaster Assistance for Nebraska

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of Nebraska and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by a severe winter storm from November 27-28, 2005.

Federal funding is available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe winter storm in the counties of Antelope, Boone, Boyd, Custer, Dawson, Dundy, Frontier, Furnas, Garfield, Gosper, Greeley, Hayes, Holt, Kearney, Knox, Lincoln, Logan, Loup, Madison, McPherson, Nance, Perkins, Phelps, Pierce, Red Willow, Rock, Valley, Wayne, and Wheeler.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

The Republican goobernor of Nebraska sent out a press release, of course:

Gov. Dave Heineman (R) "received word" 1/26 that FEMA "will make federal disaster funds available to affected communities" impacted by "severe winter storms" in 11/05. Heineman: I am pleased that President Bush and FEMA have answered our request for public assistance at the federal level." FEMA approved funding to cover 75% of the costs to local govts and additional funds will be available to the state "aimed at reducing the risks of similar disasters in the future"

If those New Orleans residents had just voted as red as Nebraska does...maybe they wouldn't be in their pickle, eh?

Posted by Carla at 09:34 AM |

Saturday Snippet

Major Strasser: Are you one of those people who cannot imagine the Germans in their beloved Paris?
Rick: It's not particularly my beloved Paris.
Heinz: Can you imagine us in London?
Rick: When you get there, ask me!
Captain Renault: Hmmh! Diplomatist!
Major Strasser: How about New York?
Rick: Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade.

Posted by Carla at 09:30 AM |

January 27, 2006

Avakian to run for Oregon State Senate

Oregon Representative Brad Avakian (D-Washington County) has filed his candidacy for the Oregon State Senate.

Avakian is seeking the seat being vacated by Charlie Ringo, who says he is leaving to spend more time with his family. (Shorter Ringo: Running for Mayor of Beaverton)

Democrats are in the majority in the Oregon Senate. This seat is likely safe for Democrats, too.

The area where Democrats are focusing much of their energy this cycle is the GOP controlled Oregon House.

This week on Thom Hartman's radio program, Democrat Paul Evans announced his candidacy for the Oregon House. Evans is seeking the seat currently held by Republican Jackie Winters.

Evans is former Mayor of Monmouth and is a volunteer firefighter. Evans is also a fighting Dem, having recently returned from his second tour of Iraq with the Oregon Air National Guard.

Posted by Carla at 04:33 PM |

The war against ourselves

The other day, Kevin wrote a post entitled When Is Terrorism Okay? The heart of Kevin's point? Terrorism means to instill terror in people..and the US government is guilty of this very thing with our alleged "war on terror".

Kinda tough to fight against terrorism when we're perpetuating it ourselves.

Another case in point: Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic :

The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

Lest we forget, these task force people and this colonel are supposed to be the good guys.

Hostage taking is something that the former Saddam Hussein regime allegedly did to the Iraqis.

That "winning hearts and minds in Iraq" thing seems to be much less of a priority than sticking it to terrorist suspects.

Its my view that we have made a fundamental strategic error in treating terrorism as something we make war against. The "war on terror" has so far succeeded in creating more terrorists and getting a lot of Americans killed or injured. Its not working.

We didn't declare a war against Tim McVeigh when he blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. We didn't go to war against Eric Rudolph, who set off a bomb in the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta during the Olympics and bombed abortion clinics. These men are terrorists. These men are criminals. They were brought to justice for their crimes.

Some might say that Hussein was "brought to justice" because of the "war on terror". I don't think so. At least some of the acts that Hussein is accused of perpetuating were done with the knowledge and backing of the Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations. That isn't justice. That's a fall guy.

We are not fighting a war against terrorism. Wars can't be fought over feelings. Attempting to wage war in this way has put our country in the untenable position of kidnapping, hostage taking and torture, at taxpayer expense.

The war we are fighting now is against ourselves. We are losing our ability to comprehend morality, ethics and reason. We're terrorizing groups of people in order to assuage fear of terrorism. It's creating a downward spiral such that will be very difficult to recover.

Posted by Carla at 11:32 AM |

The Soviet Union of Amurka

Pesky details that Secretary General Bush apparently views as a threat to national security:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Caitlan Childs, a vegan, was peacefully demonstrating outside a meat packing plant in DeKalb County, Georgia in December of 2003.

A DeKalb County Homeland Security agent was assigned to conduct surveillance of the protest and the protestors, and take the photographs. He was there because these vegans were considered a potential threat to the government.

Noticing the man observing their peaceful protest, Ms. Childs moved closer and wrote down the unmarked government car's license plate number.

The Homeland Security agent arrested Ms. Childs and another protester because she refused to give him the piece of paper.

"They told me if I didn't give over the piece of paper I would go to jail and I refused and I went to jail, and the piece of paper was taken away from me at the jail and the officer who transferred me said that was why I was arrested," Childs said on Wednesday

The ACLU of Georgia has obtained the agent's written report of Ms. Childs' arrest:

The detective wrote that he ordered Childs to give him the piece of paper on which she had written his license tag number, telling her that he did not want her or anyone else to have the tag number of his undercover vehicle.

The detective did not comment in his report about why his license tag number was already visible to the public.

Anti-war protestors have also been similarly surveilled in Georgia according to the ACLU of Georgia. There is no evidence that any pro-war protestors have ever been surveilled.

Welcome to the new Soviet Union of Amurka.

Oh, and you might want to thank Judge Alito and his advocacy of the Unitary Executive Theory for helping convince the Bush Administration that they and all who work for them are above the law.

Posted by Kevin at 10:39 AM |

Suckage that would make David Oreck blush

Just how much does Oregon's First Congressional District suck?

In this corner..David Wu. Wu is a four term Democrat who voted for the horrible Bankruptcy Bill and the even more heinous Medicare Prescription Drug Act. Disgusting.

In the other corner, Oregon House Republican Derrick Kitts. Kitts barely shows up to do the job he has as it is. He's been arrested for drunk driving and spends his campaign contributions at titty bars.

Lovely.

The choices for this race are a guy who votes for key Republican sponsored legislation and a guy who doesn't show up cuz he's do busy slamming tequila and T&A.

Posted by Carla at 08:35 AM |

January 26, 2006

Serve your country the easy way

Don't feel like putting on one of those itchy uniforms? Carrying an M-16 in the desert just a little more than you're up to? The 18 hour flight to Baghdad makes you airsick?

Rick Santorum has the solution:

And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what’s at stake. They’re willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country.

What I am asking all of you tonight, is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country, to fight for what we believe in. To fight for the values that have made this the country the greatest count- we got her not because we were doing things really wrong, that our traditions and our morals were way out of whack, we got here because we were a good decent county. A country guided by divine Providence.

We will only stay that great country if we continue that fight. I’m asking ya to help me do that. God Bless you. Thank you.”

Get your divine Providence on, Americans. Put your Rick Santorum bumpersticker on your car today!

Or NOT.

Posted by Carla at 04:33 PM |

And you may ask yourself--well, how did I get here?

Adding to the great piece that Kevin posted just below, some additional points of discussion:

1. What are the Bush people really up to here? There is no valid, plausible or reasonable explanation for their actions on the NSA domestic spying that exonerates them from wrongdoing.

2. Its gut check time for conservatives. Its painfully obvious that the Bush Administration has no relationship with small government, fiscal restraint or Constitutionally "strict constructionism". Therefore conservatives need to be asking themselves: What's more important..my stated conservative beliefs and values..or devotion to Bush? They are now diatametrically opposed to one another.

3. Are we going to allow the 4th Amendment to the Constitution to be nullified for the sake of the "war on terror"? Once Bush's NSA actions become unchallenged precedent, this will be permanent. Do Americans want to wipe out a Constitutional Amendment without so much as a vote among the Congress or the people? Are we really willing to give up our sacred rights for some perceived safety?

4. Over the many messy, tumultuous, violent and dark times this nation has withstood, the Constitution has been the thread that's bound us together. Once we nullify a piece of it by Executive fiat..which pieces are next? How will it effect the unity of the states?

5. Another gut check for conservatives: Would you want President Hillary Clinton to have the same powers and priviledges that have been grabbed by and conceded to President George W. Bush?

(lyrical subject title hat tip to the Talking Heads)

Posted by Carla at 03:17 PM |

Bush Inc. v. Bush Inc.

The LA Times' David Savage writes in today's edition that the White House's Words, Deeds on Spying Differed.

Four years ago, top Bush administration lawyers told Congress they opposed lowering the legal standard for intercepting the phone calls of foreigners who were in the United States, even while the administration had secretly adopted a lower standard on its own.

Now they are claiming that the probably cause requirement is too onerous.

When in 2002 Sen. Dewine proposed changing the probable cause portion of the FISA Act to reasonable suspicion the Administration opposed Dewine's legislation on the basis that it wasn't needed and they also questioned it's constitutionality. Mind you, this was after the Administration had already started the NSA spying program AND after they had already stopped using the probable cause criteria AND after they'd already stopped even attempting to get a warrant, even retroactively.

In short, they knowingly and deliberately lied. They lied to Congress and they lied to the American people.

Now the Administration is claiming that they opposed Dewine's amendment because they were afraid that debating it publically might expose this NSA program and that that might help terrorists.

So the only real defense they can offer is that they lied to protect us... AKA the ends justify the means.

Let's say that you are okay with that. Here's the next question, though. What else might they be lying about? I mean think about it. Bush has claimed that American's civil rights are being protected and that only international calls involving a suspected member of al Queda are even subject to this warrant-less spying. But that too might be a lie. This could be Watergate all over again. Remember, Nixon justified that crime as necessary to protect national security too.

Where does the lying stop and the truth begin?

Posted by Kevin at 11:56 AM |

Alleged Crack Dealer Uses Business Cards

Good ol American ingenuity:

Sylvester J. Williams, 21, of Leavenworth, was charged Monday with possessing crack cocaine with the intent to sell it, Maj. Patrick Kitchens of the Leavenworth Police Department said.

Kitchens said Williams remained in custody Wednesday on $75,000 bond.

He said police had heard for some time that Williams had been selling drugs in the area. "Then we heard that he was handing out business cards," the officer said. "In the course of our investigation we were fortunate to come up with one, and we gave him a call."

Kitchens said the business card had an image of what appeared to be an alarm clock being hit by a boxing glove and said: "For a quick hit on time call the boss."

This story is out of Kansas, where they're beating the drum on Intelligent Design being taught as science and Bush and other whacko conservatives are elected by strong margins.

And now crack dealers with business cards to lead the police to their door?

What the hell IS the matter with Kansas?

Posted by Carla at 07:30 AM |

Chevy Chase, Phoebe Cates, Pauly Shore, Rob Schneider

You might be thinking one of these thing is not like the other..but you'd be wrong.

These are all people who make terrible movies. Awful, lousy movies.

Who else could we put on this list?

Posted by Carla at 07:27 AM |

January 25, 2006

Christian® nation makes Jesus weep, pt. 193

From Marc Cooper:

'You take the captured, uniformed general of an enemy army – and in blatant violation of all notions of human decency and of the Geneva Conventions— you beat him with rubber hoses, pour water down his nose, then stuff him into a sleeping bag, tie him with electrical cord, and then sit your ass down on his chest until he suffocates and you are convicted of what? "Negligent homicide?"'

Just following orders, right. And who gave those orders? By the way, I'm not feeling safer; are you?

Posted by Jeff at 01:24 PM |

Bush's answer to everything: war and tax breaks

Just how out of touch can Bush be?

The US healthcare crisis is teetering on the brink. So what's the Bush Administration solution? New tax breaks, of course:

President Bush will propose that Americans be allowed to take tax deductions on more of their out-of pocket medical expenses, as part of an initiative the White House believes will rein in soaring health costs by shifting responsibility toward individuals, according to congressional and other sources familiar with the administration's thinking.

The new tax breaks for personal health spending, to be included in the 2007 budget Bush will release in less than two weeks, are designed to help the uninsured and to allow people with insurance to write off a greater portion of the money they spend on co-payments, deductibles and care that is not covered. Under current tax rules, people can deduct medical expenses only if they exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Wow. These guys just don't get it.

The vast majority of people who are burned financially by health care costs are the poor and the lower middle class. Their burden is huge. Tax breaks won't fix their problem.

The health care system is broken, and Bush is following the same pattern of callous ineptitude that dogs most of his policies.

This "tax break" bone that he's tossing out is a bandaid..and a weak one at that. But big pharma and insurance companies that line the GOP campaign treasure chests don't like the needed fixes because that cuts into their bottom line.

So Captain Codpiece and his band of GOP lecturn warmers have no intention of fixing this system. It won't get them juicy campaign contributions and it won't keep them in power. No sense in going out of their way for the poor and the lower middle class.

Conducting a "war on health care costs" just isn't quite as sexy as a "war on terrorism" or a "war on taxes". The GOP can't get the same cachet miles out of the Abramoff style fundraisers by passing legislation that allows pharmacies to negotiate for lower drug costs or making health insurance available to all citizens.

Posted by Carla at 12:23 PM |

Greatness

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Julia Ward Howe, Mothers Day Proclamation,1870

Posted by Carla at 07:55 AM |

January 24, 2006

Lost--Don't Marry A Doctor

Review and spoiler below the flap.

Did the series writers just go on a bender and get their pet geckos to write the last episode? Sheesh.

It wasn't so much the tediously predictable backstory for Jack. I could have told you that a married workaholic doctor with an obsession for fixing people would find himself in the kitchen, listening to his wife tell him that there's someone else and that she's leaving him. Workaholic fixer plus neglected wife equals all too predictable affair and divorce. Sad, tawdry, and rather pathetic.

That marriage was doomed from the start. Lesson: don't marry a workaholic doctor. Bad, bad idea.

I normally like Jack. And I can relate to him (though I'm not a person fixer--I do, however, have an annoying habit of offering advice to people when all they want is someone to vent to). I didn't like him so much this episode.

I understood why he got snippy with Kate and Sawyer--he's jealous and he's hurt because he's got a thing for Kate. But for Hades' sake, suck it up. Sheesh--he's hotter for Ana Lucia, a woman who, like Kate, isn't interested in being fixed. Ana's just more likely to drop kick him when he tries, but that will most likely be his big moment of growth.

So that childish stunt--no, you can't come with us boys, Kate, you're not allowed to play with us anymore!--just got right up my nose. And you knew that Kate would follow them. You knew it because that's what Kate does, and he humilated her.

Going after Michael? I would have had the same urge, but more likely to open up a can of whup-ass for cracking Locke over the head and locking us both in the closet. Jack insisting that it was to rescue Michael was a load of crap--he wanted to control things, and he was feeling pissy. Sawyer went along for payback, and Locke went along out of guilt for showing him where the guns were and how to fire the things. Not only would I have not ended up going to find Micheal, I would have made damn sure that Locke and Sawyer stayed put. Locke because he's probably got a concussion, and Sawyer because he's still sick. Besides, the man's been shot, stabbed, and smacked around enough. And I don't even like Sawyer.

Well, I actually liked him during this episode, which was a shock to me. I normally find him annoying--jeez, drop the unshaven tough-guy angst already--but he was right when he told Kate that he would have done the same thing she did. And I even found myself agreeing with Locke--going after Michael was a stupid idea. Just plain stupid.

Here's where the writing irritated me.

First of all, we don't see Kate get caught. It was just a cheap plot device, and I pretty much expected it in a "oh, if this were a crappy show, they'd bring out a bound and gagged Kate out right about no--OH COME ON!!! COME ON!! GIMME A FREAKIN' BREAK!" way.

Come on. This is Kate, the woman who turned running away, escaping, and evading capture into a high art form. Sure, she could get caught, but I'd like to see how.

And after they free her, Jack, Sawyer, and Locke didn't ask her what the heck happened? What she saw? What she heard? How many people she thought were around her? How she got caught? If they threatened her?? Hello???

These Losties are a strangely incurious bunch.

Now--for the Other. What a snotty jackass. That "you come to OUR island" BS. My first reaction to hearing that was, "Hello, moron, our plane crashed. We don't want to be here. Know a way off the island? And by the way, it isn't nice to drag people off into the jungle, kidnap kids, and kill people. Some hosts you are."

But no. Locke's kind of abashed at the mention of the hatch. Jack gets all macho and in a pissing contest with him--I don't think you've got anything backing you up! Yeah, no kidding. (I think the torches were probably a scam, personally.) He was itching for a fight. A physical fight. Grand. That's just what the unwashed Santa imposter wanted.

Yes, I'd want to open a big ol' can of whup-ass on him and his snivelling band of barefoot twits, but I also would want to win. Which brings me to another thought: what was Jack thinking in going to Ana Lucia about forming an army? He knows nothing about the Others. Not how many there are, how they know their names, if there's a mole in the group, what they are capable of, and what kind of weaponry (military and other, such as the pseudo-scientific ESP stuff) they have.

Maybe some recon. Ya think? Some intelligence-gathering, some stealth. The first thing I thought was, well, damn, he's playing right into their hands. They couldn't, for some reason, get to the fusies that easily. They got Claire, but that was it until Michael, Walt, Jin, and Sawyer left the island via raft. Something--the Island's messed up security system, most likely--kept them at bay. (Yes, I think the whole "The only reason why you're still alive is because we LET you live" was a bunch of malarkey.) What better way to give them the chance to be evil than to oh, I don't know, HAVE ALL OF THE SURVIVORS GO TO THEM IN A WAR? You know, save them the trouble of going through the security system or whatever. Sheesh.

So why not figure out what's going on, what their strengths are, what their weaknesses are, and how best to exploit each?

And here's where the writing gets lazier. Ana Lucia?? Well, he's hot for her. But Sayid is the soldier. And maybe Jack went to Ana because he knows Sayid will tell him that it's a fool's errand, that you've got to do recon, you've got to plan these things, that it's not something they can afford to lose. And maybe Jack went to Ana as a way to spite Kate--I'll let a better girl into the club! So there!

As much as I like Ana, she's not exactly the most well-liked person in the group right now. She killed Shannon, albeit accidentally, and that didn't sit well with people. I think people have to get to know her, get used to her, and learn to trust her before they put their lives on the line on her say-so. Hopefully, she'll tell Jack that it's a fool's errand, but I'm thinking Ana's ready to rumble. She wants to get the kids back.

I liked what Jin and Sun said to each other. Jin told her he didn't like being ordered around. Sun said that she'd spent the past several years being ordered around by him. Touche. And Jin ruefully acknowledged it. It's nice to see them have some difficult conversations, and it was really nice to se Jin defer to Sun and forgo joining the hunting expedition. They really are a nice couple.

Hurley's got a thing for Libby (I loved the "desert island scenario" crack). He said he thought he'd seen her somewhere before. I don't know what it is about her, but she gives me the creeps. Something about her makes me twitch. Maybe it's the way she bit into the witch-hunt against whatshisname--the guy Ana threw into the pit--and then turned on Ana, putting the whole thing on her and accusing her of bad judgement. She seems really manipulative. And, I don't know, watchful or something. I get the feeling she's taking notes. I wonder if she's somehow with Dharma, although it would be dicey that she'd live through a plane crash. Unless it was no ordinary crash, and she knew that. . .

So--I've got some more theories about the island:

It's a Vanilla Sky thing, where everyone enters a collective simulation and works out their issues.

It's a schizophrenic delusion of Hurley's. Hurley is really still in a mental hospital, and Libby is his doctor. She's trying a new treatment to bring him out of it, hence her appearence.

It's Fantasy Island! They all wanted an adventure, and they got it.

Posted by at 06:19 PM |

Its annoying. Its irritating. Its lazy

When it comes to volatile topics, few are more explosive than the discussion of abortion. Most people have staked out a position..many on the polar ends..and its difficult to convince them to change their mind.

Frankly, I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind. Its an exercise in frustration and not worth the energy. But it pisses me off when people give out information on abortion that's blatantly incorrect. Not to mention downright intellectually lazy.

Over at Assymetrical Information, writer Jane Galt just starts yanking stuff out of her ass for this writeup:

The insistence that the abortion problem can be remedied with better education would seem to me willfully obtuse, if it weren't obvious that the more ardently pro-choice members of our society need, in a deep down way, to believe that abortion is a necessary response to an unforeseeable misfortune, rather than a form of birth control for the lazy and imprudent.

Which sounds more perjorative than I mean it to. I mean, I'm lazy and imprudent in all sorts of ways--just ask my student loan officer. But even a cursory thought about abortion leads one to the conclusion that inadequate sex education is simply not likely to be a major contributor to the number of abortions in this country.

Ardent prochoicers only maintain their position on abortion because of some ill-concieved absurdity that abortion is a remedy to a situtation that a woman doesn't want to be in. Silly wabbits.

But dear Jane is going to disabuse us of our willfull obtuseness by letting us know that abortion is all about the empty headed stupidity of lazy, good-for-nothing, empty headed vagina bearers who just didn't have the brains to take pills or make the penis wear a raincoat.

Jane furthers her lazy summation ass yanker with the gem that sex education has nothing to do with abortion rates.

Apparently Jane lacks the ability to do basic Google searches.

Medical News Today (10 Jul 2005):

AFP/Yahoo! News on Thursday examined Vietnam's high abortion rate and the lack of sex education among young people in the country. According to the Vietnam Family Planning Association, the country has one of the world's highest abortion rates. About 1.4 million abortions are performed annually in the country, which has a population of 82 million. Gender inequality -- which increases the rate of sex-selective abortion -- and a lack of sex education and contraceptive use are the main causes of the high abortion rate, experts say.

Guttmacher Institute

• More than 2 out of 3 public school districts have a policy to teach sexuality education. The remaining 33% of districts leave policy decisions up to individual schools or teachers.

• 86% of the public school districts that have a policy to teach sexuality education require that abstinence be promoted. 35% require abstinence to be taught as the only option for unmarried people and either prohibit the discussion of contraception altogether or limit discussion to its ineffectiveness. The other 51% have a policy to teach abstinence as the preferred option for teens and permit discussion of contraception as an effective means of preventing pregnancy and STDs.

The pregnancy rate among U.S. women aged 15-19 has declined steadily--from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women in 1990 to 93 per 1,000 women in 1997. Analysis of the teenage pregnancy rate decline between 1988 and 1995 found that approximately 1/4 of the decline was due to delayed onset of sexual intercourse among teenagers, while 3/4 was due to the increased use of highly effective and long-acting contraceptive methods among sexually experienced teenagers.

Oops Jane, apparently sex education does lower the pregnancy rate. Or maybe Jane thinks these people learned the correct way to use birth control from the bathroom stall walls at their local high school?

More ass yanking:

People who get abortions can be divided into three categories: those who were using birth control perfectly, but had an unforeseeable accident; those who were using birth control imperfectly ("imperfect" use apparently, in many of the statistics collected, includes "oops, we're out of condoms!"), and those who weren't using birth control. The largest group is apparently group number three.

If Jane had done some research on this topic before popping off (or even bothered to post the "many statistics" she's citing), she'd have known that people who get abortions are statistically divided into eight categories. And instead of digging up ways to blame the pregnant woman, these are actually rational, reasonable categories:

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

*25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
*21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
*14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
*12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
*10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
*7.9% of women want no (more) children.
*3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
*2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

While I'm sure there will be those who willfully find ways to blame the woman for having sex and not forcing the man to wear a condom (like its the woman's job to make the man take responsibility), its unbearably lazy to think that this somehow just ends abortion.

This sort of "lets shame her like Hester Prynne" attitude plays well with the conservative "thinkers". But it doesn't play well when when it smacks into reality:

Jen (not her real name) is administrator of a women’s health clinic in the South that provides abortions. She has noted with alarm the recent rise in illegal abortion in her community. For some of the women she sees—after their initial attempts at abortion fail—whether Roe v. Wade is technically still the law of the land is beside the point. The combination of the procedure’s cost, the numerous regulations that her state imposes and the stigma surrounding abortion is leading a growing number of women to choose self-abortion or an untrained practitioner over legal abortion. Finding accurate data about the number of cases is almost impossible. However, Jen’s abortion-providing colleagues in other parts of the country, who communicate their experiences through a listserv, share her observation of a recent perceptible rise in illegal abortion in their clinics as well.

Making abortion illegal doesn't lower the abortion rate. It forces it underground:

“Most commonly, they ingest a whole bottle of quinine pills, with castor oil...we try to get them to the ER before their cardiac rhythm is interrupted...Sometimes they douche with very caustic products like bleach. We had a patient, a teen, who burned herself so badly with bleach that we couldn’t even examine her, her vaginal tissue was so painful....”

“Our local hospital tells me they see 12-20 patients per year, who have already self-induced or had illegal abortions. Some make it, some don’t. They are underage or poor women mostly, and a few daughters of pro-life families...”

People will find a way..even if it means risking their lives or their ability to have children again.

There are other inaccurate, lazy and silly sections in the post that Jane wrote, but honestly this is enough.

I'm not asking to change anyone's mind on abortion. I just want people who write about it to stop pretending they know what the hell they're talking about.

Its annoying. Its irritating. Its lazy.

And most importantly: it puts shit out there that isn't true. The Republicans people keep electing to office are already doing enough of that.

Posted by Carla at 12:32 PM |

AG Gonzales thinks you are stupid

Yahoo News

Attorney General Gonzales defended the Bush administration's domestic spying program today at a Georgetown Law School forum.

At a Georgetown Law School Forum, Gonzales said the nation needs "to remember that ... it's imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay" any al-Qaida related communication entering or leaving the United States.

Bullshit!

#1. The same FISA law which the Bush administration is violating with this spy program allows them to retroactively get a warrant. Obviously that means that getting a warrant is zero impediment to "immediate and without delay" actions to protect America.

#2. If the FISA law allows retroactive warrants and the Bush Administration so clearly doesn't want to make this spying program legit by getting those warrants... It begs the question of WHY?

#3. AG Gonzales would have us believe that phone calls between al Queda operatives within the United States do not constitute the "imperative" that phone calls between the United States and other countries do and therefore do not necessitate warrantless spying on American citizens. In what alternate reality does that twisted logic make any sense at all???

Posted by Kevin at 10:57 AM |

When is terrorism okay?

Recent allegations that the Bush administration is and has been deliberately using torture got me to thinking... Specifically, about the interrogation technique known as water boarding.

There are several different techniques that fall under the water boarding description. What they all have in common is that the subject is bound and either immersed in water or a cloth is draped over their face and water is dripping into their nose until they think they are about to drown. It's described as "the illusion of drowning". But in fact, if the interrogaters didn't stop then the subject would drown.

As described in this Chicago Tribune piece from about three weeks ago, water boarding "induces terror and a reaction of the autonomic nervous system that cannot be controlled."

What is "terrorism" if not the deliberate inducement of terror with the goal of forcing the subject to change his/her mind about something?

I only have one real phobia, and that is of drowning. It stems from a couple incidents when I was a young child.

The first one was when I was about 6 years old and a group of older boys decided that they were going to teach me to swim the hard way. They shoved me off the dock at a lake into about 6 - 7 foot deep water. I still remember the incident vividly. My dad was nearby and rescued me, but not before I'd breathed in some water and had the bejesus scared out of me. The reality is that I wasn't actually in danger of drowning. But, that was no consolation at the time nor did it prevent me from developing a phobia of water that's too deep for me to be able to stand on the bottom and still have my head out of the water.

Of all the many ways in which a person can die, the only one that really freaks me out is drowning. I'd rather die any other way than that. Seriously!

The second time I actually was at risk of drowning. But, the psychological damage had already been done from the first incident.

Quoteing someone else's quote of New Yorker writer Jane Mayer,

According to the [New York] Times, a secret memo issued by Administration lawyers authorized the C.I.A. to use novel interrogation methods—including "water-boarding," in which a suspect is bound and immersed in water until he nearly drowns. Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said.

When is terrorism okay?

Is it okay as long as president Bush asserts the right to do it even though Congress has passed laws forbidding it? SCOTUS nominee Judge Alito's oft-referenced Unitary Executive Theory clearly would allow that.

Posted by Kevin at 10:53 AM |

January 23, 2006

Victory is at hand

Or "peace with honor", at least, in either Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Why? Rice says time for talking with Iran is over.

This probably is just more sabre-rattling. Either that or we're about to mobilize our least-used military division -- I'm sure you've heard of them:

The KISS army and the Salvation Army are about the only ones we've got left. But then again, those 30,000 Ford employees scheduled for layoffs will need work in the near future -- "Iran Invasion = Jobs for Amurka!"

Posted by Jeff at 12:02 PM |

It's not the gays or liberalism. It's economics.

Jeff Jacoby has noticed that there's been an exodus of people from Massachusetts. He's decided that it's because of liberal policies and gay marriage, since everyone knows that expanding civil rights makes life intolerable for people.

Problem is, he's wrong, wrong, wrong.

He's not wrong about people leaving Massachusetts. He's wrong about why. And it's not just Massachusetts that is seeing a mass exodus of people--especially young adults. Generation X has been the object of all sorts of finger-wagging on the part of pundits--we're apathetic, we buy too much crap, we are frivolous, we are irresponsible. But the fact is, we're bearing the brunt of misguided economic and political policies since the Regan era.

Housing takes up more of people's paychecks now than it did before. Rents and mortgages have skyrocketed, while wages have stagnated. And before anyone goes on and on about how we don't need the big ticket vacations and the huge homes and to live in the city, consider the actual reality: most of us live in modest homes, don't take big-ticket vacations (I was finally able to afford a vacation after being back in the US for six years), and don't buy Hummers and plasma TV's and piles of designer threads.

And I, for one, am sick and tired of the idea that that's all we do.

People are leaving Massachusetts--and New York City, and San Francisco, and Chicago, and every other metropolitan area--because they can no longer afford to live there. Because when you are young and starting a family, you have to go where you can afford a home. And many cities push out families with kids via stealth policies--only give permits for two-bedroom condos or retirement communities, the better to gain taxpayers and save on school expenses. The homes that are available to buy are now too often starter mansions, those godawful, souless monstrosities with all the soul and charecter of a hotel lobby.

People are leaving large metropolitan areas not because of liberalism (which is hard to find economically, frankly), or gay marriage, but because we cannot afford to stay. The problem is, the places that we can afford often don't have jobs that pay well. Wages have stagnated while costs have risen.

And it gets worse. Unlike the Baby Boomers, who had much lower tuition (even when the figures are adjusted for today's dollars) and Pell Grants, we have had to content with high tuition and the exhoration to simply take out student loans. Most adults have a large student loan bill they must pay back.

Now, we don't have to go to college, but if we don't go, we'll be in pretty bad shape. Where college used to be the ticket into professional careers, it is now what you need for entry-level jobs. Secretaries in the Boston area are expected to have a bachelor's degree. Our wages have not increased with productivity or inflation--we are actually working much more for much less. A man armed only with a high school diploma made the equivalent of $42,630 in 1972 (2002 dollars). He would make $29,647 today. A male college graduate in 1972 would make $42,087 (2002 dollars), as opposed to a median of $48,955 today. (A female college graduate would have make $36,850 in 1972 (2002 dollars), and would make $40,021 today). (Strapped, Tamara Draut, p. 80).  Many of us spoiled rotten slackers actually work more hours for less money, are more likely to be uninsured, and are more likely to be temps.  It's actually quite galling when you think of the gains corporations have made in productivity and profit--which has gone into the pockets of executives.  So much for the rising tide raising all boats.   

You can see more hair-raising statistics here. 

In light of this, all of the preaching about the latte factor, and bringing your lunch to work, forgoing new outfits, and not buying a car until you can pay for it outright rings hollow. Everyone I know does these things--we are hardly eating out every day or buying out Ann Taylor. And while it's prudent to save as much money as you can--and I do bring my coffee--that small bit of savings would be wiped out in the event of a major health disaster, a major car accident, or sudden unemployment. And that would only be available after saving our coffee and lunch money over several years. And frankly, I have yet to see a used car in good condition that costs less than eight to ten grand. I don't recall anyone having that kind of money on hand to pay for it outright, and living in less expensive areas usually means living in a place with no real public transportation to speak of. Living close to one's work in the city means paying much more for housing.

Between stagnant wages, rising housing costs (which have far outpaced wages), and student loan debts, it's little wonder that young adults and young families have to move to less-expensive areas. Maybe they live with their parents to save up, or they double up in the bedrooms with multiple roommates to save, and then move. But I'm here to tell you, it isn't gay marriage or liberalism.

Posted by at 11:43 AM |

What? No Golden Globe For Alito's Wife?

What? No Golden Globe For Alito's Wife?
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Alito's wife cried at Sam's hearing,
Dabbing tissues at eyes that were tearing.
Though Republicans fawned
On this rightwingnut pawn,
Those mean Dems failed to join in the cheering.

[Everybody loves a good limerick, right? That sham of a hearing coupled with the drama mama that is Mrs. Alito, cries out for lyrical parody]

More of this delightful verse can be found over at Mad Kane's Noteables.

Enjoy

Posted by Carla at 11:22 AM |

Oregon war hero on John Murtha

Standing up against yet another smear

Before 2004, I'd never been involved in politics and considered my duty done at the ballot box. My memory of a man I served with in combat in Vietnam -- Lt. John Kerry -- became my sole reason for leaving the sidelines in the last presidential election. Watching the assault on his military record by partisan operatives armed with falsehoods was a shock. Perhaps I was naive. Watching those same tactics now being used against another decorated Vietnam veteran, Rep. John Murtha, who, like Kerry, dared to speak his mind, has been a reminder of not just why I felt compelled to get involved, but why I must remain involved.

Read the rest here

Posted by Kevin at 10:21 AM |

No party? No candidacy?

From the O:

Independent candidates, already a rare breed in Oregon, could be headed for extinction under a new, barely noticed law that took effect this month.

Legislative leaders and other state lawmakers who supported the change say they were trying to keep Oregon elections fair and "honorable" when they tightened restrictions on who can sign a nominating petition.

But critics say the new language makes it far more difficult for unaffiliated candidates to get on the ballot. They call it a thinly veiled power grab by Republican and Democratic party leaders to keep competition at bay and reduce the risk of "spoiler" candidates affecting close races.

The new law requires that anyone who votes in a primary election can't also help nominate an independent candidate and cannot sign a petition for more than one candidate to get on the ballot.

The law was passed after the Oregon Republicans and some conservatives tried to get Ralph Reed on the ballot in Oregon to siphon votes away from Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry.

Is this a power grab by the big two parties? Or is this a way to assure that people don't vote twice to nominate someone for a position?

Posted by Carla at 07:43 AM |

January 22, 2006

Super Seahawks

Left over from my time as a resident of the Puget Sound region....

On to the SUPERBOWL! Go Seahawks!

Posted by Carla at 06:55 PM |

Serious problems call for serious solutions

With the Abramoff and DeLay corruption scandals have come proposed "reforms" by both Dems and GOPers in Congress. As Nick Nyhart says,

There is much to cheer in these sets of reform proposals. If the matter at hand is how to decrease the ability of lobbyists to provide lifestyle enhancements to members of Congress in return for policy favors, these reforms offer an answer. If the key question is how to protect the political and policy process from abuses of power by majority party legislative leaders, these measures also have much to offer. But, if the larger dilemma is how to ensure that the concerns of ordinary Americans are well represented in a decision-making process currently dominated by wealthy vested interests, the most recent round of reforms being offered inside the Beltway falls remarkably short.

NyHart isn't the only one voicing deep skepticism that either party's inside-the-beltway proposals will appreciably change things. David Sirota and Hilary Rosen, a former lobbyist herself, have explained why Democratic proposals fall woefully short of real reform.

Poll after poll has shown that the public sees both parties as more or less equally corrupt, at least insofar as it relates to each party's Congressional delegations. And I have to believe that a huge reason for that, even though what we're seeing right now is uniformly GOP corruption, is the lame proposals coming from Dems in DC. Returning for a moment to Nyhart,

Nothing in the current set of proposals disrupts the larger pay-to-play dynamic in which money-laden special interests supply the cash required to run a modern political campaign in return for public policy that satisfies their needs. The scope of this practice significantly affects the lives of most Americans on issues ranging from healthcare to taxation, from energy policy to environmental concerns. As a start, Congress should consider banning or sharply restricting the flow of lobbyist political money to lawmakers. After all, if a free lunch is deemed inappropriate, then surely tens of thousands of dollars in bundled campaign contributions present a much greater conflict.

So what we're really talking about here is campaign finance reform. But exactly how to best do that and whether certain approaches are constitutional (Buckley v. Valeo) has been hotly contested for some time now. Public Agenda lists the three main approaches to campaign finance reform:

• One perspective argues that special interests should be kept at bay by public campaign funding for politicians who accept voluntary limits on spending - and tough rules on political gifts and lobbying to prevent special interests from subverting the public interest.
• Another approach says the only way to reduce money's corrupting influence is by increasing citizens' access, influence, and power using term limits to keep politicians on a shorter leash, ballot measures to let more voters enact laws when legislators can't or won't, and greater publc information and participation via the Internet.
• A third approach says reform efforts have backfired. To revive democracy, we need more money for competitive campaigns and less regulation to ease fundraising. Let people give whatever they want, but require full and fast disclosure of donations to deter corruption and conflicts of interest.

Of those three I find the first one to be the most likely to accomplish something, but it's the one with the gravest constitutional questions. The second one has merit too in as much as it pertains to ballot initiatives. But term limits are nothing more than a cop-out by voters in my view... a way to avoid taking responsibility for their own voting patterns. And the third seems farcical on it's face.

This Old House has long been one of my favorite shows on TV. Yesterday's show focused in part on an $18,000 solution to the homeowner's very serious backyard drainage problems. When Kevin O'Connor, the host, questioned Roger Cook, the landscape contractor, on such a huge price tag Roger Cook's reply was, "serious problems call for serious solutions."

I would like to propose an alternative solution, or perhaps co-solution, to the pay-to-play dynamic: A Congressional Taxpayer'sOmbudsman (see also Merriam Webster's definition).

Many states have ombudsman to represent the rights of at-risk consumers such as nursing home residents. Even the IRS has a Taxpayer Advocate which as an independent agency within the IRS works to represent taxpayer's rights within the IRS system. But the Taxpayer Advocate's job goes beyond individual cases to include Systemic Advocacy.

The role of Systemic Advocacy is evident in the TAS mission statement: "As an independent organization within the IRS, we help taxpayers resolve problems within the IRS and recommend changes that will prevent the problems." This means we try to repair systemic flaws in the IRS and the tax code, which can cause trouble for taxpayers and IRS employees alike.

Why not a Taxpayers Ombudsman as an independent agency within Congress along similar lines?

I'm quite confident that most of those who view both sides of the aisle in Congress as corrupt would accept the proposition that the vast majority on The Hill start out with the best of intentions only to be corrupted somewhere along the way, as evidenced by the popularity of term-limiting politicians. A Taxpayer's Ombudsman within Congress modeled along the lines of the IRS Taxpayer's Advocate could, to paraphrase the previous quote, try to repair systemic flaws which can cause trouble for taxpayers and members of Congress alike. Even if the SCOTUS were to strike down some of the most promising systemic fixes, just possessing the authority and directive to continually shine a light on potential corruption in Congress ought to make an Ombudsman agency a worthwhile undertaking.

Serious problems call for serious solutions.

Posted by Kevin at 12:11 PM |

The gift that keeps on giving..whether you want it to or not

I'm not usually one who gives a rip about celebrity goings on..but even I'm impressed with the big assed ego it takes for this one...

Yahoo News:

TOM CRUISE has given his pregnant fiancee KATIE HOLMES a unique 27th birthday present - a DVD compendium of every movie he has acted in. The WAR OF THE WORLDS star, 43, decided there was no better gift for his wife-to-be than a full history of his long and fruitful career.

A source tells British newspaper the Daily Express, "Each was inscribed with a special handwritten love message to the future mother of his child."

That's some overachieving self esteem Cruise has going on there. I'm wondering if he does his self love whilst looking in the mirror? Yeesh.

I can just imagine the "love message" he's put on these tapes....

Dear Future-Mrs-Cruise:

How fortunate you are to have my seed implanted in your womb. What a lucky girl to be seen with me while you fatten up like a Jersey cow.

Soon we'll be joined together as one in marriage forever--or until I get tired of you and file for divorce and full custody of our child.

All my love (except the big chunk I'm reserving for myself):

Tom

P.S. Don't start watching "Top Gun" without me. I love seeing myself in that tight little flight suit.

Posted by Carla at 12:04 PM |

January 21, 2006

There is a land called "Lazy", and he is their king

I've decided that perhaps Cernig and Kevin are right about lefty blogs not ceding the noise about Iran to the rightwing blogs. So yesterday I cruised around the righty blogosphere, catching up on their latest drivel.

Instapundit had a few things on Iran, but what caught my eye was a topic I'd heard about on the Majority Report radio show. Apparently Wa Po Ombudsman Deborah Howell claims she had to remove and shut down comments at the Post's blog because of angry reader comments. The comments were in response to Howell's poor oversight of an Abramoff story linking funds to Democrats.

Even Howard Kurtz noted that Howell made a mistake and didn't apologize for it.

But what really struck me was Instapundit's link to Kokonut Pundits, who used a Yahoo cache to retrieve some of the comments that had been removed by the Post.

In an effort to back up the Post's Abramoff-gave-to-Dems story, Mike McConnell of Kokonut Pundits writes:

The real killer to this whole thing? Abramoff's had lists sent to tribes telling them or directing them on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts. WaPo even reported this back in 2004.

The fees and $2.9 million in federal political contributions Abramoff advised the tribes to make, two-thirds of it to Republicans, have led to battles in some tribes. Some tribe members question why their leaders approved such payments.

Abramoff also directed tribes to donate to several obscure foundations that appear to have no connection to Indian concerns, including a think tank in Rehoboth Beach, Del., set up by Scanlon.

The revelations led to Abramoff's ouster in March from Greenberg Traurig, the law firm where he led one of Washington's most successful lobbying groups. Greenberg Traurig said it acted after Abramoff "disclosed to the firm for the first time personal transactions and related conduct which are unacceptable to the firm."

This is the proof from the Post that Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff?

Nowhere in this entire Post piece is there a discussion of Democrats getting Abramoff money. In fact, I couldn't find the word "Democrat" in the entire story.

This is downright irresponsible and lazy. Republicans are desperate to taint Democrats in the Abramoff scandal. They should be desperate, IMO. They're in one hell of a mess.

Attempting to source cite material in the way that McConnell did is unseemly and undermines any cred he might have as a blogger. But I doubt that will be the reality in the rightwing blogosphere. McConnell has just made a name for himself by creating links where none truely exist. Republican desperation is crying out for these links. McConnell is feeding the beast.

Posted by Carla at 09:17 AM |

Saturday Snippet

Atticus Finch: I remember when my daddy gave me that gun. He told me that I should never point it at anything in the house; and that he'd rather I'd shoot at tin cans in the backyard. But he said that sooner or later he supposed the temptation to go after birds would be too much, and that I could shoot all the blue jays I wanted - if I could hit 'em; but to remember it was a sin to kill a mockingbird. Well, I reckon because mockingbirds don't do anything but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat people's gardens, don't nest in the corncrib, they don't do one thing but just sing their hearts out for us.

Posted by Carla at 07:37 AM |

January 20, 2006

I think it's time we stop, children...

...what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down. - Buffalo Springfield

The always thought provoking Cernig has been pondering the issue of Iran and wonders why progressives aren't doing likewise.

Where are all the progressive bloggers and pundits who should be writing about Iran? Sure it's easy and fun to write about the Abramoff scandals or Snoopgate but neither of those are going to kill American citizens! Yet the progressive grassroots seem to have left the field open to the hawks of the Right and the hawks in the Democrat leadership. I want to begin to remedy that lack, so here's something to think about

I consider myself more of a slightly left-leaning moderate than a progressive. And I'm a long-time Independent rather than a Democrat. But I tend to agree with Cernig here. Those who don't want to see America lied into yet another war can't just sit back and rely on the Democrats in Congress.

The problem of Iran is hugely ironic. The same resurgent CIA that seems to operate above the law around the world is the same CIA that is largely responsible for today's Iranians so deeply distrusting of America and our political leader's motives... and with good reason.

Meanwhile... IAEA Director-General ElBaradei has refused to acquiesce to the EU's request that he condemn Iran. And the Iranians are pulling assets out of European banks ahead of possible sanctions, which is causing ripples in the financial markets.

Posted by Kevin at 01:10 PM |

Friday Random Ten

1. Matchbox 20: Bright Lights, Big City

2. Fleetwood Mac: Hold Me

3. INXS: Never Tear Us Apart

4. Bonnie Raitt: Not The Only One

5. Talking Heads: Burning Down The House

6. The Cars: Since You're Gone

7. Frank Sinatra: In The Wee Small Hours Of The Morning

8. Little River Band: The Night Owls

9. Sheryl Crow: Superstar

10. Madonna: The Power Of Goodbye

I've been told by the musically knowledgable cool kids that my taste in music is somewhat...uh..lacking. So hopefully Norbizness will stop by and give me the sound smacking I so richly deserve.

Or anyone else, for that matter. Flay me at will.

Posted by Carla at 12:35 PM |

What I learned at Drinking Liberally

The 1st and 3rd Thursday of each month, the motley crew that is the Portland Chapter of Drinking Liberally meets up at the Lucky Lab Pub. Thursdays are generally a busy night for me so I normally can't attend. But I managed a small window of parent-free time last night, so I jetted over for an hour.

Its seems that whenever I've the opportunity to spend time with the politically like minded (the smart kind who agree with me, of course), there are new things to learn.

1. It's tough to buy Bill Nothstine a beer unless you become insistant. And he's one of the sweetest gentlemen you'll ever meet.

2. I'd missed this week's Willamette Week cover story about the Multnomah County Chair race: The Dilettante vs. The Disaster. Interesting match-up. And who knew that the heir to the uber conservative Willamette Industries (now Weyerhauser) is a liberal? Color me skeptical.

3. It's tough to find decent, well lit parking around SE Hawthorne.

4. If you like cute guys, Drinking Liberally is the place. I'm already attached to a cute guy myself, but if you're not..this might be a good place to meet one.

5. Representative Louise Slaughter is making the claim that day traders have been working in the offices of Frist and DeLay, using government inside information. Yikes.

I managed to get all that in just one hour. Imagine if I'd have stayed longer. You could have all sorts of stuff to excogitate.

Posted by Carla at 12:08 PM |

January 19, 2006

Excogitate this

(Yeah, I was looking for a synonym for ponder.)

Few things give the mind more to chew over than a moral dilemma. Michael Stickings emailed me his piece (citing Kevin Drum..whose citation is in italics) about justifying the bombing last week in Pakistan:

Kevin Drum:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists.

Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified

An important question, to be sure. And what is the answer? I encourage you to come up with your own. For whatever the realities of the war on terror and the inevitable loss of civilian life, this is a profoundly personal issue that comes down to this: What means are justified by the end (the end of the war on terror, the end according to your own personal perspective of the war on terror)? How many deaths are worth it?

This is an important question. Is it worth killing 18 innocent civilians to possibly get one bad guy? Where does it cross the line? How many innocents must die before it becomes unacceptable?

(I'm not making a value judgement either way here. I'm asking.)

Posted by Carla at 02:59 PM |

"Rove's Rapid Response Team -- GO!"

80% of US workers hit by inflation in 2005

The 0.5 percent drop in inflation-adjusted hourly earnings last year followed a 0.7 percent fall in 2004 for the 80 percent of the U.S. work force that is employed by the private sector in nonsupervisory jobs.

The main culprit in last year's increase in inflation was a 17.1 percent surge in energy prices, the biggest advance since 1990, as gasoline prices topped $3 per gallon for a time.

The rise in energy accounted for 40 percent of the overall rise in prices last year.

At the White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said that energy prices were still too high and that the president was committed to addressing that problem.

Fear not, BushCo.'s all over addressing that problem:

Bin Laden warns of US attacks

DUBAI (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden warned that al Qaeda was preparing new attacks inside the United States, but said the group was open to a conditional truce with Americans, according to an audio tape attributed to him on Thursday.

Al Jazeera television, which aired the tape, said it was recorded in the Muslim month that corresponded to December.

(hat tip Americablog)

Posted by Jeff at 09:32 AM |

Feds after Google search data

San Jose Mercury News:

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

There is no way these guys want Google search data to revive a law long struck down by the Supremes.

They're trying to go after individuals who use Google to seek out information to use as evidence against Bush.

Its entirely possible that I'm paranoid and maybe just haven't had enough coffee today. But if I'd told me six years ago that the federal government would be spying on Americans citizens without warrants I wouldn't have believed it either. Much less that there would be rafts of people who support such actions.

(Via Thom Hartman's radio program)

Posted by Carla at 07:16 AM |

Debacle

Debacle (d-bäkl),noun

1.A sudden, disastrous collapse, downfall, or defeat; a rout.
2.A total, often ludicrous failure.

Synonyms:

1. Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Plan

2. Bush's Katrina management

3. Bush's Iraq War

4. Bush's Afghanistan War

5. Bush's debt

6. Bush's foreign policy

Posted by Carla at 07:04 AM |

January 18, 2006

Dirtbags

Over the last 10-15 years, the public school system has taken a PR beating. They've been labeled ineffective and incapable. Teachers have seen their profession attacked by activists with a political agenda to defund the public school system and use tax dollars for parochial school enterprises.

So when it comes to finding a way to further denigrate and undermine the public school system, you can always count on a conservative political "activist" and his hackological dirtbag elected politico to step up to the plate.

Representative Bruce Starr (R-Hillsboro) and Beaverton's Keith Parker (who lost a 2002 House race in Beaverton) have signed on to push the the Oregon state version of the laughably named First Class Education program.

O columnist Steve Duin provides a smackdown outing of this dubious proposal (known also as Initiative 131):

If it gathers the necessary 75,000 signatures, Initiative 131 will allow Oregonians to vote on what is known in conservative circles as the "65 percent solution." Tendered by Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, and Beaverton's Keith Parker, the initiative would require a school district to spend at least 65 percent of its operational budget on "classroom instruction."

"We need to move dollars from places that have less impact on child performance to places that have more impact on child performance," Starr said. That concept is also heartily promoted by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, columnist George Will and Republicans who love to badger the "education establishment."

And it has been roundly criticized by the Oregon PTA, pollster Adam Davis and activist Steve Novick, who describes it as "the political equivalent of mindless violence."

I'm in the latter camp.

Bear in mind that my wife is a communications supervisor for a school district, which means I'm either hopelessly compromised or just a tad more immersed than the average Oregonian in school finance. The numbing inattention to the subject is precisely what drew Davis into the ring, arguing in a letter to Secretary of State Bill Bradbury that the proposed ballot title of Initiative 131 is painfully misleading.

In nonpartisan polling last May, Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall asked 398 Oregon voters what percentage of the public K-12 school district budgets goes to central administration. Almost three out of four couldn't even hazard a guess. The average answer of those who did: 34 percent.

The correct answer for principals' offices and central administration? Eight percent, according to Brian Reeder at the Oregon Department of Education.

Davis contends the ballot title must define "classroom instruction" and inform voters the choice is more complicated than directing administrative funds into the classroom. According to the proposed initiative, "classroom instruction" includes teacher salaries and benefits, textbooks, special ed programs, supplies and libraries.

It does not include the cost of heating the classroom, transporting students to it or providing cafeteria meals at lunchtime. It does not include guidance counselors, speech pathologists, information technology or building maintenance, some or all of which would be cut to move money into the "classroom."

So we'll have teachers, books, special ed, crayons, pencils and scissors. But we won't have buildings, heat, lights, college/vocational counselors and computers.

Once the buildings are condemned due to lack of funds for proper maintenance, it won't matter much if the power company shuts off the lights, right? Maybe Mr. Starr and Mr. Parker will jump into pitch revival style tents on school property to help pinch the necessary pennies to make this thing work.

But what vastly important, terribly necessary thing will Oregonians get to keep if Starr and Parker have their way?

Sports.

No guidance counselors to steer students to a good college or a good job (Not "specific to a child achieving high academic marks", says Starr).

After all, Starr probably walked to school in the snow, uphill both ways while barefoot. Those little buggers better toughen up.

But if they can run a touchdown into the end zone or hit a ball with a wooden bat, they're all set. No concern for heat, lights, maintenance or speech therapists. Clearly they have nothing to do with academic performance.

What a dirtbag.

Posted by Carla at 11:55 AM |

It's just another brick in the wall...for WalMart

Residents of the Oregon college town (and Kev's home base) of Forest Grove want their next door neighbors in Cornelius to fence in their proposed new WalMart:

Forest Grove officials say a 600-foot-long-wall would block out lights and noise -- as well as criminals such as shoplifters. Wal-Mart proposes to build a 204,000-square-foot supercenter on a site abutted by commercial and residential property in Cornelius, a Washington County city of 10,000.

Jon Holan , Forest Grove community development director, said the police chief thought shoplifters at Wal-Mart might find an easy escape route out the back and into Forest Grove. Likewise, people could slip in from Forest Grove to steal things from the loading area. A wall would reduce such problems, Forest Grove officials said,

Catherine Sidman, a Cornelius planning commissioner, said she found the request offensive.

"The implication is people from Cornelius are going to be stealing things and running into Forest Grove," she said Monday.

But Holan said the concern goes beyond shoplifting. Forest Grove officials hope a wall would also buffer light and noise.

Hey Catherine, did you ever stop to think that WalMart itself might actually be the offensive part of this whole situation? Many Oregon localities are fighting to keep Walmart out of their area.

For those that don't know the geography, Forest Grove is virtually one town with Cornelius. The proposed WalMart's back will be right by the border to Forest Grove. If Cornelius wants a WalMart in their burg..whatever. But don't expect the community that you're umbillically linked to not to protest.

WalMart is a boil on the butt of free enterprise. It shouldn't be especially shocking when cities speak up about traffic, crime, noise and carnival lighting. Sidman should be thankful that the citizens of Forest Grove aren't picketing and staging sit ins against the Cornelius planning commmission.

Offensive? Look in the mirror, lady.

Posted by Carla at 07:20 AM |

Wednesday Read-Ems

Pen and Sword: Point Blank Rage: the Body Armor Scandal

The Heretik: The Outrage Over The Outrage

Factesque: We're Just Pouring Money Into a Bridge That Ultimately Will Not be There.

Mahablog: 18 Deaths Cancelled!

New Frames: New entry in progressive lexicon

Middle Earth Journal: Pat Robertson's New Soul Mate

PSOTD: Pennsylvania Party Registration, Last Five Time Periods

Posted by Carla at 07:11 AM |

January 17, 2006

President-for-Life Sheelzebub awards Rashad Hassan Khalil the Dirty Dawg Prize, announces Total Nookie Awareness.

Her infernal majesty Sheelzebub hosted a special ceremony to award Rashad Hassan Khalilthe Dirty Dawg Prize for his work in enforcing the Protection from Marriage Act. Khalil had insisted that "being completely naked in the act of sex annuls [a] marriage."

"This is absolutely brilliant!" she said. "Not only have you made marriage completely unpalatable for people, but you've gone and annulled any of the marriages people wouldn't want to end! No one wants to leave a union with hot sex, so you were right on target to just declare them annuled."

Khalil fainted when he got his Dirty Dawg trophy, which portrayed a man wearing chaps and a leather hat, holding a whip.

"What?" Madame Presidente said. "The award merely symbolizes the clothing one must wear and the whip of the state to keep people from straying from the path of righteousness and truth! And look at how macho he is! He's just the perfect picture of virile, righteous, authoritarian manhood."

During the ceremony, President-for-Life Sheelzebub took some flak for her new policy of Total Nookie Awareness, which slipped in without much notice on the heels of Khalil's decree. Total Nookie Awareness enables citizen morality enforcers to raid homes in order to spot check couples and make sure they are having sex the lawful way. If they aren't, their marriages are instantly annulled, and Her Infernal Majesty gives them them leather outfits and a gift basket of massage oils for doing their part in upholding her anti-marriage policy.

Critics have charged that this process is rigged as the citizens morality enforcers are usually people chosen by a neighborhood's married couples--most neighborhoods chose a man and a woman to alternate duty night, although some feel the need to go on raids together. Madame President said that the couples who chose the enforcers only leave their housekeys with them as a show of good faith. "It's only a coincidence that the enforcers get the keys when the couples decide to have naked sex."

"That is an outright lie," said the Reverend U.P. Tight, who had to mop his brow repeatedly during an interview. "The couples, knowing Madame President's feelings about marriage and boring phone conversations, drop broad hints that they will be having hot, kinky sex totally naked in a spree of debauchery at a specified time and date. Some even mentioned acts of sodomy and oral sex."

Other sources say that married couples who make the arrangements for a special house call included requests for specific types of wine or whipped cream, and dropped broad hints at a new game that is becoming a hot and heavy fad--Spank the Citizen Morality Enforcer.

Her Infernal Majesty took these reports with equanimity, as well as the reports that the newest fetish--repeat marriages, raids, and annulments--has become all the rage. But Tight charged that it was only because she set up drive-through 'wedding' stations, where couples could get 'married.' They had to pay a fee for the 'license.' Her Infernal Majesty insisted that it was to cover the costs of the gift baskets, which get expensive with multiple annulments.

Tight objected to her explanation. "Kinky sex should be free," he said. "I mean--marriage shouldn't have sex in it! And it shouldn't be a part of the sex act. This she-devil is making marriage part of the sex act! That's disgusting."

President-for-Life Sheelzebub insisted it was nothing more than a revenue-building measure, and that it kept the Total Nookie Awareness machinery running smoothly.

"Look," she said, "It's just much easier to schedule a 'raid' and get the enforcer you want if you have them as a witness to your marriage and make it clear that your 'wedding night' will be very, very unlawful. Besides which, Tighty's used the service like, a hundred times. But he doesn't tip the enforcer. That's not very nice. You need to tip the enforcer, dude."

Posted by at 07:28 PM |

Flipping Ashcroft the bird

Today's SCOTUS ruling upholding Oregon's Death With Dignity Act is a big bird flip to the rightwing religious zealots (like John Ashcroft) who've been attempting to incrementally force Americans to live under their thumb.

The fact that the ruling was 6-3 is a major ass whupping. Even if SCALITO were on the bench today and ruled in the minority, the law would still have been upheld.

The Scalia/Thomas/Roberts uber conservative wing of the court only believe in state's rights for the red states. Blue states that want autonomy for their individual citizens have little to do with the alleged "constructionist" legal ideology.

In other words...we blue staters can kiss their asses.

It was brought to my attention today that the Death With Dignity law undermines the Hippocratic Oath, whose first tenet is "do no harm". There may be some validity to that argument. But on the flip side, when did harm become merely the physical? Forcing a terminal individual in excruciating pain to stay alive against their will is harm. Its about time we recognize that fact.

The Death With Dignity Act is used by many patients for peace of mind. Just a few more than 200 people have actually used the law to end their lives. Many many more have obtained the prescription but either don't fill it or don't use it.

Why?

It gives them control of a very out-of-control feeling situation. It's peace of mind.

Also, given the narrow provision of our Death With Dignity Law, we Oregonians have provided a myriad of safeties against its abuse.

Frankly, this sort of personal autonomy sticks in the craw of the alleged "constructionist" legal beagles and the rightwing religious zealots not because of the Constitutional or Biblical issues..but because of the control issues. They want to control what we do and how we do it.

And some of them might be lying in order to obtain the power to control us.

Still don't have your knickers in a twist about Alito being on the Supreme Court?

Posted by Carla at 03:27 PM |

Same as it ever was...!

!... 80s Flashback Warning ...!

And even so our current leadership will keep beating the drums for war, as always. All the sabre-rattling about Iran should prove to be just that -- what troops would we invade Iran with? Ours are all tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan for the foreseeable stay-the-course future.

So here's hoping it's all just hot air and tough talk fronting a PR effort to rally support here at home.

Posted by Jeff at 01:27 PM |

Chuckle of the Day

Posted by Carla at 07:07 AM |

January 16, 2006

MLK Day surprise

This is interesting.

Guest Speaker: Hannah Hurdle-Toomey, "Long Journey: From the Dream to Reality."

Hannah Hurdle-Toomey was born in Greenville, Texas, the 25th child of her aged father and former slave, Andrew Jackson Hurdle. Hannah and her brother, Chester Hurdle, are the last known surviving children of a slave in the United States. They are plaintiffs in the nationwide struggle for Reparations. Hannah currently lives in Forest Grove, Oregon. She grew up in California and lived in Africa for more than six years and Jamaica, West Indies for three years. She is an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). In addition to Parish ministry, she has also served her church as a commissioned missionary. Hannah is currently taking a brief respite from the ministry to write.

I heard a snippet of her speech just a little bit ago on OPB radio. I was more than a little bit surprised to hear that my hometown, Forest Grove, is also the hometown of one of the last two direct descendants of an American slave anywhere in the world.

Posted by Kevin at 05:32 PM |

Oh those pesky details

Joe Kline has a new web exclusive piece at Time taking "liberal democrats" to task on national security and the war.

In fact, liberal Democrats are about as far from the American mainstream on these issues as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of Terri Schiavo's family in the right-to-die case last year.

But there is a difference. National security is a far more important issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country.

It is clear from reading the piece that Kline predicates his domestic national security warnings on the presumption that recent opinion polls show that the American public is largely okay with Bush's NSA spying scheme.

Oh those pesky details.

The reality is that what the various recent polls show varies very widely depending on exactly what was asked. Omit certain details of the NSA program, like the fact that it's warrantless and how incredibly easy it is for any President to get a warrant from the FISA court, and naturally you'll get skewed results... which is exactly what has happened.

So what happens when you ask a more comprehensive question? AP-Ipsos did and surprise, surprise... a clear majority were not okay with warrantless spying on Americans.

Posted by Kevin at 01:50 PM |

Madame Presidents

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was elected as the first female president of Liberia--and the first female head of state in Africa. Michelle Bachlet is the newly elected socialist president of Chile--and Chile's first female president.

Both have been exiled and arrested for speaking out against their nations' governments. Bachlet, her mother, and her father, were imprisoned under Pinochet and tortured. Her father died, and she and her mother were forced into exile. Sirleaf was arrested twice under Samuel Doe's government. She very briefly supported John Taylor, but quickly withdrew it when the brutality of his movement became clear.

It will be very interesting to see how the US deals with them.

Posted by at 01:45 PM |

One of these things is not like the other

PK has recently accumulated a couple of blogads (see right side bar). This event has caused me to pay closer attention to ads on other blogs. I've started clicking through more of them...mostly because it helps the blogger and the advertiser. But I'm also curious about who's purchasing these ads.

Today over at Atrios, I noticed an ad linking to Why Mommy is a Democrat.

According to the about page, the book, "...brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children can understand and enjoy.....depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others.."

So much for the claim that progressives and Democrats are only against Bush or against conservative policy..but not actually for anything of their own. This book seems to demonstrate examples of those liberal values that Americans in general hold dear.

It also stands in stark contrast to the conservative Help! There's A Liberal Under My Bed!". This nasty piece of conservative propaganda is only about hating and smearing liberals.

Posted by Carla at 11:52 AM |

Futility...thy name is Bill of Rights

Our old friend The Cranky Liberal has launched a new community group blog project called Bring It On. It's a site style reminiscent of Kos, with recommended diaries and comments, as well as front page articles.

The good folks at Bring It On have reached the conclusion that the White House policy team is lacking a copy of the Bill of Rights. Or perhaps they haven't found anyone smart enough to read it to them. In any case, they're asking progressives to head over to Bring It On blog to email a copy of the Bill of Rights to the White House.

I'm always up for an exercise in futility. I'm sending mine this afternoon along with an autographed copy of Al Franken's latest book. I figure the chances that either would be read by a member of the Bush Team is about the same.

Posted by Carla at 09:12 AM |

January 15, 2006

A sign on the road to civil war in Iraq

Ugh:

In a last-minute deal negotiated under heavy pressure from U.S. diplomats, the three groups agreed that the draft constitution would be put to a national referendum in October as planned but would be open to change for four months after a new government was formed early this year.

But Abdul Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the most powerful Shiite party in the ruling coalition, appeared to back away from the constitutional compromise Wednesday.

Prior to the Constitution vote, Sunnis were threatening to boycott. The agreement to leave the Constitution open to change was the key to them joining the process. According to Juan Cole, the Sunnis oppose the weaker centralized government. The Sunnis are also unhappy with the Kurd and Shiite provinces receiving most of the income from newly discovered natural resources.

The Bush Administration used this vote to tout their success in getting the Sunnis involved. Now its clear that the Shiites were shining Bush on...to get the vote moving forward and work to cement their hold on power.

The New York Times has an outstanding editorial this morning on this matter.

Civil war is looming in Iraq. Iran is threatening to make themselves a nuclear power.

What part of Bush's terrorism policy has made things safer?

Posted by Carla at 09:36 AM |

January 14, 2006

Lampson and Fort Bend Dems rock DeLay's world

(I'm bringing this post back up because one of the subjects posted a comment that I think should be read by more than just those who happen to be following the comment thread)

Lampson comes out swinging for Texas' 22nd
Now this is an impressive example of message discipline and the framing strategy behind it.

The newspaper report covers the official announcement of Nick Lampson to challenge Tom DeLay for the 22nd district in Texas. That's interesting in and of itself. But, check out how disciplined and aware his supporters were when interviewed for the article.

Somebody has been paying attention!

Posted by Kevin at January 9, 2006 12:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------

This afternoon Mark Bankston, a member of the Fort Bend Democrats who was interviewed for the linked newspaper write up, posted a comment:

It was me! And I actually did mention that Lampson has represented a large part of the current district!

I am Mark Bankston, a law student, CD22 resident, and a member of Fort Bend Democrats, a progressive booster PAC organization. I am not employed by the Lampson campaign, but our organization will be working hard for him.

This post made my day. We are all students of Lakoff in our organization, so praise for message discipline means a lot to me. You can count on us staying on top of the campaign themes, and continue to do what we can to ensure Lampson maintains the initiative. For example, the message this month is: Nick Lampson is the front-runner. He has a broud base of popularity in the district, while Tom DeLay is widely diliked among voters in both parties.

**************

Check out the numbers from this week's Houston Chronicle poll:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3587652.html

Lampson - 30%
DeLay - 22%
Stockman - 11%

DeLay Very or Somewhat Favorable: 28%

Only half of those who cast ballots for DeLay in 2004 said they will do so again.

*************

Again, thanks for the mention, and we'll keep doing what we can.

Posted by: Mark Bankston at January 14, 2006 07:11 PM

Read the article and check out the Fort Bend Democrats "We Believe" list on the lower righthand side of the linked site. Both are excellent examples of framing the message brilliantly and effectively. Democrats and the larger progressive community (Greens, Libertarians, Independents, etc) could learn a thing or two from these folks.

Posted by Kevin at 09:21 PM |

It's a bold one you are. Who gave you leave to be kissin' me?

Mary Kate Danaher: It's a bold one you are! Who gave you leave to be kissin' me?
Thornton: So you can talk!
Mary Kate Danaher: Yes I can, I will and I do! And it's more than talk you'll be gettin' if you step a step closer to me!
Thornton: Don't worry - you've got a wallop!
Mary Kate Danaher: You'll get over it, I'm thinkin'.
Thornton: Well, some things a man doesn't get over so easy.
Mary Kate Danaher: Like what, supposin'?
Thornton: Like the sight of a girl coming through the fields with the sun on her hair... kneeling in church with a face like a saint...
Mary Kate Danaher: Saint indeed!
Thornton: ...and now coming to a man's house to clean it for him.
Mary Kate Danaher: But... that was just my way of bein' a good Christian act.
Thornton: I know it was, Mary Kate Danaher. And it was nice of you.
Mary Kate Danaher: Not at all.

Posted by Carla at 01:50 PM |

Getting involved

Check out some of the many pictures of Impeach signs from all over the country posted at The Freeway Blogger's Impeachment Project.

Posted by Kevin at 09:37 AM |

EQ,IQ and other good stuff

I visit a lot of schools for my job. This affords me the opportunity to meet and interact with large numbers of children and adults.

Yesterday while visiting a school, I encountered a young boy with perhaps the highest EQ I've ever witnessed.

This little 3rd grader was able to read the individuals around him with superb ease. He knew how to find their buttons and push them. He was also very intellectually smart. The presentation I gave to the class engaged him and he was asking questions I'd have expected from a much older child.

His class happened to have a substitute teacher for the day. She was a retirement age teacher, probably just doing substituting to make a little extra money. I watched this young boy play her like a fiddle for three and a half hours, doing whatever he could to irritate her. It was absolutely fascinating.

At the end of the morning when I was packing up my materials in the hallway, I saw the EQ boy and a buddy walking back into their classroom arm-in-arm. They were rambunctious, knocking each other into walls and doors as they walked. The substitute scolded them and told them they had to stand outside the classroom door in the hallway until they could enter the classroom single file without talking.

I watched EQ boy closely, seeing his eyes light up at his prospective punishment. The other boy was clearly concerned at having to stand in the hallway. When the substitute returned to the classroom, EQ boy turns to his pal and says, "Let's keep standing out here. If we don't go back in she can't make us do any work!"

The pal nodded and smiled. He was no longer concerned about having to stand in the hallway.

I was cracking up at the two of them and their scheme...feeling a bit sorry that I was going to have to rat them out to the regular classroom teacher next door, so she could clue the substitute in to what was going on.

I have great admiration for people with that innate ability to read people and situations. I find it a skill with at least as much value as a high IQ , although I'm not sure there's a major difference between the two.

I'd love to work with a kid like that every day. It would be difficult sometimes...but the payoff would be incredible.

Posted by Carla at 09:25 AM |

January 13, 2006

Kitzhaber won't run for governor: gets ugly picture at O website

Former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber has announced he won't run for governor again, choosing to concentrate on a campaign to change America's health care system.

I wish Kitz lotsa luck. He'll need it. It's an uphill battle to be heard above the shouts of "CommunistsocialistnaziAmericahater!" that come with trying to make the needed changes to health care in the United States.

And it doesn't help with the state newspaper of record slaps up a horrible picture of him on their front page:

That picture makes him look like a homeless person who had a shopping spree at Men's Wearhouse. Yikes.

Posted by Carla at 01:43 PM |

Is Yahoo! spying on you?

If you belong to any Yahoo! group--beware.

Yahoo! is using a tool called a "web beacon". These web beacons allow Yahoo! to track any member of any Yahoo! group.

Web beacons are similar to "cookies" (cookies are placed on your computer so a site can remember your computer when you revisit). Using the web beacon, Yahoo can record every website you visit.

You don't have to be connected to Yahoo! for them to use this invasive tool.

The Yahoo! privacy statement contains its information on the web beacons. If you scroll down to the section on cookies you'll find a link entitled "web beacons".

You can opt out of the web beacons. If you click on the "web beacons link, you'll find the specific info on the tool and it's uses. Scroll down to the paragraph with the heading Outside the Yahoo! Network. The second bullet point contains a clickable link that allows for opting out.

*****WARNING*****Once you've opted out, be careful to NOT click the button that appears on the next page. It will opt you back in.

Posted by Carla at 01:32 PM |

He lied. What are you going to do about it?

A new book by James Risen called State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration lays to rest any remaining doubts about whether the Bush administration deliberately deceived Congress and the American people about Iraqi WMD. What Risen reveals is more details about the Downing Street Memo.

So Bush lied. What are you gonna do about? What is anyone gonna do about it?

We know that Bush buys into the extreme Unitary Executive Theory, having cited it numerous times as giving him the leeway to interprete laws and constitutionally-binding Congressional mandates as he sees fit. Which is just another way of saying that the president is not bound by any laws save what is explicitely spelled out in the constitution. Indeed, taken to it's logical extreme, this theory would also have to hold that none of the amendments to the constitution are binding upon the executive branch.

We also know that Samuel Alito subscribes to this same vacuous, extremist theory which would have us believe that the Founders intended to create an executive branch that essentially has the power of a King.

Joe Gandelman (aka, The Moderate Voice) clearly doesn't buy into this absurd theory. But he's not going to be serving a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court either. Alito will.

Essentially what we've got if folks like Judge Alito and President Bush have their way is an imperial executive with almost unlimited power to do as he pleases.

Posted by Kevin at 10:38 AM |

Goin' off the rails on a crazy train...

- Ozzy (hat tip to Carla, the queen of lyrical post titles)

A federal judge has dismissed 47 counts of fraud and conspiracy against three former executives of Flir Systems Inc., citing "deceit and trickery" by federal investigators and prosecutors involved in the case.

The Oregonian reports:

U.S. District Judge Ancer Haggerty ruled that the government's "egregious" conduct violated the executives' due process rights and their rights against self-incrimination by failing to divulge that they were targets of a criminal inquiry at the same time they were being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As a result, the defendants did not initially hire criminal defense attorneys and offered information and documents to the SEC that became evidence in the criminal case, the judge said in a bluntly worded order issued Monday.

Haggerty said the SEC and the U.S. attorney's office in Oregon conspired to hide the criminal investigation. The U.S. attorney's office, he said, "shielded its intentions behind the guise of a civil prosecution, resorting to subterfuge to maintain the secrecy of its involvement."

Under the most extreme interpretations of the Unitary Executive Theory those prosecutors did nothing wrong as long as what they did was at the direction of the President. And we know that President Bush certainly subscribes to this theory.

SCOTUS nominee Samual Alito subscribes to the Unitary Executive Theory and he's about to be given a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

Might a future Justice Alito end up finding that the U.S. attorney's office doesn't have to obey the same laws which they are authorized by the President to enforce via prosecution?

Posted by Kevin at 07:38 AM |

January 12, 2006

Lost--Eko's backstory

My latest take on Lost. Spoilers below the fold.

Wow. I really like Eko.

I liked him before this episode--his comment to Locke about not confusing coincidence with fate was classic. And showed good sense. He definitely shows a contrast to Locke, who's so sure in his faith in the Island that he's tottering on the edge of zealotry. Eko, while a faithful Christian, doesn't take on the arrogance Locke shows. Eko really owns everything he does.

I figured he would have been pulled into some horrible militia--his forty-day self-imposed silence smacked of pennance. Eko seemed to be a penitent man, and I figured he must have done some really horrible things to get to this point. I would have bet money he was pulled into a militia and committed mass murders or rapes or something you'd read about in Amnesty International. I wasn't too far off the mark--he was pulled into a militia in his hometown in Nigeria, but he ended up more of a common criminal than a 'lost boy.'

Still, it was--dare I say it?--refreshing. He did the usual justifications for his evil deeds (like everyone on the show did), but I got the feeling that he was just going through the motions in a rhetorical battle with his brother to get his way. At the time, he cared that he was being evil, but it was buried so far deep that you could be convinced that he truly had no soul. He was very, very scary to watch and yet very compelling. There was a certain charm to him but damn, was I scared. This wasn't the Eko I knew, the guy I'd invite in for lunch, the guy I'd date because he was so gentle and quiet and sweet. But it gave him some depth--it's nice to see that he's got his evil past and evil deeds. There were no justifications of revenge or bad mommies or bad stepdaddies or whatever. He just doesn't get with that. Unlike everyone else, he seems to own his past and his deeds.

He did do what he had to do to survive when he was in Nigeria. But he did it almost gleefully; and why wouldn't he? There's a certain freedom in being evil, in being bad, in being accountable to no one and nothing but your id. And he knows that.

I was struck by how easily he turned on scary Eko with Charlie. I think he knows this is a tool, he can use this even now that he's no longer a thug. I'm not sure if it was false bravado or just instinct, but he faced down the security system without flinching. I've noticed he flinches at nothing.

I was bowled over by the utter joy in his face when he recited Psalm 23. I'd love to learn how he managed to impersonate his brother (he was a widely known gangster, after all), or if he truly did become a priest. He certainly seemed to know a lot about the Bible when he talked to Claire about Aaron, Moses' brother.

Posted by at 08:27 PM |

Wal-Mart must pay the piper

Wal-Mart, that great advocate of state-funded healthcare, has been ordered by the Maryland legislature to increase its spending on employee health insurance.

This may develop into a trend.

"You're going to see similar legislation being introduced," said Ronald Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit health advocacy organization, "and debated in at least three dozen more states, and at least some of those states will end up also requiring large employers to provide health care coverage."

Mr. Pollack suggested that he did not expect any groundswell of opposition from corporate America. Most companies, he said, provide insurance and know that the costs of medical treatment for uninsured people are reflected in their insurance premiums. Mr. Pollack said that, by his organization's calculations, the cost of such treatment drove up employer premiums by $922 a family last year. In 2006, he said, the added cost could reach $1,000 a family.

"Those employers should welcome the fact that the companies that do not offer coverage now will be forced to step up to the plate," he said.

Wal-Mart got the short end of the stick on this, despite their lobbying efforts and financial support of Maryland's governor, who vetoed the legislation (to no avail--the legislature overrode the veto).

But it was concerned enough about the bill to hire four firms to lobby the legislature intensely over the last two months, and contributed at least $4,000 to the re-election campaign of Governor Ehrlich.

Apparently, the strategy backfired; it alienated lawmakers.

State lawmakers here in Annapolis took repeated swipes at Wal-Mart during debate over the bill on Thursday. It appeared that the company's intensive lobbying campaign in Maryland, including advertisements arguing that the requirement would hurt small businesses, might have soured some lawmakers.

Senator Lawlah called the lobbying "horrendous" and adding, "I have never seen anything like it."

Wal-Mart is also being sued for not providing breaks. Again. Previously, Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $172M to thousands of employees who charged they were illegally denied lunch breaks.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too inclined to provide service with a smile on an empty stomach.

Posted by at 08:19 PM |

US troops: not whiney crybabies

"He looked me in the eye, with tubes coming out, and he simply said, 'Congressman, the only thing I worry about is that we will pull out early and we will not finish the job and it will mean all of the sacrifices we made over there were for nothing,' " the Indiana Republican recalled. "I think [the criticism] is reaching these guys, from what they're telling me."

--Mike Pence (R-Indiana) Washington Times

"That's damaging to recruiting," Pace said. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country."

--General Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, January 5, 2006

I don't think honest criticism damages morale at all. When I was there, it didn't damage my morale one bit.

--Andrew Horne, Marine Corps Reservist and Iraq Vet, January 11, 2004 ABC News. Horne is running for Congress in Kentucky's 3rd Congressional District.

Apparently the troops in Iraq aren't the whiney crybabies that the Republicans are making them out to be.

Posted by Carla at 02:54 PM |

Reid not under investigation

In comments to my post No Democrat has taken money from Jack Abramoff, commentor Donald writes:

When Dean refers to contributions from Abramoff, is he refering to personal contributions? Because that would actually make sense.

I found this article here and wonder how the Democratic apologists will respond to it?

In a little-noticed story in November, The Associated Press revealed that Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.

Reid "sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002," reported the AP. "The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/3/115231.shtml

Yes, it's NewsMax. They are a rightwing rag. But a similar piece appeared in USA Today.

Apparently these hack journalist pieces are pissing Reid off. The Department of Justice says that Reid is not under investigation. And Reid struck back at the Washington Times, who ran the original hit piece:

"You have to really stretch things to call it a newspaper," Reid said.

Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen called the Washington Times story "completely baseless."

"Senator Reid's office has not been contacted by the Justice Department at all," Hafen said.

Reid has insisted he did nothing wrong in accepting $61,000 in contributions from Abramoff's associates and American Indian tribe clients from 2001 to 2004.

Abramoff pleaded guilty last week to three felonies including bribing members of Congress and defrauding his American Indian clients.

Taking a politico at his word isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea. So let's look beyond what Reid is saying:

Stanley Brand, a Washington, D.C., attorney who has represented former Reps. Tony Coelho, D-Calif., Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., and Joseph McDade, R-Pa., in criminal cases, said he does not doubt Democrats will be reviewed by the Justice Department.

"But this story doesn't ring true," Brand said.

The Justice Department "doesn't go around creating first and second tiers" for its investigations, Brand said.

Brand said the story also lacks credibility because it doesn't mention former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, "who already is the subject of two indictments."

"Thirdly, the allegation that people took campaign contributions alone as a basis of prosecution, whether they are Democratic or Republican, I think is far-fetched," Brand said.

Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, said Reid does not appear to be in any legal trouble because of the contributions from Abramoff clients and colleagues

Now why would a rightwing Republican paper like the Washington Times try and tar the Democratic Senate Minority Leader with their Abramoff scandal? Hmm..gee..let me think on that a moment.

Duh.

The Stakeholder has more on the Times story, including the hackery of the writers who laid it out there.

Caution: Wear noseplugs before clicking. This thing stinks to high Heaven.

Posted by Carla at 01:26 PM |

Peace takes courage

Peace takes courage

(hat tip: Mia Culpa)

Posted by Carla at 09:11 AM |

Unchecked. Unbalanced.

As long as the Republican Party continues its out of balance power in Washington DC, Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch will continue to be castrated.

Washington Post editorial:

Having publicly accepted the ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Mr. Bush is planning to ignore it whenever he chooses. As a practical matter, there may be no change in the operations of the CIA's secret prisons, where detainees have been subjected to such practices as painful shackling, mock execution, induced hypothermia and "waterboarding," or simulated drowning.

The president made his intentions clear in signing the defense bill containing the McCain amendment last month. Mr. Bush issued a presidential signing statement saying his administration would interpret the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." The language refers to the assertion by the president's lawyers that his powers allow him, in wartime, to ignore statutes passed by Congress. The White House has intimated that it has similar authority in justifying Mr. Bush's authorization of surveillance of Americans without court approval, in violation of another law. The signing statement also advanced the administration's view that the McCain amendment does not provide for any court review of a prisoner's claim of cruel treatment, and that all appeals by foreign prisoners before the courts should be dismissed.

Translation: Bush is going to do whatever the hell he wants, whenever the hell he wants. And according to Bush's lawyers, there's nothing that the courts can do about it.

And the Republican Congress? They've completely abandoned the pretense of being a coequal branch of government. McCain gives lip service to oversight, with no actual threat to the President to reign in his power grab. The Republican leadership is neck deep in corruption and scandal..too inept and beholden to Bush to make certain the Executive follows the law.

Bush is going to torture people. He's going to continue to spy on American citizens on the pretense of fighting terrorism...but actually spying on people and groups who disagree with him politically. No oversight. No checks and balances.

But American Idol is back on next week!

Posted by Carla at 07:44 AM |

There's gonna be a floody-floody

Get those children out of the muddy, muddy
Children of the Lord

The Willamette River flowed through
Clackamette Park covering about half of the park submerging
picnic tables and walkways as heavy rains continued around Oregon.--Oregonian Newspaper

Posted by Carla at 07:33 AM |

Milestones

Sometime later this week, probably Saturday, PK will get its 100,000th unique hit.

When we started this project, Kevin and I just wanted an outlet for our political passions. Thank you to our visitors..who come here and read our musings. But more, thanks for participating and encouraging us.

Last evening PK got its first paid Blogad!

Make sure to check out the right sidebar for the ad..and don't forget to click on it.

We're sure as heck not going to get rich with Blogads...but it does help off set the costs of maintaining PK.

If anyone else is interested in a low cost way to promote their site, please consider purchasing a Blogad for display at Preemptive Karma. The information is available by clicking on the "advertise here!" link in the ad space on the right sidebar, or the "Advertise on Preemptive Karma" link on the left sidebar.

Posted by Carla at 07:22 AM |

January 11, 2006

The gay recruitment bus is too damned inconsistent

I'll grant that its entirely possible that I missed the gay recruitment drive when I was a youngster. I did grow up in a small town in Eastern Oregon after all. Maybe the transport that brings the recruiters out to the small towns didn't make it out to the really rural areas. Perhaps it wasn't cost effective to gas up the bus for such few prospects.

But its clear from reading Pam at Pandagon, that Linda Harvey of Mission America is deeply concerned about society's creation of homosexuals:

Can a society create more homosexuals? The answer quite clearly is yes. That is how current homosexuals, in fact, came to be. There is no evidence–none– for a genetic origin for homosexuality. That may come as a surprise to many people, but it’s true. It’s even more astonishing when one realizes how many influential groups and people now accept homosexuality as inborn for some, but when you look behind the rhetoric, you find that there is nothing but wishful thinking. For an excellent paper debunking this myth, see Culture and Family Institute’s article at http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf . In view of this, the promotion of this behavior to our children has incredibly destructive potential, yet this unprecedented trend is occurring with few objections by parents. People, especially the young, can be seduced into homosexual behavior and have their identity molded around the homosexual lifestyle, through a combination of persuasion and circumstances which may include the following:

• Being convinced homosexuality is acceptable;

• Reading or viewing explicit homosexual pornography;

• A close relationship with a peer who is practicing homosexuality;

• Admiring an older teacher or mentor who is homosexual;

• Attending homosexual social venues (a “gay” club, bar, church youth group);

• Being homosexually molested;

• Having parents who espouse liberal values;

• No strong ties to a conservative church, and hostility toward traditional views.

I'm sure Linda must have used careful scientific methodology in reaching these quite serious conclusions. Certainly she's got some peer reviewed research that meticulously records these thoughtful findings. Any day now her findings will be in the journal Science. Otherwise she wouldn't make such bold claims. I'm certain of it.

Just because my brother grew up in my same small town with my same parents who abhor homosexuality and think my brother became gay because of a spurned relationship with a girl, tied our family to an extremely conservative Baptist church and are hardcore political conservatives.....

....he must be the exception that proves the rule, right?

Posted by Carla at 08:15 AM |

January 10, 2006

Its a rich man's world--or so Lars Larson believes

Rightwing radio host and guest columnist at the "O" Lars Larson would have us believe that the only way to judge the value of a project is if its a moneymaker:

Last week, while hard-working Portlanders labored at profit-making enterprises so they can pay the highest sewer fees in America, the Portland City Council gave hundreds of thousands of those dollars to a property and income tax-exempt "collective" called the Tryon Life Community Farm.

The same city leadership that has been cramming more and more people into smaller houses -- with little if any back yard -- helps pay for a dozen people to play urban farmer on land they could never afford to buy with their own work.

City Commissioner Sam Adams calls it "a good deal," and Mayor Tom Potter says, "This is Portland at its best." To me, it smells worse than the billions of gallons of sewage Portland dumps in the Willamette River every year.

In the past, Tryon Creek has suffered from city sewage spills because Portland can't afford to maintain its pipes. Last month, Sam Adams complained about a threatened federal lawsuit over sewage spills by saying we are on the verge of a taxpayer revolt. But last week, he voted to spend sewer fees so that some hippies could cut blackberries from a few acres of land.

"[A]t risk from the blades of bulldozers, we are raising money to purchase the land and prevent it from turning into brownstones," says the farm's Web site.

What Tryon Life Community Farm promises to save us from is 23 new family homes and $15 million to $20 million in construction jobs. They will spare us from $3 million to $4 million in property tax revenue over the next 10 years. That money might hire half a dozen cops or teachers. It might open jail cells for criminals. It could repair old sewer lines.

Why does everything with conservatives seem to come down to money? Is that truely the only value system by which they judge anything?

Tryon Farm, besides promoting education on sustainability and preservation, is providing the City of Portland with a major watershed. This watershed project retains runoff waters that would otherwise be part of the sewage spills that Larson is babbling on about.

Had Lars actually visited the Tryon Farm and educated himself on their programs and activities, he might have known that.

Or had Lars bothered to talk to the City, he might have known that the funds to Tryon Farm were specifically earmarked for watersheds. They couldn't have been used for "jail cells or repairing sewer lines".

Instead, Larson does his usual myopically cynical rightwing spew that does a disservice to the readers of the Oregonian. If he's that willing to put forth such ill informed drek to those who bother with the O, imagine the uber drek on his radio show.

If Lars is so terribly concerned about city government being unable to fund more jail beds or fix sewer pipes, why not advocate for a tax increase to remedy the problem? Advocating for elimination of funds for watersheds that go toward repairing the issue of Portland's sewer runoff is ridiculous and in Lars' case,ignorant.

Posted by Carla at 03:39 PM |

No Democrat has taken money from Abramoff

No Democrat has taken money from Jack Abramoff.

Yes class, say it with me: "No Democrat has taken money from Jack Abramoff."

"What?" you say! "Yes they have! I saw it in the Post!"

Nope. The Post is wrong. No Democrat has taken money from Jack Abramoff.

How do we know this?

Let's start with People Powered Howard Dean's appearance on Sunday with Wolf Blitzer via Atrios:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, always speaking out bluntly, candidly.

Not all Indian money that went to campaigns was connected with Abramoff. Indian tribes had relationships with individual congresspeople and senators outside the scope of Jack Abramoff.

This scandal is about Abramoff directing money to politicians in order to get votes to go a specific way. None, I repeat...NONE...of the money that went to people via Abramoff was given to Democrats.

The reality is, Democrats haven't had any real power in Washington DC since 2001. They've not held the White House. They've not held the House of Representatives. They've not held the Senate since 2003. They have no control over legislation.

Why bribe those who have no power to control anything?

As Scott Shields at MyDD notes:

And the K Street Project has long ensured that lobbyist dollars would be funnelled almost exclusively to Republicans. So no matter how the GOP and their intimidated allies in the media want to spin it, the corruption club in Washington is GOP-only and has been for the better part of the last decade.

One more time with feeling:

No Democrat has taken money from Jack Abramoff!

Posted by Carla at 07:41 AM |

January 09, 2006

Special friends?

You may have noticed that I didn't blog for over a week. And I would tell you that I feel really bad about it, but I don't. And it's not because I hate blogging ('cause I don't) or that I'm getting blogger burnout (not really, though cutting it down to three posts a week is likely since work's been a bear).

It's because I was in Mexico, on my first real vacation in over six years. So sue me if I'm a little ruttish. I went from godawful New England weather and turtlenecks and nylons and wool suits to hot sunny days with gentle breezes, bathing suits, and shorts.

I spent a week in the Mayan Rivera, Mexico with a specialfriend of mine.* I swore that I'd mostly chill out on the beach, but I forgot that Mexico has ruins (which I'm a big sucker for) and that Mexico has cenotes.

I spent the time touringCobá (one of the largest cities of the ancient Mayans), eating a lot, swimming in cenotes, attempting (with disasterous results) to manouver an ATV (seriously--don't ask. My ego is more bruised than my butt, 'kay?), visiting a Mayan village, haggling in the market in Playa del Carmen**, and trying to master the merengue at a dance club. My friend is a ballroom and Latin dance teacher, so she blew the guy she danced with away. I then swooped in and made him feel much better about his dancing ability. I had a lot of fun, despite (or maybe because of) my lack of dancing experience.

It's very rare to see a blue ocean--let alone blue-green and clear ocean--in New England. We tend more towards gunmetal grey to bluish, depending on the weather. And that's fine--heck, gray shingled houses and overcast skies make me think of the Massachusetts coast (throw in a bunch of tacky-ass mini-golf places, and you've got the Cape). Clear, blue-green water is an everyday thing in Playa del Carmen.

So that was my vacation in a nutshell.

*When we walked into a store, the shopkeeper asked us if we were sisters. "No," we said. "Friends?" He asked. Pause. "Special friends?" Either he was very open minded or kinda lecherous, Either way, it provided a good private joke for the rest of the trip.

**I do want to ask anyone who's been to Mexico: Did you all actually buy those ugly-ass Corona bathing suits? I didn't, but they were everywhere. If you are amenable to paying good money to provide free advertising, consider doing it for me. I'll create a hot pink bathing suit with a black cat on it and the motto: "I AM SHEELZEBUB'S SPECIAL FRIEND." Oh, and I'll make something for women, too.

Posted by at 06:38 PM |

Bush: the ultimate margin of error

Posted by Carla at 03:11 PM |

Oregon GOP legislators spineless, can't pull tax trigger

Oregon's budget has undergone major budget slashing over the last five years. Oregonians were told that we had no choice. The state's budget has been in crisis under a poor Bush economy.

Now that Oregon's economy appears to finally be stabilizing, we can now look at returning funds to agencies that have slashed to the bone, right?

Enter the Oregon Department of Human Services. This governmental entity is set up to aide the most vulnerable in our society: the poor, the elderly and children.

Consequently, DHS has spent years under the budget ax.

Now that the economy in Oregon is starting to rebound, will the legislature restore funding? Nope. House Republicans are too busy making excuses for their lack of courage on the budget:

"It's appropriate to have DHS evaluated from top to bottom," said Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, chairman of a House DHS Review Committee.

A review of the agency? Give me a break, Dennis. You kids have been cutting the budget for years for this agency..and you're just now deciding that its time for an evaluation? Why the hell didn't you bother to evaluate the agency before you decided to slash its budget? Now that you've weakened it and made it virtually impossible for it to provide its mandated services, you want to evaluate it? That's quite a shell game the Republicans have going on down there in Salem.

Unfortunately, our august Democratic governor seems clueless as well:

Kulongoski plans to convene his own review committee, which would include financial experts from outside government, to look at how the agency makes its caseload and financial projections.

Goldberg has asked Jim Scherzinger, former state revenue director and former superintendent of Portland Public Schools, to act as temporary chief financial officer for the agency.

Oh yeah..lets bring in Scherzinger. Portland Public Schools sucked so immensely on their budget under Scherzinger that its important we give him an opportunity to make sure Human Services flounders too.

Nice.

Earth to Ted: You're a Democrat. Start acting like one. Democratic values are about helping society's weakest members become productive and independent. A review of the department is a day late and quite a few dollars short.

This hand wringing over raising taxes has got to stop. We've been cutting them all over the place for years. These irresponsible tax cuts have forced even more irresponsible budget cuts. Now you're all sitting around wondering why things are so screwed up.

Give DHS the funding they needed to perform their mandated services. It's no great mystery.

Posted by Carla at 02:07 PM |

What would Jesus® do?

Roy Moore, coincidentally, I mean, moved by the Holy Spirit©, is proposing giving the money back to the taxpayers.

The Alabama Education Association, naturally, says the state needs to build schools and give pay raises to teachers (since, while throwing money at a problem doesn't ever solve it, Alabama traditionally finishes in the bottom 5 states nationally).

But it's long been said Alabamians only give a damn about their wallets and their own kids. And the kids lose out to the wallets 6 days outta 7.

Which do you suppose will win at the ballot box?

Oh, and by the way I enjoyed The Book of Daniel. The wife & I were apparently some of the few who did 'round these parts, though.

Posted by Jeff at 12:53 PM |

Lampson comes out swinging for Texas' 22nd

Now this is an impressive example of message discipline and the framing strategy behind it.

The newspaper report covers the official announcement of Nick Lampson to challenge Tom DeLay for the 22nd district in Texas. That's interesting in and of itself. But, check out how disciplined and aware his supporters were when interviewed for the article.

Somebody has been paying attention!

Posted by Kevin at 12:43 PM |

Scrooge McBush

A pair of economists from Columbia and Harvard universities have estimated that the War in Iraq could end up costing more than $2 trillion.

Meanwhile Scrooge McBush continues to argue that his tax cuts for the wealthy should be made permanent.

Interestingly enough... Republicans were outraged by the comparitively paltry $0.5 trillion estimate of the Clinton Universal Healthcare plan. The Heritage Foundation predicted "a huge tax increase" would be necessary if the price controls failed... which they clearly expected to happen.

But hey... we can all rest easy knowing that he has our best interests in mind... Right? More than 400% of the cost of universal health coverage AND tax cuts.

Posted by Kevin at 09:12 AM |

January 08, 2006

Swimming in the House GOP cesspool

GOP Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert cynically vowed to push thru a series of reforms in the House Ethics Rules. Hastert's ethical convictions were AWOL as long as The Hammer was busting balls to ram thru a far-right agenda. But now that the shit has hit the fan Hastert suddenly rediscovers the value of ethics in Congress.

Only the most devoted and loyal partisans will fail to see Hastert's vow for the naked attempt to mitigate the fallout from DeLay, Abramoff and Cunningham scandals that have rocked the House that it so clearly is.

Proving that Hastert is a small fry in a very large ocean when it comes to political cynicism, GOP Congressman John Boehner of Ohio came out against the proposed Ethics Rules changes in an interview on FAUX News. Boehner said he didn't think they were needed. ``Adding more new rules isn't the answer,'' according to Boehner.

Now call me a skeptic if you wish. But I'm thinking that the fact that Boehner took more money from Abramoff and Abramoff's clients than even DeLay did probably plays a role in Boehner's opposition to reforming the Ethics Rules.

Posted by Kevin at 10:29 PM |

Pacific NW bloggers unite at conference

Political blogging is a passion and a joy for me. Yesterday I had the privilege of a full day onslaught with fellow NW bloggers at a Pacific NW blogging conference in Olympia. Which is, by the way, why I haven't blogged today. I'm trying to catch up with all the stuff I should have been doing yesterday, not to mention some rest.

The conference was sponsored by the NW Progressive Institute,the Progressive Majority for Washington and the Institute for Washington's Future.

You may have noticed the very strong "Washington" theme. That's due to the fact that this conference was mostly for Washington progressive political bloggers. But they were kind enough to invite me to participate. While the conference was a two day shindig, I attended only the Saturday portion.

I've been emailing and linking with most of these folks for the past year. It was genuinely fascinating to get to meet them in person. I felt like I'd stepped behind the scenes...getting to peer into the faces of people whose work and writing I've admired for many months.

The greatest part of the day for me was having the opportunity to meet and talk with David Niewert who writes Orcinus blog (which I've been pronouncing wrong in my head. It's or-SIGN-us). Dave's work in outing white supremacists and skinheads is some of the most important writing in the blogosphere. He's a wonderful writer and not surprisingly quite a lovely man in person.

I also believe I may have made a friend for life in David Goldstein. David was exactly the way he is on his blog: mouthy, witty and rabble rousing. It was probably a mistake for the facilitators not to break us up when we sat together. We definitely brought out the smart ass in one another and probably exasperated the people who were running the conference.

Which brings me to Lynn Allen and Jon Stahl of Evergreen Politics. Lynn and John did a bang up job of keeping the peace and the pace. It can't be easy to herd a bunch of inherently anti-establishment bloggers. But Lynn's soft touch and Jon's stupid Buddhist bell did the trick perfectly. A special thanks as well to Andrew of the NW Progressive Institute, who worked hard to organize everything.

I also met "N" of Peace Tree Farm, who turned out to be just like I'd pictured him: always with a smile. Darryl of Hominid Views and Natasha of Pacific Views were incredibly interesting and especially kind. Darryl had such nice things to say about PK...I think I actually blushed.

Dan of On The Road to 2008 even let me pick his techy brain for awhile. I'm so terribly challenged when it comes to the technology end of blogging. Dan was nice enough to indulge me and offer his help.

There are many others who I talked with and enjoyed immensely. About 30 folks in all, I think. This creative, energetic and passionate group inspired me so much. It's amazing that none of these folks are paid for their time and efforts. But they believe so strongly in what they're doing that they'll take time away from family to work for political change.

I hope that progressive bloggers in Oregon can learn from their efforts and put together a similar conference.

I'm also honored that the Washington folks included me and Preemptive Karma in their efforts.

Posted by Carla at 05:13 PM |

Political Corruption and Lobbyist $$$

Political Nut, whose blog header claims to offer "a conservative but fair insight into American politics and political campaigns," has an interesting post up about political lobbying and party affiliation.

Citing Open Secrets as his source:

In the last 14 years

1. Democrats have received more money annually from lobbyists by a 6-2 margin

2. Democrats have received 53% of the lobbyist dollars during that time

Hmmm... something doesn't add up here. If Dems received more lobbyist money annually by a 75/25 margin, how then could they only have received 53% of that money? And then there's the fact that "lobbyist" money is far from the only, or even largest... let alone primary, source of special interest influence over elected officials.

Over that same 14 year timespan, Open Secrets graph shows that lobbyist cash never ranked higher than the 10th largest source of special interest funds being given, and that was just for the current election cycle. Earlier in the 14 year period lobbyist cash ranked as low as 34th. As recently as the 2000 cycle it only ranked 27th highest. And that still doesn't take into account the other means of special interest influence, via $$$, over politicians such as PACs and Soft Money (now called "Levin Funds").

Political Nut goes on to sum up thusly:

The problem of corruption is not partisan. It is an American problem.

The problem of lobbyist influence is a growing problem. It is a long-existing problem. It is a bipartisan problem.

I certainly agree with his larger point. But, he approaches it as a partisan by attempting to demonstrate first that Dems are more beholdin' to special interests money and the corruption that stems from that relationship. It seems self-evident that he wanted to stake a claim to being anti-corruption. But to do that he had to counter the current Abrahmoff/DeLay/Cunningham/Frist scandals in order to make the case that it isn't a Republican problem.

It seems to me that a fair assessment of this particular situation would be to say that both parties certainly are beholden to special interest $$$. It's an aspect of the two-party system that has always made me uncomfortable and contributes to why I am and remain an Indie.

That said... it seems to me that Political Nut's attempted defense of the GOP notwithstanding that right here and right now this is much more of a GOP problem than it is a bipartisan problem. The reason is in how the GOP have acted compared to how the Dems acted when they were in control of Congress and/or the White House. The GOP has rammed thru a variety of tax cutting schemes that have materially benefitted the corporations and interests that those very same lobbyists work for. And then there's the new Medicaid drug benefit program (brain child of Bush et al) in which Republicans wrote it up in such a way as to actually prevent the program from trying to use the free market principle of supply and demand to negotiate for lower drug prices. If that's not a HUGE give away to the big drug companies then I don't know what it is.

Being on the take is one thing. The other half of the equation, which Political Nut completely ignored, is how those cash favors get repaid. He likely avoided that part of the problem because it would have only undermined his attempted defense of the GOP.

Posted by Kevin at 01:33 PM |

January 07, 2006

Anti-gay pastor arrested for...

...soliciting a policeman

An executive committee member of the Southern Baptist Convention was arrested on a lewdness charge for propositioning a plainclothes policeman outside a hotel, police said.

Lonnie Latham, senior pastor at South Tulsa Baptist Church, was booked into Oklahoma County Jail Tuesday night on a misdemeanor charge of offering to engage in an act of lewdness, police Capt. Jeffrey Becker said. Latham was released on $500 bail Wednesday afternoon.

Latham, who has spoken out against homosexuality, asked the officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. Latham was arrested and his 2005 Mercedes automobile was impounded, Becker said.

Calls to Latham at his church were not immediately returned Wednesday.

When he left jail, he said:

"I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police."

I don't think "pastoring" is what he had in mind. Maybe "ministering" in the loose definition of the word...

Pastor Latham is an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage. He's also advocated befriending gays and lesbians with the goal of convincing them that they can become straight if they accept Jesus and reject their "sinful, destructive lifestyle."

Posted by Kevin at 11:20 AM |

January 06, 2006

Seeing the forest for the trees--an insider's POV

[I work in a forest related job and have spent just over 8 years peered with timber company workers/execs, foresters, envirornmentalists and educators. This revelation is to lend perspective to my opinions on the post below--carla.]

Today's O reveals this fascinating study on the problems left behind by logging scorched forests:

The findings, published Thursday in online editions of the journal Science, undermine arguments behind a U.S. Forest Service program to salvage burned trees and plant seedlings across thousands of acres blackened by the Biscuit blaze. Among the goals of the work, backed by the timber industry and the Bush administration, was accelerating forest regrowth and clearing dead trees so they do not feed another inferno.

But the research showed that, so far, the cutting did the opposite.

"There's no overall gain by going through that effort," said Daniel Donato, a graduate student at Oregon State's College of Forestry who is the lead author of the peer-reviewed report. "The take-home (message) is that forests can often be more resilient than we give them credit for."

Bush administration and timber interests have argued for years that the best interest of the forests required the more aggressive management approach of logging scorched timber. The main argument for logging these areas includes the removal of fuel brought on by dead and dying scorched trees.

The science appears to indicate that the removal of scorched trees actually creates more fuel than it removes.

This study isn't without its critics:

Oregon State, a center of the salvage logging debate, has researchers on all sides. Professor Emeritus Michael Newton, who also studied forest recovery in southwest Oregon, called Donato's report superficial.

He said the real test of a forest's recovery is not how many seedlings survive the first years after a fire but how many last the first few decades to grow into trees.

The past few years in the typically warm, dry Siskiyou Mountains where the Biscuit burned have been unusually wet, which would have helped more seedlings take root. A drought year could kill them off.

Its true that we can't really understand the long term fire recovery of the forest without actually doing a long term study. But Newton's premise seems a little off to me. Don't you actually have to have seedlings start (whether by man or volunteering) in a forested region in order for growth to occur? It seems bizarre to dismiss this study for reasons of long term forest health, when its clear that good forest health can't happen if seedlings are annhilated by logging.

Further, the study indicates that the type of logging done in the Biscuit Fire region actually created more fuel for fires. The opposite of its stated intent (imagine--the Bush Administration doing exactly the opposite of what its promising--shocking, I know). The bottom line really isn't about managing forest health..the bottom line is the bottom line:

The OSU scientists said logging makes sense after a fire if the point is to salvage the dollar value of burned trees for sawmills. But it can set back natural regrowth and leave forests prone to repeat fires that might incinerate seedlings and further cook the soil.

"If we're going to log for economic goals, we should be honest with ourselves and say it's for economic reasons," Donato said.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using the forests as a resource. It helps create good jobs and it can offset the costs of maintaining public lands. But as we've come to expect, having an honest discussion about policy when the Bush Administration is involved is next to impossible.

A few weeks back, Oregon Public Broadcasting aired The Oregon Story: Rethinking the Forests. Its a look at how landowners with relatively small acreage are managing their forested property with the goal of long term sustainability.

The landowners profiled in this piece are on the cutting edge of forest management. They're not working the short term goal of making fast money with quick turnover, like the monolithic timber companies. They're thinning smaller, "sucker" trees to prevent wildfires. They're saving the larger, established trees for generations to come and creating firebreak trees in the process. And with selective harvesting they're able to maintain the forest's health and generate income.

It's impossible for Oregonians and the nation-at-large to have an honest and meaningful discussion of our forests without accepting the science (this is good science--its a peer reviewed study) and the economic factors as legitimate forces at play.

Oregon has often been ahead of the rest of the nation when it comes to managing resources. I'm hopeful that this study becomes an impetus to an in-state dialogue on managing our forest resources.

Posted by Carla at 04:19 PM |

A meme by any other name would smell as sweet

I've been woefully behind in visiting other blogs since the holidays began. My real life work and my mom gig have often kept me so busy that just managing a post or two here every day is all I can do.

(That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it)

Thus I missed last month's meme tag by fellow blogger and Drinking Liberally compadre Bill Nothstine.

In an effort to make up for the Carla-centric oversight, I'm promising to buy Bill's first beer at DL (when I can make it--mom stuff seems to be getting in the way).

With my apologies for the late reply...the meme:

Four jobs you've had in your life:

*Laying sprinkler pipe during Summer break at college

*Hotel front desk clerk

*Kindergarten teacher

*Transcriptionist for a Poli-Sci professor

Four movies you could watch over and over:

*The Quiet Man

*Rear Window

*To Kill A Mockingbird

*Some Like It Hot

Four places you've lived:
(This is probably a dissapointment. I'm strictly a Northwesterner)

*Boise, Idaho

*John Day, Oregon

*Silverdale, Washington

*Beaverton, Oregon

Four TV shows you love to watch:

*Lost

*Frontline

*Boston Legal

*Golden Globe Awards Show (I'm a sucker for this stuff. This one is less snooty than the Oscars but still as dressed up)

Four places you've been on vacation:

*Walt Disney World--Orlando, Florida

*Las Vegas, Nevada

*Bath/London, England (and a few days in Paris, France)

*Grand Canyon National Park

Four websites you visit daily:

*Blue Oregon

*Horse'sAss.org

*Talking Points Memo

*Rox Populi

Four of your favorite foods:

*Potatoes--fry em, mash em, bake em..I don't care. I love em. Especially the garlic fries at Safeco Field. DAMN.

*Rosemary/citrus roasted chicken

*Kev's poached pears

*Bread--except rye. Blech.

Four places you'd rather be:
(I'm going to pick up Bill's amendment and change this to "four places you wouldn't mind having a little getaway to, since I love where I am:

*The Bahamas

*Sydney, Australia

*On safari in Africa

*County Tipperary, Ireland (where I can study family roots)

Four books of fiction you re-read every now and then:
(I thought about saying "The Bible", but I'm not up for the blowback today)

*Jane Eyre

*Little Women

*Where The Wild Things Are

*Rabbit Run

Four things you continue to believe, mainly by partitioning them off from what it pleases you to call your "better judgment:

*Everyone has at least a little spark of good in them. Sometimes the effort to find it is monumental, but it almost always pays off.

*Honesty is the best policy, especially when its tough to do it.

*Karma is very real. You get what you give.

*If I could just get another hour in the day, everything would get done.

Posted by Carla at 09:28 AM |

Karma: the other white meat

Crazy Pat Robertson is at it again:

Robertson suggests God smote Sharon

Evangelist links Israeli leader's stroke to 'dividing God's land'

Television evangelist Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which Robertson opposed.

"He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America,'" Robertson told viewers of his long-running television show, "The 700 Club."

"God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone,'" he said.

I'm thinking the 700 Club donation lines must light up like a Christmas trees every time Robertson vomits out one of these statements.

It's entirely possible that Pat is a publicity whore who gets his rocks off whilst courting the homophobic community.

I don't think that's the case. I think Pat's in it for the dough.

I'm not a Christian and I don't play one on this blog. But isn't there a Bible verse having to do with rich men, camels and needle eyes?

I'm thinking Pat's in for a big karmic payback.

Posted by Carla at 08:15 AM |

Teach your children well

Following are letters written by some of Lisa Anderson's eighth-grade journalism students at Frost Middle School in Livonia (hat tip to Desi). One example:

Buffoonery in Baghdad

How ignorant has society become? With incriminating evidence piled a mile high on top of the heads of White House officials who have been serving up misinformation with extra mayonnaise to the public for years, you would think that America would impeach said officials with the vigor of a herd of rampaging elephants on steroids.

I expect most of the class and their families just got added to the no-fly list. Why, oh why, do they hate Amurka®?

Posted by Jeff at 06:47 AM |

January 05, 2006

You gotta read this

Robert B. Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Clinton, wrote a stellar op-ed piece on the economy. It originally aired on NPR's Marketplace just over a week ago on December 28. Being a PBS junkie I happened to be listening to Marketplace when Reich read his essay. I thought it was great and was very pleased to see that TomPaine.com posted the transcript on their site.

Just a quick teaser paragraph here...

Forget "trickle-down" economics. Even if you believe the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 helped the economy grow—and if you do, you probably believe in Santa Claus—nothing is trickling down, not even to the middle. Most is going to the top fifth. And most of that is going to the top 5 percent.

Go read the rest.

Posted by Kevin at 11:24 AM |

Guard duck..and other Thursday Gardenwhore blogging

When I moved into this house about six years ago, the yard was a glorious mess. The previous owners had torn out the lawn and replaced it with large, thick bark chips. The side yard in the back was a gigantic bed walled off with huge, oil soaked rail ties and rotting lattice. Trees and shrubs were overgrown and weeds were everywhere.

Among the mass of plant material and poisonous garden wall however, sat one redeeming thing: a small ceramic duck. I've dubbed this kitschy piece my "guard duck":

Guard duck normally sits in the flower beds off to the side of my raised beds. But as I'm in the process cleaning out those beds, he's on his temporary perch on the raised bed wall.

Guard duck is my garden good luck charm. So far he's done a bang up job. I've had lots of successes with my the patch of earth I've been working.

Many gardeners here leave their dahlias in the ground as we generally have relatively mild winters. I'm not digging up the ones in the flower beds. But the ones I grew in the raised beds won't stay as warm and secure. So up they came:

A few weeks back we had a cold snap that caught me off guard. I had this really adorable ceramic pitcher out in garden just to add a little color. Unfortunately I didn't get out in time to rescue it before the freeze:

You can also see I've still got a huge amount of work left to do out in the flower beds. I haven't even made it out to dead head the hydrangeas.

Posted by Carla at 10:22 AM |

(accordian wheezing sounds, and then...)

"It's the dance sensation that's sweepin' the nation -- the Never Met the Man* Polka! Everybody dance!"

GOP leaders ridding themselves of money linked to Abramoff

Roll out the barrel!
We've got a barrel of cash
All Jack's donations,
that dough all goes in the trash.
Dust off your halo,
Squeeze out some phony tears,
So you can roll out the barrel -- it's an election year!

*(and Even If I Did Here's Some Money Back)

Posted by Jeff at 09:55 AM |

The high cost of greed

The coal mine disaster that has played out very publically over the last couple days made me think of a recent post over at Center Field about labor unions

The Sago mine in West Virginia was cited for hazards many times by safety inspectors, including 46 in an 11-week period that ended December 22. In fact that particular mine has a long track record of safety violations with over 200 reported just for 2005. Ninety-six of the citations were considered “significant and substantial” by inspectors.

Let's connect some dots, shall we?

• Coal mine corporations give heavily to Republicans.

• Republicans have fought hard in Congress to gut OSHA in the name of business profitability. Oh sure, they used pretty language that made it seem like the legislation would inprove safety. But, the self-evident fact is that business profits were the point of the exercize.

• President Bush deemed OSHA and MSHA so irrelevant that he allowed both to go nearly a year without permanent Directors before finally nominating directors for each on the same day, replacing one political hack with another at OSHA.

• Bush has effectively neutered MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) by underfunding it.

• Most of the fines paid by the Sago mine for safety violations were between $250 and $60. In other words, about the cost of a speeding ticket.

• Unions were formed in part to force corporations to take employee safety seriously.

• Bush has an anti-union record.
  

Even the odd conservative sees the contradiction of West Virginia voters having voted for Bush and thus voted against their own self interest at a very fundamental level.

Posted by Kevin at 07:11 AM |

January 04, 2006

You like us! You really like us!

Yesterday the Northwest Progressive Institute handed out the newly minted David Niewert (of Orcinus fame) Award for the most active progressive bloggers of 2005.

Preemptive Karma was awarded the Best In-State Political Coverage from Out of the State along with Also Also blog. The award was given to us for working to debunk the propaganda stream coming from the rightwing blogosphere in Washington State, specifically about the Washington State Gubernatorial contest (see the right side bar).

The posts we did began in January of 2005 and went for several months. You can search the PK archives to find most of them. Or drop me an email and I'll send you some links.

That series of posts and the research involved are some of the most gratifying I've had since Kevin and I started PK. I hope we can translate this into some new projects we're cooking up.

Many thanks to the NW Progressive Institute for the recognition. Their promotion of our work is greatly appreciated.

Posted by Carla at 09:20 AM |

How I vanquished my HMO and Jehovah's Witnesses

With the end of the holidays and the spawn headed back to school, I anticipated a quiet morning here at Casa Carla. I had a few work emails to catch up on and then I'd planned to get my new flannel jammies purchased. I wanted to make a doctor's appointment and run a few small errands. Then I'd hoped to spend the afternoon curled up on the couch to finish the book I've been trying to get to for weeks.

I've been on a quest to find a good doctor since I returned to Oregon in 1996. It hasn't been an easy search. I've gone through three so far.

I belong to an HMO which historically has required notice when switching to a new primary care physician. I'm dumping doctor #3 for the new year. And so doing my duty as a quality HMO customer..I dialed up the 1-800 # to switch over to #4.

After the first ring, the HMO computerized answering system picks up. No "hello". No "welcome to Cigna". Not even a "thank you for calling".

Just a voice telling me they've got a new phone system to "serve me better".

Oh god.

While on the phone trying to figure out how to inform my HMO that I'm switching doctors, I went through no less than 10 phone prompts.

Finally in frustration, I dial "0", to get customer service. A young woman's voice comes on the line and takes my information, informing me of their new policy that customers no longer have to inform the HMO of the switch to a new doctor. Just make sure to go to one that takes the insurance (which means I've just wasted 15 minutes with their new and "better" phone service. Ugh.)

As she's telling me this there's a knock at the front door (I think it's my neighbor whose dropped in a lot lately to discuss which seeds we're going to get from the catalog). I open the door. But nope..it's the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm on the phone, the wind is howling and it's raining buckets. So I motion them to come in.

Oh god..part 2.

Still on the phone, I inform HMO girl that their phone prompt system is like something from an SNL skit and should be abolished. I let her know it's the worst phone system I've ever experienced and would she please tell her boss so they can pass it up the chain and systematically ignore me. She assures me she will. We hang up.

Deep breath.

I turn to the two women in my entry way. The first is probably in her mid-40s. She had an absolutely beautiful face. Her makeup was pristine. Her topcoat was a beautiful black wool. The companion was young..probably in her early 20s. She looked much more meek.

I knew I was stuck because I'd invited them in. So I asked what I could do for them.

Elder: I'd like to discuss your spiritual life.

Me: I'm a Deist. I'm all set there. But thanks. Is there anything else?

Both of them raised their eyebrows at me. The elder said she'd never heard of "Deist", and asked me to explain (At this point I'm wishing I had a tract for Deism like the JW one I knew was coming from them).

I explained that a Deist believes that "God is". I explained that I believe in the Creator. She asked if this is the opposite of "agnosticism". I told her that I thought agnostics didn't know for sure if God exists. I believe that the Creator does exist. It's not the opposite, that I know of.

The meek one says nothing but nods her head.

Elder: How do you feel about religion?

Me: I'm fine with it. Whatever gets people through the day. As long as it isn't used to hurt others, people should do what they've gotta do.

Elder: That makes a lot of sense. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this.

Me: Yeah. I have.

E: But what if some day something should happen that tests you so deeply that you get on your knees and question God? You ask Him, "Why have you allowed this to happen?"

Me: I don't believe in an interventionist God. God doesn't give football players touchdowns. God doesn't give musicians Grammys. God doesn't send pestilence to countries that refuse to teach Creationism in science class. God is. That's it.

E: I see. Well then, what do you think happens to your soul when you die?

Me: If we've led a good life and done well by the world around us, we'll return in a better place than the previous life.

E: Reincarnation. So you don't believe that Heaven exists?

Me: In terms of a reward system for the select few who believe in God in the proscribed way the various religions require? No.

E: What about hell?

Me: Same thing.

E: What if you're wrong?

Me: Then I'm wrong.

E: (reaching in to her satchel and handing me a tract while looking exasperated) I'll give this to you to read in the tub. Something to think about.

Me: Thanks (opening the front door and guiding them out).

I'm reasonably certain my personal entertainment value in that exchange was quite a bit higher than the JW's. I had a captive audience to irritate because they volunteered to do it. Who knows? Maybe if I'd encouraged them to stay longer I'd have recruited a couple of new Deists. LOL

Posted by Carla at 08:53 AM |

Exploitation

I went to sleep last night believing all but one of those miners in West Virginia survived. As it turns out...all but one died. It's a heartbreaking tragedy.

But I couldn't help but notice the breathtaking news media coverage. Last night during the CBS Evening News, a reporter was sticking a microphone in the face of a man in his late teens whose father was one of those in the mine. Essentially she was asking him how he was feeling knowing his father might be dead.

Its irresponsible to the public and especially to the families of these victims to stick them under lights and push cameras in their faces. These individuals have just lost their dear loved one and probably their major breadwinner. Schlepping all over their town trying to get one of them to display their grief for America is flat out disgusting.

Let them work through their sorrow in peace.

Yes there are questions to be answered. But those are for government and mining officials, not for families who've just suffered a major loss. This is definitely not television news' finest hour.

Posted by Carla at 07:19 AM |

January 03, 2006

Spinning Jack

Republicans are expecting some very serious problems to stem from Jack Abramoff's new plea deal. Abramhoff pled guilty to three felony charges (instead of six) in exchange for his testimony about members of Congress and congressional staffers involved in a wide swath of political corruption.

What is a poor GOP to do when upwards of two dozen of their prominent members are about to face moderate to serious problems from Abramoff's testimony? Attack...Attack...Attack.

First out of the gate, Newt Gingrich:

"The question now is what are people going to believe about this convicted man's testimony."--Gingrich, CSpan's Washington Journal, 1/3/06

Oh that Abramoff. He's just like that French loving sissy boy David Brock. It's impossible for Republicans to break the law or be unethical. If someone says otherwise they absolutely have to be a scumbag, nosepicking, son of a castrated camel lover. Even if just a few short months ago they were breaking bread with the upper echelons of the GOP.

Tune in tomorrow when the rightwing hackosphere jumps on the bandwagon.

Posted by Carla at 01:48 PM |

A Life, Wasted

When a soldier dies while serving in Iraq, does that make them a hero?

I've wondered before if we're not a bit too freewheeling with that label.

This grieving parent whose son was killed in Haditha, argues that "hero" is about the life, not death:

Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."

Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.

At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.

"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."

We've watched our leaders wrap themselves in the flag with the Iraq War. We've heard them claim that those who are against it and speak out are traitors and unpatriotic. Our soldiers who've been sent to die needlessly are labeled as "heros" in a war that shouldn't have happened, as if their deaths are justifiable.

The author of the Post piece, Paul E. Schroeder, offers an eloquent rebuttal to this notion:

Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?

I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

Schroeder's piece is a courageous one. In the face of excruciating pain at his son's death he asks Americans to stop hiding behind the flag and the labels of heroism, and look at the stark realities of the Iraq War.

If Schroeder's Post article is noticed and creates a ripple..he'll most certainly be castigated by the likes of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Sychophancy pays well these days. Like Cindy Sheehan, Schroeder could become a victim of the business end of the rightwing poison punditry.

Schroeder is a profile in courage.

Posted by Carla at 07:15 AM |

January 02, 2006

The world's greatest "feet-lander".

I can't quite understand how Ahmad Chalabi always seems to land on his feet:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's oil minister said Monday he resigned after the government last week gave him a forced vacation and replaced him with Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi following criticism about fuel price increases.

The Jordanians have convicted Chalabi of bank fraud.

He's cozied up to the neoconservative wing of the GOP..whose foreign policy has pretty much wrecked the US' reputation abroad.

He is one of the key figures in the Iraqi National Congress who lulled Team Bush into the WMD intelligence fiasco with Iraq.

Chalabi turned over US state secrets to Iran.

This guy has built up the kind of lousy karma that other bad guys can only dream about. But he continues to worm his way into places. The string pullers in the Bush Administration keep giving this guy opportunity after opportunity to screw people over.

The greatest predictor of future events is the past. Given Chalabi's quite shady history, he must have some hot and juicies on the neocon/Bush people. Or he's got access to something else that they really want.

Chalabi is definitely pulling the oil strings now. Or at least he has a hand in it.

How long it will take him to screw over the Iraqi people and/or the US is anyone's guess. But I doubt it will be long.

Posted by Carla at 03:53 PM |

OHSU gets a big assed magnet

Wow!

The 3-tesla magnet weighs 30,000 pounds and stretches 151/2 feet long, more than 8 feet tall and wide. It is 30,000 times stronger than Earth's magnetic field, the maximum allowed for nonexperimental MRIs on humans, said Charles Springer, director of OHSU's Advanced Imaging Research Center. The MRI system, which creates images of tissues beneath the skin, will be used for a variety of experimental studies.

I was just thinking last week that I'm probably going to need an MRI on my back. I've had a nagging sciatica-type problem ever since I gave birth to my daughter just over 12 years ago. It's never been properly diagnosed and treated. Maybe this kick-butt magnet can give the docs a good peek into my ass and find out the problem, eh? After all, if it could see "could show as few as 10 white blood cells slipping through the barrier into the brain",it can probably get a fine shot of one little sciatic region.

It is a little creepy though. What kind of side effects are possible by radiating the body with that kind of force? Not to mention the very Phantom of the Opera style set up they need to get operational:

The magnets are so massive that OHSU had to specially design its new building. The imaging lab is in the basement, dug to sit on Marquam Hill's bedrock. Workers strengthened a road leading to the building to bear the weight, and left a wall open for cranes to ease magnets into place.

To help install the 30-ton magnet, scheduled for delivery Jan. 21, crews will temporarily close Southwest Sam Jackson Park Road. The magnet is en route from England, via the Panama Canal and Los Angeles.

This thing totally tickles my inner geek. I may need to find out which day its arriving. It would be great to get some digital photos of this monstrosity.

Posted by Carla at 09:13 AM |

January 01, 2006

"I'm not a crook"

Carla pointed me to this post over at Daily Kos on why the right will eventually rue demanding that the DOJ open an investigation into who leaked the NSA domestic spying program.

It's a good post and I recommend that you swing over to DKos and read it.

When I read it I immediately pondered the open question as to why the DOJ is investigating the whistleblower instead of investigating why Bush flouted the express will of Congress that he not be granted any war powers domestically after 9/11 as well as the FISA act in 1977 which also demonstrated the constitutionally binding will of Congress.

I would be surprised if there weren't actually a good many career employees in the DOJ who wanted to investigate the NSA spying program's legality but were over-ruled by GOP political appointees. As we now know, the DOJ civil rights section unanimously viewed Tom DeLay's redistricting scheme in Texas as illegal. But they were over-ruled by a GOP political appointee in a clear case of political manipulation. Why would they change their tactics now?

What's interesting to me about all of this is both the similarities and the differences between the Bush administration and the Nixon administration.

Like Nixon, Bush is obsessed with stopping or preventing whistleblowers from within his own administration informing the public about activities that he would have preferred not see the light of day. Like Nixon, Bush has ordered domestic spying upon American citizens.

A key difference thus far is with their respective Attorney Generals. The 1973 AG, Elliot Richardson, refused to play politics on Nixon's behalf and instead resigned. So far the current AG, Alberto Gonzales, appears perfectly willing to do Bush's political dirty work. Whether then AG John Ashcroft willingly played ball when Bush first started the domestic spying is unknown.

What we do know is that Ashcroft's deputy AG, James B. Comey, refused to authorize the domestic spying program when he was acting AG while Ashcroft was in the hospital getting his gall bladder removed.

As for the current DOJ criminal investigation into who leaked the NSA spying story is... there is a difference between felons and whistleblowers, as Sen. Schumer says. The difference hinges on the legality of Bush's spying program. So the only way to fulfill the DOJ investigation is to investigate the legality of Bush's actions.

Posted by Kevin at 07:15 PM |

Let there be peace on Earth

Let there be peace on Earth
And let it begin with me

This is the time of year when many of us set goals for the coming year. These "resolutions" are often of a personal nature lending themselves to some sort of self improvement.

Not that I don't have room for personal improvement and growth..but given the destruction, violence and war that permeated the year 2005 it seems like a less self-centered resolution is in order: peace.

"World peace" is a trite answer that stereotyped Miss America contestants are said to give as the answer to the interview questions asked by the host during the pageant. Its an ongoing joke. But after having witnessed the way we humans tore at each other this past year, perhaps that answer isn't so trite after all.

The single greatest reason for these acts of violence toward our fellow man? Fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of political change. Fear of religious change. Fear of the unknown. This year more than others in my memory, human fears were not only indulged they were encouraged.

Be afraid. Let us save you. Give us the power to keep you safe from your fears. Give yourself over to us completely so we can guard you from those who would make your fears come true.

My resolution this year is to find ways to give people courage. To end their fears. To demonstrate ways we can stand together.

Hopefully through our little corner of the blogopshere we'll create ripples of courage, strength and most importantly: peace.

To do this I will work to highlight stories of bravery and tenacity in the face fear. I will try to out stories where fearmongering works to undermine our American values and ideals. I'm hopeful that readers of Preemptive Karma will feel free to email me the stories that they find that meet this criteria (click on the "email Carla" link at the upper left hand corner of PK).

In 2006...let there be peace on Earth. And let it begin with us.

Posted by Carla at 10:27 AM |