« 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