« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »

February 28, 2006

Do you Buy Blue?

Are there any companies or stores that you avoid because they funded the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign?

I realize that Buy Blue has expanded their categorization to include much more than political donations. But, for me it's the political donations that come to mind when I'm choosing where to spend my money.

I think it'd be impossible to remember every company who's donation patern is lop-sided in favor of Republicans. But there are a few that haven't gotten lost in my usual memory black hole.

• Home Depot: I am definitely a "blue collar" kinda guy and easily identify with Tim Allen's TV character Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor's almost childlike enjoyment of having new gadgets to play with. Home Depot is everywhere and that can cramp a guy's style. But, I choose to patronize Ace Hardware instead. It's true that they gave exlusively to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. But, it was only $300 compared to Home Depot's $448,500 (82% to GOP). I can live with that.
• Wendy's Hamburgers: Gawd I love their fries. But, I haven't spent a dime at Wendy's since I first learned how heavily they gave to the Bush campaign.
• Wal-Mart: This is the one exception to my general rule of only considering political contributions. Wal-Mart could stop giving a dime to Republicans and I still wouldn't shop there.

Where do you shop or not shop, and why?

Posted by Kevin at 06:30 PM |

Submit your vagina or die

If you're into the whole Stepford notion of having your woman submit her vagina to the good of the rightwing social order, have I got a website for you.

No Room For Contraception is a shiny new resource for the crowd looking for trumped up societal erosion caused by couples who use contraception.

Oh how I wish I were kidding.

Mary Worthington, a co-founder of the site slaps up this one research citation as proof that oral contraceptives kill a woman sex drive.

I don't have access to read this research beyond the abstract unless I get in my car and drive to one of the big college libraries. Not likely today. But even Worthington has to admit that "more evidence is needed for an accurate correlation to be seen." Not exactly irrefutable proof.

Not to mention that there are a multitude of other contraceptives available--which I'm sure will still rustle the feathers of Ms. Worthington while still keeping a woman's ability to tip the horny meter intact.

If the Catholic Church is going to insist that couples can't use birth control--are they going to pony up the cash for all the children born to couples who can't afford to pay for them? Or is the Catholic Church going to demand Welfare be reformed to make it easier for families to get government assistance?

Yeah, not likely.

Weird how they can get so torqued up about people before they're born--but manage such a laissez faire attitude about them once they've passed through the womb.

Posted by Carla at 04:49 PM |

Hot off the press - new poll

• Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
• While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
• Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
• Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
• Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
• Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

Wow... what a very... um... interesting mix of beliefs.

How is it possible that almost 90% think that the Iraq War was retribution for Saddam's role in 9/11? What role???

Posted by Kevin at 02:44 PM |

Prestige in the Middle East=Clinton

Thus spaketh Andrew Sullivan:

For some reason that eludes my own judgment, Clinton has a great deal of cachet in the Middle East, and could defuse the anti-Bush and thereby anti-American obstacles to success. He was, by all accounts, superb at the Doha/Brookings/Saban summit in 2003. He would bring the Democratic party into a much more constructive role in trying to bring about a serious step forward for Iraq, and help unite the country at home. If Bush were to ask him, it would send a very powerful message of seriousness to the Middle East, put more of America's prestige and effort behind the Iraq project, at exactly the time some in the country are doubting our fortitude.

Sullivan is probably right..and may have put his finger on the one action Bush could take to salvage what's left of the US's tattered reputation in that region.

Which has got to gall the hell out of rank and file conservative Republicans--who have a withering hatred for all things Clinton.

(Via Ezra)

Posted by Carla at 06:40 AM |

February 27, 2006

Governors: Bush is wrecking the National Guard

From the no shit files that hide behind the New York Times' firewall:

Governors of both parties said Sunday that Bush administration policies were stripping the National Guard of equipment and personnel needed to respond to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires and other emergencies.

Tens of thousands of National Guard members have been sent to Iraq, along with much of the equipment needed to deal with natural disasters and terrorist threats in the United States, the governors said here at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

Anyone not living in a cave since the wreckage of Hurricane Katrina has seen for themselves what Bush has done to the Guard. Its all a part of the whole contempt this Administration has for the US military.

The only thing that matters to these guys is tax cuts and making money. They'll do anything to anyone at any time in order to facilitate those goals.

They certainly have no regard for the law:

In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said that "extensive use of the Guard's equipment overseas has significantly reduced the amount of equipment available to governors for domestic needs."

Since 2003, the report said, the Army National Guard has left more than 64,000 pieces of equipment, valued at more than $1.2 billion, in Iraq. The Army has not kept track of most of this equipment and has no firm plans to replace it, the report said.

DOD policy requires all of this equipment to be replaced. No plan is in place to do so--and the Administration isn't exactly going out of their way to see that it is.

Can't do it. Wouldn't be prudent. Tax cuts, yannow.

Losers.

Posted by Carla at 02:15 PM |

IRS finds 'disturbing' political activity by charities in 2004

The IRS is finally getting off their bureaucratic asses:

USA Today:

IRS examinations found nearly three out of four churches, charities and other civic groups suspected of having violated restraints on political activity in the 2004 election actually did so, the agency said Friday. Most of the examinations that have concluded found only a single, isolated incidence of prohibited campaign activity.

In three cases, however, the IRS uncovered violations egregious enough to recommend revoking the groups' tax-exempt status.

Gee, ya think?

Focus On The Family is a 501(c)3 charitable organization. They have a federal tax exempt status. Yet they're deeply involved in political advocacy.

They're just one of many organizations like this.

I doubt the IRS will have much teeth or motivation to really go after these groups as long as the Republican Party runs the Executive Branch. These groups are a significant contributor (in dollars, manpower and motivation) to the Republican Party.

It will be interesting to see if the IRS actually pulls anyone's tax exempt status--and who they do it to. I'll be keeping an eye out for that list.

Stay tuned.

Posted by Carla at 07:51 AM |

Everybody just stay the hell out of Alabama, pt. 2

I'm tellin' ya, there's something in the water lately:

Man of Arab descent shot; suspect held

TUSCALOOSA - A man of Arab descent was in fair condition Friday night after being shot Thursday night by a man who had been yelling racial slurs outside a Middle Eastern takeout restaurant near the University of Alabama campus.

Among those who went to the aid of Nabil Chagri was John Bart Tyra, a Marine Reservist who returned from a tour in Iraq nearly a year ago. Afterward, Tyra said he was sickened by the incident.

"I shed a few tears over it, let's put it that way," said Tyra, a Tuscaloosa resident and a lance corporal in the Bessemer-based 4th Anti-Terrorism Battalion. "It just breaks my heart that that can happen here in the United States."

"Hello, CNN? Fox News? Oh, you're only interested if the victim's white...? C'mon, you can dredge up the whole history of Alabama's racial strife, show that Birmingham firehose video one more time..."

Posted by Jeff at 07:07 AM |

February 26, 2006

Next verse, same as the first verse

This is a couple days old and I didn't have time to write about it at the time. At first I decided just to let it go, but very few have written about it and I couldn't find a trace of it on the Oregonian's website so here goes.

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, has a world-class hard-on for pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

(He) has warned the faithful that Catholic politicians or voters who are pro-abortion commit heresy against the Fifth Commandment’s prohibition of murder.

While I have no problem whatsoever with Mr. Vasa holding very specific religious beliefs, it seems to me that focusing just on abortion and picking just on those who happen to vote for Democrats, whether they be citizens at the ballot box or election politicians, puts Vasa's hard-on in a different light.

What keeps going thru my mind every time I've thought about this heresy pronouncement is the uphill struggle that JFK had to overcome widespread prejudice against Catholics. He got on TV and assured Americans that he wouldn't be a Papal puppet. What Bishop Vasa is doing undercuts everything that Kennedy fought for and won. If he gets his way then Americans will once again have to seriously question Catholic political candidates to find out whether their first allegiance is going to be to the Pope or to America.

This of course is just another rehash of the 2004 election. and Vasa appears to be just another partisan trying to give the GOP a boost via the pulpit. Glibly ignored by Vasa are the multitude of issues where conservative Republican politicians and voters openly disregard, and in many cases openly mock, the crystal clear teaching of the Catholic Church beyond just abortion.

What really irks me is the inherent vapidity of Vasa's stance. I could respect it if he were to task all Catholics with adhering to every Catholic position. That at least would be consistent, if wrong-headed and lethal to the very concept of individual thought, not to mention individual responsibility. But I could respect it even so. This heresy crap? It's contemptible. Although I don't suppose that should really surprise anyone. Can anyone name even a single heretic hunter in history who wasn't ultimately revealed to have no interest whatsoever in adhering to what Jesus taught?

Posted by Kevin at 07:40 PM |

Sunday Blogroll--Carla plays catch-up

I've been meaning to do this for awhile..but I've made a couple of new, obvious additions to our "Must Read" blogroll.

If you're not reading Ezra Klein and Firedoglake on a regular basis, you should be.

And speaking of Firedoglake, ReddHedd has a round up of Sunday talk show stuff--including a screen shot of the Fox team advertising their need for straight jackets:

Holy fucking crap.

Posted by Carla at 11:20 AM |

Howard Dean was right--again

I'm a self-confessed Deaniac. My opinion on Howard Dean is colored with the bias that frankly, I love the guy. He's straightforward. He's direct. And he knows his shit.

Then there's the Howard Dean Bonus: he absolutely grates the nerves of the rightwing establishment in this country. Worse for them--Dean has a sneaky, deliberate and consistent way of being right.

The latest example of Dean's consistent way of being correct comes from Glenn Greenwald:

Howard Dean, December 5, 2005

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. . . .

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Now--the guy who essentially founded conservatism, William F. Buckley,is on the Dean wagon when it comes to Iraq:

William F. Buckley, Jr. in The National Review, yesterday

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. . . .

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. . . . .

[Bush] will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. . . .

So what do the rightwing Bush apologists decide to do in the face of the founder of conservatism declaring Iraq an unwinnable disaster?

They decide that they aren't really conservatives.

Witness the hysterical ravings of Captain Ed:

Bush 43 is not a conservative in foreign policy, at least since 9/11 taught him that genocidal tyrannies in Southwest Asia could produce immediate and existential threats to the American homeland. He has been much closer to Woodrow Wilson than his father or even Ronald Reagan in his reaction to the world.

Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan? Well, I'll give Ed this--Wilson was no fan of the US Constitution and neither is Bush. Wilson also hated checks and balances and brooked no dissent, imprisoning those who spoke up. But Wilson embraced peace and undertook WWI only after he saw there was absolutely no other choice.

Reagan should have been arrested for stealing from the US Treasury and lying to American people and Congress. So I suppose that parallel is apt. But Reagan had checks and balances--Bush doesn't. Reagan's policies were reigned in by Congress (except the stuff Reagan did without Congress' knowledge). Also, there's a valid argument to be made that Reagan's staff was doing a lot without his knowledge because of the onset of Reagan's alzheimers. So its tough to know how much of the policy was really his.

Ed is wrong. This is conservative. This is what unchecked conservatism leaves in its wake.

Howard is right about that too:(Dean, Meet the Press, May 22, 2005)

But if you look at what's good for America not what's good for the Republican Party, what the Republicans want to do is not good for America. I would argue that it's not very good in the long run for the Republican Party either. You can't cut the minority, especially if the minority is a very large one like 48 percent, totally out of everything.

It's a matter of checks and balances. Look at the terrible things that are going on in Congress today. You have a Republican leader who has been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee, and his response is to get rid of the Ethics Committee or render them inoperable.

Right again, Howard.

Posted by Carla at 08:21 AM |

February 25, 2006

Finding the roots of my former faith

I've written before about leaving the religion of my youth and becoming a Deist. Nevertheless, I do have a fascination with my former faith, especially its history and how its come to be what it is today.

Last week I had lunch with my friend Becky who like me, is on a constant search for her own spiritual truths. Also like me, Becky was raised in a conservative Christian home and struggled with the unyielding, unquestioning authority of her church.

During our lunch, Becky mentioned to me that she'd been researching the roots of Christianity. Specifically how Christianity seems to have swallowed up the religious and cultural tenets from the region where it germinated.

Becky emailed me some links that attempt to explain some of the roots of Christianity. I don't know how much of this is plausible or accurate--but it is interesting:

And so we have our first example of how balance is important in life. If the Sun shined brightly overhead all the time bathing us in it's wonderful light and warmth we'd just get hotter and hotter and eventually die from excessive heat. Likewise if the cold darkness of night reigned constantly supreme we'd just get colder and colder and eventually die from lack of warmth and light. Life is only good when it is in balance. We need both the day and the night. We need the constant cycling between them.

This site offers up the assertion that the spiritual "light" and "dark" stem not from God and Satan, but from man's need for balance and explanation of the day and night.

There are other discussions of geography and the stars--and how it all ties into to Christian mythology.

This cite treats Jesus as a creature of myth. His thesis appears to be backed up by all sort of historical evidence..which I haven't looked into myself yet. I'm going to forward some of this to my friend James who has studied this material at length. I trust his knowledge in this area and I'm hoping he'll give me some direction on where to study further.

Of all of the links Becky sent, this seems the one with an ax to grind. It is heavily footnoted, however. It too attempts to dispell the notion that Jesus ever existed.

I've been examining my fascination with my former faith as well. Why does it interest me? What's my motiviation for wanting more answers? I'm not entirely sure. Maybe its because I want to understand my family better...to come to terms with their beliefs that differ so much from mine.

I find myself consistently drawn to reading pieces of historical fact on the roots of the Christian religion. It comforts me somehow to believe I'm filling in the gaps that weren't given to me as a child growing up in that faith.

I've been thirsty for knowledge in this area for as long as I can remember. But I'm skeptical about what's historically correct--what material I can rely on to offer an honest look at how the Christian faith grew into what it is today.

Posted by Carla at 10:30 AM |

February 24, 2006

Is Bin Laden in China?

These guys seem to think so:

According to an anonymous Vice source (yes, we have sources, just like “real” journalists) with ties inside the Pakistani ISI (it’s their CIA), Osama Bin Laden has been tracked to a mountain hideaway in the Taxkorgan Tajik region of China’s predominantly Muslim Xinjiang area and has been under US, British, and Pakistani secret-service surveillance since mid-September of last year. The source also reports that top US officials have been trying to open a dialogue with the Chinese government since positively identifying Bin Laden sometime in the middle of last September, but to no avail.

The Chinese government has refused to talk to the Americans about the report, but recently moved troops into the area for what it describes as “antiterrorist training activities.” In an effort to monitor these troop movements without escalating the tension between the Chinese and Americans, the Pakistani government, under the direction of US Special Forces, has also moved troops close to the border area in the past several weeks.

I don't know how much cred these guys really have. The peeps at the Mediabistro blog seem to think they've got some chops..so take that into consideration.

I did try Google Searching US troop activity or exercises in the area...and didn't come up with anything later than 2004, but that doesn't mean much. Its not as if the US military is announcing its movements. But I was hoping to get an Asian news story with a possible link. No dice.

Posted by Carla at 05:39 PM |

Czech it out

My good bud who lives in DC has started a new blog called Swede and Czech.

Go show him a little PK love by czeching out his blog..and maybe leave a comment or two. :)

Posted by Carla at 06:31 AM |

February 23, 2006

Odds and Ends

I've had a hectic day at work today and didn't have time to really do any blogging. But, a couple of things rattled around my brain as I plodded along at work.

First is an excellent and brief piece at The Nation called The Truth About Dubya and Dubai

So what are the real security issues we need to be talking about? As the Center For American Progress reports, how about the fact that in 2002 the Coast Guard estimated that it would cost $5.4 billion over 10 years to make the necessary improvements to the nation's ports, and last year only $175 million was appropriated to the program?

How about the fact that only 6 percent of the 9 million containers arriving in U.S. ports are physically inspected by customs agents?

When the President suddenly attempts to wax eloquent about prejudice against "a Middle Eastern company," let's not be fooled about his true motives or lose sight of the real issues. And let's make certain that we continue to issue a clarion call against destructive anti-Arab and anti-Arab American sentiment that threatens to take our nation even further backwards in our continuing struggle for civil and human rights.

The other is an interview I heard yesterday on NPR's Fresh Air where Terry Gross interviewed perhaps the premier conservative economist in the nation, Bruce Bartlett. The topic was his new book Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Bartlett has impeccable credentials as a card-carrying GOP conservative, and he's clearly very disgusted with George W Bush. So much so that he conceded in the interview that although he came out of the Clinton era believing that Bill was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, in the hindsight of 5 years under the Dubya presidency, Clinton not only doesn't look so bad to him but even looks downright good in a number of ways... very high praise indeed considering the source!

You can listen to the interview on the Fresh Air site, just follow the link above. Any political junky will find it fascinating.

Posted by Kevin at 08:00 PM |

Yglesias has been reading PK

Or maybe he's just channeling me:

I would caution sensible liberals like Kevin Drum and our own supreme leader against giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this port business. Giving Bush the benefit of the doubt is not a sound policy as a general matter. What's more, Bush has shown a weird nonchalance about port security from the very beginning of the "war on terror." He's also demonstrated a consistent, unseemly, and unwise level of coziness with the picturesque despots of the Arabian peninsula whose brand of Arab authoritarianism comes with a monarchical gloss. Reed Hunt notes that we wouldn't let the UAE own a television station in this country, but Bush says it's a-okay for them to run a port; I have my doubts.

We shouldn't be giving W the benefit of the doubt? Ya think?

Exactly how many times does the Bush Administration need to screw up major policy issues and situations before people toss away their rose-colored "Bush is fab" glasses? After Iraq, Katrina, Social Security, Medicare Prescription Drug plans and the massive economic failures of the tax cuts--you'd think their skulls would be penetrated by now.

Posted by Carla at 05:31 PM |

Oregon Indy Guv Candidate raking in the loot

Newly minted Independent Ben Westlund is raking in big bucks for his gubernatiorial run.

According to a press release from his campaign, Westlund has raised over $100k. The campaign is also boasting over 100 registered volunteers to gather the 18,000 signatures he'll need to get on the ballot.

Weslund is encouraging supporters to go to his website to download petitions.

I doubt I'd consider voting for Westlund, personally. I'm a liberal, Westlund isn't. While he has a few positions that might be considered liberal, its not enough to swing my vote his direction.

That said, I hope he makes it on the ballot. Oregon is a state that embraces the independent spirit. Its only fitting that a guy like Westlund has the chance to be on our ballots for Governor.

Posted by Carla at 05:15 PM |

These people have too much time on their hands

Via Pam at Pandagon, I see that the American Family Association's One Million Moms is planning to boycott the advertisers of Desperate Housewives.

OMO calls Desperate Housewives "one of the most vulgar and tasteless programs on television."

I'm the last one to judge other people's taste in television..but please: "One of the most vulgar and tasteless on TV"? I've watched "Housewives" many times. It doesn't come close to being the most vulgar and tasteless thing on TV.

I've never actually watched this program in its entirety because honestly, I can't sit throught it. But Wife Swap is a hand's down winner in the ABC TV line up of vulgarity in television. While I recognize that it doesn't play to the homophobic fundy gay recruitment fears, this obnoxious piece of garbage TV highlights the worst aspects of reality television. They choose the most shallow set of immoral sleazeballs and match them up with closed minded bigots. It makes the wimmens of Wisteria Lane look like the puppets on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

And then there's Fear Factor. This is another show I can't sit through. Its just too disgusting. There is no way I'll be convinced that watching people eat buffalo balls and maggots is less vulgar than couples having affairs or gay kids coming out to their parents. No friggin way.

But this show tops them all. Real life ordained ministers calling for the deaths of foreign leaders, there is nothing more vulgar. Trying to blame natural disasters on a vengeful God who wants to elminate societies where homosexuals dwell--can't think of anything more tasteless.

These OMO women need to find something better to do with their time. My grandma used to say that "idle hands are the Devil's workshop". Looks to me like these women have been in idle overdrive.

Posted by Carla at 09:21 AM |

February 22, 2006

PK is up for another Koufax Award

Carla mentioned a couple weeks ago that we've been nominated for a Koufax in the Blog Most Deserving of Wider Recognition category. Which pits us against something like 300 other blogs who were also nominated.

This past Monday the nominees for the Koufax Award in the Best Group Blog category were announced and we're one of only 64 nominees. .

Reportedly voting for Round One will open later this week. So, if you are so inclined, swing on over and vote for your fav blogs. Hopefully PK will survive this first round of voting. But, really... it's an honor just to have been nominated. Anything else is just icing on the proverbial cake.

Posted by Kevin at 07:07 PM |

Are we witnessing the beginning of Iraq's civil war?

It sure does look like it.

Things aren't looking so rosy with our shipping of democracy overseas.

Posted by Carla at 04:26 PM |

The 12th of Never

W, 10/6/2004:
"I will never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America's interests at heart."

W, 2/21/2006:
"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, "I'll deal with it with a veto."

$6.8 billion. Don't give me that do-goody-good bullshit, Mr. President.

"Money, it's a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I'll buy me a football team..."

Posted by Jeff at 01:21 PM |

The power of compassion

A stunning new report demonstrates how incredibly effective simple human kindness and compassion can move mountains that all of the sabre rattling and defense spending in the world can't.

A new poll released today by Terror Free Tomorrow demonstrates that one year after the tsunami struck Indonesia, the dramatic increase in Indonesian support for the United States and against Bin Laden has continued. American humanitarian aid to tsunami victims last year caused an overwhelming change of opinion in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country. The new nationwide poll throughout Indonesia reveals that this dramatic shift has not only been sustained, but has strengthened. In fact, for the first time in almost four years, more Indonesians are favorable to the United States than unfavorable, while support for Bin Laden and terrorism has dropped to its lowest level since 9/11.

Against the backdrop of the Danish cartoons, the Gitmo concentration camp and the White House's bluster against the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people, support for the United States increased from 34% a year ago to 44% today. But most spectacular of all is the dropping support for Osama bin Laden, from 58% in 2003 to a mere 12% today. Support for terror attacks has dropped to an astounding 2%! This from the most populous Muslim nation on the planet.

Why?

The reason for this shift of opinion has been American tsunami relief. In February 2005, 65 percent of those surveyed said that American assistance had made them feel more favorable to the United States. In January 2006, that number has remained steady at 63 percent, within the margin of error for both polls. Another surprise: When it came to tsunami relief, the United States fared better in Indonesian public opinion than other Western or even Islamic countries, as well as local Islamist groups in Indonesia, who all provided assistance.

Think about the implications here.

The federal government spent a reported $950 million on tsunami relief. Compare that to an estimated final price tag for the Iraq War of between $1 and 2 trillion.

Posted by Kevin at 10:41 AM |

More backdoor taxes from Bush

Repeating an existing theme, Bush proposes a backdoor tax on veterans by increasing fees and co-pays, according to provisions in his proposed 2007 budget. The Air Force Association is fighting back.

"The Air Force Association believes that the nation has a moral obligation to provide promised health care to military retirees," said AFA Chairman of the Board Stephen P. Condon. "We appreciate that the administration is attempting to make the best out of a tough fiscal situation, but the budget must not be balanced on the backs of veterans."

The Military Officers Association of America was even more blunt:

"...the Pentagon leaders’ disingenuous double-talk about exorbitant fee increases being “necessary to sustain the current benefit.” We think it’s unconscionable to put the Joint Chiefs and Senior Enlisted Advisors in the position of having to advocate a benefit cut in order to fund weapons programs."

So much for the rah-rah "we support the troops" BS coming from Bush partisans. When push comes to shove the constituency they support is the top 1% wealthiest families via his tax cut scheme. Then, to pay for weapons systems, Bush turns to veterans and their families to pay for it.

Posted by Kevin at 09:58 AM |

Property rights in Oregon

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Measure 37 is constitutional, overturning a lower court ruling.

Approved by 61 percent of voters in November 2004, the measure gives property owners the right to ask a government agency to either pay for lost property value because of zoning changes or provide a waiver of the offending land-use regulation.

I'm sympathetic to the property rights argument inherent in measure 37. And that's how it was sold to Oregonians in 2004. It's mighty appealing to think that the little guy can strike a blow against the all-powerful machine of government. What red-blooded individualist could fail to respond to the idea that a property owner shouldn't have his or her property value affected in any way, shape or form by bureaucratic mechinations, particularly out here in the West?

The problem with Measure 37 is that it's not about property rights. It's about developers rights to profit. If it were about property rights then to be consistent it would have to not only require that any valuation deficit be addressed and rectified, as it does, but that any valuation surplus also be addressed. Meaning that property which increased in value as a direct result of zoning laws is part and parcel of the very same property rights argument and ought to be addressed. That it wasn't proves that Measure 37 was never about property rights in the first place.

Posted by Kevin at 07:25 AM |

February 21, 2006

Let Dubai guard Bush

Bush wants to allow the United Arab Emirates to guard our ports.

It seems Bush the safety and security man has no problem over looking a few minor UAE details:

The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

Not to mention the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE.

This new deal couldn't possibly have anything to do with more Bush cronyism, right?

The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The Bush Administration is swapping our port security so that their buddies can make a fat wad of cash.

I say we offer Bush a compromise. We let this UAE company take over our ports when Bush outsources his Secret Service detail to them.

If Bush is willing to cover his own manicured rich boy ass with the security provided by these guys--they can guard our ports. If not...they're out.

Posted by Carla at 07:41 PM |

Podhertz trots out the nazi reference...

John Podhertz at National Review:

I have absolutely no inside knowledge about the ports deal, but it's possible that this event is George Bush's Bitburg. A private personal appeal from a world leader may have been the key missing link to what seems like an inexplicably stupid decision. Bush might have been personally prevailed upon by the pooh-bahs in Dubai -- who have, it is said, been very helpful in some of the financial aspects of the war on terror -- to agree to the ports deal. That would follow the same pattern as Ronald Reagan, who agreed to a personal plea from Helmut Kohl to lay a wreath on the German war dead at Bitburg. Wrath rained down from the heavens upon Ronald Reagan, just as it is right now on George W. Bush. And as was true in the earlier case, it's only going to get worse. A classic second-term blunder.

Even the GOP know that the shitstorm here is just beginning.

Posted by Carla at 07:17 PM |

GOP pulls their 06 wedge issue out of the closet

In 2004 it was gay marriage. Now the he-man gay haters party is trotting out their next issue to push their base to the polls this November.

This cycle, they'll be getting the rightwing religious freaks to vote for keeping gay and lesbian couples from adopting.

When all else fails, attack the homos!

Republicans can't run on real issues like the economy, homeland security, Katrina or the war in Iraq because frankly, they've been so craptastically lousy at governance that they can't.

All they've got are the wedge social issues. And they're going to try their very best to get swing state voters to run to the polls in droves to keep those gays and lesbians from recruiting young, innocent minds to the homo way of life.

The Republican Party is a shamless heap of filthy pantloads. Every single time they pull stunts like this..they're accumulating negative karma. I'm truely looking forward to the day that the boomerang swings back and knocks them upside the school.

God knows they deserve it.

Posted by Carla at 03:36 PM |

February 20, 2006

The faith of our fathers?

"Our nation must return to the faith, freedoms, and family values of our Founding Fathers. These men were people of deep and abiding faith and there is a concerted effort by many in our country to ‘rewrite’ our country’s history devoid of that faith," according to Rick McKinney. Rick and his wife Jane are walking across America in an event they've labeled Walk To Reclaim America

"We want Christians to know that it’s not too late for our nation. We can still make a difference and reclaim this country for God if we will let our voice be heard," says McKinney.

So... what you're saying, Rick, is that by turning away from the brutal slavery of Africans, replete with more than a few rapes, murders and the ubiquitous use of torture by slave owners, indentured servitude of the abjectly poor, forcing little children to work ten to twelve hours a day in inhuman conditions and treating married woman as the wholly-owned property of their husbands that we are turning away from God?

Why is it that those who complain the loudest about others allegedly rewriting history are themselves attempting to do that very thing?

Posted by Kevin at 11:02 PM |

Set your TiVo to "stun", Scottie

For those of you who want to see the rightwing version of pretend history, Trinity Broadcasting Network has the show for you.

In The Face of Evil--or how Ronald Reagan picked up the entire Cold War on his back and threw it into the fiery furnace with no help from anyone--airs this evening at 10:00 Eastern, 7:00 Pacific.

Or you could just save the brainwashing and beat yourself in the skull with a sledgehammer.

Same, same.

Posted by Carla at 04:30 PM |

Holding the media's feet to the fire

One of the key roles that blogs play is to press the regular media into reporting stories. Another is to make sure that they report the FULL story..and call bullshit when they don't. Still another is to hold organizations to account when the regular media fails to do so.

Last week Noemie Maxwell of Washblog hit that last one out of the park.

Noemie's outstanding piece demonstrates how blogs can hold regular media's feet to the fire:

Washington Farm Bureau's President, Steve Appel, recently made public comments on the occasion of the kickoff for the land use initiative that organization has just filed. [Carla comments: For Oregonians reading this, think Measure 37]

First off, I congratulate Mr. Appel for bearing a quintessentially apropos name for his work here in our apple state.

But back to more prosaic matters, alas.

In that kickoff speech, which is published on the website promoting the initiative, Mr. Appel tells about Bruce Ritter who owns a small amount of non-agricultural land (10 acres) and presents his case as an example of a property owner whose plight resembles that of thousands of others across the state who would be helped by the initiative.

This choice is a matter of some public interest. Why not a farmer? And why only one family?

Odder than this choice of a representative landowner, and more troubling, is the inaccuracy in Mr. Appels' statement about the Ritter property. Half of the assertions made by Mr. Appel are easily debunked. The other half are not substantiated and are, in fact, shown by the public record to almost certainly be untrue.

Noemie then proceeds to offer a point by point rebuttal of the Farm Bureau speech, not to mention the the innacurate testimony provided by Bruce Ritter to the Thurston County Planning Commission.

Deja vu all over again.

Oregonians were subjected to similiar dishonesty from those who managed to pass Measure 37 in our state. Unfortunately we didn't have someone like Noemie, combing through the records and pushing the local media to cover the entire story.

At least not to the point where an echo chamber was created.

But the media in Washington has been served notice by Noemie and by like minded bloggers who write the stories in their entirety. Woe to the media denizens who lazily take the words of men like Appel and Ritter, without doing the research and groundwork on their accusations.

The local blogs are watching you.

Posted by Carla at 02:40 PM |

February 19, 2006

Freedom Doughnuts

What do hard core rightwing freaks on both sides of the world have in common?

A penchant for renaming food:

Iranians love Danish pastries, but now when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad."

Bakeries across the capital were covering up their ads for danish pastries Thursday after the confectioners union ordered the name change in retaliation for cartoons of Islam's revered Prophet first published in a Danish newspaper.

Somehow I doubt the dimwitted Republicans in the US House of Representatives will find shame in the obvious parallel.

(via Blogger Radio)

Posted by Carla at 08:04 PM |

GOP bails on ethics promises

And in other news, water is still wet.

WaPo:

In mid-January, Hastert proposed broad new restrictions on lobbying, including a ban on privately funded travel for lawmakers and tight limits on meals and other gifts.

But Boehner and many rank-and-file Republicans objected to his recommendations and have said they would prefer beefing up disclosure of lobbyists' activities rather than imposing new restrictions.

Shorter Boehner: As long as you know you're being f'd over, its perfectly acceptable if we do it.

Posted by Carla at 10:51 AM |

February 18, 2006

Saturday Snippet

I missed last week and am late this week. But here it is:

Jack Sparrow: [after Will draws his sword] Put it away, son. It's not worth you getting beat again.
Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.
Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

Posted by Carla at 07:40 PM |

Onward Christian Soldiers!

There are some days when it just doesn't pay to swig a cup of coffee before reading blogs. You end up spitting half of it out when reading stuff like this:

I really think the General should check out the Combat For Christ site. Seems like his kinda place: Indoctrinating the younguns into the violent, manly side of Jesus' teachings.

I especially like the Course Descriptions:

Rappelling Course: Utilizes a 30-foot rappel tower which contrasts the two types of faith. Self vs. The Savior

"Woops! You weren't supposed to pick the Self!" "Aaaaaaah!"

Climbing Wall: Shows the student the importance of "having a good anchor" to climb upon. Also, teaches the principle of satanic sabotage!

"Now, Timmy, can you guess which wall anchor was secretly loosened by Satan?" "Aaaaaaaaah!" "Oops, bad guess!"

Weapons Course: This course challenges the Christian Soldier to engage and eliminate his greatest enemies.

"OK, you get 50 bonus points for head shots for liberals, 100 for homosexuals! And 200 if you get a Hillary!"

Unfortunately from the looks of things, some of these guys only do the Combat For Christ fitness regimen under the "weekend warrior" status:

That guy in front looks like he might need some oxygen. And those poor kids look bored to tears.

Good job teaching the kid to wear red, there. Better chance that Dick Cheney won't hit him on the next penned bird massacre expedition.

Posted by Carla at 08:00 AM |

February 17, 2006

Maybe Cheney will take her hunting

Perennial flatulence peddler Ann Coulter sure gets around.

It seems a war is brewing between Scary Ann and cartoonist Ted Rall.

Coulter allegedly went off on her usual hate laced rants at a Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington DC last Friday, saying "Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions."

Rall called the comments slanderous.

Not one to back down from a losing battle, Scary Ann repeated her "funny" in her column.

Rall is now threatening to sue and says he will do so if he can get enough donations to cover his legal expenses. So far, it looks like he's getting plenty:

Rall said people were voting roughly 3-1 in favor of suing. And he told E&P Monday that pledges are coming in fast. "If pledges continue to come in at the present rate, I'll have the $6,000 available by tonight," Rall said. "A lot of people are fed up with how Coulter has turned slandering liberals into a cottage industry and want to see her held to account. I'm actually fairly overwhelmed by the response -- more than 300 pledges, many in the $20 to $100 range."

It would be a helluva lot quicker and easier to just send her on a hunting trip with Dead Eye Dick.

[Click here to donate to Rall's "Sue Scary Ann fund".]

Posted by Carla at 04:50 PM |

James Dobson may get the concept of karma, after all

Being a highly vocal and sometimes vitriolic critic of rightwing religious Christian extremists, I find myself in a state of shock and awe when one of their prominent groups makes a short trip off the reservation:

The conservative Christian group Focus on the Family teaches that gays and lesbians lead dangerous and deviant lifestyles. The ministry has long lobbied against recognizing same-sex couples as spouses or parents.

So it came as a surprise to political analysts — and to gay and lesbian activists — when Focus on the Family endorsed a bill this month that would give same-sex couples in Colorado some of the same rights as heterosexual spouses.

The bill tries to chart a neutral middle ground through an issue that has roiled state after state in recent years.

Focus on the Family's chief cook and bottle washer is evangelical fundamentalist Christian James Dobson. According to Pam, Dobson is taking a beating with the Freepers.

The Family Research Council whack job Paul Cameron looks like he's about to have an aneurism over the whole thing:

Dr. Cameron said “the Mitchell bill is really ‘marriage-lite’ for gays. Focus on the Family’s support for this bill is madness.”

“Currently there is one voluntary relationship that immediately confers these benefits and more — that relationship is marriage between a man and a woman. Society gets tremendous value out of marriage, because married individuals are more economically productive, provide the best place to raise children, and are the least criminal. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are less economically productive, have few children, do not raise them well, are more criminal, and tend to spread disease. Society should not reward homosexual relationships with marriage-like benefits,” said Cameron.

(FYI: Cameron's freaky unscientific claims about homosexuals have been roundly discredited)

Donald Syphers at the Christian Newswire Service is not a happy camper, either:

Has Dr. Dobson become so politically oriented and motivated that he cannot bring himself to be critical of a bad measure, simply because it was put forward by a Republican? Or is the truth about Dobson that at some point he went off course, putting the family as his pre-eminent value? He named his organization "Focus on the Family" -- has it become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

ANYTHING, no matter how noble or godly it may seem, if it is put before and above God, becomes an idolatrous snare. It is only a matter of time. Dobson’s focus has been on the family - so much so, that he may be losing sight of God’s truth as put forth in the Bible.

Poor Donald. James Dobson has finally decided to do something humane for a change and the wee little minds of the hardcore religious right can't see the Jesus in it. Not that they'd recognize Jesus in much of anything they do..but I digress.

Sypher's whine is pathetic. He actually attempts to couch the work to build up families as a negative.

Actions like these from Dobson makes me wonder if something happened to him to instill a belief in karma. I hope so. Maybe we'll this tiny little light of goodness blossom into a beacon someday.

Yeah..its naive. But a girl can hope.

Posted by Carla at 03:30 PM |

Where is Hooley?

Oregon Congressman David Wu(D) questioned John Marburger, science adviser to the president and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, earlier this week about the BLM's revocation and later reinstatement of funding for an OSU study on reforestation rates after forest fires.

Wu also questioned Marburger at the hearing about a case involving a NASA climatologist who said he was prevented from speaking about global warming.

"It seems to many that information inconsistent with a favored political viewpoint is being suppressed," Wu said.

Congressman Greg Walden(R) has also weighed in by announcing that he'll co-host a meeting on the subject

I do find it somewhat curious that Congresswoman Darlene Hooley(D) hasn't weighed in on this issue yet since OSU is in her district.

Posted by Kevin at 10:36 AM |

Safety first!*

W, 2001: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

W, 2006: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them, *unless they happen to be United Arab Emirates Royal Family members with untold billions they're willing to share, with us, not with the haves, not with the have-mores, but with the have-it-all-but-still-want-MORES! Then, I say, bring on them distinctions! WOOOOHOOOOO!! I'M THE KING OF THE WORLD!!"

Many thanks to georgia10 at dailykos.

Bush Administration Sells Port Security To Highest Foreign Bidder

Unanimous, final decision, already made, no appeals, they say. "They did not conduct background checks on senior managers of the company, nor did they ask how the company screens its own employees. You know, just in case a terrorist wants to infiltrate the company that now has unprecedented and unfettered access to our ports."

Yep, if only there was an opposition party with backbone, a party willing to shout the above headline more-or-less unceasingly till November '06...

Posted by Jeff at 10:12 AM |

Sticking to Dick

I've been planning to do a post on the Vice President of the United States having shot a man about the face and torso. But honestly...every time I sit down to write it up, something new comes out in the press: Cheney won't talk to the sherriff for 14 hours, he had a beer at lunch, there was alcohol on the hunt, there wasn't alcohol on the hunt.

Hunt? What hunt? Birds that have been penned up their whole lives and taught eat from feeders that are moved to the brush is hunting?

But really, I'm a partisan. My little leftwing commie opinion is meaningless in the grand scheme of what really matters. At least that's what the "centrists" and the wingers say.

Enter Peggy Noonan. Ms Noonan isn't exactly a bleeding heart lefty: Former Reagan speech writer and conservative author, columnist and TV pundit. Peg thinks this one is a sticky Dick-et:

The Dick Cheney shooting incident will, in a way, go away. And, in a way, not--ever. Some things stick. Gerry Ford had physically stumbled only once or twice in public when he became, officially, The Stumbler. Mr. Ford's stumbles seemed to underscore a certain lack of sure-footedness in his early policies and other decisions. The same with Jimmy Carter and the Killer Rabbit. At the time Mr. Carter told the story of a wild rabbit attacking his boat he had already come to be seen by half the country as weak and unlucky. Even bunnies took him on.

Same with Dick Cheney. He's been painted as the dark force of the administration, and now there's a mental picture to go with the reputation. Pull! Sorry, Harry! Pull!

When your own are starting to notice that you're Darth Vader..maybe its time to pull up stakes and get outta town.

Posted by Carla at 07:01 AM |

February 16, 2006

Modern day Pharisees strike again

Christians Reviving America's ValuEs (CRAVE) yesterday launched a call for immediate Congressional hearings to expose the "anti-religious" agenda of the ACLU.

Undoubtedly they found a receptive audience among some of the whack job GOPers in Congress even though the ACLU is demonstrably NOT anti-religious and certainly not anti-Christian, as I patiently explained over a year ago right here.

Unable and unwilling to explain the many times in which the ACLU has overtly defending Christian's religious liberty, CRAVE and like-minded liars resort to demagoguing the issue with the full confidence that their base simply won't question any of it.

Just off the top of my head... didn't God explicitly forbid bearing false witness? I'm pretty sure He did. In fact, there it is right on the very same 10 Commandment monuments that CRAVE so desperately promotes.

Gee, maybe these guys should spend the minimal effort necessary to actually READ and UNDERSTAND those commandments? But then we already know that they have read and do understand those commandments. That's not the problem. The problem is that they DON'T CARE. This isn't about God and it isn't about religion. It's about power. The power to force their will upon others. Kinda like how rape isn't about sex. It's about power over another human being. Same thing here. CRAVE is essentially advocating spiritual rape.

Posted by Kevin at 08:11 AM |

Sign me up for empowerment!

Rice asks for $75 mln to install democracy in Iran

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 (Xinhuanet) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday asked Congress for another 75 million U.S. dollars this year for American efforts to install the so-called democracy in Iran.

The money, requested as supplemental funding for the 2006 fiscal year, on top of the 60 million dollars already appropriated, are expected to be used for radio and satellite television broadcasting and for programs to help Iranians study abroad, State Department officials said.

(snip)

The top U.S. diplomat said that Washington has invested more than 4 million dollars in projects over the past two years aiming at empowering Iranian citizens in their call for political and economic freedoms.

The United States has no diplomatic ties with Iran since the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Iran and maintains broad economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.

BREAKING NEWS:
Jones asks for $50 million to install working democracy at home

MONTGOMERY, Feb. 16 (Jesuslandnet) -- Head of the household Jeff will request emergency funding today, asking Congress for another 50 million U.S. dollars this year for efforts to install so-called "democracy at home".

The money, requested as supplemental funding for the 2006 fiscal year, is expected to be used for radio and satellite television broadcasting and for programs to help end 4-year-old Chandler's dreams of tyrannical monarchy.

Jones said that the family has invested "untold millions... well, hundreds, anyway" of dollars in projects over the past two years aiming at empowering the rest of the family unit in their call for political and economic freedoms.

Chandler issued an official statement just this morning, "I want a puppy NOW".

"Dr. Rice, where do I line up to get my debit card? or do you just hand it out in bricks of $100 bills? Sign me up for empowerment!"

Posted by Jeff at 06:25 AM |

February 15, 2006

Democrats Can't Hackett

Rolling Stone magazine nails it

Maybe Dick Cheney can't shoot straight, but at least he didn't shoot himself in the face. Sadly, you can't say the same for the leadership of the Democratic party.

Posted by Kevin at 11:47 AM |

Second even more secret domestic spying program?

UPI has the scoop

A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights.

Is anyone surprised?

Posted by Kevin at 11:45 AM |

Swapping Oxycontin for LSD or magic mushrooms?

Maybe its desperation for getting his ass handed to him by Al Franken in two of the top 25 radio markets in America, but Rush Limbaugh seems to be hallucinating. Or maybe he's merely obsessed with black men.

First is his swipe at Barak Obama, claiming Obama is the Donovan McNabb of the Senate.

Then via Oliver Willis, is an audio clip of Rush's hallucinogenic rant about Sherrod Brown, claiming that the Dems only shoved Hackett out of the race because Brown is a black man.

Now maybe I haven't got the tint right on my rose colored glasses today, but Sherrod Brown is looking rather melanin challenged to me:

Rush has had a thing for Donovan McNabb for quite some time. Is it that he couldn't get love from McNabb..so he's hoping to project onto Brown?

Eh..it's probably just too many magic shrooms.

I wonder if WABC radio has a urine test policy?

Posted by Carla at 10:40 AM |

February 14, 2006

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive! - Sir Walter Scott

The American Bar Association (ABA) has denounced President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing him of exceeding his powers under the Constitution.

Yes, that would be the very same ABA whose high rating for judge Alito was lauded by that very same President Bush as evidence for why Alito should be confirmed to the SCOTUS.

How will Rove spin this one?

Posted by Kevin at 08:33 PM |

Offending people is my right, not yours plebes!

This whole ridiculous story over the boneheaded attempt by a Danish newspaper to attain civil libertarian martyrdom and the violent protest surrounding it has a familiar feel to it. Snivelling idiots go out of their way to be offensive, snivelling idiots get a nasty reaction from their target audience, snivelling idiots tie themselves to the stake, declaring themselves victims of political correctness run amok. See: any weak and limp joke about rape, any racist or sexist slur, and the whining that accompanies the reaction to said joke or slur. Boo-hoo.

Bad enough that the editor of Jyllands-Posten decided that he'd actively seek out cartoons--including vile, racist ones--about Mohammed as a way to see what would happen. What was worse was his yelping, and the yelping of the other entitled and whiny white guys on both sides of the Atlantic, when Muslims said they were offended.

I mean, uh, hello? Are you completely stupid? That's like planning to poke someone in the eye to see if they'll get angry and do something about it, and then getting all stroppy when they actually do get angry and take a swing, or call the cops, or knee you in the stomach.

What a wonderful way to puff up our egos--oh, look at us! We love freedom of expression! And freedom of expression means we have the right to offend anyone! If you don't agree, you're just fascists!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Freedom of expression means you have the right to offend anyone. It also means that the people you offended have the right to react and get angry. No, they shouldn't burn buildings or assault people, but the vast majority of protesters haven't done that--a fact that is often overlooked in the little Caucasian male temper-tantrum we've been treated to for the last several weeks. Whine a little harder, swinedogs, maybe you can shatter some windows with all of that high-pitched squealing.

Part of freedom of speech is having the spine to take the reaction to your speech. To bleat about freeeeedoooommmm when people rake you over the coals for saying something you acknowledge was offensive, and that, indeed, you put out there with the specific intent of causing offense, takes passive-aggression to new heights. Or depths, as the case may be.

So we're treated to a lot of grandstanding by a pack of would-be martyrs who haven't known true oppression in their lives. We're treated to the unoriginal idea of Holocaust denying cartoons in Iran, because you know, newspapers in Iran and the Middle East never run offensive or bigoted cartoons that deny the Holocaust or perpetuate the slander of the white supremacist fraud Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Gosh, anti-Jewish cartoons are so unheard of there! As are television shows that treat Protocols as--excuse the bad pun--Gospel truth.

If they wanted to get under the skin of the yelping masses,

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, I learn that actually, Jyllands-Posten does have its limits. Apparently, any cartoon depiction of Jesus is out of bounds. That, you see, would cause offense. It's okay to provoke offense and anger when it comes to those nasty brown Muslims, but nice white Christians shouldn't be subjected to it. Even people who weren't Christian would be offended, the reasoning went in rejecting the cartoons that featured Jesus. Offending Muslims and non-Muslims with racist depictions of Mohammed is okay. Right. No double standard there. (Sorry, but a turban shaped like a bomb? The cliche alone is offensive. Can you twits be original in your insults for once? Or is that completely beyond you? Don't answer that--it's a rhetorical question.)

So at the end of the day, this isn't about freedom of speech, which is often a red herring anyway. It's about entitlement. It reminds me of the snivelling, uptight brothel owners who got their tighty-whities in a twist when Heidi Fleiss made public her plans to open a brothel that would service women. The limp lords of pseudo-sex really, really like sex as a commodity until women become the consumers and men become the products. Or depictions of naked women are okay, but depictions of naked men are bad, just real bad, mmmmkay. These things are different. Suddenly, it's a Big! Moral! Problem!

And that's pretty much the way it is with the whiny twits who ran the cartoons. It's all about freedom of speech, until it's speech they don't like. Then it's Too! Offensive! And we can't have that. That, you see, would cause a lot of problems, and we must be sensitive to the fee-fee's of the master race good white people of the world. Or something like that.

Posted by at 06:03 PM |

Paul Hackett gets screwed

Call me an idealist...but I think this sucks:

Statement from Paul Hackett:

By Paul Hackett | bio
Dear Friends,

Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.

But there was no quid pro quo. I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration.

I told the voters from the beginning that I am not a career politician and never aspired to be--that I was about leadership, service and commitment.

Similarly, I told party officials that I had given my word to other good Democrats, who will take the fight to the Second District, that I would not run. In reliance on my word they entered the race. I said it. I meant it. I stand by it. At the end of the day, my word is my bond and I will take it to my grave.

Thus ends my 11 month political career. Although it is an overused political cliché, I really will be spending more time with my family, something I wasn't able to do because my service to country in the political realm continued after my return from Iraq. Perhaps my wonderful wife Suzi said it best after we made this decision when she said "Honey, welcome home." I really did marry up.

To my friends and supporters, I pledge that I will continue to fight and to speak out on the issues I believe in. As long as I have the microphone, I will serve as your voice.

Click on the link to read the rest.

Its utterly dissapointing to me that the Democrats would dick around with Hackett this way. Worse, kool kid Kos seem to be nodding his head as if its no big deal to act in an unethical manner by calling up a guy's political donors to get them to bail. Not to mention the fact that Ed Schultz was reporting today that the DSCC was trying to play the Swift Boat angle--saying that Hackett committed war crimes while dealing with dead bodies in Fallujah, Iraq.

The excuses for this bad behavior stink to high heaven. Markos' explanation begs for waders in order to get through it:

Update: To make something clear, Hackett is complaining about betrayal. Yet Rahm was trying to get him to become one of his candidates. In other words, Rahm was recruiting him. That's not a bad thing. That's a flattering thing.

To be clear -- Hackett didn't stand a chance. He had a tenth of Brown's money, and that was before party people allegedly tried to stop Hackett's donors from giving. His field operation in the special election was literally put together and implemented by Dan Lucas. Who is Dan Lucas? Sherrod Brown's campaign manager. Hackett's netroots effort in the special election was put together by Tim Tagaris. And while Tim is now at the DNC, he helped put together Brown's netroots operation.

So it was Brown's people who helped put together the nuts and bolts of Hackett's special election campaign, and they were now working for their boss -- Sherrod Brown.

Give me a break. Rahm knew that Hackett has already promised NOT to run for Congress. He knew Hackett wouldn't break his word. He isn't that kind of guy.

Whether or not Hackett "stood a chance" or not isn't the point. Is Brown so weak that he can't run a fair primary race against Hackett? If that's the case..then Brown sure as hell isn't going to beat the current Republican Senate seat holder, Mike DeWine, this fall. What utter crap.

Whoever said, "Democrats form their firing squads in circles" knew what the hell they were talking about.

Posted by Carla at 02:23 PM |

Watch this wicked spin

"Valerie Plame? We had to out her, in the interests of national security, because no one would listen, to convince people of the grave threat -- imminent threat -- that Iran poses to America's safety... And now that our security has been compromised beyond repair, we must defend America by attacking our enemies over there to bring profits back over here...! So, to protect our nation, including those with a pre-9/11 mindset, we pulled the trigger -- um, launched -- no, fired off -- wait! let loose -- no, no, no! let me reload that question, answer, and just say there are those who never stop thinking of ways to harm America and neither do we."

You spin me 'right round, like a record, baby. Destroying national security in order to save lucrative defense department no-bid contracts.

"Sounds like our oil addiction is only a minor affliction, compared to our addiction to war, wouldn't you agree, Mr. Cheney? Time for your tranquilizers..."

Posted by Jeff at 01:51 PM |

Cheney's got a gun

Love Aerosmith? Shaking your head over Dead Eye Dick's hunting escapades?

Check out this hilarious site parodying it all.

Posted by Carla at 12:45 PM |

Ashes to ashes

No real news on the Alabama church fires, but here's my updated map.

I still hold with most of my original profiling.

Rehobeth Baptist asked, so here's a link, if you'd like to know more or help out.

After this last one, I still say they're based somewhere around Tuscaloosa/Northport. Could be students from UA, or just someone with some kinda beef against organized religion, and the Baptists are just the most numerous. But my gut feeling is it's older guys who just started for the hell of it, felt like burning something, and thought churches would make the most ruckus. Probably no deeper message than that -- "Looka-that! WOOHOO! Burn baby burn! THAT'LL make the front page tomorrow, hee hee...! Drive, boy, drive!"

Posted by Jeff at 11:15 AM |

Walden to hold hearings on OSU logging study

After all the hullabaloo and fuss over the new OSU grad student's study claiming salvage logging in burned regions causes more fuel than it removes, Greg Walden has decided that he now has to hold hearings:

Walden says he called the hearing in response to a request from Representative Tom Udall of New Mexico, a Democrat who also sits on the forestry subcomittee.

Walden says the February 24th meeting at Medford City Hall should allow the author of the study - and some of his critics - to weigh in.

February 24 is a Friday so I'll have to work. Won't be able to drive down for it. But I'm deeply curious how the hearings will play out. Especially since the odds that at least some of the OSU professors who tried to submarine the research will be in attendance, if not testifying.

Posted by Carla at 10:11 AM |

February 13, 2006

News that you can probably live without...

Via Yahoo:

Bolivia's foreign minister says that coca leaves, which cocaine is made from, are so nutritious they should be included on school breakfast menus.

A coca leaf weighing 100 grams contains 18.9 calories of protein, 45.8 mg of iron, 1540 mg of calcium and vitamins A, B1, B2, E and C, which is more than most nuts, according to a 1975 study by a group of Harvard University professors.

Everything I've heard or read says that the leaves themselves aren't habit forming because the amount of cocaine is at trace levels and hasn't been processed.

Chinese flock to plastic surgeons during Valentines season to get their eyelids fixed.

"People are doing it to find a mate."

Kev says: There's got to be an easier, less expensive way to find a mate. Not to mention that a prospect mate that can't accept you for who you are isn't worth the trouble.

Study suggests Levitra has mental health benefits

The impotence drug Levitra (also known as vardenafil) improves erectile function and depression in men with both disorders, research shows.

Apparently whatever self-esteem improvements come with improved erectile function are completely unrelated to Levitra's capacity to ease depression.

There you have it, ladies. Next time you see Levitra as an approved prescription drug on an insurance plan it may be because of this newly discovered attribute.

Last but not least, this one isn't via Yahoo.com...

Southern Cali-based radio personalities Mark and Brian are engaged in what might be the ultimate reality show: Two Strangers and a Wedding. Basically the idea is to find one woman and one man who have volunteered to participate in the reality show. The bride to be has been chosen and she is in the process of choosing which man she will marry. The wedding date in March will be the first time either has actually seen the other, although they will have talked extensively by phone before that point.

To keep all of the gifts they have to remain married for one year.

I've listened off and on via Portland's classic rock station KGON and it's surprisingly interesting and, even more surprisingly, not nearly as cheesy or in as bad of taste as I had initially thought. Both participants know exactly what's going on and have survived a very extensive screening process that includes the assessment and involvement of a professional therapist.

Posted by Kevin at 09:36 AM |

Stuff I should have blogged about last week..but dropped the ball

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

House Resources Chair Henry Pombo charged the government $4935 to rent an RV for his family's vacation. Pombo claims the expense is legitimate because his committee has oversight of parks and public lands.

Republican Lt. Governor Michael Steele of Maryland says that stem cell research is exactly like the Holocaust.

Rush Limbaugh continues to fire up his boner over Donovan McNabb: "I kind of like that analogy that he is the Donovan McNabb of the U.S. Senate," Limbaugh enthused, adding, "in the sense that he is being propped up... because they want to see him do well." Maybe Rush has a thing for good looking African American guys?

Posted by Carla at 07:33 AM |

Profiling the Alabama Church Arsons

Following up on Jeff's piece, looks like investigators are developing profiles on the Alabama church arsonists:

A federal investigator said witness reports and behavioral profilers led authorities to believe that two white men were responsible for the fires. Witnesses said they saw two men in a sport utility vehicle near a number of the fires.

"They're not youths or teens. It's probably someone in their 20s or 30s. We believe they're pretty much inseparable. They're something like bosom buddies," said Eric Kehn, a spokesman for the federal Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency.

Jeff is our resident Alabaman and expert on all things Southern. Or at least more expert than any of the rest of us.

So what do you think, Jeff? Are these just a couple of good ol boys looking to indulge their inner pyromaniacs? Or are we looking at something more serious?

Posted by Carla at 07:22 AM |

February 12, 2006

Proselytizing is good but gays are bad?

(cross posted yesterday at Indie Castle)

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Air Force Eases Rules on Religion in response to pressure from Evangelicals.

The Air Force, under pressure from evangelical Christian groups and members of Congress, softened its guidelines on religious expression yesterday to emphasize that superior officers may discuss their faith with subordinates and that chaplains will not be required to offer nonsectarian prayers.

"This does affirm every airman's right, even the commanders' right, to free exercise of religion, and that means sharing your faith," said Maj. Gen. Charles C. Baldwin, the Air Force's chief of chaplains.

....

The guidelines still warn superior officers to be "sensitive to the potential" that personal expressions of faith may appear to be official statements. But they say that, "subject to these sensitivities, superiors enjoy the same free exercise rights as all other airmen." They now add that there are no restrictions in situations "where it is reasonably clear that the discussions are personal, not official, and they can be reasonably free of the potential for, or appearance of, coercion."

That last sentence seems to leave a great deal of wiggle room. In particular I find it noteworthy that the new guidelines allow superior officers to "share (their) faith" even if they perceive that it could come across as coercive by setting the bar at "reasonably clear" which is a highly subjective criteria. Given the absolutely central role given to chain of command respect and obedience in any professional military force, including the U.S. Air Force, I would think that the previous guidelines made a lot more sense.

The contrast between how religous sectarianism and homosexuality are being treated by the military strikes me as quixotic, to say the least. I mean, isn't human history chock full of examples of religious-based violence and wars? Even today I can easily name half a dozen armed conflicts around the world that find their basis in sectarianism. Even within our own military forces we have examples of sectarian-based violence like the grenade attack in Kuwait at the beginning of the Iraq War.

How many wars have been fought along sexual orientation lines?

What sense does it make to, on the one hand, argue that gays being open about their sexuality will be a detriment to unit cohesion and on the other hand insist that superior officers being able to prosyletize won't have any detrimental effects on unit cohesion?

Think about this. Many evangelicals have been raised to believe as a matter of faith that Catholicism is tantamount to demon worship and that Papists are quite literally agents of the Anti-Christ. So some shmuck who attended Bob Jones University gets into the Air Force and finds himself assigned under a devout Catholic who insists on exercizing his/her newfound freedom to proselytize junior officers and grunts alike. The evangelical enlistee interpretes that as essentially tantamount to a personal attack by "dark forces." And that's supposed to be a good thing???

Again, how many wars have been fought along sexual orientation lines? How many have been fought along religious orientation lines?

(Hat Tip to fellow Oregon Indie Ron Beasley at Middle Earth Journal)

Posted by Kevin at 11:49 AM |

The Lying Liars are at it again

Nothing gets the wingers to go Bushcentric than a liberal's memorial service.

First there was Wellstone Memorial. The Republicans went batshit crazy over that one. As he has done many times before, Al Franken outs the GOPers in their efforts to besmirch that solemn occasion:

A pained Limbaugh asked his audience the day after the memorial: "Where was the grief? Where were the tears? Where was the memorial service? There wasn't any of this!"

This was a lie. I was there. Along with everyone else, I cried, I laughed, I cheered. It was, to my mind, a beautiful four-hour memorial.

I didn't boo. Neither did 22,800 of the some 23,000 people there. This has been a much discussed, much lied about aspect of the memorial. A number of Republicans, like Peggy Noonan and Weekly Standard writer Chris Caldwell claimed that 20,000 people had booed Trent Lott. (Caldwell claimed that 20,000 people booed a whole litany of people who weren't booed at all.) We'll never get an actual count - but I'd say about two hundred people booed Trent Lott when his face came on the Jumbotron. This was about a minute after 23,000 people cheered for Bill Clinton when his face appeared on the Jumbotron.

The Jumbotron was carrying the C-SPAN feed, and unless you were watching live, you almost certainly have never seen the moment that Trent Lott was booed. That's because none of the cable news shows repeated it. That's because you can't hear him being booed. And that's because so few people booed him. Also, I swear, it was a good-natured "kill the umpire" boo, (and Lott actually grinned) but I could never prove that. What I have proven is that you couldn't hear the boos on TV because on my book-on-tape I played the audio of the C-SPAN video to compare the 23,000 cheering for Clinton with the smattering of boos for Lott, and you CANNOT hear the boos.

Republicans: cheapening the deaths of great American leaders since 1854.

We're in Bushworld now. The personality cult of those who worship at the feet of Bush have gone into full tilt.

This caterwalling by the right has now crossed the line into bizarre. The upshot? How dare those who knew and loved Coretta Scott King celebrate her life and her legacy by talking about the fact that she represented the antithesis of Bush's policies.

This is a women who led an inherently political life. She spoke against war and injustice on a regular basis. Its fitting that her memorial service included eloquent speakers who celebrated these things. If this makes the Bush cultists unhappy or uncomfortable..then perhaps its time for them to rethink what they're about.

Face up to what you are, kids. That's what Mrs King and Martin were all about.

Martin Luther King himself didn't shy away from memorial services as a platform for speaking out:

But isn't it inappropriate to inject politics at a funeral?

King didn't think so. Delivering the eulogy at the September 1963 funeral of three of the four little girls killed when their Birmingham church was firebombed, the civil rights leader was blatantly political, using the occasion to spread blame well beyond the small circle of white supremacists who planted the explosives.

"They are . . . martyred heroines," King said. "They have something to say to every minister of the Gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows. They have something to say to every politician who has fed his constituents with the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism.

"They have something to say to a federal government that has compromised with the undemocratic practices of Southern Dixiecrats and the blatant hypocrisy of right-wing Northern Republicans. They have something to say to every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice."

King understood only too well that his cause would offend the powerful, annoy the comfortable and frustrate moderates who believed he was moving too fast, pushing too hard, provoking too much controversy.

There is no more fitting tribute to his great wife's legacy than doing the same thing her husband would have done.

Despite the wingers clicking their heels together three times and wishing as hard as they can, memorial services for liberals are not about Bush. The fact that these flatulent rightwing cannibals attempt to make it that way is sickening. Its an attempt to bring these great Americans down to their level.

If they had any scruples whatsoever, they'd go back into their caves and hide from the karma that's sure to come looking for them.

Posted by Carla at 11:15 AM |

The people at the switch yell at the cogs

So apparently the suits have started to sortakindamaybe figure out what the rest of us knew all along--that our oil supply isn't limitless. I say sortakindamaybe because they're not exactly getting the whole picture--these folks seem to think we really can get blood from a stone.

Oil importers, including the US, would like to see producing nations increase supplies on world markets, easing prices even as China and other quickly developing economies burn more oil. A recent jump in Russian oil production - by 10 per cent or more a year at some companies - had compensated for growth in Chinese demand early this decade.

Russia's supply is expected to grow just 2 per cent or so next year. Still, Russia's finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, said he had pushed Moscow's approach to global energy policy that consuming countries should diversify supply away from the Middle East and rely more on Russia's reserves in the Arctic and Siberia.

He said diverse sources of energy would lower prices by reducing the cartel power of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

We can stomp our feet and tell the suppliers to produce more, but they can only produce as much as exists. And let's face it, being at another country's mercy for our standard of living isn't exactly living up to the fabled American Bootstrap Way. It is hardly good for our national security, or for our general well-being, to be so dependent upon oil that we have to wage wars and commit sabotage to secure our fix.

It's laughable that George Bush, who moonlights as our President while working full-time as a mascot for the oil industry, has chided us for having an addiction to oil. No kidding, George. But it's not helping to advise people to "help" after 9/11 by going shopping, by not expanding public transportation systems, by supporting policies and a culture that raises the status of starter mansions, and by being, well, the oil industry's mascot. It's a bit like a crack dealer telling us we really should stop smoking crack.

But if you thought that Bush and the rest of the soulless suits give a fig about our "oil addiction," you can just put that whole idea to rest right now.

Only moments after the damning phrase left his lips, the President's flacks and factotums were assuring anyone who had listened to his State of the Union address that he meant nothing when he declared that America is "addicted to oil." His words meant nothing, they said, when he vowed to break that addiction with new sources of energy. He wasn't even talking about foreign oil, they added, when he mentioned our problems with foreign oil.

The next day, newspapers reported sharp cuts in the budget of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, where scientists seek to improve the efficiency of ethanol and other new sources of fuel promoted by the President in his speech. So perhaps his aides were right, and his remarks on this issue are subject to the usual discount.

Well. There's nothing like sabotaging our efforts to shake our addiction. We're addicted. But we won't get any support in finding new sources of energy.

Happy passive aggressive day.

And it is too bad, because as the linked article notes, his comment was true. We are addicted to oil, and we've been very sheltered from it. Everything single thing we do, use, or have is thanks to a huge output of energy. Take a look at the huge output of energy and resources into making a computer, and then ask yourselves if we can really shop our way into a better world. (And the next time there are brand new upgrades that render your computer obsolete, or closer to being obsolete, you'll have a new reason to be indignant.)

Unfortunately, the big solution the suits love to bestow upon us plebes are things that we can do--recycle! Reuse! Take public transportation! Let's just forget for a moment that many people don't have access to public transportation and live too far from work to walk there, and cannot afford to live close to where they world. Let's just forget for a moment that the amount of energy consumed by Joe and Jane Average is dwarfed by the amount consumed by industry. The same goes for the amount of waste generated.

Look--I certainly roll my eyes at throwaway containers and the idea that we can just buy this cheap thing and toss it because, well, it was so cheap. I know the cost of tossing things away and taking the energy and resources used to make our stuff for granted. I think that making reusing and mindful consumption an integral part of our culture is the way we start on the road to sanity. But having said all that, it's disingenuous to scold everyday people who are caught in a machine much bigger than they are--especially when the scolder is one of the people who benefits from the machine.

It's high time we turned our attention to the machine, and stopped yelling at the cogs.

Posted by at 09:11 AM |

February 11, 2006

Seattle Garden Show:photos a-go-go

Yesterday's trip to the Seattle Flower and Garden Show was a real gem. The weather was stunning: clear and sunny. If Seattle's traffic wasn't so heinous, it would have been perfect.

The show flowers of the day were definitely the orchids:

I absolutely love these pitcher plants. I don't have any in my garden right now, but I'm definitely going to get some.

The other popular choice of the day for the display gardens were the tulips. I wasn't especially impressed with the tulip layouts..nothing seemed overly creative to me. But colors are gorgeous:

Posted by Carla at 09:51 AM |

February 10, 2006

Scratching that itch

Its the time of year when the gardener in me starts to get really itchy for an indulgence.

So I'm off today to the NW Flower and Garden Show in Seattle.

Yeah..its a 3 hour drive each way. But it's for the garden! Its totally worth it.

Hopefully I'll have some great floral photos to put up on the weekend.

Posted by Carla at 08:15 AM |

Howard Dean Administration would kick the deficit

Conventional marketing wisdom says that Republicans are Team Fiscally Responsible.

But when results matter, its not Republicans who manage the deficit. Its Democrats.

Under President Bill Clinton (god I miss saying that..sigh), the government had begun to run a surplus.

The Bush deficit has spiraled out of control.

And now the Economic Policy Institute has decided that a Howard Dean Administration would be much more adept at deficit control:

The chart above is lifted from the EPI page. EPI gives the specifics..but based on the articulated priorities of both Bush and Dean, this is how it stacks up.

I have only one thing to say to this:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

(via TomPaine.com)

Posted by Carla at 08:00 AM |

February 09, 2006

Truly offensive cartoons

Bush details Qaeda plot to hit LA! Race! I mean, Dick! Karl! to the hovercraft!

Posted by Jeff at 12:17 PM |

February 08, 2006

Where I realize that Sawyer disappoints, Libby still creeps me out, and that Lost is part of TV land

You know the drill. Spoilers below.

Last new episode, I was ready to smack Locke upside the head. Not because of the way he treated Charlie--even though I knew what was going on with Charlie, I couldn't blame anyone for thinking he was off his rocker. I'd have thought the same thing.

No, it was Locke stashing away the BVM's stuffed with heroin. Sure, they're great painkillers. They're also good for a junkie's habit. So I thought, hmmmm. Maybe he's trying to manipulate Charlie. Besides, if Charlie was using again, he'd be more likely to nod off, not hallucinate.

Libby still creeps me out. Sorry, that look of panic when she turned her back after Hurley said he knew her face from somewhere. She may not be with the "others" but I'm thinking she knew Hurley previously, and she's bad news. The way she delivered "Oh! That's because you stepped on my foot on the plane when you rushed in" story smelled like l'eau de lie. Just sayin'.

Lost is basically in TV land, which means that I don't take any obvious answers for granted. So, sure, if I was actually on a deserted island with a bunch of yuppie lunatics and criminals on the run, I might believe the Sawyer's therory. But I didn't because it was TV land--it's Lost, for heaven's sake, and you know bloody well there will be a twist. So I wasn't shocked when it turned out to be Sawyer who was behind the obviously--but not too obviously--fake kidnapping attempt. At first I thought it couldn't have been him--he was with Kate. Only if he had a partner, and who on the island likes him?

Duh. It's not about love, or like, or any of that crap. It was about petty revenge. Of course it would be Charlie who was the muscle, to get back at Locke. Who, to his credit, did exactly the right thing. Honestly, what did Jack think they were going to do? Go in and conquer the others? Stupid, stupid, stupid. We're doing that now, right here, in the good old USA, and look where it got us. Sheesh, gather some intelligence first.

And Sawyer? I was almost willing to believe that he'd come around, that he was semi-likeable, until the first scene in this episode, where he was a right prick to Charlie. He really can't manage to say anything civil to anyone, can he? So it was all a con--he wanted the guns ostenibly to get favors, but really to get up Jack and Locke's noses. Sure, yeah, I get it. The both of them were irritating me, and the idea that they could dictate who does what was getting a little tiresome. But sheesh. I was hoping it would come out that he'd hidden them somewhere safer, that when people came to him for the guns, he'd tell them to rack off. That maybe he and Jack were in on the con, the better to keep friendly fire killings--or worse--at bay.

Okay, so maybe he's all angsty and is so used to people hating him that he arranges for that to happen. I have no tolerance for unshaven, angst-ridden bad boys.

Nah. So I remain thoroughly irritated by Sawyer. I really hope Kate hooks up with Sayid.

Oh--Sayid. Yum. I've had a crush on Naveen Andrews since the English Patient.

But, judging from the scenes for the next episode, Sayid may fall into his previous patterns. Everyone is. You think they overcome them, but they don't.

Posted by at 07:58 PM |

Wouldn't we all like to stay home. . .sort of.

I'm almost finished with Marriage, a History by Stephanie Coontz. There's quite a lot to chew over in it.

One thing that strikes me is that mothers who work outside of the home often feel guilty, but also want to work outside of the home. For all of the waxing romantic about June Cleaver, a lot of women like being out in the world. Yet so many feel they can't voice it--whenever the subject of mothers who work outside of the home comes up, the typical liberal defense is, Well, many families need the money. And yes, there is no argument there--many families do need the money. But it doesn't change the fact that many women like working. Heaven forbid we say it, though. Especially if we have kids. We become very bad mommies the minute we admit that it's nice to get out of the house and actually talk to adults. That it's nice to make money, to be financially independent.

That's not to say that women--or men for that matter--are enamored with arranging childcare, or trying to keep the house neat in an hour a week, or juggling family and social obligations with work. But that's a problem with time, with companies thinking we're all still living according to the 1950's WASP stylebook, not with women working.

In my ideal world, parents would be able to work part time so that each one could take care of the kids and get stuff done. Heck, people would be able to work part time so that we could take care of family members, help out our friends, get more involved in our communities, and get stuff done. I'm curious to know why it is we're stuck in this idea that it's "best" if one parent stays at home, and one parent works for money. Why is that seen as they only way to raise kids, to live, to be?

Posted by at 07:56 PM |

Benedict Gonzales

Posted by Kevin at 11:37 AM |

Puzzle Time: Spot the Hidden News Story of the Day!

Britney Spears driving with baby on her lap Politics and grief at King funeral Eating Lean Doesn't Cut Risk Afghan police kill three in cartoon protests with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday Wal-Mart planning almost 50 percent more U.S. stores 'Curious George’ editor found dead Jail for 'Girls Gone Wild' attacker Mexican military incursions into U.S. inflame border situation N.J. commuters screened for bombs Poll: More Americans fear Iran

"WOOHOO! Can't trick me -- that sneaky Mexican military, I knew it!"

Posted by Jeff at 09:37 AM |

Cool beans

We here at PK have been nominated for a Koufax Award in the category blog most deserving of wider recognition.

Given that there are 300 blogs in the category, the likelihood that our little corner of the blogosphere will make the cut is small. But as they say, its an honor just to be nominated.

Voting hasn't begun yet..so please don't attempt to vote now. We'll let you know when it does. And if you'd consider voting for us..we'd be mighty honored.

Posted by Carla at 07:14 AM |

February 07, 2006

On fire for Jesus!

View image
Somebody sure is. Fires burn 4 more Alabama churches.

Round 2:
Dancy First Baptist Church near Aliceville
Spring Valley Baptist Church near Emelle
Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church near Boligee
Galilee Baptist in Panola

Round 1, last week:
Ashby Baptist Church in Brierfield
Rehobeth Baptist Church in Randolph
Pleasant Sabine near Centreville
Old Union Baptist in Brierfield
Antioch Baptist in Antioch
New Harmony Holiness Baptist in Fairview (under construction)

The fires were set "as fast as they could drive from one location to the next," Bibb County Chief Deputy Sheriff Kenneth Weems said of the cluster of blazes.

Studying the Alabama road map closer, looks as if anyone with much knowledge of W. Alabama roads could've done this in roughly an hour, each time. Could've come from Tuscaloosa, possibly Birmingham, the first time; the second time maybe Tuscaloosa, Columbus or Meridian, MS.

It could be someone local, or at least familiar enough with the area to blend in. Could be someone passing through. But I suspect we haven't seen the last fire.

So where's Homeland Security now? Or does it not work on domestic terrorists?

Posted by Jeff at 02:00 PM |

"This Old Detention House! sponsored by...

... Pillage, Burn & Loot!" From Orcinus:

A Houston-based construction firm with ties to the White House has been awarded an open-ended contract to build immigration detention centers that could total $385 million, a move some critics called questionable.

The contract calls for KBR, a subsidiary of oil engineering and construction giant Halliburton, to build temporary detention facilities in the event of an "immigration emergency," according to U.S. officials.

"If, for example, there were some sort of upheaval in another country that would cause mass migration, that's the type of situation that this contract would address," said Jamie Zuieback of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"Essentially, this is a contingency contract."

They make their contingency plans; I make mine.

KBR is notorious for shoddy construction standards. Escape should be no challenge at all.

Posted by Jeff at 01:57 PM |

Deism: the gift that keeps on giving

In the almost two years that we've been writing this blog, I've had a handful of people remark to me via email or comments about my bio, which includes a link to an area of my personal beliefs: Deism.

But in the last two weeks, I've had no less than 3 women mention coming to Deism via my bio.

For those unaware, Deism has only one strict tenet: God is...and there it lies.

Deism touches a cord in me that is meaningful down to my spiritual core. The fact that those who've responded to me on this are much more likely to be women is curious to me. What is it about Deism that gets under the skin of the fairer sex?

One of the women who found Deism via my bio is Catharine who writes the blog The Catharine Chronicles:

Thanks to Carla of Preemptive Karma, I landed on a fabulous little website that explained in detail what Deism actually is. And, lo and behold, I discovered that this crisis that I've been going through since November, 2004, was really my awakening to the fact that -- hey, guess what? -- I'm an ex-Christian. I mean, completely. Like, don't believe that Jesus was the son of anybody but Joseph and Mary. Like, don't believe that the bible was written by God or by men being dictated to by God. A belief in God, but a respect for reason. That's who I was raised. I'm a Deist, damn it. Again. A born-again Deist, if you will. It's a wonderful feeling to know that, and to know that I'm not alone. Especially these days.

Catharine's epiphany to Deism seems much like my own.

In my studies of the founding fathers, I came across the fact many of them were Deists, which inspired me to dig further. If so many brilliant and learned men found their spiritual center in Deism....perhaps a searching soul like myself could as well..?

The founders cited are obviously all men. But quite clearly Deism is attractive to modern day women. Part of it for me is most assuredly my politics. My strong belief in separation of church and state is definitely a main piece for most Deists.

I've also had an aversion to the anti-woman, anti-civil rights parts that I see in the Bible. I've seen Christians time and again use these Biblical ideas as a battering ram to ensure that women,gays and other minorities are denied the same rights as white males. While many Christians will rightly say that this is an abuse of scriptures, I have been offended by it way too often to return to a belief system whose most important book is so easily manipulated to harm others.

I think the nurturing side of women is what attracts so many to this type of spirituality. Religion tends to be divisive...us against them. Deism embraces even those who don't believe in God. In other words..each person must come to their own beliefs in their own time. It's not for us to figure it out for them. Their rights and privileges are just as meaningful as my own.

I feel honored that my little bio has in a small way helped others find some meaning that they've been looking for.

Posted by Carla at 11:53 AM |

Ignorance is bliss for Bush and his backer$

What do you do when you are the President and a special interest which gives very generously to you and your political party and whose lobbyists you've tried your best to install in positions of authority in government doesn't like the results of a published study that was funded by a federal research grant?

Withdraw funding of course.

The federal government has abruptly suspended funding for Oregon State University research that concluded federally sponsored logging after the 2002 Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon set back the recovery of forests.

Academic administrators and scientists say that this withdrawal of funding is unprecedented.

"It's totally without precedent as far as I can recollect," said Jerry Franklin, a professor at the University of Washington who has studied Northwest forests for decades. "It says, 'If we don't like what you're saying, we'll cut off your money.' "

I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. It's the same M.O. that we've seen elsewhere by this same President and his supporters.

Want to invade a foreign country but the facts don't appear to support you?

Fit the "facts" to your agenda

Want to promote the religious agenda of your base even though the science indicates other approaches are more productive?

Delete all references to the scientific facts and harrass those who don't capitulate.

One of the many ironies here is that conservatives have screeched loudly about the alleged academic bias on university campuses and in university classrooms.

You can bet it'll be a cold day in hell before these conservative "academic freedom" activists speak out against this example of academic censorship. But then again... nobody should be surprised by that.

Posted by Kevin at 10:36 AM |

Sportswriters: The Seahawks were screwed

Seahawk fans who viewed Sunday's Superbowl as a zebra-striped, high velocity mugging... your affirmation has arrived. It seems that sportswriters around the country agree with you:

Refs were far from Super in this one" by Kevin Hench - FoxSports.com

This is the space where I get to wag a finger at my colleague Ian O'Connor, with whom I'd waged a dueling columns battle of opposing prognostication. He picked the Seahawks and made a very strong case for them.

This is the space where I get to say, I told ya so. But I won't. I can't.

I've never felt so empty being right. I feel dirty. I wish I'd been wrong. The Steelers did not deserve to win this game. They were not the better team. O'Connor was right. Seattle was the better team.

So, Paul Tagliabue, how does a team lose when it outgains an opponent by 57 yards, controls time of possession and wins the turnover battle?

Like a crazed CIA analyst running through the halls of Langley screaming into open offices about some impending calamity, I've been shrieking hysterically about the terrible officiating in the NFL and warning that some day the brutal calls were going to affect the outcome of the Super Bowl.

That some day was Sunday.

Game's third team upstaged Steelers, Hawks

Three weeks ago, after the Steelers held on to upset Indianapolis, Joey Porter was unhappy about the overturning of Troy Polamalu's fourth-quarter interception that could have sealed the win much earlier. Believing that deep down the league preferred Peyton Manning and the Colts to win, Porter publicly criticized the game officials, asking them not to "take the game from us."

Well, the Steelers can call it even now, as the officials who performed well enough throughout the season to earn the privilege of working Super Bowl XL performed Sunday as though they were trying to make it up to the Steelers by giving them the game -- not just any game, but the biggest game. And, yes, this time the other guys, the Seahawks, cried conspiracy, only not quite as loudly as Porter.

"You know, that's what happens when the world is against you," one Seahawk said after the 21-10 loss at Ford/Heinz Field. "No one wanted us to win. They wanted Jerome Bettis to win and go out a hero, and they got it."

"Audibles at the Line: Super Bowl" - by Football Outsiders

Aaron Schatz: I am glad to see that everyone pretty much agrees with me. I feel so disappointed. I don’t feel that the refs stole this game from the Seahawks. I feel that the refs stole a great game from us, the fans of the other 30 teams. Nothing says that with better officiating, Seattle would have won. Nothing says that if Seattle goes up 17-14, Big Ben can’t march the Steelers down the field and win the game in the final minute. But wow, I really would have liked to see him try. I can’t remember another Super Bowl where I came away saying that the officiating was horrible, and totally slanted towards one team.

Most of the egregious calls have been mentioned, but if I can add a couple more: Roethlisberger’s Delay of Game where they gave him a timeout after the clock hit zero, and the fact that the folks upstairs did not review the play where Darrell Jackson’s foot hit the pylon. I don’t know, what’s the rule on that? Clearly he had one foot in and the other one hit the pylon before landing out of bounds.

Watching in Boston, with no Pittsburgh fans and no Seattle fans, by the end of the game we were just screaming at the refs. The Locklear call was the worst, as Ian Dembsky pointed out, the Steelers were doing the same “shove” move on Grant Wistrom the entire first half. We started marking down every play where Pittsburgh was holding. When Randle El caught the seven-yard pass on third-and-6, Hartings was yanking on the jersey and shoulder of Darby. On Big Ben’s scramble for a first down, Hines Ward yanked on Trufant’s arm to keep him away from Big Ben.

They say holding happens on every play in the NFL. Every play is a judgment call. Fine, but why should all the iffy judgment calls go one way? You don’t want to think about conspiracies, but it just seemed like for two weeks, the league, ABC/ESPN, the city of Detroit, and the NFL wanted the Seahawks to just go away so the Steelers could have the title, like Seattle wasn’t even in the game. They ran those black and white vingettes of players talking about winning the trophy and the FIRST FOUR were Pittsburgh players. Maybe the way the officials acted was just subconscious.

And for those of you still in sackcloth and ashes, there's more.

Posted by Carla at 09:30 AM |

Changing the course of human events--a question

Kevin and I were chatting last evening about how many amazing world and national leaders have been assasinated over the years. Most noteably, we talked about how their deaths impacted the world around them.

The discussion was prompted by hearing the John Lennon classic Watching The Wheels, and then wondering aloud how the world would have been different had Lennon not been shot and killed.

We started making a list of which murdered individual's lives would have yielded a different world outcome, had they lived.

We seemed to agree that Abraham Lincoln's death was one of the most impactful. Most certainly the Reconstruction Era would have turned out differently..and perhaps the lengthy civil rights struggles for blacks in the South would have been abbreviated.

Another strongly impactful death: Bobby Kennedy. He probably would have won the Presidency. Would his war on poverty have been successful? Would the Vietnam conflict have been much more short lived? Would conservatives have taken over government?

Discuss.

Posted by Carla at 08:27 AM |

Cornelius City Council--WalMart or no WalMart?

I could only drop by the Cornelius City Council Meeting for an hour last evening. Clearly I should have planned a lengthy stay.

It was a standing room only crowd and the pace of the meeting was like maple sap in winter...s-l-o-w.

The main hang up of the first hour was a City Councilman trying to get a straight answer on traffic impact at the intersection of 4th and Adair. I swear he asked the city planner/engineer and the engineering firm guy 6 times (in 6 different ways) about the impact. For some reason the engineers couldn't give him an acceptable answer. This exchange took at least 20 minutes, if not longer.

At the end of the first hour the City Council hadn't even begun public comment. Given the number of folks who'd filled out the little pink slips to get a chance to speak...that was going to be a drawn out, lengthy situation.

Thus I had to leave well before the vote could start.

I'll be calling the City of Cornelius later today to see if I find out how the vote actually went.

Posted by Carla at 06:44 AM |

February 06, 2006

OR 2: Walden to get a viable challenger?

Is DeLay Republican stalwart Greg Walden (OR-2) about to get a challenger who might actually make him work to keep his job?

Torrid at Loaded Orygun says someone is testing the waters:

Enter Scott Silver, a relatively noted environmentalist from Bend. While nothing is official and things might best be described as at the "waters testing" stage, my indications are that Silver is finding the waters warm indeed. If the reception continues to be upbeat, look for an explicit statement of candidacy very soon.

So who is this man with the PR-ready name, and what kind of challenge does he pose should he declare? If you're either a believer in the sacredness of public lands, or a member of the 'recreation industry' who has a less idealistic view of wild country, you probably know Silver as a staunch defender of nondevelopment of public land, and a vocal critic of federal policies towards a "privatization" of federal turf.

A pro enviornment, pro fishing, pro hunting Democrat who wants to preserve Oregon's great tradition of careful public land use...wants to run against a proDelay, pro Bush Republican?

This could get interesting.

Posted by Carla at 01:04 PM |

WalMart vote for Cornelius--proCornelius group fights back

The City of Cornelius may be voting tonight on whether or not to render their entire little town into a parking lot for WalMart:

Oregonian:

The Cornelius City Council could vote tonight to approve or reject Wal-Mart's application to build a supercenter here.

The Cornelius Planning Commission has approved all four parts of the retailer's application. The council is required to consider only two parts -- a comprehensive plan amendment and a zone map amendment.

Meanwhile, the group Cornelius First has collected the $1,650 needed to appeal the planning commission's approval of the most significant part of the application -- the design review, which considers the entire Wal-Mart project and its effect on traffic, nearby residences and more.

I hadn't heard of a group in Cornelius fighting the WalMart until this O piece. Good on Cornelius First!. It looks as if they've raised the necessary cash to appeal any initial proWalMart decision.

I've noted before the problems with bringing a WalMart into an area like Cornelius..especially for the umbilically linked burg of Forest Grove.

Tonight's meeting takes place at 7:00 over on 1310 N Adair St in Cornelius.

I was previously invited to attend Cornelius City Council meetings by member Catherine Sidman.

Maybe its time I took her up on the invitation.

Posted by Carla at 08:49 AM |

Waving the bloody shirt

Rockin' Roy Moore was quickly on the scene of the W. Alabama church burnings. No surprise there; and I give him kudos for the monetary donations. Then he waved the bloody shirt around, naturally, saying something about the "war on Christianity®".

I don't suppose tinfoil-hat-wearers took longer than 3 seconds to wonder: who could have the most to gain from fanning the flames in such a "holy" war?

I suspect it's just a couple "good ol' boys" who loaded up with a couple cases of beer, talked about the just-ended deer season and how they didn't get none, then talked about not havin' no money, and not bein' able to git a high-payin' job at Mercedes over in Vance, and then somebody brought up the old Klan days, then they up and loaded up the Chevalay with a few gas cans... Hey, it could happen!

Attempts at black comedy aside, consider this:

August 1982: Took a trip to Tuscaloosa with my dad, to see Grandpa in the hospital. Just south of town, a billboard was spray painted "GAS JEWS" and "KKK". I'd never actually seen such a thing, though I'd heard about it. "Wow... scary." Dad said, "Yeah, there's always gonna be some people who can't deal with life without blaming somebody else for something."

January 1983-August 1985: Near the Univ. of Alabama campus, there's a van in front of the bowling alley one weekend, covered with flags for sale, all nations, plus football banners. Two, maybe three weeks go by. A couple Nazi flags are draped on the Hillel and B'nai Br'ith houses overnight. Purely coincidence, yeah.

August 2004: Man hanging from tree investigated.

June 2005: Huge Confederate flag flying high over I-65.

February 2006: Chris Matthews says maybe liberals and gays burned down churches in the south.

Thanks for clearing that up, Chris.

Posted by Jeff at 08:12 AM |

February 05, 2006

What's up with this Muhammad cartoon?

The editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad have prompted some hardcore violence in Beirut and Syria.

When the outrage over the cartoons first surfaced..it was on the edge of my personal radar screen. I get that they don't like it. I get that they're upset. But burning down embassies over a cartoon? Jeez.

Democracy requires free speech in order to function. If every time a news outlet says something that pisses off the fundies..are they going to go rampaging into the streets?

It seems unlikely that this sort of a society wants democracy, let alone support the peripheral necessities that keep it going.

Folks have a right to be outraged and to speak out. And they should. The cartoon is clearly offensive to a lot of people and they should definitely make that known. But crossing the line to violence and property damage is nothing less than downright thuggery.

Posted by Carla at 02:23 PM |

Quote of the year

"If the president and the White House spent half as much time worrying about the runaway deficit and the broken Medicare system as they do about Hillary Clinton, the country would be in much better shape." - Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned that goes double for GOP activists coast to coast and border to border.

Posted by Kevin at 12:48 PM |

About Democrats

PK's ongoing love/hate relationship with the good folks at Centerfield blog now has an opportunity for an even more beautiful friendship.

Rick Heller (the lynchpin of Centerfield) has started a new blog on the Centerfield lineup: About Democrats. Rick's inaugural posting includes a short exchange he had with John Kerry.

Check it out.

Posted by Carla at 10:24 AM |

Sunday Snippet

Well, shake it up, baby, now, (shake it up, baby)
Twist and shout. (twist and shout)
C'mon c'mon, c'mon, c'mon, baby, now, (come on baby)
Come on and work it on out. (work it on out)

Well, work it on out, honey. (work it on out)
You know you look so good. (look so good)
You know you got me goin', now, (got me goin')
Just like I knew you would. (like I knew you would)

Posted by Carla at 10:07 AM |

Iraq: The Musical

The Freeway Blogger has come up with a hilarious yet serious musical video which you can view and listen to via the Huffington Post: here

Posted by Kevin at 07:17 AM |

February 04, 2006

Betty Friedan dies

Betty Friedan passed away today. She was 85.

I was born after she wrote The Feminine Mystique. I had always wondered what all of the fuss was about--none of it seemed that reveloutionary to me. It seemed like common sense for middle-class women. But it wasn't--Friedan was ostrasized by her friends and neighbors after the book came out. She was a founder of the National Organization for Women, the National Women's Political Caucus, and NARAL.

Although she would not have liked me or my politics, I have to give her props for her part in kickstarting the movement.

Posted by at 09:26 PM |

If you have no good ideas of your own... steal somebody else's ideas

In a related vein as the post below... I just ran across an amusing New York Sun piece from a week ago called Bush's Iran Plan Echoes Kerry, Baffles Friends

President Bush's endorsement of a plan to end the nuclear standoff with Iran by giving the Islamic republic nuclear fuel for civilian use under close monitoring has left some of his supporters baffled.

One cause for the chagrin is that the proposal, which is backed by Russia, essentially adopts a strategy advocated by Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Bush campaign basically sidestepped Kerry's attempt to engage Bush on the subject. But in classic fashion Bush's supporters openly derided Kerry's idea.

However, Secretary of State Rice, who was national security adviser at the time, dismissed efforts to cut a deal with the Iranians. "This regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote 'engaged,'" she said in an August 2004 interview with Fox News.

The administration's reticence about Mr. Kerry's plan was not shared by Republican commentators, who accused the senator of favoring "appeasement" and warned that the Iranians could divert nuclear fuel to make bombs.

A Pentagon official under President Reagan, Frank Gaffney Jr., skewered the plan in a column entitled, "Kerry's Nuclear Nonsense." Mr. Gaffney, who did not return a call seeking comment for this story, declared, "Mr. Bush understands the folly of going that route."

Writing in National Review, a Defense Department official under President George H.W. Bush, Jed Babbin, called Mr. Kerry's proposal "ignorant" and "dangerously wrong."

Yep, that's the classic "swift boating" tactic that we've come to associate with Bush partisans. But, the election is over and now the Bush administration has to actually govern.

Mr. Kerry's office did not respond to a message seeking comment for this story. However, a top foreign policy aide on the senator's presidential campaign, Rand Beers, said he was pleased by Mr. Bush's statements, but disappointed in how long it took the administration to warm to the concept. "They are coming around to it as sort of a late-in-the-game, last-gasp kind of idea," Mr. Beers told The New York Sun. "While it's a Pyrrhic success, the president has taken a lot of our ideas."

Posted by Kevin at 03:30 PM |

Unraveling the Iran problem

Yesterday the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)reported Iran to the UN Security Council "in a resolution expressing concern that Tehran's nuclear program may not be 'exclusively for peaceful purposes.'" Which of course is what this is all about. Neither the IAEA nor the Bush administration have any legal basis for referring Iran to the Security Council for possible (likely) punitive measures such as economic and political sanctions.

Iran is well within it's legal rights under it's NonProliferation Treaty (Article IV)obligations to pursue non-military nuclear technology and even to enrich fissionable materials, but only to the point necessary for use in a nuclear reactor. So, the only possible basis for the IAEA referral is suspicions of possible future violations of Iran's obligations under the NPT.

I don't want to suggest that these concerns are completely baseless. They are legitimate concerns, in my view. But are they being applied evenly and are the NPT member states fulfilling their own obligations under the treaty?

Iran retains the right under Article X of the NPT to withdraw from the treaty and it's obligations. Which the Bush administration could hardly condemn from any sort of moral highground since Bush unilaterally broke the ABM treaty so that they could pursue Reagan's "Star Wars" dream.

"I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile attacks," Mr Bush announced following a meeting with his National Security Council.

The president's rational for breaking the ABM treaty is very relevant to today's situation with Iran. Of course everything depends on who gets to define "rogue states." For example: India, Pakistan and Israel are all nuclear powers who refused to sign the NPT either before they acquired nuclear weapons or since then. Does that make them "rogue states"? Undoubtedly they and their allies would dispute any such designation while it's likely that most non-aligned nations, particularly Arab states, would take the opposite view. In fact, the United States has long used this very same Security Council to veto widely popular UN resolutions aimed at Israel.

Interestingly enough, the IAEA took so long to refer Iran to the Security Council because the Bush administration objected to a clause criticizing Israel's nuclear weapons program (via The Moderate Voice).

In breaking the ABM treaty president Bush also referenced "rogue-state missile attacks." We know that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and we also know that they refuse to sign the NPT, much less allow the IAEA access to any of their nuclear facilities. We also know that Israel has in the past launched military strikes next door to Iran with the express purpose of destroying nuclear facilities. Indeed, yesterday the Wall Street Journal expressed a White House concern that Israel could launch a missle strike on Iran and make the entire situation worse, which Israel is believed to be fully capable of doing.

Another rationale being bandied about is the same one offered by the Bush administration, along with bogus WMD evidence, for waging war on Iraq. And that is the argument that support for designated "terrorist" groups means that Iran can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons because they might then pass them on to terrorists. But that begs the questions of Pakistan.

Pakistan was the very first government to officially recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and in fact were one of only two governments ever to do so. In fact the Pakistani ISI intelligence agency played a "critical" role in establishing not only the Taliban but also Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. This well after Pakistan was a known nuclear power which as of today still has not signed the NonProliferation Treaty. Did Pakistan give any nuclear weapons to the internationally recognized "terrorists", as referenced by Bush in breaking the ABM treaty, which they are known to have overtly supported? As far as I know they didn't.

And then there is India, a nuclear power which has never joined the NPT. In a move widely believed to completely gut the NPT, the Bush administration has an agreement with India to provide ostensibly civilian nuclear technology and equipment to India. The terms of this agreement shed a new light on the Iranian situation. A couple of them are:

• India agrees to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog group, access to its civilian nuclear program. But India will decide which of its many nuclear facilities to classify as civilian; any military facilities will remain off-limits to inspectors. Stockpiles of nuclear fuel that India has produced up to now will be exempt from inspections or safeguards.


• India commits to signing an Additional Protocol (PDF)—which allows more intrusive IAEA inspections—for its civilian facilities.

So where does all this leave us with respect to Iran?

Well, we know that the Bush administration has no problem with the notion that a sovereign nation can walk away from a nuclear treaty if it believes that doing so is in it's own interests. We know that the Bush administration doesn't really care much about the NonProliferation Treaty as a viable and effective treaty, as evidenced by their deal with India as well as their objection to the IAEA attempting to hold Israel to a comparable standard. And we know that the IAEA has to be fully aware of these facts. We know that support for terrorists by a nuclear power, such as Pakistan, doesn't logically imply that they will pass nuclear weapons to terrorists. So that appears to leave politics as the sole compelling reason for the current tempest in a teapot over Iran's nuclear program.

I guess the burning question is this: can the White House's hypocritical stances listed above realistically result in the world being safer from nuclear terror?

Posted by Kevin at 03:18 PM |

February 03, 2006

Friday Must Read

Via TomPaine.com's News Worthy for today:

New Leaked Bush-Blair Memo Reveals Secret War Deal

Two quick teasers,

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

And...

Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003."

Of course. Bush can make the same basic claim with respect to Congress. But, neither claim absolves either leader from having lied thru their teeth to us and to the world.

Read the rest here

Posted by Kevin at 01:30 PM |

Punxsutawney Phil: Bush appointee?

Bill Nothstine has the hilarious details.

Posted by Carla at 12:46 PM |

"People like that there RE-form..."

Reformer in upset win as Republican leader in US House

Republican lawmakers elected a reformer, John Boehner, to be their leader in the House of Representatives as the majority party seeks to shake off corruption scandals.

Yep, like Gov. Pappy O'Daniel in "O Brother Where Art Thou?", we need to get us some of that RE-form. Like this, Mr. Boehner?

(excerpted from David Harris)

Ten Things Every American Jew Should Know About John Boehner

1. For School Prayer and Amending the Constitution: Rep. Boehner supported a school prayer amendment to the United States Constitution in 1997

2. For Forced Religion in Anti-Poverty Programs

3. 100% Against a Woman's Right to Choose: Rep. Boehner received a "0%" pro-choice score from NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2005.

4. For Religious Employment Discrimination

5. Against the Rule of Law in Ten Commandments Case: Rep. Boehner voted to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing a court order to remove a 5,000 pound Ten Commandments monument from Alabama's state supreme court

6. Against Common-Sense Environmental Safeguards (voted for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)

7. For More Religious Employment Discrimination

8. Against Confronting Proselytizing at the Air Force Academy

9. Led the Effort to Inject Religious Employment Discrimination into Head Start

10. Pushed Ohio Schools to Embrace "Intelligent Design"

Yep, the House loves them some Tom DeLay-approved RE-form. Even greater things are no doubt in store for Mr. Boehner. How great? Well, just imagine --

Posted by Jeff at 11:11 AM |

Tyranny of the two-party system in Oregon

Following up on Carla's previous post about a new Oregon law designed to squelch Independent candidates for elective office, and following the theme of her post just below about crushing individuality, free thought, and intellectual inquiry, today's Oregonian has an excellent OP/ED piece titled: Oregon independents: on the outside looking in

Democrat and Republican partisans have become burly bouncers stationed at the entrance to Oregon's political system, turning away one independent after another with a condescending smile, "Sorry, private party."

...

The law prevents anyone who votes in a primary election from also helping to nominate an independent candidate, regardless of whether the voter signs a petition before or after the primary. Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, claimed the law is just about "preserving one voter, one vote in the nominating process."

It is more than that. It is another "No Trespassing" sign the parties have put up at the border of Oregon's political system. If the Legislature wanted solely to uphold the one-person, one-vote maxim, it would have passed a law that upheld a voter's first nominating act, whether it was a signature in support of an independent candidate or a vote in a primary election.

The logic behind this law goes even further than just that. Essentially what the law does is to equate signing a petition with casting a vote. But that begs the question of ballot initiatives. To be consistent with their own rationale, the Dems and GOPers who passed this law would have disqualified a later vote on a ballot measure if the voter had signed a petition in favor of it. But they didn't do that and the reasons are obvious.

The impetus for this new law can be found in Ralph Nader's independent bid for president in 2004. Legislative Democrats remember all too well his influence on the 2000 race and Republicans remember the even larger influence that Ross Perot and his Reform Party had on the 1992 presidential election. Both Nader and Perot received an eager embrace from Oregonians frustrated with the Big Two and threatened to rain on the Big Two's coronation parades. In the case of Perot, he did rain on Bush 41's coronation, allowing Clinton to sweep in with a substantial minority of the popular vote. Nader, although soundly denounced by Dems for even being in the race, arguably didn't have as great an impact in 2000 because Gore still won the popular vote even with Nader in the race. However, such fine points are completely irrelevant to this new law.

Back to the present day... there is a Kitzhaber twist that surprised me.

Carla reported a couple weeks ago that the very popular former Oregon Governer, John Kitzhaber, had decided not to challenge current Democratic Governer Kulingoski in this year's Gubernatorial election. What I'd never heard until I read this morning's Oregonian OP/ED piece is that Kitzhaber apparently was considering challenging Kulingoski not as a Dem but rather as an Independent.

Look at the results: Former Gov. John Kitzhaber flirted with an independent run for governor this year, but abandoned the idea after looking at the strict new rules. State Sen. Ben Westlund, a moderate Republican from Bend, is likely to make an independent run for governor, but now he has to struggle to get on the ballot.

Oregon voters may have the last word on this new law, however. Supporters of an initiative to create a "top two" open primary system are gathering signatures to put the idea on the ballot and let Oregonians decide the matter.

(I)t's time to challenge the closed primary system where ever-smaller minorities of voters set the limited choices for the general election. Let the parties defend a system that this fall will give voters an uninspiring choice between Derrick Kitts and David Wu for a seat in Congress, while dissuading people like Kitzhaber and Westlund from seeking major office.

Hear, hear!!

Posted by Kevin at 07:06 AM |

You are a tool for those who grab power by crushing individuality, free thought, and intellectual inquiry

I'm a big believer in not insulating myself among those whose opinions are just like mine. To me its a big, giant bore to go day in and day out, gladhanding one another. There's nothing intellectually challenging or engaging spending all my blogging/computer time essentially agreeing with everybody.

When I debate/argue with those whom I tend to disagree, it helps me hone my own opinions. Besides, if I can't argue my own beliefs, what good is it to have them?

Its in that spirit that I've chosen to remain (off and on) with a conservative leaning, very busy political email loop on AOL for the last few years. There are only a few liberals on the list, which is fine by me.

There are a handful of hard core Bush supporters in the group. They're the most dreadful Bush apologists I've ever seen. These are the kind of people I'm talking about when I say they'd vote for Bush even if he were caught on videotape raping and beating a woman.

This week, IvyShoots, one of the liberals in the group,wrote something that I think describes these hardcore Bush apologists perfectly:

You are a tool for anyone who uses denial, lies, and distortions to confound facts and bury the truth. You help legitimize and normalize dishonest tactics in public debate. You work tirelessly to smear and demonize decent human beings, even fellow Americans, simply because they don't agree with you. You promote vicious divisiveness and shriek with anger and arrogance against the very concept of reasonable debate. You revel in the use of baseless, inflammatory epithets, such as "anti-Semitic," intended to bully others into silence. You are a tool for those who grab power by crushing individuality, free thought, and intellectual inquiry.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by Carla at 07:00 AM |

February 02, 2006

Quote of the day

"Corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them to be - Rep. Slaughter (D-NY)

Posted by Kevin at 02:26 PM |

Zinger Of The Day

[Note to self: Email this to Dave Neiwert, who is an expert on the whackjob Nazi movement in the US....]

(Blatantly and shamefully stolen from Shakespeare's Sister)

Posted by Carla at 09:41 AM |

St Jack and the Bullies in the Pulpit--or why centrism doesn't exist, part 1247

I've maintained for a while now that centrism doesn't really exist. It can't. The bullseye for the center isn't really a center. Its a constantly moving target that in the last two decades has been on a downhill slide to the right.

Today's Washington Post provides a stellar example of my point.

Former Missouri Senator John Danforth has a bone to pick with the Republican Party:

A man of God and the GOP, he is speaking out for moderation -- in religion, politics, science and government. The lanky figure once dubbed "St. Jack," not always warmly, for the perch he seemed to occupy on Washington's moral high ground, expects people will sour on the assertive brand of Christianity so closely branded Republican.

"I'm counting on nausea," he says.

In a political year that promises a fresh battle for the national soul, religion is emerging as a tool and a test, with Danforth's words marking a fissure within the GOP. The conservative evangelical Christian movement that helped propel President Bush and congressional Republicans into power has become a big, fat target, even as Democrats and GOP moderates agonize about how to capture more votes from the faithful.

"The Republican Party has been taken over by something that it's not," Danforth says over a suitably austere lunch of steamed vegetables in a well-appointed 40th-floor St. Louis club overlooking the Mississippi. "How do traditional Republicans put up with this? They put up with this because it's a winning combination, for now. It won't last."

Why won't it last?

"It won't stand the light of day," Danforth says in one of several conversations. "The more people think about it, the more people will resist it. People do not want a sectarian political party, including a lot of people who are traditional Republicans."

Danforth..an antichoice, anti-gay marriage, anti-tax conservative is now what passes for "centrism" in the Republican Party.

Make no mistake, I'm not trying to run Danforth down. Its not about him per se. Its about this notion that somehow we have to work toward the middle..because the middle is where moderation lies.

Danforth isn't the middle. Danforth is a hard right conservative. But you'd never know that by looking at the Republican Party. The GOP is completely off the cliff of ideology. Danforth is struggling to pull them back to the precipice.

An admirable goal..but hardly something to place up as the moderate middle.

There is not a "middle" or a "center". Not now. Not that we'd be able to recognize. What passes for centrism nowadays is what used to be considered the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

In an age when an emphasis on civil rights is considered analagous to communism and satan worship among the throngs of the Bush faithful, the "center" has become a casualty of the hard right coup on the GOP.

Posted by Carla at 09:27 AM |

February 01, 2006

Taking zealots at their word

Surprised by the new "democracy in the Middle East", some in the punditocracy are in full court hand wring mode over Hamas. Witness Richard Cohen of the Washington Post:

While it is probably true, as everyone says, that Hamas won the recent Palestinian elections not because it promised to wipe out Israel but because it promised to pick up the garbage in Gaza City (all politics is local, etc.), it is also true that the prospect of increased violence did not deter the average Palestinian from voting for Hamas. We have seen this sort of thing before, and it is not very comforting. The rule -- the only rule -- is to take zealots at their word.

It seems reasonable to do that, in many cases. Cohen quotes the Palestinian charter:

In due course we will be told that what Hamas has been insisting on for years -- the utter destruction of Israel -- is not really a serious goal. Hamas should not be taken literally, and anyway it will be forced to moderate both its platform and its policies by the reality of governing. When, for instance, it repeats the words of its charter -- "The solution of the problem [Israel] will only take place by holy war" -- we will be assured that it is just throwing red meat to what in America is called "the base." As for its truculent anti-Semitism -- not to be confused in this case with anti-Zionism -- it, too, will be dismissed as without consequence. Hamas will have to deal with reality -- and Israel, in the region, is the mightiest reality of them all. Yasser Arafat came to understand that.

Pretty ominous stuff.

But if we were to take every organization's founding charter at its word..the US would be looking down the crap end of some messed up priorities: women couldn't vote, blacks were 3/5ths of a person, civil rights for nonwhite nonmales were essentially nonexistent. Not exactly our finest parts of the Constitution.

But through the years as this nation grew and matured, we cleaned up the heinous parts of the Constitution. In some cases it took almost 200 years to fix some of the basic civil rights issues.

We should be looking not at our founding charter, but the actions we took to mend the Constitution to put citizens on an equal footing with one another (And we still have a ways to go..no equal rights amendment for women..no equal rights for gays/lesbians, for example). Its not our founding charter that makes us what we are. Its how we conduct ourselves and what we actually do that matters.

There's plenty of good reason not to trust Hamas. They've a recent history of violent actions. But this election is a watershed moment for them. This is the first time they're going to have to make government work. Hamas has in fact dropped its call for the end of Israel, at least prior to the election.

So if we're to take them at their word..just as we take the US Constitution as its word...shouldn't we be taking them at the one they said two weeks ago? Instead of the word from two decades ago?

More importantly, we should be watching their actions. If they take an aggressive stance in the region, then its time to crack down on them. If Hamas does what it was elected to do, create an effective government that does right by the Palestinian people, we should be supporting them in that effort.

This heated rhetorical diarrhea from the panic stricken needs to stop. Let's see what Hamas does with the new found responsibility.

Posted by Carla at 02:45 PM |

Grassroots is the key

Donald notes, over at Indie Castle: Speaking out does have an effect, that grassroots pressure can and does have an effect. In this case it is a GOP Congressman who has publically backed away from his previous support for the new budget bill.

Posted by Kevin at 12:06 PM |

Birth to a new blog baby

Unbeknownst to most PKers, I've been working on launching a new blog project with my buddy TJ from AlsoAlso.

It's called Loaded Orygun. We're going to bring folks the straight scoop on Oregon politics, news and cool happenings around the state. So get your mouse on...and come check it out.

Posted by Carla at 06:44 AM |