« July 2007 | Main | September 2007 »

August 30, 2007

Merkley & Novick

I've written previously about the Oregon GOP's attempt to swiftboat Dem Jeff Merkley who just happens to be challenging for the right to unseat Republican Senator and longtime Bush lapdog Gordon Smith. Recently some supporters of fellow Dem candidate Steve Novick decided that running with the GOP spin would somehow help their candidate among Dems this year. (here, here, here, etc.)

Steve Novick for his part didn't initiate the issue. He was asked about it by a reporter and he stated that he wouldn't have voted for the resolution at all. But he hasn't exactly discouraged his supporters from continuing with the GOP meme.

Five Democratic legislators voted against the 2003 non-binding resolution. Those five have been held up by Novick supporters as sterling examples of how Merkley should have voted. They've irrationally argued both that Merkley voted in favor of a pro-war resolution AND aknowledged that Merkely clearly did not support the war and made that fact clear at the time. They insist that a vote in favor implies support for the entire thing while maintaining that a vote against doesn't imply opposition to the entire thing... Which is critical because, as Merkley made clear at the time, the major thrust of the non-binding resolution was an expression of support for the military men and women who were being sent into harms way without having any choice in the matter.

Novick & supporters clearly want Oregonians and Democrats in particular to wonder whether Merkley has a sufficiently stiff spine to properly represent the state in Congress... all based upon the distortion that Merkley's very clear and very public rejection of all but the troop support aspect of the 2003 non-binding resolution is essentially irrelevant and that only those five Dems who voted against the entire non-binding resolution did the right thing. Based on that single non-binding resolution vote Novick supporters are openly questioning whether Merkley can be trusted to do the right thing visa-vis Iraq if he's elected.

Surprise, surprise but some of those very same five Dems are backing Merkley rather than Novick! In fact one of them, Rosenbaum (along with Merkley), co-sponsored the Iraqi-pullout HJM 9 this past session. Of course if you are one of the die-hard Novick supporters trying to swiftboat Merkley then you have to find some way to ignore the fact that HJM 9 and Rosenbaum.Merkley's co-sponsorship of it demonsrates the folly of the GOP meme they've been trying to sink Merkley with.

Posted by Kevin at 12:20 PM |

August 29, 2007

Does anyone buy Sen. Craig's denials?

He says that he's not gay now nor has he ever been... yet he hid his arrest from his wife and friends.

He says that he's not gay now nor has he ever been... yet he pled guilty.

It's sad that he feels that he has to continue to live a repressed life, but trying to bring all of us in on the con doesn't seem constructive to me.

Posted by Kevin at 06:50 AM |

August 28, 2007

I Predict Sizemore Will Win His Appeal

The NW Republican blog is reporting that the OEA v. OTU racketeering lawsuit of 2000 will finally reach the Oregon Supreme Court on September 10. It's just a gut feeling I have, but I think Sizemore will win his appeal - or at least a significant part of it. I've written before about the case, and see no reason to do so again now. But I think you should brace yourself. Because you just know that as soon as he wins on any point at all, and I believe he will, he will once again claim he has been exonerated and now should be welcomed back into the world of the legitimate. And if the RICO case is overturned, then I think he will largely succeed. Those who found it intolerably painful that one of their own might be a crook and a liar will, with great relief, take the mental leap from "It wasn't racketeering" to "He didn't do any of what he was accused of doing." Never mind the evidence.

I'm finding a bright side in all this, though. Reading through some of my older posts I can see that whereas I used to be quite emotional about all of this, now I have finally truly put it all behind me. It's a good thing to be free of all the weight of the betrayal, disappointment, frustration, and anger I felt for so many years. With great joy, I find I actually don't care if the Oregon Supreme Court overturns the decision because I have come to understand that our system of justice is in many respects a chess game and not a search for the truth, and sometimes a clever and tenacious crook can outwit his well-funded opponents.

I have also come to understand that politics is a team sport, and people will forgive nearly any wrong-doing when the individual involved is on their team. So if the right-wingers I used to know and work with want to believe that such a ruling means Sizemore has been proven to have done no wrong, I will happily leave them to their willful ignorance. The record is there for anyone who wants to know the truth.

Posted by Becky at 09:56 AM |

August 27, 2007

That President Bush is So Funny!

Hey, President Bush said something I actually agree with. He said that as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales had "successfully pursued public corruption" - pursued and achieved it, I'd say! I am a little confused by the President's characterization of Gonzales as "a man of integrity, decency and principle." It must have been a bit of sarcasm. That funny, funny man! And the President was dead-on accurate in euphemistically characterizing Gonzales as "talented" - he really has a talent for not recalling important events, that's for sure! But I'm not sure I would have characterized him as "honorable." That's pushing the sarcasm a little too far so that it almost sounds serious, which it clearly could not be. On the other hand, it was good to hear the President acknowledge that Gonzales has enjoyed "unfair treatment" – unfairly nice treatment is probably what he meant to say. And I couldn't agree more that "it's sad that we live in a time" where this sort of controversy goes on as it has. I admit I'm quite befuddled at the President's concluding statement that Gonzales' "good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons." It kind of left me wondering whether I had misinterpreted his entire statement. Surely he couldn't mean … oh, no. Oh, he does mean it the nice way. Oh, my. Well, I guess that explains a lot.

Posted by Becky at 01:53 PM |

It's Easy to Fake the "I Found God" Line

What does Michael Vick have in common with Paris Hilton, Sen. David Vitter, Lee Atwater, and Karla Faye Tucker? Upon thoroughly disgracing himself, he is now declaring that he has found religion and is sorry for all that dog torturing and dog killing. These days it seems everyone who is facing a personal crisis in a public forum says the same thing, often accompanied by crocodile tears.

I just don't buy it. And I'm betting that because these sorts of statements result in lighter sentences, lawyers are urging their clients to say they have found God even if they haven't -- and maybe even writing their speeches for them.

I certainly believe some people, when caught in the act of doing wrong, are awakened and can truly change their lives. But it's far too easy to say the words and not actually mean them. It is particularly suspicious that, in a matter of days, Vick has moved from denial to being backed into a corner to "I found religion and now I'm sorry for what I did." If it's true, and Michael Vick can find some personal fulfillment and maturity in his newfound faith, I'm happy for him. But I don't think "finding God" should ever win a person a lighter sentence or ease the consequences of their actions.

Posted by Becky at 10:26 AM |

August 26, 2007

Caribou Coffee

I've never had Caribou Coffee and had never heard of the company until a recent grocery shopping trip to my local Safeway where I discovered their granola bars.

If you love flavored latte then you are going to love these granola bars. They're soft and chewy and taste EXACTLY like a latte. They are hands down the best tasting breakfast/snack bar I've ever had.

Unfortunately I only found two of their four flavors - Vanilla Latte and Caramel High Rise. The other two flavors are Chocolate Mocha and Mint Condition. Out of the four choices the two that I was able to get happen to be the two that I would have preferred anyway. But... different strokes for different folks, I say.

So if you love your coffee drinks and are looking for a better tasting snack bar you should give these a try.

Posted by Kevin at 01:43 PM |

But for the grace of God...

My name is Kevin and I'm an addict.

Nineteen years ago today (8/26/88) I walked into a drug and alcohol rehab facility fresh off of a Meth binge. I was promptly diagnosed as a cocaine/meth addict and spent the next 30 odd days as a patient in their facility, trying to get a handle on what exactly was the problem and what I could do about it.

As The Greatful Dead song says... "what a long, strange trip it's been."

Although I'm not an alcoholic, and could prove it if I had to, I personally found recovery in Alcoholics Anonymous. And there is zero doubt in my mind that I am alive today because of the grace of God that I found through the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and demonstrated in the lives of the men and women I found there.

Most particularly I owe a debt of gratitude to three men who shared their experience, strength, hope and unconditional love with me - Jamie, Mick and Clark. They each, in their own way and their own time, gave me the unvarnished thruth when I needed it the most... and wanted to hear it the least. They've taught me that the measure of a person isn't found in how they react to the good times, but how they deal with the rough times.

There are other 12-step groups out there and I've briefly been a member of two of them - Cocaine Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. And I don't wish to disparage either of them. But for me, the recovery that I needed was found in A.A. I am utterly convinced that the only meaningful difference between an addict and an alcoholic, in terms of recovery, is that alcoholic takes three more letters to spell. Other than that it is the same disease, with the same issues and the same solution.

Life is not perfect today, nor am I for that matter. But it is immeasurably better than my best day using. And for that I am deeply grateful.

Posted by Kevin at 08:25 AM |

August 23, 2007

Hillary and Cuba

So Hillary thinks we should continue to restrict Cuban exiles from visiting relative in Cuba to once every three years, potentially forcing a choice between going to the funeral of a mother or a father but not both if they take place within a three year time frame.

''She supports the embargo and our current policy toward Cuba, and until it is clear what type of political winds may come with a new government -- if there is a new government -- we cannot talk about changes to U.S. policy,'' Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said

Steve Clemons sums it up over at the Huffington Post...

This is simply not mature-minded foreign policy thinking. I've written previously that one of the measures that should be applied to all of the candidates is how they would deal with not the easy questions in our national security portfolio -- but the tough ones.

Cuba is the easiest of the tough ones to solve. First of all, the Cold War is over. Cubans don't see a Soviet-led bloc as their primary patron anymore, but see Venezuela and China, which has grown through capitalism, as their closest economic allies today. Castro is no longer exporting arms and revolution -- but rather is exporting doctors.

And Hillary Clinton is stating that she is comfortable continuing a many-decades long, failed strategy to transform Cuba. And she thinks we "cannot talk about changes to U.S. policy" until the government changes?! That's ridiculous -- particularly given her own trips to China, a Communist nation of 1.1 billion people -- and her advocacy of normalization with Vietnam and her support of incremental steps forward with North Korea.

I solidly agree with Clemons. In addition I also think that the past several decades of experience engaging China, a vastly greater current military and economic threat, as well as the engagement with Vietnam that Clemons alludes to demonstrates the sheer folly of our policy towards Cuba. When we get communist regimes to open up to even a little bit of capitalism the people invariably run with it and the regime ends up holding a tiger by the tail. There is no reason whatever to think that Cuba would be any different.

The only possible "use" for our current Cuba policy which I can see is domestic political posturing. It hasn't improved the lot of the Cuban people one iota as far as I can see.

What do you think?

Posted by Kevin at 09:00 PM |

August 21, 2007

I'll Pass this One On to You

I received today an intriguing email regarding a new political party - the American Social Justice Party - and because I agree with its author about the very serious situation in which we find ourselves as a nation, I have decided to post his letter here in its entirety so you can read it and act as you will.

Dear Members of the Progressive Blogging Community,

I am writing to invite you to be involved at the inception of a new political movement in America.

This is no joke.

The developments of the past six years have led me to finally conclude that the United States of America as we have long known it is dangerously close to existing no more.The Bush administration, while bearing much of the blame, does not bear it all. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have sold out the American people in order to line their own campaign pockets and to insure business as usual. While this has been the case for a number of years, it has become much worse in the past six. Only with George W. Bush has such a blatant contempt for the United States Constitution been demonstrated, and the entire Congress has been complicit in the deprivation of our rights as citizens. The most recent example, the Democratic folding on the issue of electronic surveillance, has made it quite clear to me that the Democrats are far too concerned with their own political stakes to worry about the stakes of the average citizen.

Anyone reading this, even an American citizen, can have their conversations listened to by intelligence agents... no lawfully-issued warrant necessary. The contents of those conversations can then be used to fabricate charges and you can be taken off the street tomorrow, declared an enemy combatant of the United States. Because of this status, even U.S. citizens would be unable to assert their right of Habeus Corpus, and the ability to get into a courtroom to prove one's citizenship is meaningless. You can then be held in whatever conditions the government cares to provide, for whatever period of time it deems necessary. You can be tortured and, given the track record of our civilian and military torturers, even killed. No one will know.

And Congress has approved all of this.

Enough is enough. I had sincerely hoped Al Gore would run for the presidency because I felt that he would be the one person who could restore sanity to our government. But I have heard his words clearly; even the best candidates for 2008 are caught up in a fundamentally flawed process.He is quite right. No one person can make the difference. The two parties have banded together to insure their own survival. And to hell with the American citizens that placed them in power.

To re-use the now famous quote, the government should be afraid of its people; the people should not fear their government.

The only solution, as I and a few others see it, is to restore the average person's voice in governing. The dominance of the two party system must be broken, and I have come to realize that I wait in vain if I am waiting for someone else to take on this task.

Yes, there are other parties. But none of these parties has ever been able to truly influence American politics. Even the Reform Party has vanished into the woodwork. The Green Party is establishing some success, but has been labeled by many as the extreme wing of the liberal base. Someone needs to appeal to the people in the progressive mainstream. Moreover, someone needs to be dedicated, not to attaining their own power, but to providing a forum by which American citizens can again have their voices and wishes considered in the governing of our nation.

Thus, I invite you to visit the website of the newly formed American Social Justice Party. Our goal is not to develop our own power, but to collectively bring to bear the voices of the American people on a government that until now has avoided the will of its people. We are a group dedicated to restoring the people's voice in government, to restoring the emphasis of government on the individual rather than the corporation, and to demanding the accountability of our elected and appointed officials.

If you like any of what you read on our website, I invite you to join us in our conversations. I also invite you to share this information and our site with the blogging community if you are so inclined.

www.americansocialjusticeparty.org

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly,

Richard T. (Rick) Olshak
Chair
American Social Justice Party

Posted by Becky at 01:38 PM |

Rush Hour 3 an Insulting Waste of Time

For those who don't know, I am a big-time fan of Jackie Chan. I'm pretty sure I've seen all his movies at least once, and some probably twenty or thirty times. I have a big collection of his movies, too. So I have been very anxious to see Rush Hour 3. Well, last night was the big night. And the thing was such an obnoxious, insulting, trite, worthless piece of shit movie that I nearly walked out. The only thing that kept me in my seat until the end was the hope that maybe somewhere I'd get to see some classic Jackie Chan action. I left thinking it's time for Jackie to retire and whoever was involved in that script should be banned from every producing another movie again.

The groaning at the stupidity of the script, which far exceeds the silliness I've come to expect from Jackie Chan scripts, began in the first two minutes. By five minutes I was beginning to be concerned. The characters have always been funny and exaggerated, but this time they were caricatures of themselves – exaggerations of exaggerations.

Chris Tucker's character, who is supposed to be an air-head but a good guy, starts out using his position as a police officer to arrest two women in a traffic accident, handcuff them and bend them over the hood of the car in their very short skirts, check out their butts (you get to check them out, too), make fun of how fat one of them is, and then coerce them into meeting up later with him and Jackie for a "date." From there it's on to gratuitous sexual comments, gratuitous nudity, and gratuitous groping with his character putting the moves, in exaggerated and highly obnoxious form, on every female he sees throughout the entire movie. I have no problem with sex in movies, mind you, but this is crude, rude, and disrespectful to women so it made me mad. At no time do you believe he could ever get laid, at least not with any self-respecting woman, yet he bags the hottest chick in the film – well, almost.

And he gets worse from there. With Michael Vick in the news for dogfighting, you would think the producers would have sense enough to cut the scene in which he talks fondly about cockfighting and how his chicken fought with heart – and was very delicious, too.

But worse than the excessive ridiculousness of the characters was the fact that the movie was in its entirety one big insult to America. You start to get the picture when Jackie and Chris land in Paris and the cab driver doesn't want to give them a ride because Chris is an American. You see, he says, Americans are crazy and just kill people for no reason. Look at Viet Nam! Look at Iraq! They just want to kill everyone. Soon, however, the bad guys are after them and the cab driver is told to pretend he's a spy and get into the adventure of it all, at which point you see him begin to transform from a snotty French pansy into an "American spy" who is ready for adventure and looking for an opportunity to "kill people for no reason." His transformation is really one of the the primary points of the entire plot, with Chris Tucker's character providing the model of the typical American. Really, it was so insulting I was just fuming.

The good and evil, yin-yang theme is also present in this film, along with other symbolism, but it is so awkward and juvenile and bumbling that I can only think if Americans enjoy this film it is because they have sunk to such levels of mind-numbed ignorance that we are in a hopeless state and perhaps even deserving of such grotesque insults.

As for the action, it had its moments. You could fit the good stuff into a ten-minute clip. I'll sit through a lot of bad film-making to see good Jackie Chan moves, but I can tell you, this action was nowhere near good enough for me to waste the time sitting through Rush Hour 3 ever again.

Posted by Becky at 09:15 AM |

August 20, 2007

"Noble Resolve" in Portland

From an "Oregon Truth Alliance" posting on 8-09-2007:

This is an urgent advisory notice from concerned citizens of Oregon and Washington about an upcoming U.S. Joint Forces Command emergency management exercise known as NOBLE RESOLVE 07-2 that will simulate terrorism or disaster scenarios in the Lower Columbia River Basin between Aug. 20th and Aug 24th, 2007.

NOBLE RESOLVE 07-2 was designed and will be directed by U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) and the Department of Homeland Security. We are aware of no public notice concerning this exercise, but preliminary investigation has revealed that Oregon National Guard officials and federal officials will conduct the drill. Details from official sources are minimal.

This advisory is to document our concerns, raise public awareness and urge citizen action based on the following facts:

1. NOBLE RESOLVE is a computer-based simulation of a large-scale emergency situation (e.g. earthquake, hurricane, tsunami, or terrorist attack with nuclear weapon) in order to train for managing all aspects of the emergency response through comprehensive software.

2. Military exercises such as NOBLE RESOLVE 07-2 have a recent history of coinciding with lethal “live” events. This occurred both at the start of Desert Storm in 1990 and on 9/11/01 when five or more major military or security exercises were in progress on the very day of the actual attacks. The same phenomenon occurred with the London Bombings of 7/7/05 during which a drill concerning multiple bomb attacks was being staged on that day.

3. Vice President Cheney, Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff and former Senator Rick Santorum have all warned of a new 9/11 attack this summer, but are giving no evidence in support. Chertoff based his prediction on a “gut feeling”.

4. The May 2007 Presidential Directive NSPD 51 (HSPD 20) addressing “continuity of government” in the event of a massive emergency, includes secret "annexes" which are pertinent additional documents. Some US Congressional Committee on Homeland Security members such as Rep. Peter DeFazio have written to formally request permission to review these secret "annexes" and have twice been denied access by the White House.

5. This particular exercise, NOBLE RESOLVE 07-2, includes one scenario involving an unaccounted for, "loose," ten kiloton nuclear weapon, exactly as Vice President Cheney hinted in recent interviews. Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff claims he fears the same.

6. The plummeting support for the GOP has triggered comments from its members and analyses of its current political strategy that point to a new 9/11 attack as a contributing factor to GOP political salvation. Moreover, it appears that legends or back stories are being disseminated to support just such an event.

Transparency concerning NOBLE RESOLVE 07-2 is vital for the public safety of everyone in the Lower Columbia River Basin. We call on the planners, directors and participants in NOBLE RESOLVE 07-2 to be vigilant and to maintain transparency with respect to these military exercises. We also urge citizens and our elected officials to monitor the activities of participants connected with the exercises and alert authorities to any suspicious behavior. These exercises have an established pattern of becoming “live” events. We recommend that officials of the Ports of Astoria, Longview, Vancouver and Portland on the Lower Columbia River take extra care in their monitoring and examination of all shipping on the Lower Columbia River while NOBLE RESOLVE 07-2 is in progress. Finally, we urge all concerned to voice that concern in letters and calls to elected officials and civil servants requesting full transparency and citizen oversight.

Comment: So if any of you live in Portland be advised to keep your heads down, stay out of the way of HSA personnel, and let those of us in the rest of the State know what's happening on the ground there.

more info can be found here:
"USJFCOM"
"Prison Planet"
"A28"
"Now Public"
or google "Noble Resolve 07-2
Do you still think we can afford to wait till January '09?

Posted by Mac at 11:38 PM |

Stop children what's that sound...

Everybody look what's goin' down...

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - A three-year veil of secrecy in the name of national security was used to keep the public in the dark about the handling of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear fuel processing plant — including a leak that could have caused a deadly, uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

This goes to the heart of why warrant-less domestic spying is so dangerous and why we shouldn't just take the Bush administration's word for it that they've got sufficient internal checks and balances in place to protect our civil rights. It's just too damn easy for them (or any future administration for that matter) to claim "national security" when in fact they're just trying to cover their asses.

Posted by Kevin at 10:00 PM |

August 18, 2007

Some comic relief

If, like me, you are suffering from "outrage overload", here's something to help you lighten up a little bit:

I dialed a number and got the following recording:

"I am not available right now, but
Thank you for caring enough to call.
I am making some changes in my life.
Please leave a message after the
Beep. If I do not return your call,
You are one of the changes."

Posted by Mac at 12:08 PM |

August 17, 2007

Weekend musings

It's been a long time since we've put up a post consisting mostly of links to interesting and thought-provoking writing by other folks at other blogs. So here we go:

Stephen over at The Thinkery sums up What We've Accomplished

As is always the case, the same fanatics who deny women a place in society because of "religion" are the ones who ensure that they can earn money as prostitutes, indeed are much happier with prostitution being the main way that a woman can make money independently of a man, because it allows them to indulge their own dark desires while maintaining their own auras of purity and piety in their public facade.

A couple weeks ago Stephen penned this brief but extremely insightful post on the recent GOP White House hopeful's debate in Iowa on a fine Sunday morning: Breaking The Sabbath Commandment in which he peeks behind the curtain and realizes that the Wizard of Oz is a fraud.

Why weren't they in church? Isn't there even one of these elderly, white male Christians that considers worshipping in the house of God on the Lord's Day a trifle more important than engaging in politics?

And then there is long-time friend of PK, the Gun Totting Liberal. GTL takes today's news about the Pentagon paying $1 million to ship a couple of 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas... and ties it into his experience as an Iraq veteran.

I swear to God, I saw MILLIONS of dollars worth of once-shiny, brand new equipment and vehicles lined up in lonely grid yards, covered in sand, not being used in the least; NEVER used, never to BE used — 0.2 miles on their odometers, literally ROTTING in “The Desert” — serving as nothing more than expensive monuments to tax dollar fraud at the highest levels of our “Gub’mint”.

I witnessed civilians being paid six-figure, tax-free salaries to work side-by-side with our Airmen and Soldiers who made sixteen grand a year to perform the exact, same jobs; the civilians being sub-contracted by a subcontractor of KBR, who was subcontracted by Halliburton or somebody else — saw it all the time. The Airmen were held to UCMJ standards; the civilians being held to beaurocratic, “Gub’mint”, “fifty strikes and you’re OUT” standards. Call it what you will; spin it the way you wish; I call it as I see it: BLATANT FRAUD, WASTE and ABUSE; perhaps, even CRIMINAL in nature…

Meanwhile, there were all these alerts being passed down to we troops, asking us to participate in these “programs” to report any “Fraud, Waste, And Abuse” to our chains of command. “If you notice something suspicious, such as an invoice for eight hundred dollars for a toilet seat, please let your immediate supervisor know about it ASAP” (paraphrased) bulletins were being passed around all the time around the “war zone”. NOTHING about suspicious contracts. NOTHING about suspicious activity such as a bus driver bragging about being paid six figures to drive a bus around base when I had six Airmen with military bus drivers licenses who were being paid an average of sixteen grand a year — no “fraud alert” there — oh, no Siree BOB…

Last but not least, driving home from work today I heard David Brooks make a very interesting observation while summing up what he's been seeing on the presidential campaign trail. Apparently nobody is asking the Democratic hopefuls what their policy would be on Al Queda if elected. It's not only a fair question but a rather important one! Al Queda, unlike Saddam, attacked us on OUR soil and have made no secret of their desire to do it again. So what would Hillary do? What would Joe Biden do? Obama? Don't you think this is a pretty darn important policy question?

Posted by Kevin at 09:39 PM |

Someone Please Notice Me!

I'm still important, aren't I? The silence is killing me! Please, someone, talk about me!

Posted by Becky at 10:31 AM |

Killing in the Name of Allah or Jesus is Wrong

The western world is coming unglued over a new video game put out by Hezbollah in which players become mujahideen and kill Israelis. It's called "Special Force 2" - a name and concept eerily similar to "Left Behind: Eternal Forces," in which players become Christians who go around a post-apocalyptic New York City and force people at gunpoint to convert to Christianity or be killed. I wonder why one is OK and the other is not? Christians, of course, offer a softened view of their game, though seem untroubled by the fact that they're killing non-believers, but because they don't understand the perspective of Hezbollah (and I'll confess, I don't understand it, either), they cannot see how people could enjoy playing at killing Jews - and yet they think it is a real kick in the pants to play their righteous game and kill Jews or Muslims or anyone else who won't become a Christian. Well, I can't see how anyone can enjoy playing at killing anyone, frankly, and it doesn't matter to me whether that person is praying to Allah or to Jesus. The sooner we figure out that killing each other - or even playing at killing each other - only leads to more actual killing of each other, the better off we'll all be.

Posted by Becky at 09:02 AM |

August 16, 2007

One Small Step For Peace

A couple of months ago I received a review copy of one of the neatest books I've ever read, but due to extreme lack of spare time I have not been able to finish it and now I am feeling quite remiss at not having recommended it yet. It is Live From Jordan: Letters Home from My Journey through the Middle East by Ben Orbach. Honestly, I think his website does a fantastic job of explaining what the book is about, as does this interview and many others. I don't think I have a whole lot I can add to all the wonderful commentary out there about this must-read book except to say that if all people in the world had the opportunity (and willingness) to spend some time getting to know their "enemies" as Ben did, the warmongers wouldn't be able to get away with manipulating us into fighting each other any more. So take a personal step toward peace and read this book – and give it to everyone you know. And when I finally get five minutes to my name so I can finish reading it, I'll write about it again.

Posted by Becky at 03:35 PM |

Dems: victims or passive volunteers?

Over at Blue Oregon is yet another conversation between supporters and opponents of Governor Kulogoski's "Healthy Kids" funding plan. I've long opposed it on the basis of the statistical fact that it's as another commenter phrased it, "obscenely regressive." But that's not the point of this post.

Responding to a question of mine as to why so-called progressives launched and back a patently regressive funding scheme the guy I was having the exchange with responded with it was the only game in town!

As much as I disagree with conservatives on any number of issues, they at least have the courage of their convictions. When faced with "the only game in town" they have repeatedly changed the game to one more of their liking. We've got well over a decade of watching Republicans do this over and over and over. On top of that we have the much vaunted book on how to frame issues (ie. change the game to one more of your liking) by George Lakoff and yet we still see Democrat after Democrat throw up their hands and complain that they are being forced to play the only game in town.

Grow an F@%#ing spine already!!!

Is it any wonder that it took 5 years after 9/11 for huge numbers of Americans who, according to polling over the last couple years, clearly aren't part of Bush's base, to finally stop supporting his inept foreign policy on terrorism? For all of his flaws he at least had the courage of his convictions. And unless or until Democrats either find, borrow or rediscover their own spine, a small but very savvy group of conservatives are going to continue to exert a vastly disproportionate influence on the course of this nation. And the Dems have nobody to blame but themselves.

Posted by Kevin at 12:54 PM |

August 15, 2007

No Need for Congressional Approval

We all know that only Congress can declare war, right? So we can't go to war with Iran unless Congress says OK, right? Oh, but wait a minute. Remember when Congress gave President Bush authority to pursue terrorists? Guess what. Bush is about to declare that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a "specially designated global terrorist" organization! No further Congressional action needed. We can officially go to war with the Iraqi "terrorist" army, and Bonus! Because they're "terrorists" they are not recognized as uniformed members of a sovereign nation; therefore, the Geneva Conventions won't apply! Hooray for America! Hooray for Bush!

Posted by Becky at 10:06 PM |

Give Your Two Cents to Unity08

Unity08 is a political reform movement looking to regain the voice of real people in American politics. The group has launched a unique online study that allows you to rank the presidential candidates and the issues facing the country. They are trying to include as many American citizens as they can so that they can get a clearer idea of what issues are most critical to Americans. Part of their effort will also be to go through a nominating process just like political parties and select a candidate as the Unity08 candidate, who will appear as such on your November ballot. I'm not so crazy about that idea because I don't think it really addresses the problems we're having with our elections process, but I did take the survey (it's lengthy, but interesting). If you have half an hour to give to this effort, you can take their survey here and tell them which candidates you prefer, why, which issues matter to you, and how much they matter to you. It's kind of a cool sliding scale, as opposed to rating things on a scale of 1 to 5.

After you take the survey, come back here and let's talk about what's wrong with the way we select a President and how we might fix it.

Posted by Becky at 02:03 PM |

August 14, 2007

Sexy Tuesdays?

I signed up to be on Planned Parenthood's email list because I support the group's efforts to help young women in trouble - and to help prevent trouble. They treat and help prevent sexually transmitted diseases, offer affordable birth control, and help rebuild women's self-esteem after a sexual crisis. I deeply respect that work. But I'll admit I was a little puzzled by their new fundraising program: "Sexy Tuesdays," where you can meet up at a Portland area wine bar and 50% of proceeds for the night go to support Planned Parenthood. The reason I don't get it is that I for some reason thought Planned Parenthood was about making good choices and being a stronger woman, not the sort of free love vibe you get from an ongoing event named "Sexy Tuesdays." It just kind of strikes me wrong. Am I wrong? What is your reaction to this?

Posted by Becky at 05:25 PM |

Who's driving the MSM?

I constantly hear harping by those on the right of the "liberal mainstream media". A charge I have never believe for a millisecond.
Why don't we pull the curtain back and take a closer look at the machinery? Then you can all make up your own minds about who's doing the driving.

Let's take the story of Private Beauchamp that went from the somewhat obscure New Republic to the pages of the WSJ in less than a month as an example.

The right wing "blogosmear" (as my friend Hart refers to it) has been pushing this story in an attempt to discredit The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" since recent revelations in the Pat Tillman story and the recent convictions of U.S. troops for the rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl (and her entire family), and the murders in Haditha have thrust military misconduct into an uncomfortable spotlight.

For a more complete background I urge you to visit The Democratic Daily's well researched series on the Beauchamp story. "The Carolina Fabulist" is only the latest installment. You should read the earlier pieces as well.

It shows an interesting trail from Army Command in Iraq, through RW blogger Michael Goldfarb, through far to many RW blogs to be coincidental, all the way to The Wall Street Journal.
It makes for a fascinating, if somewhat chilling read.

My personal view: A long time ago (about 38 years) I experienced daily life under combat conditions in Vietnam. I remember the toll the constant stress of being at risk took on my own psyche. The stories Beauchamp tells of what he saw in Kuwait and Iraq (ridiculing a disfigured woman, deliberately running over dogs with an APC, wearing the skull of a dead child in Halloween-like gallows humor) are both consistent and relatively mild compared with my own experience. While some are claiming "American troops wouldn't act so", some Marines are being convicted of rape and murder. The issue has been raised of not only lying about Pat Tillman, but the possibility that he was fragged by one of his own.

So I will ask the next question. What makes neo-con "pundits" (and I use the term VERY loosely) such "experts" on human behavior under combat conditions? How many of them actually SERVED in combat? How many of them went through their daily routine wondering if every breath might be their last? Because if they are not comparing the present situation to their own past experience, then who's agenda are they putting forward?

Mac

Posted by Mac at 12:14 PM |

The Machine vs. Grassroots

Nate Currie commenting over at Blue Oregon best sums up my take on yesterday's announcement that Oregon Governors Kulongoski and Roberts are officially endorsing Jeff Merkley for Senate over his Democratic rival Steve Novick.

I think this is going to be a very interesting battle between grassroots activism and the establishment machine.

I like Merkley and in fact am one of the first 100 financial contributors to his campaign. But the "foregone conclusion" vibe I get from the Kulongoski/Roberts endorsement turns me off.

Now I understand the motivation to get the big guns to endorse Merkley. Those endorsements help loosen the purse strings of those with deep pockets. But that's one of the things that most turns me off about this. The ability to raise large amounts of $$$ may be hugely important in terms of real politik, however it seems to me that Big Money in politics is one of the greatest factors in betraying the Lincolnian ideal of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

The other thing that I don't like about it is the timing. Major Democratic leaders endorsing the candidate chosen by the membership in a Primary election is one thing. Major Democratic leaders endorsing a candidate before the people have cast a single vote just feels smarmy to me... as if the will of the people is being disregarded. Again, it feels like a betrayal of the Lincolnian ideal that I hold dear.

What do you think?

Posted by Kevin at 05:35 AM |

August 13, 2007

shattered...

How can you mend a broken heart

I can think of younger days When living for my life Was everything a man Could want to do

I could never see tomorrow But I was never told about the sorrow
And How can you mend A broken heart
How can you stop the rain From falling down
How can you stop The sun from shining
What makes the world go round
How can you mend a This broken man
How can a loser ever win
Please help me mend My broken heart And let me live again

I can still feel the breeze That rustles through the trees
And misty memories of days gone by
We could never see tomorrow
No one said a word About the sorrow

And How can you mend a broken heart
How can you stop the rain From falling down
How can you stop The sun from shining
What makes the world go round
How can you mend This broken man
How can a loser ever win
Please help me mend My broken heart And let me live again

Da da da da da da da
Da da da
Da da da da da

Please help me mend My broken heart And let me live again

Da da da da
Da da da da da
Da da da da da da

I thought she was the one... but I guess I was wrong. (blackness)

I don't mean to burden our readers but this is by far the most important thing in my universe... and it's my blog. Deal with it or not. I really don't care which.

Although she'll never see this 'cause she doesn't read PK... my sincere apologies to Tiesha for what has to be a confusing and heart-rending burden... 'cause she loves her daddy. God grant me the wisdom to teach her to never, ever settle for someone who can't or won't accept her for who and what she is, warts and all. She deserves nothing less.

For Kandace... thanks and I love you too!

Posted by Kevin at 09:06 PM |

In a Better Place?

When I was a kid, my Grandpa stressed to me to always leave wherever I was "a better place" than I found it. Like most people, I've also heard it said countless times when someone passes away that they are "in a better place." There is a distinct difference between the meaning of "a better place" and "in a better place." So what exactly does Karl Rove mean when he says, "Iraq will be in a better place" as the surge continues? Is it the same thing that David Rosenfeld meant when he said in June that Karl Rove "put the nation in a better place"? And where, exactly, is that "place"? Is this Rove's idea of Heaven?

Posted by Becky at 01:39 PM |

Human Tracking Must Be Stopped

I was dismayed this morning when I read that China is launching a massive and thorough human tracking system in the city of Shenzhen, where 12.4 million people will be issued cards containing computer chips with tremendous amounts of personal information, and they will not be allowed to live in the city without them. Think of Hitler as you read through the list of data that will be stored on these cards: work history, education, religion, ethnicity, police records, medical insurance status, landlord's contact information, and personal reproductive history. In the future, the cards will also carry credit history and be able to be used to make small purchases. 20,000 police surveillance cameras connected to computers with face recognition software are also being installed across the city, and the system will have the right to tap into the 180,000 private company surveillance systems throughout the city. And the company providing all this human-tracking technology is financed by un-American, greedy, profit-driven scumbags in America.

China's excuse is that with its huge population and increasing mobility, as well as the increase in street protests, the program is needed to keep people safe. Sounds ridiculous to us, of course, but if you use the terrorism excuse, then suddenly it becomes clear that the millions of Americans who believe we are at risk from terrorists (as opposed to creepy people working through our own government) could easily be convinced to accept this sort of tracking system to keep them safe. A dirty bomb here and there, a couple suicide bombers in a mall, and suddenly terrified Americans will willingly hold out their wrists as the shackles are applied.

Listen to what Michael Lin, the vide president for investor relations at China Public Security Technology, has to say (bear in mind he is a representative of a private company, not of the government):

If they do not get the permanent card, they cannot live here, they cannot get government benefits, and that is a way for the government to control the population in the future.

Once the purchasing ability is added to the cards, how long will it be before they will not be allowed to make purchases without them? How long after that before the card, which of course could be lost, is replaced with an implanted chip? Not long, I would guess.

This company is incorporated in Florida. It is funded by investment funds in Texas. Much of the money has been raised for this company in California and New York, where just last month it was announced that security cameras would be installed to monitor license plates and eventually face recognition technology may begin to be used.

Revelation 13:16-17 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

The words have been recited by Christians for centuries and scoffed at by critics, but it's beginning to look increasingly possible, whether you believe in the rest of the AntiChrist/Beast story or not. China has ordered all large cities to follow suit. Is it really so far-fetched to believe that someday this technology will be applied on a world-wide basis? A quick exploration of the company involved – China Public Security Technology – and its partners certainly indicates to me that it is possible and that it is planned. It works closely with IBM (the very company who sold Hitler the computer tracking system that allowed him to identify the Jews and others he exterminated), Cisco, HP, and Dell, and one of its top partners is also partnered with Microsoft. We, as Americans, need to make sure this goes no further.

Posted by Becky at 12:09 PM |

August 12, 2007

Until we meet again

Not that I've been a regular contributor here for awhile--but its time for me to officially close out my time at Preemptive Karma.

It's been great to have this place--and even though I haven't written much in the last year, I've been grateful to have the door open to write about national politics and issues.

I'm off to begin what I hope will be a career in online politics. So for now I have to leave Preemptive Karma and my other blog, Loaded Orygun.

I've thought a lot about what I'd write for this post--but honestly I'm still in the process of grieving letting it go. So I'll just say "until we meet again".

Knowing of course that we will.

Posted by Carla at 10:06 AM |

August 11, 2007

Just do it... for the kids!

I've dogged Oregon Democrats for inventing and pushing the patently regressive "Healthy Kids Oregon (AKA Measure 50) scheme. But, by and large it didn't get much attention.

Scott Moore's treatment of M50 at The Portland Mercury's Blogtown site is wickedly funny in a very sarcastic way and definitely well worth the few minutes it'd take you to go read it: Smoking Is Good For Children's Health

Posted by Kevin at 06:59 PM |

Greed is... self-destructive

Minnesota Public Radio's Tim Bedore lives three miles from the I-35 West bridge in Minneapolis which catestrophically failed last week. His daughter was on a school bus which crossed the bridge just a few weeks ago and he wants to know "what the hell happened to our infrastructure."

The constant ridiculing of tax-and-spenders and the "It's your money. You earned it, you should keep it" drum beat of talk radio. The union-busting, outsourcing, we-can-do-America-on-the-cheap philosophy that has infected corporate America, school boards, state legislatures . . . all of us.

People say this is not the time for finger pointing. Is it a coincidence the very people who say that are the ones who screwed things up? If you ever intend to use a bridge in the future, this is precisely the time to ask, "Has conservatism screwed up America?"

It's a valid question. But there's an even more relevant question Tim wants answered.

How much of your $200, $300 tax cut would you give back to know that bridge you cross every day has been checked out, and the money necessary to keep it safe has been spent?

I don't know about any of you but I cross a major bridge twice a day going to and from work. And this bridge is, like the crumbled one in Minneapolis, part of an Interstate highway system. And I gotta tell you that my gut doesn't begin to unclench until I've at least gotten back over terra firma.

It is heartening to me to know that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has been ahead of the curve, proactively making this precise type of infrastructure repair and upkeep a major issue here in Oregon. As Kari says at Blue Oregon, credit where credit is due. But everyone seems to agree that Minnesota had one of the most proactive bridge inspection regimes in the nation, and that didn't prevent the catastrophe in Minneapolis. It seems to me that a big part of the reason is exactly what Tim Bedore points to - it's not just at the national level that conservatives have waged their "greed is good" war. They've done it every bit as much at the state level. And progressives have been typically inept at... being progressive. Which is why we see Oregon Democrats launching and supporting a patently regressive tax scheme. They know that the conservative's "greed is good" philosophy is deeply entrenched to the point that regular citizens don't seem to think twice about cutting off their own noses just to spite their faces.

Our priorities are totally screwed up and it seems that precious few have the cajones to speak honestly to the costs.

Kudos to Tim Bedore for calling a spade what it in fact is - a spade.

When will a viable alternative to the GOP stand up and offer America a way out of this morass?

Posted by Kevin at 11:29 AM |

August 10, 2007

Forests and Trees

Just when you think you've seen everything, along comes some idiot and proposes that everything in America will be A-Okay again if we just have another 9/11. While I am perfectly capable of being generous about provocative statements as a literary tool to make a point, the reason I'm calling Stu Bykofsky an idiot is because he actually believes our big problem is terrorism. It's the burning "forest," he says, and we are all bickering with each other over the "trees."

Stu-pid Bykofsky says we are politically "splintered" as a country because, "thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq … "we have forgotten who the enemy is." (Just in case you've forgotten who the enemy is, it's "global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.")

Our division as a country over Iraq is, he says, encouraging our enemies and weakening us (sounds so Bush-like). The reason we're against the war, says Stu-pid, is because "we don't have the patience for a long slog… We like fast food and fast war." I say Bullshit. Maybe Stu is stupid enough to believe that, but I don't think most Americans are.

We're upset over the war because it is being run by a bunch of lying thieves who are intent on destroying our freedoms in the name of preserving them, who don't give a rip about the people who are dying, and who have yet to give us one good believable reason why those deaths happened or should continue. We don't believe in the war anymore because we don't believe in fighting and dying for a mystery or for the benefit of war profiteers.

Stu is one of those uninformed Americans who still believes Iraq has something to do with 9/11, and it's a key part of why he thinks another 3,000 Americans need to die in a national tragedy. Because, he says, "[w]e knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11." No, Stu-pid, we thought we knew who the enemy was after 9/11. We thought that because the President lied to us. He has never, ever made the case for ousting Saddam Hussein outside of 9/11 even though no evidence has ever been produced to show that Saddam Hussein, as evil as he was, had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. Bush took our passion and our righteous outrage and poured it out on an enemy that did not deserve that passion and outrage, thereby allowing the enemy who did to get away.

We can go back and forth about who that real enemy is, and that is a legitimate debate, though one we are not likely to have as we ought. Personally, I believe 9/11 was not as it has been portrayed to us and that we are continuing to chase yet another evil enemy who, while evil, is nevertheless undeserving of the extreme level of wrath we are pouring out while the real enemy continues to evade justice. I believe in doing so, we are creating enemies who are coming after us with an extreme level of righteous outrage.

Stu-pid, however, believes the entire lie put forward by the Administration, who I believe was "in on it," and goes on to decry our "endless sideshow squabbles" about such things as whether the FBI should be wiretapping Americans without a warrant or whether the "terrorists" planning to attack Fort Dix were actually capable of doing any damage. Which for me is simply infuriating. Because the entire purpose of 9/11 and these exaggerated terrorist plans is to terrorize Americans into accepting the demolishing of their constitutional rights. In other words, while Stu-pid claims terrorism is the blazing forest and our loss of rights is the trees, I believe he has it completely backward. Americans are incredibly focused on the phony terrorist and amateur terrorist trees, the partisan bickering trees, and the Iraq war trees. It is our Constitution that is burning.

See why it matters that Bush lied? He has people saying things like Stu-pid, that America can only be unified and, therefore, saved by:

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system.

And to just prove once and for all how utterly Stu-pid he is, he even admits that such unity wouldn't last forever, as the first 9/11 proved. Because the "chattering of chipmunks" will just rise up again. No doubt, resulting in the need for yet another 9/11.

Of course, if the bastards in Washington, DC would quit freaking lying to us, then maybe we actually could get our country back. Probably won't happen, though.

Posted by Becky at 03:56 PM |

August 09, 2007

Separate but equal

The Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org has a new piece out called What is a Civil Union? In it they examine the various things that different politicians mean by "civil unions" and the philosophical/political premises of each type's opponents. One type in particular caught my attention.

The least concrete difference between civil unions and marriage is also perhaps the most polarizing: the term “marriage” and the social and cultural weight it bears. For many, this is not just a semantic issue. Opponents are concerned that allowing gays to marry will dilute the term “marriage,” threatening the institution it stands for. Supporters, meanwhile, feel that setting up a marriage-like institution for gays (such as civil unions) while defining marriage as fundamentally heterosexual is an example of flawed “separate but equal” legislation.

The whole "marriage" thing is where I've long most disagreed with gay rights advocates.

Setting aside the fact that I feel strongly that the government has absolutely no business being involved with anything beyond the strictly contractual elements of marriage, I support and would happily vote to impliment a civil union statute/law which is as perfectly equal to marriage as possible. But I don't support gay marriage. And I don't for the same reason that I wouldn't support legally redefining Feline to include Canines, Republican to include Communist (although it is tempting...), female to include male or vice versa.

The "separate but equal" argument is specious, in my view, and borders on demagoguery. There are all sorts of things in our daily lives which are absolutely "separate but equal" and nobody complains about any of those. Under most circumstances (ie. no emergency) I can't legally enter a women's restroom in Portland. In fact I could be arrested for it. Separate but equal. The Democratic Party can't legally rename themselves or some fraction of themselves as the Republican Party, thereby potentially throwing our entire political system into chaos. Separate but equal. If Animal Control were to insist that I register my cats I couldn't legally register them as dogs or horses or gold fish. Separate but equal.

It seems to me that gay rights advocates need to decide what it is that they really want. Do they want equal civil rights or do they want to coopt a name. If the former then I'll back 'em up at the ballot box. If the former then I won't.

Posted by Kevin at 09:11 PM |

Gotta Take a Break

You may be wondering at the sudden slow-down in my posting here. And it's about to get a lot slower yet. I've got too many irons in the fire for the next few weeks and probably won't be able to get anything worth reading posted very often for a little while. But I expect Kevin and Mac will find plenty of interesting things to write about, and I for one will be coming by every day.

One of the problems with blogging and actually living a real life at the same time is that sometimes things get so insanely busy that even if you have a few minutes to write, your brain just can't get sufficiently unknotted to come up with anything worth saying. I could bore you with shallow commentary all day long, but I think you can find that just about anywhere and I don't want you to associate that sort of tripe with this site. So for now I'll pop in now and then as I can, and when I have time to really breathe again, I'll be back with my brilliant insights (cough, cough).

Posted by Becky at 03:53 PM |

August 08, 2007

Encouragement for Us Little People

If you're feeling that you are losing your country, that you are just one of the "little people" whose life is being dominated by the corporate "elite," let this provide you with some encouragement. If we stick together, we can take back America. There is great power in numbers.

Posted by Becky at 11:00 AM |

August 07, 2007

Tancredo's Passion is Dangerous

CAIR is calling on GOP Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo to retract his statement of a few days ago to the effect that if he was President he would make it very clear to Islamic terrorists that if they dared nuke an American city, he would bomb Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites of Islam. Bay Buchanan, sister of Pat Buchanan and senior advisor to Tancredo, said, "This shows that we mean business." Mark Santora at the New York Times called Tancredo's statement a "tough stance," but a number of prominent Republicans are publicly criticizing him, for which CAIR is publicly thanking them.

Tommy Thompson said bombing holy sites and artifacts "would do nothing but unify one billion Muslims against us." Mike Huckabee said the idea was like something the Nazis would have done. Duncan Hunter disavowed the approach. State Dept. Spokesman Tom Casey called it "absolutely crazy" and State Dept. Spokesman Sean McCormack said it was "simply outrageous." Interestingly, Tancredo thinks all this opposition is a good thing and basically proves he is right.

Now Tancredo happens to be one of those hot-blooded, passionate people who leans just a tad in the fundamentalist extremist direction himself. I suspect he wouldn't mind in the least if we did engage in an overt religious world war between Christianity and Islam. After all, he has said that Islamic terrorism is "a dictate of their religion."

If one believes that another's religion itself dictates nuking an American city, then it's a very short leap of reason to advocate destroying the holy sites of that religion. As Tancredo's spokesman explained it, "We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that? What is near and dear to them? They're willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?"

The cautious and rational response would, of course, be to find out why the terrorists are angry with us rather than assuming it is because they view us as infidel Christians and hate our freedom. Only if you understand what has them so angry can you be in a position to actually do something to either diffuse that anger or address it constructively.

But if you are, as Tancredo has proven himself to be for many years, a very emotional person who leaps passionately to conclusions and doesn't have one of those little common sense warning lights that goes off in your brain, you should not be making public policy because you will tend to escalate problems rather than solving them. This is particularly important when hundreds of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and thousands of years of cultural and religious artifacts are at stake.

The public responds to the passion of people like Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel. We like it when people say what we are feeling straight up. But that isn't what makes for a good leader. A good leader is one who can keep his or her blood cool in a crisis, make a careful decision based on the facts, and then clearly explain it to the public and win their support.

Posted by Becky at 11:43 AM |

August 06, 2007

Your Guess is as Good as Mine

It looks as if the debate on global warming is stepping up a notch, with Newsweek offering a cover story about "global warming deniers" and Sen. James Inhoffe issuing a scathing response. I've got to tell you, I'm feeling pretty confused right now. When everyone is politically motivated and millions – or, as it turns out, billions - are being thrown at scientists to take one position or the other, there really is no way for the average Jane like me to know what the truth is. Maybe global warming really is a conspiratorial plot being perpetrated by people who have the technology to manipulate the weather and thereby control the population through fear. Ahem.

First, to the Newsweek article. Sharon Begley writes that over the past nearly 30 years, a "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." She points out their changing arguments, the failure of Democratic leadership to "bring to a vote a requirement that automakers improve vehicle mileage," widespread doubt amongst the public, and the money flowing to conservative think tanks and marginal scientists to produce "naysayer" information.

As for Sen. Inhoffe's rebuttal, it critiques Newsweek's use of the word "denier," which some take as insulting to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. It also includes the interesting tidbit that one of the contributing reporters, Eve Conant, was provided with data showing that while global warming skeptics received $19 million in grants from industry to produce reports questioning man's role and the extent of the global warming problem, $50 billion has been paid to scientists to provide the opposite point of view. In fact, more money was spent studying how "farm odors" contribute to global warming than all the money spent in the last twenty years on grants to global warming skeptics. One of the pro-global warming scientists quoted in the article, NASA's James Hansen, received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and then endorsed John Kerry for President.

So you can see why people would turn to the notion that weather manipulation machines are being used to keep the public frightened. And it's not without some basis in reality. For instance, former Defense Secretary William Cohen said in 1997 that eco-terrorists were working on technology that would enable them to set off volcanoes remotely and control the weather among other things. Specifically, at the April 28, 1997 Conference on Terrorism at the University of Georgia in Athens, he said:

There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

What's a girl supposed to think with all this wild stuff floating about and no real ability to see or understand the data? Ultimately, I think the answer for each person comes down to this: we tend to believe what we want to believe and we trust the leaders who seem to share our various political persuasions. And with our pathetic investment in quality education, including reasoning skills, mathematics and the sciences, we are as a nation ill-equipped to do anything else.

Which is precisely why I think character and honesty matter more in a politician any day of the week than political perspective.

Posted by Becky at 04:50 PM |

New Kid on the Block

There’s a new kid on the block at Preemptive Karma.
Except that I’ve been posting comments here for a while so I’m not really ‘new’.
And at 61, I’m not really a ‘kid’ either.
So just who the Hell am I?

I post under Mac McFadden because that’s my name in the real world and it’s easy to remember. Besides, I’m a licensed aircraft mechanic and it’s a requirement of the profession that you sign your name to all your work. Sometimes I wish all professions had that requirement.

I’m a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat, political activist, homeless advocate, community activist, and sarcastic sumbitch. And those are my ‘good’qualities.
I’m sure a few of you will gleefully point out some of my ‘bad’ ones soon enough.

I first got involved in “polytics” (poly = ‘many’; tics = ‘blood sucking parasites’) in 1960 with John Kennedy’s campaign working with the College Dems in Philadelphia. At 14 I was already 6’ tall and 190 lbs and they all assumed I was a student at U of Pennsylvania.
In ’65, I joined the USAF and they sent me to Oregon (which was good) and then to Vietnam (which wasn’t so good). That got me shot and frequently doused with Agent Orange and I returned with some medals and convinced that the Vietnamese were the colonists and we were the British. I joined the VVAW (Vietnam Vets Against the War).

I actually campaigned for a Republican in ’72 when now Senator Arlen Spector ran (unsuccessfully) for Mayor of Philadelphia against the most corrupt politician I ever met; Democrat Frank Rizzo. Rizzo won, probably on the strength of the ‘dead people’ vote.
I came back to the west coast and settled in Klamath Falls, Oregon.

In ’76, Jerry Brown ran for the Democratic nomination and I got active again. Went to my second national convention in 16 years as an Alternate for Jerry. Jimmy Carter got the nomination and won the White House, so it wasn’t a complete loss. The local party hierarchy (in Klamath County) didn’t appreciate ‘upstarts’ who asked embarrassing questions about the lack of democratic process so after a few years, I dropped out again.

By ’92, I’d moved to Eugene and Jerry Brown was running again. Campaign finance was a big issue in Jerry’s platform (he ran under the “$100 Limit”) and it had been 16 years, so I jumped in again and went to the national convention as a Delegate this time. Jerry had 612 delegates at the convention and I referred to us as “The Light Brigade” after the Tennyson poem about an earlier group who charged headlong into what they knew would be a losing battle. Once again, Jerry was NOT the nominee, but the Dems won the White House.

This time I didn’t let the naysayers drive me away and wound up as Chair of the 4th District Dems, a member of the State Executive Committee, and an Electoral College Voter in ’96 (that, plus $1.50, will get me a cup of coffee several places I know).
As pissed off as I get at the high-handed and unscrupulous tactics that some Republicans engage in, I get even more pissed off when members of my own party do the same.
And I stand up and say so publicly.
(Which doesn’t always endear me to some of my fellow Dems.)

My hot button issues tend to be:
Fair application of the democratic process as embodied in the Constitution.
Torture (I’m agin it)
The treatment of our own poor and homeless (we should be ashamed).
Equal opportunity (not to be confused with equal results)
Equality before the law (should Paris Hilton serve more days in jail than Scooter Libby?)

In other words, I’m one of those people Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and others of their ilk, absolutely HATE.
A liberal.
(Oh, and by the way, I was invited.)

Mac McFadden

Posted by Mac at 01:29 PM |

Taking Down America, One Step at a Time

James Risen writes in the New York Times today about the law President Bush signed yesterday to expand the government's powers to listen in on Americans' telephone calls and read their emails without a warrant. The way Risen writes this, it sounds as if the President did this all on his own.

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

But doesn't Congress pass laws before the President signs them? And don't we have a Democratic majority in Congress? Can someone explain to me why the Democrats were so willing to complain about the Patriot Act, but now they are toeing the line when it comes to surveillance without a warrant? Particularly when so many Americans are so unhappy with the N.S.A. wiretapping program? Why did this law have to be rushed through at the last minute?

Something particularly chilling: telecommunications companies were concerned about being sued for cooperating with the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program and pressured the government to place the program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so it would be subject to the scrutiny of the FISA court. Apparently, the court was suddenly "swamped" with "an enormous volume" of warrant requests to the point where everyone decided the law signed Sunday was a necessity.

How in the world can a law like this pass legal muster? The right to privacy is subject to strict judicial scrutiny - the highest level of judicial scrutiny, meaning a compelling governmental interest must be present and the action must be the least restrictive, least intrusive, least violative of privacy possible to achieve that compelling interest. How can the government be allowed to eavesdrop based on a "reasonable belief," which is a "rational basis" standard – the lowest level of judicial scrutiny? This is so clearly unconstitutional and un-American that it's frightening.

Posted by Becky at 11:44 AM |

August 05, 2007

Epiphany: I am a Progressive. My story

A little bit ago I was reading at Blue Oregon, one of my favorite reads and a self-described Progressive blog, and as I typically do before posting a comment I was running what I wanted to say through my mind... sorta like a one-sided conversation. It helps me clarify exactly what I want to say, when it occurred to me to ask myself whether I might be a Progressive, a label which I've long viscerally rejected placing upon myself.

I think maybe I am a Progressive, and that's no easy thing for me to say.

I first became politically aware during the Nixon Impeachment hearings in 1974. I was 10 years old and had somehow acquired a crystal radio with one of those single earplugs that were common back then. To my young mind it was readily apparent that this Impeachment thing was pretty major. I've always had a very high EQ and I could tell by the tone of the voices I was hearing through that earplug that this was a momentus thing that was happening. I was instantly hooked and followed the issue on that radio as much as I could.

After that rather rude initial introduction to the wonderful world of American politics I quickly figured out that although there was no doubt in my mind that what Nixon had done was wrong, that I nevertheless identified with the Republican point of view... and rather strongly at that. I saw Nixon as a great man who had done good things, but who had been corrupted by power and made a very grave mistake. This must have taken a couple years to really process because my next memory of really immersing myself in politics was two years later. We were living in Cave Junction in the Southwest corner of Oregon and I once again had a radio. I don't remember what kind of radio it was but what I do remember is that I was able to receive a consistently strong signal from the Sanfrancisco Bay area's KGO radio station which at that time had a talk radio format with a heavy emphasis on politics. Maybe it still does... I don't know. I haven't listened to it in decades and don't even know whether it still exists. But what's relevant here is that the more I immersed myself in politics the more strongly I self-identified as a Republican. Issues of conservative versus liberal didn't really occur to me until a number of years later. I just knew that I was a very partisan Republican at heart and I particularly loved the partisan aspect of it. It was us versus them and I definitely wanted the good guys to win.

Somehow I intuitively knew that most folks weren't as fascinated with politics as I was. So I just assumed that my parents didn't share my keen interest in politics. At the very least they never talked about politics. I knew that they voted but had no idea who they voted for. In my niavety I just assumed that as apparently rational people they surely must vote for Republicans. One day we were driving somewhere in our customized Chevy van (this was the 70's after all...) just after the Oregon Primary and the subject came up. My dad said that he'd voted for Gerald Ford - the only rational choice from my 12 year old's perspective. Then my mother utterly floored me by announcing that she'd voted for Jerry Brown!!! Jimminy Christmas... my mom was a flaming Liberal!! My first thought was that she'd lost her mind. I'm serious! But that didnt' last long because she's always been one of the smartest, most rational people I've ever known in my life. Deeply perplexed and utterly unable to wrap my young mind around this profound dichotomy I filed it away in my mind as an unexplainable mystery and continued on with my partisan Republican worldview.

I wish I could say that Reagan's Iran/Contra scandal is what startled me out of my lazy political assumptions, but for some reason it was Bush 41's declaration that he had been "out of the loop" on the whole issue which broke the proverbial Camel's back. As a political junky I knew perfectly well that he'd been the CIA Director and Ambassador to China prior to becoming Vice President. Directorship of the CIA simply does not go to people who are ever "out of the loop" and clearly the ambassadorship to a hugely important nation like China would only ever go to the very best connected individuals, for patently obvious practical reasons. That's how I saw it then and it's how I see it today. Faced with this, IMHO, bald-faced lie by my Republican Vice President, coupled with the excuses for the entire sordid mess which I was hearing from Rush Limbaugh (yeah... I was a Dittohead back then) I did the only thing that I could and concluded that I'd been duped. After a couple years of mounting frustration and anger I severed my formal relationship with the GOP and reregistered as an Independent... which I remain to this day. There is another, arguably more critical chapter to my ideological evolution during this same period but I don't want to wander too far afield here.

Even as an Independent I continued to prefer moderate Republicans at the ballot box by a roughly 2 or 3 to 1 ratio over Democrats. More importantly, I self-identified strongly as right-of-center ideologically. Then I met Carla.

I got recruited off an AOL message board devoted to "discussing" (yeah, that's a mighty generous description but it's what it was called...) the 2000 choice between Bush/Gore to join a now defunct Senate Simulation game being hosted by AOL. The recruitment email was geared towards recruiting players to join either the SIM Democratic or Progressive parties, but to my mind there was only one choice - the SIM Indies! Ironically, although that didn't become obvious until much later, Carla was half of the two-person recruiting team which had emailed me. I should add that the Senate SIM is also where I first met Alan (a listed PK writer who hasn't written here for a long time), Donald (another AWOL former writer at my other (dead) blog - Indie Castle and Burnt Orange Report co-founder and ex-writer Jim Dallas. Oh, and occasional PK commenter Chris C. was, along with Donald, another fellow SIM Indie.

Living just a few miles from each other, Carla and I eventually met in person and instantly became fast friends. In fact it was during one of our many meet ups at Starbucks that I first coined the phrase "Preemptive Karma." It was originally just a sarcastic/ironic wordplay on Bush's preemptive war philosophy. But the more I thought about it the more I liked the term. Anyway, through many a discussion over Starbucks coffee she managed to yank me to the left and I slowly changed my ideological self-identification to simple Centrist. But that's where I drew the line...

The problem is that although I didn't like it, I couldn't evade the inherent logic in her argument that "Centrism" is ideologically meaningless because the goalposts are constantly changing. So over the last year or so I've grudgingly conceeded to myself that I am ideologically ever so slightly left-of-center, but I've continued to cling to that "center" part. Prior to that my self-identity as right-of-center must have been readily obvious because one of the early blogs to link to PK described my political voice as Slacker Conservatism, whatever that means...

So this morning I was reading an exchange in comments over at Blue Oregon between self-described progressives. Having an opinion on what was being discussed I was doing my usual pre-comment routine and running what I wanted to say through my mind... As I said at the inception here, it's sorta like a one-sided conversation... as if I were really speaking to the group in person. I dunno why I do that but I always have. Somehow it helps me clarify exactly what I want to say.

Anyway, for whatever reason it occurred to me to ask myself if I am a progressive. See, it's an issue that's always there in my mind when I join in a conversation with a group of progressives. In the past I've usually gone out of my way to couch myself as not actually a progressive. So it's always there when I read Blue Oregon. But this morning the answer was different.

I went to Wikipedia and went to the section on Progressivism in the United States and read, trying for the first time to honestly guage whether it's description of the tenets of Progressivism really do fit me. For the most part they do.

What doesn't fit is the advocation of Socialism by some (but not all!) Progressives. Nor do I particularly buy the Laissez-Faire tenet, another less than univeral tenet of Progressivism. And while I readily agree with the philosophical underpinnings of the labor union movement and do believe that they serve a useful purpose, it is my personal experience, having been a union member, that in practice unionism is most often a "pot, meet kettle" thing. But, other than those exceptions the rest of it I can confidently endorse and support.

I guess I am a Progressive. A staunchly Independent Progressive. But a Progressive nevertheless. And THAT is going to take some getting used to...

Posted by Kevin at 07:17 AM |

August 03, 2007

Bush & Co. "underestimated", but Obama didn't!

As if there weren't already enough reasons to have lost confidence in the abysmally incompetent Bush administration, along comes Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remind us. Here's what he said today about Iraq:

"I just think in some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation, which, let's face it, is not just some kind of secondary thing," Gates said aboard his plane en route to Washington.

Now watch and listen to what Barack Obama said in late 2002.

America can do so very much better than George W Bush.

Posted by Kevin at 07:18 PM |

Rove Flips off the American People

Yesterday, Karl Rove blew off a Senate Judiciary Committee, ignoring its subpoena to appear and answer questions about the firings of U.S. attorneys. You know, let me reword that in light of the fact that Congress is us. Yesterday, Karl Rove blew off the American people, or, as Lynne in Lakeland says, he said "Fuck You to all of us."

All we got was a young White House political aide, who said basically that the whole reason for all the millions of missing White House emails sent and received at RNC addresses and later dumped was because the White House wouldn't give him a blackberry, so he got one from the RNC. Remember all that Republican criticism of the youthful and inexperienced people brought on board by the Clinton Administration? I wonder how they're feeling now that it's their own guy who's being humiliated by the incompetence of a bunch of snot-nosed kids.

I tend to concur with SuperHush on what Congress will do about this: nothing. Why? "Because they’re pussies."

Posted by Becky at 11:28 AM |

Surprise! Diebold is Hackable

For those of us who have been watching the results of black box voting for awhile, it comes as no surprise that Diebold voting machines cannot guarantee a trustworthy election. Yes, here we are clear in 2007 and now, finally, a study commissioned by the California Secretary of State confirms that someone with access to a single Diebold machine could altar the outcome of an entire election. Never mind that many groups, such as Bev Harris's Black Box Voting and Moloch Industries, have been warning us about the Diebold security problems for years.

The report found four main weaknesses in the software:

[V]ulnerabilities that allow an attacker to install malware on the machines, a failure to guarantee the secrecy of ballots, a lack of controls to prevent election workers from tampering with ballots and results, and susceptibility to viruses that could allow attackers to an influence an election.

Marty Kaplan at the Huffington Post last year put up a funny but frightening video showing how simple it is to hack a Diebold voting machine right from the polling booth. I guess that hasn't been proof enough to stop states from buying and using the anti-democratic machines, however. It is worth noting that other brands out there are also insecure. Sequoia and ES&S both have had problems, too.

You know, it's bad enough when you don't have any decent candidates to vote for, but add to it the reality that nobody may actually be counting your votes and you've pretty much demoralized people into no longer bothering. Will Congress or our state legislatures do anything about this? Don't count on it.

Posted by Becky at 10:58 AM |

August 02, 2007

Bridges or wars? What exactly is our "national interests"?

A comment by an expert on bridges today on NPR's Talk of the Nation today caught my interest. Paul Thomson was talking about how many bridges in the United States right now are considered to have compromised strutural integrity and how much it would cost to replace them. The price tag: $20 billion.

The cost to American taxpayers of the Iraqi Occupation is running roughly $2 billion per week. That means that the estimated total cost of replacing every structurally compromised bridge in the nation is equal to a mere 10 weeks of what we're dumping into W's Folly... er... the Iraqi Occupation.

Mind you, that money is already there. No new taxes by any governmental entity needed. We've paid for, or will pay for those bridges many times over. About 35 times over by my count - $20 billion X 35 = $700 billion. But all we have to show for it is body bags, post-traumatic stress disorder, disfigured/crippled bodies and a whole new playground for Al Queda.

Considering how crucial big bridges are to our entire economy I ask you which expenditure would have best served our national interests: Iraq or critical bridges in America?

Okay... I just saw this new AP report citing substantially higher figures for dealing with all those structurally-challenged bridges - $188 billion rather than the $20 billion figure suggested by Mr. Thomas. But even so that's less than two of the current 4+ years we've been in Iraq. The projected direct total costs of W's Folly still overwhelms even this much higher price tag for bridge repair: $700B - $188B = $512 BILLION dollars.

Posted by Kevin at 08:41 PM |

August 01, 2007

Oregon GOP attack on Merkley is absurd but unsurprising

Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley(D) threw his hat into the ring for Oregon's junior Senate seat, currently held by Gordon Smith(R), taking a shot at Smith's politically expedient change of heart about how Bush Co has waged the War and Occupation of Iraq. Naturally Oregon Republicans wasted no time in trying to plant a phony skeleton in Merkley's closet by pointing to a 2003 non-binding resolution passed by the Oregon House and voted for by Merkley.

Now understand that I am a long-time Independent with zero Democratic axes to grind. Understand further that I've opposed the Iraq Farce from day one. So much so that the first candidate I supported for Prez in 2004 was Florida Senator Bob Graham(D) specifically because of his inspiring oratory before the Senate opposing the Bill granting Bush a blank check to wage war on Iraq. It's also the key reason why I'm now supporting Obama for Prez in 2008 - because he is the ONLY candidate who got Iraq right BEFORE we invaded... to the point that his statements verge on outright prophecy because of how uncannily accurate his pre-war concerns were with respect to the situation we see in Iraq today.

The non-binding resolution, brought a few days after our invasion of Iraq, expressed support for American troops. The resolution also "acknowledged the courage of President George W Bush" and "expressed support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein". Merkley said at the time that his vote was specifically in support of our troops and nothing more. In fact he record proves that he very clearly distinguished between supporting our troops and expressing any support for the war or especially how and why the war was initiated. But Shawn Cleave of the Oregon GOP claims that he doesn't buy that explanation and tried today to use it against Merkley.

"Jeff Merkley's vote make his politically crafted comments today hypocritical, disingenuous and factually untrue. You only get a yes or no vote on the floor. You only get a yes or no vote on the floor."

What kind of fucktardary is that supposed to be?

1. What part of the 2003 vote having been on a non-binding resolution does Cleave think Oregonians are too stupid to grasp? It was an expression of sentiment, not an official Bill enacting change of any sort in our laws or means of governance. Of course the later is determined solely by a yes or no vote and the vote encompasses the entirety of the legislative action... by necessity. That is an utterly different thing from non-binding resolutions.

2. Merkley very specifically, very clearly and very publically distinguished, at the time (!!!), between his support for our troops and why they were in harms way to begin with. To wit:

"I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. But that is a conversation or a debate for another day."

Cleave and the Oregon Republican Party know that this is a totally contrived issue. They are counting on Oregonians being too stupid to figure it out for ourselves.

Concerned and caring citizens may rightly wonder if the Oregon GOP is willing to insult our intelligence on the little things then how can we possibly trust that they're going to be straight with us on the big things?

Posted by Kevin at 08:59 PM |

Moloch Reins in Baghdad

You may have heard the wonderful news out of Iraq yesterday that July brought us the lowest American death toll in eight months. We "only" lost 78 of our finest, down from 101 in June. What you probably didn't hear, however, was that deaths of Iraqi civilians are way up. The latest government figures say civilian deaths in Iraq rose by 33% in July to at least 1,652 despite the country's security plan, which began with the U.S.'s "surge." That means that in just one month nearly half as many Iraqi civilians have died as all the Americans killed in Iraq since the war began. And those deaths have not been easy ones. Dozens of people – including children - are burned to death or have body parts blown off and bleed to death in the wake of car bombs and suicide bombs every day.

The violence has reached such a level that the largest Sunni bloc resigned from the coalition government, meaning Iraq can no longer claim to be nationally unified.

May those who are so glibly sacrificing the children of two nations to the god of monsters and filling buckets with the tears of grieving mothers find themselves tormented in the bowels of Hell for all eternity. Amen.

Posted by Becky at 11:45 AM |

A "Unique Creature"

Dick Cheney's interview with Larry King on July 30 has certainly made a splash, with several different lines of stories coming out of it. The one I find most interesting is his comments regarding which branch of government he considers himself to be a part of. He's had a knack lately for claiming to be from whichever branch will offer him the greatest right to be uncooperative with Congressional investigations. Now we learn that's because, in his words, " the vice president is kind of a unique creature, if you will, in that you’ve got a foot in both branches." I guess he just picks up whichever foot he needs to when the rules applying to it might get him into trouble.

Back in June, he told House investigators that he was exempt from an executive order that would safeguard classified national security information because he was not an "entity within the executive branch." But in 2001, when investigators sought information about his energy task force, he claimed executive privilege. He also included himself in the executive branch in an April, 2003 interview. So Congressional Democrats, irritated over his refusal now to be considered part of the executive branch, threatened to withhold executive branch funding for his office, to which the White House responded that the statement had reflected Cheney's lawyers' opinions and not the opinions of Cheney himself. Nevertheless, he still will not say the words, "I am part of the executive branch." Because, as we all know, he's a weasel.

The wing-nuts, however, see it all very differently. They think that Larry King was simply much too hard on the Vice President. Matthew Balen at Newsbusters says King threw "light questions" recently at Al Gore, but "pressed" Cheney on "hot political topics" and thereby revealed his liberal bias. Never mind the fact that Al Gore these days is more celebrity than politician, while Dick Cheney is actually effecting policy for the entire nation, if not the world. Not only that, anyone who thinks the White House is incapable of pre-screening and approving all Larry King questions of the Vice President is a moron. Cheney knew exactly what he would be asked and it was all copasetic.

Posted by Becky at 11:37 AM |