They Get Letters

Obama Didn't Break "Anthem" Law

2007-11-16T08:10:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted in awhile (job and WoW taking up time), but I just had to get my two cents in about this "Barack Obama broke the law when he didn't put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem" stupidity that's apparently going around.

MSN.com had a front page link to an article by "Explainer" Torie Bosch in Slate. The headline is "How Barack Obama Broke the Law," an outrageous, inflamatory, unfair title for a sloppy conclusion about the legislated respect one must show for the flag and the anthem.

Some conservative bloggers are furious about a photo showing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama without his hand on his heart during the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Obama has countered that the photo was taken during the national anthem, not the Pledge of Allegiance—so he didn't have to. Is that true?

No.

Clear enough. Bosch says American citizens have to put their hands over their hearts during the National Anthem, and links to the law that says so.

Here's the text of the law provided in the link, emphasis added:

(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;
(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and
(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

Dumbasses across the country, be informed: "should" means "doesn't have to." In law, mandatory language is "shall." So when Barack Obama said he didn't have to put his hand over his heart, he was right and Torie Bosch and conservative bloggers are ignorant assholes.

For frick's sake, it's going to be Al Gore and John Kerry all over again.

Stupid Liberal Media.

...I also just have to get my Blackadder quote in about this one:

How disgusting. A Bosche on the sole of my boot. I shall have to find a patch of grass to wipe it on. Probably get shunned in the Officers' Mess. "Sorry about the pong you fellows, trod in a Bosche and can't get rid of the whiff."

That Was One Hell of a Code Red

2007-08-10T16:00:00.000-07:00

Lieutenant General Philip Kensinger evaded the service of a subpoena to appear before Congress and tell what he knows of the death of Pat Tillman. And he's still in hiding. Which means he has some big ass secret he's keeping.

It's not a simple friendly fire and misguided coverup type of secret. And it's not a fragging and a misguided coverup type of secret. It's got to be a murder and deliberate coverup kind of secret.

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable saying Pat Tillman was murdered.

Unlike Lt. Col. Matthew Andrew Markinson, I doubt Kensinger has even the twisted honor necessary to put a bullet in his own head. Which, of course, he shouldn't.

I Had a Dream

2007-07-31T13:29:00.001-07:00

Two nights ago I had a dream in which I was arguing with my mother -- again! -- that "the media," insofar as it is a single entity, is not liberal.

I wasn't even paying attention to the news except to notice the deaths of several people all at once (Ingmar Bergman, Tom Snyder and the coach of my mom's favorite football team, the 49ers of the '80s, Bill Walsh) and the seizure of Chief Justice Roberts. I am, after all, a Level 15 Night Elf Huntress who has to feed her bear on a regular basis (neep!).

But today's Glenn Greenwald is about how two Bush and Iraq War Supporters who supported the Surge, Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, announced that they were actually war opponents who have been forced by the brilliant strategy of the Surge to admit that it's really working after all.

And "the media" sopped it up, playing it just as the propagandists wanted them to.

I spent yesterday and today reading through virtually all of the writings and interviews of these two Brookings geniuses over the past four years concerning Iraq. There is no coherence or consistency to anything they say. It shifts constantly. They say whatever they need to say at the moment to justify the war for which they bear responsibility. It is exactly like reading through the writings of Bill Kristol, Tom Friedman and every other individual who flamboyantly supported this disaster and -- motivated solely by salvaging their own reputations -- are desperate to find some method to argue that they were right.

Even though I write frequently about how broken and corrupt our establishment media is, witnessing these two war lovers -- supporters of the invasion, advocates of the Surge, comrades of Fred Kagan -- mindlessly depicted all day yesterday by media mouthpieces as the opposite of what they are was really quite startling. After all, there is a record as long as it is clear demonstrating what they really are.

And lest we get distracted by this propaganda nonsense into thinking that the Surge is actually working because "these Howard-Dean-like War Opponents say it," the Surge is, in point of fact, not working at all (Matthew Yglesias).

[Michael O'Hanlon] totally backed down. Said the progress has only been against aqi [Al Qaeda in Iraq - Ed.], that sectarian violence and the civil war is as bad as ever, and that the current strategy will probably fail. He thinks we should partition the country. Why the turnabout from the optimistic op-ed? He didn't say.

Please please please stop listening to these liars.

Both links via Eschaton

/dance

2007-07-26T19:53:00.000-07:00

I've installed the graphics card. I've spent half a day downloading the game and all its patches.

I'm playing WoW.

Let's celebrate.

See you in a few days when my obsession ebbs.

Lord Chodemort

2007-07-24T16:50:00.000-07:00

About a third of the way through Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows it's become frighteningly clear that Lord Voldemort and the Death Eaters have taken over our government.

I Have Contempt for Your Contempt of My Contempt

2007-07-23T17:26:00.000-07:00

Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten will likely be charged with contempt by Congress on Wednesday, reports The Raw Story (via Fark).

Tony Snow poo-pooed the contempt charges.

He repeated the White House's offer for off-the-record interviews for officials like Miers on the US Attorneys firings, and suggested that the Justice Department was unlikely to proceed with contempt charges, "if precedent is any guide."

Take your thoroughly corrupted DOJ and stick it somewhere unsavory.

Congress doesn't need the DOJ to arrest, try and imprison Miers and Bolten because of Inherent Contempt.

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Mwaha, mwahaha, mwahahaha!

For a little bonus, here's Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley on the subject (Crooks & Liars).

For Pither

2007-07-23T16:12:00.000-07:00

Because he seemed a little grumpy today.

Thank you, Sleestak of Lady, That's My Skull.

Sen. Kerry Gets the Joke Right This Time

2007-07-21T20:45:00.000-07:00

John Kerry recited a limerick about Sen. Vitter at a DSCC fundraiser over the weekend (The Hill):

There once was a man named Vitter
Who vowed that he wasn’t a quitter
But with stories of women
And all of his sinnin’
He knows his career’s in the — oh, never mind.

Hahaha, but...

Just like a Democrat to crap out at the last second. :-/

Via WTF Is It Now?

This Calls for True Bipartisanship, 'Cause the Dems are Gonna Screw Us Over

2007-07-20T15:23:00.000-07:00

It's amazing what two minutes in a kiddie pool can do. I got too cold.

But the shock made me think a little deeper into this Glenn Greenwald post in which he says:

We know the administration breaks laws with impunity and believes it can. That is no longer in question. The only real question is what, if anything, we are willing to do about that.

More specifically, Greenwald lays the blame on the Democratic leadership in Congress.

It has been six months since the Democrats took over Congress. Yes, they have commenced some investigations and highlighted some wrongdoing. But that is but the first step, not the ultimate step, which we desperately need. Where are the real confrontations needed to vindicate the rule of law and restore constitutional order?

The other day, Maha wrote in Frogs in a Pickle (about the Executive Order of July 19):

The cabal commits some outrage, which knocks some of us off balance, creating rage and uncertainty, we try to sort it out, and then we adjust and life goes on. We regain our balance. The net effect, to use a parable, is the familiar story of the frogs who were slowly boiled to death by ever so slowly increasing the temperature.

The ease at which this happens is captured in the title of a DailyKos diary on the same topic, Bush Declares Martial Law. Country Yawns, Changes Channel.

But has anyone considered that the Democratic leadership in Congress is letting it all happen because they know they will own the White House in '08 and they want those powers for themselves?

They're letting Bush do the dirty work, take the public hatred and create an insulated and all-powerful Executive. They're not going to significantly reverse Bush's encroachments once the Unitary Executive lies in their hands and the public has moved on, distracted by the last season of Lost.

We have seriously got to lay the public pressure on now before it's all water under the bridge.

It's Hot

2007-07-20T14:52:00.000-07:00

I can't think straight. And I'm sleepy.

So I got nuthin'.

Have a nice day.

Obscenity, Arrogance, Impeachment

2007-07-16T16:53:00.001-07:00

I heard Ed Schultz talking about his appearances lately in which he threw the impeachment word out there. He's been helping to push the cause, having been turned towards impeachment by the Libby commutation.

He talked to Pelosi, who now says impeachment has always been on the table. He talked before a crowd, mentioned the "I" word and got a lot of applause, which appeared on C-SPAN. And he appeared on Hardball, Mike Barnicle subbing for Chris Matthews (via Crooks & Liars):

Ed Schultz: There's polls out there that say that 46% of registered voters want this man impeached. The Democrats are behind the curve, they need to get with the American people and get aggressive.

And that led to the subject of how out of touch Washington in general is, and a very appropriate word was used to describe The Beltway:

Mike Barnicle: There's also something going on, you mentioned the Beltway having, no matter how you feel about this war, there's something that verges on the obscene about the politics of the war being played out in Washington while all these funerals are being conducted across the country.

Karen Hanretty, The Gropenator's former spokeswoman, chimed in:

But then I'll tell you what also is, I think, obscene to people, is the idea that you would conduct a war based on polls based, versus principle. ... Now, you might not agree with, you might not agree with the President's principles, but the idea of running a war based on polls ...

Karen Hanretty might be right if they were talking about some other war that had been fought on principle. She'd be even closer to right if they were talking about a war at all rather than an occupation.

However, what would she call invading a country based on a desire to do so for matters other than national security and using marketing techniques and fearmongering to convince a large majority of the populace (reflected through polls!) that it's a good idea? I'd call it freakingly, outrageously, humongously obscene.

Anyway, what does this "running a war based on polls" really mean? Does it mean, "we asked 1000 Americans which direction Able Company ought to go: 10% said North; 12% said South; 7% said Other Direction; and a whopping 81% said WTF kind of stupid poll is this?!? or its near equivalent."

Of course it doesn't mean that. Polling against a war means that the war is obviously FUBAR in some way. I happen to be a member of that subset which thinks this particular war was FUBAR from the outset because it was unprincipled and false; but there is a larger segment who previously supported the President and have now come to the realization that not only is the Iraq Occupation FUBAR, but our own Bush Occupation is skirting too closely to the shoals of FUBAR Island.

What Karen Hanretty was doing was further laying the groundwork that some are working on: blaming the American public for when we are forced to leave Iraq to the uncontrolled chaos that we started. After all, our cowardly Congressmen will have bowed to the polls.

Nevermind the fact that the President had majority support of the populace; nearly unanimous support from Congress and the So Called Liberal Media; carpal tunnel syndrome from all the blank checks he had to endorse; complete autonomy and no Congressional oversight in the conduct of the war and occupation. It will still be someone else's fault that we didn't entirely tame that beast, bending it to our will.

Apparently, there is something unprincipled about finally seeing the huge, growing stack of human bodies and getting angry and queasy about contributing blindly to the piss-poor strategery that refuses to even attempt to adapt.

And that's truly what the polls are all about. It's not an attempt by the public to run an occupation by popular opinion, it's a reflection of the opinion of the populace that no one is really running anything (at least nothing that would lead to a somewhat successful occupation rather than huge wads of cash for war profiteers).

The public swallowed the President's line about Iraq, and he would have gotten away with it if it had worked (the meddling kids and their dog only got attention when they were being marginalized and ridiculed). He was given every tool to make it work, and he didn't do it. And in the face of glaring facts that everyone can plainly see, he refuses to acknowledge his mistakes or try to change. Except to throw more bodies at it and demand more carte blanche unaccountability.

All he had to do was make it work. Since it was unworkable to begin with, all he needs to do now is admit the colossal mistake he made and change. That's also unworkable given a particular attribute of our President.

Above in the ellipses of Karen Hanretty's little speech on obscenity, and then again at the end of what she had to say, Ed Scultz said this about the American people, their opinions, and the President's relationship with them:

The American people have to matter ... The American people have to matter. And he has been totally arrogant to their feelings.

I think that just about sums it up.

Impeach Them Postcard

2007-07-16T16:11:00.000-07:00

I received my postcards in the mail, addressed three to my U.S. Senators and Representative and two of them to The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News.

I included in the postcards to the newspapers this message:

I would like to see an editorial advocating the commencement of a Congressional committee which will investigate potential impeachable offenses committed by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

On all the cards I included my contact info, so they know it comes from one individual and is not astroturf.

Missed My Own Blogiversary

2007-07-10T16:54:00.000-07:00

It's been two years as of June 23.

That means I have staying power.

Hope you're as excited as I.

U.S. v. Bush

2007-07-10T16:19:00.000-07:00

Randi Rhodes just read the beginning of a book by career prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega. It's a hypothetical indictment on fraud charges of the senior players of the Bush Administration who lead us into war: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell.

TomDispatch has more.

And here's the book through Amazon.

Spread the Word: Impeachment

2007-07-06T11:25:00.001-07:00

I made a graphic and put it on postcards, t-shirts, magnets and stickers ... everything for advertising and an easy way to build a movement that requires nothing more than spending a few bucks and walking around.

Get them while they're hot!

... I'm just following the suggestion of Avedon Carol from The Sideshow who suggested sending a simple "Impeach Them" postcard to your member of Congress. Heck, send them to everyone.

The Crystallization

2007-07-05T14:54:00.000-07:00

From Olbermann's Special Comment (from Crooks & Liars):

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Mr. Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously:
“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

But in one night, Nixon transformed it. Watergate — instantaneously — became a
simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law. Of
insisting — in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not
previously understood — that he was the law.

Not the Constitution.

Not the Congress.

Not the Courts.

Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

Clinton Didn't Do It!!! Part II

2007-07-05T13:17:00.000-07:00

Clinton Didn't Do It!!! was a draft I started before I took Ben to see Transformers (which is good summer fare for big kids and adults). I woke up Pither to watch Andy because, as I told Pither when he asked why he needed to get up, "Andy will get into shit."

Obviously, Andy got into shit and published my post.

The point I was going to make about Clinton's Grand Jury testimony was that I didn't see anything that was an obvious lie. I thought he was pretty candid about his attempts to mislead the court in the Paula Jones deposition, and he hinted at a very good defense to any contradictions between him and those who would be witnesses against him; people can have different recollections and understandings about things that were said, such as in his example of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Plus, he admitted that he could have said things he was accused of saying though he didn't specifically remember.

That case would have had to have been tried by a jury. As the Special Prosecutor who took over after Starr said, no jury would have convicted Clinton. That's because not only was Clinton still popular, but because there would have been quite enough reason to believe Clinton's version to amount to reasonable doubt.

Not so with Libby.

So anyone who says Clinton committed (or especially admits to committing) perjury either doesn't know what the hell they're talking about or are deliberately lying.

By the way, I found this Village Voice article by jagoff Nat Hentoff (who is a jagoff for many more reasons than this article) from the week of February 14, 2001.

In Clinton's case, said [Richard] Posner, [chief judge of the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals], if justice had been done—and considering the skills of his defense team—the likely sentence would have been 30 to 37 months.

[Emphasis added]

The concern, said Hentoff, was to spare Bush from having to pardon Clinton. That's Hentoff's opinion, since I don't think it would have even come to that. But the sentence Libby received was obviously not considered a far departure from normal justice in 2001.

... Make sure you check out my Clinton Did It! bumper sticker in TGL Cafe Press Stuff.

Clinton Didn't Do It!!!

2007-07-05T08:55:00.001-07:00

Let's get something straight here. Clinton and Libby didn't do the same things.

Clinton didn't commit perjury, and, contrary to Kate O'Beirne's and Chris Matthews' fantasies, never admitted to having committed perjury.

Perjury has a specific and technical definition which differentiates it from misleading the court or lying under oath. The lie has to be material to the case at hand.

The judge in the Paula Jones case declared Clinton guilty of lying under oath, for which he was fined and disbarred. It wasn't perjury because he attempted to mislead the court in a matter that had nothing to do with Paula Jones' lawsuit.

In the Grand Jury that took up investigating his Jones deposition (which I read in its entirety the other night), had he deliberately lied about m,mnbvcxz123465

... See completed post in Clinton Didn't Do It!!! Part II

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

2007-07-03T12:59:00.000-07:00

I've heard the word "impeachment" a lot since yesterday.

After last year's election, I wrote about impeachment. I made the following erroneous prediction:

Bush just got his ass checked by the populace which gave us a Congress that will further check Bush's ass. And being the lap dogs to power that they are, the press will finally do a better job of helping to check Bush. What happened Tuesday was just as much a political solution to an un-Constitutional situation as impeachment, and one that is a lot less divisive and time consuming than investigations and impeachment.

What I failed to appreciate at the time was just how deep and how far the corruption had spread, just how far out of touch with Americans and our values and principles the powerful elite had gotten. And also how twisted all our public institutions had become, particularly the press.

Our system needs an overhauling, from top to bottom. But as fucked up as healthcare, labor, economic, environmental, energy, public health and safety issues are, the biggest fuck up has been the press, which is why, when I think of it, I say a silent "Thank you" to Al Gore for helping to bring us the Information Superhighway.

Smart dictators know that he who controls the information controls the world. That's why five corporations own nearly all of the major media outlets; why the Fairness Doctrine was done away with; why the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed (forget all the phony scandals, this one and NAFTA are the scandals Clinton should be pilloried for). That's why, despite market demands, 91% of radio programming in the U.S. is conservative. And not just conservative, but ultra-conservative. And not just ultra-conservative, but virulent, lying, and horrible. Our nation's systems are so fucked up because a twisted media helped convince people that black = white, up = down and that private healthcare works well for everyone.

Much is made of a poll that showed many newsrooms are filled with people who donate to Democrats or consider themselves liberal. Besides being not true, those people don't get to air or write just whatever strikes their fancy in the manner that they choose. They have to please editors who have to please managers who have to please owners who have historically been overwhelmingly conservative. And the media has been so worked-over to believe it is liberally biased that they bend over backwards to make themselves appear balanced to people who skew hard-Right; which means they have to help propagate (or at least not challenge) Rightwing lies, since that is what Rightwingers think is the truth.

And yet ...

Despite all the crowing and false Clinton analogies by the conservative radio hate-talkers and the Beltway Pundits and "reporters" who owe their million-dollar careers to their corporate, Bush-worshipping overlords and want to continue sipping cocktails with the people they're supposed to be covering; despite the imbalance between someone telling an outright lie from the Right to someone missing the point from the center-Right that passes for balanced debate on television, more than 2/3 of those polled said Bush was wrong to let Libby off the hook.

Despite a public penchant for stupid TV shows, we're apparently still not dummies.

The American public knew it was bullshit when Clinton was impeached for lying about a private matter after all the other scandals he'd been accused of had been shown to be lies; the American public knew it was bullshit when a spoiled heiress got to go home from jail because her tummy ached; and the American public knows it's bullshit that a man convicted in Federal Court for lying to cover up potential treason was commuted by the very people he helped to cover for.

My prediction about the impeachment of Bush was false because I had faith still that, with all the checks and balances and separation of powers we've got that Something would have to intervene to stop the flagrant abuses we've been subjected to, and that Something was the overwhelming might of public opinion and the electorate working its will in the Halls of Power.

But this arrogant bunch thinks it's got everything locked up. From elections (various methods of disenfranchisement including vote caging, computerized voting with no paper trails which are monitored by conservatives) to the courts (which they ignore when it's convenient) to the wimpy Congress (whose laws are ignored when they're inconvenient) to the novel interpretations of what the Executive Branch is. They act as if there are no checks, balances or separation of powers, as if public opinion is nothing.

And the sad thing is, after everything we've been subjected to -- renditioning, suspension of Habeas Corpus, illegal wiretapping, torture, illegal wars, breaches of national security, pillaging and raping of the Commons, disenfranchisement of voters, abuse of the military -- if nothing is done about any of the Bush Administration's flagrant abuses, then they're fucking right.

Anyone can do anything they're allowed to get away with.

It's fine and good to talk about Rule of Law, American Principles, the Constitution. But it's all pixie dust, a great big pile of nothing without the people with the will to enforce it.

"A Republic, if you can keep it," Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying when asked whether the United States is a Republic or a Monarchy.

Well, our Republic, with all the associated freedoms and equalities that entails and that we've worked hard to create, is under attack by the very people we've charged with safeguarding it. That Little Rebellion is long overdue.

Like I said, we're still not dummies, and I've heard the "I" word a lot more, even from people who were hesitant before.

In other words, everybody hop on board the impeachment train, 'cause it's about to leave the station.

... And don't forget to watch "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" tonight. His Special Comment will be a call for the President and VP to resign. As if!

Image swiped in good piratical
fashion from Cap'n Dyke, who
got it from Blue Gal

Do You Hear Me!? No Comeuppance!

2007-07-02T16:40:00.000-07:00

It's much better to be a Neocon RINO than a Hollywood star these days.

Learn your lesson, celebrities; a three-day crying jag may get you out of jail for a day, but committing multiple felonies covering up the outing of a NOC for crass political purposes will get you a Presidential hand job.

Seeking the silver lining, at least we're getting more government transparency. It certainly is nice seeing the pay off just right out in the open like that for a change. Restores my faith in a government of the cronies, by the cronies and for the cronies.

Sadly, No! has the contact numbers for the White House.

...As usual, the Satirical Political Report tells it the way it should be (and with a cool graphic). Forget Impeachment; Let's "Commute" Bush's Term.

Croc Socks

2007-06-23T12:16:00.001-07:00

Pither showed me this picture in the newspaper (Getty Images), saying, "I knew there was a reason I hated Crocs," and I immediately laughed out loud.

Not because the President of the United States is wearing Crocs, and not really because he's wearing dark ankle socks with them, but because of what's on those ankle socks.

They're Commander-in-Chief socks.

Hail to the Chief
He's got socks
That keep his feet warm.

And Sarah Gilbert at BloggingStocks found that the CEO of Crocs is a Bush supporter in more than just footwear.

Yep, It's Their Motto

2007-06-19T13:35:00.000-07:00

From Glenn Greenwald's post on Richard Cohen's defense of Libby.

... And it inspired a new bumper sticker, which can be purchased at my CafePress store, the humble link to which may be found in the right sidebar.

Nobody's Watching ... Or Reading

2007-06-10T20:17:00.001-07:00

This is the epitome of perfection.

I'm always so behind on everything. So now here I am, excited by this new thing I found on YouTube called Nobody's Watching. I was going to post this clip of Nobody's Watching "According to Jim" and say something like

Yes, that's right. This brilliantly rags on a crappy show that apparently has gotten six years of episodes. Six. Years. But all my favorite shows get cancelled after a couple of weeks.

At least we can enjoy these hilarious and creative internet shorts by Nobody's Watching.

My son was enjoying them, too, and was very pleased when I discovered a nine minute episode. But it turns out that it was only part 1 of 3, and that it was actually a WB pilot for a mockumentary-style sitcom created and written by the creator and writers of Scrubs and The Family Guy. But it confused the test audience. So of course the concept (which is awesome, a rarity for the former WB) found a new life on the internet, which should say something about the difference between television and internet audiences ... more on that later.

What I love most about the whole thing is how the date code on the show was 4/24/05. And how the most recent internet posting was 5 months ago (Little Superstar!) Yes, I'm still behind. It's so awesome and cool and hip and "now;" of course it's two years old and of course I am now endorsing it on my blog which Nobody Reads!

Anyway, about the difference between TV and internet viewers. The other day Randi Rhodes talked about a study of the effect of television viewing on the brain. It apparently shuts down the parts of the brain which govern logic and reasoning. Reading, on the other hand, stimulates our brains. Of course she discusses the relation of mindless television programming to the uninformed and intellectually stunted populace who believe Fox News and the Preznit. And how wonderfully that works out for the mega-corporations who own all the television networks which destroy our ability to reason with their shitty programming and then manipulate us into giving them more power by scaring us into obeying their political puppets. (Also, Randi's Book Club assignment is to read Al Gore Assault on Reason. I haven't bought it yet, but you can get your copy through the link in the right sidebar).

But all I think is, "so that's why my favorite shows don't usually make it. They're shows that require thought and knowledge. And since I have long eschewed daytime television and most evening television in favor of reading (and writing) blogs, my logic and reasoning centers are intact; are, in fact, thriving. And of course I actually get angry at those stupid sitcoms. All thinking people should be angry at those stupid sitcoms. Everyone should read more lefty blogs."

So I feel better about being better than those millions of morons who watch stupid sitcoms (which rightie bloggers watch) and look forward to the future when the intelligent internet audience who actually have to read will make a profitable home for truly creative and entertaining programs.

Speaking of him, every night I will say a silent prayer thanking Al Gore for helping to create the internet that we know, saving us all from complete dominance from scaremongering, warmongering, controlling mega-corporations that are attempting to suck out our brains, turning us into mindless, obedient zombie consumers.

Update: Blogger can't post any new Amazon links in the template right now, so I'll put Al's book in this post instead.

Why I Don't Care About Stolen Music and Movies

2007-06-07T17:38:00.000-07:00

Because the very wealthy -- particularly the famous -- can commit crimes, endanger society with reckless behavior, even murder ... and spend only 3 days in jail.

Of course, they do get a little dehydrated because they can't eat or drink while they're crying uncontrollably over how mean people are.

But that's not nearly enough of a penalty. If they get to drive drunk at night with the headlights turned off and a suspended license, then I get a free song once in a while. If they get to whine and cry their way out of jail after 3 days, I get a free movie and a hand towel embroidered with an elegant letter.

And it doesn't have to be a Paris Hilton song, movie or hand towel, because that would be further endangering the public.

In fact, I should get a free song every time I'm channel surfing and accidentally see Paris and/or one of her equally useless, drunken, oily friends.

On second thought, if I ever commit a crime, I should be able to serve my time in Paris Hilton's mansion. Now that would be equal justice.

... Hmmm, the judge is upset at the house arrest and has ordered Paris to appear in court tomorrow morning to determine if she should be returned to jail, though the Superior Court spokesman says the sheriff, not the judge, determines when inmates are released.

Update: Nevermind. Paris, Paris, Paris. What does not destroy you will make you stronger and hopefully a better person. Destruction or a better person. Either way, it's a win for us all.

Closer to Withdrawal of One Type or Other

2007-06-07T16:36:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, the Iraqi Parliament passed a non-binding resolution that would take away the power of the Prime Minister to unilaterally approve the continued occupation of the U.S. under U.N. mandate.

Today the resolution became binding (via Alternet).

The Iraqi Parliament has been having the same problems with their Prime Minister that our own Congress has been having with our President. The Iraqi Parliament and the current U.S. Congress reflect more the sentiments of the general populations of their respective countries. But the Executive branches, for purposes of power consolidation and personal enrichment, ignore the governmental checks when popular sentiment gets in their way.

Iraqi lawmaker Jabir Habib (a Shia closely aligned with the al-Sadrist Movement) said in an interview last fall that the Iraqi Assembly had been poised to vote on the issue [of conditions on the U.S. occupation] . "We spent the last months discussing the conditions we wanted to add to the mandate," he said, "and the majority of the parliament decided on three major conditions. These conditions included pulling the coalition forces out of the cities and transferring responsibility for security to the Iraqi government, giving Iraqis the right to recruit, train, equip and command the Iraqi security forces, and requiring that the U.N. mandate expire and be reviewed every six months instead of every 12 months."

Lawmakers said that while they likely had enough support to require a timetable for withdrawal as a condition of the mandate's renewal last year, they were sidelined by al-Maliki when the prime minister sent a letter to the U.N. Security Council requesting an extension without consulting members of parliament. The move outraged lawmakers.

[...]

It is possible, even probable, that the Maliki regime will veto the resolution passed today. The White House's separatist allies in Baghdad have consistently found ways to bypass the assembly. [Secular Sunni lawmaker] Al Mutlaq said today that the nationalist bloc probably doesn't have the the two-thirds majority required to override a veto.

Sounds very familiar. And so do the warnings about too much consolidation of power into a unitary Executive that ignores the will of the people:

He warned, however, that the more the al-Maliki regime does to sideline the Iraqi parliament, the more Iraqis will be compelled to turn to violent resistance to the occupation. He said: "It will lead to many groups withdrawing from the political process and could only make things even worse."

Just as it was not unforeseeable that an invasion of Iraq would probably lead to civil war and a destabilization of the Middle East (Turkey invaded Kurdistan -- what a surprise), it's not unforeseeable that, the more the Bush regime does to sideline the U.S. Congress, the more Americans will be compelled to withdraw from the political process and turn to violent resistance.

Iraq's government faces a crisis of legitimacy, in large part due to its refusal to demand the withdrawal of U.S. forces long favored by as many as four out of five Iraqis. According to a poll last year by the Project on International Policy Attitudes, 80 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. plans to maintain permanent military bases in the country and three out of four believe that if their government were to demand a timetable for withdrawal, Washington would ignore it (according to the poll's authors, that finding was a major driver of the significant support among all groups of Iraqis for attacking coalition troops).

Randi Rhodes says it's not surprising that the Iraqi people aren't taking over their own security. Would you fight for what you considered an illegitimate government? Or would you do exactly what many Iraqis are doing, fighting the soldiers who are protecting the illegitimate government which is sucking your economy dry?

There will either be a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, or there will be a withdrawal of the populace of Iraq from the political process. We in America have a timetable for the withdrawal of the Worst. Presidency. Ever. If that gets sidelined, then we may have our own withdrawal from peaceful democratic processes right here in America.

Music Mash

2007-06-06T22:30:00.000-07:00

I just discovered the music mixes on YouTube.

IMO, Green Day vs. Kelly Clarkson is the best.

And the most hilarious is Eminem vs. 4 Non Blondes. A white trash Thanksgiving, as Pither called it; being mixed with "What's Up" makes it so much more special.

... Speaking of her, I don't much care for pop idol Kelly Clarkson. But I caught the end of her performance on Idol Gives Back, and she sang the shit out of that song. I like that Kelly Clarkson.

Dance Dance Revolution

2007-06-04T21:08:00.000-07:00

In case you were wondering where those awesome World of Warcraft dances came from.

This one has better production values (hilarious Napoleon Dynamite footage), but this one is more complete.

Catholic Church: "Womyns is Teh Stoopid"

2007-06-04T12:16:00.001-07:00

We went to mass with my in-laws on Mother's Day. It was my second time going to mass; the first time was several years ago before the birth of my second child; I strongly suspect the Mother's Day visit will be the last. Ever.

On the cover of the bulletin the church passed out was written "Happy Mother's Day" and a quote from Proverbs 31:28 - 30:

She is clothed with strength and dignity, and she laughs at the days to come. She opens her mouth in wisdom, and on her tongue is kindly counsel. She watches the conduct of her household, and eats not her food in idleness. Her children rise up and praise her; her husband, too, extols her: "Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all." Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting; the woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.

Inside the front page was the Pastor's Note:

Dear Parishioners,

The world has a weird way of trying to advance women's rights. They Church is all for justice for women but we disagree with women trying to become men as the world recommends. The world also diminished the value of motherhood, whereas the church upholds mothers as a symbol of God's love for us all. I think it is sad that the vocation of being a mother is looked down upon by career minded people. Motherhood is as much of a career as any job. We further believe that motherhood reveals an aspect of a woman's dignity in a beautiful way. We honor the Blessed Virgin Mary with her highest title when we call her "Mother of God."

Mother's Day is a time to reflect upon the truth of motherhood and to defend it as an important institution in our society. Women respecting the right to life of their own children is a moral imperative in our country today. Sentiments of our appreciation for our own mothers need to translate into valuing the mothers in our midst. Being a mother is a vocation in the truest sense of the word. God called women to bring life into the world. Some women cannot be mothers, some have motherhood imposed upon them; but God calls them to bring life into the world. Everybody needs to assist mothers in this essential task. Today we say thank you and we value the vocation, the career, of being a mother. Happy Mother's Day!

But then the sermon was "Don't you dare question the Catholic patriarchy."

I shit you not.

When I told my mom about this, she asked if that was really what the sermon was or if that's what I interpreted it to be, since she believes I have such a militant bias against religion that my fevered brain will almost deliberately misconstrue even the most innocuous of doctrines. A nearly direct quote from the sermon was, "imagine the gall of any Catholic who questions the Archbishop or the Pope," and it was delivered very passionately and forcefully. And, no, it wasn't delivered by Bill Donahue.

The sermon was about apostolic authority. Christ charged his apostles with spreading the faith, one of them founded the Catholic Church, and therefore there is a direct traceable line of authority from Christ down through every Pope and Archbishop (how the Priest issuing the sermon might have answered my questions about anti-Popes, schisms, Galileo, and Purgatory, I don't know). So, of course, to question the dogma of the church is to question Christ. I guess he was trying to make charges of heresy popular again. But the message was clear: "sit down and shut up." Or as I whispered to Pither during the sermon, "respect my authoritah!" Or, as I also thought at the time but didn't voice, particularly since I couldn't remember the exact quote: "Do you know what the chain of command is? It's a chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin' command here."

I'm not the only one who understood the message. Pither and his devoutly Catholic mother understood exactly the same thing (she's one of those Catholics who quietly disagrees with aspects of the Catholic doctrines and didn't much care for the sermon herself).

Pither tells me there is a popular belief that Catholics keep guns in the basement of their churches for the day when the Pope orders the attack. The tenor of this quite literal "come to Jesus by being mindless drones and obeying without question" sermon wouldn't help that perception any.

But there is real reason for that sermon to be particularly disturbing for women, particularly when coupled with the protestations of advancing women's rights. If men really want to change or at least have influence in the Catholic church and decide they'd rather not sit down and shut up, they can potentially become priests, Archbishops or the Pope. Despite the claims of honoring female Saints who wore armor into battle in the name of the Church, women are denied real participation in fundamental decision-making (btw, that sainted woman who defended the church may have had her property stolen from her daughter by that very same church).

The Catholic church claims to support the advancement of women's rights, but then narrowly defines what rights women have. Women don't have the right to careers outside the home if they have children; women don't have the right to make medical or reproductive decisions about their own bodies and lives; women don't have the right to make spiritual decisions through influencing church doctrine.

So exactly what rights for women does the Catholic church advance? Apparently, females have the right to not be killed as infants; to read and be generally educated; to hold property and be in positions of worldly power; to have access to healthcare of a limited nature; very specifically, "[t]hey must be empowered to share fully in the enjoyment of those rights which are theirs by nature, and to fulfil their responsibilities by contributing to society and to the family." [emphasis added] The determination of these "natural rights" are left solely to men, and even when women are in positions of worldly power, they are still required to be secondary and submissive to the Catholic Church's patriarchal order.

And that is the fundamental issue. Until women can be included in the decision-making and authority of the Catholic Church, any protestations of advancement of women's rights, of honoring women and mothers, is more than empty and meaningless; it's downright insulting and patronizing.

The same goes for any other religion. Women must be allowed to participate and have religious authority.

But I did get a lovely red rose on my way out of the church. So there's that.

Young Dr. House

2007-06-02T16:33:00.000-07:00

Because Atrios chose a dismal and and odd clip of Blackadder Goes Fourth to say, "Hey look, it's the same actor who plays Dr. House on Fox!" with. Seriously, it's a lengthy clip in which Hugh Laurie basically says "Hoorah" a couple of times.

I have very personal reasons for wanting to display the very best of Hugh Laurie's Blackadder characters. I am married to the Stupid Prince.

And don't miss out on Jeeves and Wooster.

Still Here

2007-06-02T16:23:00.000-07:00

After reading about the untimely death of Steve Gilliard of The News Blog (via Atrios), just thought I'd check in to let people know I'm still alive.

I got a part-time job recently because when you buy a house you no longer have a landlord to pay the electrician $50/hr to find the mysterious short somewhere that knocks out the electricity in half your house.

So I'm tired, my feet hurt and I've discovered that I'm developing arthritis in my left knee. But I try to check on your blogs a few times a week, so it's not all Chuzzle all the time.

Star Wars 30

2007-05-23T14:39:00.000-07:00

In the summer of 1977, my family took a road trip to Utah to visit family friends and my brother, who was attending school (this worked especially well for me, since I got his room while he was there). While we were there, we went to a double feature in a nearly empty theater. The Island of Dr. Moreau was the first film in the two pack. It was kinda creepy for a kid whose age was in the single digits.

The second film was Star Wars, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this Friday, May 25th.

Yeah, you have this idea that Star Wars was a blockbuster right out the gate. Especially these days, when there's so much hype about films in various promotional venues, you think of openings with huge crowds who have been anticipating the movie. But back then, films just had regular advertising and popularity grew by word-of-mouth.

A couple of weeks later, back home at Hilltop Mall in California, we went to Star Wars again, this time in a very full theater.

I had the same experience with Raiders of the Lost Ark. We saw it on its opening weekend at the Cine 3 in Vallejo. Cine 3 was a converted old theater; the two side wings had been converted into steep, narrow theaters, and the central theater was huge. Raiders showed in the center theater with maybe six people, including my parents and me. My parents made the mistake of letting me choose the row we sat in; sitting in the front row for Raiders gave me my first dose of motion sickness ever. Another first was, after the film ended, my dad went out and bought three more tickets, we moved back several rows and sat through a second showing. It was just that great an experience.

Sometime later during its run we went back to Cine 3 to see it again. Inexplicably, it had been moved to one of the side theaters and was practically standing room only (though that's technically illegal, I still recall people sitting on the steps in the aisle). The crowd was so raucous I could barely hear parts of the film. In fact, during the scene with the scimitar-wielding assassin who Indie decides to just shoot, one guy jumped out of his chair like he was calling a touchdown.

And I would say there's something magical about such experiences that just doesn't happen anymore, but I think it has more to do with the loss of my childhood innocence rather than any real external difference, since Atrios posted a video which reminded of the kinds of things I thought were awesome when I was a kid.

Code Monkey

2007-05-21T17:47:00.000-07:00

It has long been the diligent endeavor of this blogger to post only the finest content regarding indepth political analysis and activism.

...

Now I endeavor to post only the finest of World of Warcraft YouTube videos.

The latest installment is called Code Monkey.

... I'm not exactly sure how to transition the relevance of the title of my blog to exclusive postings of World of Warcraft YouTube videos, so I guess I'll continue with some fine, indepth political analysis and activism [read: shallow snark].

Excellent Questions

2007-05-20T15:22:00.001-07:00

From the Daily Satirical Political Report, whose title is a dead giveaway.

Chad Vader Returns

2007-05-20T13:22:00.000-07:00

You've stood in line for hours to get your tickets to episodes 1 - 7.

Thanks to They Get Letters, you can cut straight to the front of the line for the final episode:

Chad Vader Episode 8.

Viral Gastroenteritis

2007-05-19T09:44:00.001-07:00

It's the new thing, get it while it's hot.

This is my second go-around, this time with an IV to treat dehydration, so you'd better hurry if you want to catch up.

I Am a Truther²

2007-05-17T10:06:00.000-07:00

Truther¹, generally, is defined as "One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11." It seems it's supposed to refer more specifically to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, those who believe the U.S. committed the act of terrorism against itself, even bringing down the WTC by planting explosives.

Though it is often used to describe such theorists, it also appears to be popularly used (based on a cursory Google search) by RWNJs as a pejorative against those who would dare question U.S. foreign policy as it relates to consequences known as "blowback" (The Nation), of which terrorism is a most striking example. Most recently, "Truther" was used by RWNJ Ace of Spades to describe Libertarian Republican Presidential hopeful and U.S. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, for making an argument during the second Republican Presidential debate which echoed that made in The Nation:

“[Terrorists] attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. … We’ve been in the Middle East. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.”

(Sadly, No!).

As is often the case with Sadly, No!'s writers (whose stated intention is merely to ridicule stupidity in a cruelly amusing manner), Gavin M. makes a serious and insightful argument after debasing Mr. A.O. Spades.

The notion that Bin Laden came from somewhere, that he has a history and antecedents parallel to ours and engaged with our own American policies; that he possesses motives and is capable of rational choices, is intolerable to the WingNet. It makes them scream and wave their fists, because as absolutists, they’re unable to perform basic moral triage, and can’t distinguish insight into an enemy’s behavior from sympathy for his cause.

If "Truther" in the RWNJ sense refers to one who has a more complex and informed view of 9/11 as it relates to blowback from U.S. foreign policy, then count me in.

The Urban Dictionary only lists two definitions of Truther, however, the second being "A person who tells the truth, as opposed to a liar." I don't know the etymology of the word, but if it's from "The Truth is Out There" from X-Files, it's worth noting that Spooky Mulder was right, there was an alien conspiracy, and regardless of the ridicule he suffered, he stood by that Truth.

In this case, I think Truthers are right insofar as they reject the notion that the U.S. was just sitting there minding its own business when it was sucker-punched from behind. And I think it is worth challenging and undermining such one-word pithy slogans that have given dishonest neocons control over the Republican Party and our government.

Dude, Where's My ... Meh

2007-05-14T16:38:00.000-07:00

Idea via Sadly, No!

I allowed the face recognition software to match me to men so I couldn't be accused of sexism. Plus I thought it was funny that I look like Ashton Kutcher. I always thought I was more of an Ally Sheedy, but she's not so popular anymore.

And who the hell are Lalaine, Victoria Bernadotte and Camilla Belle? Oh, wait ... I don't care.

Letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger RE: Paris Hilton

2007-05-11T13:09:00.000-07:00

Fashioned after the Free Paris Hilton petition. (Via Blognonymous) The Governator has so far "distanced himself" from the plea.

Update: Mags, a prolific blogger in her own right, has prepared her own anti-Paris petition.

To: The Honorable Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Paris Whitney Hilton is an American celebrity and socialite. She is an heiress to a share of the Hilton Hotel fortune, as well as to the real estate fortune of her father Richard Hilton, and has been raised to be as vacuous and useless as such a position would suggest. She is a terrible role model for young people all over the U.S. and the world. She provides whole minutes of mindless distraction to (most of) our otherwise busy and meaningful lives.

Hilton is notable for coining the phrase "that's hot" on the FOX reality series The Simple Life and for making throngs cheer at her death in the remake of the Vincent Price horror classic "House of Wax". In addition to her work as an actress, she has achieved some recognition as a model with one facial expression, celebrity spokes-skank, singer and writer (bwahaha). Please take special note of the utter lack of any type of community or charitable service.

As most of America now knows, Ms. Hilton was just charged in a Los Angeles court with DUI and sentenced to 45 days in Century Regional Detention Facility in California beginning on or before June 5, 2007.

We, the American public who don't give a fig about Paris, are shocked, dismayed and appalled by how people who support Paris are saying she is being unfairly singled-out as an example that Drunk Driving is wrong. We do not support drunk driving. Paris should have been sober. And she should go to jail, not because of the drunk driving charge as her supporters are characterizing the story, but for violating the terms of her probation by continuing to drive on a suspended license and failing to seek treatment for alcohol abuse.

The supporters of Paris Hilton compare her case to those in the following paragraph:

As depicted on Friday night's episode "Nancy Grace" on Headline News (May 4, 2007), countless celebrities have been "slapped on the wrist" for similar incidents recently. Nick Nolte, Mel Gibson, Tracy Morgan, Wynonna Judd, to name a few, were arrested and never did a day in jail after their initial arrests for drunk driving /DUI /DWI charges. Rappers Busta Rhymes and Eve still walk free after both being arrested for the same charges as Ms. Hilton just this past week. Brandy's California Highway accident, although no proof of DUI was evidenced in her accident, resulting in the death of a young wife and mother in California, yet Brandy walks free as of today, never doing any time and A WOMAN HAS BEEN KILLED most likely due to her reckless driving!

I don't know what any of that has to do with Paris, as she was not sentenced to jail for drunk driving/DUI/DWI or reckless driving charges. I also don't know much about the cases involving the named celebrities because I just really don't care that much about celebrities. But I would assume that they never served a sentence because they FULFILLED THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATIONS, thus exhibiting at least some measure of regret and responsibility.

Sure, Paris Hilton did not hurt, injure, or kill anyone or anything. She just decided that, as a wealthy celebrity, she is not subject to the same laws as the rest of us mere mundane mortals. But she is in fact subject to the same laws, and as a serial violator of the law, she must do jail time.

This petition is to ask Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to treat the pleas to pardon Paris Hilton for her mistake with all the respect and consideration they're due: none. Please allow the legal system to work equally for all. Though everyone makes mistakes, and though she didn't hurt or kill anyone, her flagrant disregard of the terms of her probation show she has not learned her lesson. She is sincere, apologetic, and full of regret for her actions just so long as it will keep her out of jail; but she showed numerous times, despite a generous probation and her ability due to her wealth and celebrity status to obtain excellent treatment and alternate forms of transportation, that such protestations are insincere and insulting to the Judge's intelligence. She is distraught and understandably afraid, but it's time for her to grow up and face the consequences of her actions.

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT to send Paris to the Century Regional Detention Facility where she belongs! Please copy this letter and post it or send it to tell The Honorable Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of the State of California to think about the welfare of his community and state rather than a spoiled young woman who has made a mortal error (funny, the supporters made it clear she didn't KILL ANYONE) and who squandered the second chance so many others in our great nation have been served with after a mistake they have made . The late Former President Gerald Ford made his own mortal mistake when he pardoned the late Former President Richard Nixon after his mistake(s) and failed to prosecute him; the Democrats made a mortal mistake by letting the Iran-Contra felons off the hook; don't make the same mistake by pardoning Paris Hilton who, like Nixon supporters and the Iran-Contra felons, will take the opportunity to continue in her flagrant disregard of law and order.

I Don't Worship Inanimate Objects

2007-05-11T07:52:00.000-07:00

Jay Marvin is intent on "taking back the flag" from RWNJs who use it as a weapon against those who don't worship it as ardently as they. And he's going to "take it back" by worshipping it as ardently as the RWNJs.

Apparently Jay's making bumper stickers and buttons with the red, white & blue that say "It's my flag, too," and he's announced that he and his wife are going to start flying their flag every day.

I get his feelings and intentions completely. I've been sick to death of having my patriotism questioned by people as close to me as my own mother who believes that Americans who speak out publicly against any particular war or the president during a "time of war" (unless it's Kosovo/Bosnia and the president is Clinton) are traitors; or who believe that supporting Social Security is tantamount to working for the KGB.

I was at a Fourth of July event a few years ago in Florida with my probably 3-year-old son. A woman handed him a small flag on a stick. I was grateful, and as I encouraged Ben to say "thank you," she got this hard look in her eyes and said somewhat stridently, "you make sure that doesn't touch the ground."

OMFG.

This is why I don't worship inanimate objects. Actually, I don't worship inanimate objects because I just don't worship anything. But this is why I don't advocate the worship of inanimate objects.

I think I've written about this before, about why I think the Ten Commandments contains the prohibition against the worship of idols. It's because people have a tendency to mistake the symbol for the reality. It starts innocently enough, having a physical object which one uses to focus one's concentration on what they believe to be a god or holy principle; but later the less sophisticated worshipper starts thinking the object is imbued with the power of the entity, and then the object is the entity. And then the fanatical worshipper starts punishing people who look at their object of worship in the wrong way because they've completely lost sight of the meaning behind the object.

We've got the same problem with our flag. When people say "our military fight and die for that flag" I think "then they're fighting and dying for the wrong thing. They really ought to be fighting and dying for our Constitution which is a document that actually has real, tangible meaning and applies to our everyday lives."

I don't mean to denigrate our flag; in fact, I endorse respect for it. If I were in a foreign country or in hostile territory and saw the flag flying or sewn on the sleeve of a soldier, you bet I would feel hope and strength and love. I feel completely the pride and unity the flag is supposed to represent. I think it's pretty stupid and counter-productive for a U.S. citizen to burn or deface the flag as protest.

But I do not worship it. I do not in any way think the flag is more important than the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any of my fellow Americans.

And I bristle at Jay Marvin's attitude that the best way to "take back the flag" is for Lefties (who have an undeserved reputation for hating the flag) to wrap themselves in it just like the RWNJs and use it as a weapon against other Americans. This morning Jay endorsed his own idea by saying [paraphrasing] "If you love America you should fly the flag every day or put this sticker on your car." That's just more of the empty, stupid, symbolic bullshit that has turned what should be a rallying symbol of unity into a tool of division and anger.

Here's when I, a civilian, intend to fly the flag in the next year: May 19, Armed Forces Day; May 28, Memorial Day (observed); May 30, Memorial Day; June 14, Flag Day; July 4, Independence Day; September 3, Labor Day; September 11, Flag Day; October 24, United Nations Day; November 11, Veterans' Day; February 18, Presidents' Day; May 2, Holocaust Remembrance Day.

But flying the flag or not has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's love or respect for this country, its laws, its principles or for other Americans.

An End to Occupation in Sight?

2007-05-10T11:05:00.000-07:00

A million years ago I was in a community college play, You Can't Take It With You. There's a part that goes something like this:

Grandpa: Don't worry, I have a plan to foil the Tax Man.

Other person: What is it?

Interruption by entrance of Russian Dance Instructor: Hello, everybody! In Russia, horse rides YOU!

A very convenient interruption. One day, the actress playing the Russian Dance Instructor missed her cue, leaving the poor actors to improv. It went something like this.

Grandpa: Don't worry, I have a plan to foil the Tax Man.

Other person: What is it?

...

Grandpa: ... It's a ... a good plan .... that I thought up the other day ... I've got it written down here in my pocket.

[Shows other person slip of paper that was in his pocket]

Other person: ... It looks dangerous. Do you think it will work?

Grandpa: ... I don't know why not.

Other person: ... It does look like a pretty good plan ... I guess.

Interruption by entrance of Russian Dance Instructor: Hello, everybody! In Russia, horse rides YOU!

I was reminded of that by the meeting on Tuesday between the moderate House Republicans and Bush about how the Iraq Occupation is becoming politically untenable and is harming Republicans' chances in the next election ... and the one after that ... and probably a couple of others, too.

The House members pressed Bush and Gates hard for a "Plan B" if the current troop increase fails to quell the violence and push along political reconciliation. Davis said that administration officials convinced him there are contingency plans, but that the president declined to offer details, saying that if he announced his backup plan, the world would shift its focus to that contingency, leaving the current strategy no time to succeed.

Another event on Tuesday, which the U.S. media has been silent about, is that more than half of the Iraqi Parliament signed a legislative petition for the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. (AlterNet)

Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, [Al Sadr spokesman] Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.

Those Tuesday events plus the pressure of public opinion both in the U.S. and Iraq (and, breaking news, Tony Blair is quitting June 27) ... I'm getting a feeling that the occupation may actually end before the end of Bush's term. Atrios warns against such hopes, as Bush has made it clear many times he will never leave Iraq because to him leaving is losing.

But losing what? The nationalists represented by Al Sadr, according to the AlterNet article, have the best chance of unifying and pacifying Iraq under a strong central government, free from interference from Iran, which Bush has claimed is his goal. But the nationalists would block the U.S. from having permanent bases or oil rights. So leaving would be losing bases and oil. Staying, on the other hand, would be losing even marginal Republican power in the U.S. for many, many years, which would mean Democratic government, business regulation, national healthcare, more sensible energy policy -- all those liberal, progressive programs that people really love though they've been convinced that they hate them by corrupt neocon Republicans. But staying might win them more war profits and oil rights for Halliburton.

Bush must already know he's lost the war of hearts and minds at home. So staying in Iraq until the oil rights are attained is the only way he thinks he, personally, can win, even if that means more fighting and terrorism.

Whether we stay in Iraq or leave, however, Bush has already succeeded in destroying the long-term ambitions of his corrupt neocon cronies. Now we just need to get our future Democratic government to pursue the criminals beyond getting them out of office. If they're not thrown in prison and all shred of credibility destroyed, they'll just come back like the annoying weeds that they are.

Command-Der

2007-05-05T21:17:00.000-07:00

How did I miss this?

Bush, on his decision to veto the Iraq Accountability Act (The New York Times Caucus blog):

The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders? As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.

Awesome pics at WTF Is It Now?

Reid Not Outrageous, Just Wrong

2007-05-05T15:09:00.000-07:00

There has been some uproar about Harry Reid's comment that America has lost the war in Iraq. (AmericaBlog)

From the Right, David Broder -- who's got his head shoved so far inside Washington's ass that I suspect he was the one who found Reagan's polyps -- called Reid an embarrassment and suggested the Democrats might want to demote him. Broder is supposed to be the high exalted "dean" of Washington political journalism and commentary. That is, amongst his own peers inside the Beltway (hence the polyp comment).

The Left fired back with blog (Media Matters) and column comments, and the Senate Democrats wrote a unanimous letter of support for Reid.

Of course the ball got lobbed back by the Right. (Sadly, No!)

But everyone's missing the point. What Reid said was just not true. We didn't lose the war, we won it on May 1, 2003 when the President publicly declared "Mission Accomplished;" or when we captured Saddam Hussein in December 2003; or when the Iraqis had their elections and instituted a government and constitution on October 15, 2005.

Iraq has a new, democratically elected government which we are not at war with because it is our ally.

The U.S. is occupying Iraq. You can't win or lose an occupation, you can only either stay or go.

Thus let it be officially declared: We won GWII.

We destroyed and disarmed the Baath government, captured its leaders and instituted democracy in the Middle East. The war is over. Huzzah, let the bells peal and the statues topple -- and whack them with your shoes for good measure. We're done.

Let's go home.

Tancredo Didn't Evolve

2007-05-04T09:03:00.000-07:00

I haven't been paying attention to my own Representative lately because, well ... blech.

But Chris Matthews asked the GOP Presidential hopefuls if they believed in evolution (Fuzzy and Blue). Three said no: Brownback, Huckabee and Crazy Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo Watch also has many updates about the many reasons the phony Representative from Arapahoe County has got to go.

For instance, he's a one-trick monkey and he lied about his own sincerely held commitment to term limits because God told him to go back on his word. Of course, this constituency re-elected the lying blighter.

But the country as a whole certainly isn't going to want a redux of reality-denying, lying, promise-breaking ideologues who take political and policy advice from God. Been there, done that.

Happy Mission Accomplished Day

2007-05-01T13:53:00.000-07:00

Watch the video and caption the banner at Tell Us the Mission.

Rules for the National Day of Prayer*

2007-04-30T20:29:00.000-07:00

Just heard a guy call up Alan Colmes' radio program to say, "Thursday is the National Day of Prayer and I'm going to spend all day praying that you become a born-again Christian."

I didn't hear Colmes' answer because I was too busy saying, "Ah'm uh Krishchun'n yer not, yardy yhar yhar" right before I got out of the car. My initial intelligent thought as I flip-flopped through the grocery store was, "Just tell such assholes to go ahead and pray for whatever the hell they want, it's not going to happen anyway. Besides, if he's spending the whole day on his knees making impossible wishes, at least that will be one less day he's out making complete strangers miserable."

Here are rules I pray people will follow to make it a much more pleasant National Day of Prayer for those, like me, who are insufficiently religious:

1. Don't tell anyone you're praying for them. If you tell them, the miracle won't be a surprise.

2. Don't rub the magic God lamp. Unless you do think God is a genie, in which case pray for more prayers.

3. Don't use prayer as a weapon. I'm not just talking about the appeals for vengeance on one's enemies. Telling someone you're praying that they become a better person is the same as telling someone they're a crappy person. Sanctimonious and rude.

4. Don't let anyone see you praying. Something about hypocrites and street corners.

5. Pray for something useful and constructive, like reducing poverty and illness or for peace, love and understanding.

6. Better yet, don't pray at all. Go out and do something useful and constructive, like reducing poverty and illness or creating peace, love and understanding by not lording your immaculate invocations over the beatifically bereft.

And that's about it. If you do those things, not only will you be a truly punctilious pontificant, you will cease to be a prick, punctilious or otherwise.

Finally, just a piece of advice for those who get told "I'm praying for you," even if it is a presumption. Smile graciously and say "Thank you." With those two words you will have done far more to advance good will and world peace than a million smug supplicators could with a million pseudo-sanctified exhortations.

*Warning: Excessive use of thesaurus. Maybe this should have been at the top of the page.

Diary of Jane

2007-04-25T15:51:00.000-07:00

I heard this Breaking Benjamin song on the radio the other day.

Didn't anyone notice during the extensive songwriting and producing and promotion process that over and over again it sounds like he's saying "diarrhea?"

It seems many other people noticed it, including the guy who wrote this parody, "Diarrhea Pain."

It hasn't made it onto The Archive of Misheard Lyrics, but I'm sure it will soon.

(I find it very interesting that many people have gotten the lyrics to Steve Miller Band's "Jet Airliner" wrong in the exact same way, including my husband.)

MST3K Returns

2007-04-23T20:25:00.000-07:00

Way to get around copyright laws and having to pay big bucks for the rights, guys!

Now all I need is some sort of device which begins with an i.

Here are some more samples, and a little something for people itching to see more Chad Vader before episode 8 comes out.

Starfest 2008 Pics

2007-04-23T15:08:00.000-07:00

It's better than the Sarlacc, but not by much

Ben's favorite Bounty Hunter

The actual car from Mad Max

I doubt this is the real Robby the Robot, as there were two of them

And the Ghostbusters car, which I think I saw in Fort Collins a few months ago

And that's all the pics I got because both sets of batteries wore out.

My fun was a little cramped by having Ben and then both boys in the later afternoon (we did two crafts projects and bought lots of Star Wars action figures), but much laughter was had.

The Toughest SF Dude challenge was pretty funny, with four panelists defending the toughness of their chosen SF characters. Raphael the TMNT was represented for a while, and I never did see Kara "Starbuck" Thrace or Col./Gen. Jack O'Neill get unseated.

And the beginning of the Klingon Warrior Tournament was hilarious (I had to take the boys out during the fighting as they got bored). The first round was insults. One contestant in particular stood out. The really weird thing, however, was that he was sitting right in front of me making frequent comments that only the surrounding people could hear. I didn't find those comments very amusing, and it didn't seem anyone else really reacted to them, either. But when he would raise his voice so the entire room could hear, suddenly they were uproariously funny. And his insults really were top-notch, quick-witted and responsive to his opponent.

Letter to Sen. Salazar RE: Iraq Funding

2007-04-19T11:15:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Salazar,

I am writing to thank you for your yea vote in H.R. 1591, requiring the President to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, and for sending the letter to the President requesting that he implement the Baker-Hamilton Report which also calls for timelines.

The President will veto this bill, but I urge you to stand firm in your insistence that he comply.
It is obvious that our President believes that ever leaving Iraq except under the perfect scenario he has in his mind is equal to losing the war. And he believes that the course we are currently on is working just fine. That means that, unless he is forced to change, we will continue doing what we've been doing, the Iraqis will never attain the ideal state, and we will never leave Iraq. The non-productive waste of resources and the cost in lives will continue as long as President Bush is in office.

There is only one check on his authority, and that is held by you in the form of funding.
In your letter, you said, "I do not believe that we can or should cut funding for our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan while we anticipate that our troops will be in harm’s way," which I take to mean that you may give in to the President and give him the blank check with no strings attached that he's asked for. That simply means more of the same, which will harm our troops far more than defunding the Iraq War.

Defunding simply means the President will have to withdraw the troops much sooner than either H.R. 1591 or the Baker-Hamilton Report call for. The troops will not be kept in harm's way with no funding. Do not fall for the President's false rhetoric.

Stand firm for the troops and force the President to take responsible actions that will lead to the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Sincerely,
Julie O.

My Lovely Lady Lumps

2007-04-18T21:41:00.000-07:00

I have noticed that it is often better to not understand the lyrics to many songs.

My Humps is one of them.

But this video version makes the song quite enjoyable. So enjoy.

Seung-Hui Sends Videos, Pics to NBC

2007-04-18T20:29:00.000-07:00

We now know what Seung-Hui was doing in the interval between shootings; he was preparing and sending sickening pictures and videos to NBC.

Much speculation has followed the use of the phrase "Ismail Ax" scrawled on Cho Seung-Hui's arm.

On the Express Mail package to NBC

Cho’s name was not on the package; instead, the return address said it came from “A Ishmael.” Investigators said Cho’s body was found Monday with the words
“Ismael Ax” scrawled on his arm.

Ismael. He left off the "h," which isn't surprising considering how apparently insane and illiterate he was.

This incident is awful and frightening enough without wild speculation searching desperately for a tie to foreign terrorism. There is no fucking link to al Qaeda, Saddam, bin Laden, radical Islam or whatever boogeyman rightwingtards think they can use to terrify the populace into submission to their totalitarian schemes for dominance.

IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME!!

2007-04-18T19:56:00.000-07:00

Sorry, did I scream that?

Sanjaya got voted off American Idol.

Sanity is returning to all facets of life. Imagine how loud I'll be shouting when our Bushit Adminstration gets voted off.

And imprisoned.

25 to life.

Kucinich to Introduce Articles of Impeachment

2007-04-18T13:05:00.000-07:00

The Sleuth at Washington Post says Dennis Kucinich has submitted a letter to the Democratic House that he intends to introduce articles of Impeachment on Vice President Cheney.

What Would You Do, Hot Shot?!

2007-04-17T21:24:00.000-07:00

If someone were firing a .22 at John Derbyshire he wouldn't even be able to count the number of turds piling up in his drawers.

From the fingers of our hero, bravely typing away in dramatic slow motion, on what to do when confronted with a maniacal killer with two guns:

... count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands.

Now that's a strategy for victory. I think we found our War Czar!

What our children really need are classes called "What Would You Do, Hot Shot" in which various deadly scenarios are proposed and acted out so that our citizens will be prepared in the event of a crisis. Here're some thought exercizes:

You pull your gun, of course, shoot the guy and you're a HERO! Yay

Second scenario: There you are when you hear gunshots. You pull your gun and turn to look for a target. Wait! There are two guys with guns and they seem to be shooting at each other! Whom do you shoot?

Third scenario: You turn, gun in hand, looking for a target and there are five people, men, women, black, white, hispanic, all shooting at or towards each other. It's a fire fight! Whom do you shoot?

Fourth scenario: Some other guy is drawing a bead on some guy with a gun and that guy happens to be YOU because he doesn't know who the bad guy is either. Who gets shot?

Who, hot shot!?

The obvious answer is to shoot everybody in the leg, like Arnold Schwarzenegger did in T-2. Watch out, Glenn, you've got some competition.

(h/t Big Ink)

Wheee! Islamic Connection Found!

2007-04-17T14:49:00.000-07:00

The Virginia Tech shooter, a South Korean who'd been with his parents in the U.S. legally since 1992 (since he was 8-years-old), had the words "Ismail Ax" written on his arm in red ink. Ismail, of course, is the Muslim form of Ishmael, the "other" son of Abraham, the one who founded Islam.

According to this Daily Musings post,

AX refers to the Muslim belief that Abraham was to kill Ishmael as an act of obedience and faith using an AXE.

...

There is also a Muslim belief that Abraham attacked idols around him with an AXE. This could relate to the axe potentially used to kill Ishmael.

Thus, this phrase, "Email Ax", seems undeniably related to carrying out an act of judgment in the Muslim context. The two words together suggest both sacrifice and judgment, which seems to go along with the strange note he left behind.

I tend to think the phrase "Email Ax" refers to both sacrifice and judgment relating to the 5 million missing RNC emails, thus making 31 murdered people Karl Rove's fault. Either that or it's a typo. Or an Islamic conspiracy to downplay the Islamic conspiracy.

The Daily Musings post is titled "Does 'Ismail Ax' Suggest Korean Student Was A Secret Muslim Terrorist?" with a reminder that Cho Seung-Hui was "not an American, but here on a visa." A foreigner on a student Visa! Obvious terrorist sleeper cell.

Daily Musings also notes that "Finding his connection to Islam, and radical Islam will be the next mystery." Indeed. Especially since he'd been living in the U.S. since he was eight. And not on a student Visa. He had a green card since, you know, he had been living here legally since he was eight.

And that is some genius terrorist sleeper cell plot, recruiting an 8-year-old South Korean kid. Like No Way Out genius, if Lt. Cmdr. Tom Farrell had grown up to be a socially inept loner who self-destructed in an insane downward spiral writing over-the-top violent pre-teen angst for his college assignments instead of infiltrating the Pentagon as a Navy officer. But then, America's neglect of the mentally ill is well known. [h/t Marita, Sadly, No! commenter, for play link]

VA Tech New Conference Liveblogging

2007-04-16T13:36:00.000-07:00

The story.

2:43 - President Steger - A few minutes ago he spoke to President Bush who offered support and help. Spoke to Governor Kaine.

At a loss for words. What we know. Now 31 deaths confirmed, including gunman. 15 other victims being treated. 2 more in addition to 31 at Norris Hall. Gunman had no ID.

In process of id'ing victims and notifying kin. No names will be released, but possible list tomorrow.

Investigating whether connection between two separate shootings.

Resources taxed, receiving assistance from FBI, Red Cross and others.

Posting info on website vsp.virginia.gov

2:47 - questions for police and President Steger

Classes not cancelled and students not notified because thousands of students were already in transit. Had reason to think shooter was done and had left.

Had info from witnesses and evidence that lead authorities to believe shooter off campus and leaving jurisdiction.

Do not know if shooter was a student.

One person in Norris Hall who was shooter is dead.

Not looking for anyone else currently.

How can campuses prepare for such situations? It's difficult because of open society and open campus. Best for people to report suspicious activity, but can't have armed guards at every entrance. You can only make decisions based on what you know at any given time.

Bomb threats, looking into connection.

Gunman took his own life.

Officers first responded and found 2 people shot, began investigation when second incident started. People shot in dormitory room.

Another shooting in apartment off-campus, officers not aware.

No shoot-out between officers and gunman.

How characterize shootings? [ed: blegh!]

President Steger interjects: About closing campus, when first shooting took place, building was closed immediately.

Preliminary reports, doors were chained.

No on in custody at this time.

No one arrested after first shooting.

First scene, what thinking was? Acting on info they had, secured crime scene and building, believed it was secure and person had left. Following up leads and looking for person of interest.

Stupid questions. Did someone try to tackle the gunman?

No reports between two shootings.

There is # for families.

Drive

2007-04-16T08:55:00.000-07:00

When I see more than one actor from a Joss Whedon project in a show or movie I figure there has to be some sort of connection behind the camera. There's Nathan Fillion in the lead role, Amy Acker as his missing wife, and Richard Brooks of the Firefly episode Objects in Space.

I thought I recognized the name in the Executive Producer slot. Tim Minear also worked on Firefly and Angel. In fact, he wrote two of my favorite Firefly episodes, The Message and Out of Gas.

Despite that, I am completely unbiased when I say I enjoyed Drive. Like Prison Break, I wonder how they're going to stretch it out more than one season, since you'd think the finish line would be the end of it. And the good news is I didn't love it as much as Firefly, so it has a chance of having more than one season (so many shows I like have very short runs: most recently, Arrested Development, Knights of Prosperty, Studio 60). I swear I think my viewing habits are being monitored and specifically thwarted. Yes, that's paranoid. Doesn't mean it's not true.

And Drive has got some problems. Come on, at least try to keep the California foothills out of the South Florida scenes; there is ocean on both the East coast of Florida and the West coast of California, use the ocean as background scenery. Some of the foreshadowing seems a might obvious. And who knew getting in to Cape Canaveral during a shuttle launch would be so easy and uncrowded? Hell, Paynes Prairie, 150 miles away, was more crowded when we watched John Glenn's' launch in 1998.

But those are minor things which, actually, make the show a little more fun for us. We like using our well-traveled and varied knowledge to pick out such goofs. We also like playing along. The racers get clues about their next checkpoints, and Pither pretty easily figured out the first two. Did I ever mention how awesome Pither is at geography, history, and general trivia? He made it through a first round of a Jeopardy! tryout, but we think his immense height and stunning good looks intimidated Alex Trebek, so he didn't get chosen for the show.

Really, Drive is almost like Amazing Race on amphetamines, where the annoying contestants (I'm looking at you, Mirna) might actually get killed.

I Represent No One

2007-04-15T21:32:00.000-07:00

In fact, I'm more marginal and non-representative than Malik Shabazz of the Black Panther Party.

And I take a stance on some controversial stuff.

So how come The O'Reilly Factor doesn't invite me on to engage in childish repartee?

Via Firedoglake

Warning: playing the video in the linked blog post has been shown to kill the human brain. I only watched half of it and I almost couldn't spell ~~Pink Blank Balck~~ Black ~~Pather Panter~~ Panther.

Gardening

2007-04-15T19:20:00.000-07:00

I haven't had a garden in years; the last time was in California with its super easy year-round growing conditions. Now we've bought a house in short-growing season Colorado with a horrendous (but large) backyard that was neglected for about a year and is basically a blank slate.

It would be great if we had the money to hire landscape designers and workers to instantly build our perfect dream yard, but we'll be doing most of the designing and work ourselves, and it's going to take years, part of an evolving, organic, as it were, process.

I'm so excited.

Here's what we have to work with:

The seedlings will soon find a seasonally permanent home outside:

It's a good thing I have the patience to grow things from seed. I only have to feed, clothe, entertain and educate these two for less than two decades. Meanwhile, crack that whip:

Daily Dose of Funny

2007-04-14T08:47:00.000-07:00

Enjoy.

(Psst ... click on the picture)

Pointless waste of time

2007-04-13T14:22:00.000-07:00

There is so much to be said about Don Imus yet his irrelevance is only rivaled by Anna Nicole Smith. However, a very small sidebar in the RMN stirred my derision for professional protesters and the perpetually outraged. At least research your targets before you begin your picket of idiocy. Don Imus had a simulcast of his radio show on MSNBC. KUSA is an NBC affiliate but not owned by NBC. MSNBC is no way involved with KUSA and KUSA management has no perview whatsoever, even nominally, over MSNBC. Perhaps the Alvertis Simmons tried to find where Comcast relays MSNBC to its Denver-area customers but the confusion began clouding their indignant outrage. Tip: Imus worked for CBS radio and KCNC (Channel 4) is owned and operated by CBS. Of course, Imus has been fired so protesting Channel 4 would be a pointless waste of time. Then again, pointless wastes of time are the melieu of Alvertis Simmons.

Emails Gone!

2007-04-12T09:53:00.000-07:00

It is entirely possible that the douchebags who were doing White House business for the Worst. Administration. Evar. on unsecured servers lost track of hundreds of emails.

But they're not gone. They may not know where exactly they are (I'm a clever mom, I don't fall for technical semantics; it may be technically accurate to say "we don't know where they are," since they can't find the file, but I'm sure someone knows how they disappeared), but they are somewhere that an IT guy or hacker can find. Hit the delete button all you want, they're somewhere.

And this is just asking for a hacker to break into the RNC's unsecured servers to search for official White House emails, which is yet another proof of this Administration's incompetence and corruption, potentially compromising security to get around the law to serve their political purposes.

This may be a nice stalling tactic, but it will ultimately not work.

The Last Mimzy

2007-04-11T16:49:00.000-07:00

**Spoiler**

My favorite part was when the Regional Director for Homeland Security, after bursting into the house S.W.A.T.-style, arresting the whole family (saying, "I don't need a warrant, I've got probable cause under the Patriot Act") and discovering children with strange technology that blacked out half of Washington state who then escaped to build a bridge to the future which sucked a stuffed animal with Intel Inside into the sky right in front of his eyes, shrugged and said [paraphrasing]"That was weird. You folks need anything? No? Okay, we are out of here."

Then the Homeland Security helicopter takes off never to disturb the family again.

No renditioning. No stress positions. No sleep deprivation. No waterboarding.

Fantasy indeed.

I Do Not Recognize Your Authoritah

2007-04-09T14:04:00.000-07:00

Just as soon as similar guidelines are suggested for radio, television and print commentators, pundits, columnists and even editors and journalists, I'll consider it.

For instance, "pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about."

That would be great.

via WTF Is It Now?

Chad Vader

2007-04-08T20:16:00.000-07:00

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

Episode 4

Episode 5: Holiday Special

Episode 6

Episode 7

Hopefully Episode 8 will be out soon.

Leeroy Jenkins!

2007-04-07T21:33:00.000-07:00

Something tells me he'd make a great U.S. Attorney.

Embrace the Good News

2007-04-07T08:27:00.000-07:00

John Markman always looks on the bright side of life, asking himself, "how can I make lemonade from this gigantic steaming pile of dung?"

He has a reason to appreciate the massive, conspicuous overconsumption that is leading this planet to the brink of disaster on several fronts. The emergence and spending of more and more mega-millionaires and billionaires around the world has led to fewer and more shallow recessions. That's because

According to research by Ajay Kapur, an analyst at Citigroup, the wealthiest 1 million people in the world account for as much spending as 60 million other households.

This is useful to know at a time of fears that a decline in U.S. home prices could sink the U.S. economy, for it only takes one new free-spending Mumbai or Moscow zillionaire to make up for tens of thousands of faltering Americans missing their mortgage payments.

Isn't that comforting?

Economically, we don't need to adjust to accomodate inflation or bad business practices so the "little guy" doesn't get crushed. Crush away, because just one zillionaire in Mumbai will cover the loss of thousands of little guys. And it's not like anyone's getting sent to debtor's prison. You get to rent your own crappy overpriced apartment while you work past your retirement until you die.

Ecologically, there's no need to worry about squandered resources spent on private jets, yachts and huge friggin' cars; the pollutants caused by maximizing profits through lax regulation; the suppressed innovation of cleaner technologies that would infringe on already established dirty industries. If the wealthy can't bail us out of Global Warming by purchasing a new atmosphere, at least they can build space stations and domed cities to protect themselves and horde resources. And there are so many plutocrats now, the gene pool will be deep enough that they won't have to include any of those inferior people who couldn't bother themselves to behave like locusts and consume everything in their path and yet demand equal rights and representation. The human race will survive, albeit in black and white jumpsuits and mini togas.

The only trouble are those pesky, messy, disruptive resource wars that are and will continue to be fought. Of course there are always plenty of little guys with missed mortgage payments for cannon fodder who are made up for by a couple of Moscow gas magnates. And even for the losers, the wars are still profitable.

So, as John Markman says,

Rather than being resentful of the superrich, perhaps we should all be grateful. The next time you run into a superrich guy at your local Bentley dealer, give him a hug.

The Wheels on the Bus are Coming Off, Coming Off ...

2007-04-04T21:39:00.000-07:00

Everybody sing.

Cliff May. Peter Boyles. John McCain. Matt Drudge.

Now Rush Limbaugh and Orrin Hatch. (Little Thom's Blog via Eschaton)

I know these people (and more) have been telling lies for a long time. It just seems there are so many of them piling up recently, there's a sweaty stink of desperation from it all.

The Dangers of Direct Democracy Illustrated

2007-04-04T21:37:00.000-07:00

Oy vey.

Oh, Rocky Watch, Where Are You?

2007-04-04T20:21:00.000-07:00

In today's RMN:

Today in history
In 1861, Benjamin Harrison, the ninth U.S. president, died of pneumonia after one month in office.

Hmm, they must have gotten that from Conservapedia. Here's what it should say:

Today in history
In 1841, William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. president, died of pneumonia after one month in office.

Be Vewy, Vewy Quiet ...

2007-04-04T11:52:00.000-07:00

The moment the Secret Service has been training for; after the "dry run" in 2006, they knew it was just a matter of time before Dick Cheney made his move.

Objectivist Aristocracy

2007-04-04T09:05:00.000-07:00

Thom Hartmann has an Objectivist on just about every day to argue.

Often I hear him get Objectivists to admit to beliefs that I and I would guess most other Americans would find objectively objectionable, but which makes perfect sense for his guest. For instance, that there should be a small group of super wealthy people who use their wealth and power to force out or buy out any competition as this is beneficial for everyone, including the poor people who can never become even moderately wealthy because they're locked out of competition by the super wealthy and powerful. Monopolies keep prices low so poor powerless people can afford the cheap, unhealthy crap that's forced on them.

I only caught a bit of today's argument, but heard the end when he was talking to a member of the Ayn Rand Institute about some company's bankruptcy and whether that's a reason for government regulation of business. Thom asked, "Do you think it's acceptable for a company to have government protection in the form of bankruptcy, but it's not acceptable for the government to regulate the behavior of a company that might lead to bankruptcy." The answer was yes, government protection is okay while government regulation isn't as bankruptcy is a contractual issue.

Huh?

I wasn't ever aware of signing a contract with corporations telling them it was okay for them to use my investment money to line foreign bank vaults, reupholster yachts, bribe public officials, drive the company into the ground with horrid mismanagement and then have the government protect them from me being able to force them to sell their multi-million dollar mansions paid for with ill-gotten gains to repay at least a portion of my retirement fund.

What government regulation of business comes down to is an enforcement of basic laws such as against theft and murder. Willfully mismanaging funds and using business practices which cheat people is theft. Selling products or emitting pollutants which poison or otherwise physically harm people and lead to their early demise is murder. At very least it's an assault.

So even if I did sign a contract allowing corporations to do these things, the basic illegal acts makes the contract void.

It's just stupid and unworkable to believe that government should protect a certain class of people (corporate officers) in their illegal acts just because they do "business." How's this for an argument in favor of protecting business: "When the deceased came to my client asking for a loan, my client made it clear what would happen to him if he didn't repay. It wasn't personal, it was business, therefore the government must protect the interests of my client."

What that amounts to is the institution of an aristocracy that lives by different laws. From what I glean from Objectivism, it is the belief that there is a class of people that is inherently better than everyone else, the manifestation of this superiority being economic wealth and consequently political power. It apparently doesn't matter what people do to gain wealth; there is no such thing as unethical business practices, and as the guest on Thom Hartmann's show clearly stated, the magical mantle of business should be protection against any consequences for illegal behavior. The greatest crime seems to be the suggestion that poor and powerless people who will be kept poor and powerless by the Business Aegis should band together to claim more power for themselves.

But the government we Americans have instituted is based on the notion of inherent equality before the law. If it's illegal for me to do it, then it doesn't become legal simply because I label myself a part of an elite cadre.

One may argue that the government has no responsibility to provide for anyone, such as with social programs. But what the Objectivist guest was championing by claiming a one-sided role of government when it comes to business is the reinstitution of the Samurai and Feudal lords, of the aristocracy, of the idea that there is one law for the elite and another for the rabble.

Government (that being an institution that we Americans created for the protection of all Americans) has the right and responsibility to regulate behavior at all levels, including business.

One Trick Pony in the Center Ring

2007-04-03T09:48:00.000-07:00

And already we're bored.

Coloradolib liveblogged Tancredo's announcement.

Beyond Cognitive Dissonance

2007-04-02T22:03:00.000-07:00

Rarely, I'll argue something beyond my own belief in it. Semantics and filtering can be useful for those who don't like to lose arguments. But there comes that moment, if you're basically honest, when you smile and concede the point, particularly when presented with a mountain of evidence whose valleys echo with the piercing cries of "bullshit."

Glenn Greenwald caught Cliff May of National Review going way past simple poor forensic sportsmanship.

Just think about that: the lesson which right-wing, Bush-following war supporters drew from the mountain of empirical evidence in this post, as well as from this entire day-long exchange with Cliff May (to say nothing of the November, 2006 election), is that Americans support the War in Iraq and do not want to withdraw the troops. That is beyond jarring.

And it's beyond cognitive dissonance. It's on purpose. At this point it has to be because now is when May should smile and admit he was wrong. But that won't happen easily, as Greenwald points out,

Independently, the right-wing movement in this country has used as its principal rhetorical tactic over the last two decades the claim that they represent the "normal, mainstream Americans," while liberals are the subversive freaks on the coasts, hopelessly out of touch with mainstream American values. Hence, few things are more damaging to their political brand than for it to be acknowledged that on the most critical political issue of the decade -- Iraq -- they are about as isolated and fringe as a political movement can be. That is why they will deny whatever facts one presents, no matter how clear and compelling, which demonstrate just how repudiated their views are by the "normal, nonideological Americans" (h/t David Brooks).

This is the equivalent of an ideological life and death struggle, and Cliff May and his cohort must be feeling like the impala that jumped in the lake of the Okavango to escape the wild dogs on Planet Earth. It's going to be ripped apart by dogs or drowned in the lake. Either way, it will soon cease to exist (except the dogs on Planet Earth were called away when the rest of their pack killed a different impala, a circumstance often prayed for by dishonest bloggers, journalists and pundits, as well).

It's an ideological disembowelment. But it's a necessary culling, one that could actually strengthen the conservative herd. [/extended metaphor]

So, really, what's something as ephemeral as a little public humiliation and shaming when compared to the destruction of the very foundation on which one has based an entire life's endeavor? Bringing down the Cliff Mays of the commentary veldt is going to be more like taking down a cape buffalo. [/damned persistent extended metaphor]

Grand Canyon Skywalk

2007-04-01T12:22:00.000-07:00

I was going to complain about the outrageousness of charging $75 for that skywalk. For things like that, you're supposed to go for volume by making things affordable for more people. In fact, I was going to write a letter to the Hualapai about how we were thinking of a Grand Canyon trip this summer (I've never been), but the outrageous prices made a Black Hills tour more likely.

But I looked it up, as good bloggers should, and found that the price for the Grand Canyon West Entrance Spirit Package is $49.95 while the skywalk itself is $25. And that includes

... photo opportunities with members of the Hualapai tribe (in full dress) as well as access to the Indian Village and Hualapai Market. The village features examples of the houses and lives of several tribes in the area. Performances by the tribe members are scheduled throughout the day. As if that was not enough, your package also includes access to the Hualapai Ranch western town. There you will find the Wagon Wheel wagon ride, cowboy demonstrations, and a scheduled western town show. Round out the trip with your choice of the Western town cowboy cookout or the Hualapai Buffet (all-you-can-eat).

All you can eat.

So it sounds like an okay price for a day filled with western fun and all-you-can-eat buffets. Still a bit on the pricey side considering we'd have to get all the way to Las Vegas, but not so outrageous to warrant a complaint letter.

When Will This be Our Fault?

2007-04-01T11:30:00.000-07:00

Former Bush campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, has become disillusioned with his former boss. (via Eschaton)

Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.
...
“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,” he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.”

Those of us who have never liked President Bush on a personal or professional level have long-recognized his secluded and bubbled decision-making processes (we've used the word "insulated").

But now Bush is even moreso.

So, is it our fault, we naysayers and Bush-haters? Did we create a negative feedback loop and push him further into his tiny bubble instead of playing along happily with his bad decisions? Are the people out to get the paranoid responsible for making the paranoid more paranoid?

At some point a Bush apologist has to make that argument. We can't be given credit for being right that the Iraq war would be a big mistake. We certainly can't be allowed to be right for seeing Bush's authoritarian streak and penchant for Potemkin villages.

Besides the fact that it would have been just stupid to humor president who makes his decisions solely from the gut (the Higher Father he appeals to being a rumbling GI tract would explain a lot), stretching the bubble to encompass us all would have meant the same outcome, only possibly on a much larger scale further down the road: a giant burst bubble and lots of dazed and confused people.

The President Likes Pork

2007-03-31T14:25:00.000-07:00

President Bush is making a heroic stand against pork. That's a major reason he claims he will be vetoing the Iraq spending bill once it reaches his desk.

Of course, he hasn't vetoed prior Defense Appropriations bills because they contained unrelated earmarks. For example, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense,

In 2005, earmarked funding is going to projects as diverse as entirely stainless steel bathrooms ($4 million), airbags for aircraft ($2 million) and leak proof transmission drip pans ($3 million). Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) requested $4.3 million for a program that the Pentagon did not request funds for: the SmarTruck, a souped-up Ford F-350 for use in combat. The Defense budget also includes $3.75 million for alcoholism research at the Gallo center in San Francisco. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) earmarked $110 million for two F-15's that the Pentagon didn't request. There is a $1 million earmark for the eradication of brown tree snakes in Guam (Senator Inouye, from Hawaii, is concerned they will spread), and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Celebration. Other nuggets include $1.5 million for a virtual reality spray paint simulator system in Pine City, Minnesota; $4.3 million for vocational education of Alaskan miners; and $1 million for a biathlon trail upgrade at Fort Richardson, Alaska.

All told, earmarks accounted for more than three percent of the bill's total $391 billion appropriation.

There were 2966 earmarks in last year's defense budget (Nieman Watchdog). But he happily and proudly signed those bills. See? (Okay, so he didn't look so happy about it ... but he was concentrating on his spelling.)

And let's not forget the amazing pile of pig parts that have been falling all across America (and the U.S. Territories) in the name of Homeland Security.

There is nothing new about what this Congress is doing. It's still as wrong and wasteful as it ever has been. And bless the President for his new found dislike of pork and for bringing attention to the problem. But he's ridiculous for pretending that pork has any influence at all on his position now. It's just a way for him to tap into populist sentiments to gain some sort of support for rejecting any kind of Congressional oversight of anything he does, ever.

So which populist sentiment will win, the anti-pork or the pro-oversight?

Waiting to Inhale: Swindled by a Cheesy British Documentary

2007-03-22T15:53:00.000-07:00

I watched a few minutes of The Great Global Warming Swindle, a new British documentary that has some skeptical naysayers hooting with triumphalism. Then I felt compelled to do some fact-checking and discovered that Campaign Against Climate Change did a complete transcript and there are rebuttals by smarter people than I (Frank O. Dwyer, British investigative columnist George Monbiot, blogger Coby Beck), so I don't have to watch even one more minute of those naysaying pieces of shit (really, how seriously should we take a documentary that claims volcanoes emit more CO2 each year than all human activity, which doesn't know the difference between regional and global climate and claims the MWP was warmer than today?).

The claim of the documentary is that sunspot activity is the real culprit behind Global Warming (the existence of which they don't dispute anymore) and that man's activity on Earth has nearly nothing to do with it.

I noticed one glaring flaw in that logic, however.

Much is made of the fact that there was a Post-WWII industrial boom which released more man-made CO2 than ever before, yet we actually saw a cooling trend over the next 40 or so years. If CO2 were responsible for warming, wouldn't that have been the time to directly observe it? Since there was cooling (or at least no warming), then obviously, goes the logic, the theory of man-made Global Warming is destroyed.

However, the sunspot theory is also undermined by that cooling period, since there has apparently been an unusually high level of solar activity, a spike not seen in over 8000 years. If sunspots were the main contributor to global temperature, having many more times the impact of human activity, why didn't the temperature increase during those four decades?

There must have been some other factor at play besides just CO2 and/or sunspots. One theory (and I really don't know of any others) is Global Dimming. Whenever volcanoes emit their massive quantities of CO2, the planet cools. They release particulate matter that blocks the sunlight which cools the planet. Similarly, polluting industries. Oh, and nuclear bombs.

Two of those things are man-made, and two of those things started (heavily for aerosols, which obviously started with the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, which could very well account for why the global temperature began to increase before 1940) in the 1940s. Above-ground nuclear testing and industrial aerosols were curbed a great deal in the 60s and 70s, leaving those natural volcanoes, including Mt. St. Helens, which apparently didn't cool the planet as much as artificial aerosols and nuclear bombs, especially considering that volcanoes also emit CO2 (and methane, another greenhouse gas).

If that is the case, then it seems man can have a significant effect on the atmosphere and the temperature, which undercuts the theory that man is a pipsqueak being pushed around by the sun. (Take that, Sun, we can block you out).

Of course, that's just cooling. (Woot! We can cool the planet by causing acid rain and nuclear winter! Problem solved.) That still doesn't prove CO2 warms the planet, because first the planet heats (because of sunspots) and then the CO2 rises (except that apparently isn't a perfect correlation; as this graph via TPMCafe shows, sometimes CO2 rises before temp, sometimes it happens simultaneously, and sometimes they seem to be operating independently of each other, though they do clearly follow each other ... hmm, must be those "other factors" again). If CO2 follows temperature, then CO2 can't be the cause of warming. Under any circumstances. Right?

Except we've always (except for once, and that global effect hasn't been shown either, and even regionally, Europe had already been in its Little Ice Age for, what, 100 years) had spikes of solar activity, but we haven't always had such seriously increasing temperatures, not for several million years. Yes, in the natural world unimposed upon by massive human activity or other major factors, solar activity can cause warming which raises CO2; then during the decreased solar activity, the CO2 is cycled out, getting processed through the oceans and biosphere which are Carbon Sinks (things that soak up and store more carbon than they emit).

But what if that natural CO2 is heavily augmented with man-made CO2, which doesn't relent even during decreased solar activity, or, hell, even during a single year, decade, or even century? We're still in a peak of solar activity (which scientists think will probably abate soon, though having little effect on Global Warming) and we're releasing gigatonnes of Carbon all year round. How much Carbon can the oceans and biosphere absorb before they stop absorbing it? And once they stop absorbing it -- a la the natural cycle that for many millennia has regulated the temperature of Earth despite sunspots and volcanoes, putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than is normally handled by the earth on a normal regular basis -- the excess CO2 will go into the atmosphere.

If the natural CO2 cycle can be likened to the inhalations and exhalations of the planet, then constantly pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, particularly during an inhalation, can be likened to breathing under a blanket. What, you've never tried that? The increased CO2 makes it hot, sticky and stale. And then if methane is released ... that's a planet I don't want to live on. Earth may have to hold its breath for a while.

I don't doubt that solar activity increases the Earth's temperature. I also don't doubt that the unprecedented and unrelenting activities of humans which don't allow the planet to catch its breath have an effect on our climate, thus on all our lives. It seems that the main problem I have with what I've read of this documentary (besides the glaring errors and omissions of fact by discredited "scientists" ) is that it focuses only on the one factor, sunspots. Global Warming attributes many complexities to global temperature, but The Great Global Warming Swindle ignores all that.

In fact, I bet this statement from the documentary is nearly completely correct (those damn "other factors"): "It was the Sun it seemed, not Carbon Dioxide or anything else that was driving changes in the climate," but only if it's read like this: "It was the Sun it seemed, not Carbon Dioxide or anything else that was driving changes in the climate."

A new figure has been added to the equation.

Starfest 2008.

2007-03-21T23:34:00.000-07:00

Spring is in the air and you know what that means. Nerds falling in love.

At ...

STARFEST!!!

Last year my husband, dad and brother went with me. Denise Crosby showed her film Trekkies. Because I think I chose to watch improv instead, I missed it, though I did catch the end of her Q&A. So I put it on NetFlix. I just watched it tonight, and it was really good. I almost want to move back to Florida just so I can go to Starbase Dental (there are no pics; it's a dentist's office filled with Star Trek paraphernalia and employees in Trek uniforms).

But it also gave me the yen to go back to Starfest for my third year in a row. Pither doesn't seem to want to go this year, but my older son, Ben, does. He's recently gotten into Star Wars and has taken to dressing in his black karate outfit decked out with a Darth Vader utility belt, cape and lightsaber (he's Anakin). I might even wear my tricorder and Federation communicator pin. And carry a lightsaber so I can fight with Ben.

This year's celebrity guest lineup:

Leonard Nimoy - Spock, Star Trek
Rachel Luttrell - Teyla, Stargate Atlanis
Kate Vernon - Ellen Tigh, Battlestar Galactica
Gil Gerard - Buck Rogers, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
Erin Gray - Col. Wilma Deering, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
Daniel Logan - Boba Fett, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Andee Frizzell - Hive Queen, Stargate Atlantis
Ray Park - Darth Maul, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Ben loves Boba Fett. He's got a Boba Fett lego and read a book about a young Boba Fett's adventures right after Jengo died.

Tickets are on sale now for the April 20 - 22 event, at very reasonable prices.

Always Naysaying, You Piece of S&%!

2007-03-21T23:20:00.000-07:00

Last night I saw John Bolton on The Daily Show telling Jon Stewart that he was "historically inaccurate" about his assertion that Abraham Lincoln brought people from different parties, people who were in fact his enemies, into the administration.

It occurred to me that what he did is the perfect example of what the Loyal Bushies do when it comes to inconvenient facts. They just naysay. That's because most people like me don't know things off-hand like Lincoln's varied cabinet. So people can choose to believe either John Bolton or Jon Stewart. Obviously, people who share the ideology of Bolton would choose to believe Bolton, and being the uninformed boobs that they are (that being also the basis for their ideology), wouldn't bother to look it up.

The beauty of blanket naysaying is, even those who would believe Stewart over Bolton even about facts about John Bolton's private life would have doubts about Stewart's facts, and would forget to look it up, just being left with a vague doubt that Bolton might have gotten the better of Stewart.

Well, Stewart did a fact-check for us. And guess what. Stewart was right.

Making John Bolton, in hard historical fact and, by extension, in every other conceivable belief or ideology or idea he has ever had just horribly wrong.

* That's a paraphrase from Tenacious D.

Craigslist Rocks

2007-03-20T16:08:00.000-07:00

We got everything unpacked today.

We had to.

Pither listed our used moving boxes on Craigslist before we were completely unpacked because he thought it would take about a week before we heard from anyone. Fifteen minutes later we got a call. Five minutes after that, we got a second call. The lady who called second just came and picked them up.

So when I say we're unpacked, I mean there's a bunch of stuff on the floor in the basement and piled on the guest room bed.

So, though I endorse Craigslist, I would caution users to make sure the unwanted stuff is ready to go.

No Internal White House Investigation into Plame

2007-03-16T16:22:00.000-07:00

After promising an internal investigation into who leaked Ms. Plame's name ... do I really need to finish the statement? (via AmericaBlog)

To put a positive spin on it, Bush was just practicing good conservation. Why waste resources looking for an answer you already know?

Bridge to Terabithia Review

2007-03-15T11:10:00.000-07:00

Possible slight spoiler alert.

Yesterday after school I took my 7-year-old son, Ben, to see Bridge to Terabithia. The only thing I knew about it was from the trailers, which made it look like a Narnia-type "children enter a magical world with magic and magical things happen while imporant life lessons are learned" movie.

It felt like it was building up to that, too. And once the magical things started happening, it was pretty clear to me, an adult, that magical things weren't happening. To Ben, it was magic. So when something tragic happened, he turned to me and said, "I'm sure [that tragic thing didn't happen]."

At the end of the film, when the tragic thing wasn't magically undone, he quietly turned his head into my shoulder and cried. I'd already been crying a bit, and that made it even worse. I was proud. Sometimes it seems like he's such a little jerk who enjoys torturing his brother, killing little bugs and pretending to kill bigger things (yeah, I know, he's a 7-year-old boy), so it was heartening to see he had that moment when he understands what it means to feel real empathy, even if that empathy is for a fictional character. Paul Atreides is no more human than my boy.

It also reminded me of when I was about his age. My mom took me to see The Mouse and His Child. There was a bad guy rat that, in the end, had his two front teeth knocked out. It somehow "e-mouse-culated" him to lose those two great tusks and he was saddened and humbled. For some reason, which I still can't really fathom, that made me cry. I cried out of the theater, into the car, at home and in my bed. I cried myself to sleep that night.

Bridge to Terabithia was very well made in all those important ways: music, cinematography, directing, acting. The characters, lessons, circumstances and foreshadowing seemed pretty obvious to an adult, and it could have been just another one of those feel good adventure-lesson films which deal lightly and quickly with tragedy or reverse it somehow with magic; where the bad kids get theirs, learn to respect that kid they've been picking on; the triumph of the nerds, "revenge best served cold" -- all that.

But it treated its subject and characters very realistically and respectfully. There were the stereotypes, a bit of that cold revenge and nerd triumphalism. But it cost more than mere public humiliation, thus making what little triumph there was hollow and meaningless when compared with the really important things in life.

It's easy to gloss over serious subjects in an animated or otherwise patently fictional movie when your suspension of disbelief is already in high gear. Bridge to Terabithia confused and blended magic and reality in such a way that the suspension of disbelief was jarred. And that made it more real.

I don't usually go see movies that make me cry in public. I'm still scarred by my Schindler's List experience, which was nothing like Jerry Seinfeld's (and Bridge to Terabithia is nothing like Schindler's List). But I'm very glad the trailers tricked me into seeing this one.

American Veterans Coalition Letter

2007-03-15T09:00:00.000-07:00

The actual letter I sent:

Dear American Veterans Coalition,

Thank you for helping to inspire me to donate money to help our nation's veterans.

When I talked to your representative (which I normally don’t do, since I never give money to strangers who cold call me; but the recent scandals about Walter Reed and the VA naturally make many trusting and well-intentioned Americans, including myself, particularly vulnerable to entreaties to help veterans) I made it clear that I was skeptical about your organization and that I would certainly send $15 if the American Veterans Coalition was what he made it out to be.

Of course I looked up your organization. Although the Better Business Bureau has heard of you, they have no information (a red flag). There are several charity watchdog groups online which also have no listings. Luckily, I found a 2005 article by Matthew Kauffman in the Hartford Courant.¹ It said that the American Veterans Coalition, one of several charities run by Robert Friend, gives a very small percentage of the proceeds it collects, if it gives any at all. I was pleased to see by your own website that at least a few thousand dollars have made their way to already established charities, such as local branches of Disabled American Veterans.²

I understand that charities operate as middle men, helping to get money from donators to the needy, and that there are administrative costs. However, it occurred to me that the American Veterans Coalition is a middle man for the middle man. If I were to send $15 to your organization, probably only about $2.25 would actually make it to an established veterans organization, and after their administrative costs, only about $1.68 would go directly toward helping a veteran.

Of course, 1.1% of $15 is better than 100% of nothing. But 76%³ of $15 is way better than 1.1% of $15. So it makes much more sense, purely from a business perspective, for me to send my money directly to one of the charities your organization would send my money to.

So I've decided to send $15 to Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust.⁴ I know it cost American Veterans Coalition money to send the envelope that I mailed this letter in. But as veterans need my money much more than Robert Friend, his wife, or even their cold callers, and as the goal of American Veterans Coalition is to help veterans, I'm sure all would agree that this was a much more efficient use of time, money and resources than usual.

Sincerely,

Julie O.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/351.htm
2. http://www.american-veterans.org/help.html
3. http://www.dav.org/donations/faq.html
4. http://www.dav.org/cst/index.html

Dems Don't Need to Talk to Fox

2007-03-11T18:50:00.000-07:00

I like this very much. (via WTF Is It Now?)

Edwards campaign says:

The truth is, Fox News can "report" whatever they want. And when it works for us, we'll deal with them on our terms. But this campaign is about responsibility and accountability, and we need to send the message to Fox that if they want to be the corporate mouthpiece of the Republican Party more than they want to be an impartial news outlet, they shouldn't expect Democrats to play along.

I just wish Edwards had learned that lesson a few weeks ago about Amanda and Melissa.

I don't see a Fox News boycott by all Democrats as being anything other than a winning strategy. Fox News and the extended rightwing Wurlitzer is great at making up phone scandals and distracting from real issues. The people who lap up that crap aren't going to vote for Dems anyway, no matter what. Why play into it at all?

Happy Birthday, Osama!

2007-03-10T11:06:00.000-07:00

The big five oh.

Did you get the special cake the CIA sent you?

It was an old Saddam Hussein recipe.

Atrios Has My Number

2007-03-09T15:01:00.000-07:00

Except for 5, 6, & 7.

I wish the Hillary Clinton for President campaign would suppress my unique and individual voice. Then I'd know she cares.

Helping Americans Get a Tax Deduction Without Actually Having to Help Other Americans

2007-03-08T21:20:00.000-07:00

I got a call from the American Veterans Coalition tonight, and I pledged a conditional $15. I told the guy on the phone that if his organization was what he made it out to be, I would definitely send the $15.

With Walter Reed and the wider VA scandal fresh in the news raising awareness and empathy for veterans more than normal, the time is ripe for scam artists to play on sympathies and con unsuspecting people out of well-intentioned cash. I don't like to be conned, and usually hang up as soon as I realize it's a solicitation for a "charity." But how could even I turn down the veterans at a time like this?

Of course I looked up the AVC. It was set up by Robert Friend, who simultaneously has three other charities. For three years prior to starting the AVC, Friend ran a charity called Tomorrow's Abundance, a charity for veterans, kids with cancer, and the blind.

According to a 2005 article by Matthew Kauffman in the Hartford Courant, the AVC, along with the three other charities, raised nearly $1 million in 2003 and spent exactly zero on veterans (though the AVC website shares the statistics on the percentages and numbers of veterans who need help, there's no financial information). In 2004, they had managed to streamline the operation and, out of $1.1 million raised, spent $15,000 on veterans. Of that, $14,500 was sent to established veterans groups.

Why wouldn't I just give my money to an established veterans group? You know, cut out the middle man with the million dollar mansion.

As a comparison, Charity Navigator says Fisher House Foundation -- "There is at least one Fisher House at every major military medical center to assist families in need and to ensure that they are provided with the comforts of home in a supportive environment" -- raised over $16 million in 2005, spending only about $380,000 on administrative and fundraising expenses, with a carried-over excess of $7.3 million. That's 95.6% spent on the program.

And the American Institute of Philanthropy suggests two other established veterans groups, as well: Armed Services YMCA of the USA and Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, which gets four stars just for the name.

In fact, the AVC provides a handy list of links to letters from the recipients of those paltry laundered charitable donations they've dispersed over the last three years, like Disabled American Veterans.

So I think when I get the envelope from the American Veterans Coalition, I'll enclose this letter:

Dear American Veterans Coalition,

Thank you for helping to inspire me to donate money to help our nation's veterans. It occurred to me, however, that if I were to send $15 to your organization, probably only about $2.25 would actually make it to an established veterans organization, and after their administrative costs, only about $1.68 would go directly toward helping a veteran.

Of course, 1.1% of $15 is better than 100% of nothing. But 76% of $15 is way better than 1.1% of $15.

So I've decided to send my $15 directly to Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust. I know you had to spend money to send me the envelope that I mailed this letter to you in. But as the veterans need the money so much more than Robert Friend, his wife, or their fundraisers, and as the goal of American Veterans Coalition is to help veterans, I'm sure you'll agree your time and expense was very well spent.

Sincerely,
Julie O.

WashPost's Libby Conviction Idiotorial

2007-03-07T14:59:00.000-07:00

There's no other word for it. Fred Hiatt didn't write an editorial, he wrote an idiotorial. (via Atrios)

Hiatt makes several false claims about Wilson:

"he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration."

After making up things that Joe Wilson claimed, Hiatt then went on to say that an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee found that Wilson was wrong about the things that Hiatt made up.

Here's what Wilson said about debunked allegations that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger:

"Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick ... felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington."

As for Wilson's own assessment:

" ... it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

Here's what Wilson said about Cheney's involvement in sending him to Niger:

"... Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. ... The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer."

And here's what Wilson said about who got his report:

"In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau.

... Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

... I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

[emphasis added]

So it was Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick who claimed to have debunked the allegations, which Wilson independently confirmed; it was Vice President Cheney's office which made a request of the CIA who made the request of Wilson; and Wilson gave an accurate accounting of who he reported to.

And that's just dealing with two small paragraphs of Hiatt's idiotorial!

Hiatt then goes on to claim Joe Wilson made up his wife's CIA status, that Mrs. Wilson was not a covert operative for the CIA based on the fact that no evidence was presented in the trial. Hiatt also makes a big deal out of the fact that no one has been indicted for leaking her name, thus proving there's no There there. First, such evidence would have been irrelevant to the case being prosecuted. Second, it's still classified. Third, even declassified, such evidence may never be presented at anyone's trial, as, without someone like Libby testifying that Rove and Cheney knowingly and intentionally outed Mrs. Wilson, it would be very difficult to prove the underlying crime.

However, there are plenty of sources that state that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert operative of the CIA who had worked overseas within the 5 years previous to her outing, including 11 CIA officials who testified for that bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.

The biggest crime, according to Hiatt, was the damage done to journamalists.

One, Judith Miller of the New York Times, lost several court appeals and spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify. The damage done to journalists' ability to obtain information from confidential government sources has yet to be measured.

Is he effing kidding? Judith "Never Met a Corrupt Government Source I Wouldn't Be a Willing Dupe and Mouthpiece For" Miller? Try measuring the damage Judith "Queen of All Iraq" Miller has done to journalism and our country.

Mr. Hiatt was, at least, right about one thing: this idiotorial tells us nothing about Whitewater.

Talk about no There there.

Shrapnel in the Kitchen

2007-03-06T12:02:00.000-07:00

It's the subtitle of an article Pyrex Panic: Shrapnel in the Kitchen. But it just happened here, so I get to use it.

I was unloading the dishwasher while my husband took his Banquet chicken out of the oven. He placed it on the stovetop, which is a smooth-surface countertop stove that's across the room from our convection oven, right next to the dishwasher. I was explaining my techniques for fighting primarily with the handgun in the professional level of Resident Evil 4.

His hand had just let go of the dish, still protected by an oven mitt, when the dish suddenly exploded.

Now, World Kitchen, the company that now owns Pyrex and Corningware, doesn't like the word "exploded." They say

"We want to assure you that neither PYREX glass bakeware nor other glass bakeware 'explodes.' Glass does not explode but it can break. As glass bonds break, people may hear a noise and be surprised."

Surprised!? Uh, yeah.

When glass breaks in a manner that it flies halfway across the room, I think it can safely be described as "exploding."

Fortunately, Andy, our three-year-old, was in the living room, and neither Pither nor I were hurt. But I had to pick chunks of still-warm glass out of the dishwasher. And, thanks to my parents leaving us a shop vac, the clean up of tiny slivers was fairly easy, too.

I understand that sometimes things explode. It's the way of life. But it's nice to at least have an idea of which things might explode. The article indicates that World Kitchen is denying their dishes explode and aren't warning the public to be careful.

The article, by James R. Hood of ConsumerAffairs.com offers useful advice where World Kitchen fails.

• Wear oven gloves; you won't burn yourself and if the dish blows up, you're less likely to be cut;
• Wear shoes. Being pregnant is fine but being barefoot in the kitchen is out;
• Keep the dish away from your face. You avert your face when connecting jumper cables to your battery don't you? (You don't? You should.)
• Keep kids and dogs away from the cooking area;
• Set bakeware dishes down gently. Banging them around greatly increases the chances of trouble;
• Preheat your oven before putting anything in it. Some ovens use the top heating elements (the "broil" elements) during the preheat cycle, which can cause trouble if you put a cold bakeware dish in there;
• Don't put objects on the top of the stove unless you intend to cook them. Even if the burners aren't on, heat can be vented from the oven. And, most important ...
• Don't let your kids undertake big baking, roasting or frying projects unsupervised. The kitchen is a dangerous place.

Oh, and our advice for Vice President Arnold? Spend a little less time on semantics and give a little more prominence to the safety warnings you now so skillfully downplay.

Thank you. I still have a smaller Pyrex baking dish.

... I'm a bad visual blogger. I didn't take a picture in situ, but here are a few pics of where it happened, as well as the garbage full of sploded Pyrex.

From the oven,

to the stove,

to the garbage.

The Media Coverage of War Didn't Cause Failures

2007-03-06T09:34:00.000-07:00

My parents were here to help us get settled in. Dad spent a couple of days battling the downstairs sink. The previous owner fancied himself a plumber/electrician. He wasn't. There's a lot to fix.

At the end of the day we sat down for an hour or so to chat, and, as often happens, the topic came around to politics. As regular readers [snicker, probably the most regular readers are my dad and husband] know, my parents lean right and I and Pither lean left. I don't think any of us are "extremists" or "radicals," but our rhetoric sometimes goes that way.

It didn't get too extreme yesterday (like I'm going to argue with my parents after all the hard work they were doing on our house). And I thought they brought up an interesting point.

They wondered what WWII or the Civil War would have been like if there had been the kind of media coverage that we see today. If we'd been aware of all the screwups and friendly fire incidents and pictures of dead bodies, would we have lost the will to continue the fights? Screwups always happen in every war, we just didn't see them all the time.

For me, it's not the death toll or the gruesome pictures or the screwups that makes me against Bush and his wars (except Afghanistan, which made sense). I'm not an anti-war liberal. I'm specifically against Bush's awful, stupid and unnecessary warmongering.

I understand that sometimes great sacrifices are called for. I think most people understand that, despite the visuals and media coverage. Many in the military and their families cling to the belief that their sacrifices are worthwhile and continue to support the President and his policies. It's natural, no matter the conflict, to feel that way. I heard somewhere that the percentage of Americans directly involved in WWII (soldiers and families) was 12%. Now it's something like .5%. So during WWII, that need to believe would have been more widespread.

And it wasn't until recently that a majority of Americans started opposing the Iraq War. Coverage has been ongoing since the beginning, but many people thought there was a good reason for the carnage, so they supported it.

So I don't think it was the coverage of the war that caused the change in public opinion. And it's certainly neither the coverage nor the turn in public opinion that has caused the continuing screwups.

Here's an important distinction between the Civil War, WWII, and the current Bushie War on Terra. During the Civil War and WWII, Congress held many hearings, demanding accountability of the Administrations of how the wars were being waged, how monies were being spent. That oversight has been stunningly lacking regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, talk of oversight has earned accusations of anti-American, pro-terrorist treason.

Until the reflection of change in public opinion in the form of the November 2006 elections, Bush kept saying he would stay the course, continuing the same failed policies and strategies that lost billions of taxpayer dollars and caused thousands of lives with little gain. Sure, as my dad pointed out, in one day of training for D-Day, 35,000 men were lost. But then we got D-Day. Bush's D-Day is a surge around Baghdad? Who knows, maybe the surge (and nothing else, since there's still foreign - to Iraqis - contractors, sectarian conflicts, American soldiers training their own killers) will work. Would Bush have even done that if a continually mis-informed American public hadn't stood up to demand accountability?

In this instance, the media coverage that may have helped sway public opinion was a great boon, as it allowed the American public to attempt to provide the oversight and check that the Congress was not providing.

It's not the images of death, it's not the accounts of screwups. It's a realization that we were lied into a war that made no sense to the wider struggle against terrorism; that the war theory (too few troops, no post-war plan, private foreign contractors rather than Iraqi or U.S. military workers, etc.) expounded by Rumsfeld and Bush was wrong; that Bush cronies have been profiteering to the tune of billions of dollars; that Congress hasn't been providing checks and balances; that every rhetorical argument of loving and supporting the troops has been a lie.

The Bush Administration has had carte blanche to wage this war any way it chose. It had public support, it had a great deal of media support, it had Congressional support. And still it was messing up and failing.

I don't think the real question is, "If there had been modern media coverage during WWII or the Civil War, would those wars have failed?" I think it's, "If there had been media coverage comparable to what was available during the Civil War or WWII, would the Iraqi post-war have gone any better?"

Because of the huge differences in casus belli, oversight, and characters of the various Administrations, I seriously doubt it.

VA Misappropriated Funds for Privatization Efforts

2007-03-03T09:16:00.000-07:00

Cookie Jill at Skippy says that privatization played a part in the neglect at Walter Reed.

Though IAP (run by KBR CEO Al Neffgen) only got the contract to run Walter Reed in 2006, replacing 300 Federal employees with 50 contracted employees, money had been diverted, in violation of the law, from VA care between 2001 and 2004 to study the costs of privatization. Specifically,

... the VHA medical care appropriation accounts performed activities in support of cost comparison studies in connection with the CARES process, VA’s evaluation of its medical center laundry facilities, and for some of the 1,626 studies referenced in VA’s fiscal year 2002 PAR.

The VA had requested appropriations in amounts ranging from $16 - $50 million dollars to conduct such studies, but did not receive the appropriations. VA went ahead with its studies anyway because, in typical Bushite fashion, the VA simply disagreed with the GAO's interpretation of the law. Obviously, the Title 38 cost comparison funding prohibition means using VHA appropriations for some cost comparison is allowed.

Government agencies are required to do cost comparison studies, but must abide by the requirements of OMB Circular A-76, which streamlines studies to reduce administrative costs.
Sidestepping that requirement allowed the kind of waste private companies associated with Bu$hCo is becoming famous for.

... VA did not track the time and expense associated with performing cost comparison studies in-house and was thus unable to provide us with a reliable estimate of this amount.

[...]

Nonetheless, based on documentation provided by VA, the amount of time and effort spent in support of cost comparison studies likely was substantial. For example, according to VA’s Draft National CARES Plan, issued on August 4, 2003, hundreds of staff across VA devoted a great deal of time and energy to the CARES implementation process, which lasted 14 months.

[...]

the CARES process involves: (1) analyzing veterans’ health care needs—referred to as market analysis, (2) developing options to address those needs, (3) evaluating each option, and (4) implementation.

The funny part about the argument the VA and the GAO was having over the interpretation of the statute was when the GAO had to whip out the dictionary to explain what the words "any" and "study" meant.

... the crux of our disagreement with VA is the meaning of the word "study." According to a well-recognized dictionary of the sort that might have been available to the Congress in 1981, a "study" is defined broadly as a careful examination or analysis of a phenomenon, development, or question, or the publication of a report of such an examination or analysis. The other important word in the language of the prohibition is the word "any," which modified the word "study." In our October 2004 legal opinion, we construed "any" to mean "every" and "all." We found no evidence in the legislative history that the Congress intended the words "any" and "study" in their common, ordinary, and contemporary usage to mean only a "formal" (i.e., standard) A-76 study.

Message board argument flashback!

And it's pretty sad how the House Committee on Government Reform had to inform the VA's Secretary, "that timely, accurate cost accounting data are integral to effective budgeting. "

Interestingly, R. James Nicholson, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, was made a Knight of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius IX while acting as Ambassador to the Holy See in 2003. Doesn't the Constitution say something about that?

...no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

As was explained to me by an expert when I called C-SPAN during the 2000 election recount, an office of profit or trust includes ambassadorships. I did a quick search of the Congressional record, and found no record of Congress consenting to a U.S. Ambassador accepting a foreign title. Goddamned piece of paper. But what was the common understanding of "any kind whatever" when the Constitution was drafted? It must have meant "some kinds, sometimes."

Well, obviously I lost my train of thought on this subject. Goddamned decongestants. Suffice it to say, once again, whether the issue is big or small, Bu$hCo is corrupt.

Am I a Right Wing Blogger?

2007-03-02T12:01:00.000-07:00

According to how many times I've blogged about Walter Reed (0 times), yes I am. (Jesus' General via Square State).

Of course, I've been preparing to move, moving, moving, moving and cleaning, and now sick. But that's no excuse.

Patients at Walter Reed have to be ready for 7am formation every day now that someone blabbered to the press about their neglect. Physically disabled patients have to walk up three flights of stairs to their rooms. Wounded patients take care of other wounded patients, and the military and Bush Administration has known about it for more than three years.

And I have the nerve to complain about a head cold?

Saul Alinsky's Republican Children

2007-03-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

I'm sure I've heard of Saul Alinsky before, but the information didn't stick. From what I've gleaned from this MSNBC article by Bill Dedman, Alinsky was a bit of a contradiction. He was at once an ideologue and a pragmatist. He championed the rights of the underclass to demand power from the elites and developed radical tactics he believed would best achieve that goal. And he was not an ideological purist: "He said he was happy to work with anyone — the Roman Catholic Church, black Protestants, the communists — whoever would invite him into a neighborhood."

Because he did work with the communists he has been labeled a Marxist. I don't know why he wouldn't also be a black Protestant Catholic, but whatever.

And because of her association with Alinsky for the purpose of writing a senior thesis for Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton has been called Alinsky's Daughter; that is, a Marxist. In that case I would think she would have a higher rating on free trade from the CATO Institute. But again, whatever.

However, the article and its description of her long-sealed thesis paints a portrait of Clinton that most of us are familiar with: she's in the political center; she's cautious and pragmatic, not an ideologue; she's always been a political animal. She sounds more like the Republican that the Republicans claim to be, specifically opposing a big government solution to poverty.

And so far as she agreed with Alinsky, it was in the belief in the empowerment of the powerless. You know, democracy. In broad historical terms, that is the most radical of ideas, though more recently it's a rather commonplace belief. Well, favorite buzzword, anyway.

There is that other aspect of Alinsky's belief that she didn't agree with, his tactics.

In the end, she judged that Alinsky's “power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts” — overriding national issues such as racial tension and segregation. Alinsky had no success in forming an effective national movement, she said, referring dismissively to “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.”
Putting Alinsky's Rochester symphony threat [getting a few hundred people to eat beans before attending a concert, creating a 'fart-in'] into academic language, Rodham found that the conflict approach to power is limited. “Alinsky's conclusion that the ‘ventilation’ of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board ‘social catharsis’ cannot be prescribed,” she wrote.

If a belief in empowering the weak and a rejection of agitprop makes her Alinsky's Daughter, then what is a person who believes in agitprop to continue the empowerment of the powerful? A bastard son. In other words, Republican political strategists (though "neocon" is a better phrase for these bastards).

In Alinsky's 13 Rules for Radicals, I immediately recognized many of the very tactics neocons have regularly used with recent success.

ALINSKY's RULES FOR RADICALS
"Personalize it"
Saul Alinsky's rules of power tactics, excerpted from his 1971 book "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals"
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Naturally, Dedman quoted a salivating bastard son of Alinsky in the form of a Republican political consultant.

Turning to an expert at using Alinsky's tactic -- picking a target, freezing it, personalizing it and polarizing it -- Chris Lacivita can also envision such an ad.
Lacivita co-produced the "Swift Boat" ads in the 2004 presidential race questioning Democratic Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam service. He told MSNBC.com that no fact from a candidate's life is too old for negative advertising.
"I think the last election cycle proved that there's no statute of limitations," said the Republican political consultant. "What someone did or said 35 years ago is certainly fair game, especially if you're running for president of the United States.
"I have not read her research paper. Though I can assure you that I
will very soon," Lacivita added with a laugh.
He began to brainstorm what such an ad might look like:
"You have to make it relevant to world events today.
"Maybe you look at the contrast. What year did Hillary write this paper? 1969.
"And where was John McCain in 1969? A POW in Vietnam."

Yeah, and remember the Bush Administration's tactic of ridiculing McCain's experience in Hanoi, claiming it rendered McCain mentally unfit? A tactic which continues, by the way.

Grassroots organizing of the powerless and disenfranchised was the soul of Alinsky's philosophy, a soul shared by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. "After attending Columbia University, [Obama] worked as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago for the Developing Communities Project. Obama and others of the post-Alinsky generation described their work in the 1990 book 'After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois,' in which Obama wrote that he longed for ways to close the gap between community organizing and national politics."

The Rules for Radicals was merely the body that soul inhabited at the time, and as implied, knowing the enemy is essential. The common notion of a leftist radical revolutionary is one who disdains the bourgeoisie. Alinsky, however, warned against making the middle-class the enemy, of spurning middle-class values.

They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.

Yet it did. In wrongly identifying the enemy, many liberals allowed neocons to use the soulless body of The Rules to stalk around the countryside chanting "liberal brains, liberal brains," infecting the neglected working class. The result is an economic ruling class that has convinced the underclass that continuing to support the ruling class is actually in their self-interest since they have soooo much in common, like music and movies.

I'm not saying neocons literally and consciously used Alinsky's Rules. But, except for rule 13, I think they are good rules, and liberals should exorcise the demons and reclaim the body. Because we do have the soul, and we can make the rules work for the good.

I don't think a stunt like staging a fart-in is a good idea (funny, but not good), but otherwise ventilation of hostilities (like blogging) is great. When Clinton was decrying "across-the-board 'social catharsis,'" there was not as much economic disparity. Sure there was plenty of civil unrest, but it seemed to be a war of radical military- and bourgeoise-hating revolutionaries versus blue collar hard hats.

After decades of increasing polarization per rule 13 by soulless and corrupt zombies that are destroying our economy, military, legal and governing systems, people are beginning to realize that they've actually been divided in order to be conquered. The time is becoming very very ripe for across-the-board social catharsis, a Little Rebellion, if you will.

Moving is Teh Sux

2007-02-27T17:43:00.000-07:00

It doesn't seem to matter how much you organize or how much you get rid of, it's still gruelling and you still have way too much crap.

In fact, we're not even totally moved yet. We had three levels in our last home. Two of the levels are empty and sparkling clean. One level looks like Sanford & Son. That's our job tomorrow. And then I have to clean it, which should only take a couple of hours, as I have Mad Cleaning Skillz which are too often under utilized.

I am so frickin' over it already.

That is all.

Say, what's been happening in the world outside? Al Gore won an Oscar or something, right?

Ladies and Gentlemen, Your House of Representatives

2007-02-18T09:38:00.000-07:00

Zoot suit, poodle skirt, microwave oven ... close enough.

"Could you picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo looking at his Blackberry getting a message from Congress? 'Davy Crockett, we support you. The only thing is we are not going to send any troops.' I'm sure that would really be impressive to Davy Crockett."

Things Abraham Lincoln never said:

"Put your poo box away."

"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

"Well, I'm off to the theater. I certainly hope I have good seats and I don't get shot in the back of the head by John Wilkes Boothe."

Matthews Clinton Smear Continues

2007-02-17T20:21:00.000-07:00

Chris Matthews will say anything to fit whatever agenda he has at any given moment ... and when it comes to the Clintons, that agenda is always to smear.

Media Matters is currently illustrating his attacks on Hillary because she's a woman, but I noticed a little something that was so blatantly untrue it's stunning.

MATTHEWS: She seems to imply that she didn't know this guy would take us to war. She said, he could -- I gave him the right to do it, but I thought he'd go through sanctions and inspections and all of this.

Everybody in America knew we were going to war with Bush. He made it pretty clear from day one we were going to war.

Besides my very clear memories of Bush repeatedly saying that war was a last resort and that he hadn't made up his mind to invade Iraq, I thought the whole point of the controversy surrounding the Downing Street Memo was that it confirmed what liberals had been saying about Bush -- that he had planned, from day one, to go to war.

Perhaps Matthews, who constantly rewrites his own history, doesn't remember the Downing Street Memo controversy because he didn't talk about it ... except to help Condoleezza Rice come up with a lie to escape the accusation that Bush was fixing intelligence to fit his pre-determined agenda. Which she had to know was a lie, considering (as the incomparable Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler reminded me) that in July of 2002 she had told the State Department's director of policy planning, Richard N. Haass, that discussions of the pros and cons of invading Iraq were moot because the President had already made his decision.

Matthews' attack on Clinton also makes it sound like she's just now coming up with the rationale of "I believed the President when he said he would work to avoid war" to excuse her vote for the authorization. He's done it before, saying Democrats who were bamboozled by the Bush Administration's bogus case for war are just backpedaling because of the disastrous outcome. But as we can see from Hillary Clinton's own words, her rationale for voting for authorization was exactly what she made it out to be.

She's not waffling or changing her mind capriciously like all women do [/sarcasm]. The Bush Administration lied to make its case.

Peter Pan Salmonella

2007-02-17T10:49:00.000-07:00

We have one of the infected jars, and we've eaten nearly halfway through it. Maybe the salmonella settled to the bottom, because we're not sick.

At least I don't think so.

How do you tell the difference between your normal, everyday stomach cramps and bloody diarrhea and special salmonella stomach cramps and diarrhea?

This is Why Candidates Need Bloggers

2007-02-16T14:59:00.000-07:00

Bloggers help fact check. Well, make that leftwing bloggers. Hopefully even a rightwing blogger working for a Congressman should at least be aware from the subject blogswarming and warn his/her employer not to make a complete jackass of himself on the floor of the House.

Don Young of Alaska repeated the phony Abraham Lincoln quote. (TPM Cafe, via Atrios)

We're Homeowners

2007-02-16T14:16:00.000-07:00

We signed the papers today, so we'll be pretty busy for the next couple of weeks doing work on the house and moving.