@Randem

Labels: fun, humor, politics

I saw a clip on CNN while I was at lunch yesterday saying that President Dubya had vetoed a bill that would have given healthcare to 10 million poor children in America.

I really want to believe that there's more to it. I want to believe that there was some pork in the bill that Bush was trying to prevent. I always doubt that anything is as cut-and-dried hateful as the media makes it out to be, so I can't really imagine that he's just some evil tryant who want to prevent poor kids from going to the hospital.

But then I read this:

Bush stated that “this legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction. Under this bill government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children.”

And it really was that clear to me. This douche-bag has spent his entire presidency looking out for the best interest of the healthcare industry (in his free time, when he wasn't busy making new terrorist enemies) at the cost of actual health care for real people. He's been fighting to protect the bottom line for a big industry rather than looking out for the good of the American people. And this is no different.

This bill was not vetoed because it was bad for Americans... it was vetoed because it might encourage some of the affected families to take the free government healthcare instead of paying for the overpriced insurance plans they have now. In other words, it would have actually been good for Americans, but at a cost to the evil corporate empire.

Not on his watch. No way.

Labels: corporate evil, health, life, philosophy, politics

I've been hearing a lot of criticism of AT&T lately.

$10 DSL
I heard the host of a radio program last Friday, talking about a deal that AT&T made with the FCC in order to get the okay on it's BellSouth merger. One of the concessions is they have offer $10 DSL service.

The caller on the radio program related his experiences of calling the AT&T customer service line to get signed up for the program, whose rather strict criteria he meets. Every time he calls, however, he gets the runaround. The customer service representatives don't seem to know of any such deal. The radio host insisted that AT&T is screwing with him and gave him a number for a federal bureau that investigates complaints of poor customer service.

DSL Trial Period
Later that evening, without any mention of AT&T, my brother begins to tell me the story of his debacle with the company.

His home phone service was provided by AT&T, as was his cable television. AT&T was also the provider for high-volume commercial phone and internet service at his place of business. When they ran a promotion late last year for a low-cost trial period with their DSL service, he decided to try that too.

For the duration of the trial period, the DSL never worked. He called periodically asking to have it canceled, but his complaints and request to cancel were me with argument from the customer service, insisting that it they could do some troubleshooting on their end and get it going. Their stonewalling tactic held him all the way through the end of the trial period, after which the service still did not work, but now they would happily disconnect him with no argument, if he pays the early-termination fee for the contract he is now implicitly locked into.

Worse, the early-termination fee is greater than the total that would be paid by simply paying by the terms of the contract to its completion. With this knowledge, he offered to simply pre-pay the entire amount of the contract, to completion, in exchange for having the service immediately disconnected, but they refused this.

In response to this horrible customer service, he has canceled his home phone service, changed cable tv providers, and moved his company's voice and data services to a different provider. And now, my brother calls AT&T customer service every two weeks, just making sure to get someone on the line to guarantee him that, upon completion of the contract period, he can cancel his service without paying an early-termination fee.

New Terms of Service
The following morning, I saw a story on Boing Boing about new changes AT&T made to their terms of service, giving the company the right to terminate your connection for conduct that “tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.” I suppose it's a good thing I'm not an AT&T internet customer, or else I might end up losing my service for writing this!

News of the TOS changes stirred up a lot of unhappy responses. Several web sites that complained about the change were contacted by AT&T, and informed that while the TOS allows them to do it, they won't be cutting the users off for vocalizing complaints. AT&T explains that the new terms are for people who look at child porn or advocate race violence. Sure.

What It Means To Me
While I'm not an AT&T internet customer, I do have AT&T cellular service, thanks to their merger with Cingular. And to be frank about it, I hate my service. I used to like it, but since the merger, the service has been awful. Apparently former AT&T subscribers feel the same way.

This is, ironically, how I ended up with Cingular cell service. I was a Sprint customer, and while I loved Sprint's service, they never had any of the new, cool phones. When they merged with Nextel, their service got worse, and I switched to Cingular. Now, I find myself in the same situation and once again ready to switch.

My contract ends in a few months, and the only thing AT&T has left to make me want to remain a customer is that they are the exclusive provider of service for Apple's iPhone. However, considering the release of the new iPod Touch, which is essentially, an iPhone without the phone, I can get everything but the phone features and never have to lock into a deal with any provider to make it work. Or, alternatively, I could try to get a hold of the iPhone SIM unlock hack that allows your iPhone to work with any SIM-based wireless provider, sacrificing only the interactive voicemail provided by AT&T.

Based on the way AT&T is running things, I think I'll be better served by just getting an iPod Touch, while moving my phone service to Verizon, which seems to be the favorite now for value as well as service.

Incidentally, if you want to get out of a cellular contract, take a look at Celltrade, a service that helps you transfer your contract responsibility to
someone else and walk away without the hefty penalty.

Labels: common sense, corporate evil, fun, health, humor, life, philosophy, politics, rant, religion

Federal Judge Ann Aiken thinks so.

In a ruling released yesterday, Judge Aiken found sections 1804 and 1823 in violation of our constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Now, for the first time in our Nation's history, the government can conduct surveillance to gather evidence for use in a criminal case without a traditional warrant, as long as it presents a non-reviewable assertion that it also has a significant interest in the targeted person for foreign intelligence purposes,” wrote Judge Aiken in her opinion.

In addition to finding the relevant sections of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, the judge also ordered the government to destroy all the illegally-obtained evidence.

You can read more about it at Ars Technica.

Labels: big brother, national security, politics

Oh, how boring would my life be if I didn't have the TSA to keep me entertained? Just like last time, these ever-vigilant defenders of justice have thwarted a deviously masterminded plan to sneak a cup of coffee on board an airplane, clearly violating that most important of safety regulations: no liquids.

Well thank God our heroes of the airways stopped that passenger from drinking all that coffee, because he had a box-cutter. If he'd been allowed to get all wired and jittery on caffeine, while cramped into that tiny space on board the plane, he might have gone crazy!



I'm starting to see the logic. I mean what other possible catastrophes may have been thwarted thanks to the liquid ban?

• Too-much-aftershave-guy can't bring his Aqua Velva in his carry on, preventing the people next to him from getting fed up with the scent and going ape shit at 30,000 feet.
• Kids can't bring their 400-oz aluminum can of energy drink with them, so they get tired of kicking the seat in front of them after an hour or so, instead of three or four hours, causing the person seated in front of them to go ape shit at 30,000 feet.
• Pet lovers won't be able to put their goldfish in a bag of water and fly it with them on vacation. Sure, maybe the fish will die from not being fed, but at least it won't cause the cat in the lap of the person next to you to go ape shit at 30,000 feet and scratch up everyone in the cabin.
• Vegetable oil, which kills you from the inside, will definitely not be clogging any arteries, making your heart go ape shit at 30,000 feet.
• No shampoo, so there won't be any women getting naked and shampooing their hair with Herbal Essesnces, causing some sex-starved maniac to go ape shit at 30,000 feet.
• There will be no sun-tan lotion, relieving you of the temptation to climb out onto the wing and work on your tan at 30,000 feet.

Labels: national security, politics

I brought it up here and here, and then overtly raised the question here: why does it seem that the terror threats always seem to increase right before an election?

It appears that I now have my answer. The New Republic has an article up detailing the research of three psychologists who've discovered that behavior can be altered to favor one candidate over another when the voters' are encouraged (subconsciously, of course) of their mortality.

In their experiments, Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski make a good case that mortality reminders from September 11 enhanced Bush's popularity through November 2004. But, on the basis of their research, it is possible to draw even broader conclusions about U.S. politics after September 11. Mortality reminders not only enhanced the appeal of Bush's political style but also deepened and broadened the appeal of the conservative social positions that Republicans had been running on.

Scary stuff, man. Go read it. Understand what they're doing. Subconscious manipulation stops working once you're conscious of it.

Labels: national security, politics

The last bastions of hope in our defense against hijacking hijinks, the TSA, have proven once again that safety and security are not possible with bureaucracy.

In their latest caper, those wild-and-zany protectors of our freedom ran a passenger's bag through the security scanner and saw something that looked suspicious. The scanner operator waved over another TSA employee, who confirmed the suspiciousness of the item on the scanner. Lucy! You got some 'splainin to do! The passenger had brazenly tried to carry a container of pudding on board the airplane, and it would have worked, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

The crusaders of justice had prevailed, thwarting another evil attempt to carry a liquid onto an airplane. Freedom has been protected. Americans can sleep safely at night, confident that Bin Laden and his brood won't get past our defenses.

Later in the day, after his first flight and before his connecting flight, our passenger was rummaging through his bag in search of a pen, when he discovered he had inadvertently left a knife with a four-inch blade in his bag. One can only presume that possession of a stabby-stab knife of stabbing is not nearly as big a threat to our national security as a pudding. Maybe it's the calories.

Labels: national security, politics

What if you spoke out against something — a group, or an idea — and you vocally opposed it, defamed it, and campaigned in opposition to it, only to wake up one morning and realize you were beginning to agree with it? What would you do?

Okay, now let me be very clear here... I'm not saying that I'm becoming a Republican, because I still disagree with them. What I am saying is that I'm realizing that I'm a lot more conservative than I thought... and that The Left really doesn't represent me or my views. Granted, The Right doesn't represent me either. I'll remain an independent. The only difference is that where I used to be a liberal independent, I'm now far more of a moderate, perhaps even bordering on conservative.

This has all been going on over the last year, but the true realization hit me this week — in the shower, of course, where all revelations seem to happen.

You see, I was thinking about the idea that life isn't fair. It's a phrase that we hear all the time while growing up, but perhaps we don't really think about.

You see, there are pretty people and there are ugly people, and you don't get to choose which one you are. Some people are born to rich families while others are born into poverty-level homes with alcoholic parents, and you don't get to choose which you'll get. In this poker game of life, you're dealt one hand, and you make the most out of it.

The left-winger in me naturally didn't like this proposition. I tried to justify in my head that there were people who believed in fairness and those who didn't, and that it takes both. I rationalized a world where 50% of people wanted fairness and 50% didn't. It was a perfectly "democratic" fascination. But it was foolish.

Even in a world that was fairly divided into 50% who want everyone to be equal and 50% who don't, the problem is that the half that wants fairness will consider the fairness of the other side. Meanwhile, their opposition doesn't believe in fairness and offers no such consideration in return. Therefore, the right will always have an advantage. And thus the world will never be a fair, democratic place.

Look, they tried it in the Soviet Union and it failed. Communism doesn't work. And the brand of communism in places like China is really a disguise for totalitarianism, or feudalism — they only offer communism for the have-nots.

What I'm saying is that the world really is not fair. It never will be. And with that established, the argument in favor of The Left is greatly diminished.

I still hate The Far Right. But I have far less tolerance for The Far Left. Maybe I've been moving around so much that I'm getting exposed to many different sides of the argument. Or maybe it's just a natural part of growing up.

Labels: life, politics

Halliburton's stock is falling. I wonder if that has anything to do with the end of GOP reign in Washington...

Labels: politics

In the wake of the GOP's violent overthrow, Donald Rummsfeld has submitted his resignation and President W has accepted it. I guess they knew the first order of business for a new Dem-powered Congress would be to get rid of Rummy.

Chalk up another victory for the good guys. Freedom is on the march here in the good ol' US of A.

Labels: politics

America has spoken! Say goodbye to the Repulican era. The Democratic Party swept the mid-term elections, taking the majority of House seats and Governorships, and while the Senate results are not final yet in two states, Dems are sitting on leads in both of the races in question, leaving them poised for a majority in the Senate too.

It's about time.

Many of us saw the corruption early on and wanted to see a change, but we watched as 2002 and 2004 only served to solidify the Republican Party in their comfy seats. But as good as the GOP machine was, it just wasn't good enough to cover up the endless string of scandals those Republicans loved to get themselves into.

The tide has turned. Bush, already a lame duck, is now looking at an impotent end to his ride in the White House.

Particularly encouraging was seeing Ohio clean house, getting rid of Mike DeWine and Ken Blackwell -- two of the major players in the 2004 election scandal. Pennsylvania also said goodbye to Rick Santorum, and Rhode Island gave Lincoln Chafee the boot.

So now that the Dems have the power, it's time to see them do something with it. So many of them have campaigned on nothing more than the "at least I'm not a Republican" platform. It's time to see what they stand for. Granted, it can't be as bad as what they defeated, but if it's not good, they'll just lose all the power they gained when the next election rolls around.

Time to step up, Dems!

Labels: politics

For five years, now, there's been an unspoken argument in this country, with "supporting the troops" as a trump card. When we first went into Iraq, a large number of Americans were against it -- we knew it was wrong even then -- but every time we said "I'm against the war," we had to immediately qualify it with "but I support the troops." And that same trump card is still influencing the discussion today.

This morning, I received this in my email.

Your alarm goes off, you hit the snooze and sleep for another 10 minutes.
He stays up for days on end.

You take a warm shower to help you wake up.
He goes days or weeks without running water.

You complain of a "headache", and call in sick.
He gets shot at as others are hit, and keeps moving forward.

You put on your anti war/don't support the troops shirt, and go meet up with your friends.
He still fights for your right to wear that shirt.

Okay, up to this point it all sounds very heroic -- and it IS! -- but do you notice their equating "anti-war" with "don't support the troops" here? Still, I can even let this one slide, since the author redeems himself by pointing out that the soldier is fighting for your right to wear it. That negates the whole argument. Let's move on.

You make sure your cell phone is in your pocket.
He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.

You talk trash about your "buddies" that aren't with you.
He knows he may not see some of his buddies again.

You walk down the beach, staring at all the pretty girls.
He walks the streets, searching for insurgents and terrorists.

You complain about how hot it is.
He wears his heavy gear, not daring to take off his helmet to wipe his brow.

You go out to lunch, and complain because the restaurant got your order wrong.
He doesn't get to eat today.

Your maid makes your bed and washes your clothes.
He wears the same things for weeks, but makes sure his weapons are clean.

You go to the mall and get your hair redone.
He doesn't have time to brush his teeth today.

You're angry because your class ran 5 minutes over.
He's told he will be held over an extra 2 months.

You call your girlfriend and set a date for tonight.
He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.

You hug and kiss your girlfriend, like you do everyday.
He holds his letter close and smells his love's perfume.

You roll your eyes as a baby cries.
He gets a letter with pictures of his new child, and wonders if they'll ever meet.

All very heroic, and deserving of whatever support we can give them! But then...

You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers why he is fighting.

Note the changeover. It's a subtle one, and now that the reader is worked into an emotional frenzy, they're likely to miss it. But there it is... This statement was intended to justify a war, it has nothing to do with supporting a soldier.

You hear the jokes about the war, and make fun of men like him.
He hears the gunfire, bombs and screams of the wounded.

Wow, I've heard a lot of jokes about the war, but in the last five years I can't say I remember a single joke that made fun of the men who risk their lives for their country. This just sounds like a lie to me... designed only to increase our emotional attachment to the point being made.

You see only what the media wants you to see.
He sees the broken bodies lying around him.

Really? So the media is controlling things? Wow, I had no idea. I remember when Bush's government banned the media from showing bodies. I remember the journalists who lost their jobs for trying to show more. The media doesn't control what we see, that's our President's doing, and his Secretary of Defense's doing.

Still, this much is true. Those soldiers see a lot that most Americans do not. They're still heroes, but it's not in spite of "the media" holding them back. You know... I still haven't seen a line in here like "You need new shoes for work so you go buy them, but the troops need armor and Rummsfeld refuses to give it to them."

You are asked to go to the store by your parents. You don't.
He does exactly what he is told.

This, of course, assumes that we're all assholes who never do what we're told. Sure there are those who are rebellious, but there are also those who obey.

And either way, the real point being made here is that these soldiers are doing what they're told. Think about that: that means they didn't choose to invade Iraq... they were told to. That's further reason why you can't relate support for troops to support for a war. It's bullshit.

You stay at home and watch TV.
He takes whatever time he is given to call, write home, sleep, and eat.

You crawl into your soft bed, with down pillows, and get comfortable.
He crawls under a tank for shade and a 5 minute nap, only to be woken by gunfire.

Okay, I'll allow the harmless generalizations because they help show a best-/worst-case scenario. But they are misleading. There are people right here in America who sleep under bridges and carry their lives on their back while they don't eat... and likewise, there are plenty of us here who don't have televisions or down pillows.

But this is where it gets good...

You sit there and judge him, saying the world is probably a worse place because of men like him.

This is the big emotional capper to the whole story, so we've got to really strike a nerve. Truth is, I don't know of anyone dumb enough to say such a thing.

If only there were more men like him!

If you support your troops, re-send this to everyone you know,

If it gets to another veteran who hasn't received it yet, it will bring back memories.

Of course, the obligatory plea for you to forward this to everyone you know. To any thinking person, this phrase should flip a switch in your brain that causes you to block out everything you've just read.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Woo-hoo! We even found a way to work Jesus into it! Now that's just good propaganda right there. So for those who can't see through this, what just happened is the author just subtlely said "and if you're against the war, you're against the troops... but you're also against Jesus." Moreover, the author has just equated soldiers to Jesus! Now you can't even argue, because he made it religious.

Who has offered to die for me? Soldiers, yes. Jesus, maybe -- according to some story. But while I'm not an American of Jewish or Cuban descent (to name a two) there are plenty of AMERICANS who will read this, whose parent risked their lives, fleeing Nazi or Communist countries for the lives of their families. Soldiers are brave, but they're not the only ones.

The bottom line is that this is just the latest example of a five-year-old propaganda campaign to bully people into supporting a war just by saying they should support the troops, and it's bullshit.

Labels: email, politics, propaganda

Or does the terrorism threat level always go up a few months before an election? See, these politicians think we're going to all get scared, and vote Republican because they keep us safe, but I think they're wrong.

I think they're out of touch with America. You see, Americans don't have much of an attention span. We'll all stand up and take an interest the first time... but eventually we're going to get bored.

This high threat level means long, slow lines at the airport. It means no liquids or gels in your carry on. It means you have to take your damn shoes off again. And don't even think about bringing that dangerous lipstick or eyeliner on-board!

Yes, it means a lot of things... but one thing it does not mean is increased safety. Nobody's going to detonate a lipstick container, or take the captain hostage with his toothpaste tube -- not when it's still so easy to sneak a bomb into the luggage.

And that's the problem -- we have CNN, ABC, the local news, whatever. We know how easy it is for rookie reporters to sneak a suspicious package into a plane without ever being scanned.

This increased threat level, and all the hassles that go with it, are only going to make voters hate the Republicans. I, for one, would vote for anything but a Republican, just so that in the coming years, I can board an airplane in a timely manner -- and do it without having to take off my shoes first.

Republicans don't keep me safe. Hell, they don't even keep me scared. All they do is find ways to inconvenience me.

Labels: national security, politics

In response to the thwarted terrorist plot against us, which comes conveniently as the mid-term elections start up, President Douche-bag called it a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists." (link)

I haven't necessarily been keeping a strict count but so far, by my estimation, this is the first time he's actually come out and said it. We're at war against Islam. Oh sure, he used some politically correct-sounding language... but he's starting to ease it in there. He's saying it at a fundraiser in Green Bay to see if he can get away with saying it later on tv to America.

I hope there's a country left when his term finally ends.

Labels: national security, politics

Is it just me? Or are others feeling like our representative government — of the people, by the people, and for the people — doesn't really seem to come from the people nor ever do anything for the people?

We know politics is corrupt. We accept that, because the world is corrupt. We accept that because humans are involved, and any time you put humans into the equation, it becomes impure. But at this point I believe the systemic corruption has made any real representation of the people ineffectual, if not non-existent.

Really. When you get special interest money to vote for a bill, and you get special interest money to vote against a bill, you're just going to go to the highest bidder. And if there's no special interest money? Well then there's no representation, of course!

Well, you have all these people who are elected to represent their states... to represent their districts. What do you think happens when you take those people out of those distrcits, and out of those states, and put them into a tiny little city together, with a bunch of high-paid lobbyists surrounding them at all times? Over the course of one term, that district or state may change so much that he's not even representative of his own people by the end of his term.

This is a fast-paced age. It's a digital age. It's time to take the Congress out of Washington and put them back into the states they represent. You don't need to be in the same building to vote any more. But you do need to be in the state to know what the issues in that state are.

This also keeps the politicians from gathering in one area for easy lobbying. Sure, companies can send lobbyists to all the various states, but then they're paying hundreds of lobbyists for 635 politicians, rather than just having 2 or 3 in a K-Street office, conveniently poised to bribe — er, I mean consult — all of the Senate and the House in comfort.

This is what we need. The world has moved to a speed that the framers of our Constitution could not have envisioned. Still, it wouldn't require starting over to catch our policy up to our world. I'm not saying to disband the Congress, I'm just saying it's time to put them to work doing the very thing the Constitution set out for them to do.

Not only that, but if these idiots actually had to use the technologies they're legislating, maybe they'd make better decisions. At the very least, they'd understand how it works.

Labels: politics

This is awesome! Henry Rollins writes an open letter to Ann Coulter, telling her everything the rest of us have always wanted to say to her. Nice!

Labels: fun, humor, politics

Arlen Specter — a Republican! — plans to have a bill ready by the end of the week granting Congress the right to sue the President!

Can you believe it's come to this? Well, that's what you get, I suppose, for taking all of the meaning out of the Constitutional processes by impeaching a President for getting a blow job. You see, all they accomplished with the Lewinsky scandal was making it utterly meaningless to impeach anyone ever again. Well, at least if he's a Republican...

So here's the scoop, in case you're living with rats in a hole in Iraq, unaware of anything going on in the world right now. In his sixth year as President of the United States, George W. Bush has finally used his first veto. Why is that? I'm glad you asked...

You see, President Bush didn't veto anything because he was abusing a little loophole called a signing statement. While signing a bill into law, the President would write a long, complicated signing statement, absolving himself and his administration from having to follow that law. Therefore, it never mattered what he signed into law, because he didn't have to worry about following it.

There are no provisions in the Constitution, no federal statutes, and no common-law principles that explicitly permit or prohibit the use of signing statements. They are simply the practice by which Presidents have followed the instruction of Article II, Section 3, requiring the executive to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

President Bush has signed over 800 bills into law, while writing detailed signing statements making sure they will never apply to him and his administration. Of course this is completely unconstitutional. Every time he doesn't follow a new law, he is not protected by some Executive power... but rather he is willfully breaking the law.

Now it's just a shame that Congress has to grant themselves the authority to sue him. And what happens when he signs their bill, and uses a signing statement to protect himself from the very suit they wish to bring?

Labels: politics

Hey, everybody! Get on board... become a Republican!

Labels: humor, politics

The Senate fell one vote short of passing legislation that could prevent me from making photos such as this. One single vote. That's too close.

I thought that this was a free country. I thought that our freedom of expression was on that list of 10 things that make us better than everybody else. What does it say when a bill this vague can come within one fucking vote of being passed? The exact wording of the legislation was:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

That's it. And it's scary, because that's vague enough to leave the door open to anyone's interpretation of what is considered "desecration". People are really fucked up in this country... I don't want some nut-bag's opinion of what's considered "desecration" to land me in jail, or in Guantanamo.

That's really the problem. The legislation doesn't name what would be considered "desecration". Nor does it name what would be an appropriate punishment for desecration.

In fact, in reality this vote was nothing more than an attempt to subvert the Constitution. You see, the Constitution seperates powers between three branches of government... you probably remember hearing something about that in grade school. Well, in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was legal, and was protected by the Bill of Rights. So when Congress tries to pass legislation granting itself power to legislate the flag, what they're really trying to do is thumb their nose at the Supreme Court and do what was already ruled to be un-constitutional.

Yes, that's right. Now think of what this country would be like if we allowed that pattern to start. All of the freedoms we take for granted would be in question if we were to accept that line of action.

I'm against flag burning just like most of America is. Why? Because the primary use of flag burning is not constructive... it's the equivalent of hate speach. Nevertheless, VCRs are not illegal even though their primary use is to illegally copy movies. You can't just ban everything because some people — or even most people — use it in an inappropriate way. Eventually, we've got to rely on common sense.

And in fact, the Federal Flag Code suggests that "The Flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." So after McDonald's has had their flag out for too long, or on too many windy days, they should burn it and then be imprisoned, right?

There is a lot here that hasn't been considered, folks. And don't even try to tell me it's a coincidence that this vote got rushed to the table in the last week before July 4th. Look, I'm as patriotic as the next guy, and I love my country. But next Tuesday, I'll be burning a flag. You can count on it.


Tags: rant, politics, freedom

Labels: photography, politics

In a Yahoo News opinion piece, Robert Scheer remarks:

“Sen. Hillary Clinton's dissembling on Iraq has become a fatal embarrassment not only for her, but for anyone who hopes she can provide progressive leadership for the nation. If she has still not found the courage to reverse course on this disastrous war, why assume that as president she would behave any differently?”

Indeed, it seems her stand — or lack thereof — on the war is heating up a lot of disapproval. Bloggers have been giving her hell on the subject.

For my part, I've been strongly motivated against Hillary Clinton for some time now. Frankly, anyone who can put that much effort into persecuting a popular video game for something hackers have done simply does not get it. And anyone who can make such a ridiculous show of that even while members of her party are actively pursuing legal charges against the likes of Karl Rove and even George W. Bush, well, I think it's safe to say that her priorities are poorly aligned. No doubt this is an example of her opinion that it takes a village, and I don't like the future that hints at. I can't imagine that she'd be any better than Bush as a President. And that's a shame, because I really liked her husband.

Labels: politics

Wow. Did that title get your attention?

Well, this got my attention this morning:

White House senior adviser Karl Rove has been told by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that he will not be charged in the CIA leak case, according to Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer.

I'm really pissed about this. We're not idiots. America knows that Rove engineered the identity leak — basically putting Valerie Plame's life on the line even as she was working undercover in the nuclear energy industry researching the very weapons of mass destruction that might one day threaten our country! And to what end? To discredit her husband, who was also researching weapons of mass destruction.

In other words, two people serving their country — one in a most patriotic form — were targeted by the White House for no other reason than that the truth they were telling was making it harder for the Bush Administration to sell their lies.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but isn't that treason? How does this whole thing get covered up and swept under a rug? Rove committed a high crime against his country, and nobody is upset about this. Well, nobody except my hero, Howard Dean:

“He doesn't belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago,” Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, said Tuesday on NBC's Today show. “So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America.”

There were 23 people involved in outing Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent, and the best thing we could get was an obstruction of justice charge against Scooter Libby?

Labels: politics

I continue to get a kick out of the doublespeak from Bush. This time, relating to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, we get the following:

At the White House, President George W. Bush hailed the killing as “a severe blow to al-Qaida and it is a significant victory in the war on terror.”

But he cautioned: “We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continuing patience of the American people.”

It just never ends, does it? In one breath he practically insinuates that we've won, and then in the following breath he seems to warn us that this occupation (it's hardly a war) could go on for years.

Okay, since none of his aides have the balls to tell him, I'm going to spell it out right here. Maybe — just maybe — he, or his wife, or his kids will see this.... aw hell, who am I kidding? Those idiots can barely even read, why should I believe they'd ever take the time to struggle through the multi-syllabic words in my blog when there's Joe Cartoon, which doesn't even require the viewer to read?

All the same, Mr. Bush, here's how it works: The reason that your approval is in the gutter — and will stay there until you are buried — is because the American people want more than soundbytes. Sure, soundbytes may be enough to win an election, but that's because we all know how little we have to do with the process. However, once you're in office, we start expecting some action to back up all that rhetoric. Proposals to ban gay marriage will excite all the rednecks and bible-thumpers, but I think it's becoming obvious that they're NOT the majority, and you can't keep catering to only them. The rest of us hear you celebrate victory in one breath, and then warn that the war will continue in the next!

You're not fooling us, Mr. President. And the clock is ticking. It's ticking for the mid-term elections, and it's ticking closer to the end of your rape of the executive office of the United States.

Labels: politics

I happened upon an article today in The Daily Evergreen that sums up exactly why I'm confident the Republican control of Washington is over.

Rumsfeld will not be removed even though it is the wish of those who worked with him. McClellan was fired for improbable reasons, meaning that the whole truth is not likely disclosed. A woman ended her compliance to cover for the White House and will be tried for it. Multiple other investigations are underway including the “Scooter” Libby leak and the issue of Bush’s authorization to tap phone lines without warrant.

Isn’t it ironic that when a government employee provides truth to the public, they are fired and tried for it?

If our leadership doesn’t begin to listen to and start to work for the people – including the media – then how can we call our land democratic?

Labels: politics

I recently received an email from a good friend asking me to boycott a particular gasoline company. He read it and thought it made sense and was just passing it along, but when I read it I didn't think it made so much sense to me.

Let's begin.

GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work !

This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It's worth your consideration.

Okay, so if we toss out the names of a couple of large corporations people will think this is more legitimate. It's called name-dropping.

Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $ 4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down?

Of course you want gasoline prices to come down. You're a consumer. Higher gas prices cost you money and lower gas prices save you money.

This is a simple sales technique... one used daily by used car salesmen everywhere. You get the target saying “yes” over and over, to the end that they start finding “yes” easy to say.

We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea. This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read on and join with us!

It's better, you say? Oh, then it must work! Say... am I the only person who noticed that the first sentence in this paragraph names Phillip Hollsworth as the source, and then the last sentence says whoever thought of this, as if they'd already forgotten? And if Phillip Hollsworth (or whoever) had the idea, why didn't he send the email? Incidentally, a Google search for Phillip Hollsworth turns up hundreds of sites debunking this email, but no useful information about anyone by that name.

By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $3.11 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace..not sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.

Once again, we get people saying yes so they feel like they can relate. We get you agreeing that there is a problem, and then associate turn that problem with oil companies and OPEC nations. The rub is that oil companies and OPEC nations do not set the prices. The price of petroleum is set by commodity traders, speculating on how much crude will be available, and how difficult it will be to obtain. The owners of the pumps we use at filling stations are already controlled by the consumer! Gas stations make more money by charging less, because if you're charging less, more people will buy from you. And furthermore, when you boycott these stations, the only pocketbook you're hitting is the owner of that station — the oil companies will just sell their products to someone else.

How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war. Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do!

Flawed logic, that is. If they are not selling any gas, why would they lower prices? It's not as if it has a short shelf life. Eventually, it will sell — probably when the other stations have run out of gas to sell because of all the former Exxon-Mobil customers coming to them now.

Now, don't wimp out on me at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!

Oh, that's good. First I make you my friend by getting you to agree with me, and using words like “we” to imply that we're in this together. Then, I challenge you by saying “don't wimp out on me”.

I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers.

But, since the population of the USA is more like three hundred million, you're still only affecting 1% of the population, and that's if we assume 100% effectiveness. A realist knows, however, that you're going to have those who don't send it to 10 people, those who just delete it, those who send it to people outside of the US, and let's not forget about those who see through this bullshit! In other words, this is never going to make a difference.

If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all! (If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am . so trust me on this one.) :-)

Certainly you see that this is a good idea... if not, then you're just stupid. But if you're stupid, you can trust me because I'm smart. Right, friend?

How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you! Acting together we can make a difference.

That's right! We can make a difference in the in boxes and spam filters of people everywhere!

If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.

That seems like a very arbitrary number to me. Why stop there? Why not do it until the price is practically free? Let's just boycott everybody until they're forced to give gasoline away? But wait, maybe that would work for other things too! Let's boycott televisions, and DVDs, and movie theaters... they're all too expensive in my opinion. And what about cell phones? I think iPods should only cost $40, and I don't want to pay more than $300 for the latest laptop computer. Boycott everybody!

Now, how about a dose of reality? Rather than an impotent boycott of an insignificant business at the bottom of the food chain in the oil business, I suggest you beat the system. Don't let rising gas prices cost you money... let them make you money!

I purchased stock in Exxon-Mobile (XOM) one month ago, and have already seen a 5.5% return on my money — more than I would have gotten after one year in today's best CD or a high-yield savings account. That's an awesome return, but wait! Why stop there? I invested in BP (BP) three weeks ago and have already realized a 9.6% return — more in three week than I could have earned after two years in any traditional savings method! At that rate, my money could double in one year. Imagine doing that with hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars!

My friends, this is just the beginning. If you took the time to read that spam, you're probably as aware as I am that gas will only continue to get more expensive. So rather than complaining about the rising cost of fuel, why not give yourself a reason to rejoice about it? If you're not putting every spare penny you have into energy stocks, you're missing the boat. I recommend Exxon-Mobil, BP, Amerada-Hess (AHC), Neufield Exploration (NFX), Schlumberger (SLB), Halliburton (HAL), and Archer-Daniels Midland (ADM).

Labels: email, politics, propaganda

North Korea is on a mission to prove — with serious consequences — that America has the wrong President. In a recent statement, a North Korea spokesman said:

“Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States.”

That's as clear a threat of war as I could imagine, and there can be little doubt that it's a fire stoked by President Bush's utter lack of diplomacy skills. The tough-talking John Wayne wannabe and his Don't mess with Texas attitude could bully a couple of mid-eastern countries with no serious weapons, but it doesn't work when the other guy has nukes.

Well, the tough talking Texan routine is the only thing Bush knows, so with his political capital all spent, the only way he can get things done is to go back to the old playbook and call some country a threat to our security. It's not actually about North Korea or Iran being a threat to us, it's just a matter of Bush needing more excuses to keep the war machine running so he and his buddies can get rich spending the next generation's tax money.

The problem now is that his tough-talking rhetoric called North Korea — among other things — a serious nuclear proliferation challenge. The North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman rebuts:

“In a word, it is a robbery-like declaration of war. Through this document, the Bush administration declared to the world that it is a group of war fanatics.”

And he's right. And if this thing continues to escalate, it could have grave consequences.

Labels: national security, politics

Russ Feingold, a Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, has finally fired the opening shot across the bow of the Presidency. His introduction of a resolution to censure the President may carry no actual penalty (nothing more than a scolding) but it's exactly the thing that's needed the start the impeachment ball rolling.

“The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable.”

He couldn't have picked a better time to get started, less than a week after Republicans and Democrats stood together in opposition to the President on the outsourcing of US port security. Hopefully enough of that sentiment remains to help get this resolution to completion.

Labels: politics

Cindy's at it again...

Labels: politics

I am a notorious Microsoft-hater, when I'm not busy hating Republicans, so it's a joyous day when I happen upon low-hanging fruit like the Seattle Weekly's recent piece linking Jack Abramoff to Bill Gates. Apparently Bill Gates's father is a founding partner in the lobbying firm in which Abramoff was employed... and Microsoft put a fair amount of money into purchasing their services.

Labels: politics

As Americans continues to wake up from their slumber, support for military action in Iraq continues to slip while protest and dissent continue to grow. As more and more people continue to question our military presence in a country where we clearly do not belong, the President insists that we need to stay. As our country grows restless, our President stays the course on his 30-day vacation.

An American Research Group study finds the President's job approval at just 36%. Even fewer - a mere 33% - approve of his handling of the economy, with only 29% saying the national economy is getting better. At this point as President, Reagan had a 60% approval, Clinton had a 59% approval, and Richard Nixon had a 39% approval even in the midst of Watergate! That's bad news for Dubya.

I wonder if this has any relation to the fact that Bush's vacation days in Crawford alone are totalling over 325 days. After all, this isn't a hard number to understand. There are 365 days in a year, so that means that in his 5 years as President of the United States, George Bush has spent almost one year at the Crawford ranch. By way of comparison, I'm lucky if I get 2 weeks of vacation each year, so in the same 5 years I've had less than 70 -- in reality, probably closer to 50 -- days of vacation. I'm sure there are a LOT of Americans who haven't been as lucky as me, and who probably get pretty pissed off when they think about the guy who says "not on my watch" taking so much time off from his post.

Labels: politics

Since Bush took office in 2000, the Republican party seems to have done nothing but commit crime after crime after crime all while doing little or nothing for the country they claim to serve.

In light of the latest conviction this week in Ohio, I thought it would be nice to start a running count of the crimes of the Republican party, to really give this fact the impact it needs:

• James Tobin, former RNC official
  Jim Tobin was Bush's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, but he's better known as the guy who orchestrated the jamming of Democratic and labor union phone banks on Election Day 2002. In spite of the RNC's "zero tolerance" policy against vote tampering, they have paid over $700,000 for lawyers defending Tobin.


• Karl Rove, White House deputy chief of staff
  Karl Rove leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to the press in attempt to quiet criticism of the case for war in Iraq. When investigation into the leak began, Rove lied to federal investigators, and withheld information.


• John Ashcroft, former attorney general
  John Ashcroft - as attorney general - stalled the investigation of his long-time friend and business associate Karl Rove for leaking the CIA officer's identity. After mounting pressure, Ashcroft finally recused himself from the case, and eventually retired from his position as attorney general. This week, the leak investigation drew his name back into the spotlight.


• Scooter Libby, chief of staff to the Vice-President
  I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is the second of two sources in the White House who breached national security by leaking the CIA agent's identity to the press.


• Randall "Duke" Cunningham, California Representative
  Government lawyers filed a lawsuit last month seeking forfeiture of Cunningham's Rancho Santa Fe house, a clear indication that prosecutors believe they have found proof of bribery violations by the congressman. Cunningham sold his house to a Pentagon contractor who sold it a few months later at a $700,000 loss, while the contractor's company was getting millions of dollars in government contracts. Since then, he has been under investigation for: living rent-free aboard the contractor's yacht, accepting thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the contractor, deals with a businessman convicted in a kickback scheme, and flying in a private jet leased by another contractor whose company has also gotten millions of dollars in Pentagon contracts.


• Tom DeLay, Texas Representative
  Tom DeLay has been under investigation for a few years now for ethics violations regarding ties to lobbyists, foreign trips, and use of campaign funds.


• Jack Abramoff, Republican lobbyist
  Jack Abramoff was indicted in Florida on August 11 on charges that he defrauded two lenders of $60 million to buy a casino cruise line. Abramoff is also under investigation over millions of dollars he was paid by an Indian tribe for lobbying efforts, and he is closely linked to Tom DeLay.


• Conrad Burns, Montana Senator
  Conrad Burns was the #1 recipient of campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff. He was also nice enough to hire Shawn Vasell, former top aide to Abramoff, as his Montana state director. Vasell was recently charged with four counts of poaching for illegally killing a dear.


• Tom Noe, former Republican county chair
  Tom Noe helped shuffle some voting laws before 2004 that certainly helped in Bush's sham re-election. But better yet, Noe - a rare coin dealer - got authority to invest $50 million of Ohio's funds into rare coins and baseball cards. When $300,000 worth of gold coins went missing, eyebrows got raised. Now his lawyer acknowledges that up to $12 million in assets can not be accounted for.


• Bob Taft, Ohio Governor
  Taft was the first Ohio governor ever charged with a crime. He was convicted of failing to disclose 52 gifts including dinners, golf outings and professional hockey tickets, all worth about $5,800 dollars.


• Arnold Schwarzenegger, Caw-le-fawn-ya Governator
  Schwarzenegger is fighting ethics charges regarding some lucrative magazine endorsements that were still paying him money while he ran California as its governor.

If I missed anybody, let me know!

UPDATE
Andrew Taylor at the Associated Press seems to see the same trend I do, though he also points out Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana, a Democrat whose home was raided this month in relation to a scandal of his own. Having a scandalous Democrat does take some of the fire out of the "crooked Republicans" argument, but nearly a dozen of them versus one of ours still makes a strong argument, I think.

Labels: politics

I can't believe this hypocrisy...

An employer at a local company forwards propaganda emails to his staff every morning. Before the 2004 election, those emails centered around lies smearing John Kerry, John Edwards, their wives, and their political histories. The staff of this company received emails straight from the CEO instructing them to vote for George Bush and painting Kerry as a traitor.

[Hypocrisy #1: Kerry was a decorated veteran who served in Vietnam, while Bush ditched his military service.]

After the election, the CEO's (almost daily) emails took a less political and more racial tone. They painted a picture of all Arabs and Muslims as gun-waiving, terrorists. Sometimes they included anecdotes and jokes mocking "towel-heads" and cheering for their destruction at the hands of our military. Often, the message was "let's just blow all of those Jesus-haters up and take all their oil so I don't have to pay so much for gas.

[Hypocrisy #2: As a Jewish man, one would expect this CEO to be far more sensitive to racism and religious persecution.]

At times, some of the employees would forward similar emails to each other, with the implied understanding that by sending out political opinions by email the CEO must be endorsing such behavior. Most of these employees chose to forward stories from CNN, MSNBC, and other news sources, in the spirit of passing on information regarded as fact rather than imposing political opinions that could lead to an unfriendly atmosphere at work. After only about one week, the CEO put an end to that, sending out a company policy email that went something like this:

CAN WE STOP THE BUSH BASHING PLEASE.
I THINK WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DEAL WITH.
HE IS ALSO YOUR PRESIDENT, DISAGREE WITH HIM OR NOT HE DESERVES OUR RESPECT.

[Hypocrisy #3: He can send his extreme political opinions based on little or no fact to the entire company (with the weight of the CEO's name on the email, mind you) but a handful of people who forward news articles to each other are accused of "Bush bashing" and must be silenced.]

Almost two months after this CEO put an end to any sharing of facts which paint the Administration in a bad light, this CEO continues to forward conservative propaganda, Republican talking points, and stories encouraging racist, religious, and political discrimination to his employees. Emails containing derrogatory messages about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, the French, Iraqis, and so on.

[Hypocrisy #4: This hypocrite tells his employees they should respect the President and then follows that by disrespecting President Bill Clinton.]

This week, the hypocrite gave a copy of Bernard Goldberg's 100 People Who Are Ruining America to one of the employees who was accused of "Bush bashing". Give me a break, man. This guy is clearly trying to use his authority over his employees to force his political belief onto them. This is morally reproachable, and it's just another example of how the right-wing operates: as bullies.

Labels: politics

Ken Sanders gives us all a challenge in his blog The Politics of Dissent.

It was Theodore Roosevelt, twenty-sixth President of the United States and a Republican, who famously said in 1918, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

...

Those who, in the name of nationalism disguised as patriotism, would remain silent when faced with the Bush administration's common plan to wage war and torture captives in violation of customary and treaty-based international law; those who would waive their rights while they wave their flags; those who would turn a blind eye to evidence that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify its preconceived war; they would do well to consider the oath of office taken by all members of the civil service or uniformed services. The oath is not to the President or any other person. Rather, those who take the oath swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I added emphasis to those last two words, because that is what so many Americans seem to have forgotten. Enemies don't just come from overseas. An enemy of the Constitution happens to live in the White House... a powerful enemy who uses his job title to appoint other enemies of the Constitution to other prominent positions in our government... an enemy against whom our country must be defended.

Labels: politics

A personal, up close look into Camp Casey, kind of gives it all a bit more meaning.

Labels: politics

Over at Capitol Hill Blue, Doug Thompson says the President is out of control:

Decreasing job approval ratings and increased criticism within his own party drives the President’s paranoia even higher. Bush, in a meeting with senior advisors, called Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist a “god-damned traitor” for opposing him on stem-cell research.

“There’s real concern in the West Wing that the President is losing it,” a high-level aide told me recently.

A year ago, this web site discovered the White House physician prescribed anti-depressants for Bush. The news came after revelations that the President’s wide mood swings led some administration staffers to doubt his sanity.

Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities.

Labels: politics

To all the conservatives, Christians, Republicans, and right-wingers out there...

This makes me sick. Okay, seriously guys... It's time to drink the kool-aid and wander off to die somewhere.

It was all fine and well when you represented difference of opinion. I think it's good for all sides to be represented in any discussion of policy and any political debate. I believe the eagle needs a left wing and a right wing in order to fly straight. The problem is that you right wingers aren't pulling your weight anymore.

Radical liberals are just as bad as radical conservatives for our country (not your, not mine... it's OURS). The real answers to everything are usually found in the middle... not on the right, and not on the left.

But here's the thing: you guys always take everything too far. Radical liberals don't attack conservatives, but you conservatives get mad and you attack people who you perceive to be liberal. Radical liberals don't blow up churches, but you radical conservatives get mad and blow up abortion clinics. Progressives don't attack office buildings, but a couple of wacky conservatives blew up the FBI building in Oklahoma City. I've never heard of a gang of gay men getting together to beat a straight guy to death.

When the left-wing disagrees with someone, they take an intelligent course of action: they discuss the facts, and try to provoke debate. There used to be a time when the right-wing did that too. But somewhere along the way you right-wingers decided integrity was overrated, because it seems that your answer to everything these days is to mount heartless smear campaigns against innocent people. Lying and name-calling is far too commonplace, and now you're using violence as well.

Bullying was never right. It doesn't matter if you're right or left, conservative or liberal or somewhere in between, intimidating and beating up those who disagree with you makes you a bully.

So I challenge you to prove me wrong. Come on, right-wingers, I know you can do it. You're supposed to have the moral high ground. So show me how good you can be. Start thinking about what your God would say about your actions. Don't let yourselves become an American version of the Taliban.

Enough is enough.

Labels: politics

Frank Rich writes in a throroughly insightful op-ed for the New York Times that "a president can't stay the course when his own citizens won't stay with him."

Nothing that happens on the ground in Iraq can turn around the fate of this war in America: not a shotgun constitution rushed to meet an arbitrary deadline, not another Iraqi election, not higher terrorist body counts, not another battle for Falluja (where insurgents may again regroup, The Los Angeles Times reported last week). A citizenry that was asked to accept tax cuts, not sacrifice, at the war's inception is hardly in the mood to start sacrificing now. There will be neither the volunteers nor the money required to field the wholesale additional American troops that might bolster the security situation in Iraq.

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer write that Bush is moving the goal posts again.

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

In other words, stick a fork in it. Now, if only someone would grow some testicles and inform the President, he might be able to stop putting his foot in his mouth.

Labels: national security, politics

Oh, if only this were true...

Labels: politics

I'd like to end the week with the cast of 21 players presently implicated in the Rove scandal. It's a thorough list of White House officials involved in the leak, and some description of each individual's involvement. Enjoy.

Labels: politics

Is there any truth to this rumor that I've been seeing a lot over the past few days?

"One or more of the grand juries have concluded their probe and have voted True Bills, Federal Criminal indictments, against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, "Scooter" Libby, Condoleeza Rice, and Theodore B. Olson; and several media people not previously mentioned in the monopoly press as implicated," wrote Skolnick.

"Shown also as unindicted co-conspirators are two Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, who are among the "Gang of Five" also in Bush versus Gore. Because of the horrendous consequences involved, the indictments are suppressed and there may be an extended delay until they appear on the Chicago Federal Court open records.

Labels: politics

It's his speaking ability. I knew it all along.

The Light Of Reason has different thoughts on the matter...

Labels: politics

DailyKOS puts into words what many of us have been thinking, probably better than anyone else who's tried:

Sometimes, an event is simply apolitical. Bush could've difused this early with a gracious 30 minute meeting with Sheehan. Instead, he loosed the attack dogs on her. Every attack on Sheehan from the Right is a reflection of their moral decay, their unamerican disdain for her right to protest her son's death, and yet more evidence of Bush (and Rove's) tacit endorsement of the politics of personal destruction -- even when the target is a grieving mother.

Labels: politics

How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb?

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb
4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs
5. One to give a billion dollar, no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished
7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark
8. One insider to viciously smear #7
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

original here

Labels: politics

You didn't think I forgot about Turd Blossom, did you?

A recent Time magazine article indicates that White House officials learned of Valerie Plame's relation to Joseph Wilson weeks before his op-ed piece in the New York Times. What this means is that Rove is caught in yet another lie (which his lawyer has repeated) where he said he learned who she was from a reporter.

As the investigation tightens into the leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, sources tell TIME some White House officials may have learned she was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer.

Think Progress goes into more detail about this.

ABC News: The Note reports today that Rove's two closest cronies have been brought in for testimony today.

Based on ABC News sources (and our own video camera) it appears that at least two witnesses testified before the grand jury last Friday, both close associates of Karl Rove.

ABC News has learned that one was Susan Ralston, Rove's long-time right hand. The other, per ABC News' Jake Tapper, was Israel "Izzy" Hernandez, Rove's former left hand (and now a top Commerce Department official). It isn't clear if either had been asked to testify before last week.

DailyKOS seems to think this is a good indication that Rove is the target of this investigation.

Labels: national security, politics

I recently read an item in the Photoethnography blog pointing to a New York Daily News article reporting that the MTA has a secret film file on photographers.

If this is true, this is very disturbing. Both amateur and professional photographers are being turned into modern day boogeypeople. And when a terrorist incident happens, what do the authorities want? They want people to send them their tourist snapshots so that they can try to see if they can spot the bad guys before the act. Argh!!

Just a quick civil liberty note: You do not have to hand your film over to any one in uniform just because they ask for it. You can do so voluntarily if you want. If they try to force you to hand it over, then do so (refusing would be bad) but ask them under what authority they are requesting it, ask for a receipt and be sure to follow up. Even if you were breaking the law, they would still have to issue a receipt for the evidence that they are taking into custody. Sigh....

This disturbs me too. Mainly, I despise how easy it has been to turn anyone with a camera into a suspicious person. And it's not as if they're suspicious of everyone who photographs things, just those with video cameras or high-end still cameras. That means that a terrorist with a 5-megapixel cameraphone can do all the reconnaissance he wants without interruption, and now he'll feel safer doing it because the authorities will be busy harrassing me.

Labels: national security, photography, politics

The Rude Pundit has the best strategy I've seen for Democratic leadership: kill 'em with questions.

Dadahead at The Liberal Avenger thinks reframing is the answer

Labels: politics