Progressive Programmer

The 2008 conventions through the simple math of 2 plus 2

2008-09-04T17:14:00.002-05:00

What if the future of the country were always described by answering the question, 'What is 2+2?' Democrats know the answer is 4. Republicans know the answer is 4 but always lie and answer 5 so they can profit off the backs of the American people.

So, given our premise, here is a summary of several 2008 convention speeches from both sides of the aisle...

Brian Schweitzer
I've seen 4s and 5s working together in Montana, and that has Montana kicking butt, and that's what Obama would do in Washington. The math is simple. Obama wants to use everything we've got to get to 4, while McCain doesn't remember on which of his 7 fridges he pinned the cue-card with the answer.

John Kerry
We know Candidate McCain is just like Bush. Never has ideology so stepped on mathematics. *Senator* McCain has said that the answer was 4. Now, *Candidate* McCain says the answer is 5. I've known John McCain for 22 years. 22, that's 2 plus 2, baby. He's not the McCain we all thought he was.

Hillary Clinton
You didn't support me all those months just to have John McCain give you the wrong answer, did you? No way, no how, no 5.

Bill Clinton
I prefer to have numeric relations... with that man... Barack Obama.

Joe Biden
My mother told me to sock the 2 in the eye when it messed with me, and ever since then I've been working to find the answer, and I finally did after 30+ years in the Senate working for you. Again and again, John McCain says 5 and Barack Obama says 4. McCain can't remember how many houses he has, much less the answer this country needs. Barack Obama knows the answer!

Barack Obama
I think John McCain is a patriot. It's not that John McCain doesn't know the answer is 4. He just doesn't get it. We've seen that he's said '5' 90% of the times George Bush has. I don't wanna take a 10% chance on 4, do you?

Punditocracy
Obama accomplished all of the assignments we gave him. Brilliant! 4 is clearly the answer the American people are looking for. What a contest! Onward, to November!

Fred Thompson
In John McCain's world, the first '2' is a fellow POW with blisters under it's arch the size of '0's. *cough*. The other is only hunched over because it lived in a tiny POW cell with low-ceilings for 5 years. In fact, the second 2 is really a 1 that's all hunched over *ahem* and had its leg broken... Broken by Vietnamese captors that used enhanced interrogation techniques--techniques that really just serve to improve one's character *cough* and ready them to be president *ahem* while not causing organ failure or death. John McCain was a POW and doesn't want anyone to talk about how much of a POW he was because being a POW doesn't automatically qualify a POW to become a President and former POW. John McCain has been saying '5' since before the attack on Pearl Harbor, hell John McCain *WAS* 5 before Pearl Harbor.

George W Bush
The angry left will tell you the answer is 4. I know the answer is 5. Of course I know the answer is 5, it's part of the president's job to know the answer is 5, and I take my responsibility as Commander-in-Chief very seriously. John McCain sometimes disagrees with me just to spite, though. He'll say the answer is 4.9, or 4.8, and, for a while there, he almost convinced me. But now I like John McCain so much I had all the 4s removed from the phones in the White House. That made it harder for us to call into the convention tonight, but I'm sure the McCain campaign is glad I did. I wanted to be here so I could remind everyone how much McCain and I have worked together. The world is a dangeriffic place in which we need the most couragic and intelligious candidate we can find.

Mitt Romney
Do you really want a liberal 2 to meet up with another liberal 2? No, of course you don't. You want John McCain to kick all liberal numbers in the teeth and replace them with fine, upstanding, trickle-down, Republican numbers that don't eat liberal cheese or ride liberal trains.

Mike Huckabee
I learned the answer was 5 on the desk that John McCain built for me. He built that desk in the basement of a church he constructed using only one arm, some mortar he mixed from his spittle and bricks that he himself shat.

Rudy Giuliani
Community organizers give cosmopolitan answers like '4' to questions like this. Strong leaders and mayors bring us to victory by answering '9/11'... err.. '5'.

Sarah Palin
I know the answer. I learned the answer as an executive when I led the executive office of the executive-filled town of Wasilla, Alaska. I have shown my strong belief in the answer by 'choosing' to have *5* children! Their names are 5rack, 5ristol, 5illow, 5i5er and, now, 5rig (*5rig is shown being passed among 5 different people, each tracing a symbolic '5' on 5rigs forehead). Don't talk about my children and stop bringing them up. I have more experience than Obama, Biden and McCain put together. Community Organizing? Ha! What does that even mean, 'community'? Community is for wimps. Organizing is for liberal elites that like being organized. Organized communities are for elite liberal wimps. All legislative experience is for wimps that aren't executives.

John McCain
???

Punditocracy
McCain accomplished all of the assignments we gave him. Brilliant! 5 is clearly the answer the American people are looking for. What a contest! Onward, to November!

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Windshield Wiper Wars

2008-08-02T17:39:00.007-05:00

My wife walks out of the mall with our two kids and our nephew and goes to get in her car and she notices something that wasn't there when she went in:

Hmmph. Obama is not a Communist, and to say that he is requires employment as a right-wing radio host or editorialist.

In a moment we can discuss what the person that did this must actually be like, but first you are no doubt wondering, "Why did they put it on your wife's car instead of someone else's?" Well, that's an easy one, as I had just put this on the back of her car a few days prior:

So, a person decided that they didn't like the Obama sticker. And they decided they wanted to tell us as much. The person then went scrambling about to find a piece of paper, ANY piece of paper with which they could leave this piece of their mind. They could just picture us being FORCED to acknowledge, even in their absence, the blinding truth of their argument. This person then scratched out the most insulting thing they could come up with and walked BACK to our car and lifted our wiper and left it there to serve in their stead. Do you think they sat and waited for my wife to get in the car just to see her response?

But again, you are no doubt wondering, "Where did they find the paper?" Well, I have a partial answer to that quandary on the back:

Where else? Their kids' coloring supplies.

We live in Southeast Michigan, so this wasn't some rural mall in a Red state, this was Somerset Mall in Troy, MI. Decent place.

I usually glare at people that still have Bush/Cheney 04 bumper stickers, but I wouldn't stoop to writing something on a piece of paper and shoving it under their wiper... Or would I? What would I write on a piece of paper I used to respond to someone sporting a McCain sticker?

I think I would write:

McCain thinks Bush's policies are working.

(Personally I think that's Obama's best attack line and he should use it in every commercial, but I digress.)

This comment might raise a hackle or two for all but the 28% still loving Bush, right? But what about the bottom of the barrel? What can you say to them that would make a point, make it better than the person that did this to us, and still get under their skin like nobody's business? And for bonus points, on what would you write the note?

I'll give it one more shot:

McCain was born before TV had commercials (written on a TV Guide cover bearing Obama's picture)

I've been thinking to myself about this quite a bit. What has to go through someone's mind to actually do this? What's the saddest part of it all? What's the funniest part of it all? What does the Political Profile of this author look like?

What, and on what, would you write?

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

The Path to Lies About 9/11

2006-09-08T12:25:00.000-05:00

Ok. So unless you're NOT the type that reads blogs every day (which is doubtful if you're seeing this) you may not have heard about the pack of lies Disney/ABC are pawning off on the American people and American school children called "The Path to 9/11". Anyways, here's what I sent to Senator Mitchell (Chairman of Disney, the parent of ABC).

Senator Mitchell,

I understand that ABC, owned by the Walt Disney Company, of which you are the Chairman of the Board, intends to air a "docu-drama" entitled "The Path to 9/11" over two nights early next week, with the program concluding on the 5th anniversary of the tragic events to which the title alludes.

As you have no doubt heard by this time, this docu-drama is rife with inaccuracies, inaccuracies that have been pointed to by Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, Madeleine Albright, Richard Cohen, the program's own screenwriter, and others.

These inaccuracies go beyond the level one might expect as being in the nature of the "docu-drama" format, where transcripts were clearly unavailable, dramatic tension is desirable, or decency laws prevent the use of certain terms. The inaccuracies go beyond these acceptable forms and approach the level of the defamation of our government, some of its former servants, and even a former President of the United States.

In 2003, CBS had the decency to hold off on the airing of a docu-drama portraying the lives of Nancy and Ronald Reagan after questions were brought up about its accuracy. In 2004, Disney itself refused to distribute, and even attempted to STOP the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary with a clear opposition to George W. Bush that was released shortly before the November 2004 elections, for fear of getting into the political waters from which Disney and ABC preferred to remain separated. And now in 2006, less than two months before the 2006 mid-term elections, and on the anniversary of what many Americans consider to be the tragedy of their lives, ABC, and therefore Disney, intends to air this "docu-drama" fictionalizing several key scenes and distorting important facts about how 9/11 was able to come about, and they are doing so for free?

I do not understand.

If it was wrong to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary that was to be shown in theaters requiring paid admission by the willing public, a documentary that went on to make millions upon millions of dollars, how is it right to broadcast The Path to 9/11 over the public airwaves for free?

If CBS was willing to pull away from broadcasting a docu-drama about the Reagans after being questioned about its accuracy, how is it that ABC is refusing to pull away from broadcasting a docu-drama about 9/11 after its accuracy is not only questioned, but its accuracy has been PROVEN to be false by the very document on which it is marketing itself as being based, the 9/11 Commission Report?

Is ABC, and therefore Disney, interested in giving what could be considered a $40million (plus the cost of the lost advertising revenue) campaign contribution to the Republican National Committee? Is ABC, and therefore Disney, insisting on promoting misguided, inaccurate lies about a former President and members of his staff? Is ABC, and therefore Disney, truly going to broadcast a story about what led to 9/11 knowing full well that the information is inaccurate? Is ABC, and therefore Disney, genuinely determined to honor the anniversary of such a tragedy with something so decidedly slanted against fact and reason?

Isn't it really that with respect to 9/11, all Americans are owed the truth from all media companies? And isn't that more true when the companies are graced with the power to broadcast on the people's airwaves? Isn't that true for ABC, and therefore Disney?

Myths are born in off-handed conversation. Legends are born from myths wrapped in stories. History itself can be distorted by legends writ large.

As an American citizen and someone who was shocked and horrified by the tragedy I felt five years ago, someone who was determined to support a fierce, accurate and JUST response against the perpetrators, and someone who hoped my country could find a way to the truth in order to help prevent future attacks, I emphatically urge you to cease all plans to air this docu-drama on the public airwaves.

Sincerely,
[ed: removed progprog's actual name from original]
Raleigh, NC

More on contacting folks at Think Progress, good post from Greenwald, and mcjoan has more.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Be very afraid... of Republican Politicization of Terror

2006-08-16T08:53:00.000-05:00

Olbermann has updated his Nexus of Politics and Terror, which I have linked to several times in the past, including my post on the theater of the UK announcement. Olbermann's newest piece *includes* the UK Liquid Bomb hullabaloo.

Like Olbermann says, 'please judge for yourself'.

Via Raw Story, where they include a transcript.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Embolden bolden bolden, keep them doggies rollin'

2006-08-11T08:36:00.000-05:00

Arianna sticks the landing (emphasis added):

... So do Cheney/Rove/Mehlman really believe that 60 percent of the public are blame-America-firsters? Or that because 60 percent of us agree that Iraq is a disaster, we somehow don't have "the will" to, in Cheney's words, "stay in the fight and complete the task" of taking on the terrorists -- and thus are encouraging al Qaeda types?

Of course not. They know being against the war in Iraq doesn't mean you are against fighting the war on terror. It means you are against a failed policy that has created more terrorists than it has killed, that has cost America 2,591 lives and $305 billion dollars, that has thrown Iraq into a bloody sectarian civil war, and that has so lessened our standing abroad that we are unable to be a real power broker in an exploding Middle East.

You want to know what really emboldens our enemies? It's not Ned Lamont beating Joe Lieberman; it's the idea of an impotent United States so over-extended and bogged down in Iraq that it has been pushed to the diplomatic sidelines.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Mystery Politics Theater 3000

2006-08-11T06:34:00.000-05:00

My post yesterday was cross-posted at Kos, and at least one commenter didn't appreciate my insinuation. There was a ginormous thread on Kos originally meant to deride any conspiracy theories that might leap from the announcement of the UK/US flight terror bust. I think a number of people were upset that folks tend to leap to thinking 'conspiracy' whenever any event unfolds, and that such talk can degrade the level of debate. I agree to a point. Another thread tried to draw the distinction between conspiracy and hype, and I lean more towards the latter

My reaction to the commenter on my post was that while I do not suspect--and certainly can not prove--anything about whether the timing of the event was politically motivated to play well for Republicans two days after Lieberman's loss and just inside of three months from the election, that the *theater* of the entire thing was too much. That any time I wake up in the morning to Chertoff and Gonzalez doing their best vaudeville, I am trained to naturally assume that the political wing of the Administration had a say in the theatrics of the event.

Americablog leads us to AFP's Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot

Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism....

...snip...

But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains....

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

Americablog points us next to the DCCC's timeline of events unfolding.

Bushco had five days to plan for this. And they used it. That is why my previous post had two pumpkins holding a press conference, trying to scare up some support in the polls by committing the IOKIYAR sin of politicizing the war on terror.

So I'll point back to Olbermann's "The Nexus of Politics and Terror" once more, and allow the reader to reach their own 'suspicions'.

I'm glad this plot was foiled, but that doesn't reduce my disdain for those that would use it to try to scare me into voting for them.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Red Alert! -- Cue thunder, CUE THUNDER!

2006-08-10T10:46:00.000-05:00

We can all be certain that the latest terror alert news has nothing whatsoever to do with the upcoming election, Halloween, or the fact that the Lieberman loss on Tuesday was seen by the GOP as a very bad sign of the incredible lack of confidence in the Administration and its policies. I know I will.

Here, we see Chertoff and Gonzalez announcing the news...

Instead, we should all be dutifully afraid and look to Daddy GOP to protect us from the boogeyman while trying desperately to forget about the thousands of boogeymen their policies in the Middle East have given birth to.

We should also remember to be good citizens by forgetting that Iraq has distracted us from our original enemy and our original goal, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So long as they remain free and we remain distracted in Iraq, the boogeyman can and will be used against us.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

You can't triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd.

2006-08-09T10:46:00.000-05:00

Imagine if the rules of a single elimination tournament allowed a team to switch schools after they lost in order to jump to the final round. Joe Lieberman says it's a-ok. He doesn't really like democracy much anyway. Unless he wins.

Joe Lieberman:

The three-term incumbent said he had a duty to his state, his party and his nation to run. “I can not and will not let that result stand,” he declared.

Um, Joe? Duty to your party would mean accepting defeat in the primary and not running against the winner. To say that turning around and trying to defeat the rightful winner of the Primary by running as an 'Independent' in the general is the definition of 'the opposite' of duty to Party. It goes *against* the very Party you have tried to prove your loyalty to for the last several months as Lamont gained ground on you.

You are a lying, self-righteous punk that is about to be like Kryptonite to every Democrat from whom you would request an endorsement, and you deserve it.

Good riddance.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Ohmygod, all of Connecticut Hacked!

2006-08-08T19:43:00.000-05:00

Or, maybe the bunk-ass web server they're using can't hack it on high-traffic days. I'm trying to get the Democratic primary results for CT-Sen, and I seem to be alternating between this error and one where there is no available Crystal Reports license.

Nice job, CT. Maybe you should all blame Lamont and his army of super blogofascists.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Insert Obscure Literary/Television/Film Reference Here

2006-08-08T12:51:00.000-05:00

I haven't been much of a fan of Dennis Miller for a while now. At one point in the mid-late 90s, I would *never* miss an episode. I would try and call in every week. He made me laugh hysterically.

After the Monday Night Football fiasco, and then that disastrous run on CNBC w/ the Monkey, he totally lost me. And he seemed to lose his sense of humor about everything, most-especially politics. Any humorist/satirist should feel willing and able to poke fun at politicians on *both* sides of the aisle.

By landing himself on Fox, in the same hour as Sean Hannity, Miller has indeed hit rock bottom. I highly doubt Hannity and Fox will allow him to crack wise about the Right anywhere near as much as he rips up the Left.

He has completed his arc from SNL Weekend Update icon, to a pioneer of the HBO live comedian guest-fest (now made better and more-interesting by Politically Incorrect martyr Bill Maher), to painfully Super-crappy NFL Commentator, to CNBC Monkey Sidekick, to Fox News ~~Sean Hannity~~ Stupid Monkey sidekick.

Dennis Miller, I weep for thee. You coulda *been* somethin'.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Looking forward to the State of the Union

2006-08-08T09:14:00.000-05:00

Maybe they should send Valerie Plame's Husband to check this out.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

They're beginning to believe

2006-08-06T21:37:00.000-05:00

Read this and keep typing, folks. It's starting to work.

(via DKos)

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Wikiality

2006-08-03T08:44:00.000-05:00

Wikipedia rocks.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Pat Roberts Knows Iraq is a Lie

2006-08-02T20:29:00.000-05:00

There is simply no other way to explain the two year delay in producing Phase 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Iraq Prewar Intelligence Report.

Phase I has been out for 24 and a half months. Roberts has repeatedly said that Phase 2 is on its way, and repeatedly done nothing. He has stalled, changed his story, backtracked, sidestepped, missed deadlines, and delayed the report for not one but TWO election cycles, 2004 and 2006.

He knows something and he refuses to let it see the light of day. Harry Reid even forced the Senate into a closed door session, gaining a 'bi-partisan' agreement to form a 'bi-partisan' group to assess the progress of Phase 2.

What do we have today? Bubkus.

If Roberts were interested in our National Security, he would produce a report. Hell, even if he wanted to whitewash it, he would do it now, while he and the Republican majority can produce something with a tone they can control. Imagine what will happen if the Democrats retake the Senate? Roberts is either supremely confident that won't happen, or he is supremely worried about a report being produced at all.

Why? The only answer that makes sense is that the damage to his party, or to Bush/Cheney in particular, would be extraordinary. That even producing a whitewashed report would reveal so many of the tweaks, cherry-picks and outright falsehoods that led us into Iraq that it would do unimaginable damage. But what the hell could be in the report that would be worse than say, The Deulfer Report? The Conyers Report? Downing Street?

Perhaps it is just a stall tactic. Perhaps Roberts will delay and delay and delay for as many years as he can *possibly* get away with so that the Nation's memory will begin to wilt. Interest will wane. So that little consequence will be felt by the perpetrators of wrongdoings that would *be* in the report.

But make no mistake, this report is necessary. Even if no one is ever held to account for whatever actions the report would detail, the Senate, the House, the country and its citizenry all deserve answers to the questions Phase 2 was intended to address. Was intelligence manipulated, yes or no? Did the legislative branch receive partial or cherry-picked intelligence from the executive? Did Bush know, yes or no? What did they know? When did they know it?

So, I'll ask again. What could possibly be in there that has Roberts so purposely and openly hesitant?

To paraphrase the Freeway Blogger, the war is a lie and Pat Roberts knows it.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

You wanna read something really scary?

2006-08-02T11:09:00.000-05:00

Glenn Greenwald looks into some recent rhetoric on the unfolding mess in Israel and nothing comes up roses:

...the President claims that the reason 9/11 happened is because the foreign policy of both political parties for the last several decades was devoted to preserving stability (i.e., a state of peace, avoidance of war), and stability in the Middle East is our greatest enemy.

That, according to neoconservatives (apparently including the President), is what needs to be changed. Stability is our enemy because it breeds hatred and war. Only instability and war will breed a "lasting peace." Thus, the more instability and war in the Middle East, the better. That is the central neconservative warmongering tenet and it is what is coming out of the President's mouth as he discusses his views of the new war in the Middle East.

The 1984 references write themselves these days.

He goes further:

That is the central incoherence which lays at the heart of the Bush administration's neoconservative mission -- one minute the objective is to win the "hearts and minds" of Muslims in the Middle East so that there will be less anti-American hatred for Al Qaeda to exploit when recruiting. The next minute the objective is to bomb as many of their countries as possible for their own good and hope that they are appreciative of all the carnage and destruction we are raining down on them in the name of warring against the evil of "stability."

And includes this telling quote from Bush himself:

This moment of conflict in the Middle East is painful and tragic. Yet it is also a moment of opportunity for broader change in the region. Transforming countries that have suffered decades of tyranny and violence is difficult, and it will take time to achieve. But the consequences will be profound -- for our country and the world. When the Middle East grows in liberty and democracy, it will also grow in peace, and that will make America and all free nations more secure.

And there you have it.

They do not like us right now because they are not free Democracies and/or violence has been allowed to 'simmer'. We are a free Democracy. We want them to be a free Democracy so they will like us. So, we will bomb the shit out of every last one of them until they can *see* how wonderful it is to be a free Democracy. Only then, after we have destroyed their homes, killed their soldiers and the occasional civilian, blown up their businesses and destroyed their infrastructure... only then will they like us a really really lot.

It all defies logic, but still the President puts it forth as though it were the only logical conclusion one could reach.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

The first step is admitting you have a problem

2006-07-31T23:37:00.000-05:00

A number of prominent Democrats seem to have decided to suggest to Bush that he might want to reassess:

"In the interests of American national security, our troops and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained. . . . We need to take a new direction."

What's interesting here, is that they are *finally* starting to notice that this is exactly what 56% of the American people have already said they want. I guess the average voter is not as insane as Bush, and 'staying the course' is one slogan with which they've become all too weary.

The Republican Response will be: They hate our freedom, September 11th, stay the course.

NOTE: WAPO link via Joe in DC. In a coincidence that gave me both the yips and the jimmy-legs, I linked to the exact same polling article Joe did. I realized this after the fact. Joe has been asked to get out of my head immediately.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Big Brass Ones

2006-07-31T22:10:00.000-05:00

The Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary has guts. John Conyers (D-MI) is one of the (the?) ballsiest guys in Washington when it comes to repeatedly calling Bush and the Administration what they are. Republicans across the aisle refuse to do a damned thing to stop, slow, or even question the tactics of the Administration, but Conyers labors on, documenting and filing things like his latest epic.

He has produced a 26 page report (half of it is footnotes) that TPM has been kind enough to host for all to peruse. 26 Laws broken. 26 pages. How fitting.

Manipulating and forcing intel. Tubes. Nukes. Chemical Weapons. Niger. Valerie Plame. Threats/revenge tactics. Wiretaps. Misleading Congress. Torture. Oh, it's all there in lovely detail.

Old News reminder from the Downing Street Memos. Remember, Bush told the nation he didn't decide to invade Iraq until just prior to the invasion in March, 2003. Page 2-3:

....President Bush had told Prime Minister Blair "when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq (Fall 2001); "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed" (March 14, 2002); the U.S. has "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat" (March 25, 2002); "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" and, most significantly, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy (July 23, 2002).

They may have gotten draft deferments and National Guard gigs back in the day, but boy did they have a hardon for this war. Page 7 (emphasis added):

An intelligence analyst who testified, "[t]here's so much pressure [to support the Administration's position on aluminum tubes], you know, they keep telling us, go back and find the right answer."
a senior official reported that CIA analysts got "pounded on, day after day" on WMD issues
a CIA official stated, "[t]here was a great deal of pressure to find a reason to go to war with Iraq. And the pressure was not just subtle; it was blatant...[the official's boss] called a meeting and gave them their marching orders. And he said, "You know what? If Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so.

You almost get the impression the Republicans and the Administration don't want to look into these matters. Page 13 (emphasis added):

Thus, the Senate and House Intelligence Committes have refused to conduct any serious investigation concerning intelligence manipulation relating to the Iraq War; House Republican Chairmen have rejected numerous requests by Members to conduct hearings on torture and other abuses in Iraq; and the Administration has ignored requests for information concerning such abuses submitted by the Ranking Members of six committees. Republicans in the House have also rejected myriad attempts by Members to ask the Administration to provide information regarding all of these matters pursuant to Resolutions of Inquiry.

Yes, we're still waiting on Part 2 of the Senate Report from the Preeminent Procrastinator of our time, Pat Roberts (jackass-KS). It looks like Conyers grew impatient.

But there is no cigar. No blowjob. No pecker tracks on a blue dress. I fully expect very little to come of any of this. Conyers will be (and has been) regarded as a shrewd politician pulling a stunt in an election year, and much worse.

The country's moral compass always points ~~Due North~~ Blue Sex, you see. The infamous semi-rhetorical, "What will we tell the children?" from the Clinton years is so last century. Nowadays, "How can we properly justify moral relativism to the children?" should be the quandary facing many of the hyper-ventilators still breathing into a bag over Clinton's penis. But, methinks that question won't be asked by anyone, cuz (say it with me) IOKIYAR.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Freedom's Just Another Word

2006-07-31T08:01:00.000-05:00

I think that when I had kids my perspective changed. I know it did. Unfortunately, that perspective makes hearing shit like this hurt

The Lebanese Red Cross said the airstrike in Qana, in which at least 34 children were killed, pushed the overall Lebanese death toll to more than 500. ...."We will not stop this battle, despite the difficult incidents this morning," Olmert said said during Israel's weekly Cabinet meeting, according to a participant in the meeting. "We will continue the activity and if necessary it will be broadened without hesitation."

And, then there's this story from Newsweek about the American Soldier accused of some horrific crimes. My new perspective makes this unimaginable:

On the night in question in Al Mahmudiyah, Green dressed in dark clothes, ducked away from his post and persuaded some of his comrades to come along. According to the indictment, he then led them to the house of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl. At the home, Green herded the mother, father and a young girl, about 5 years old, into a back bedroom while another soldier threw the teenager to the floor. Green closed the bedroom door. Shots were fired, and he emerged with an AK-47, which had been in the home, and said, "I just killed them. All are dead." He and another soldier then allegedly raped the teenager. Afterward, Green shot her two or three times in the head, killing her, the indictment says. (Green has pleaded not guilty.)

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

The Theory of Relativity

2006-07-28T09:14:00.000-05:00

Everything is relative. How two people or entities, businesses or peoples receive and process the exact same event, news, or experience is always dependent on, or relative to, their perspective.

Additionally, the passage of time warps the perceptions of each party. As time goes on, one looks back and remembers the same event through the filter of faded memories and new experiences, reality, new events and perspective. The other party does the same, albeit with their own version of that filter. Different perceptions of the event, originally similar or wildly different, can change drastically. Perhaps bringing the two perceptions back together or shoving them further apart than ever.

These perceptions of past events can never be the same, as perception is reality more than the reverse, and perceptions naturally can not be identical for two parties. But the two parties can reach a point where the perceptions of the opposing party begin to affect their own perception. And it is when this point is reached that understanding is born, compromise is birthed, and the harsh bitch of reality reunites us all.

Now, that generalization (and wholly inaccurate use of the term 'Theory of Relativity') having been dispensed free of charge, I present a little story out of Chicago, IL

After months of fevered lobbying and bitter debate, the Chicago City Council passed a groundbreaking ordinance yesterday requiring “big box” stores, like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour by 2010, along with at least $3 an hour worth of benefits.

Imagine you live nearby and could use a job to help support your family. Or, imagine you are a local politician. Your perception is positive:

"This is a great day for the working men and women of Chicago," said Alderman Joseph A. Moore, the measure’s chief sponsor. Mr. Moore said he had had inquiries about the ordinance from officials in several other cities.

Now, imagine you are WalMart:

"It’s sad — this puts politics ahead of working men and women," John Simley, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said in a telephone interview. "It means that Chicago is closed to business."

Yes, Mr. Simley. That's what it means. To you. For now. Wait a few years.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Def Leppard Predicts Middle East Conflict

2006-07-27T08:08:00.000-05:00

Atrios points us to Media Matters discussing CNN chatting up the signs of Armageddon.

Lest we forget:

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Boltonmania 2 - Cage Match

2006-07-27T07:25:00.000-05:00

John Bolton – On why international law does not exist:

While treaties may well be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not “law” as we apprehend the term. And what happens to countries when they do not adhere to international law on some matter? Usually nothing. Why, then, do we continue to talk about international “law”? Because the word has a strong emotive appeal.

The US Constitution

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I will give credit to the Administration on one large point: They are absolutely fantastic at alienating our allies. John Bolton is particularly skilled.

You can get lots more info on Bolton and the possible nomination re-match battle from Steve Clemons over at HuffPo.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

A Double-Agent gathers no moss

2006-07-26T15:03:00.000-05:00

Rolling Stone has a lengthy but excellent story about how we got where we are today in Iraq, how we almost ended up in Iran, and how we still might.

After you read it and get depressed click around and read about music or something to lift your spirits. One particularly noteworthy portion about the treasonous (literally) idiots in charge of our National Security, while somewhat old news this is still *very* newsworthy :

On May 20th, shortly after the discovery of the leak, Iraqi police backed by American soldiers raided Chalabi's home and offices in Baghdad. The FBI suspected that Chalabi, a Shiite who had a luxurious villa in Tehran and was close to senior Iranian officials, was actually working as a spy for the Shiite government of Iran. Getting the U.S. to invade Iraq was apparently part of a plan to install a pro-Iranian Shiite government in Baghdad, with Chalabi in charge. The bureau also suspected that Chalabi's intelligence chief had furnished Iran with highly classified information on U.S. troop movements, top-secret communications, plans of the provisional government and other closely guarded material on U.S. operations in Iraq. On the night of the raid, The CBS Evening News carried an exclusive report by correspondent Lesley Stahl that the U.S. government had "rock-solid" evidence that Chalabi had been passing extremely sensitive intelligence to Iran—evidence so sensitive that it could "get Americans killed."

The revelation shocked Franklin and other members of Feith's office. If true, the allegations meant that they had just launched a war to put into power an agent of their mortal enemy, Iran. Their man—the dissident leader who sat behind the first lady in the president's box during the State of the Union address in which Bush prepared the country for war—appeared to have been working for Iran all along.

(emphasis added)

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Today in Iraq

2006-07-25T19:58:00.000-05:00

I read a lot of blogs and somehow I never picked up on this one. I know I've clicked through it before, but I never took a step back and looked around.

Today in Iraq is painful. In particular today itself. Jesus.

I added it to Ye Olde Blogrolle and reordered that mess a bit to more-accurately reflect my reading habits.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

This is gonna leave a mark

2006-07-25T16:40:00.000-05:00

Glenn weighs in on the situation between Israel and Lebanon and how it has oddly wiped a lot of discussion of Iraq off the headlines and televisions.

Some of what he says reminds me of what I mentioned here, but Greenwald does it better than anyone.

Also of note are these thoughts from Booman about how things are out-of-control all over and some folks are afraid to address the Israeli situation head-on. Not sure if it's true, but it shouldn't be. Quite certain you can get undeserved labels for stating opinions, of course, just not sure everyone is truly avoiding the subject.

So conservative bloggers flip to Israel coverage (supporting Israel's "retaliation" efforts enthusiastically) while the big liberal bloggers stick to Iraq and stateside politics (to avoid a 3rd-rail issue for liberals). The traditional media flip to the Israeli issues and push Iraq to the backburner.

Meanwhile Iraq is still hosed and getting worse. Any support the US throws behind Israel worsens the PR problem in Iraq and the rest of the middle east b/c we are already hated there for our support of Israel. Israel is making threats about 10 buildings for every rocket. Iraqis are considering joining Hizbollah to fight against the Israelies. Iraqi politicians are considering dividing Iraq along sectarian lines leaving a permanent disaster in the wake of our invasion and press for democracy. And we still have 140,000 troops standing in the middle of it all.

Maybe if I watch Wheel of Fortune I'll feel better.

[Update]
I was wondering when Armageddon might get brought up. Colbert handles it gracefully.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

John Bolton is a no-talent ass-clown

2006-07-22T09:53:00.000-05:00

Raw Story tells us John Bolton might get actual hearings after all. He was given a recess appointment by Bush after his nomination went down to a Democratic filibuster. Recess appointments are only forcibly-valid until the ensuing session, at which time the legislative oversight of the appointment can kick back in.

John Bolton, no-relation to a certain other no-talent ass-clown. You may recall him from such films as 'The UN Sucks', or 'How Bush Subverted the Will of the People', or the MiniSeries 'The Vengeful Hawk'.

But this is his most memorable role, repeatedly insulting the very body to which Bush later chose him to be our ambassador:

Can someone explain why anyone, *anyone* would nominate Bolton to be our UN Ambassador *after* he said these things? It defies logic.

But politics is a never-ending source of fun. Apparently Bolton may never end up getting that precious up/down vote b/c a prominent Democrat has decided to support him. Arrgh.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Perspectives on the cost of a video

2006-07-22T09:22:00.000-05:00

Sarah McLachlan.

(Via atrios)

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Hi, my name is Sherman and I'm a....

2006-07-20T19:57:00.000-05:00

I'm not really sure whether to laugh or just ignore this.

My layman's opinion says, "Yup, there are gay people in this world." It happens. One or more of my kids could be gay and I don't expect there is anything anyone will be able to do about it even if we wanted them to. I also don't think it would have a single thing to do with how we raised them.

Not so, says www.no-moo-lies.com, brought to you courtesy of James Dobson's Focus on the Family organization.

I've known several gay people and never have I met someone whose siblings are also gay? Has anyone ever met two siblings that were *both* gay?

I still bark, myself. But I also still think James Dobson's so full of cow shit that HE should be mooing.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Bush Thumbs his nose in Veto

2006-07-19T19:47:00.000-05:00

I know Bush feels strongly about this issue. I know it's his first veto. And that he must know his veto goes against the wishes of the majority of Americans. But even given the circumstances I don't really think this little jab was necessary:

You can see the whole veto at Raw Story

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Cartoons are Funny

2006-07-19T18:26:00.000-05:00

Not this one.

Especially given the recent remarks of idiot-of-the-moment Bill Kristol. You see, the War in Iraq is going so well that what we need is another war, against a larger, better-equipped enemy.

Mmmkaaaay.

Both links via atrios

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Billions and Billions

2006-07-19T14:43:00.000-05:00

There is a veddy interesting, interactive map of the blogosphere over at Data Mining. They also have a few other visual representations of all of the relationships.

It reminds me of the party at the Moon Tower where Slater--looking out at the lights of the city below--wonders about how many people are out there, right now, just goin' at it, man.

Every little blip is a blog w/ a few links, and yours truly does not appear. I will now consult with The Brain on our daily efforts to try and conquer the world, as it would appear we require a Plan K.

progprog

Bush's Pro-life Flip-Flop

2006-07-19T09:12:00.000-05:00

Ok, here's the line from King George:

"The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research, it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder. He's one of them," spokesman Tony Snow said.

Now, here's the reality:

ESC lines come from material stored at fertility clinics which is already slated for destruction. Preventing these blastocysts from being used for research won't 'save' them. It simply means they'll be disposed of in a medical waste facility instead of being used to find cures for disease. The only reason to restrict federal approval of new lines is to appeal to a minority of extremist social conservatives and it comes at the cost of possibly delaying or denying treatment--and in some cases life itself--to millions of people.

Is the President pro-life or not?

progprog
I'm STILL wishing reality drove our policies more than politics drove our reality.

Recipe for fun

2006-07-18T23:38:00.000-05:00

Ingredients:

1 nephew, approximately 10 years old.
2 Nerf Ball Blasters (eBay)
Balls (10)

Preparation:

Place an equal number of balls into each Ball Blaster. If possible, ensure you have one or two more balls than your nephew.
Walk to opposite sides of the basement (living room is sufficient).

Serving:

Blast the hell out of each other.
If you are hit, don't stop.
Let nephew get a few shots and then you will have all of his ammo
Repeat as desired

progprog

It's good to be the King

2006-07-18T20:00:00.000-05:00

Bush blocks investigation of how he broke the law.

What's the name of a government that has, at its head, someone that refuses to answer to any other part of the government? Oh, ya. Dictatorship.

In fact, someone once got impeached for it. His name was Richard Nixon. From Article 1, Obstruction of Justice:

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

Welcome, one and all.

(link from alysheba)

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Will any Iraqis be left to vote?

2006-07-17T19:36:00.000-05:00

Holy shit. I swear a lot. Too often, really. But believe me when I tell you that the article I just finished reading deserves more.

Baghdad. Ancient capital city of Iraq. Home of the fortified Green Zone from which Americans rarely venture. Baghdad is being abandoned. Can you imagine?

Ali phoned me on Tuesday night, about 10.30pm. There were cars full of gunmen prowling his mixed neighbourhood, he said. He and his neighbours were frantically exchanging information, trying to identify the gunmen.

Were they the Mahdi Army, the Shia militia blamed for drilling holes in their victims’ eyes and limbs before executing them by the dozen? Or were they Sunni insurgents hunting down Shias to avenge last Sunday’s massacre, when Shia gunmen rampaged through an area called Jihad, pulling people from their cars and homes and shooting them in the streets?

Our troops can only do so much. The Iraqis do need to get on board with saving their country from ruin. But it appears the sectarian divides are so wide that they would prefer to kill each other than unite.

Can't they call the Americans?

In fact the US military generally responds only to request for support from Iraqi security forces. But as many of those forces are at best turning a blind eye to the Shia death squads, and at worst colluding with them, calling the Americans is literally the last thing they do.

And what of the new Iraqi government?

In just 24 hours before noon yesterday, as parliament convened for another emergency session, 87 bodies were brought to Baghdad city morgue, 63 of them unidentified. Since Sunday’s massacre in Jihad, more than 160 people have been killed, making a total of at least 1,600 since Iraq’s Government of national unity came to power six weeks ago. Another 2,500 have been wounded.

What are the innocent people to do?

A local journalist told me bitterly this week that Iraqis find it ironic that Saddam Hussein is on trial for killing 148 people 24 years ago, while militias loyal to political parties now in government kill that many people every few days. But it is not an irony that anyone here has time to laugh about. They are too busy packing their bags and wondering how they can get out alive.

Planes, trains and automobiles

Despite the huge risks of driving through the Sunni Triangle, the number of buses to Jordan has mushroomed from 2 a day to as many as 40 or 50.

God bless and protect our troops that are there. Even if you wanted this war (I was convinced by the hype but later conquered my fear and tried to sell the symbolism). Even if you love Bush and his "doctrine". Even if you think we can and should force democracy on other countries. You still have to wonder... If only Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had fucking listened.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Candies and Flowers

2006-07-17T16:33:00.000-05:00

The Iraqis had better stock up on those candies and flowers we were promised. Military commanders believe we'll be there for another 10 years.

2016. Think about that. Greeted as liberators?

Not only is Bush leaving Iraq for the next President to deal with, he's leaving it for the next, and the next, and the next.Where the hell are those candies and flowers, dammit?

Stay the course, folks. Otherwise we would all be silly ol' flip-floppers. Stay the course, no matter the consequences, and no matter the cost of blood and treasure.

I wish reality drove our policies more than politics drove our reality.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Yo Blair, what’re you doing?

2006-07-17T09:45:00.000-05:00

Ah, to be a fly on the wall.

When I'm just imagining Bush sitting in a room with other world leaders, I cringe a bit. But when I can actually hear some of what was said I cringe even more. Maybe next time around the country will remember that the guy you want to have a beer with is maybe not the guy that should be hob-nobbing with seasoned and learned statesmen on issues of life, death, and war.

No, just going to make it up. I'm not going to talk too long like the rest of them. Some of these guys talk too long.

Must be hard work listening to the opinions of other countries, and, you know, preparing remarks.

This is how the country is being run. How our policies get mis-interpreted or changed, wholesale, accidentally. Bush is just going to make it up.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Bush's European Vacation

2006-07-16T00:56:00.000-05:00

President Bush is trying to balance the G8 summit, the Iranian nuclear issue, Russian and European relations and what response, if any, the US will make with regards to the astonishing waves of violence in Israel and Lebanon and the chance that the current violence could escalate, bringing in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iran itself, all of this with 130k of our troops in a nearby Iraq that has no signs of violence abating?

What, me worry?

An oil executive familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of oil prices in the country as the mid-term election approaches :

Who gives a shit? The price of oil is through the roof!

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

7 years in Michigan

2006-07-15T14:45:00.000-05:00

I really and truly hope that GM is able to recover from its current spiral.

It would be bad for my family, bad for its 400 thousand retirees, and bad for the country if it doesn't.

THAT is why I can't believe Rick Wagoner hasn't stepped aside already. Has there ever been another CEO that presided over such a decline in a company's power that didn't either get fired or quit mercifully in shame?

If Ghosn can do anything for GM, bring him in, and kick Wagoner and his cronies on the board to the curb ASAP.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Lennon

2006-07-13T10:38:00.000-05:00

I'm looking forward to seeing this.

progprog
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Optimism

2006-07-11T20:28:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush, October 3, 2000

We can reform the tax code, so that families can keep more of what they earn ...more dollars that they can spend on what they value, rather than on what the government thinks is important.

We can restore the ideals of honesty and honor that must be a part of our national life, if our children are to thrive.

When I look at the administration now in Washington, I am dismayed by opportunities squandered.

Saddened by what might have been, but never was.

These have been years of prosperity in our land, but little purpose in the White House.

Saddened, indeed.

George W. Bush, July 11, 2006

This good news is no accident. It's the result of the hard work of the American people and sound policies in Washington, D.C.

Here, Bush is bragging about the fourth largest deficit our country has ever run. Bragging. Inflate the deficit and overestimate it where need be, so when you manage to pare it back a tiny bit, you can brag? That's like saying to your boss you so totally fucked up last week, that this week, when you only fucked up half as bad, you deserve serious kudos.

The wealthiest of Americans are keeping more of what they earn and the ground is being made up by the middle class. Everyone's children and grandchildren are losing out on what they'll earn because they're going to have to pay it all back.

As a reminder, here's my favorite least-favorite chart.

Saddened, indeed.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

We will win the War on Terror

2006-07-11T14:43:00.000-05:00

With slogans this big, who needs allies? We've got a *really* big plan.

So I'll just stop worrying now.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Shouldn't it be the Department of Offense?

2006-07-10T23:02:00.000-05:00

Cost overruns at the Pentagon?

As the Pentagon finds itself paying. more than budgeted for fewer weapons, the administration has warned that current levels of military spending cannot be sustained. Meanwhile, Pentagon record-keeping is so flawed that auditors are unable to tell how much money it actually has.

Iago:

Oh, *there's* a big surprise. I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and *die*, from that surprise. Look at this, look at this, I'm so ticked off that I'm *molting*.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Chocolates Flowers and Kimmy Gone Wild

2006-07-10T22:11:00.000-05:00

Kim Jong Il was apparently of the mind that he wouldn't need to keep testing his Taepodong I missiles back in 2000. This may or may not have had to do with the chocolates and flowers Clinton and Albright had been throwing his way.

Something odd happened between 2000 and 2006.

Now, whether you love Bush or hate him (mildly loathe is ok too, you two jokers in the corner), you can't blame him for the entire North Korean debacle. I mean, he did have a War on Terror to fight (in the wrong country) and a nation to scare the bejeezus out of (to win reelection) and, of course, Social Security to shit on (to pay off cronies). He couldn't spend all of his time on pretzels and North Korea!? He had to spend some time on things that *mattered*. And he sure as hell wasn't going to keep going with the mamby pamby Clinton way of doing things! Clinton s.u.c.k.e.d. sucked. Right? Besides, taking on North Korea would be a *bitch*. No easy way in, no easy way out, and a ginormous army to contend with that just so happened to be capable of attacking several allies at the drop of a smart bomb.

Well, when you're dealing with a paranoid megalomaniac with a cult following (some forcibly told to follow) you can't just *ignore* them. Just like that chick in High School that went all mental when you said you wanted to see other people, you have to coddle ol' Kimmy. You have to pay some attention and keep them stable long enough to let them down gently. Didn't Bush see Fatal Attraction?

So where did Bush's harsh breakup get us? You guessed it. chocolates and flowers. That dull ol' diplomacy crap. It takes so *long*. It's such hard work.

Anything for you, Kimmy. You know I love you, Kimmy, and I would never do anything to hurt you. No, I'm not just saying that. I told you before, didn't I? It's really late. Get some rest and we'll, y'know, talk about it in the morning after 1st period. I'll write you a note and pass it through Huey to give to you in Mr. Bolton's geography class. Yes, I *know* you don't do that for every guy you date, Kimmy. This isn't exactly an easy conversation for me to bring up as it is, you don't have to try and get me worked up right before bed. Yes, I promise, if we don't end up going out any more I'll let you do that at *least* one more time, but you don't have to promise me that or anything.

Alright, Kimmy. Talk to you then. I *like* you, Kimmy. No, I won't say that. I can't say it, Kimmy, not right now. We'll talk more tomorrow night, ok? But you call me this time I'm running low on minutes and my daddy's gonna kick my ass. Ok, you hang up first this time. No, you hang up. Ok, on the count of three. 1. 2. 3....

I *knew* you were gonna do that, you always do that...

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

What matters is who counts the votes

2006-07-09T19:13:00.000-05:00

It's sad to think that a few paid staffers in business-casual attire helped scare Florida into stopping their vote count efforts back in 2000.

That's not a crowd.

In the wake of the Mexican election this past week, popular left-leaning candidate Obrador urged protesters to have their voices heard.

And they gathered to do so.

That's a crowd.

Still paging the mass media, who seem to continue to write this off as a non-event.

However, EJ Dionne did write an excellent piece explaining how lucky Mexico is that they will avoid...well...all the crap we went through in 2000.

Again, why are some that would claim to love a democratic form of government so profoundly against actually counting all the damned votes? Oh, now I remember. Because Right-leaning candidates like Calderon, Obrador's opponent, know they can't win without cheating. And their wealthiest supporters/corporations/status quo-lovers (the ones that keep the people down, AKA "The Man") can't afford to share the power with The People.

Disclose all vote-counting source code and make each person's vote verifiably accurate and verifiably counted. Publicly fund elections and campaigns. Now.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Mexican Jumping Ballot-Boxes

2006-07-09T10:34:00.000-05:00

The entire Mexican Election reeks (via Cannonfire).

The most-telling picture to me, especially having waded through this thread at Kos about the election results as they came in, is this graphic:

Those curves look like almost, well, perfect inversions of each other, no? Note how clear it is that the fraudsters had to wait until the initial results were in before they were able to determine the *amount* of votes they had to tip. As soon as that point is reached, the trends begin to curve for the two leading candidates, and the others don't move one bit from their respective trends.

Paging the mass media.

[UPDATE] Although he's not posting as often as I would like, Greg Palast has been posting about the election, and is said to be on his way to Mexico to cover the story further. Perhaps after he arrives the updates will be more frequent.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

I'm floating in a most-uh puh-kyoo-lee-ar waa-aay

2006-07-09T09:25:00.000-05:00

Three branches, good. One branch purposely ignoring and avoiding confrontations with another branch in an effort to expand its powers indefinitely, bad:

White House hard-liners, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and his uncompromising lawyer, David Addington, made it clear that there was only one acceptable answer. One day, Bowker recalls, a colleague explained the goal: to "find the legal equivalent of outer space"—a "lawless" universe. As Bowker understood it, the idea was to create a system where detainees would have no legal rights and U.S courts would have no power to intervene.

Methinks it sadly and tragically ironic that in an effort to avoid having to use, you know, an actual court system of our own to try suspected terrorists and "enemy combatants", the administration may have sealed the fate of the men and women in our uniform they commanded to torture/kidnap/guard said suspected terrorists and "enemy combatants".

If any servicemen or officers end up in the Hague with this ruling being quoted in a brief, don't blame the US Supreme Court. Blame Addington, Cheney, and Bush for trying to get away with this crap in the first place.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

And now for something completely batty

2006-07-09T07:44:00.000-05:00

We are a Nation at War. In this Time of War, one cannot risk staying on the sidelines, just hoping for a just outcome.

Instead, you have to dive in on all fronts and fight for what's right. You have to fortify your stomach and prepare for the worst things your enemies might throw at you. You have to train, and you have to plan, and you must, above all else, be willing to go to lengths your enemy would never expect.

Yes, the war is raging. I urge you to bypass the traditional media and its bias in presenting the true horrors of war. Instead, visit the frontlines yourself, and bring your headphones, as audio is most definitely required.

The first shots were fired late on Friday, July 7th, 2006, by Atrios.

The Editors responded the following day with a vicious counter.

Sadly, No kicked them both in the nads while they weren't looking.

And then it was ON.

So far I think the two Male Leads from Star Trek have been the heaviest blows thrown.

As Atrios might say, we may not know for about six months whether an acceptable outcome is even possible. After that, expect the convening of a major Blogger Ethics Tribunal to explore the possibility of YouTube crimes.

Perhaps our dear leader can carry us through.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Look, up in the sky...

2006-07-09T06:39:00.000-05:00

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It's Superman!

No, nothing as heroic as Superman. No powers and shit. But a little bit o' the ol' Truth, Justice, American Way stuff might have leaked back into a Republican Congressman's brain:

"I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed," Mr. Hoesktra wrote. "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."

He added: "The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution."

Wouldn't it be nice if we had 3 equal branches again.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Dr Dumblove, or How Americans Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Ignoring Reality

2006-07-08T16:01:00.000-05:00

Christopher Dickey quotes Orwell:

"Political and military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties."

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Have your cake and eat your children's cake

2006-07-07T16:33:00.000-05:00

A Republican friend was just lecturing me about the prosperity Republican tax cuts bring we Americans.

I sent him this lovely chart

Now, do tax cuts equal prosperity? Of course not. Does a sensible approach to rebalancing the burden of taxation equal prosperity? Not necessarily. And neight can either guarantee long-term prosperity. Nothing can.

But it certainly was nice in the Clinton years, and as that chart reminds us, the long-term prospects for our country were a mighty shitload better under Clinton than they are even 5 years into the Bushco nightmare.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Contract With America, part duh

2006-07-06T12:29:00.000-05:00

I completely agree that Newt should help America and the GOP put together a new "contract".

So long as the contract is effective immediately and scheduled to end in January 2007 as all of the Republicans signed onto the contract walk out of office, heads held low, eyes averted in shame from their constituents, admitting in whole that they have been an utter failure at governing this country.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

I really do find it odd...

2006-07-06T10:13:00.000-05:00

I find it odd that those who run for democratically-elected office (and their supporters) are so often willing to try and subvert the democratic process.

If you live in, and love, your Democracy, shouldn't you let it work as it is designed? Why is such behavior acceptable to these people?

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

An old Vulcan Proverb says...

2006-07-06T08:59:00.000-05:00

"Only Bush can make America like China".

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

These aren't the droids you're looking for

2006-03-19T15:52:00.000-05:00

Atrios points us to Digby's riff on the punditocracy's unwavering belief in Democratic Eunuchs somehow being the path to Democratic glory.

But it is really the path to Democratic defeat. The path that Republicans and pundits obsessively attempt to keep Democrats on, in order to re-reinforce the meme of Democratic weakness in the face of Republican supremacy.

All of it is bullshit, really. But Digby is right to point to it as one of the principle self-fulfilling prophecies that emanates from the Washington bubble despite the waves of contradictory evidence bombarding that bubble from all across the nation.

Washington thinks Democrats are the perfect feckless foil to Republican dominance. A nuissance on the way to Republican victories. A blip of mindless droids so near the edge of the elite radar as to be worth mentioning only in passing while elevating Republican talking points and legislation to a point of pre-assumed, common-knowledge-in-the-Beltway fact. The Democrats are not to speak until spoken to, and Digby hits the builders of this Democratic corral over the head:

The conventional wisdom in DC has now ossified into a reflexive notion that Democrats must do nothing. Ever. They must hold back and say nothing when the Republicans are on top and they must hold back and say nothing when they are on the ropes.

Precisely.

Feingold broke this rule and those who are beginning to line up behind him should be commended for returning a touch of honor to a body that prefers free plane trips and speechifying to helpful policy or true service to their constituency. Party is everything, and the party in power at this time won't even let Democratic legislation come to the floor without Republican co-sponsorship. So yes, in government today, there *is* but one voice. There are others, but they are rarely allowed to be heard. There are others, but the talking heads guffaw when they start to voice actual Democratic opinion.

Feingold broke the meme and kept the NSA spying controversy in the spotlight. Regardless of whether it passes, which is as unlikely as its not passing is unfortunate for our country, Feingold can wave his hand in pride, telling members of his party and the DC Establishment once and for all that he and his censure supporters are done playing along. Feingold and those that would stand up with him are yelling at the top of their lungs that what George W. Bush has broken the law. They yell that Bush is still breaking the law and that at least some Democrats are not the droids the establishment is looking for.

Those that are looking for Democrats to play the unwritten part of the oft-prophecied meme should simply move along. Censure supporters are not the droids they're looking for.

Move along.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Greenwald for Dummies

2006-03-17T20:32:00.000-05:00

Which is to say, that you would have to be a dummy to not see what Greenwald is saying about your rights being swept under a faux legislative carpet.

If the actions of the President are unconstitutional, and the law designed to protect the President's right to do something unconstitutional is unconstitutional, then what are we left with besides a weaker constitution?

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Get Your Public Out of My Republican Empire!

2006-03-16T20:33:00.000-05:00

While a recent commenter would love to ignore polls wholeheartedly, in the immortal worlds of Hannibal Lecter upon learning of what "Multiple Miggs" had said to Clarice Starling, "I myself, cannot".

American Research Group is out with a new poll that is popping up all over the place, including mcjoan's post at DailyKos.

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?
3/15/06 Favor Oppose Undecided All Adults 46% 44% 10% Voters 48% 43% 9% Republicans 29% 57% 14% Democrats 70% 26% 4% Independents 42% 47% 11%

I'm not sure why Feingold is still considered a kook by Republican commentators and supposed journalists. A few more Democrats have come out in favor of censure, and I commend them for that. Though, quite a few Democrats still have some splaining to do. I do enjoy this take from Jeffrey Feldman over at Kos, however that claims the resolution has put the Republicans in the midst of a situation where they do not control the frame of the discussion. Perhaps.

But no amount of bloviating by either side will change the simple fact that Bush has actively, willingly broken the law. It will not change the fact that Bush continues to actively, willingly break the law. And it will not change the fact that the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee--tasked with legislative oversight of these very policies--is just fine and dandy with Bush actively, willingly breaking the law.

Funny, however, that even 29% of Republicans aren't buying any of the bunk-ass logic put forth by the Administration and its enablers. If we have a President that is above the law, even under the guise of War Time (a war longer than WWII and with no definitive enemy), and we have a legislature unwilling to cry foul and a judiciary unwilling to pull back the reins when given the opportunity to address the situation, the power of the people is all that remains intact. If the people aren't all on board with the status quo, then get the people out of the picture?

Maybe that's why we see HR 4900 garnering support?

I shudder to think.

p.s. Blogger/Blogspot is hosed tonight. This post might not ever see the light of day. I couldn't recover a number of great links because so many blogs were beyond my grasp. I have both Good Night and Good Luck and A History of Violence burning a whole in my tabletop so I can't wait around forever. Glenn Greenwald and Digby did a one-two on the NSA/Censure that puts everyone to shame (in terms of quality and content, alike) so fish around there if this whole Internets thing starts functioning again at blogspot.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

The 10 Trillion Dollar Man-child

2006-03-12T09:48:00.000-05:00

10 Trillion Dollars, come on Bush, you can do it! Break that $10 Trillion barrier!

It's the tax cuts, Stupid!

Now, Bush will tell you that the tax cuts will stimulate the economy, and he very well might have some justification to make such an argument. The problem is that any gains are more than offset by the loss in revenue. So, we have to raise our debt ceiling again, and things get worse and worse.

Mimikatz at The Next Hurrah sums up our pain:

In the four and a half years of the Bush Presidency, he and the Republican Congress have added $2.463 trillion to the debt, bringing it to almost $8,270,900,000, 000, an increase of 40% in less than five years. The current debt ceiling is $8.184 trillion. There is talk of raising it to $9.65 trillion, even though President Bush promised to halve the budget deficit (the yearly contribution to the cumulative debt) by one half by the time he leaves office.

My guess is they'll try to tout a figure like: (annual deficit / total debt) has DECREASED under Bush.

Which is like arguing that each year I live is shorter than the year before, because I'm older.

Without Bush's tax cuts, 2005 would have been a surplus year. Yikes.

SOOoo glad this wasn't an issue in the '04 election. Deficits are so complicated and all. Too bad the topic is arguably a national security issue, a health care issue, a retirement issue and a love-thy-children issue all balled up into a neat little package. Bush hasn't vetoed a bill and has both houses of congress, and the $4 Trillion plus he seems hell bent on adding to our debt in order to keep tax cuts for his precious, wealthy "base" needs to be slung around the neck of every Republican candidate from now until November.

(Mimikatz link courtesy of kos)

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

The GOP Straw Poll, sponsored by MSNBC

2006-03-11T22:04:00.000-05:00

Ok, so MSNBC/Hardball is seriously pimping the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Interesting, however, that the article refers to the event only as a "three-day gathering of Republican activists from 37 states". I had to go to the Wapo to get the official name of the event.

Anyway, the cover page at MSNBC right now is priceless. So I offer the opportunity to caption it.

Here's mine: The Power of Christ Compels You! The Power of Christ Compels You!

Ok, 1 more: Even though Frist came out on top, the gathering was abuzz with talk of Frist's attempt to use The Force to yank a microphone away from Sen John McCain (R-AZ).

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

What's so civil about war, anyway?

2006-03-09T21:09:00.000-05:00

A co-worker of mine and I often chat about politics. We don't work directly with each other, and don't even work in the same building anymore, but since long before the Iraq war, we have talked via email, while having a cigarette, instant messaging... We each take great joy in sending a link to the other, attempting to prove our own points, knowing full well that the other will simply not budge.

He the die-hard, Bush-loving Republican that believes in smaller government and the Bush Doctrine, and I the Union-raised liberal that thinks government should help make everyone's lives better without playing favorites and that the Bush Doctrine was sold on false pretenses and didn't play out well at all.

Aside from revealing my affection for a certain late 80's/early 90's metal band, my title is a genuine question.

What is civil about it?

And, more to my point, what is the definition of Civil War?

I hadn't even tought about it until my Republican friend sent me a link (which I have lost, but it was to NewsBusters if I can be as fair as I can be here) claiming that the media was knowingly overstating the risks of all out civil war in Iraq. I hadn't seen the site before, but it seems to be either the answer to, or predecessor of, MediaMatters. Anyways...

I skimmed the article, and then said, "Define civil war". I hadn't thought about it much at that point, other than to think of our own civil war, but definitions can be troubling sometimes, injecting one's own views or slants etc., so I figured I would ask.

I hope he'll not mind my quoting his response: "Countrymen fighting countrymen."

Now, I jumped on this, of course, because if this were true, it would mean that Iraq had been in a civil war since 2003. I pointed out an article something like this one that told of the Administration knowing since late 2003 that the insurgency was locally-fed, and not primarily fueled bands of foreign fighters. But I do believe there are some foreign-born factions in the Iraqi insurgency, and I always have. So how should that fact play into the determination of whether Iraq is in a civil war?

I said that I felt that the definition needed to be qualified in some way. Imagining a civil war like our own, men lining up against each other and killing each other in massive fields of battle just does not seem likely, perhaps ever again in any war we might be a party to. There was some sort of qualifier missing from this definition, I thought.

So what is it about a situation in a country that makes it a true state of civil war?

We chatted a bit longer and traded more barbs, as we always do, but the question stuck with me until tonight.

Enter Wikipedia's page on the subject:

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.

Not to use a cop-out, but it appears everyone is right.

My friend was right when he said "Countrymen fighting countrymen". I was right when I tried to imagine a more conventional war. Some historians use broad terms, and some require a specific form of battle. Judging from the 250 edits that page has undergone in 2006 alone, perhaps the definition will change by tomorrow.

But if the only difference between a civil war and an insurgency is the semantic preferences of the historian in question, why the big debate over whether this is a civil war? Seems to me that everyone is right, and everyone in Iraq is still in one hell of a mess.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

And now for two things completely different (from each other)

2006-03-09T10:04:00.000-05:00

First, a post over at Crisis Papers (via Smirking Chimp). Many many people, including my favorites Brad Blog and Cannonfire, write a great deal about the simple and maddening question of why the Electronic Voting companies refuse to do a few things that are just plain common sense. Here's one example

The e-voting manufacturers also make ATM machines and automated gas pumps, both of which produce paper receipts. Yet they steadfastly resist demands that their "touch screen" voting machines produce printouts, which might then serve to validate the accuracy of the votes.

What's up w/ that? Anyone?

Second, have I mentioned that I am absolutely enamored with the simplicity and utility of Netvibes.com? I am. You don't even have to sign up to get the coolness. Add your feeds, move them around. Use little widgets to interact with disparate sites. It's like an RSS Aggregator, without the clunky thing running in my system tray and throwing weird errors. Anyway, I didn't sign up at first, and had been using it for a few months, and somehow I lost my data (cookie based, presumably). Poof, gone. So sign up so you don't lose your data and can hit it from any computer! The only thing they ask for is your email and you're done and arranging your page and adding your feeds and widgets. Excellent.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Three Rolls of Fear (duct tape for the ages)

2006-03-03T14:32:00.000-05:00

On February 10, 2003, then US Fire Administrator, David Paulison, and then Homeland Security Secretary, Tom Ridge, advised me to purchase enough duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal all the windows in my home. I was also to have enough food and water for three days and a battery-powered radio so as to stay news-aware in the event of a power outage.

We had already overthrown the Taliban and begun to turn Afghanistan towards a better path. Bin Laden was on the run but would be captured at any moment. I was certain we would get Bin Laden--not a doubt in my mind. But Al Qaeda operated in cells. Living in a military-heavy state, I rationalized why an enemy of the United States might target our area. If a base was the target, depending on the weapon and wind conditions, my family could fall victim, and reducing the chances of that had to be my goal.

The aim was to keep the bio-terror weapons out, and my still-inside family safe and sound. Al Qaeda could purchase, steal, build or otherwise acquire a weapon of unspeakable power, unleashing a cloud of deadly gas or radiation capable of wiping out entire towns. These meager household items could give my family a fighting chance, and all Americans were urged to stock up.

Having a daughter in my wife's womb and a brand new house and no family within 500 miles, I was reticent to ignore the warning. If my government was telling me that things were this bad, who was I to question? Who was I to NOT do something so simple that could end up saving so much? Those Al Qaeda bastards weren't going to get MY family. My co-workers and I, all married for under 3 years at that point, looked at each other with dropped shoulders, dazed. The protective instinct was beginning to well up in all of us, and it was not an easy thing to address.

I drove to my favorite home improvement store, convinced I needed a boatload of plastic and duct tape and, most-importantly, a large enough bin to label accordingly and house the lot. "The bin is critical", I told my wife as she waddled down the cement-floored aisles. The bin was key. We needed to put everything we needed in one place, easily accessible and ready for anything. We bought 4 gallons of water, a huge roll of plastic, 1 battery-powered radio, and 3 rolls of duct tape (I had a partial roll already, and honestly, 3 rolls of duct tape goes a long way). Even though our house was two stories, I didn't have a ladder, but "I could seal the windows on the inside", I thought to myself.

Can you imagine? Just over 18 months earlier, we were hit by Al Qaeda on a horrifying, unprecedented scale. The imagery of that day still haunted me. The towers. The Pentagon. My mother's workplace being evacuated. The frantic calls from hijacked planes to family and 911 (I noticed the date's cruel symbolism immediately upon hearing of the second plane). Bin Laden. The desperation and the fear. People leaping from the burning towers knowing it might IMPROVE their own death.

As these thoughts raced through my head, a sense of helplessness was overwhelming. I tried to envision myself on a fateful day where MY town was falling victim. Where MY family was faced with such a crisis and had one meager shot at survival. To seal ourselves in before the killer fog crept towards our cul de sac. To survive only on what was already IN the house.

I expected that I would be the only one to protect us. I needed to be ready for anything, and if I wasn't it would be my own naivete that killed us all. I considered how much cash to have on hand in case the power was out for an extended period of time or the banking system was disrupted. I thought of making a plan with my wife on where to meet up if something happened. I thought of how we could make our way to family if law and order fell apart. How would we have enough gas? How would we eat? How could we bring a child into this? How would any of it matter if I didn't have the final piece of invasion protection?

I thought of purchasing a gun.

Terrified, but trying to be strong. Hawkish, but trying to keep myself informed. I devoured the news. I was trying to understand what it was, exactly, that Iraq was up to? I struggled to concentrate at work. I hit refresh on MSNBC.com every 10 minutes. News.google every 5. I read the public portions of DEBKA.com religiously. My car radio never left NPR. If I wasn't watching Aaron Brown I was watching Bill O'Reilley. Hardball was must-see TV. From all of this, I knew Saddam was a bad dude, but I still came up empty on seeing the urgency.

Until France and the UN started telling us we were wrong. Until they started telling us what we could and could not do, I was willing to give Iraq the benefit of the doubt, and let the weapons inspectors finish their work. Then I knew it was France and other members of the UN who were weak. They weren't willing to do what it took. Tony Blair could always put things into context where Bush was unable. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice told us how bad Saddam really was. I distinctly remember listening to Cheney on NPR explaining the aluminum tubes. Bush himself spoke of Saddam going after uranium in Africa.

Given the circumstances, we didn't have a choice. What was France's problem, anyway?

On March 16, 2003, my still-pregnant wife and I went to dinner. Mexican food. One of our favorite places. By the time we came back the United States of America had started attacking Iraq. Bush went on television and informed the people. It had begun.

At first it was oddly, ashamedly exciting. The Press had been "embedded" with troops and were riding along in armored vehicles, BROADCASTING as they went! Missiles flew. Tracers sliced up the night. Planes and tanks and troops and weapons of all sorts for which the Iraqis simply had no equal. The frantic search for the Weapons of Mass Destruction was already underway, and we would find them sure as shi* and show those Frogs what for!

Jesus.

As I write this, it is just over 3 years from the announcement that made me go out and buy duct tape.

The terror alert level was raised 5 times nationally and twice partially, one of which lasted from Aug 1, 2004 to Nov 10, 2004. Interesting time frame.

Afghanistan is essentially one city in the center of the world's biggest poppy field. Bin Laden and his number two are still on the loose, producing videos.

We have not been attacked again, but our troops are attacked multiple times every day in Iraq by newly-created terrorists. Saddam is on trial, but we have found no WMD. The Uranium story was fake, and the Administration outted a CIA agent because her husband dared make note of it. The aluminum tubes could have been for anything. We went for WMD but went straight for the oil, leaving tons of high-explosives free for the taking.

The bombing of a holy site in Iraq has spawned higher levels of violence that have left hundreds dead in days and Iraq under curfew, near martial law.

Memos have exposed how Iraq was a done deal since at least July of 2002. Multiple intelligence officers have explained that they were selectively listened to, but the Senate stalls on its report into fixed intelligence. The Senate and House have both complained that the intelligence they were given before Iraq was incomplete, but Republican control quashes any possible investigations.

We were told we were fighting for our freedoms and our American way of life. But we now actively torture and rape prisoners. We spy on Americans illegally for four years and then go back and fix the law to make it legal. We let pharmaceutical companies write Medicare laws and oil companies write energy policy. We claim democracy is the way to peace but use war to force the democracy in.

Just two weeks ago, Dick Cheney shot his lobbyist friend in the face and wondered what all the fuss was about. Cheney lied about an Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection and wondered what all the fuss was about. Halliburton gets no-bid contracts in Iraq and he wonders what all the fuss is about. He lied in the Veep debate and wondered what all the fuss was about. He helped direct the outting of a covert CIA agent and wondered what all the fuss was about.

Now, President Bush wants to allow a company owned by the United Arab Emirates run many of our busiest ports in some of our largest cities, and HE wonders what all the fuss is about. Why are the words Trojan and Horse coming to mind? If Bush isn't afraid of letting a country whose banking system has helped fund terrorism schedule all of the shipping containers that come in and out of Newark, what the hell IS he afraid of?

Bush isn't divorced from reality. The two have never even held hands or had a one night stand, much less a failed marriage.

So, I'm not afraid of terrorists anymore. They will probably hit us again. And people will die. We might try to stop them, but eventually they'll get us. This is not me being defeatist. This is me being realistic. Afghanistan had the support of the world, but Iraq was nothing more than an oil grab wrapped in a vendetta wound up in the military-industrial behemoth our leaders are trying to keep well-fed. The Bush Administration has wound up inspiring so many more terrorists with his unnecessary and self-defeating policies, the War on Terror is more of a War to Generate More Terrorism. America is the victim of a cruel and unusual bait-and-switch.

I'm not afraid anymore, and so I will not be needing so much duct tape. My bin, so crucial to my family's survival almost three years ago, sits in my garage loaded with sporting equipment and a rooftop luggage carrier. We drank the water. Most of the plastic sheeting is covered in splotches of paint from use as a drop-cloth.

These other things were useful, but the duct tape? I'm no MacGyver, and I really don't have many ducts anyway.

I never did buy that gun.

No, I'm not afraid of terrorism anymore. I'm afraid of economics. I'm afraid of a declining housing market and stagnant wages. I'm afraid of outsourcing and I'm afraid of losing my job in a quest for synergy. I'm afraid of having a Master's Degree and having to work two jobs to make half of what I do now. I'm afraid of a minimum wage in place since 1997. I'm afraid of the fact that I can't afford to contribute to my retirement or my children's college fund. I'm frightened that my health insurance expenses went up 18% on January 1st when inflation was not even 1/4 of that. I'm afraid of getting sick and not being able to afford the medical bills, and I'm afraid of the same thing for my retired parents and in-laws. I'm afraid of China and a weakened dollar. I'm afraid of oil being traded in Euros and I'm afraid of an inverted yield curve. I'm afraid of my variable rate mortgage and I'm afraid of my car payment and I'm afraid of gas going back up over $2.50/gallon. I'm afraid of the price tag for the Iraq war. I'm afraid of the trade deficit and terrified of the budget deficit. I'm mortified by the thought of three more years of George W. Bush and worried some other Republican might be able to win in 2008 by rekindling the fear card fire. I'm afraid of all of these things, and duct tape won't do a thing against any of them. Duct tape isn't what I need, money is.

And so, their original purpose nullified by common sense and a Bush Who Cried Wolf, I offer these 3 Rolls of Fear as a souvenir to the highest bidder. I offer the molded fruit of Republican labors to make me afraid for my life and the life of my family.

I can assure you their quality is unsurpassed by any other duct tape product. Manufactured by 3M under the Scotch brand, these rolls of duct tape would last the occasional duct tape user perhaps 50 years. A stunning silver-metallic hue, each roll is still completely intact. Packaging was removed after original purchase to minimize reaction time in the event of a terrorist strike, but no further damage has been done. LIKE NEW, as they say.

The return on investment would be fantastic. You will have a conversation piece quite unlikely to have an equal anywhere in the world. You will have duct tape for years to come. You will have a tangible reminder of a difficult and painful period of fear that rolled into the United States in the wake of 9/11, a fear stoked for political reasons and quashed by logic and reality. And you will have the recurring sense of pride in how you helped my family and I cast off a reminder of our ginned-up fear of terrorism and face our economic fears head on.

Update: Cross-posted in a diary at DailyKos, and in a diary at BoomanTribune, and still available on eBay. Many will get the point, but only one can get the tape.

Update 2: Hearty welcome to folks coming in from BuzzFlash

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

That's why they play the games

2006-01-30T20:39:00.000-05:00

I'm on my way to lunch this afternoon in NC, and the sometimes-political, sometimes-apolitical AM talk show (Brad and Britt) runs a brief advertising clip from the morning's broadcast:

Host A - I wonder if these stupid democrats are gonna try and filibuster the Alito nomination, they're only delaying the inevitable.

Host B - They already delayed it--they delayed it for a week.

Now, this pissed me off.

Yes, the odds of successfully using the filibuster to cast BTK Sammy in with the dust bunnies of history were all but nil.

Yes, the democrats that attempted to push the filibuster knew this.

Yes, so did the rest of America.

But as a friend of mine used to be all too fond of saying on Mondays during football season, "That's why they play the games."

I was reminded of the Carolina Hurricanes vs the Detroit Red Wings in the Stanley Cup Finals back in 2002. Noone anticipated the matchup. The Hurricanes had toughed out a long playoff stretch, coming back against Montreal from a 3-goal deficit to regain playoff momentum that lasted right into the finals. The Red Wings, on the other hand, were stacked. They had Yzerman, Lidstrom, Shanahan, Federov, Chelios, Hasek, Hull, Larionov. The Red Wings were picked to win from the drop of the puck of the season opener.

The Hurricanes knew about the Wings. The Hurricanes knew they were outmatched and outgunned. The Hurricanes knew that they faced at least 5 or 6 hall of famers, a team that had won 2 cups in a row a few years back. A perennial favorite with a huge payroll. A storied franchise. A team that was led by the greatest coach in the history of the game, Scotty Bowman.

Most people looked at the Hurricanes as a joke. Hockey in North Carolina? The Canes even had trouble keeping the ice frozen in their arena because it was so hot outside--they had never played that far into the post-season before. How dare this upstart franchise (spirited out of Hartford, where they were the Whalers--still a touchy subject up there in CT) try and come into Hockeytown? Didn't anyone tell them the Wings were guaranteed to win?

Well, yes.

Everyone told them. Everyone kept telling them.

But they still showed up for the games.

They won the first game 3-2 in overtime. They took the 3rd game into triple overtime in what is still regarded as a finals classic. But they lost the series in five games. They lost, just like everyone said they would.

It was thrilling. It was unforgettable. And they still lost. Just like everyone said they would. Leading up to it, I never heard a single Wings fan say, "I wonder if these stupid Hurricanes are going to try and win the series." I never heard anyone say, "I can't believe those stupid Hurricans tried to win the series." To the victor goes the spoils, and so you have to prove you should be the victor by, well, winning.

There are a great many classic underdog, David v Goliath moments in sports. And you don't hear Americans wishing they never happened. You hear Americans cheering on the underdog--congratulating them on a tough fight. You hear them recount the classic game/match/series/race. You see their eyes widen and their face light up. You hear the emotion in their voice as they try to push their emotional joy or heartbreak onto you, giving you a piece of what they already see as legend.

That's the America I love. That's the America I want for my children. And that's the America the far right, filibuster-bashers want to squash like a bug.

To them, elections, Senate rules, constitutional obligations, voters--these are a nuisance that stands in the way of their power. They would much rather have victory handed to them so they didn't have to bother playing the game at all.

But what the hell is the point in that? Not only is it one dull-ass game, it's not what the founders of my America had in mind. That's why they set up the system the way they did, and that's why the democrats were right to show up for the game with every weapon they had.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Army Kidnaps Wives of Insurgents to Use as Bait

2006-01-27T23:27:00.000-05:00

Will the list of things I should be ashamed of ever stop getting longer?

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

I know, over the next few days--if the media actually picks up this story and runs with it for a day or two--I will hear a lot of pundits and LGFers and assorted other whackos tell me why I should support this kind of behavior b/c I should be oh, so scared that I should be willing to give up a little more decency for the sake of my "safety".

"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

But that won't work. I'll still be ashamed.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Mr. President, we must not allow a gay-bashing gap!

2006-01-27T13:54:00.000-05:00

The culture of life is really the culture of White Christian Heterosexual Males who hate or fear those not like them and deeply adore the unborn and braindead that are incapable of telling the pandering bigots to stop trying to represent them.

You see, the insider-trading Bill Frist plans to Bring in da' Homophobia on the Senate floor just in time to rile up some gay-bashin' good times.

Can someone explain how gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage? I'm still waiting for that, cuz I just don't get it. 2 women married to each other, or 2 men married to each other aren't gonna do a thing to my marriage or my kids. I just don't get it. Who can blame them with a shitty economy that keeps gettin' shittier (if you can look past the damned numbers-games they float to the press), they just want to codify their affections and get the same tax and health care breaks the rest of us can get. So what's the harm?

Oh, now I remember.

Elections are coming up. Republicans haven't done anything they didn't fuck up. Bush is the anti-Midas.

Best to find a minority to bash for political gain. Best to degrade American politics into an argument over who hates minorities the most (an argument which thankfully will ALWAYS be won by anti-American Republicans like Frist).

For God's sake, do NOT talk about Iraq, Osama, Illegal Wiretaps, Abramoff, Downing Street, Katrina, Alito, Iran, North Korea, the Medicare Prescription Drug fiasco, the Economy, riDICKulously expensive health insurance, or anything else that actually affects the lives of Americans and serves as a perfect example of how ineffective, ineffectual, incapable and, most-of-all, un-American the wholly-Republican-controlled mess has become.

They have absolutely nothing, nothing to run on except two things: fear of terrorism and fear of peepee touching peepee owners.

It's not a sign of the times for America. It's a sign of their willingness to literally scare up some votes. It's a sign of the sad, sad state into which these piss-poor governors have driven our political discourse. It's a sign of their one true fear--that the American Everyman will stand back and notice just how lousy Republicans have been at their jobs.

With no record, Republicans will instead resort to sleight-of-hand, distracting the masses from profound and devastating failures by announcing their intentions to shove a bit' o' the ol' Bible into the Constitution itself.

When you're a far-right Republican and discrimination is un-Constitutional, best to re-Constitutionalize discrimination.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

An Instant Classic

2006-01-26T13:54:00.000-05:00

From Fafblog

My favorite two Q&As:

Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?

A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.

...snip...

Q. Is the president above the law?

A. Nobody's above the law! As commander-in-chief the president just outranks the law.

Frickin' hilarious.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Of Sheep and Men

2006-01-21T12:13:00.000-05:00

Sheep

Democrats and Republicans, I'm sure, will be united on this point. No bargaining with bin Laden, and he's still got to answer for killing 3,000 Americans in New York.

But the far lefties ought to pay attention to the other things he said. He was quoting our own far left and Europe's as they have cheered the polls showing Americans support for the war waning, that some Americans want to pull out from Iraq.

John Gibson

Men

There's something that doesn't sit right with me when, on the day Osama Bin Laden resurfaced in a disturbing audio tape, cable television ends up in a game of name calling as a war protester is compared to Osama Bin Laden.

That's reason to be outraged - but even more outrageous is the fact that in a flurry of sound bites what was lost was a real discussion of the fact that more than four years after the devastating attacks of 9/11, more than four years after George Bush boasted we wanted Osama "dead or alive," more than a year after Osama Bin Laden showed his hateful face in yet another video, this barbarian is still very much alive and boasting of additional attacks against the United States.

John Kerry

Kerry is right. The first words out of every Democrat's mouth should be, "Where's Osama?". The first words out of Republican and Media maws have been to compare Osama's words to those of Democrats and to remind Americans that they should be frightened of the big, scary Osama Boogeyman. If Americans are really so scared of Osama and Al Qaeda, why aren't they demanding Bush bring him to justice forthwith? Why did they vote for Bush when Osama was still out there, scaring them? Perhaps because we don't remind them enough. Kerry reminded them during the campaign and the debates, but it wasn't central to the theme.

Personally, I can not think of one single thing, foreign, domestic, economic, *anything* that Bush has done right. Bush is the **anti** Midas. But the most glaring of all failures is the fact that Osama has been left to his own devices.

Not pointing this out will help enable the Republicans to run on the War on Terror again, twisting the truth and the facts to their will through a pliable media.

Iraq is not the "Central Front in the War on Terror" as Bush would like us to believe. Osama is. Anything in Iraq is secondary and consequential of the failed execution of an irresponsible and manufactured war.

Iraq has gone poorly and polling shows a majority of Americans are unhappy. Reminding them Osama is missing will not play into Republican hands, it will point out Republican failure. Unless Americans have this point driven home repeatedly, we might have another disappointing evening in November.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Will someone give these guys the Internets?

2006-01-17T19:55:00.000-05:00

As John at Americablog notes, Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve so much slamming. At least she was talking to a crowd that really understands the comment.

IOKIYAR.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

The Problem, clearly, is the Democrats

2006-01-15T23:16:00.000-05:00

Is Chris Matthews on the take?

No amount of dem-bashing is enough for him these days.

It's not : President Bush broke the law when he eavesdropped on Americans without getting a FISA warrant either before or after doing so.

It's : Isn't breaking the law part of the job?

In your America, Chris. Not mine. I remember when Republicans would impeach a President for breaking a law.

It's not : The Republican members of the Judiciary Committee sat by and did little to fulfill their constitutional obligation of "advise and consent". They sat there and let Bush's go-to guy for usurping legislative power glide through.

It's : The Democrats are so disorganized. They tried to make him out to be a bigot instead of making him out to be a conservative.

Excuse me, but the time will soon come when Alito hears a case in which the Administration argues that it has the right to break the law during a time of undeclared war because the President is the "commander-in-chief" and he just so happened to jot a few notes next to his signature when he signed a bill into law. It may be a close vote but we know on which side Alito will fall. Unless a heretofore conservative justice flips (with sage reason) and turns back the Administration, a precedent will be set that says the President CAN break the law in war-time. But since this isn't a time of declared war any Executive in the future will note the case as precedent whether war-time or not. When this case comes down, the Republicans will need to take a 10 day recess to stare at themselves in the mirror and weep at how they handed their branch of government over to the Executive.

Be careful what you wish for, Republicans. You just might get it.

It's not : Jack Abramoff is the tip of the Republican Corruption iceberg. It provides an example of how the Republicans have taken the legislature of this country down a path of quid pro quo and payoffs made all the more feasible by committees that won't even order ethics reviews when Tom Delay requests that his own connection to Abramoff be investigated. This is the penultimate example of single-party-Republican-rule gone bad.

It's : Democrats took some money from Abramoff Clients as well as Republicans. They can't seem to make the case to the American people that this is a Republican scandal.

Of course they can't. Every person on my TV keeps reminding me that Democrats took money from Abramoff Clients. They keep failing to mention that NO DEM took $$ from Abramoff himself. The Republican media watchdogs have been trying to scare the Press for the last 20 years into providing either a) a Republican slant, or b) a he-said, she-said faux equivalency take on the news, even when doing so is either disingenuous or an outright lie. They prefer the former but happily accept the latter. This is paying off in spades in this and other current stories.

It's not : Murtha is a war hero and Republicans are impugning him just like they did John Kerry. Why do Republicans hate war heroes?

It's : They tried bringing Murtha out as the guy that could tell the truth to the American people and have it come from an unimpeachable, respected source, and it's backfiring.

There's a great series on Kos called Fighting Dems (link isn't perfect via the tag, but they're in the ensuing pages) that highlights all of the Iraq (and other war) vets coming home to run as Democrats against the Republicans they've come to loathe. When the Republicans begin impugning their war accollades can we please hear someone in the media come on the air, mouth agape at the unmitigated gaul? Can we please hear about the unrivaled hypocrisy? Can we hear mention of the double-think? Can someone cover the tear-filled, sad laughter that one has to let out when Republicans claim the Iraq war was a good thing? That our brave men and women are all heroes? And that while a government controlled entirely by Republicans lied the troops into battle and failed to equip them, they had also crossed their fingers? That they had silently reserved a right to ridicule them as not being wounded enough? That they had planned to cut taxes on the wealthy and therefore had to cut veterans benefits? That they planned to put the troops on a merry-go-round of unending tours due to an utter lack of accurate planning?

Republicans won't even welcome our troops as liberators when they come back from Iraq.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

I hit #13 for 2005 on Kos - Navel Gazing

2006-01-04T00:46:00.000-05:00

Which is amazing to me. Astonishing and silly all at once.

The Bush anti-response to Katrina made me ill, having been in that very convention center only a few months earlier. I reacted by spewing out a diary that people responded to and for that I was briefly proud and thankful.

All of the recommendations on that post inspired me to post almost daily for a little while. But then work, my wife, and my 2 kids kept me where my time was most needed.

That anyone can have a job, a life, AND be as prodigious as some bloggers on Kos and elsewhere is a tribute to their determination and dedication.

But what amazes me the most, is the willingness to sift through all of the bullshit the administration, its minions, and a large fraction of the compliant media pushes.

I can't see how one does it without becoming so distraught and despondent that one gives up.

Sits down.

And hopes it all has to go right eventually because it all *HAS* to go right eventually, doesn't it?

Will it?

I also threw this up as a comment to jotter's stats post.

Democracy

2005-11-27T20:31:00.000-05:00

I have had Brad Blog on Ye Olde Blogrolle almost since I started this thing (which wasn't that long ago--intertia and all that).

What frustrates me, and Brad, of course, is the public's willingness to allow the media (save Olbermann in the month or two immediately following the '04 election) to continue to ignore things that are so damned freaky.

Who did you vote for in '04? Are you sure? Because if you voted electronically, or your vote was tallied electronically, you'll never really know.

This is another post by Brad, who is now getting some facetime at Huffington Post.

The topic is of course voter fraud, with some more freaky numbers straight outta Ohio.

I wonder if there are programmers out there somewhere that have put together an Open Source Alternative to Diebold and their ilk? It's not as if Open Source code is inherently insecure due to its being open source. In fact the opposite may be true. It's the open nature of the code that makes it more trustworthy.

If our votes are not cast as intended, do we really have a democracy? If we can't be sure that are votes are cast as intended, will we ever really be sure?

BradBlog and cannonfire (where Joseph Cannon still touches on the topic occasionally, and did so fiercely after the election) are two good places to frequent if you're interested, which you should be.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Reality and News should be unrelated, or ELSE

2005-11-27T09:27:00.000-05:00

Early in 2005, Eason Jordan was rushed into resignation after questioning whether the USA was actively targeting journalists? Here is his letter of resignation

After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq.

and some commentary:

Eason Jordan resigned last night as CNN’s chief news executive in an effort to quell a bubbling controversy over his remarks about U.S. soldiers killing journalists in Iraq.

There was, and is, even a website, easongate.com, that pushed for Eason's outting and is still congratulating itself today:

It's not a "right" story or a "left" story. It's a story about 150,000 young men and women who are black, white, hispanic, asian, republicans, democrats, independents, gay and straight and perhaps socialists who are sacrificing life and limb for the current Commander in Chief (doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with him -- they are there dying) -- and they have been accused of nothing short of murder....

Whatever Jordan said, perhaps he wasn't really talking about the individual soldiers... but the administration's policies? I don't know.

But what are we to make of word out of the UK that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera in our crucial regional ally Qatar. Blair (the Luke Duke of the two) had to talk him out of it. Nice. Well, if Blair talked Bush out of bombing Al-Jazeera within the borders of an ally, would Bush hold back from bombing them elsewhere?

The Al-Jazeera station in Kabul was bombed.

The U.S. bombing of the Al Jazeera station in Kabul in 2001 was explained by U.S. officials as a result of detection of a satellite uplink indicating an interview with a Taliban member. U.S. officials have gone farther, stating publicly that any uplink from enemy territory if detected by U.S. planes could be the basis for an attack without differentiation between journalism and enemy communications (see Gopsill, “Target the Media”). This threat to bomb even “friendly” journalists and stations would be a strong deterrent to placing them in enemy territory. The threat helped induce CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox to pull out of Baghdad before the March 2003 invasion. Gopsill notes, “This exodus was pleasing to the Pentagon,” causing the U.S. public to be “ignorant of what their forces were doing to the city.” [emphasis progprog's]

Strong deterrent to placing them in enemy territory? Indeed.

The Kabul Bombing came up at the News World Conference in Barcelona, written about in the aptly titled How Smart Was This Bomb?.

Gowing's argument was that Al-Jazeera's only crime was that it was "bearing witness" to events that the US would rather it did not see. Indeed there is no clear evidence that Al-Jazeera directly supported the Taliban - simply that it enjoyed greater access than other stations. Certainly, Al-Jazeera reflects a certain cultural tradition: but only in the same way that CNN approaches stories from a western perspective.

Of course we can't have that, Mr. Gowing.

The Al-Jazeera station in Bagdad was bombed.

The al-Jazeera office is in a two-story house on a road along the Tigris River that links the Information Ministry with the old palace presidential compound. Al-Jazeera said the area is residential and isn't close to governmental or military installations. The station continued to broadcast live from the Palestine Hotel after the bombing.

Some Al-Jazeera employees felt the bombing might have been deliberate, for the station has been reporting extensively on the plight of Iraqi civilians and the number of casualties from U.S. bomb attacks. [emphasis progprog's]

Maybe these employees were right about it being deliberate?

Nabil Khoury, a U.S. State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike on the Arab satellite TV network's office was a mistake, and he called upon al-Jazeera not to jump to conclusions. My personal view is that it is a mistake, a grave mistake. It is something we all regret, Khoury said. I personally cannot imagine that a country which respects general freedoms can target media establishments. [emphasis progprog's]

Nabil, I personally cannot imagine that you have ever met the President of these United States.

Thank Bush for being whacky enough--and evil enough--to drop foreign opinions of our great nation yet another notch or two over this insanity.

I doubt all this is any consolation to Eason Jordan.

If only the Bush Administration would just come out and say that any effort to report, purport, imply, suggest, hint, nod affirmation or blink morse code anything resembling truth or reality without first running it through their spin machine, perhaps we'd all be be much better off?

Eason Jordan link via Crooks and Liars

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Cheney has sucked for a loooooong time

2005-11-25T14:35:00.000-05:00

There is an excellent Sidney Blumenthal post on Truthout today (originall from Salon), that discusses Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Libby. They've been humping each other's legs for a long time. Some interactions with Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr, Reagan are highlited.

What's striking is how frequently the Cabal deliberately set up a second version of the truth. Ho often their ideas got rebuked or ignored by superiors as too risky or closed-minded. Thank goodness.

Unfortunately, Cheney was smart enough to know opportunity when he saw it. When Dubya let Cheney pick himself, he set himself up to be the window-dressing President for the Cheney Administration. Cheney brought his cabal back together knowing full well that he would no longer be vetoed. Dubya was too stupid to see it coming, and he's either too stupid or too weak to fight back ideas that better men were able to see through as paranoid, short-sighted, or risky.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

See no logic, Speak no logic, Hear no logic

2005-11-23T22:46:00.000-05:00

Why do Democrats think we should start to withdraw from Iraq?
Why do American Generals have plans to start to withdraw from Iraq?
Why do Iraqi Leaders think want a timetable for when we will withdraw from Iraq?

Why do Bush and Cheney ignore them all, and why does the spineless Republican leadership continue to let them? Because any troop redeployment out of Iraq has to wait until election season. Otherwise these Republican weasels will literally have nothing to run on besides their lies, corruption, cronyism, failed war and failed programs.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

C-SPAN = AEI ?

2005-11-23T22:39:00.000-05:00

I'm rarely at home in the afternoons on a weekday (when I am, I'm in front of a laptop and logged into work), but I had today off for a long weekend.

I decided to flip on C-SPAN to see if there was any "action". And what to my wondering eyes should appear, but an AEI logo. The American Enterprise Institute was having a conference on "Intelligent Design". And it was on C-SPAN.

Not to be outdone, I flipped to the other C-SPAN. Richard Perle of AEI was on. Talking about Iraq as though he agrees with the Cheney/Bush moronitudes.

My question, is what the hell is AEI doing on C-SPAN at all, much less on both at once?!?! These weren't press conferences. One was a conference, and one was some sort of talk show. Staged events, both. What. the. hell?

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Funniest. Animated GIF. Ever.

2005-11-12T21:18:00.000-05:00

People type LOL all the time into the Internets, and it don't mean jack. I do that myself at work all the time. I say it to make people feel better, or just let on that what they said was funny. But I mean it when I say that this Poor Man Institute post literally made me LOL. Plus some links!

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Caption the formerly Smirking One

2005-11-04T13:13:00.000-05:00

Caption this:

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Billmon

2005-11-04T13:03:00.000-05:00

Both here and here, Billmon makes me ashamed I even started blogging.

I'll spare you my rants about why I find it a daily must--many people already share the belief. But the above two posts are just a few excellent examples of always-excellent material, so do yourself a favor and read those and then go back every day.

I'm gonna go home and get my frickin' shinebox.

One comment, though, on the Secret Prison archipelago. Sy Hersh was saying this over a year ago. I was dumbfounded then that it didn't get more coverage. I'll be dumbfounded now--in a week or two, maybe--when the press stops reporting it again.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Santos v Vinick in the '05 Presidential Election

2005-11-04T12:41:00.000-05:00

Anyone who hasn't been watching the West Wing wouldn't care, but kudos to John Zogby for putting a little reality into some make-believe.

It's Jimmy Smits' Santos at this point (though in the show he's been trailing in the polls).

One thing about the West Wing is how well men speak. Comparing Martin Sheen's Josiah Bartlet, or either Alda's Vinick or Smit's Santos to Shrub is a cruel joke. These men's lines are scripted for them and hashed and rehashed.

But so are stump speeches. Kerry and Bush both had handlers and speech writers and political advisors and every $$ under the sun to put their message out, and yet an almost-forgotten, once hugely-popular show (it took a huge hit after 9/11 made the machinations of make-believe Administrations a little less compelling to a politics-weary population) that has been pushed to Sunday nights can put together the message of each side in such succinct, compelling terms that an informed viewership can pass judgment on who they would vote for.

Santos' impromptu commentary on Intelligent Design is an excellent example. Campaigning in Pennsylvania, he was asked by a reporter about his thoughts on ID being taught in schools alongside evolution. He spoke 'off the cuff' in the world of the show. He laid out his belief in God, and a creator. But contrasted his belief with the realities of science and measurable, tracable, factual evidence in a way that would make anyone listening understand that keeping ID out of the classroom is not just science defending its turf, but an imperative dictated by the very foundations of our country's government.

Science is measurable, faith is not.

I nearly dropped my jaw at how plain, eloquent, and understandable the commentary was, without being accusatory or pejorative to any party. It was such a welcome contrast to Kerry (nuance requires many words) and Bush (ummm, errr, fool me twice...) that I almost felt ill about the state of our supposedly-polished political discourse. Hell, Bush took it upon himself to repeatedly, repeatedly impugn an entire state (Massachusetts) within the "United" States he was asking for permission to lead!

Vote Santos!

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Hapless in Washington

2005-11-02T01:13:00.000-05:00

Nora Ephron goes ahead and asks some questions akin to those being asked back aroundabout the debates before the ought-4 election.

Hmm.

I was completely convinced he had something on his back then, and I still am now. I finally decided it must be medical. But since it was only visible on television, I guess only the good Dr. Frist is qualified to diagnose him.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Republicans v Democrats

2005-11-01T22:16:00.000-05:00

A Republican changes the rulebook to gain the only power they do not yet have.

A Democrat uses the rulebook to maintain the only power they have left.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

The Spin Begins - LIBBY indicted for lying to reporters

2005-10-29T10:20:00.000-05:00

I heard "Tony Snow" on Bill Maher last night say that the indictment (which Snow bragged about having taking the time to read) basically came down to LIBBY being indicted for lying to reporters.

Absurd.

LIBBY was indicted for lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury. Repeatedly. He lied about what he knew. He lied about who told him what he knew. And then, finally, he lied about WHAT HE SAID to reporters. Regardless of what he was originally saying to Russert, Cooper, and Miller--which, had it been a lie, is no crime whatsoever--he did not factually recount what he had said.

Had LIBBY told Russert that George Bush is a fully-recovered alcoholic that hasn't had a drink in years, and that Cheney hasn't uttered a cuss-word since somebody shot JR, that isn't a crime. Had LIBBY then come into the Grand Jury and said that he told Russert that Dubya was still recovered and Cheney didn't have a potty mouth, then it still isn't a crime. Regardless of how factual either of those bullshit statements were in the first place. The point is whether he's factual about what was said. That's what perjury is, lying, under oath, about some facts and knowing you are lying when you do so.

All of this intentional misdirection put forth by LIBBY is objstruction of justice, and the reason for that charge. Had LIBBY been factual, and had Judith Miller not held out to protect LIBBY (and continued that attempt in her testimony after her release), it's entirely possible I wouldn't be having to write this right now, and quite likely Dubya would be meeting w/ the architect for his Presidential Library (Plenty of space for Archie comics and an alcove where visitors can reenact The Pretzel Incident with historical accuracies previously unimagined).

Glenn Greenwald (via atrios)

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

LIBBY Indictment - The Odds of a Trial

2005-10-29T00:51:00.000-05:00

Will LIBBY even wind up on trial? It seems doubtful.

This would be incredibly painful for the Administration. Imagine Cheney and Rove on the stand, under oath, rehashing the same stories they're already struggling to keep straight. Rove (Official A, most-likely) was already scrambling to avoid indictment this week, I don't think he'll want to put his hand on the Good Book and do any more swearing any time soon. Imagine the transcripts of everyone arguing over forged documents and Uranium from Africa and the sheer volume of potential perjury counts following that proceeding.

So how can the Administration, and LIBBY, avoid trial? Three ways.

First, LIBBY can cop a plea. He can plead guilty, but for the plea to be accepted, likely some concession will have to be given to Fitzgerald. After all, if he pleads guilty to the facts alleged in the indictment, he will have admitted to violating at least one law and potentially another.

Second, the prosecutor could drop the charges. Not likely.

Third, Bush could pardon LIBBY. Can he? Yes. Will there be an uproar? Absolutely. Does Shrub give a flying fig what you or anyone else thinks? No. Unless James Dobson or Pat Robertson comes out talking about how pardoning LIBBY somehow offends the Right Wing Evangelicals of this country, or oil companies think their profits could be hurt, Bush couldn't care less. He does care about his legacy, which would be tarnished by a pardon, no doubt. But putting Cheney and Rove on the stand and rehashing the rationale for the Iraq War into the judicial record would likely leave a lot bigger stain than a pardon. Besides, Poppy Bush put down a nice precedent with regards to Iran Contra.

Odds
Trial - 4:1
Plea - 1:2
Charges Dropped - 5:1
Pardon - 2:1

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

LIBBY Indicted - Let the spin begin

2005-10-28T23:54:00.000-05:00

So, LIBBY (I think I'll adopt the indictment's method of referring to Scoots) is indicted for perjury and obstruction.

Some Right-Wingers are already claiming that these indictments are clear evidence that Fitzgerald was unable to indict someone on the crime he was asked to investigate, and thus 22 months of investigation turned up nothing, so the prosecutor went after some bullshit perjury claim instead.

This is a woefully ignorant and hypocritical opinion for a number of reasons.

Just to tackle the ignorance for now, it fails to take into account exactly what Fitzgerald hinted at in his press conference this afternoon : The wording of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (that the prosecutor was originally tasked with investigating for evidence of violations of) is so poor, that it requires knowing what the perpetrator knew at the time.

Fitzgerald would have to prove that LIBBY knew that the US was taking affirmative measures to conceal Plame's identity.

But in order to know that, you would have to receive frank, truthful testimony from any person that had violated the crime, and LIBBY was not being truthful. He lied his way through his testimony. Given the rights granted by the 5th amendment, one wonders whether anyone could ever be convicted of a crime derived from these laws. If anything, those that wrote and passed this legislation should be kicked in the proverbial shins.

Note that the wording of Title 18, Section 793 makes it seem as though LIBBY could have been convicted of a violation simply by adopting the items put forth as facts in the indictment (as opposed to LIBBY's purported lies).

My question is whether--if LIBBY is convicted of all of these counts--it will be a foregone conclusion that he therefore violated either or both of these laws? Title 18, Section 793 would seem like a no-brainer. If it can be proven that he really did know that Plame was covert at the time, then isn't it only logical he violated Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 as well?

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Bring me some Fitzy pudding - A Fitzmas Collection

2005-10-27T08:58:00.000-05:00

It seems that every day this week is Fitzmas-Eve. At least if Fitzmas comes this week, we can have no more Fitzmas-Eve's, now can we Peabody?

At any rate, the list of Fitzmas Carols and Fitzmas Related Program Homages continues to grow:

progprog
The Poor Man Institute (The Pony-driven sleigh is priceless)
Corrente (via PoorMan)
Daily Kos (fitzmas tag page)

[Update 1]
The Rantings of a Madman
blinq (a small collection)
Yep, another Goddamned Blog
Demeter Rising

I'll update as I happen across more.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

PlameGate - Danger! Bad Fitzmas Poetry

2005-10-26T10:21:00.000-05:00

MSNBC has an AP article about how today might be the day we finally know how big--or full of coal--Fitzmas stockings will be. So, to honor ( or besmirch ) the occasion...

The Night Before Fitzmas

Twas the night before Fitzmas and all through the house,
grim facts on the TV even Rove could not douse.

The talking points stuffed to the gills with faux fare,
In hopes that Americans would not even care.

The targets were tucked all snug in their beds,
While visions of nooses snapped tight in their heads.
With ma in her nightie, my eyes on the news,
We had just settled in, having guzzled some booze.

When then on FoxNews their arose such a chatter,
I leaped from my couch to see Hannity got fatter.
Grabbing for the remote, I pumped up the volume,
And flipped to CNN to avoid the Fox Vacuum.

The pin on Wolf's breast had the American Flag,
as he spoke of Fitzgerald's cat out of the bag.
When what, to my wondering eyes should appear,
but a glorious image--Rove's eyes filled with tears.

With a little old man, all decrepit and sick,
I knew in a moment it must be that Dick.
More rapid than eagles, his curses they came
with f-bombs and s-words and more of the same:

Now, f-you and screw you!
I'm no Richard Nixon!
This won't mean a thing,
Dubya's got the fix in!
To the top of this land
I have risen so tall
Fuck Powell, Fuck Scowcroft
Go Fuck Yourself, all!

As gutless Chicken-Hawks from a battle will shy,
when they meet with a draft-card just as you or I,
So out from the Naval Observatory he ran,
demon tail peeking out from his ample round can

And then in an inkling I felt from down deep,
I switched to MSNBC and laughed off the Veep.
As I drew in a breath and remembered to blink,
Old footage of Miller walking out of the clink.

She was dressed in street clothes and wore glasses of course,
To hide soulless eyes black as those of a horse.
She was smiling and waving but worried inside,
For she and dear Libby had something to hide.

On comes David Gregory from the White House lawn,
Looking wired, excited, saying Bush was a pawn.
His face showed hesitation as he wanted to grin.
Finally, FINALLY he'll be rid of Rove spin!
Then Fitzgerald came on with stone face and large boxes,
took questions from newsmen, and patsies of Fox's.
He spoke of the case and laid out the big maze,
The lies and half-truths that gave us all grays.

He was stern and succinct, a bit dull in fact,
but I didn't care if he had zero tact.
A flick of a pen and a twist of the law,
And this guy had come in to see justice for all.

He spoke very few words, answered queries with skill,
filled Republican stomachs with antacid pills.
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
he told of how Bush gave the order to Rove.

He then said 'Last question' making pundits all bristle,
And took one on PlameGate v. Clinton's near-dismissal.
And we heard him exclaim as he shut them up quick,
"It just isn't treason when a woman sucks on your dick".

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Cult of Hypocrisy, part Deux

2005-10-24T22:41:00.000-05:00

Will someone please explain to me when a lie is really a lie? Between Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney and Bill Frist, it's a wonder a school-age child could figure it out for themselves.

What self-respecting Christian would put these guys up as role-models to their kids again? Oh, yeah. Single-issue-voters...

MOMMY:

"Little Jimmy-Sue, It's okay to lie, cheat, perjure yourself, take your country to war on false pretenses and anything else the hell you want so long as you *claim* you would overturn Roe v Wade (which you won't do, because you'll still need the abortion issue come next election cycle)."

LITTLE JIMMY-SUE:

"Ok, mommy."

Honor and integrity indeed.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Dick "Trickle" Cheney

2005-10-24T22:24:00.000-05:00

I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream.

The Times, still trying to make up for its own screwups in this entire mess, no doubt, has dug up a doozy.

It would appear that the ultimate source of the Plame leak, the point-of-origin Patrick Fitzgerald has spent two years of his life doggedly pursuing, the person from which many-a-pixel and countless buckets of newspaper ink has sprung forth... is Dick Cheney.

Dick Cheney is the source of many of this administration's stupidest, most inhumane, un-American ideas, but rather than going down in history as the most powerful Veep since the country's inception, perhaps now he'll just go down. If that happens, look for Bush himself to be run out of town on rails, but he won't go willingly. Too stubborn. Too stupid.

What would be funny, is if the Bushies dragged this out past the '06 elections, only to see the house overtaken by the Dems, and the new Speaker elevated to the Presidency as Bush faces impeachment and *finally* resigns... hello, Madame President?

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Cult of Hypocrisy

2005-10-23T12:18:00.000-05:00

I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX),
Feb 12, 1999

I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX),
Oct 23, 2005

If I wasn't so damned busy, I could be flooding the del.icio.us bomb with the unabashed hypocrisy the Republican machine will put forth this week. Anyone that wants to help, feel free.

Hat tip to atrios.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Bill Maher and Tucker's glossy nature

2005-10-22T15:23:00.000-05:00

My daily must-visit Cannonfire today talked about Maher's show last night, and I can't help but agree.

But one thing that irked me about Carlson last night that Maher only partially deflected as horse hockey was Carlson's response to Maher's suggestion about health care costs. Citing GM and Delphi announcements this year of health care costs' role in helping ensure they posted a loss ($1400 of every GM car is nothing but health-care costs), Maher suggested that the Republicans should have worked *with* Hillary in the 90s rather than destroying her, and her universal health care plan, as best they could.

Carlson made the point that it would be too expensive. And that per-person administrative costs in countries that do this are higher than they are here.

But this is just silly.

Even if the overall cost of health-care went up, the accounting would change completely.

Imagine a world where you're not paying cash to a health insurance company out of every paycheck. These companies are able and very, very willing to raise their rates yearly. Every year I pay a higher premium for similar or decreased coverage. For a family of 4 in NC, I'm coughing up 3 hundy a month. This stuff is going up at 4 times the rate of inflation.

Some of this is due to increased costs, some is due to litigation expenses (far less than Bush purports), and some of it is due to sheer greed. The insurance companies tanked in the markets and then realized something... people will pay whatever they charge, and so will companies.

Both individuals and their employers suffer under this sytem. The more these costs rise, especially in the case of retirees that are hurting a company's bottom line without continuing to affect revenue to the good, the more companies lose interest in keeping people on the payroll. The cost of goods rise, people lose their jobs, companies post declined profits or losses and stocks get hit. Everyone--everyone but the insurance companies and the drug companies--loses.

Now, let's change the perspective. Let's have the government pay the bills. The cost of the exact same system may go up overall, but it should. 45 million people would be covered again. 45 million people, many of them elderly and children, could get healthy when they're ill. Could stay productive, live longer lives, and get the preventative care they can't afford today. This preventative care could help decrease costs of illnesses that might have been caught earlier or prevented entirely through earlier, less-costly measures.

You and I have taxes go up, sure. But what we wouldn't have is huge, annual increases. Because the government, if it had common-sense instead of reelection-sense, could tell the health care companies to go pound sand. The government doesn't have to accept any annual increase in costs greater than the rate of inflation unless it's stupid when it writes the legislation.

Let's look at some simple math.

For the sake of simplicity, say the entire country's health care system costs $1 billion per year.

Say inflation is running at 3% / year. Health care costs are increasing at 11% / year (accurate).

Now, say that the government takes over health care and the administrative costs of our entire health care system, country wide, goes up 50% instantaneously.

In the first year, costs are $1.5 billion.

In the 2nd year under this system, the old system would have run $1.11 Billion. The new system runs $1.545 billion in year 2.

Year 3 of the old is $1.23 billion. Of the new, $1.58.
Year 4, $1.36 old system vs $1.62 new.
Year 5, $1.51 old system vs $1.67 new.
Year 6, $1.67 old system vs $1.72 new.
Year 7, $1.85 old system vs $1.76 new.

Hey, the old system costs more than the new already. What if we keep going...

Year 8, $2.04 old system vs $1.81 new.
Year 9, $2.26 old system vs $1.86 new.
Year 10, $2.51 old system vs $1.92 new.
Year 11, $2.79 old system vs $1.98 new.
Year 12, $3.10 old system vs $2.04 new.
Year 13, $3.44 old system vs $2.10 new.
Year 14, $3.81 old system vs $2.16 new.
Year 15, $4.23 old system vs $2.22 new.
Year 16, $4.69 old system vs $2.29 new.

After 16 years, the system only an insurance company, drug maker or a Republican could love is twice as expensive as the system that was originally 50% more expensive. Even if the new system costs started at double the old system, it would only be at just over $3 billion in the 16th year to the $4.69 of the current.

These numbers are over-simplified, of course. Duh. The point is that the insurance companies and the drug makers are unchecked by inflation because the government lets them be. Under a single-payer system where the government is the single-payer, dictating that the rate of inflation dictates the rate of price increases could save this country a ton of money, and move the accounting into the hands of the people with the power to force some humanity onto an insurance industry that would rather focus on profit.

If they can't self-police, then why shouldn't the government do it for them?

Mainly because people like Tucker are controlling our government, and every politician gets $$ from health-care.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

So many hours...

2005-10-21T21:16:00.000-05:00

I've been working far too much as of late. I've neglected my blog, my hobby website (currently way broken due to an unnamed image providers habit of changing their referential data), my need for sleep...

But you see, writing java code till 3 in the morning is much more fascinating and rewarding than REM sleep. You can always sleep during the day when you should be spending time mowing the lawn, or during the Michigan game when they should be blowing somebody out and don't.

Anyway, despite all that, my sometime favorite keeper of the ponies has directed my browser to a link that proves, yes proves that my blog is worth more than my down comforter, but much less than my day-job.

My blog is worth $9,597.18.
How much is your blog worth?

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Indicting we will go, Indicting we will go...

2005-10-06T06:52:00.000-05:00

High-Ho the Derry-O, Indicting we will go.

Oh, the buyer's remorse might be rushing into the City of Cognitive Dissonance for the 10-20% of Americans that supported the Bushies this time around. Funny how none of it bubbled to the surface until Katrina, Indictment Autumn, and the Crony Nomination that broke the Elephant's Back.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Quid Pro Quo, Harriet

2005-10-03T22:28:00.000-05:00

Miers has to vote in his favor, no matter the legal mental backflips that would require, not because Bush is <cough> the most-brilliant man <cough> she has ever met, but because they have the goods on each other.

Quid Pro Quo Harriet:

And all those tedious, sticky fumblings in the boardrooms of Texas, while you could only dream of getting out... getting anywhere... getting all the way to the S.C.O.T.U.S.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Miers has the goods

2005-10-03T22:19:00.000-05:00

After a few posts elsewhere in which I theorized that Bush was lining up insurance against his own possible indictments, I see the same theory posited several other places at nearly the same time.

So, either the sun is shining on my dog's ass, or great minds think alike, take your pick.

Miers has held Bush's hand through at least one incompetent moment.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

DeLay recorded doing horrible British accent, resigns in shame

2005-10-03T20:53:00.000-05:00

Look, it's one thing to get out there and try and squirm your fat belly through the oily cracks in the campaign finance laws of our country, but it's another thing entirely to start meeting with former heads of state to make laws in their favor.

Why are they worried about this guy again? I thought the Wingnuts hated the hoity toity Brits, save Tony Blair during his most visceral (shorter sentences and fewer syllables) speaking engagements.

If DeLay can't see to it that legislation is created for the right reasons he has no business being a congressman, and I should think all those Texans out there would agree. Seems like if there's one thing a true Wingnut wouldn't be able to stand it's a ferrner trying to tell them how to run their country.

DeLay is, was, and always will be for sale.

Via huffpo

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

I like this Paul Hackett guy

2005-10-03T20:48:00.000-05:00

Something about a Democrat that isn't afraid to tell it like it is and call Bush the liar that he is. Add to that the fact that he served in the war itself and the netroots behind him to get somewhere, and maybe we really can get one more guy on our side in the Senate that really is Of The People.

Bonus points for him talkin' smack to Limbaugh.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

So many scandals, So little time

2005-10-02T11:16:00.000-05:00

George Stephanopoulos says he has a source that has said Bush & Cheney themselves are involved in the Plame leak.

Is anyone surprised?

But I disagree with the ThinkProgress statement that this development would make the scandal unmanageable. There are many scandals already, many of them involving truly impeachable offenses (some punishable as war crimes). But it doesn't matter a whit.

You see, Rove/Cheney/Bush has managed to suppress every budding scandal by simply offering up a new one. Fresh meat is better than rotten meat, especially for the vultures in the media. No sex involved (except maybe Jimmy/Jeff, but that's another post entirely), so move along, there's nothing to see here.

It will be handled the same way the Downing Street Minutes were handled: The talking points will come out, the press will eat them up, and all pro-administration news outlets will say that it doesn't command very much attention because it just proves what everyone already knew.

Such logic?! Nevermind that "everyone" means intelligent wonks and media types in Washington D.C. that follow all of this like Pavlovian leg-humpers. Nevermind that 42% of Americans out there think proof is proof, and lying warmongers should be impeached.

Imagine a man suspected of murder being let go, because even though evidence had come to light proving his guilt, everyone already suspected his guilt. We already knew he was guilty, so this new evidence isn't much to look at. Let him go.

Now imagine the man suspected of murder is your President, and upwards of 100,000 people are dead and your government is out several hundred billion dollars.

Move along, there's nothing to see here. Take a look at this new scandal we're offering--just came in this week.

ThinkProgress link via atrios

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Ye Olde Blogrolle Update

2005-10-01T23:52:00.000-05:00

Someone randomly linked from a Kos page that led me to antichimp which is no on Ye Olde Blogrolle cuz I said so.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

DVR : Michigan 31, Michigan State 31

2005-10-01T22:10:00.000-05:00

Lawn mower acted up on me this morning. My plan to have the lawn done by kickoff went painfully awry. But, I asked my wife to record it, and I'd watch it when I had the chance.

Roundabout 4:30 or so I started up the game.

Decent. My wife missed the our first few touchdowns, but I can deal. The pain came when we were marching down the field with the game tied, but under 3 minutes left. Michigan started milking the clock, hoping for a field goal in the waning seconds.

Wide Right.

Overtime.

My DVR recording ended.

I walked reluctantly to the ol' laptop to find out the score from the Internets.

Reality: Michigan 34, Michigan State 31

We caught some good breaks in the game. But our offense made an appearance for the first time in a while. Did well enough in the 2nd half to get by, but the first half went well. If only that had happened against Wisconsin and ND. If only.

As a p.s., how about that nasty broken leg in the end-zone ESPN won't stop showing. Ugh.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Ruining Country for Political Cover Fascinating Stuff.

2005-09-30T14:09:00.000-05:00

Tim Russert worries me these days. It's ok with me if politics is interesting to him--it must be or he wouldn't have the job he has, which is to act non-partisan while questioning a panel that is heavily tilted to the right, lobbing softballs at Republican guests, berating Democratic Presidential Nominees, and the like.

But this is just silly:

But it’s going to be quite interesting to see how this all plays out with the court. There are some people in the White House that feel, very strongly, they prefer to have a controversial Supreme Court nominee to get the debate in the country back on moral values, cultural values and off of Katrina, Iraq and Tom DeLay.

So, it plays several different ways. It’s going to be fascinating.

To Timmy, it's fascinating to see Bush use a Supreme Court nomination to throw off the scent. As a distraction. As a payoff to the nutty Right. Placing someone in a lifetime appointment isn't a time for deep and thoughtful consideration, it's a time to cover your ass and the giant, stinking, criminal ass of your party leadership.

But to Timmy, this is not a problem. This is cool stuff to be watched with breath fully-baited. This is a time to marvel at the political machinations of the Republican way of governing: Power = Everything. Making government work can be left to the Democrats if and when they win some elections.

Until then, gather power. Usurp what you can. Feed the rich. Fuck the poor. Bend every rule. Take corporate payoffs. Give political paybacks. Bow to lobbyists. Lie to win, win to lie. Cut corporate taxes. Soft money, hard money, get more donations! Lather, rinse, repeat. Nominate the unskilled but loyal. Fire the sensible. Government is not for the people, it is of, by, and for the powerful! All the while, distract, distract, distract. Don't let them stand and stare while you and your cronies take to the cookie jar with a backhoe and a dumptruck. That money is yours, you and your donors deserve it every dime you can get, cuz you earned it!!

Given the lengthy streak of success we have for nominees emanating from this administration, we can expect only the worst. We have no reason whatsoever to expect anything else.

I'm starting to wonder if the Republicans don't have their shoelace wrapped around the accelerator in a giant game of chicken with an oncoming tank. Maybe they think they better squeeze every last dime out of the the American Worker and foreign banks before we all wise up and vote them out so the Democrats can clean up their shit? Maybe they think that the more harm they do, the faster the American people will come around. Maybe they think the more they tip the economic justice system to the wealthy over the poor, the fewer votes they will eventually get. The American people do have to come around eventually, don't they?

I wonder if the Republicans wish they had tied their shoes a little tighter when they mounted this puppy. Because they still have to live here too, even if there isn't a Democrat to swoop in and save the day.

Colin Powell was once quoted (wrongly) as having used the Pottery Barn Rule to describe the consequences associated with an invasion of Iraq, where if we broke it, we bought it. But the Republicans do it gleefully. There rule is more the Sid Vicious rule : Yeah, we broke it. You watched us break it. You voted us back into office to break it some more. Now fuck off.

Loyalty and political cover above all else. Fascinating to Tim, disgusting to me.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Lying lying lemmings

2005-09-30T13:08:00.000-05:00

Like their Dear Leader, when something upsets or worries a wingnut, they just take to makin' stuff right the hell up. Funny thing is that they're so wacky, you can tell when it's a wingnut trying to put words in the mouts of a liberal/progressive.

mcolley
I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Progressive Programmer

The 2008 conventions through the simple math of 2 plus 2

Windshield Wiper Wars

The Path to Lies About 9/11

Be very afraid... of Republican Politicization of Terror

Embolden bolden bolden, keep them doggies rollin'

Mystery Politics Theater 3000

Red Alert! -- Cue thunder, CUE THUNDER!

You can't triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd.

Ohmygod, all of Connecticut Hacked!

Insert Obscure Literary/Television/Film Reference Here

Looking forward to the State of the Union

They're beginning to believe

Wikiality

Pat Roberts Knows Iraq is a Lie

You wanna read something *really* scary?

The first step is admitting you have a problem

Big Brass Ones

Freedom's Just Another Word

The Theory of Relativity

Def Leppard Predicts Middle East Conflict

Boltonmania 2 - Cage Match

A Double-Agent gathers no moss

Today in Iraq

This is gonna leave a mark

John Bolton is a no-talent ass-clown

Perspectives on the cost of a video

Hi, my name is Sherman and I'm a....

Bush Thumbs his nose in Veto

Cartoons are Funny

Billions and Billions

Bush's Pro-life Flip-Flop

Recipe for fun

It's good to be the King

Will any Iraqis be left to vote?

Candies and Flowers

Yo Blair, what’re you doing?

Bush's European Vacation

7 years in Michigan

Lennon

Optimism

We will win the War on Terror

Shouldn't it be the Department of Offense?

Chocolates Flowers and Kimmy Gone Wild

What matters is who *counts* the votes

Mexican Jumping Ballot-Boxes

I'm floating in a most-uh puh-kyoo-lee-ar waa-aay

And now for something completely batty

Look, up in the sky...

Dr Dumblove, or How Americans Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Ignoring Reality

Have your cake and eat your children's cake

Contract With America, part duh

I really do find it odd...

An old Vulcan Proverb says...

These aren't the droids you're looking for

Greenwald for Dummies

Get Your Public Out of My Republican Empire!

The 10 Trillion Dollar Man-child

The GOP Straw Poll, sponsored by MSNBC

What's so civil about war, anyway?

And now for two things completely different (from each other)

Three Rolls of Fear (duct tape for the ages)

That's why they play the games

Army Kidnaps Wives of Insurgents to Use as Bait

Mr. President, we must not allow a gay-bashing gap!

An Instant Classic

Of Sheep and Men

Will someone give these guys the Internets?

The Problem, clearly, is the Democrats

I hit #13 for 2005 on Kos - Navel Gazing

Democracy

Reality and News should be unrelated, or ELSE

Cheney has sucked for a loooooong time

See no logic, Speak no logic, Hear no logic

C-SPAN = AEI ?

Funniest. Animated GIF. Ever.

Caption the formerly Smirking One

Billmon

Santos v Vinick in the '05 Presidential Election

Hapless in Washington

You wanna read something really scary?

What matters is who counts the votes