The year the internet changed nothing.

Remember when Howard Dean's campaign raised all that money on the internet(s) and fired all his volunteers up with his decentralized campaign, which drove him to the Democratic nomination, then to the Presidency?

Remember when activist websites like Moveon, America Coming Together and Daily Kos organized and motivated people from across the country to give their time and money so that they could drive a crushing electoral defeat to the dark forces of fear?

Remember the tear in your eye when Joe Trippi, having declared the internet(s) democracy's "killer app," was appointed head of the DNC, so that he could integrate his vision further into the mainstream?

Neither do I.

Stacking the Deck.

No one who knows anything (such as B***'s campaign advisers) knows how voters will respond to a terrorist attack soon before the November election. So now there's this rightist attempt to steer the conventional wisdom toward the idea that the terrorists want a Kerry win. And if they succeed, then whether B*** has successfully protected us from attack will no longer be the issue. People will vote against Kerry because the terrorists want us to vote for him.

That's what Rove & Co. are trying to do. And if the Dems don't fight it hard with their own spin and attempt to steer the conventional wisdom (something they're admittedly not very good at), and there is a terrorist attack soon before the November election, well, Vancouver is beautiful and pretty close to my sister.

I wonder what this means:

....regardless of whom they support, a majority of registered voters (60 percent) believe that the president will be reelected in November.

Is there a history of this question being asked? Does perception become reality? If this number persists, will Democrats vote in lower numbers because they believe their votes won't matter? Does this number change in swing/non-swing states?

I have questions.

Can't win

The whole "we can't win the war on terror" thing, coming from whom it came from and all, deserves some derision, and it's receiving some.

But it's derision I can't personally share in, since it's also the very first thing B*** has said since 9/11 that's made any sense at all.

Still waiting for him to give that speech about sending troops to Sudan. Thursday's only a couple of days away....

Even Better...

Switched from CNN to E! (they're doing a show on Hollywood's obsession with Kaballah), and heard this:

In Hollywood, there's no doubt that today's craze can be tomorrow's fad.

These posts write themselves.

overheard

Watching CNN just now, and heard this gem from Carol Lin, the anchor, referring to a piece on the NY protesters:

I know it's democracy, but sometimes it's hard to take seriously!

Yes.

And in summation...

The typically dry Matthew Yglesias says:

When you have a country where internecine disputes are being resolved by having one side bring on board the assistance of a foreign intelligence service while the other side decides to enlist the support of that country's domestic counterintelligence agency to discredit its opponents, something has gone a bit wrong with the interagency process.

Yes.

Pathetic vs. double-plus pathetic.

If my previous post, regarding the Republicans fighting Bruce Springsteen with Foghat, showed a desperate level of rock me-too-ism, then this:

U.S. News & World Report mistakenly reported that the band would be joining Randy Travis and Bobby Womack on a pro-Bush concert tour designed to counter the anti-Bush rock roadshow featuring Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne. "I have no idea where they got that," Foghat drummer Roger Earl tells PAGE SIX. "Foghat are not supporters of George Bush, and we're certainly not going on the road with him." In fact, Earl seemed downright smitten with the John Kerry-favoring Springsteen tour. "I'd like to see Bruce Springsteen and Bonnie Raitt for president. We'd go on tour with them in a minute!"

Well, fill in the blank. At least they still have Bobby Womack.

If they fight...

...with knives, we fight with guns.

If they fight with Springsteen, we fight with Foghat.

Uh.

On becoming what I most despise.

I'm bi. I'm bi and I'm out. People look at me like I'm crazy. People I don't know give me derisive looks; my friends are sympathetic but more than a little sad. Although the people I'm closest to seem to understand my life choice, and even covet the advice I can give them having lived on both sides, I've also had people laugh in my face when I tell them. But I don't care. I've been bi since the mid-80s, and I'm tired of hiding it.

I use both Macs and PCs.

There, I said it.

You'd think this wouldn't be a big deal. I mean, if you were an alien from a far off galaxy (and were oblivious to industrial design), you'd look at the two types of computers and proclaim (I'm translating here): "eh, what's the diff?" But to Earthlings, apparently, there's a huge diff. The rivalry between Mac people and PC people is like that between Yankee fans and Red Sox fans...wait. That's actually the wrong simile. The rivalry is like that between San Franciscans and Los Angelenos: Mac devotees (San Franciscans) furiously despise PCs (Angelenos), while PC people really don't give a shit one way or the other about Macs.

In Los Angeles, the Mac maniacs rule. If you think anti-Bush partisanship is bad, try walking into a meeting in Hollywood with a PC laptop. "Microsoft is the devil." "Bill Gates wants to control your brain." I try to explain that I'm comfortable with both Macs and PCs. "System 9 Mac software lacked the pre-emptive multitasking and memory management of Windows," I'd explain. "But ever since OS X came out, I've been waiting for a stable version so I can try it out." Blank looks from the Mac partisans. "Bill Gates wants to eat your children and bathe in their blood," they'll eventually sputter.

Okay, so Macs are the computers for the rest of them. I shouldn't get all tech-y with people who want a computer that just works. After all, Mac partisans pre-OS X had no idea what they were missing out on. So, after the sputtering, I'll switch tactics to one that should sway every non-Commie American: cost. "Yeah, the other thing about Macs is that they're so expensive, and you can't upgrade them like you can a PC. I mean, I'd probably buy a Mac laptop, but I can totally upgrade my PC desktop a piece at a time as technology improves."

This line of reasoning has produced so many befuddled stares that I've been able to come to only one conclusion: a lot of Mac owners are Commies.

Recently I put my money where my mouth is and bought a Mac laptop. I did it a little bit so that I'd have familiarity with OS X (I work with a lot of Macs in my line of business), somewhat more so I could have Final Cut Pro at my fingertips (again, Final Cut Pro is getting a lot of buzz in my line of work), but mostly I did it so the fucking Mac partisans would shut the fuck up about my fucking computer.

(I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better.)

It worked, too. When I go into meetings now, people are all, "hey, nice laptop." Or, "is that the titanium or the aluminum?" Or, "wanna go out sometime?" My laptop has had the same effect on my image in the Hollywood film community as a good suit might have in the banking community. I walk tall now (well, mostly that's because my Mac weighs about 4 pounds less than my old Dell does, but pride must enter into it somewhere).

When I have my Mac with me and I proclaim I'm bi, everyone assumes I mostly hit for the right team, only occasionally, begrudgingly and drunkenly straying to the dark side.

They're wrong, of course. My primary computer remains a Windows XP desktop. My desktop has 2GB RAM and about 1TB of disk storage on it, so it's hard to give up.

But a funny thing is happening. I'm finding myself more and more attracted to getting rid of all my XP machines and switching over to Macs.

I'm not considering this because I think "Macs rule, PCs drool" or anything like that. The things that make an all-Mac household attractive to me are the same things that have me using as much Microsoft software as I can: each company is designing a holistic approach to solve various problems, and while each claims its approach works with outside hardware/software vendors, it only really, truly and properly works with its own products.

Here's where I'm headed with this: in the PC world, the problem Microsoft has most recently tried to solve is the Internet. If you use XP with Internet Explorer and, say Outlook, you get a very rich internet experience. If you have an "always on" connection, the internet becomes a fluid extension of your desktop. Fully integrating the internet into the OS makes me happy. It works the way I think.

Apple is doing something similar. They're offering pieces that, when combined, can integrate, index and control all of your digital media (music, photos and movies). For instance, I'm having an outdoor BBQ next weekend. I'm going to be able to hook a little box up in my backyard that will allow me to play the music residing on my computer on my outdoor boom box. But the kicker? I'll be able to control the music (volume, songs, etc.) using my cell phone. Geeky, yes, but useful. And there's nothing in the PC world that can, right now, offer the tight integration that can be achieved by a single hardware and software manufacturer.

So basically, I've decided rationally that buying Macs for the house is probably a better bet than buying PCs. And yet...I'm worried about making the switch. I'm worried that I'll end up buying into a more expensive set of components, just so I can streamline my music and (eventually) video watching at home. I'm a little worried that Apple, with its ever-shrinking market share, might not be around for the long term (even though it's sitting on a mountain of cash). But mostly, I think, I'm worried that before long, the mutant brain wave machine that surely lives inside each Macintosh will activate and turn me into a Mac-loving zombie.

It's going to be a fine line to walk, but it might just be worth walking.

Los Angeles Insight

I'm taking the folks at lablogs.com up on their weekly quiz:

1. Where is the last place you ate out?
El Guapo Mexican food, on Melrose just west of Formosa. The food was so-so, the Olympics were screeching too loudly from every TV (wtf with the DNA strands? I thought I was watching a remake of Logan's Run), but the company and the margaritas were good. Parking, not so much.

2. How often do you eat out?
I won't count lunchtime trips to Subway. Probably 2-3 times a week.

3. Where is the place you eat most?
Zankou Chicken.

4. Where do you tell your friends that they "have to try"?
Sushi Hama on 2nd Street in Little Tokyo.

5. What dish do they have to order when they get there?
As silly as it sounds, I tell people to try the salmon. I think salmon is a great way to tell a good sushi place from a bad one, since it's hard to make raw salmon actually taste good. When in season, I also insist they try the TWO kinds of toro.

6. Where do you eat when money is not a concern?
Tam O'Shanter

7. Where do you eat when money is tight?
Zankou Chicken (money must be tight a LOT, since that's also my answer to #3).

8. What restaurant have you wanted to try but haven't been to yet?
Langer's Deli

Some nights...

Jon Stewart is barely in control of his anger.

It's fantastic.

If George Bush...

...gave a speech tomorrow (or...um...at the Republican National Convention?), taking the lead in bringing food and santiation to the Sudan, and really televised the shit out of it, he'd probably win this election. And it would have the bonus of being the right thing to do, which would have the further bonus of being probably the first real anti-terrorist act George Bush will have initiated.

Unfortunately, we have no troops, and probably no supply-moving aircraft, because of that other country we're in right now.

But, spitballing, what if George Bush gets up and takes the lead in bringing food and sanitation to the Sudan, and then announces that he's diverting civil aircraft and working with private industry in order to take the lead?

Shit. I'd consider voting for him if he did that.

Anyone want to make book on the chances?

Heh.

Nixon is turning in his grave.

Not icky, lying, thieving Nixon. No, I'm talking about Endangered-Species-Act Nixon.

The Bush administration has succeeded in reshaping the Endangered Species Act in ways that have sharply limited the impact of the 30-year-old law aimed at protecting the nation's most vulnerable plants and animals, according to environmentalists and some independent analysts.

B*** did it on the 4th. Think they wanted no one to notice?

Oh and here's the sentence that made my head hurt (it wasn't the hangover this time, I promise):

While some environmentalists praise the incentive programs, they say these projects are not enough to protect animals and plants on the brink of extinction.

Memo to "some environmentalists" (or maybe to the article's author): If the projects aren't enough to protect animals and plants on the brink of extinction, don't fucking praise them.

I try to be fair and balanced (honestly) in my assessments. Every time one of these things happens, I first apply the "if a Democrat were in the White House, would I still be upset" test. Then I apply the, "is there any hint of ideology behind this decision" test. The answer here to both is clearly "no," unless you count corporatism as an ideology, and Mussolini can tell you where that leads.

Why I Am A Democrat

On jury duty in Los Angeles

I'm sitting in a jury assembly room in downtown Los Angeles. It could be a jury assembly room in any city in this country, except for the American Cinematographer magazine sitting on the magazine rack.

I love being here. I love doing my civic duty (geeky, I know). But even more than that, I love the chance to be in a room with a random cross-section of the Los Angeles population. When I lived in San Francisco, I usually got around town on public transportation. Being on the bus can be a great equalizer in a city. But until the Red Line opened, I hadn't been on Los Angeles public transportation since 1983.

(In case you didn't know, everyone drives everywhere in Los Angeles.)

I used to think that one of the main reasons Angelenos don't have a public life is that they don't ride the buses.

Riding the bus leads to being around The Other, which leads to taking away fear of The Other, which leads to wanting to be around The Other. Ipso facto!

More recently, I've become convinced that our lack of public life is more a function of the transient nature of the population here; apparently, the longer you live somewhere the more likely you are to get to know your neighbors. Whodaguessed?

But blaming it all on not taking the bus has a certain populist romance for me, so what the hell: everyone in Los Angeles should be required to take the bus somewhere at least once a month.

Catholic stuff.

A lot of people (bloggers!) are talking about how Bush is trying to get the Pope to help radicalize the US Catholic clergy, hoping that such a thing would marginalize Kerry.

Strangely enough, none of the items I've read mentions the Latino vote, which is certainly overwhelmingly Catholic, and which is also swinging Kerry's way.

Getting Kerry excommunicated is, as they say, a "free gift" or an "added bonus." I think the point here is that enlisting Catholic help shows that the B***ies don't believe they can get the Latino vote using carrots.

Hell, even the second generation Cubans are against him.

On why two computer monitors just aren't enough

Two web pages, Outlook, sticky notes, 2 IMs, a download going on in the background, and desktop icons.

I need three computer monitors. Things are getting lost. Efficiency is dropping. And now I need to launch Word!

Ch-ch-ch-changing.

Yeah, I've done the "oh I'm so angry with the B*** Administration" thing since I started this blog.

And I am.

But now I just kind of feel sorry for it, like I felt sorry for the child murderer at the end of "M."

Some of it will be over soon, I believe.

Other stuff will linger. The important stuff will only get resolved over the next four years: are we still a republic? Do we get some of our freedoms back? Do we figure out that our democracy is stronger than nihilism, or do we NOT figure it out, only to figure out eventually that it isn't?

I'll probably weigh in on things I think would help us maintain our society, but that won't be the focus of this blog anymore. There are too many voices now. I'm too polite to "pile on." (!)

And anyway, people (especially bloggers) need to start thinking about the things that need to be done going forward. Having Kerry in the White House doesn't mean we're home free.

So I'm going to post what I think, sometimes, and what I'm feeling, sometimes, and I'll probably write more about my life, or make shit up, or whatever. In any case, we'll see where it all goes.

In Praise of iTunes

So I work here, in this little office, in a facility where people are in, and are out, and other people are in. Some -- the ones who make eye contact in the hallways, say hello, try to strike up a conversation or at least converse back when I do -- are nice. Some -- the ones who walk down the hallway, eyes down -- aren't.

In this building there are probably 50 shifting people. And out of these, every day there are four or five who have iTunes loaded onto their computers. These computers sit on a common network. The network allows everyone who has iTunes set to share see the music of everyone else who has iTunes set to share.

This is so incredibly cool. I don't know these people. It's possible that the people who share their music are the people who walk down the halls with their heads down (after all, some of their music SUCKS). But knowing that I can listen to other people's music, that they WANT me to listen to it, and that they can listen to mine...without knowing me...and yet getting to know me...this rocks hard. Right now, one person is listening to my music. My name is on my office door. I hope the person makes an introduction.

Google Bombing!

I'm just cutting and pasting here, but it should work for the purposes Drum intends:

Currently the google results for the Democratic National Convention brings up a fake republican site pretending to be the official convention site at the top of the results. In effect, an actual, practical, use of the googlebomb to screw with your political opponents (so a tip of the hat to the wingnuts who pulled this off).
This post is merely an effort to get the real Democratic National Convention site back up to the top of the search rankings. I encourage other bloggers to join in this counter googlebomb. Unlike "flip flopper" and the other fun googlebombs, this one actually matters.

I wish I had said that.

"We're like contestants on Wheel of Fortune with a long phrase spelled out in front of us with maybe one or two letters missing. We know what the letters spell. It's obvious. We just don't have the heart to say it out loud."

The New York Times Gets the Memo.

So now they're also reporting what the Wall Street Journal said yesterday:

A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

So, here's the deal.

We are at the edge of losing our Republic. I'm not hopeful that we'll hang on.

"Jim, please ask Bill to pass the income exclusion benefits."

"Why don't you ask him yourself??! He's sitting right next to you!"

Yep, things in the Republican-controlled House are peachy if, by peachy, you mean infantile.

The relationship between two House committee chairmen has become so strained that they have stopped talking to each other and rely on an intermediary to negotiate over corporate tax-reform legislation.

Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) and Small Business Committee Chairman Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) communicate through Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), a senior member on the Ways and Means Committee, to convey their positions and learn about each other’s views on a set of tax breaks for American corporations that have been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.

Back to the Present

It's good to know some news is still getting through the Reagan white noise. Unfortunately, this is the news:

The working-group report elaborated the Bush administration's view that the president has virtually unlimited power to wage war as he sees fit, and neither Congress, the courts nor international law can interfere. It concluded that neither the president nor anyone following his instructions was bound by the federal Torture Statute, which makes it a crime for Americans working for the government overseas to commit or attempt torture, defined as any act intended to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Punishment is up to 20 years imprisonment, or a death sentence or life imprisonment if the victim dies.

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority," the report asserted. (The parenthetical comment is in the original document.) The Justice Department "concluded that it could not bring a criminal prosecution against a defendant who had acted pursuant to an exercise of the president's constitutional power," the report said. Citing confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001, the report advised that the executive branch of the government had "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."

Fucking war criminals.

Reagan

Everyone is commenting, so I'll be brief.

When I heard Reagan was shot, I cheered. I remember being in high school and hearing and looking at my friends and cheering.

Yeah, it was wrong morally. I should never have cheered. Granted.

But when I look at how the cancerous group of people who surrounded Reagan have subverted our country's democracy during the current presidency, I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Reagan had died during the attack, and Bush 41 had started his presidency eight years early.

Basically, while my head says this, my heart says this.

NBA Finals

Has there ever been a worse opening theme for a sporting event?

Pumping Fists

This article made me pump my fists in the air and mouth the words, "YOU'RE GOING DOWN, FUCKER."

President Bush has consulted an outside lawyer in case he needs to retain him in the grand jury investigation of who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative last year, the White House said Wednesday.

Smarter than I

From today's billmon.org:

In his brilliant analysis of financial bubbles, Manias, Panics and Crashes, the economist Charles Kindleberger talked about a common tendency for desperate speculators to latch on to some shred of hope in the last stages of a market collapse - usually by convincing themselves a potential action or a pending event will salvage the situation.

During the 1929 stock market crash, for example, rumors that the Rockefellers and the Morgans were going to step in and rescue the market ("organized buying support" was the magic phrase) were enough to trigger a brief rally following Black Thursday. Unfortunately, it quickly became clear such support was entirely mythical, leading to Black Monday - up until 1987, the worst day in stock market history.

Well, it appears to me the June 30 transition in Bahgdad has emerged as the equivalent of "organized buying support" for our Gambler in Chief and his band of suckers. They've pinned an enormous amount of faith on the idea that the new interim "government" will be seen by the Iraqi people as something other than what it is: a slightly repackaged collection of the same exile politicians we've been coaxing or bullying into doing our bidding for the past year.

(sigh)

Nice Blumenthal

From today's Guardian:

Washington, just weeks ago in the grip of neoconservative orthodoxy, absolute belief in Bush's inevitability and righteousness, is in the throes of being ripped apart by investigations. Things fall apart: the military, loyal and lumbering, betrayed and embittered; the general in the field, General Sanchez, disgraced and cashiered; the intelligence agencies abused and angry, their retired operatives plying their craft with the press corps, seeping dangerous truths; the press, hesitating and wobbly, investigating its own falsehoods; the neocons, publicly redoubling defence of their hero and deceiver Chalabi, privately squabbling, anxiously awaiting the footsteps of FBI agents; Colin Powell, once the most acclaimed man in America, embarked on an endless quest to restore his reputation, damaged above all by his failure of nerve; everyone in the line of fire motioning toward the chain of command, spiralling upwards and sideways, until the finger pointing in a phalanx is directed at the hollow crown.

JAG

The JAG corps seems to be the group that had its "hair on fire" the most ("hair the most on fire?") over the prison torture situation in Iraq. Normally there's always a JAG officer involved in war prisoner interrogation, so that nothing goes awry Geneva Convention-wise. But they were cut out of the interrogation process at Abu Ghraib.

So what I want to know is: are they back overseeing interrogations now or are they still out of the torture loop?

Anyone? Anyone?

"Oh honey. They're just JEALOUS is all."

Can someone, anyone, explain the right's obsession with Hillary? Does it collectively just want to fuck her or what??

Nation's goldfish population prove world's oceans in great state.

Unbelievable. Fully believable expected:

Three years ago, Mark C. Rutzick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rutzick wrote.

Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.

Can't someone please rip a hole in the space-time fabric and zip us forward to November, like, now, please?

Though I don't...

...normally go in for the "Bush is dumb" thing (not because I don't think he is dumb, but because it absolves him of responsibility for all the dumb things he does), this article in Slate at least takes the thought and fleshes it out a bit:

George W. Bush has governed, for the most part, the way any airhead might, undermining the fiscal condition of the nation, squandering the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11, and allowing huge problems (global warming, entitlement spending, AIDS) to metastasize toward catastrophe through a combination of ideology, incomprehension, and indifference. If Bush isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency.

Go.

Cognitive Dissonance.

From today's New York Times:

President Bush on Wednesday chastised his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, for Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of a scandal over the American abuse of Iraqis held at a notorious prison in Baghdad, White House officials said.

The disclosures by the White House officials, under authorization from Mr. Bush, were an extraordinary display of finger-pointing in an administration led by a man who puts a high premium on order and loyalty. The officials said the president had expressed his displeasure to Mr. Rumsfeld in an Oval Office meeting because of Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to tell Mr. Bush about photographs of the abuse, which have enraged the Arab world.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Bush is taking charge. Right?

Mr. Bush said that he learned the graphic details of the abuse case only when they were broadcast last Wednesday on the CBS program "60 Minutes II." It was then, one White House official said, that Mr. Bush also saw the photographs documenting the abuse. "When you see the pictures," the official said, "it takes on a proportion of gravity that would require a much more extreme response than the way it was being handled."

Bush is angry. He's just been informed about something that happened last year. Why didn't he know sooner?

Pentagon officials said that Mr. Rumsfeld was first notified about the pictures in mid-January, after a soldier turned them over to Army officials, prompting the opening of an investigation. A senior Pentagon official said that Mr. Rumsfeld was told of the allegations of abuse and given a general description of the photographs.

Within weeks, the Pentagon official said, Mr. Rumsfeld told the president about the case. But it is not clear, the official said, whether Mr. Rumsfeld mentioned the photographs or their basic content to Mr. Bush at that point.

Um, oh. Wait.

So Bush knew about the torture of Iraqi prisoners "within weeks" of mid-January, but only became outraged when he found out there were pictures.

Nice job of the NY Times, burying the lead.

No words.

I've been remiss in keeping this blog up to date. For weeks it was that I was just too damn busy.

But now that I have a little time on my hands, events in Iraq have become so disturbing, so depressing, so out of control, that I can't really comment. I lack the skill with words, or at least the time to hone my words to write something meaningful. The image of that woman, cigarette dangling, doing the thumbs-up while an Iraqi prisoner is forced to masturbate in front of her has haunted me since I saw it.

I have no words to explain why.

And even though I am increasingly convinced that Kerry will win in a landslide in November (barring the imposition of marshall law or voting machine irregularities), that conviction doesn't help me.

What do we do between now and then? What the fuck can we do between now and then? This is human, not political. It is torture, not a public relations nightmare. And I fear that people on the right and the left will be prone to reducing it to a referendum on freedom, or on Bush, or on our will to fight, when in fact it is primarily a referendum on the souls of the people who did this, and on our collective soul as a country.

Who reads blogs?

Well, no one reads MY blog, but you know blogs have hit the big time when...

...[S]ome analysts say U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials might be starting to track blogs for important bits of information.

For the record, the privacy issue is BS. I actually think it's great (honestly) that intelligence officials have the creativity to think of reading blogs, and the technical knowledge to find them. Remember how the FBI couldn't computer-search two words at once before 9/11?

P.S. It's interesting that the word "blog" began its life with a small first letter. All other terms about the Internet I can think of (Internet, E-mail, Web, etc.) began their lives with capital first letters. Some retain the capitals, some don't. But they were all born that way.

Maybe voting is for old people.

Who else could have come up with this?

In an effort to capture the elusive youth vote, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) will get into the ring tomorrow with two World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) competitors, superstar Chris Nowinski and the brawny women’s champion, who goes by one name — Victoria.

A California political operative once told me that you have no message without the right messenger. It's intuitively true. Pelosi, Clinton...a little intuition?

Zeitgeist

It's changed. Not changING. ChangED. Example:

No surprise.

I'm a traditional liberal.

Take the poll.

Vote In Our Poll: President Bush Needs Your Help - Center for American Progress

My rejection of the death penalty trumps your pro-life stance, foe!

Or something. (I somehow resisted tacking the phrase "now begone!" to the end of that title.)

In any case, go Dems:

House Democrats are preparing a “Catholic Voting Scorecard” in an effort to show that Catholic Democratic lawmakers have adhered more closely to the position of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy on key issues than their Catholic Republican counterparts.

Democratic sources say Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Nicholas Lampson (D-Texas), both Catholics, are spearheading the project, which will compare the votes of Catholic members of both parties on a number of key issues that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops identified as its legislative priorities.

I live in just the right neighborhood.

I went to sign up for the "National Bush in 2004 Supporter Meetup Day" in my neighborhood (really), only to be confronted with this reassuring message:

Not enough Bush Supporters near Hollywood-East LA, CA can make it, so this month's Meetup is cancelled.

Probably just as well. The "Impeach Bush" Meetup in my neighborhood turned out this crew:

Says it all.

The first 3 wire items, in order, from today's Salon.com main page:

More Marines join siege of key Iraqi city

Iraq militants threaten to kill American

Bush catches bass with crew from TV show

Go, Krugman.

Smear Without Fear

Nothing more dangerous than an angry Krugman.

WOO F'ING HOO!

Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name:

"Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.

In looking at violations beyond the original focus of the inquiry, which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself."

Another one for the books.

This one's juicy:

NEWSWEEK has learned that the General Accounting Office, Congress's investigative arm, is opening a probe into the [Iraqi National Congress]'s use of U.S. government money the group received in 2001 and 2002. The issue under scrutiny is not whether [INC head Ahmad] Chalabi prodded America into a war on false pretenses; it is whether he used U.S. taxpayer dollars and broke U.S. laws or regulations to do so. Did Chalabi and the INC violate the terms of their funding by using U.S. money to sell the public on its anti-Saddam campaign and to lobby Congress?

The investigation could easily become a political football. The GAO inquiry was requested by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (who when not on the stump is still a working senator) and another prominent critic of the Iraq war, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. A March 3 letter from the senators says the INC's use of U.S. money is "troubling."

Chalabi is a huge piece of the puzzle as to why we ended up going to war. Any light shined on his shenanigans will definitely help weaken B***'s Iraq case.

BRING IT ON.

My favorite picture of today.

Deconstructing B***.

Revenge of the Repressed

From a good essay in today's Whiskey Bar:

...[T]hanks to [Richard] Clarke, and to the attention he focused on this week's public hearings, it seems like the collective mental block has been broken. Suddenly, people want to know the story. They want information, speculation, opinion. And they want to discuss it -- making this the political equivalent of Freud's talking cure.

A good overview...

...of various accounts of the B*** White House:

Accounts from insiders in the Bush White House describe a tightly controlled, top-down organization that pushes a predetermined agenda, shuns dissenting views and discourages open debate.

Doesn't add anything new, but it's nice to see this stuff hit the mainstream.

Great news.

From The Pew Center for the People and the Press:

A...Pew survey of 1,065 Americans, conducted March 22-24, shows that criticisms lodged by former White House counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke are drawing significant public interest. About four-in-ten Americans (42%) say they have heard "a lot" about Clarke's claim that the president ignored serious warnings prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and 47% say they have heard "a little" about his claims. Just 10% say they have heard nothing at all about Clarke's criticisms. The story is attracting comparable levels of interest among Republicans and Democrats.

"Real, specific" information

From Government Executive Magazine:

A former FBI translator said Wednesday that the bureau had 'real, specific' information relating to the Sept. 11 attacks before they happened. Sibel Edmonds worked for the agency working from Sept. 20, 2001 to March 2002.

Edmonds said she was hired to retranslate material that was collected prior to Sept. 11 to determine if anything was missed in the translations that related to the plot. In her review, Edmonds said the documents clearly showed that the Sept. 11 hijackers were in the country and plotting to use airplanes as missiles. The documents also included information relating to their financial activities. Edmonds said she could not comment in detail because she has been under a Justice Department gag order since October 2002.

Edmonds has testified before the Sept. 11 commission, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

There's more, here, from a press conference she held after her testimony.

Senate Votes to Make Harming a Fetus a Crime

61-38. (sigh)

Senate Votes to Make Harming a Fetus a Crime (washingtonpost.com)

Rasmussen Poll

I've added a link to a daily presidential tracking poll over on the left. It's updated by 9AM Pacific time every morning. Here's the latest from that poll:

Thursday March 25, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John F. Kerry at 48%, President George W. Bush at 44%, and "some other candidate" at 4%.

Data from the past two days makes it clear that the recent news cycle is taking a toll on the President's numbers. Today's figures represent a net decline of seven points for the President in the past three days.

In addition to the increasing support for Senator Kerry, Rasmussen Reports has also found that the President's job approval ratings have fallen to their lowest level of the year.

Could it be the teflon has (finally) worn a bit thin?

After you've read the last one, then go read this.

The Carpetbagger Report: Scandal after scandal after scandal

Update by proxy

Sorry, I'm just too damn busy to update the chart, but things are looking really good right now. In the meantime, read this.

I'm personally looking forward to changing the operating system...

...to one that doesn't run this program.

Why We Went In: Version 10.0

Another day, another spit take.

Or is it "spittake?" In any case:

Before Toma Petre's relatives pulled his body from the grave, ripped out his heart, burned it to ashes, mixed it with water and drank it, he hadn't been in the news much.

Again. Not Right-Left. Right-Wrong.

Someday soon some people will no longer be able to get away with applying the word "partisan" or "political" to every utterance that goes against the B*** administration. Statements like this should be supported by everyone who cares about good (or even mediocre) government:

Floor Statement of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle on the Administration Attacking Good People for Telling the Truth

"I want to talk this morning about a disturbing pattern of conduct by the people around President Bush. They seem to be willing to do anything for political purposes, regardless of the facts and regardless of what's right.

I don't have the time this morning to talk in detail about all the incidents that come to mind. Larry Lindsay, for instance, seems to have been fired as the President's Economic Advisor because he spoke honestly about the costs of the Iraq War. General Shinseki seems to have become a target when he spoke honestly about the number of troops that would be needed in Iraq.

There are many others, who are less well known, who have also faced consequences for speaking out. U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers was suspended from her job when she disclosed budget problems that our nation's parks are less safe, and Professor Elizabeth Blackburn was replaced on the Council on Bioethics because of her scientific views on stem-cell research.

Each of these examples deserves examination, but they are not my focus today.

Instead, I want to talk briefly about four other incidents that are deeply troubling.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stepped forward to criticize the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, he was immediately ridiculed by the people around the President and his credibility was attacked. Even worse, the Administration launched a government investigation to see if Secretary O'Neill improperly disclosed classified documents. He was, of course, exonerated, but the message was clear. If you speak freely, there will be consequences.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson also learned that lesson. Ambassador Wilson, who by all accounts served bravely under President Bush in the early 1990s, felt a responsibility to speak out on President Bush's false State of the Union statement on Niger and uranium. When he did, the people around the President quickly retaliated. Within weeks of debunking the President's claim, Ambassador Wilson's wife was the target of a despicable act.

Her identity as a deep-cover CIA agent was revealed to Bob Novak, a syndicated columnist, and was printed in newspapers around the country. That was the first time in our history, I believe, that the identity and safety of a CIA agent was disclosed for purely political purposes. It was an unconscionable and intolerable act.

Around the same time Bush Administration officials were endangering Ambassador Wilson's wife, they appear to have been threatening another federal employee for trying to do his job. In recent weeks Richard Foster, an actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services, has revealed that he was told he would be fired if he told Congress and the American people the real costs of last year's Medicare bill.

Mr. Foster, in an e-mail he wrote on June 26 of last year, said the whole episode had been "pretty nightmarish." He wrote: "I'm no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policymakers for political purposes."

Think about those words. He would lose his job if he did his job. If he provided the information the Congress and the American people deserved and were entitled to, he would lose his job. When did this become the standard for our government? When did we become a government of intimidation?

And now, in today's newspapers, we see the latest example of how the people around the President react when faced with facts they want to avoid.

The White House's former lead counter-terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, is under fierce attack for questioning the White House's record on combating terrorism. Mr. Clarke has served in four White Houses, beginning with Ronald Reagan's Administration, and earned an impeccable record for his work.

Now the White House seeks to destroy his reputation. The people around the President aren't answering his allegations; instead, they are trying to use the same tactics they used with Paul O'Neill. They are trying to ridicule Mr. Clarke and destroy his credibility, and create any diversion possible to focus attention away from his serious allegations.

The purpose of government isn't to make the President look good. It isn't to produce propaganda or misleading information. It is, instead, to do its best for the American people and to be accountable to the American people. The people around the President don't seem to believe that. They have crossed a line–perhaps several lines–that no government ought to cross.

We shouldn't fire or demean people for telling the truth. We shouldn't reveal the names of law enforcement officials for political gain. And we shouldn't try to destroy people who are out to make country safer.

I think the people around the President have crossed into dangerous territory. We are seeing abuses of power that cannot be tolerated.

The President needs to put a stop to it, right now. We need to get to the truth, and the President needs to help us do that."

It's really quite simple.

If I do a spit take when I read something, I'm putting it here.

Schadenfreude.

I can't help it. I wish I could, but I just can't.

The official merchandise Web site for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign has sold clothing made in Burma, whose goods were banned by Bush from the U.S. last year to punish its military dictatorship.

1 bill. 3 investigations.

The Medicare fiasco bill might need its own chart.

Not as cool as my chart, but...

...it'll have to do until I have a chance to update it.

I am much relieved.

Today I note that the B*** Administration has not made one misleading statement about me. Click here if you want to see if they've said anything misleading about you

I still love this.

And now it's on my site! The Internet rocks.

This is getting too damn easy.

It feels like every day it's something new:

Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

At some point, it's just so damn funny it's not funny anymore.

If you're going to the Republican National Convention, bring rose petals.

I was just staring angrily at a hagiographic portrait of Putin on the side of a bus stop (no, I wasn't in Moscow; there is a picture in the L.A. Times), then I came upstairs and read this:

For days now, the job at Eisenhower Park in Nassau County has been to follow the order from the White House through the Secret Service and down to the park workers:

"The president's feet are not to touch the dirt."

So all yesterday, large crews drawn from all county parks worked to ensure that, as always in his life, George Bush's feet do not touch the ground when he appears in the big park today.

Bush arrives for a fund-raiser at a restaurant in the park. That is indoors and he doesn't have to worry about his feet there. But he has to go over ground to an administration building where he is to meet with families of 9/11 victims. After that, he has to go over more ground to get to the site of a memorial to the victims.

And all I could think of was this guy.

"Send me back my copy of Beaches"

Sometimes I read my junk mail, just for the amusement value. This piece came in today:

Hey Mark,

I hope your month has been doing better than mine. Got into a bit of a mess, and well, it's been killing me. Snapped my knees when rollerblading down the steep hill by your apartment, I wondered why you have not heard. Anyway, I had to begin taking these meds that are an leg and a leg in the wallet. My brother in law in New Jersey sent me this place.

(SITE WITHHELD)


stuff:anything else, I can get it from there, since they have anything I could need. Can you do me a favor and send me back my copy of Beaches? I am just sitting on the couch taking what the hospital ordered and just playing video games. Take care, talk to you really soon.

Big hugs,

Lisa

I sure hope Lisa gets her copy of Beaches back from her gay friend Mark.

9/11 images said inappropriate by voters

Unbelievable oversight. Don't B***'s marketing people test these things before they release them?

Undecided voters, by a 2-1 margin, feel it was inappropriate for President Bush's re-election campaign to use images from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in a television commercial, according to a poll released Friday.

Maybe the ad will help them decide.

Congressional Republicans Gut American Intelligence

Turns out that Republicans ended up carving more than twice as much from the 1995 intelligence budget as B*** is now accusing Kerry of doing. Here's B*** on Kerry:

In his campaign speech Monday, Bush said that in 1995, "two years after the [first] attack on the World Trade Center, my opponent introduced a bill to cut the overall intelligence budget by one-and-a-half billion dollars. His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war."

And here's the reality:

Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

Heh. They got pictures on the gal-durn Internet thingy.

From here.

Coffin? Nail.

Once again, we're way past right-left and into right-wrong territory here. Someone please convince me that there aren't a lot of Republicans hoping secretly for the ouster of this band of idiots.

WASHINGTON - The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.

November, here we come...

UPDATE: By the way, isn't lying to Congress a crime?

Damn.

Salon.com News | California Supreme Court halts marriages

Lockyer and the conservative Alliance Defense Fund said the court's action was urgently needed because thousands of newly married gays might otherwise think they enjoy the same rights granted other married couples...

Can't have that.

Things Not to do on the Internet, Part 3

Have a link on your presidential re-election website that reads, "Read why, every day, more people support President Bush!"

He's been our president for 3-plus years now. Shouldn't they already support him?

Things Not to Do on the Internet, Part Deux (I'm not lazy yet)

Create a make-your-own-Bush-Cheney-'04-slogan website. At least not so long as people like Wonkette exist.

UPDATE: You can no longer make your own slogan by typing something in. Now you can only select from a pre-determined set of groups that might like to see B*** re-elected. I'm not on that list.

Knight Ridder Rules. AP Sucks.

Columbia Journalism Review can take AP apart any way it wants for its administration hackery. I'll take Knight Ridder any day.

Bush's State of the Union Address Causes Congress to Spring Into Action!

Stopping children from being left behind? No. Damn.

Senators call for baseball to toughen policy on steroids

Heh.

WASHINGTON - When the Bush campaign asked James McKinnon to co-chair its veterans steering committee in New Hampshire - a job he held in 2000 - the 56-year-old Vietnam veteran respectfully, but firmly, said no.

"I basically told them I was disappointed in his support of veterans," said McKinnon, who served two tours in Vietnam with the Coast Guard. "He's killing the active-duty military. ... Look at the reserves call-ups for Iraq, the hardships. The National Guard - the state militia - is being used improperly. I took the president at his word on Iraq, and now you can't find a single report to back up or substantiate weapons of mass destruction."

KR Washington Bureau | 03/10/2004 | Bush alienating some military voters who helped him win in 2000

Again I ask...

Has the B*** administration done even one right thing since "Mission Accomplished?

Amateur Celebrities Pick a Movie and Join In

Okay, I'm so all over this it's scary.

This is why I honestly think there will be a democratic blow-out in November

This is the worst presidency in the history of my 39 years (some historians say it's the worst in the history of the U.S, but I don't know enough about, say, Millard Fillmore to confidently make that statement), and I don't mean that in a conservative-bashing way; I mean that in a stupidity-bashing way.

B*** and Co. (the Mayberry Machiavellis) have subverted all policy to politics. The result has been a cascade of real, definable, understandable negatives in all our lives (deficits, job losses, the failure to secure Iraq post-war). So many of our current problems are not left-right oriented, and so many are directly pinnable on Administration choices (I won't use the word "policies!"), that I honestly don't believe B*** can win.

But I will hand one thing to B***: his complete disavowal of policy as one of the (chief?) tools of politics has proven that policy matters; that what a government chooses to do makes a difference. A Gore presidency (ironically, considering his reputation as a policy wonk) would never have done that.

This is good and apropos.

Now, the Search for the Next Diva of Domesticity

Now, the Search for the Next Diva of Domesticity

I would like to nominate J Lo.

Heh.

B*** is only up by 3 points in solid red states (states that went for him by over 5 points in 2000) and is down by 16 points in "swing states" (states decided by 5 points or less in 2000).

One thing is for sure...Bush will have to go negative in three...two...one...

Fun.

I like Pelosi's Balls

Newtering DeLay is Dems' aim

I'm amazed and heartened at the amount of solidarity the Dems are showing. They must really, really, really, really not like B*** very much.

For the next few weeks...

I'm working four jobs, so I'll be able to spend less time here. Not that anyone cares, but still...

I'll try to update my chart weekly (though I've missed this week's installment; it's coming) and I'll post articles I read with some comments, but that's about it.

RNC and Moveon.org

The RNC is warning TV stations not to run ads:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying for them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law.

Now, okay. The jury is out on ads by these new groups like Moveon.org. The FEC is working its way through the issue right now, and might rule against them (though the head of the FEC is pro leaving them alone).

But, c'mon. The Republican National Committee? Couldn't they even create a shallow veneer of independence on this one?

Sheesh. The Republicans are way off their game.

UPDATE: Beyond the snarkiness, I have a couple more thoughts on this. First of all, the RNC can't possibly think that an independent (or even an owned-and-operated), local station would be prosecuted because it aired something that later turned out to be against campaign finance rules. If anyone were to suffer, it would be Moveon itself. So it's clearly a ploy.

But beyond that, it seems that this letter might be hinting at a new Republican strategy born of the post-Janet Jackson media skittishness. Frankly, I have been surprised at the depth of antipathy toward the broadcast media since Jackson's stunt. But as recently as last night I figured it was just an election-year wedge issue for the Republicans to trot out (they love trashing Hollywood and making the Democrats squirm). Now I'm thinking it might actually be part of a grander strategy of making station owners so gun-shy (which they certainly are) that they will flinch at any hint of impropriety.

Any local media outlet, whether independently owned or owned by a network, will be extremely cautious about raising any political hackles, what with the FCC actually threatening to pull licenses. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to see half the stations who were planning on running Moveon's adds pull them.

Which is hideous, of course. But consequential.

Someone Oughta Package This and Sell It as a Snack.

"Moblogging." Not when a group of angry guys in flannel starts cutting down trees. Instead, it's when people take pictures with their cell phones and immediately send them to a picture blog site.

Huh. Can't think of anything useful to do with this technology that doesn't involve porn. Apparently, this is the best anyone's come up with, and she got in trouble trying to do it.

Wake me up when phones can take movies and immediately send them to a website. Probably in about a year.

UPDATE: Okay, the article says some phones can take movies at 1-2 frames per second now. I didn't read the last paragraph. Sue me. And don't wake me up until the phones get up to at least 12 frames per second.

When You Consider...

...this (from The Book on Bush):

In one...case, Bush & Co. intervened at the precise moment that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was set to consider once again lowering acceptable blood-lead levels in response to new scientific evidence. The Administration rejected nominee Bruce Lanphear and dumped panel member Michael Weitzman, both of whom previously advocated lowering the legal limit. Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson appointed William Banner--who had testified on behalf of lead companies in poison-related litigation--and Joyce Tsuji, who had worked for a consulting firm whose clients include a lead smelter. (She later withdrew.) Banner and another appointee, Sergio Piomelli, were first contacted about serving on the committee not by a member of the Administration but by lead-industry representatives who appeared to be recruiting favorable committee members with the blessing of HHS officials.

And add this:

Lead poisoning in children can damage the nervous system, limit IQ and cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems. At very high levels, lead can lead to coma, convulsions, even death.

And then just a touch of this:

Under the federal Clean Air Act, EPA was required to set emission standards for small [municipal waste combustors; these facilities emit significant levels of lead] that, at a minimum, matched the performance of the cleanest units now in operation. But in December 2000, EPA issued standards that flunked that test. Rather than requiring all MWC to match the performance of the best units, they gave a federal blessing to the continued operation of the dirtiest units.

Okay, okay, but maybe add a pinch of Washington D.C.'s current problem, where lead contamination in homes was found at up to 3200x (yep, thirty-two hundred times) the EPA's limit.

Then taste. Mmmm..good, but still needs a little:

The severity of lead contamination in the District's water reveals serious weaknesses in the federal testing program and raises the prospect that other cities may have similar, undiscovered problems, according to federal officials, scientists and engineers.

Now you've got a brew.

But one question: given all of the above, if you were gutting the EPA, and you were running for re-election pretending you weren't, would you call one of your new campaign ads "Lead?"

Question.

President Bush's day-old reelection advertising campaign generated criticism and controversy yesterday, as relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes charged that television commercials using images from the attacks were exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

The reaction to the ads put Bush campaign officials on the defensive on a day in which they had hoped to have the political spotlight to themselves after months in which media attention focused on the Democratic candidates and their criticisms of the president. The ads quickly became a political issue, with the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee firing salvos over them.

Has the B*** marketing team done one thing right since the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco?

Honestly, if you can think of one, post it in the comments section or e-mail me.

Things That Make My Head Explode.

Okay, you try to wrap your head around this paragraph:

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation [before the war] was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

(Because Zarqawi's camp, which lay in U.S./Kurdish controlled Iraqi territory and outside Hussein's control, was being sold to the American public as proof that Hussein was in league with terrorists.)

It's a damn shame these people can't vote in November.

Cute.

Sydney Blumenthal is calling the religious right "theocons." His newest column talks about their differences with the neocons.

Even These Guys.

Even those wacky Oregonians would support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage if only the Senate would waste some more time.

But for now, not so much.

Confusing Quote of the Day

From an AP article about the gay marriage amendment:

‘‘The chances (of passing an amendment) are getting better the more the American people find out," said [Texas Republican Senator John]Cornyn, who held a hearing in a Judiciary subcommittee on the issue Wednesday. And, he added, ‘‘we should not waste time."

Excuse my parse-imony, but surely if "the more the American people find out" the more pro-amendment they are, then they should waste time. I mean, by this reasoning eventually everyone will know about the amendment and there will be 100% support behind it.

Right?

Gary Aldrich

Conservative commentator and (allegedly?) former FBI agent Gary Aldrich is calling for John Kerry to release his FBI files. According to newsmax.com, Aldrich wants the files released in order "to bring some clarity to what is otherwise a very hazy explanation and description of Senator Kerry's activity, both in Vietnam and in the U.S. after he returned."

IN VIETNAM?

Yep. Here's what Aldrich has to say about that in an essay in Conservative Truth [sic]:

In the debate about [whether George W. Bush or John Kerry] has given more to his country, no evidence has been more emotionally persuasive than Senator Kerry’s own claims of war heroism. One basis for this assertion is that while serving in Vietnam, Kerry showed great courage in leaping off his boat to attack and kill a wounded North Vietnamese soldier.

Evidence suggests the Vietnamese soldier had previously been wounded by a 50-caliber round. Veteran friends of mine tell me if a person is hit by a 50-caliber round, it is highly unlikely they could continue to be a threat, because of the hydro-shock associated with the impact of the round. I am assured this is true regardless of where the enemy was hit.

I know from my own FBI training that certain high-powered rounds can destroy vital organs and blow away entire limbs – due to this same hydro-shock factor. Kerry’s claims that he saved his fellow soldier’s lives by taking the life of the wounded Vietnamese fighter now lie in reasonable doubt.

Also, Kerry’s ardent fans clamor over the Purple Hearts he received for each of his several wounds. What is not widely known is that even a minor wound can qualify for a Purple Heart, and a combination of Purple Hearts can be the basis for reassignment to a safer post. Kerry did, in fact, take a safer post after accepting his war medals.

Other veterans tell me they didn’t even put in for Purple Hearts, because they did not want to be transferred home unless they were seriously wounded. These veterans didn’t want to leave their buddies behind just to seek the safety of distance from the battle.

In total, it appears Kerry was in-country less than five months. Yet some prisoners of war served more than seven years and had many serious wounds.

I don't really have anything else to say about this, except "it has begun."

The Meaning of Marriage

I have seen the Light and have realized that this nation needs to return to its Christian roots when defining marriage.

Henceforth, I will devote some time each day (probably not very much, honestly) to getting my legislators to propose an amendment that will implement the following Biblical rules on marriage (from The Bible, Deuteronomy 22):

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Sorry, non-virginal single women. Looks like God hates you as much as he hates the homos. Don't blame me.

"Symbol of Failure."

From an article in today's Salon.com (subscription required):

Some of the 9/11 families wonder why Bush would want to shine a spotlight on 9/11 at all, since they insist it highlights a massive breakdown of his government to prevent the attack. "It's a symbol of failure," Pototari says. "The president is charged with defending this country, and literally nothing was done during the two hours of attack to defend the county. I've never been able to understand how Republicans have turned this tragedy into a victory."

I've always wondered why so many people have given this Administration a pass on all their bullshit. Doesn't the buck stop at B***'s desk? Honestly, why don't more people wonder where their leader's sense of responsibility is?

Another Case of Senatorial Ballism.It's Good News Tuesday.

A bill that would have provided immunity against lawsuits to gun manufacturers was defeated today after Dems successfully inserted "poison pills" into the bill. The pills?

• Extension of the existing assault weapon ban
• Closing a loophole regarding background checks at gun shows

Sound like horrible infringements on your Second Amendment rights? Well, they're not. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, not to individuals. And it also turns out that the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case in which this ruling was made. So, repeat after me:

THERE IS NO SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS FROM GUN CONTROL LAWS.

At Least in San Francisco...

...Newsome illegally issued licenses before performing his same-sex weddings. In New Paltz, New York, not so much.

Good Riddance!

No tears shed by me:

Marge Schott passes away
By Todd Lorenz / MLB.com

SARASOTA, Fla. -- Reds minority owner Marge Schott passed away at Cincinnati's Christ Hospital on Tuesday. She was 75.

According to published reports, Schott checked into the hospital on Feb. 9 due of complications from a cold.

And I hope they got her little dog, too.

Joseph Wilson Book

All I could get (via Calpundit) off the Publisher's Weekly website without registering, but enough to be tantalizing:

Abstract: The much-awaited May book from nuclear expert Joseph Wilson will disclose who in the White House he says leaked information that led to the outing of his wife as a CIA agent, PW has learned.

That's definitely going on next week's update.

What a Crock

The Hill is reporting that a former aide to Senator Grassley has come forward with information that supports a Republican contention that it was easy to get into the Democrats' files.

Because of that, findings in the Senate file-stealing probe have been delayed.

Uh huh, yeah, and? I mean, the ease with which the files were stolen is not in question. So how is this more than a delaying tactic?

My Chart. Updated.

Not a lot going on this week overall, but I've taken the Perle things off (he resigned from the government), and added a couple of documents that might crop up during the election.

Here's the link.

Take That, Christina

(From The Weekly World News):

A White House source says President Bush has reacted "not unfavorably" to a suggestion from [pop star] Britney [Spears] fans that she be named ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the late Princess Diana made a lot of friends by speaking out passionately against land mines.

"We understand Britney fans when they say their fave star needs greater recognition of her talents, and we also see that she has untapped potential as a global ambassador of goodwill," the source continues.

"We believe her outgoing personality and stunning good looks could help bring peace and prosperity to that troubled region while showing people the advantages of the American way.

The article continues, archly...

"The only thing stopping the president from making the appointment today is that lesbian kiss Britney and Madonna shared on national television last fall. Conservative Republicans weren't too keen on that, particularly those from the religious right.

"But in the final analysis, I believe he's going to make the move, because he knows that if he doesn't do something to please her fans, the Democrats will."

Washington insiders also point out that Bush and Britney share a common bond -- they don't sound all that smart when they talk.

"They both tend to come across as inarticulate when they speak openly and off the cuff, even though both are geniuses when it comes to manipulating the public," says one observer.

Brilliant.

Holocaust Denial

Okay this might be very touchy, so I apologize in advance. But ever since The Passion of the Christ came out, I've been reading columns and reviews that talk first about Holocaust denial and then about anti-Semitism as though the two are, if not the same thing, then a priori linked.

So I'm going to ask a question: Is it possible that someone can believe the Holocaust didn't exist and not hate Jews?

What about Fred Leuchter?

Blog Eat Blog

I try not to link to other blogs here (see Incestuous Amplification*), but I have to in this case, because not only does the post contain a fascinating and frightening conversation from CNN (about the history and current state of Social Security but, no, really, it's interesting), it also has a hilarious Matrix summation of our world today.

Go.

------------------
* Incestuous Amplification (from Jane's Defense Weekly): A condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation.

All Newspeak, All the Time

That's become the B*** administration's motto. In an article about Newspeak's appearance in the administration's talk on science, we find out that:

[T]he phrases "sound science" and "peer review" don't necessarily mean what you might think. Instead, they're part of a lexicon used to put a pro-science veneer on policies that most of the scientific community itself tends to be up in arms about. In this Orwellian vocabulary, "peer review" isn't simply an evaluation by learned colleagues. Instead, it appears to mean an industry-friendly plan to require such exhaustive analysis that federal agencies could have a hard time taking prompt action to protect public health and the environment. And "sound science" can mean, well, not-so-sound science.

Here's a loose attempt at a glossary of B***'s Newspeak. You can add to it, but only if you register (for free) at the site.

I Wish the Internet was Invented When I was a Kid

Damn you Al Gore for being so late with your invention! Otherwise, I could have found out from the US Government that rock stars:

What these workers do

A rock musician may compose, arrange, and play music. This can be done either alone or as part of a group. Additionally, they sing in record studios and on stage. They also perform on television and in movies.

Not all their work is performing for audiences. They also make records and CD's. All musicians spend a lot of time practicing and rehearsing.


What the job is like

Rock musicians record songs and music videos in sound studios. They also appear "live" on radio and television. Rock musicians and groups often go on concert tours to big cities in the U.S. They sometimes perform in major cities around the world. This requires a lot of travel. They often perform at night and on weekends. All this can be tiring.

Rock musicians work with a lot of different people. These include people in the music business, such as other musicians and road crews. They have to deal with sponsors and backers. They rely on agents to find them jobs. They need people to market them. They also work with movie stars and other famous people.

Rock musicians most often work indoors, but some may perform in outdoor concerts. The many hot lights used on stage can be uncomfortable. Rock music is very loud and causes hearing loss. There can be danger from fans that become excited. Also, rock stars may be around people who use drugs.

Many musicians find only part-time work or are unemployed between performances. They often work other jobs while waiting for their next performance.

The life of a rock musician is not a quiet one. Many jobs are in New York, Los Angeles, or Nashville. These cities are where entertainment and record studios are most often found.


Jobs

Musicians, singers, and related workers held about 240,000 jobs in 2000. However, rock musicians made up only a tiny portion of all musicians.


Preparing for the job

To be a rock musician, you must have natural music talent. People who become musicians often learn an instrument at an early age. Some of the most popular rock instruments are the electric guitar, keyboard, and drums. It helps any musician to learn to play more than one instrument. Many songwriters now write music on computers, so these skills might be handy. Also, skills in song writing, singing, or dancing may help to make your rock band popular.

School choirs and musicals provide good early vocal training. Also, rock musicians can gain good practice playing in a school community band, or with a group of friends. It helps to grab every chance to appear in front of others. You may be able to perform at weddings or other events.

Although voice training helps most singers, including rock musicians, creating or copying a popular style of music is likely to determine the success of a band. Rock musicians have to be able to go on stage in front of lots of people.

The future

Competition for all musician jobs is keen. That is especially true for rock musicians. Talent alone is no guarantee of success. The glamour and very high earnings in this job attract many people. You need a lot of endurance. You must also have good luck. Very few people earn enough money to support themselves as rock musicians.

The number of jobs for musicians should grow about as fast as the average for all occupations through 2010. But most will not be rock musicians. Almost all new jobs will be in other music occupations, including orchestras and music teachers. Many jobs will be to replace others who leave because they cannot earn enough.

Pay

Earnings depend on how popular a performer is. Half of all musicians earned between $19,590 and $59,330 a year in 2000. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $13,250. The highest 10 percent made more than $88,640. But musicians often have to hold down other jobs (known as "day jobs") while they're building up their careers. The most successful rock stars can make much more than the earnings listed here.

You can also find information for kids on being a Disk [sic] Jockey, Dancer, Photographer, Cartoonist, and (what every child wants to be when he/she grows up) an Archivist/Curator.

God bless the US Government. Giving hope to children nationwide.

Birds Do It, Bees Do It...

...Even people in northern New York state do it:

Feb. 27, 2004 | NEW PALTZ, N.Y. (AP) -- Up to a dozen gay couples began exchanging wedding vows on the steps of village hall Friday in a spirited ceremony that opened another front on the growing national debate over gay marriage.

Officiating was Jason West, the 26-year-old Green Party mayor in this village 75 miles north of New York City, who joined Gavin Newsom of San Francisco as the country's only mayors to marry same-sex couples.

"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation," West said.

Ted Kennedy Looks Down, Suddenly Discovers He Has Balls Not Your Father's Bleeding-Heart Liberal

From The Hill:

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) has asked his staff to put together a case that he hopes will prove that President Bush’s recess appointment of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the U.S. Court of Appeals was unconstitutional.

At issue is whether the 10-day period when Congress was away constituted a “recess” in which such appointments are provided for in the Constitution.

I like these new, non-squishy Democrats.

The Feel-Good Web Article of My Blog Today

I like it when it makes me smile and when the word "laconically" is used.

"There is a very heightened sense of optimism of winning the presidency and winning back the House," says House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "It is palpable. We are more optimistic and energized, and that has to do with the president's decreasing credibility."

"'Tis true, 'tis true," said one leadership aide laconically, as if she could hardly believe that it was actually happening.

Some of the reasons are obvious. "You need look no further than the amount of excitement, the size of the turnout in the Democratic primaries, to understand why were excited," says Brad Woodhouse, who works for New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Who would have thought that after the midterm that Democrats would be excited about anything?"

Go.

Irony of the Day

From today's WorldNetDaily main page:

Rush Limbaugh warns free speech threatened
Says conservative views on radio could be labeled 'indecent' if Dems in charge

Howard Stern booted off air
Clear Channel Radio suspends host to protect listeners from indecency

Stern, of course, was taken off the radio after saying he was going to fight Bush's re-election and work for the democrat, and after saying he'd probably be fired this year.

"From dying pets to terrorists"

From presidential prayer team dot org:

Thank God we have a President
who grieves when his dog dies.
It's good to know our leader feels
the pain we've felt inside.
His house is white and bigger, yet
his cares are much the same
as those we deal with in our homes
including guilt and shame.

This one who once was bound by booze
has known a parent's ache
when teenage children cross the line
and make the same mistake.
Be near our brother, Father God
in all that he must do.
From dying pets to terrorists,
like us, this man needs You.
In Jesus' name. Amen

I figured they'd get around to it.

Watch Out

If you're my friend, are left-of-center and have a birthday falling before I forget all about this website.

Man, Clinton SUCKS, dude.

Now that it's been proven that Bill Clinton started the recession and caused 9/11, it turns out he's also leading the outsourcing craze. According to Newsmax:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – While Democrat presidential candidates complain that too many jobs are going overseas, the last Democrat to hold the office is having a Scottish firm build nearly $1 million worth of cabinets for his presidential library.

The foundation building the $160 million Bill Clinton Presidential Library says limited choices forced it to look overseas for the specialized museum cases.

Skip Rutherford, the foundation's president, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he and others involved in the project had "worked hard to make sure that Arkansans and then Americans received the work."

Nonetheless, exhibit fabricators Maltbie Associates of Mount Laurel, N.J., subcontracted the manufacturing of 85 glass display cases to Netherfield Visuals of Dalkeith, Midlothian, Scotland. The contract was worth about $936,000.

Rutherford and library construction manager Jonathan Semans said they were not aware of any other foreign subcontractors. But they said they had not compiled a list and could not be sure.

Scottish artisans are stealing the food off of little children's plates. They should be ashamed.

Quote of the Day

From some odd board or other:

you know what i hope? i hope the passion of the christ comes out, and its like just jesus for two hours talking about how much he loves reesee's pieces. sort of like ET only sacriligious. the name of the movie's the passion OF the CHRIST. i think his passion might just have been reesee's pieces. "i like to nibble off the chocolate and then eat the peanut butter in one go." that sort of thing.

Me too.

Perle's Resignation

Everyone's talking about it. The best rundown I've read about the possible reasons is here. Here's the article that got it all started.

And here's the part that struck me that no one has mentioned yet (though it's probably only a matter of hours before there's an update to Slate's "Richard Perle Libel Watch"):

[Perle's] attorney, Samuel Abeday, told ABCNEWS today Perle is quitting the board altogether so he can sue the news organizations that "falsely accused him of conflicts of interest."

Based on Slate's updates, by my accounting Perle is down to 13 days before the New Yorker and Seymour Hersh are off the hook.

Tick tock.

Someone Reads My Blog

Okay, probably not, but this is from today's L.A. Times and is what I said yesterday:

For the White House, the issue of same-sex marriage is a dicey political issue, pitting key constituencies — evangelical Christians and social conservatives — against an activist group of gay Republicans and their allies among Libertarians and moderate Republicans. In exit polls from the 2000 election, about 4 million Americans identified themselves as gay or lesbian; of those, about a quarter said they voted for Bush. Gay Republicans say, however, that it is not only their support Bush is risking, but that of their families and friends and like-minded conservatives.

If the number above is correct, that means 1 million gays and lesbians voted for Bush in 2000. That's not an insignificant number; of course, if these people are largely situated in states that already went Democratic in 2000 (California and New York anyone?), then it probably doesn't matter. On the other hand, I wonder where the conservative Christians are located. Gotta be already in safely red states, right?

I wonder what the electoral breakdown of this issue will be in swing states. I'm sure that question will be answered soon enough.

A Big Shout Out

Happy 72nd, Robert Novak.

A note to the presidentattorney general...nothing says "happy birthday and thanks" like immunity from prosecution.

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club, apparently, is being split by a question about whether immigration should be considered bad for the environment. Officially, the Sierra Club currently takes no position on immigration. But the organization is dealing with a faction, running for leadership positions in the club's spring elections, that wants to change that policy.

Apparently, many of the people who are trying to change the policy have joined the club recently and come from external anti-immigration groups.

This is a little bit alarming, especially if it turns out to be (as it seems) a coordinated, targeted attack. This article is worth a read. Here's more.

It's Not As If...

...the B*** administration has been particularly enthused about this whole "United States Constitution" thing anyway.

It's Time to Stop...

...linking all Republicans into some monolithic group. It is probably demonstrable that the Republican leadership has been better at stifling dissent among its disparate groups over the last 25 years than the Democratic leadership has, but that's not to say that the Republican party doesn't have disparate groups with distinct and contrary instincts and interests.

Probably for no better reason than that the Republicans have better party discipline, it has become fashionable to talk mindlessly about how this or that appeals to their "base."

Well I have news from the land of the obvious: traditional, economic conservatives are part of the Republican base, and religious fundamentalists are also part of the Republican base, and these two groups do not see eye to eye on the gay marriage constitutional amendment issue.

So. Can the Republican leadership hold its disparate groups together through November? Probably, but I'd say the chances are lower than they were a year ago.

I'm curious to find out.