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.

Andrew Sullivan on Gay Marriage.

Many are linking to Andrew Sullivan's passionate and righteous blog postings on the gay marriage issue. But here are the two sentences that struck me hardest:

They'd go this far for purely political reasons? I guess I really was naive.

I really doubt anyone who has followed the last three-plus years of politics can respond to this (okay, rhetorical) question with anything other than...

Well, duh.

"49% (Yankee). Barely into the Yankee category."

My mother would be ashamed.

Via Matthew Yglesias, test your vocabulary and pronunciation to determine your regional makeup.

"Entrepreneurs"

This word has popped up recently in Republican talking points, usually in reference to people the Democrats want to hurt by lifting the top tax brackets. It's become such a common refrain (Bush recently called astronauts "spatial entrepreneurs"), in fact, that it was obvious the Republicans are dissembling about something.

Apparently there's a real economic definition of the word, and the Republicans are pushing its boundaries in order to conjure up local people starting small businesses. In fact, according to today's Washington Post:

....Under Treasury's definition, both Bush and Vice President Cheney are members of the entrepreneurial class. In his 2002 tax return, the president reported $1,549 from rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations and trusts, including income from GWB Rangers Corp., a remnant of his days as co-owner of the Texas Rangers. Of the Cheney household's $1.2 million income, $238,682 was from business ventures within the White House's definition of small business.

Economists say the broad Republican definition of "small-business man" includes not only doctors, lawyers and management consultants but also chief executives who earn $3,000 renting out their chalets in Aspen or report $10,000 in speaking fees. An aide on the Joint Economic Committee conceded that the definition includes the army of accountants and consultants at such giant partnerships as KPMG LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, not the firms that "small business" brings to mind.

(Italics mine.) The article goes on to say:

"Less than 4 percent, as a matter of fact, of the small businesses and the farm returns in America are bringing in $200,000 or more," Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told Snow, confronting him with a chart on the tax rates paid by small businesses.

Pressed to respond, Snow replied: "You are asking me to comment on it, and I would like to think about it before I comment on it. The statistics we have -- I am trying to figure out how to reconcile them with the statistics you have."

In other words, just as "middle class tax relief" = "unsustainable tax cuts for the very wealthy" in Republ-o-speak, "entrepreneur" means "CEO."

Why am I not surprised?

Presidential Prayer Team

dot org.

What's in it this week:

Pray for the release of vital intelligence that will lead to the capture of Al Qaeda operatives and the arrest of Osama Bin Laden.

What's not in it this week (and is an oversight, I'm sure):

Pray for the soul of President Bush's dog, Spot, that he is sent to doggie heaven where he might look down upon us and tell us where Osama Bin Laden is hiding.

Good dog, Spot!

Chart Update: March 1

Ball	Status
Plame Investigation	2 possible indictments being handed down, both from VP's office.  This seems to be coming out in drips and drabs.   FEB 23 UPDATE: Apparently, Robert Novak was asked not to publish Plame’s name and was told that she was an undercover operative, but he did it anyway.   MARCH 1 UPDATE: A Democratic attempt to start a House investigation into the Plame affair was thwarted last week. Here's some information from the Voice of America: Congressional aides say majority Republicans are determined to prevent the CIA leak affair from being used, any more than it already has, as an election year issue by Democrats against President Bush. However, with a number of administration officials and aides, including an assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney, already interviewed or giving testimony, and former CIA analysts urging a separate congressional probe, Democrats have plenty of fuel with which to keep the issue burning in coming months.
Halliburton/Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR): Iraq related	Some news.  First they were paid too much for gas, and they're reimbursing us (and a criminal probe has been launched by DOD).  Then KBR sold way too much moldy food to the government and is reimbursing us.   FEB 23 UPDATE PART 1:  The overcharge for the gasoline imports seems to trace back to the Kuwaiti government.  The Kuwaiti parliament has begun an investigation.   FEB 23 UPDATE PART 2: According to Reuters, the Pentagon has confirmed that it, too, has launched a criminal investigation: The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of the Inspector General's office, is investigating allegations on the part of KBR of fraud, including the potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Baghdad by a KBR subcontractor," said a Pentagon spokeswoman. MARCH 1 UPDATE: After the Wall Street Journal reported that Kellogg Brown & Root's cost control system is antiquated, Henry Waxman and John Dingell have requested that Halliburton turn over an internal KBR report that was used as the basis for the WSJ article (from the Houston Chronicle).
Halliburton: Nigerian bribery	FEB 23 UPDATE: Nigeria, the French and the U.S. are all investigating this now.  I've combined all this under one roof.
Halliburton: Did I mention Iran?	Oh yeah.  They might be using offshore companies to make deals with Iran, in contravention of US law. FEB. 11 UPDATE: Treasury is apparently looking into the matter. FEB. 23 UPDATE: So is the Senate Finance Committee.
Energy Taskforce: Cheney and Scalia (sittin’ in a tree)	First we find out the two are snuggling hunting together.  Now the LA Times reports that Cheney can’t get it for free.  This one should resolve soon, since the Supremes will hear the case this month (February).   FEB. 23 UPDATE: The first litigant in the case has (finally) weighed in: The Sierra Club has asked Scalia to recuse himself.   MAR. 1 UPDATE: The Supremes have referred the recusal request from Sierra Club to Scalia. Apparently, if Scalia recuses himself, the Court might end up in a 4-4 tie, which would go against Cheney, since the Federal court ruled against him.
Energy Taskforce: document release	Headed for Supreme Court.  Decision expected in June.   MAR. 1 UPDATE: Oral arguments expected in April.
Senate staff stealing Dems’ files	Frist “resigned” someone, hoping to shut everyone up.  The resigned claims that nothing illegal went on; there are counterclaims that something illegal DID go on.   FEB. 23 UPDATE: This is getting big.  Thousands of documents over a period of a year +.  A decision on whether there was anything illegal going on is expected any day now.   MAR. 1 UPDATE: Apparently the probe's findings are due today.
9/11 commission	Recently given a couple of extra months, which puts the report end-of-July and the leaks June-ish.   FEB. 23 UPDATE: Commission wants to know why it can’t see documents that were given to Bob Woodward.  Good question.   MAR. 1 UPDATE: It was a comic week for this item. B*** claimed he wanted to give the commission extra time. Hastert declined. Then a couple of Senators decided that they would hold up a highway bill if Hastert didn't change up his mind. Hastert changed up his mind. I'm sure B*** is relieved (ahem).
Iraqi intelligence commission: American	Give it a couple of weeks to see what’s going to be investigated and who's going to be doing the investigating.   UPDATE: Never mind about the American commission on intelligence failures. It's being run by one of Clinton's pursuers, and it won't be looking into how intelligence was used, just into how it was gathered.   FEB 13 UPDATE: Never mind the never mind. Sure, the President's panel isn't going to do shit, but now it looks like the Senate Intelligence Committee, already looking at intelligence failures, is also going to look into how the Administration used the intelligence it received.   FEB. 23 UPDATE: Apparently we’re still giving money to the Iraqi National Congress, the group of hucksters that convinced the Administration to go to war in the first place.
Iraqi intelligence commission: British	Probably won’t be a huge issue here, but might put some extra wobble on the American commission’s ball.
Bush’s National Guard records	Will they release the full set?  Is this burning itself out too early?  Probably, but there is a book coming out…check back in March.   FEB. 23 UPDATE: Petered out for now, without any new information.
Nick Smith Medicare bribe	House Dems considering starting a formal investigation.  Could lead to bribery charges.   MAR. 1 UPDATE: House Ethics Committee is investigating.
Iraqi occupation	Lest we forget…everyone seems to agree that the timetable set out by the Administration is bogus and will have to slip.  The question is, how far?  Bush needs his “Occupation Accomplished” photo op.  Will he get it?
NEW! Tom DeLay / Texans for a Republican Majority investigation	Grand jury investigating money laundering to a PAC DeLay founded.
Richard Perle (okay, he’s deserving of his own list, as is Cheney, but there are only 24 hours in a day)	Being investigated by Hollinger about non-disclosure of bonuses.  Currently an internal review, but this has SEC ramifications as well.   Aw, shucks. Perle either resigned or was fired from the Defense Policy Board, so I guess I'm going to drop him from this list.
NEW! Pentagon document discussing the dangers of global warming	The British newspaper The Observer did an article about this last week, in which they said that "scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign."
NEW! NSC document directing the NSC to work with Cheney's Energy Taskforce in setting policy between "the review of operational policies towards rogue states" and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields."	As reported by The New Yorker; when the article's author was on NPR's Fresh Air, she indicated that the report might find its way into Democratic hands.

 

 

 

More Broad Smiles

Coming from me on the gay wedding issue. In today's LA Times (calendar section, subscription required):

San Francisco's historic decision to sanction same-sex civil marriage has been rippling through the city in ways that have been not only sweeping but also unanticipated and at times awkward — even here. Though same-sex couples have long been integral to the Bay Area's cultural fabric, and though the legality of the marriages has been legally challenged, residents gay and straight say the official-ness of the recent ceremonies and the repeated refusal of judges to halt them has made the marriages feel far more real than anyone expected. The result has thrust this famously cosmopolitan city into a state of social confusion regarding the new do's and don'ts of its civic experiment.

There is the new peer pressure. Same-sex couples who haven't committed say they are suddenly being forced into "the talk" about where their relationships are heading. Unattached gays and lesbians say the national media attention has made them lie low, lest the cameras show a love that's less than Ozzie-and-Harriet perfect. So many weddings have happened so fast that even close friends aren't sure who in their social circle is and is not married.

There is the new etiquette. Conversations all over the city have overnight become studded with shy, blushing references to "my partn-- oops! I mean my wife" or "my, uh, husband." Some couples have announced their devotion so many times — coming out to their families, taking out domestic partnership papers, exchanging rings at commitment ceremonies — that one of the running jokes at City Hall is the happy couple with no idea when their anniversary is.

There is the new queer-eye-for-straight-families. Heterosexual parents who thought their young children were worldly enough, just by growing up here, are being peppered with questions many hadn't expected until their kids' adolescence, and that, in some cases, require refresher lessons in tolerance. "My [preschool] boy saw two guys getting married on the news, and I didn't know what to say — he ran into the kitchen yelling, 'Yuck!' " confessed one woman at a gathering of parochial school mothers.

Noted Pramprasert, who applauded the weddings and said she loved raising a daughter in such a diverse city: "She has friends in same-sex households, but when kids hear 'two mommies,' they just think, 'Yay, an extra mommy' — they don't think about what it means."

Or...

Other gay and lesbian San Franciscans say they have been taken aback at the kindness of heterosexuals, even beyond the Bay Area. U.B. Morgan, a 40-year-old sculptor who married his partner last week before the couple left to visit relatives with their 9-month-old baby, said that strangers at San Francisco International Airport guessed they were married and rushed to congratulate them. When they landed in Baltimore, he said, the United Airlines flight attendants went into the first-class cabin and returned with a bottle of wine as a wedding present.

"This stewardess went, 'How can you deny happiness?' " said Morgan, his voice thickening with emotion.

Or...

"Over the Valentine's weekend, when it first started, everyone was ebullient," said Derik Cowan, a 27-year-old sales clerk at a notions shop in the Castro. "But now you're starting to hear, 'Wait a minute.' We're under a microscope. We have to play this just right. We can't afford to be even a little bit imperfect — we can't afford even one couple who might pull a Britney Spears, going to City Hall and then, going, 'Oops! We didn't mean it!' "

That consideration, he said, plus the desire to wait until gay marriage was sorted out and legally tested, helped him and his partner decide against joining the rush to City Hall last week. Wouldn't it be awful, he said, "to end up being the first gay divorcé?"

I totally get the political expediency behind "civil unions not gay marriage" argument and before San Francisco started actually performing the damn ceremonies, I myself was convinced civil unions would have to suffice for now. But after seeing so many incredibly happy people on television and in pictures over the last couple of weeks, I've crossed over from agreeing with strategic decisions to truly understanding that this is a fundamental civil rights issue. I'm actually a little ashamed that I ever felt differently.

I don't know why this makes me so happy...

...since it doesn't involve gay marriage (or maybe it will eventually), but today's Salon.com gives a fantastic rundown of the rivalry between teen actresses Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan:

What happens when you combine the media's obsession with celebrity gossip and its desperate attempts to target an ever younger audience? One fairly perverse byproduct: obsession with teenage celebrity gossip.

Nothing exemplifies this better than the simmering rivalry between 16-year-old Hilary Duff ("Lizzy McGuire," "Cheaper by the Dozen") and 17-year-old Lindsay Lohan ("The Parent Trap," "Freaky Friday"). Think Davis and Crawford on training wheels.

Lohan's starring role in "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" (which opened this weekend at No. 2 at the box office) have provided an opportunity for the young actresses to go back in front of reporters to discuss their major meow-fest, or rather to deny it.

"There's never been any kind of feud," a spokesperson for Duff recently told the press.

Lohan apparently agrees, sort of. "I have no problem with her," she says of her fellow teen star in the current issue of Entertainment Weekly. But then she goes on to dis Duff ... and Duff's mother for getting involved in their off-screen battle.

What-ever. But, like, for those of you who want to know how these two have managed to cram such a big rivalry in such short careers, here's a brief history of their mutually profile-boosting mud match:

Before 2003: The two vie for parts at Disney. Lohan gets "The Parent Trap" in 1998. Duff lands the lead in "Lizzie McGuire," the hit TV show in 2001 -- and the movie by the same name in 2003. Then Lohan gets 2003's "Freaky Friday." Duff leaves Disney that same year.

April 2003: Lohan dates Aaron Carter -- brother of Backstreet Boy Nick Carter -- who starts two-timing her with Duff. Lohan finds out and, reportedly, is less than pleased.

"Lindsay wouldn't let me break up with her," Carter tells the Miami Herald. "The girls always take it so seriously, like we are getting married. I'm just playing."

"I didn't mean any harm if I dated him at the same time," Duff later says.

Aug. 4, 2003:At the premiere of Lohan's breakout film, "Freaky Friday," Duff, then 15, shows up with Chad Michael Murray, then 21, who played Lohan's boyfriend in the movie. Murray and Duff hold hands throughout the evening. "Maybe they're dating," Lohan says to People Magazine. "She's 15; he's 21. Best of luck to 'em: Demi and Ashton!"

The New York Daily News reports that following the premiere, the two are "frosty" toward each other at a Teen People party. Lohan also "barges into the spotlight" during an "Entertainment Tonight" interview with Duff.

Soon after, Duff claims she has given up dating to "focus on my career."

Dec. 14, 2003:At the premiere party for Duff's film "Cheaper by the Dozen," Duff spots Lohan and her entourage. Duff complains to her mother and her bodyguard, who try to physically remove Lohan from the premises.

"It was pretty amazing," a source tells the New York Post. "Here is this huge man trying to manhandle a 100-pound girl."

Lohan refuses to go, saying, "I am not leaving. I was invited. Why should I leave?"

Duff and Mom gripe to Fox executives, who reply that Lohan was invited, adding that if Duff doesn't like it, she's welcome to leave. She promptly does.

Lohan later has this to say about Duff: "I think I've met her, maybe, twice. It's like every single time I see her, she starts talking bad about me."

Susan Duff, Hilary's mother, later says she thought Lohan had egged her Range Rover a few weeks earlier. Lohan's people deny the egging.

Feb. 16, 2004: On MTV's "Total Request Live," while promoting "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen," Lohan is asked to "confess one thing about yourself right now."

Her reply: "I love you, Hilary Duff."

Feb. 17, 2004: In an interview with Lohan on "Good Morning America," Diane Sawyer broaches the topic of "the feud." Despite having blatantly used the publicity from the tiff to promote her movie, Lohan says she just wants to "let it go."

"I have no problems with anyone. And it's not necessary to go out of your way to try and take somebody down. I mean, she's doing great. And I'm, I'm a fan of hers. I mean, my sister loves her ... It's just unnecessary ... We were friends. It's silly ... It's kind of the reason why I wanted to finish high school early, because it's what you have to deal with in high school ... and it's just, come on. Let it go. You know what I mean? So I just wanted to clear it up."

Sawyer adds, "OK. So, we're gonna work on peace in the Middle East next because we feel we've really accomplished something here."

Feb. 19, 2004: For her New York Post column, gossip Cindy Adams asks Lohan about the feud. Lohan: "Ohhh, everyone makes more of this than there really is. It's that she doesn't like me or she must be jealous or something."

Cogent.

Pat Buchanan, whose isolationist politics I don't support, nevertheless has a cogent, well written thing or two to say about the B*** World Order; specifically, about its response to terrorism:

In the worst of terror attacks, we lost 3,000 people. Horrific. But at Antietam Creek, we lost 7,000 in a day’s battle in a nation that was one-ninth as populous. Three thousand men and boys perished every week for 200 weeks of that Civil War. We Americans did not curl up and die. We did not come all this way because we are made of sugar candy.

Germany and Japan suffered 3,000 dead every day in the last two years of World War II, with every city flattened and two blackened by atom bombs. Both came back in a decade. Is al-Qaeda capable of this sort of devastation when they are recruiting such scrub stock as Jose Padilla and the shoe bomber?

In the war we are in, our enemies are weak. That is why they resort to the weapon of the weak—terror. And, as in the Cold War, time is on America’s side. Perseverance and patience are called for, not this panic.

There is something very comforting about conservatives with internally consistent arguments; too many people we call conservative today are simply fascist opportunists, latching onto some conservative arguments in order to gain power.

(Buchanan even quotes Joshua Micah Marshall in this essay. Marshall must be blushing with pride.)

Reasons to Leave the Earth, Part 1

Apparently, the Pentagon has presented the White House with a dire warning about global warming, which the White House has, thus far, covered up. According to the British newspaper The Observer, among the Pentagon's findings are:

By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

The paper also says that the scientists who have access to the Pentagon's findings are considering giving them to Kerry to use against Bush.

I am the Royal Pain.

I don't know why I find this amusing, and I'm genuinely worried about what it might say about me (beyond the apparent fact that I'm a "Royal Pain"), but I do and I don't care.

At least not enough to not put it in my blog.

And yes, I am sitting next to my "Dieties and Demigods" D&D manual. What of it?

The AWOL Story has Gone...

...well, AWOL. No new information to be gleaned from those records, so until someone takes Garry Trudeau up on his offer, there's no news left to cover.

But maybe the damage has been done! As Ruy Teixeira points out, according to the latest Gallup Poll, when asked whether Bush and Kerry "Did Their Duty for the Country During the Vietnam War..."

Wait for it...

42% say Bush did, 40% say he didn't.
68% say Kerry did, 11% say he didn't.

Pretty big gap. Actually, all the military experience-related questions in this poll are interesting and worth a gander.

Unemployment Benefits

Am I:

1. Overly cynical


2. Ridiculously partisan


3. Silly


4. Right

For thinking that the reason unemployment benefits weren't extended is so that the unemployment percentage will look artificially low going into the you-know-what season? Even if it means real people will slip into real desperation? No one could be that hard-hearted and politically calculating, right?

Right?

When You Put it Like That...

Who could argue with such a thing?

"It is wrong to discriminate against any federal employee, or any employee, based on discrimination," Bloch said.

On the other hand, it is okay to pull information regarding homosexual discrimination off an internal government website, as long as the decision wasn't based on pulling information off an internal government website.

I think.

Sad News...

Bill Moyers is leaving PBS after the November election. He's going to write a book on Lyndon Johnson.

I TiVo NOW every Friday. Every Saturday afternoon when I sit down and watch it, I wonder why this show isn't on network television (ditto The News Hour). David Brancaccio is a surprisingly good interviewer (I used to watch him on a local L.A. show, Life and Times, and found him to be an annoying Republican), but he needs to stop mugging for the camera in his reaction shots.

Mr. Moyers, please do television one last service before you leave: teach Brancaccio how to edit an interview.

Bush Charged with Rape (of Science)

UPDATE: Calpundit, a much better writer than I am, has a much better post about this than I do, although he hasn't related it to the Yucca Mountain morass.

Before I began my blog, I tried writing down all the things the administration was doing that really, really pissed me off. Pissed me off in a bad-for-everyone-in-the-U.S.-or-even-the-world kind of way, not just a bad-for-Democrats kind of way. I really believe that many of the bad things B*** has done are non-partisan and apolitical in their badness. Which is to say, Republicans of a solid character (hello out there??) should be as angry as Democrats.

Eventually I gave up writing down scraps of information on sticky notes and decided to start this thing. My desk was covered with the little yellow things. I gathered them up and started going through them, categorizing, prioritizing. When I was done, I found that the thickest pile, and the thing I was most anxious and angry about, was B***'s treatment of science. Not just a scientist, but the entire field. Scientific process is something the adminstration sneers at. And this administration's attitude toward science is something the media has really dropped the ball on reporting, at least in any coherent way.

To illustrate my point, here's a partial list of things the administration has ruled on in contravention of broad scientific consensus:

• Global warming


• Stem cell research


• International AIDS and family planning


• Lead pollution levels in drinking water


• Mercury pollution levels in fish


• Abstinence education


• Endangered Species Act

Things have gotten so bad that the Union of Concerned Scientists yesterday issued a letter signed by 20 Nobel Laureates (60 scientists altogether), claiming, among other things:

...the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific findings at federal agencies that contradict administration policies; undermined the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominated underqualified individuals, or individuals with industry ties, to advisory panels; and disbanded some science advisory committees altogether.

So okay. It's 2004, an election year, and the press seems awakened to the possibilities of coherent criticism of the administrations. I am genuinely hopeful that this letter will spur some analysis in the mainstream press. Honestly.

But wait. There's more:

The nation's nuclear waste dump proposed for Nevada is poorly designed and could leak highly radioactive waste, a scientist who recently resigned from a federal panel of experts on Yucca Mountain told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Paul Craig, a physicist and engineering professor at the University of California-Davis, said he quit the panel last month so he could speak more freely about the waste dump's dangers.

So okay, the press does its bit and gets people skeptical about B***'s treatment of science. Fine. But, given its track record, do you think this administration will really back down from the Yucca Mountain dump simply because every scientist on the safety panel signed a letter saying it's unsafe? Given administration ties to the nuclear energy industry?

I'd love to think B*** would halt construction, but given its track record, I think it's far more likely that it'll convene another panel, made up of different scientists, some or all of whom will have ties to the nuclear energy industry.

And that thought, probably equal to any other anti-B*** thought I have, is my chief catalyst for trying to get this fucker out of office in the fall.

I thought it was just me.

From today's New York Times:

Mr. Hughes ranks his TiVo remote among the most important objects in his house because of the amount of time the device spends in his hand. "I don't think that you reach that level of simple elegance by accident,'' he said. "It's designed the way remotes should be designed."

When Big Posts Go Small. (REDACTED)

UPDATE: After giving this post some thought, I have decided that I never properly proved any relationship between people's literal Biblical views and what the Administration is getting away with. So I take it back! Perhaps when I've had a chance to think things through more completely, I'll re-post something more convincing. In the meantime, I'm going to post the 2nd half of my redacted post, re-edited so that I'm simply very angry about B***'s rape of science.

I had a huge post I was working my way through about why people's belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible is a very, very bad thing for this country. Then I read something that made my hair stand on end, so I'm just going to summarize:

It's bad because believing in a literal Bible is incompatible with believing in science. This is the whole evolution/creationism thing. And creationism/intelligent design/whatever stupid name they come up with next is silly and wrong. And when you spend your time believing things based on dogmatic religious doctrine instead of on the scientific doctrine of skepticism and query, your brain dies. And when your brain dies, the president gets to do stuff like ignore broad scientific consensus in multiple areas, including but definitely not limited to:

• Global warming


• Stem cell research


• International AIDS and family planning


• Lead pollution levels in drinking water


• Abstinence education


• Endangered Species Act

And on the note of how much industry-masturbation-passed-off-as-science the administration has gotten away with, things have gotten so bad that the Union of Concerned Scientists today issued a letter signed by 20 Nobel Laureates (60 scientists altogether), claiming, among other things:

...the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific findings at federal agencies that contradict administration policies; undermined the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominated underqualified individuals, or individuals with industry ties, to advisory panels; and disbanded some science advisory committees altogether.

Okay, I’m sure we can all say it in unison: “THIS IS BAD.” But wait. There's more:

The nation's nuclear waste dump proposed for Nevada is poorly designed and could leak highly radioactive waste, a scientist who recently resigned from a federal panel of experts on Yucca Mountain told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Paul Craig, a physicist and engineering professor at the University of California-Davis, said he quit the panel last month so he could speak more freely about the waste dump's dangers.

I've got nothing else, except to cross my fingers and hope that this time, in spite of all the accumulated evidence, that B*** does right by science. But if he doesn't, I'm going to start praying for the rapture.

The Daily Show

Is going to have to start handing out awards. A priceless line from today's administration press briefing:

Q -- how can you sell these [tax cutting] policies as creating jobs when, in fact, they haven't?

Thanks to Josh Marshall for pointing me in this direction.

"Conan's Apology a Bilingual Triumph"

Apparently Conan apologized to the French Canadians for the whole Triumph the Insult Comic Dog kerfluffle:

Conan O'Brien may be back in New York, but he's still working on his French.

Last night, on O'Brien's first show back in the Big Apple after his week of hosting from Toronto, the late-night talk-show host issued an apology on behalf of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

The nasty puppet pooch pooped all over Quebecers at their annual Winter Carnival in a controversial sketch on last Thursday's Late Night With Conan O'Brien.

After performing his usual monologue, O'Brien began his apology with the help of an interpreter who "translated" his comments into French:

O'BRIEN: "People of Quebec, I'm sorry."

TRANSLATOR: "People of Quebec, I'm an albino jackass."

O'BRIEN: "We meant no harm with our comedy piece the other night."

TRANSLATOR: "The other night, I wet the bed like a little girl."

O'BRIEN: "I was a stranger in a strange land and I was very insensitive."

TRANSLATOR: "I have a small penis."

O'BRIEN: "Quebec, your lively and rich culture is a treasure to Canada, and your unique heritage deserves only praise, not ridicule."

TRANSLATOR: "I have never known the touch of a woman and I never will."

O'BRIEN: "Again, please accept my heartfelt apologies."

TRANSLATOR: "Did I mention I have a small penis?"

Do you think this will help?

Equal Time.

I'll try to offset these things fairly, until I get lazy, or despondent, or...ecstatic?

In any case, here's Part 1 of Reasons to Love the U.S. It's a coincidence that the reason takes place in my home town (I think):

Two judges refused Tuesday to put an immediate halt to the parade of same-sex weddings at San Francisco City Hall, ensuring that gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed until at least the end of the week....

The line to get a marriage license has at times stretched through two floors of City Hall, out the front door and around three sides of the stately stone building. Gays and lesbians have come from around California and 22 other states, including Texas, Hawaii, Alaska and Florida....

This makes me incredibly happy. Even if Newsome is breaking the law, he's performing an act of civil disobedience (is it considered civil disobedience if the "disobedier" is MAYOR?), working for the greater good of equal protection.

Eating their Own.

Arlen Specter. 100% too liberal. (From the conservative group, "Club for Growth," which sounds more like a hair transplant society, but um, no.)

Background is that Senator Specter is in a Pennsylvania primary race with a much more conservative Republican, Pat Toomey. If Toomey wins the primary, he'll probably lose the election, so...and I never thought I'd say this...

HOORAY FOR CLUB FOR GROWTH!

Reasons to Leave the U.S., Part 1

From The Washington Times (I know, run by Moonies, but here's the ABC link and, sadly, the data are good)

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."

Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah's ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

The poll, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points, was conducted Feb. 6 to 10 among 1,011 adults....

The poll found that 75 percent of Protestants believed in the story of creation, 79 percent in the Red Sea account and 73 percent in Noah and the ark.

Among evangelical Protestants, those figures were 87 percent, 91 percent and 87 percent, respectively. Among Catholics, they were 51 percent, 50 percent and 44 percent.

On the bright side, 0% of me believes the Bible is literally true.

Prayer Part 2

Pray that God will powerfully use the new film, The Passion of the Christ, to open the hearts and minds of many in our country who have never considered the life and death of Jesus Christ. Pray for churches to be wise as they explain the film to those seeking greater understanding.

At least they're not praying for a $30 million opening weekend gross.

Prayer Part 1

The Presidential Prayer Team apparently didn't get the memo about how everyone was laughing about Bush's State of the Union Address. Included in this week's prayer:

Pray for Attorney General John Ashcroft as he works to stop the use of steroids which can have debilitating effects on athletes. Pray that athletes at every level will spurn sterioid [sic] use.

Okay, last one.

From the same poll:

Independents who will vote for Bush
Now: 38%
12/2003: 51%

Independents who will vote for Democratic candidate
Now: 48%
12/2003: 31%

This is news unqualified in its goodness.

I'm not sure what this means...

But I think it's significant. From analysis of the latest CBS opinion poll:

In a recent television interview, Bush called himself a “war President,” willing to make the tough decisions that role requires -- a role that he has been placed in by world events. But in this poll, most Americans say that Bush has chosen to become a war President, rather than having been forced to become one. 51 percent say the choices Bush makes have caused him to be a war President, while 40 percent say Bush is a war president because world events have forced him into that role.

Democrats and Republicans disagree as to the reason Bush is a war president. 73 percent of Democrats say Bush is a war president because of the choices he makes, while 68 percent of Republicans think world events have forced him to be one. Also, women are more likely than men to say Bush’s own choices have made him a war president.

Oh and here's something else of interest:

Of those who think the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence to build support for the war, 34 percent say Bush has more honesty and integrity than most people in public life, but three-quarters of those who think the administration interpreted pre-war intelligence accurately say Bush has more honesty and integrity than others in public life. Overall, 50 percent of Americans now say Bush has more honesty and integrity than most people in public life, while a quarter says he has the same amount and 14 percent think he has less.

Besides the fact that I'm proudly in the 14 percent, I think that as the truth about intelligence "stovepiping" starts to get more press (the Senate Intelligence Committee is now investigating this), the more people will believe the intelligence was hyped, and the less people will think of Bush's honesty.

Maybe. Who knows? November feels years away...but good news is good news.

A Good Word on Bush's AWOL Silliness

Juan Cole has a thoughtful post, putting in perspective what is important about the Bush AWOL story (i.e., not what's being reported) and what's not (i.e., whether he missed time in Alabama).

So many news stories seem to exist as metaphor for the things we feel and think but do not (cannot?) talk about. This is one, I think.

What the F***??!

I don't consider myself cynical about politics. Skeptical yes, but not cynical.

For instance, when all those "NO WAR FOR OIL" protesters started yelling last year, I empathized with their root cause (no war), but shuddered a little over the "for oil" part. After all, I thought, if anything the B*** administration was too idealistic, being led down a garden path by neo-conservatives who wanted to rewrite history in the Middle East and bring down-home American democracy to the region.

Not exactly realpolitik, but not as cynical a policy as some of the protesters would have me believe.

Well I finally got around to reading the latest New Yorker (I get it on the West Coast several days late). In it is an article about Cheney and Halliburton and...well, if you follow politics, you probably already know most of it. Here's the article if you want to read it. As I went through it, eating a Fatburger, I nearly choked to death and did a spit take at this section:

Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role [in the Iraq war] is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001 [one month after B***'s inauguration! - ed.]. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”

A source who worked at the N.S.C. at the time doubted that there were links between Cheney’s Energy Task Force and the overthrow of Saddam. But Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially “huge.” He said, “People think Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues,” referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’s energy policy. “But if this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.”

I'm still speechless about this. Maybe we did have a war for oil after all. Sorry, cynics.

"Colossal Failures"

Who said this recently about George B***'s recent performance? Dick Gephardt? John Kerry? Uh-uh. From tomorrow's New York Times:

"The two defining events for this year have been the State of the Union and the `Meet the Press' interview, and both have been colossal failures," one prominent Republican strategist said Friday night after the document release, referring to an interview broadcast by NBC last Sunday. Mr. Bush's inability to present a compelling, aggressive case for himself in those two nationally televised appearances has "got Republicans, especially at the grass-roots level, questioning the White House's strategy and tactics," said the strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Happy Friday the 13th.

Apparently that bad luck stuff only applies to the B*** Administration:

Senate's Iraq Probe to Include Bush, Aides

...New areas of inquiry will include "whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone to shape their analysis to support policy objectives," the statement said. Sources involved in the investigation said they had turned up no evidence so far that there was such pressure, or that analysts shaded their assessments to please the White House.

The committee said it would examine the role played by a controversial intelligence unit set up secretly at the Pentagon to search for ties between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network. The unit in the so-called Office of Special Plans has been accused of cherry-picking data to help bolster White House claims of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties that the CIA and other agencies viewed far more skeptically.

The committee also will focus new scrutiny on the intelligence community's use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group during Saddam Hussein's regime that lobbied for years for a U.S. effort to oust the Iraqi president, and whose leaders have ties to senior members of the Bush administration. Critics say the INC has served up a stream of Iraqi defectors with exaggerated or unfounded claims about Iraq's weapons programs and other activities.

But the most significant shift for the committee is its determination to now examine "whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq" by administration figures were "substantiated by intelligence information." The statement said the committee would examine public comments and claims made not only by the current administration but by officials in the Clinton administration....

My sister.

My sister, who usually doesn't pay close attention to politics (I don't think that's unfair...Val?), is up in arms about Justice trying to get ahold of hospital records for women who have had abortions:

Jesus Christ. This bothers me so much! I am in charge of compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Laws at my job, and I just CANNOT BELIEVE that the Department of Justice thinks this does not violate their own damn federal law. What the ???????


-----Original Message-----
From: WITHHELD
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:01 PM

Subject: [healthprivacy-news] Justice Department demands release of abortion records

Justice Department demands release of abortion records

After a group of doctors challenged the constitutionality of the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, the Justice Department demanded through a set of subpoenas that hospitals in several states release the medical records of many patients who had so-called partial birth abortions, the New York Times reported today. The Justice Department is arguing that their request does not violate federal law because "individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." However, the new federal privacy law (HIPAA) creates such an enforceable expectation of privacy by limiting certain uses and disclosures of people's health information.

The plaintiff doctors - and hospitals - are fighting the subpoenas. Judge Charles Kocoras of Federal District Court in Chicago ruled against the DOJ's subpoena of the women's medical records on the grounds that releasing patient records to the government would violate HIPAA and Illinois medical privacy law. The Washington Post reports that Judge Kocoras called the request "'a significant intrusion' of patients' privacy that would provide 'little, if any, probative value' to the government's case."

However, in a second challenge to the subpoenas, Judge Richard Conway Casey of Federal District Court in Manhattan came to a contradictory decision, threatening to lift a temporary ban he had imposed on the Act if the medical records were not released, and saying "the information relevant to this case will be produced. Otherwise, I will entertain whatever actions the government wishes to seek."

The department's demands for records in several other states are pending. The doctors challenging the Act are backed by the ACLU, the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

In 2002, the Health Privacy Project weighed in on a similar controversy in Iowa. Law enforcement officials in Iowa had demanded that Planned Parenthood and local hospitals release the identities of all women who had a positive pregnancy test over a period of about a year. In an op-ed, the Health Privacy Project warned that such demands "risk driving women away from Planned Parenthood clinics, and other health care services where women expect and need confidential care." Ultimately, Planned Parenthood prevailed in resisting the subpoena.

The Health Privacy Project is a 501c(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to raising public awareness of the importance of ensuring health privacy in order to improve health care access and quality, both on an individual and a community level.

Support the Health Privacy Project at http://www.healthprivacy.org.

In spite of my earlier, sarcastic post on the topic, I do feel that this is a travesty that needs to be screamed about from a lot of rooftops.

BREAKING NEWS!

The Bush war machine just keeps on rolling:

U.S. TO INVADE LUXEMBOURG!

Showing bold and determined leadership, President Bush plans to add the tiny nation of Luxembourg to his growing list of conquests, according to a stunning published report. [...]

"President Bush is furious at how old Europe continues to confront the U.S.," Bletzer says. "He feels America has to do something very dramatic to show the world who's the boss. Taking over a country in the very heart of Europe is designed to be a wake-up call to the rest of the continent."

And, as if that weren't enough...

BUSH READIES FOR WAR WITH CHINA

President Bush has headed off an impending war with China and has brought the once-mighty communist superpower to its knees -- by buying the world's entire supply of chopsticks!

Cornering the market on chopsticks ensures that the Chinese will be unable to fight a major war against the U.S. by depriving them of their traditional way to eat, according to White House sources.

"China may have the world's largest standing army, but without food their troops wouldn't have the strength to march or fight," explains a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Okay, that second one is slightly less plausible. But Luxembourg better watch its back, especially since we will be ready for them.

UPDATE: Wait. That last one is 100% true.

Daily Outrage.

I've been reading The Daily Outrage on The Nation's website for awhile and it's been good. But recently the outrage has increased (along with, I suppose, the things to be outraged about), as has the sense of humor, and I've found myself laughing at things I really shouldn't.

Go.

Update: Balls in the Air

Here's a link to the original chart.

Apparently Treasury is looking into whether Halliburton broke the law by doing business with Iran (from the New Jersey Star-Ledger):

WASHINGTON -- The Treasury Department is raising new questions about whether Halliburton, the oil services giant once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, violated the federal law barring U.S. companies from doing business with Iran.

In a notice to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Halliburton disclosed that Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control last month reopened a 2001 inquiry that centered on the legality of the business dealings between Iran and a Halliburton subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

Go get 'em, G-Men!

Things Not to Do on the Internet.

Number 1 of (if I don't get lazy) an ongoing series:

Try to sell weapons information to al-Qaeda.

Straight to Hell.

As if it's not bad enough that I support terrorism by getting high, apparently I then support child slavery by indulging the munchies.

I am going straight to hell.