The Official Blog of PCPB

With friends like the Democrats, who needs enemies?!

2007-09-20T20:46:00.000-07:00

House Republicans are introducing a resolution to condemn an ad that MoveOn.org ran in The New York Times, referring to General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and accusing him of playing politics with his statistics regarding the surge. The ad was frequently referred to by Republican members at yesterday's committee hearing with the general.

"The despicable attack MoveOn.org launched against General Petraeus today should be condemned by all Members of Congress, including the Democratic leadership," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). "I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join in support of this resolution so the House speaks with one voice rejecting the character assassination tactics employed by this extremist group."

House Democrats are introducing a resolution to condemn an ad that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran on television, falsely accusing John Kerry of lying about his service in Vietnam. The ad was frequently referred to by Democratic members at yesterday’s campaign rally in support of Kerry.

“The despicable attack the Swift Boat veterans launched against Senator Kerry should be condemned by all Members of Congress, including the Democratic leadership, and President Bush,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). “I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join in support of this resolution so the House speaks with one voice rejecting the character assassination tactics employed by this extremist group.”

Democrats successfully pushed through, by a 72-25 vote, a resolution condemning an advertisement by the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Oh wait, that never happened. Shows you the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, doesn’t it?

So you know what would have REALLY peeved the Republicans? Resorting to their own tactics. I know there will be some of y’all who say we shouldn’t stoop to their level, but you know what? We have to fight back and we can’t continue playing this higher ground bullshit that encourages the Republicans to hit us below the belt and kick us while we’re down. So there is a Republican senator who is placing a hold on giving the public access to presidential records while Senator Tom Coburn shows his love for the troops by placing a hold on a Veterans’ Suicide Prevention Bill. Why? Because Coburn can’t resist pandering to the NRA at the expense of the lives of veterans. You see if they were to be screened for risk of committing suicide, they might be denied a handgun. (Wow! It really seems like Coburn WANTS psychologically damaged veterans to purchase guns. Ignore the straw man argument, it’s what Republicans do.)

So the Democrats could have placed a hold on it, but not revealed who did so. That would have really pissed off the Republicans who would have sanctimoniously pontificated about having openness in government, something they have conveniently forgotten when they were in power. But the Democrats are weak, and as so, the Republicans can’t help but to rub their hands in glee while they continue to fuck over the troops with the acquiescence at best or at worst the compliance of Democrats who fall into the trap of those infuriating words, “Support the troops,” which has been framed as Support President Bush or else you want the TROOPS DEAD and you want Osama Bin Laden and SADDAM Hussein to have won. Support the troops means you support General Petraeus’ partisan hackery while supporting the GOP’s attempts to FILIBUSTER a bill that would have given troops equal time at home as in the front. Supporting the troops is now supporting Coburn’s attempts to kill legislation that would help suicidal veterans in favor of the NRA. Supporting the troops means not doing anything about the terrible conditions at Walter Reed because it might embarrass Resident Bush who is more of a troop than our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. (when’s the last time you heard a Democrat or the media talk about it? Yeah, I thought you couldn’t answer.)

How much media attention has Coburn’s hold on this really crucial bill gotten? Zero, I bet. The media doesn’t want to dispel the notion that the Republicans are the only ones who support the troops. Do they ever report on stories such as this? Probably not.

BTW, WHAT HAPPENED to the Democrats' refusal to bring this resolution to a vote? Oh, that's right, the Democrats caved in, as usual...

Bush's Jesus Complex

2007-07-03T01:16:00.000-07:00

This is nothing new, in fact, many of y’all probably have blogged on this, but this Raw Story article just confirms a sick and twisted fantasy which Bush and his cronies from radio and the media have all steered us into: Bush = Jesus.

I am arguing that it doesn’t matter that Bush is bothered by the fact that the people really do hate him. Once his advisors confirm it, it only reinforces his belief that he is a religious figure, he is the Man of God sent by God to do His will, which is supposedly to bring democracy to the Middle East, I mean to fill the bottomless pockets of Halliburton and other corporate cronies. After all, Supply-side Jesus smiles upon him and brings him great blessings of corporate donations and the comforting knowledge that at least Big Oil is on his side with its obscene profits.

Bush clearly has a delusion of grandeur. David Corn touched upon this so-called Mission from God when he noted that Bush believes that his mission is to “free people," much as Christians believe that Jesus came to the world to free humanity from sin. Don’t forget how Bush said, "There is a higher father that I appeal to." Let this article from Raw Story speak for itself.

President Bush is holding private meetings "over sodas and sparkling water" in which he asks trusted advisers -- "Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?"

Notice how he’s turning himself into a martyr figure. Much like how the crowds who sang Hosanna when Jesus entered into Jerusalem turned on Jesus a few days later, he sees himself fallen from high above when he enjoyed 90% approval ratings in the days after 9/11 to now where only the hard-core base made up of the corporate and financial elites and the sheep who blindly follow him because he is a Man of God or because he is a Republican who would protect humanity from the evil scourge known as the homosexuals.

To some, "Bush seems alone, isolated by events beyond his control, with trusted advisers taking their leave and erstwhile friends turning on him."

I am sure that the Biblical scene in which Jesus after praying in the garden goes back to his devoted apostles and is grieved to see them sleeping is going through Bush’s delusional head. I’m sure he sees himself just as abandoned by his friends and us the American people as Jesus felt when he was walking up to Calvary, accompanied by no one except those closest to him, which was about three people including his mother. I’m sure Bush sees himself going to his own crucifixion with the jeering crowds spitting on him and heckling him as he stumbles to the ground and in the polls with that overwhelming cross to bear.

"I find him serene," Kissinger said. "I know President Johnson was railing against his fate. That's not the case with Bush. He feels he's doing what he needs to do, and he seems to me at peace with himself."

It doesn’t matter that he’s only at 26% or 31% depending on which poll you believe. The more he perceives the people hate him, the more the belief that he is a latter-day Jesus sent by God to save the American people from the Satanic terrorists who want to overthrow the American government and from those damn homosexuals who want to seduce our children into participating in the unholy Bacchanalia that is sure to come when gay marriage is legalized, is reinforced. Since he is a religious figure, he cannot bend to the polls like most politicians who pander to the whims of the American people. No, he is above that. He is a Man of God whose mission is to obey God who votes Republican and supports war in the name of corporate profits, who supports sacrificing our young men and women to the Almighty Dollar. He cannot abandon his Surge in Iraq because this is God’s will and more importantly, he like Jesus must be patient with us ignorant followers much like how Jesus was patient with the disciples who must have frustrated him with their stubbornness and naivety.

Realize how dangerous this rhetoric really is. Realize how dangerous this is when a faux president installed by a junta of robed activist judges believes himself to be infallible in the face of undeniable failure in Iraq. It doesn’t matter how many lives are to be sacrificed in his Holy War to transform the Middle East and possibly bring about so-called Biblical prophecy. It doesn’t matter that the world has turned against America who has lost any moral high ground she claimed with torture and rendition flights. It doesn’t matter that torture is against the Geneva Conventions, because that is earthly law and that does not apply to Bush.

This is not the only example, but this infamous incident shows how much the Religious Right which claims to be the only legitimate moral arbiter of America has been corrupted by its ties to the GOP.

Do you remember when Tom Delay was going on every news channel to proclaim that the liberals like Hitler were using the Big Lie to “persecute” him? Do you remember that scene which made us spew forth the bile in our throats when the Reverend Rick Scarborough put his hand around Tom Delay and said these infamous, blasphemous words?

"God always does his best work right after a crucifixion."

Yes, who can forget one of the most corrupt figures in American politics being compared to his own Savior, being made into one who was being martyred by the Democrats who did not know that Republicans were infallible gods whose motives should not and cannot be questioned?

If I offend some of you with the religious language and all the Jesus talk, I am doing this to illustrate a point and to show that this article further shines a light in the dark abysses of Bush’s soul.

I did a paper once on Creon and his hubris in proclaiming himself to be above divine law when he insisted on refusing Polynices burial, even after the blind prophet Tiresias basically gave him a choice of following the sanction of the gods or facing a fall greater than any man or woman could bear. Except that Creon mocked the power of Hades and even Zeus, showing contempt for Death. I see the same mentality in Bush in that he sees himself above the law and above our standards of justice, except that instead of just believing that divine law does not apply to him, he believes that he is a god himself, or at least the god’s prophet sent to save this land from evil. He doesn't outright say it, but he mocks his god by betraying the principles of his supposed favorite philosopher, Jesus, whether it's through his lies and deceptions or by perverting justice. It doesn’t matter that commuting Libby’s sentence was obstruction of justice, because Bush is a godly figure who dispenses justice. Always quick to be those who would cast the first stone especially against minorities on death row convicted after dubious trials in which their lawyers did virtually nothing, Bush suddenly becomes the merciful Jesus who would rather spare the guilty than to harm a hair on her head?

I leave you with this quote from Antigone.

“when he weaves in the laws of the land, and the justice of the gods that binds his oaths together he and his city rise high-but the city casts out that man who weds himself to inhumanity thanks to reckless daring. (Antigone, 409-415)

Let us be the city or in our case the nation that casts out the man who has lost all sense of humanity in the delusional belief that he is a god, not subject to earthly law or that damn piece of paper, the Constitution.

or else we'll get more scenes like this...

Bush spits in the face of us all and commutes Libby's prison term...jail is only for the rest of us

2007-07-02T15:00:00.000-07:00

CNN IS SAYING that this “avoids the political aspects of the situation.”

NO FUCK THAT! The Democrats should NOT let Bush get away with this one. They should treat the situation as if Bush had pardoned Libby instead of just commuting the prison sentence. The fine is just a slap in the face. How much do you want to bet that the Libby defense fund will pay it?

The rule of law does not apply to Republicans, so sayeth the Litterbox. What does this tell you about law and order conservatives who always cry about the law when it’s anyone except them. They should just drop the act already.

30 months is too excessive?! So Bush had to commute the sentence? Hell, the Publicans or should I say the Rethuglicans wanted Clinton virtually executed for receiving a consensual blowjob in his office. So what you have here is Bush and the Republicans saying that no matter what Republicans do, they are not guilty, because if they are prosecuted under the law, it is only a political stunt meant to discredit them. So much for respecting the rule of law. Prison is only for the rest of us who cannot afford lawyers and who don't have conservatives in our law schools writing letters on our behalf.

John Aravosis over at AmericaBLOG notes that the Bush talk about letting justice run its course is all a bunch of bushit. Of course he is right, but also, Bush’s idea of justice is allowing Republicans to commit their crimes with impunity while his administration goes after Democrats on trumped-up charges such as those against ACORN, brought upon them by a partisan GOP HACK. Bush’s idea of justice works on the principle that Republicans are above the law, they are like gods whose motives we must never question, much less challenge in the court of law. It doesn’t matter that there is no evidence of a left-wing conspiracy to compromise our elections by committing massive voter fraud on a scale Republicans claim has never been seen before. It doesn’t matter that there is more evidence that Republicans sought to use their powers to suppress the vote.

This is a culmination of the GOP mantra that everything is a liberal conspiracy against them and that they are truly the victims and oppressed of the society. Our so-called resident-in-thief was only dispensing justice for that poor, downtrodden Republican who was dreading prison so much that he must have been praying like a good conservative Christian would.

"The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. "His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."

and what about the families of those who go to prison for minor drug offenses like possessing marijuana? What about them? Do they not suffer too or is it only that Republicans and their families suffer when they go to prison? Is this not like the argument Bill Napoli had when he said only Christian virgins suffer the trauma of rape and therefore they should be the only ones who deserve the exception when it comes to rape and incest? Tasteless I may be for pointing that out, but I see the same elitist argument that common people who don’t belong in the favored class don’t suffer.

The fine doesn't matter, because the defense fund will probably cover it...Probation is nothing. If Bush thought the sentence was too excessive could he not have halved it or something? Why should it have mattered? Libby was probably going to go to the country club prison anyway where he would have enjoyed the meals Duncan Hunter claimed Club Gitmo got, yes lemon chicken, gourmet style.

Tuesday Topic #14

2007-06-24T01:06:00.000-07:00

After a long hiatus due to school (especially grading papers, which was all I did anyway)...

Has the era of invading a nation to install a new government been exposed as a failure?

I desperately want to say yes, but we live in extraordinary times. Our populace which had been cowed into believing everything that Bush said about Iraq having WMDs and the ability to nuke NYC in 45 minutes or less might be souring on Bush's invasion of Iraq, but I do not see any hope that they have finally disavowed Bush's belief that he could invade other countries and install democracies. We have a complicit media that claims to have learned their lessons from the leadup to war and has given us hollow, faux mea culpas designed to show us that they too have seen the light. Alas, it is not so.

Case point #1: Fox News (8/30/2006)

Case point #2: Neo-con magazine editor prays that we bomb Iran

Is there any hope that we will see past the attempts of the media to sell the administration's lies as gospel truth? No, because we've fallen for it, and we'll fall for it again.

Tin foil hat on...

So what happens if the administration decides to close Gitmo, transfers the prisoners to U.S. military prisons, but hires some of them to "break out" and commit acts of terrorism on U.S. soil? What if they then turn around and then blame Democrats for insisting that Gitmo and Abu Ghirab be closed? Would you put it past this administration to stage terrorist attacks so that they could foil them on U.S. soil to score political points to take back Congress and win the 2008 election for those guys who thumping their chests like cave men, who declared that they wanted to double Gitmo? This is purely a conspiracy theory talking, but we live in the age of the litterbox where conspiracy theories are closer to the truth than you think they are...

Tuesday Topic

2007-04-03T00:18:00.000-07:00

This post is a response to Tuesday Topic #2 in which I am trying to argue that we suffer from a dangerous empathy-deficit...

the problem with us aMEricans is that we do not have empathy for the "other." We have been raised to believe that America is and always will be right, that we always have the best intentions for the world, and that we have only altruistic intentions for the rest of the world. What history book covers the CIA coup in Iran in 1953? What history book covers the brutality in which we suppressed the Filipino independence movement right after the Spanish-AMERICAN War? Besides the universities, our students are not being told of the darker side of our history. It's not all to be proud of, but our students would not know that.

Take for example, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How many of us think that it was a glorious show of might makes right and a justified action to save American lives? Do we ever think that there could have been another option? Perhaps we could have bombed an isolated atoll in the Pacific to impress the Japanese. Perhaps if we might have allowed the emperor of Japan to keep his throne as a ceremonial figure such as the monarch of England and had expressed our willingness to make this concession if you may to the Japanese, perhaps the lives snuffed out by the incinerating pillar of death and sorrow might have been spared. As Dong Long points out, the doves would have cast their lots with the most fanatical of hawks if the Americans had insisted on disposing the emperor. Perhaps if we had not spent the whole war dehumanizing the Japanese who appeared as monstrous vampire bats flying over to suck out the vitality of our country, we might see the other side and have empathy for them.

We see this dehumanization of the enemy or the other throughout our history, especially when it comes to war. Who can forget Colonel John Chivington's infamous words when he ordered his men to massacre the Cheyenne and Arapahoe at Sand Creek, "kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice." Who can forget the dehumanization of the Koreans and Vietnamese when we could not distinguish between the "friendlies" and the enemy (which would tragically lead to our troops massacring innocent civilians caught in the crossfire)? Who can forget the countless numbers of victims whose lives were destroyed in our everlasting quest for Manifest Destiny?

This is the tragedy of this war today as it seems like we are doomed to repeat the terrible decisions we have made in the past instead of atoning for our actions. Can anyone tell me the difference between what we are saying about the people of the Middle East to what Chivington said about the innocent women, men, and children his troops were about to massacre? Can anyone point out the difference about how we brutally dealt with the Filipinos who wanted us out of the Philippines just as the Iraqis desperately want us out of Iraq? We are bombarded with stereotypes of the people of the Middle East as vicious terrorists, suicide bombers, radical fanatics, "ragheads," "towelheads," etc. that we cannot see them as humans. This is why you can have ignorant and unfeeling cowards advocating for turning the whole Middle East into a concrete parking lot or whatever the phrase is. We cannot see that the Iraqis might WANT a democracy, but that they don't want it imposed at the point of a gun barrel. We cannot see that the Iraqis do NOT want their oil in the hands of multinational corporations and that they like any other country would want control of their own natural resources. We cannot see that the Iraqis who have lost children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, etc. are turning against us because we promised them that things would be better than it was under Saddam.

It is pointless to ask us Americans how we would feel if another country invaded our country. Would we be not in arms becoming the freedom fighters we so despise in Iraq right now? You can't ask that question, because the answer will be, "No one has the strength to invade America. No one would dare invade." No, we can only see the Iraqis as an ungrateful childlike-people who much like a lion cub we are raising would someday turn on us, ungrateful and oblivious to the fact that we are "helping" them and "liberating" them. We cannot see that we are the aggressors and occupiers of an occupied country. If we did not condemn the French for establishing a resistance movement against the Nazis, then why do we not extend the Iraqis the same courtesy? Yes, that's right, because they are resisting us. Sympathy for the French Resistance or the Prague Spring rings hollow when we do not extend the sympathy for those whom we have been oppressing.

Peace should be a virtue...

2007-03-17T13:18:00.000-07:00

Why is peace so reviled these days? Why is the very notion of peace enough to have the rabid, wingnut right froth at the mouth with self-righteous anger? I had blogged about how peace is now even being equated with Satan as a homeowner’s association in Colorado had ordered a wreath in the shape of the international peace sign taken down. Some members had claimed it was a Satanic symbol, even Nero’s Cross supposedly even though the evidence that Nero used it was rather thin. It is the absurd claims that we rightfully laugh at and roll our eyes at that are the very tactics of demagogues who seek to rile up our basest emotions. It is these absurd claims that could turn around a noble word like peace and make it into something to be rejected, because it is a left-wing or even Satanic conspiracy to bring our country down. Is peace considered a feminine trait by those who follow the hyper-masculinity ethos? Must everything be settled with fists and bombs?

Our National Litterbox, (I refuse to just call him president) says Jesus is his favorite philosopher. Yet, like the GodMen of Tennessee who want a more masculine Christianity, Bush must have only read the part where Jesus drives the moneychangers from the temple in a not so peaceful display of power. Bush who is so concerned about national security that he does not investigate his administration’s outing of a COVERT CIA agent who was tracking the movement of weapons of mass destruction, whose Covert front company uncovered evidence that the WMDs were being moved into Iraq from Turkey likely so that the Litterbox could claim that WMD HAD been found in Iraq. This is no better than Hitler dressing up prisoners in Polish uniforms and shooting them, leaving their bodies in German territory so that he could claim that Poland invaded Germany. Yes, I made the comparison and rightfully so. No man of peace, no Man of God as his administration and the countless numbers of mindless uncritically-thinking Bush supporters claim Bush to be would start a war on false pretenses and then plant the evidence to fool the American people into believing that Saddam was about to nuke New York City.

Must everything be a war? We have conjurations of faux and real wars designed to appeal to the men in us. Is this why the military is so afraid of having gay men and women serve in the military openly, because they supposedly go counter against the image of a masculine army trained in the arts of war? Even the media, mainly Faux made up a fictional War on Christmas so that Christian men could claim to be fighting on the sidelines safe in America against the godless Liberals who sought to infect our country with atheism and secular humanism…

Does this administration even care that our wounded veterans had to suffer through urine-soaked mattresses, belly-up cockroaches, mice droppings in their living quarters? Could this administration not spend money to fund treatment for our wounded vets coming home? Of course not, this is considered to be nurturing and caring, traits traditionally considered feminine in nature. The hyper-masculine ethos states that money should not be going into social programs designed to give a hand up to those stuck in poverty but to huge weapons, nuclear bombs, bunker-busters, new fighter jets, etc.

We have money to spend on new weapons that are not needed in this new so-called “War on TERROR” yet we cannot spend money to fund VA hospitals and to provide psychological treatment to the wounded. We cannot deal with Post-traumatic stress Disorder as the military brass with the consent of this administration wants to send our troops back into combat without any treatment. After all, a MAN should suck it up and ignore his wounds so that he could fight for the freedom of his country. Those who are expressing concerns about PTSD and their families are being unpatriotic and un-American. It is more of the cult of hyper-masculinity that Glenn Greenwald depicts in this excellent article. After all, if our Litterbox can land a fighter jet at 150 mph on an airplane carrier, then these men should seek to emulate the masculinity of our “Fearless leader.”

Peace should not be a masculine or feminine value...it should be one we hold common whether we are male or female. By assigning it a gender, we cheapen its value and risk having our society which tends to prefer "masculine traits" over "feminine traits" glorify the death and carnage of war. Indeed, the GodMen video from ABCNews talks about how men love blowing things up. While that may be fine in Monster Truck rallies, let us not make blowing things up in war a spectacle much like the ones held in ancient Rome, where even naumachiae or mock naval battles produced casualties.

The Pledge
I believe in the immediate withdrawal of all foreign combat troops from the nation of Iraq. I believe in using my blog, in whole or in part, as a tool toward this end.

There were 300 men...against a million...ummmmmm not quite...

2007-03-09T01:54:00.001-08:00

I do plan on seeing 300, the story of the Spartans' last stand at Thermopylae (Greek for the Hot Gates which don't really exist anymore), but I am interested in seeing how faithful the movie is to Herodotus, but reading Victor Davis Hanson's preview doesn't give me much hope (I am a purist and unabashedly so). I mean did the Greeks fight in the heroic nude as they are portrayed in black-figure vases and the yahoo.com promo against clothed "degenerate, effeminate" Persians?

I am also interested in seeing if there is any mention of the contingent of Thespians and Thebans. Of course 300 makes a well-rounded number, easy to remember, plus it's more oh I don't know, romantic I guess in saying 300 instead of maybe 750. Most likely, all focus is on the Spartans and all. I wonder if there will be any mention of the lone Spartan, Aristodemus, who missed the battle to his utter disgrace, which would not be made up by his almost-suicidal fanaticism and heroism at Plataea to make up for his disgrace?

I have to admit that I have not read the comic book inspired by Herodotus called 300, written by Frank Miller which the movie is based upon, but it's something to look forward to, once I get the time...along with Gates of Fire.

I saw the promo on yahoo.com touting that 300 Spartans faced death in the guise of millions of Persians. Herodotus gives the figure of 5,283,220 with half of them as combat troops. Considering the nightmares of logitistics Xerxes would have faced, it's really hard to believe the stories of rivers being dried up as the horses and men drank from them (Herodotus 7.108). But hey, the greater the odds faced by our Greeks, the more glory for them, right? Wouldn't that fit Herodotus' theme of how the Greeks faced overwhelming odds and defeated the slavish Persians who prostrated themselves daily to the Great King? And how can we condemn Herodotus for exaggerating if countless generals and soldiers have exaggerated the odds they faced in their victories and battles (the notable example in my mind being General George McClellan and his endless hordes of Confederates)? Besides, the greater the number of Persians Xerxes led to utter defeat, the greater and more spectacular his fall. After all, this was a man who lashed the sea after a storm, an act Herodotus condemned as utter hubris, which of course would lead to his downfall.

Arther Ferrill argues in Herodotus and the Strategy and Tactics of the Invasion of Xerxes that even Arrian who had extensive knowledge of military tactics and strategy was prone himself to exaggerating the numbers that Alexander faced. In this sense, the movie and comic book both keep faithful to the Greek tradition of pitting the Greeks fighting for their freedom against overwhelming hordes of Persians whose numbers seemed as endless as the stars.

In an interesting point, Ferrill argues that much of Herodotus' reputation as a total amateur when it came to military matters was due to this mathematical exaggeration. At first glance, his tendency to exaggerate the Persian army seems to serve to discredit him as a military historian. To support his argument, he cites Herodotus 7.173 where Herodotus argues that the Greeks, contrary to being afraid of Alexander of Macedon's warnings, were more afraid of the Persians outflanking them through another pass and in 7.177 where he states the Greeks chose Thermopylae so that the heavy advantage the Persians had in cavalry would be negated. After all, you can't do much with a cavalry force on a narrow pass barely 50 feet across. His point is that Herodotus deserves more credit than what many are willing to give him.

I'll see the movie eventually, once I get motivated enough to actually do anything other than sleep...

P.S. I encourage you to read Herodotus. It is a rich history full of anecdotes such as Arion charming the dolphins with music so that they save him when he jumps overboard to escape his captors, divine intervention in the form of a rockslide saving Delphi, stories of ghostly Greek heroes rising up to slaughter the Persians, the clever thief who so impressed the king whom he stole from that the king offered his daughter in marriage...etc. After all, the movie should do more than just entertain, it should be an opportunity to explore the world of Classics...because everyone knows the CATS love Classics.

Arther Ferrill: Herodotus and the Strategy and Tactics of the Invasion of Xerxes: The American Historical Review, Vol.72, No.1.(Oct.,1966), pp.102-115. (Accessed through JSTOR)

The media is playing the "Let's not hold the administration accountable for the good of the country" card

2007-03-07T20:56:00.000-08:00

The risk for Democrats would be overplaying the accountability hand. Their attempts to impose limits on Bush's ability to fight the war have collapsed repeatedly and left them unable to fashion a coherent approach to the most serious issue in the country. Some Republicans suggested that the public could tire of repeated hearings such as those held this week and write them off to partisanship.

The media is now playing the accountability might be used for partisan purposes and poison the Washington atmosphere card now that the Democrats are in power and are using the power of subpoena against the Bush Administration. Our country is tired of partisanship and wants to return to the good old days of bipartisanship and civility which fostered in a Golden Age of American politics as none had ever seen before. Excuse me? Is this the same media which mindlessly repeated Republican charges against Clinton and pursued the witch hunt against him with equal vigor that now says we must back off for the good of the country?

Were not the Republicans overplaying the accountability hand when they attempted to investigate EVERYTHING the Clinton administration did? 1000 subpoenas issued by the House Government Reform Committee and for what? Was he actually convicted of corruption? Remember the $200,000 wasted on Vandalism-gate, the claims that the Bush Adminstration was victimized (such a right-wing fantasy that continues to be repeated ad nauseam) by Clinton administration thugs who removed Ws from computer keyboards? Remember how those allegations were proved to be false? Where was the media? Apparently when the GAO proved those accusations to be utter LIES, the media was asleep at the wheel. Now reverse the situation...If Gore had been president and accidently misspoke, the media would have been all over, howling and frothing at the mouth to show the country how much of a FUCKING LIAR Al Gore was. (oh wait…)

We did NOT have accountability when the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Potemkin hearings where Arlen Specter would engage himself in a kabuki play of faux accountability filled with meaningless sanctimonious words about fighting the administration’s abuse of power and backing off when he got his nose too deep in its matters does not count as accountability.

"They bring up sort of old Washington," said former Bush aide Nicolle Wallace. "The Democrats have to walk a fine line and be careful. People don't want to turn on the TV and see every story being about the obstruction of people trying to do things. . . . The people who will stand out in Washington are the ones who will look forward."

Please compare this to what the Publicans said about Bill Clinton and the subpoenas which wasted our taxpayer dollars for nothing…and remember old Washington is what the Republicans instituted under the Clinton administration, but funny a Republican forgets to mention that...

"I think it would be disastrous. It is basically saying he is above the law, he doesn't have to comply with the law," said Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma on NBC's "Meet The Press." "Everybody else in America has to comply with subpoenas (while) he's saying he wouldn't. ... I don't think that would be sustainable."

"I think the fact that he would ignore and violate a subpoena would certainly be grounds to file articles of impeachment," Hatch said. "If Kenneth Starr does have additional information, I think it could snowball into a real impeachment problem for the president. I personally hope that doesn't happen."

The Republicans are now claiming that our country does not need to be poisoned by investigation after investigation of this administration’s misdeeds, which include lying the nation into war, corruption, cronyism, intimidation of federal attorneys, etc. The list goes on and on, but the same people who sought to obtain Bill Clinton’s head on a platter are now saying that the country doesn’t need to go through another Watergate. It does not need the trauma of seeing a president investigated and convicted for his crimes, never mind that 3,200 of our troops are dead and 655,000 Iraqis and 30,000 Afghans. Now the liberal media decides it’s in their best interest to trump the GOP talking point and run away with it.

Sex scandals in the White House which should have been the business of the president and his wife are best sellers for the media but even the public grew tired of the impeachment saga, and the move backfired on them. Now the media is spinning that into the notion that the public doesn’t want to see a Democratic Party witch hunt and instead wants to see the president serve out the remainder of his terms in relative peace. Impeachment would destroy the country and it would not recover from the toxic environment the Democrats are about to plunge it into. I’m sorry, but accountability is not only for Democrats, it must be for those in power too.

"Justice demands that Bush issue a pardon and lower the curtain on an embarrassing drama that shouldn't have lasted beyond its opening act," National Review said within hours of the verdict.

This is the GOP playing the pardon card. The country doesn’t need anymore trauma. President Nixon should have never been pardoned, but that according to the Republicans is good politics. Pardoning Caspar Weinberger so that he wouldn’t implicate Bush 41 is also good policy. However, when Clinton pardoned his choices, the GOP frothed at the mouth like the mad pack dogs, yet they are actually calling for a repeat of Watergate, because justice was never served.

2007-02-12T17:26:00.000-08:00

Got to love how this White House works...

The Army is working to fill a shortfall in Iraq of thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs -- including a rising threat from particularly lethal weapons linked to Iran and known as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFP) -- that are now inflicting 70 percent of the American casualties in the country, according to U.S. military and civilian officials.
The additional protection is needed for thousands of U.S. reinforcement troops flowing into Baghdad, where these devastating weapons -- used primarily by Shiite fighters -- are particularly prevalent, the officials said.

U.S. Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan lack more than 4,000 of the latest Humvee armor kit, known as FRAG Kit 5, according to U.S. officials. The Army has ramped up production of the armor, giving priority to troops in Baghdad, but the upgrade is not scheduled to be completed until this summer, Army officials said. That is well into the timeline for major operations launched last week to quell violence by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, which the U.S. military now views as the top security threat in Iraq

Create misleading and false claims that Iran is providing the insurgents high-tech roadside bombs as if the insurgents didn't know how to make them while doing nothing to ensure our troops have the armor on the humvees that are needed to withstand these blasts.

The rule of thumb is NEVER trust anything this administration says...this administration has cried wolf too many times and unlike the story, our soldiers have died. In the original story, only sheep were eaten...this cry wolf tale has far more consequences.

Another question: JUST where the FUCK are our taxpayer dollars going to if not for body and humvee armor? War profiteering?

The LITTERBOX Adminstration is FINALLY doing something about global warming?

2006-12-27T12:06:00.000-08:00

The administration is proposing that polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Have they finally seen the light? Not quite....Much like how conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the end of slavery, segregation, women's suffrage, you get the point...

Quote:

"We've reviewed all the available data that leads us to believe the sea ice the polar bear depends on has been receding," said the Interior official, who added that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. "Obviously, the sea ice is melting because the temperatures are warmer."

The biggest NO-SHIT statement I've ever heard from this administration...besides "we're not winning in Iraq..."

Could this have something to do with the suit that was filed by well-known environmental groups that was recently settled?

Quote:

NRDC senior attorney Andrew Wetzler, one of the lawyers who filed suit against the administration, welcomed the proposal for listing.

"It's such a loud recognition that global warming is real," Wetzler said. "It is rapidly threatening the polar bear and, in fact, an entire ecosystem with utter destruction."

There are 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide, 4,700 of which live in Alaska and spend part of the year in Canada and Russia. The other countries with polar bears in their Arctic regions are Denmark (Greenland) and Norway.

Could this be a start to the administration finally getting its head out of its ass and finally accepting that global warming is real and that we need to do something about it? Don't hold your breath...If there is something about the Litterbox ADMINISTRATION, it is a tendency to distort science and use it as a political football to kick around; after all, these people believe that the environmentalists are Nazis and fascists... They won't take this defeat lying down. They'll find a way to undermine this settlement and we'll be back to square one.

Quote:

Scientists have not charted the same rapid decline within the U.S. polar bear populations, but federal scientists have observed a number of troubling signs. The bears have resorted to open-water swimming and even cannibalism in an effort to stay alive.

I can't see why the Republicans would have any problem with this because the cannibalism sounds like their very own behavior when it comes to eating their own when it is deemed politically expedient...

Quote:

Still, the official added that the decision to propose polar bears as threatened with extinction "wasn't easy for us" because "there is still some significant uncertainty" about what could happen to bear populations in the future.

Yeah, those damn lazy fat polar bears! They should welcome the increased swimming so that they can stay fit and get some badly-needed exercise. This is just a handout that encourages polar bears to be lazy and shiftless just like welfare and Social Security. CEOs and the wealthiest 1% earn their living by working extremely hard and actually earn their money. After all, it is hard work drinking vodka out of a frozen penis on an ice sculpture of Michelangelo's David. Just think of global warming causing the ice to melt as a 24-hour fitness program, courtesy of the Litterbox Administration. /snark

Quote:

The department could take up to a year to complete its proposal, and it could abandon the listing if it unearths new scientific projections about the bears' fate. But that appears unlikely, as recent models have consistently pointed to a faster deterioration of Arctic sea ice.

New scientific projections could mean a further "debunking" of global warming as this administration is infamous for its junk science. After all, its EPA told the Ground Zero rescue workers that the air was safe to breathe and asbestos levels were within acceptable levels. It also suppressed a report testifying to the effects of mercury in women, including neurological damage to their fetuses, which is fucking ironic because this administration claims to be pro-life. Pro-life of course means that you are only concerned about the fetus until it is delivered, unless it comes to the profit margin, when all concern about life is tossed out to be scattered like leaves in the wind.

So when can we expect an Interior Department survey given to polar bears which suggests that they actually welcome the increased swimming and that we shouldn't do anything about global warming because it just makes them obese? When can we expect a study showing a negative correlation between the amount of ice melting and coronary disease in polar bears? When can we expect a study showing that there is a negative correlation between the amount of swimming done and rates of depression in polar bears or a study showing that cannibalism actually is quite healthy for them?

Link

Apparently the peace sign is a symbol of OMG SATAN!!!!!

2006-11-27T02:10:00.000-08:00

Wow, talk about stupidity! A peace sign is actually considered a symbol of Satan! Just when you think the Age of the Litterbox cannot produce anymore shit, this gem comes along. Last time I checked Satan was the prince of darkness, the father of lies, you get the gist. Last time, I checked, Jesus was the prince of Peace and supposedly it’s his birthday coming up. So why all the fuss?

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs.

These are probably the same people who say our soldiers fight for your freedom to say stupid things, NOW SHUT UP! (without realizing the irony of course.

There are some things so absurd that you have to see the part in the article to believe...

He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

Apparently the confusion is that they believe that this is actually a symbol of Nero, who persecuted Christians and blamed them for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D. according to Tacitus. Apparently, they believe that Nero used it as a symbol to represent what he hoped would be his victory over Christianity, as they claim. Well I hate to burst their bubble, but the peace sign is not a vast left-wing conspiracy to co-opt the teachings of Jesus and use them for the Satanic purposes of purging Christianity from the face of the Earth. The only sites that are claiming that this is the Cross of Nero are fundamentalist Christian sites in hysteria over the peace movement and it's connection to Satan.

Basically there is a more benign explanation to the peace sign...

It was developed by the British "Committee for Nuclear Disarmament" (CND), apparently about 1958. It is comprised of the two semaphore flag positions for "N" and "D," standing for "nuclear disarmament."

Here are the flag positions for N and D...Put together with a circle around it, and you get the peace sign.

Apparently peace is so unpatriotic that if Jesus were alive today, he would be investigated by the NSA and the Pentagon, after all they do a helluva job investigating non-violent anti-war protesters who might, I repeat might grow violent some day. (Meanwhile, potential right-wing homegrown terrorists are ignored by this administration even when they acquired shit like cyanide. But that's how it is in our Age of the Litterbox where peace is war and 2+2 = 5). After all, didn't Jesus throw out the moneychangers in the temple, overturning their tables and driving them out with a whip? Such violent behavior! OMG!

The church is getting ready to celebrate Advent, which is preparation for the birth of yes, you guessed it, the Prince of Peace. Yet some people in the homeowner’s association in Denver are spitting on the principles of Jesus and is now equating Jesus with Satan. I wonder what Dobson and Falwell would have to say about this…Oh I forgot, they’re too busy fucking over their buddy Ted Haggard and ditching him after it turned out that Pastor Ted was gay (not that there’s anything wrong with being gay, but the hypocrisy, of course!).

Perhaps we should nominate those members of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association who believe that the wreath in the form of a peace sign is so offensive for the Nobel War Prize. Oh, there’s no such thing? Well then, we can always nominate it for the Nobel Peace Prize, after all, if Bush can get nominated by a Norwegian right-wingnut hack, then I’m sure the homeowners association can too. Who knows? Maybe Bush might stump for them to actually win the whole thing…

There are those like Dennis Kucinich who propose a Department of Peace that will do everything in its power to make sure that war is reduced to the dustbin of history, forgotten as the leaves scattered about in the wind. Then there are people like Chuck Sweeny who believe that this is a loony idea. There are those like Roy Blunt who believe that this is an idea to be mocked, that if the United States advocates peace, then we have become OMG a sissy nation...

How about we give peace a chance instead of attributing it falsely to Satan?

2006-11-08T17:53:00.000-08:00

The Great Cat has woken up from her nightmare and the Senate AND The House are OURS!

3:24 PST

2006-11-08T03:31:00.000-08:00

STATUS

CANDIDATE

VOTE

VOTE %

KEY RACE

Tester

173,259

49%

Burns
(Incumbent)

171,207

48%

Jones

9,061

90% of the precincts reporting

Senate is 49-49, with 2 undecided. Jim Webb leads in Virginia but that will most likely go to a recount. This is the important race...Tester's lead keeps on shrinking and I am loathe to go to bed but I have work tomorrow at 9:20 am.

The best news is that we took down Pombo!

Fear, it worked back in 1861 and it's working again...

2006-11-04T01:49:00.000-08:00

We Americans need to get over this mentality that suggests that the other (in this case gays and lesbians, illegal immigrants, and African-Americans) is going to come into your homes and rape and kill you. We must seem like a cowardly people, so afraid of the big, bad terrorist that we are willing to compromise our civil liberties in order to receive protection (non-existent from the GOP, but that’s for another blog post). We are so afraid of so-called illegal immigrants crossing our borders, invading our towns, terrorists coming over to blow up our petting zoos in Indiana, and even worse, TEH GAYS brainwashing our children and forcing them into homosexual orgies and Bacchanalias. It is my intention in this blog to hopefully argue that the same irrational appeals to fear are being perpetrated on the American voter today and that the GOP does not really believe in those appeals but are finding them useful in trying to keep power.

Corker had been trailing in the polls to Ford until that FUCKING NRCC ad aired, you know the one with the seductive scantily-clad woman winking at Harold Ford. Ever since, he has been rising in the polls and now enjoys a slim lead over Ford. If Corker pulls out a victory, we can thank this damn ad that plays to a common theme that has been found throughout Southern history, the fear of the other, in its case, the black person, whether slave or free, a fear that has led to 3029 lynchings of African-Americans in the former Confederate states, an astounding 87.9% of the total in just 11 states, will rightfully be blamed for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

Rewind back to 1861. The DEEP South is burning with the fire of secession. Lincoln has been elected and the states in the Deep South secede because they cannot accept his election because they fear he will do everything in his power to abolish slavery even though he has publicly declared that he would not touch slavery in places it was already established. The secessionists are the hardcore, no-compromise hardliners who would not accept anything less than the Republican Party totally abandoning their platform of restricting the spread of slavery. They are pretty confident that citizens of their states would stand by their votes to secede.

The Deep South knows that they would not stand a chance without those states for If they could get the Upper and Middle South, states like Virginia and Tennessee to secede, they would go a long way to evening out their seemingly insurmountable odds. James McPherson notes that the Lower South only had 5% of the industrial capacity of the North and only 20% of the population (McPherson, Ordeal of Fire, 150). Commissioners were sent to these states to fire up the population, arguing that Lincoln’s victory would mean racial equality and worse to their standpoint, interracial mixing or miscegenation.

Charles B. Dew, a Southern-born historian argues persuasively that it was racism and the appeal to fear that got the Upper South fired up from lukewarm support to actual secession. He argues that the direst specter that any Southerner could imagine was the slaves rising up and engaging in interracial sex with their daughters! Dew argues that this was the most dire threat of all as the chastity of their daughters was what the plantation owners cherished the most (Dew 79). Contrast that to the denial of neo-Confederate groups who deny that slavery had anything to do with what they call the “War of Northern Aggression.” Contrast that to the neo-Confederates who deny that racism is a problem today and that it IS a problem.

I’ll let the primary documents and Dew speak for themselves…for they can say it better than I can.

But in the South, where in many places, the African race largely predominates, and as a consequence the two races would be continually processing together, amalgamation or the extermination of the one or the other would be inevitable. Can Southern men submit to such degradation and ruin? God forbid that they should.

But it is said that there are many constitutional conservative men at the North who sympathize with and battle for us.

- Letter of Stephen F. Hale, commissioner from Alabama to Governor Magoffin of Kentucky, 12/27/1860

They have demanded, and now demand, equality in the honors and emoluments of office, equality in the social circle, equality in the rights of matrimony. The cry has been, and now is, “that slavery must cease, or American liberty must perish,” that “the success of Black Republicanism is the triumph of anti-slavery,” “a revolution in the tendencies of the government that must be carried out.”

- Address of William L. Harris, commissioner from Mississippi, to the Georgia General Assembly, Dec. 17, 1860.

Leroy Pope Walker, Alabama’s commissioner to Tennessee and subsequently the first Confederate secretary of war, predicted that in the absence of secession all would be lost – first, “our property,” and “then our liberties,” and finally the South’s greatest treasure, “the sacred purity of our daughters.”

- Dew, Apostles of Disunion, pg. 79

Same strategy except less graphic and less mention of rape, but the same topic of “miscegenation” is there. The GOP knows that showing Ford and bringing up the fear of blacks raping whites is overtly racist and would be too obvious for our society today, which is reluctant to acknowledge our racist past but is just in denial today, believing that racism is a thing of the past and limited to only the KKK and other Neo-Nazi groups. However, they can imply that Ford, a black man is secretly lusting after white women and they know that some of their hardcore racist hick base will fall for that again unfortunately. I find it sad that perhaps the ad is working as Corker has opened up a slight lead in the polls and signs show it to be leaning Republican as of today. Of course this is not to excuse Ford, I thought his pandering to his base was despicable with respect to the NEW Jersey decision, but I wasn’t surprised. Do you not see the “nightmare” that the GOP is trying to conjure up? A black man in the Senate from the South, and even worse a black man who claims that he loves girls (his own words, not mine)? OMG, what next? More interracial marriage and sex? There are those who still disapprove of interracial marriage and this ad is just more pandering to that select group.

I’m arguing that the GOP is using the same strategy here as right-wingnuts did in 1861. Does the GOP actually believe their inane arguments just as implausible as the brutal orgy of rape the secession commissioners conjured up in the Deep South in the lead-up to war? Does the GOP actually believe that the Democratic Party would actually ban the Bible in favor of allowing gay marriage? Probably not. The GOP knows the Democratic Party would do no such thing, because that would be political suicide, but the same appeal to the emotions, our basest emotions is there. People care about religion in the United States and what better way to demonize the other party by saying that the Dems will mock and outlaw Christianity? Did the secession commissioners believe that the slaves would force themselves on their masters’ daughters? Probably not, even though they conjured up images of another Santo Domingo (slaves rose up in revolt in 1793).

Same arguments apply here to gay marriage. Legalize gay marriages and TEH GAYS will be emboldened! They are trying to brainwash our children by sending subliminable (haha) maessages to our children attending our schools. Their message of tolerance is just a Trojan Horse in which lies the true, dire, sinister message that children SHOULD accept homosexuality and even become homosexuals themselves. So let us compare the message…Not seceding will mean amalgamation and miscegenation and interracial rape…fast forward 145 years and now it’s homosexuals want to convert our children into becoming homosexuals! Isn’t there a common theme here? Why did Ford feel the need to pander when it came to the New Jersey decision which did not go FAR ENOUGH in securing gay rights? Simple, it is the irrational fears that the GOP exploits to win votes from people who if they don’t know any better, don’t care that they are irrational fears. Ford can’t be seen as the candidate who would allow the gays to come into your homes to rape you and brainwash your children into joining their daily orgies they must hold in the moonlight! :sarcasm:

Compare the quotes of the secession commissioners to the quotes the Religious Right and the extreme right leaders of our generation say against our GLBT brothers and sisters…

"This is ultimately about the protection of America's youth from such groups as NAMBLA and militant homosexuals who seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of fourteen" - Charles Socarides, on the board of NARTH and the other top 'ex-gay' psychiatrist, from NARTH's Web site, http://www.narth.com/docs/1995papers/socarides.html

Gays want access to children
"Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," Family Research Council publication, July 1999, http://www.frc.org/misc/bl057.pdf

Cannot this argument be compared to the OMG Slaves want access to our daughters and race mixing will ensue if we don’t secede from the Union? Is this argument not appealing to the same unfounded fears that stir up such fear and loathing?

Gays want to give churchgoers AIDS
"[Homosexuals]want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." Pat Robertson, 700 Club, 1/18/95 - People for the American Way Web site, http://www.pfaw.org/issues/right/rtvw.antigay.shtml

Compare this quote to John Smith Preston’s speech claiming that Lincoln’s election was a “decree” of “annihilation” for the whites of the South. He claimed that South Carolina had a GOD-given right to strike back at such “mad rage of fantaticism” (Dew 70).

I find it truly sad that the GOP has to use race-baiting especially in the South to “win.” It just shows that they truly have no ideas and that they are the party with no ideas other than tired, battle-tested, battle-failed ideas such as “STAY THE COURSE,” tax cuts for the rich that fail to prop up a sluggish economy, BAN GAY MARRIAGE (gets old), and deregulation of everything. I find it sad that Corker has to express faux outrage over the ad and Mehlman suddenly claims he is impotent and cannot do anything against an ad “independently produced,” INDEPENDENT of the NRCC that paid for them. I find it sad that the party which started off with some rather progressive ideas such as the progressive income tax they passed during the war has degraded into a shadow of its former self.

Except, things are different now. This blatant play to racism and the faux outrage make it seem that the Southern Strategy is evolving into even more of a giant shell game. Show the racist ads but condemn them at the same time and blame them on some independent contractor. It’s always someone else’s fault with the Republicans because the Party of Personal Responsibility is always taking the awesome responsibility of shifting responsibility away from itself. We’re not racist, the ad was an independent expenditure! We had no control over it even though we paid for it. Besides, it’s all fun and games! It’s all satire. This is the new Republican line when it comes to this racist ad and deceptive mailers in Nevada done a while back. That’s exactly what the Clark County GOP said too when it mailed those mailers which were supposedly from Harry Reid’s Searchlight PAC but had actually endorsed Republican candidates. The GOP claims to have disowned these ads but they ran their course, doing their damage and we’re paying for it. This is the new face of the Southern Strategy where nowadays, it’s not enough to just benefit from these actions and keep silent, but to show their bona fides in pretending to condemn these actions. Too bad that in Tennessee, it just might work. Then you have people using the “OMG they’re using the racism card!” If you’re too blinded and stupid not to know our history to see the implicit racism in this ad then there is no hope for you. This is how Marilyn Musgrave can claim that gay marriage is not just the most important issue in this election, but in all of America. This is how the GOP can continue to use fear to scare us into voting Republican, lest the gays, blacks, “illegal” brown people, terrorists, Iraqis break into our homes and slit our throats or rape us.

FEAR, it’s the only weapon that the GOP has left, it’s just too bad that some people are just so fucking scared that they will believe anything fearmongerers have to say.

Dew, Charles. Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001)

McPherson, James M. Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001)

2006-10-24T17:47:00.000-07:00

Bob Geiger has produced this excellent chart that shatters the myth once and for all that only the GOP supports the troops...The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America or IAVA is NONPARTISAN for all you right-wingers who want to claim LIBRUL BIAS!

Dobson is no Man of God, he is only interested in power...

2006-10-08T12:54:00.000-07:00

"It is the first plausible thing I've heard in seven days."

- Dobson after he read that there were rumors about a possible prank perpetrated on Foley by the pages.

Dobson is no Man of God. He is dismissing the Mark Foley sex scandal as nothing more than a joke perpetrated by a bunch of mischievous, probably liberally-minded and biased teenage pages who were doing the bidding of the Party of Satan, I mean the Democratic Party. If Foley was a Democrat, Dobson would be up in arms sending out emails to his Focus on the Family subscribers and the churches, BEMOANING the fact that our poor children could be at prey from a child predator. He would be saying how inappropriate it was for a 52-year old man to be asking 16-year old boys for their pictures. He would still be blaming the homosexuals of course, but he would also blame the Democrats for being the “party of pedophilia.” (By the way, he has not condemned any Republican for molesting or raping small children, which must mean that he condones any type of behavior as long as you have the right Letter by your name. This folks, is a supposed so-called Man of God.) Maybe it'd be better to call the Republicans the party of pedophilia and prostitutes, instead of the party of family values, unless you count protecting your own political buddies over protecting children family values.

DOBSON: We condemn the Foley affair categorically, and we also believe that what Mr. Clinton did was one of the most embarrassing and wicked things ever done by a president in power. Let me remind you, sir, that it was not just James Dobson who found the Lewinsky affair reprehensible. More than 140 newspapers called for Clinton's resignation. But the president didn't do what Mr. Foley has done in leaving. He stayed in office, and he lied to the grand jury to obscure the facts. As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages.

If I were Clinton, I would have probably lied to the grand jury about having an affair too. It’s embarrassing and I would have wanted to cover it up. Yet Dobson remains silent at this latest episode, preferring to blame the victims. It must be the victims’ fault because they perpetrated the hoax even though the evidence against Foley is overwhelming. Then again, what ABCNews showed us with those disgusting online conversations must be an illusion of Satan meant to disgust the evangelicals so much so that they stay at home. What a joke.

If Foley was the victim of a joke as Dobson claims he was, then WHY in the world did he resign? Did he resign for being gullible? Yes, Dobson would like for you to believe that. But since Foley is a Republican, and Dobson WANTS the Republicans in power, he is doing his best to diffuse this scandal so that his evangelicals stay motivated to go to the polls this November 7th. He is trying to imply that Republicans would NEVER stoop down to such a level and this must be a vast left-wing conspiracy to discredit the party of family values.

Dobson is the same one who encouraged this a while back to protect your child from the evil mind-controlling homosexual agenda with this gem of a soundbite…and he calls himself a child psychologist of all things!

"Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."

Me thinks it’s better for a parent not to follow this sick piece of advice.

Lastly for the ten millionth time, PEDOPHILIA does NOT EQUAL homosexuality.

From the Man of God: Torture protects us! From a GOP consultant: "Peace is not a Biblical value" and other rants

2006-09-20T19:31:00.000-07:00

It’s even worse than we thought! The Republicans don’t just want to go back to the 19th century, to the Gilded Age. They want to go back to a time when we didn’t have the Magna Carta (which dates to 1215), perhaps considered the ultimate influence towards constitutional law today. Habeas Corpus or our right not to be imprisoned which according to habeascorpus.net actually predates the Magna Carta which stated, ““...no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land.”

The National Litterbox backed bill seeks to take away the right of habeas corpus to those imprisoned at Guantanamo whom he considers terrorists although the Red Cross estimates that they are 90% innocent. The Republicans say we want rights for terrorists, but who is to say that the White House would not consider those who dissent against his wars for American hegemony terrorists? What is to prevent Litterbox Bush to whisk us off to another country to be tortured if we dissent publically against his “war on terror?”

The amendment might have passed had two Democrats not missed the vote; the two were at a news conference on the Medicare drug benefit. A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, one of the two, said she was rushing back for the vote but just missed it. “She’s obviously disappointed,” said the spokesman, Jonathan Beeton. “It was unfortunate timing.”

House leaders plan to bring the Bush plan to the floor next week.

Knowing the Rethuglicans and their underhanded tactics, who’s to say that the Rethuglicans knew that two Democrats were going to be absent and went ahead anyway, just biding their time until the Democrats could not be present?

Don’t forget that Litterbox Bush who poses as God’s Favorite Christian and the most pro-lifer out of all of us quietly slipped in a signing statement on the torture ban a while back that “quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.” Remember how he cited national security and his duty to protect the American people? Well imagine this scenario…Let’s say that ANSWER has planned a huge anti-war rally in front of the White House. What’s to say that since according to conservatives and right-wingers we are terrorists, what’s to say that Bush would imprison one of the organizers of the rally indefinitely or even make him disappear? What’s to say that he wouldn’t rendition one of them to a country like Syria, which he condemns in public but sends those to be tortured over there to wash his hands much as Pontius Pilate did? What’s to prevent Bush from imprisoning that activist forever without being any charges to him or her as he claims the “war on terror” can last generations?!

Am I being too paranoid? Am I being too extreme? Am I being too much of a conspiracy theorist? Or am I correct in saying that some right-wingers would actually applaud if one of the guys from ANSWER or Moveon.org or even Michael Moore were tortured in the name of national security?

Republicans are not the party of life, they are the party of Abu Ghirab, they are the party of the Spanish Inquisition, the party of torture, the party of witchcraft trials that killed innocent women and men in Europe and Salem, they are the party of dehumanizing treatment, they are the party of the Dark Ages. They do not care of the irreparable damage that this rejection of McCain’s amendment would do to our country, they do not care for the troops who could fall into enemy hands from a country that might also reinterpret the Geneva Conventions for its own purposes, they just do not care because they are out of touch with the danger our troops face in the field. This is how they can deny them funding for body armor and do nothing while troops scrounge around for metal they can fit into armor, while turning around and saying with a straight face that the GOP is the party that supports the troops while Democrats want them DEAD!

Frist says he will challenge the amendment with a filibuster. Funny, I thought filibusters were supposed to be detrimental to our democracy. I thought it was only a tool that the Democrats were using to subvert the chances of conservative judges I mean Men of God of getting onto the federal appeals courts and the Supreme Court. I thought they wanted to do away with the filibuster. So am I to believe that filibusters to prevent activist judges who would take away all our rights to hold corporations accountable for their injustices against us are bad but filibusters to allow our Litterbox to torture detainees and any others he sees it is okay? What kind of message does it send to the world when America, the supposed beacon of human rights (HAHA) is opposing an amendment that would prevent torture?

Will the right-wing churches that participated in Justice Sunday (which should strip them of their tax-exempt status in a just world instead of a world with an IRS that seeks to intimidate liberal churches opposing war) come out against the filibuster of this amendment or will they come out in favor of torture with their deafening silence?

In other news from the shit-filled Litterbox, Bush was against sending troops into Pakistan to capture Osama before he was for it. Today, he said, “Absolutely” when he was asked if he would send in troops if intelligence indicated Osama was in Pakistan. One wonders if he would ask Musharaff for permission when last week he said he would need an invitation.

Bush’s IRS is seeking to strip away the tax-exempt status of a liberal church in Pasadena that preached against the war in the sermon. Never mind that the pastor was speaking on peace which appears in one of Jesus’ epithets, Prince of Peace. Never mind that the pastor was asking what would Jesus do? Never mind that he castigated BOTH Bush for carrying out the war-mongering policy and Senator Kerry for enabling it. Yet Dobson is free to rant and rave against the Satanic liberals and promote conservative politicians subtly in his voter's guides WHICH will jeopardize or should jeopardize the tax-exempt status of churches that participate in his programs such as the Value Voters Summit coming up in September.

All Saints has been known as "a headquarters for political activity" since the 1970s, said Steve Frank, a GOP consultant who organizes churches for political campaigns. The IRS is probably using the sermon as an excuse to investigate the church's expenditures, Frank said.
"It's not a question of the IRS going after one ideology. They're going after anybody that violates the law," he said. "The reality is it doesn't stop a minister from teaching ... what they believe is the truth within the Bible."

Wait, did he just say that the famous verse in the Bible that says "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9) is not truth within the Bible?

In other news...

Geoff Davis (R-KY naturally) says he supports the troops but he supports even more the loan sharks who charge 400% interest on their loans…He is coming out against a bipartisan bill supported by the Pentagon which would limit interest rates on short-term loans to military members to 36% (as if that wasn't high enough) Wait, wasn’t there a prohibition against usury?

For a party that loves to quote Leviticus, well here’s something for you! 'You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. (Leviticus 25:35-37)

Republicans voted for the 21st century poll tax even though it is unconstitutional, saying that only brown people commit vote fraud. Well if they want their ID law, then make every DMV in the county give IDs and driver’s licenses out for free. Put a DMV in every little town and village and in the rural areas so that EVERYONE can get an ID. The fact that the Republicans would NEVER stand for that with their blame the victim rhetoric (people who cannot afford to go out and get drivers’ licenses either because of the lack of money or lack of transportation) shows that right-wingers dream of the day when voters hailing from the other end of the spectrum were disenfranchised by these poll taxes. The fact that they do not care about Diebold and hackable voting machines shows that they only care for disenfranchising their political enemies. What next? Grandfather clauses for whites who can’t afford the IDs and literacy tests?!

What is happening in Iraq is only a blueprint for Bush's America of the future

2006-09-18T00:24:00.000-07:00

Scary article from the Washington Post I saw earlier yesterday on the rampant cronyism in the rebuilding of Iraq...

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade

How does abortion have to do with rebuilding Iraq?! Two applicants were interviewered about their views on Roe v. Wade. Others were asked primarily who they voted for in 2000? Do you agree with how Bush is handling the war on terrorism? (don’t you just love the subtle hint that Iraq = terror?) We all know that cronyism was rampant in FEMA and other government positions in the EPA, every cabinet position, every department, but why should we not be surprised as the Post is of the rampant cronyism amidst the rebuilding process in Iraq? Is it no wonder that political hacks and lackeys have totally bungled the reconstruction and that we have lost $10 billion of Iraq’s reconstruction money?

As more and more of O'Beirne's hires arrived in the Green Zone, the CPA's headquarters in Hussein's marble-walled former Republican Palace felt like a campaign war room. Bumper stickers and mouse pads praising President Bush were standard desk decorations. In addition to military uniforms and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" garb, "Bush-Cheney 2004" T-shirts were among the most common pieces of clothing.

"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."

So doing things for the good of the country is now replaced by I’m here for the glory of George W. Bush, deified as the emperors were. Disgraceful, EVERYTHING is political. This is like North Korea where even the trains have a portrait of the late Great Leader who is basically deified. It’s like the Roman emperors who could not build temples to themselves in Rome itself, but allowed the provinces to set up temples to burn incense and to offer worship, except it’s not sanctioned by Bush who wouldn’t have a problem with it anyway. At least he didn’t try to appoint Barney to a Senate seat or something. So you can consider the Green Zone a temple of Bush, sacred ground when it shouldn’t be. The cult of Bush is alive and well in the Fertile Crescent.

But that's not the worst of the story...

Veteran Middle East hands were regarded as insufficiently committed to the goal of democratizing the region. Post-conflict experts, many of whom worked for the State Department, the United Nations or nongovernmental organizations, were deemed too liberal. Men such as Kerik -- committed Republicans with an accomplished career in business or government -- were ideal.

Too liberal?! Too liberal!? Insufficiently devoted to the goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East?! (and we all know what democracy means, pro-US governments even if they are dictatorships) So just like in the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ, we have affirmative action for right-wing political hacks and Bush loyalists justified in the name of taking away affirmative action for liberals. We have the same co-opting of affirmative action language to justify affirmative action for the FMR, except that they’re claiming that they’re purging liberals whom they imply only got their jobs through affirmative action and replacing them with “qualified” conservatives who share Bush’s vision. This is what government and the rebuilding I mean Looting of Iraq has come down to because it always comes down to the liberal word. This is not the only time Bush’s cronies have used the liberal word to justify purging qualified liberals out of public service.

Rewind back to a few months back about the controversy over the Civil Rights Division which exposed the Bush' Administration's co-opting of affirmative action language to rid the division of liberals whom they accused of getting in through affirmative action while using the Bush loyalist's affirmative action to pack it with conservatives.

Magnuson also objected to measuring civil rights experience by participation in organizations devoted to advancing traditional civil rights causes. She noted that many of the division's lawyers had been clerks for federal judges, where they ``worked on litigation involving constitutional law, which is obviously relevant to a certain degree."
But Roger Clegg , who was a deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights during the Reagan administration, said that the change in career hiring is appropriate to bring some ``balance" to what he described as an overly liberal agency.

I’m sure O’Beirne is defending these political hacks as qualified to do the job, after all they love National Litterbox Bush and his policies and are ready to jump off the cliff with him just as long as he gives the order. Liberals are not qualified in Bushworld because they are the political hacks while party loyalists are shut out of public service because of some affirmative action policy that rewards the “incompetence” of liberals at the expense of “qualified” Bush loyalists. We needed people who would work with the Bush Administration, not try to obstruct it like the liberals in Congress always do. We all know what balance means to the Chimpeviks: 100% right-wingers who toe the Bush line, who do not question. Debate means how strongly you feel about the president as long as it’s supporting. We can’t have debate on how the Bush policies in the Middle East have failed. We can’t debate unless it’s debating on whether Bush is totally awesome or just incredibly awesome.

What is their agenda in the Middle East? To use Iraq as the experiment laboratory for their agenda here: to privatize everything to the point where even water becomes a cash cow for corporations (beware brown water).

Didn't we hear how privatization is the answer for everything?

Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

We all know that conservative ideas rarely work except on paper with a sufficient amount of conservative bias and Iraq is just proof #7879852.

Haveman (isn't the name appropriate?) didn't like the idea that medical care in Iraq was free. He figured Iraqis should pay a small fee every time they saw a doctor.

One of these bastards objected to the Iraqis having free health care! To paraphrase Al Franken: Get those bums off the street and have them pay for treatment because getting free treatment will encourage them to get sick again!

Instead of trying to restructure the dysfunctional state-owned firm that imported and distributed drugs and medical supplies to hospitals, he decided to try to sell it to a private company.

To prepare it for a sale, he wanted to attempt something he had done in Michigan. When he was the state's director of community health, he sought to slash the huge amount of money Michigan spent on prescription drugs for the poor by limiting the medications doctors could prescribe for Medicaid patients. Unless they received an exemption, physicians could only prescribe drugs that were on an approved list, known as a formulary.

Yeah, because we all know providing life-saving drugs to the poor is socialism and this discourages them from going out to find employment. No wonder Iraq’s unemployment is so damn high. Maybe if we make them pay for their drugs, they’ll get off their lazy asses and find work!

Folks you should be f'in outraged because once the GOP gets their 60-senator majority and totally pack the courts with privatization, corporation-friendly activist judges, the process of duplicating what's going on in Iraq will finally jumpstart here. If you wish to drink brown muddy water while paying exorbitant rates for water, let us all sit back and do nothing. Otherwise, let's take our country back from these demons in November!

This is your so-called president

2006-09-16T12:50:00.000-07:00

This is your so-called president who looks like he is about to burst into a childish temper tantrum because some Senate Republicans refuse to give him what he wants: the White House plan to ~~torture~~ interrogate and detain suspects in the so-called "War on Terror."

"The information the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks) has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including planned strikes inside the United States and on a U.S. Marine base in East Africa, an American consulate in Pakistan and Britain's Heathrow Airport," Bush said.

Right, like the Miami plot where the plotters did not even know what they were doing? Like the plot to take down a busy bridge in New York with a blowtorch? the Holland Tunnel plot that violated the rules of physics? Like the anthrax killer, plot? O wait, never mind.

Bush is so intent in getting torture through that he would even compromise our national security!

Bush heatedly warned rebellious Republicans and other lawmakers Friday that CIA questioning of high-value terrorism suspects will end unless the rules are clarified on how far the interrogations can go.

To a mindless sheep Bush-supporter, this is proof that well the Man of God wants to follow the Geneva Conventions but he is only confused because the rules are so muddled and filled with grey areas. To the Bush supporter, this is proof that Bush is not a lawless president as we liberals and progressives charge. This is proof that Bush is looking out for us but he wants to do it right. He won't risk us violating international law so he would rather shut down the program. But to us, it is something utterly more sinister. Bush never cares about the law, he has 800 signing statements declaring his intentions not to follow certain parts of laws that Congress passes. What makes you think that he would follow the Geneva Conventions? As Buzzflash notes, how can the Geneva Conventions have clarity for every president, Republican or Democrat but not Bush? The wording has not changed and either Bush is admitting he's a complete dumbass who has miniscule reading comprehension ability (plausible considering he does not read or pretends to in order to appear intellectual) or that he is just using it as an excuse to show that he does not care (equally likely, I think it's a combination of the two).

A person who has never gone to war, a person who does not have to worry about his or her family going to war, and a person who sends people to war with no thought or self-doubting on whether Iraq had WMDs or not can never understand the next point John McCain made.

"Weakening the Geneva protections is not only unnecessary, but would set an example to other countries, with less respect for basic human rights, that they could issue their own legislative 'reinterpretations,'" McCain said in a statement released Friday. "This puts our military personnel and others directly at risk in this and future wars."

Bush does not have to worry about the terror of war ever reaching his family. He does not have to worry about one of his relatives coming home in a flag-draped coffin. He does not have to worry about the grief thousands of American families face over the deaths of their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers, and fathers whose lives have been taken away prematurely. He does not have to worry about being orphaned, widowed, wondering how he would provide for his family. He does not have to worry about dreams of making it in life and starting families being thrown away like broken toys by a roadside bomb. These are people who were loved by their own families, people who wanted to start families of their own, people who will never see their newborn sons and daughters who were supposed to bring the utmost joy to their lives, people who wanted to defend their country and their families but were betrayed by an administration more interested in war-profiteering and spreading American hegemony in the Middle East. This is how he can be so gung-ho on torture in the name of protecting the American people. Only a chickenhawk like him and the other neo-cons can be so naive to think that our troops would not be subject to the very treatment we give to the inmates at Guantanamo and Abu Ghirab.

So can we not PLEASE identify Bush as the Manchurian candidate? He is willing to risk America's security if he doesn't get the Senators to go along with torture. He is willing to risk further irreparable damage to our reputation and further risk never being able to recover the good-will throughout the world we will need to work with other countries to bring terror suspects to justice. He constantly forgets Osama Bin Laden except when it comes to scaring the American people right before election time. He has not even tried to capture Osama and uses the excuse that he does not want to violate the sovereignty of a sovereign nation like Pakistan to go after Osama even though he violated Iraq's sovereignty to oust Saddam Hussein, the move Osama wanted to galvanize the Muslim world to his side. He has been willing to compromise national security in the name of reining in government spending with his Congress' refusal to fund port security until the 2006 midterm elections neared. He constantly refuses to hold Halliburton and KBR accountable for their abuses of our troops, whom he claims to support.

Nothing says Support the Troops more than denying them modern body armor

2006-09-14T21:16:00.001-07:00

Votevets.org has probably the most hard-hitting, no-nonsense, in your face ad this election campaign. Who is it against? Senator George Allen (R-VA) who is in the fight for his political survival. A while back, he was being touted as a possible 2008 presidential candidate, a while back he was running comfortably ahead of his Democratic challenger. Then came the infamous Macaca incident, followed by the "I love Brown People rally" which consisted of more whites than not. Now Vote Vets.org has entered the fray with an ad comparing the body armor Donald "We go in with the army we got" Rumfilled sent the troops into Iraq with with modern body armor. I won't spoil the details for you but you have to see the ad to appreciate the magnitude of danger this administration and its enablers send our troops in while pontificating about "supporting" the troops.

Allen voted YES to table an amendment by Senator Landrieu which would have boosted National Guard funding by $1 billion which would have gone to body armor, but his campaign is denying that he actually voted no to not fund body armor. However, isn't tabling an amendment the same as killing it? So yes, he did vote against the troops. He just doesn't want you to know it.

Nothing says Support the Troops more than denying them modern body armor

2006-09-14T21:16:00.000-07:00

The Halliburton Tax: Potential Campaign ads from the DSCC and the DCCC if they were smart

2006-09-10T18:14:00.000-07:00

This is how Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root supports our troops, eat their food and then bill the U.S. government for services it "provided" for the troops. A Super Bowl party for the troops complete with a widescreen TV and chicken wings, tacos, cheesesticks became a Super Bowl party for KBR itself while we paid for the Super Bowl Party apparently the troops never had.

Remember how KBR served SPOILED, ROTTEN FOOD for our troops, and there were NO cries of outrage from the Republicans about it. None. This is supporting our troops, GOP style: Allow your cronies to FUCK em over and then stand idly by while they make a profit off it.

The Republicans want to get personal on this election campaign? Well bring it on! We can play dirty just the same except that we won't be mud-slinging like the Republicans do, because it's not when you're telling the truth. Why don't we air ads showing rotting food in a dumpster somewhere with a caption that says, "Dick Cheney's company served our troops spoiled food while the Republicans did nothing to investigate. Is this supporting our troops?"

Or how about this? "KBR, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney's former company stole a Super Bowl Party from the troops and wasted taxpayer money billing US for it. Is this supporting our troops?" Then you would show a cartoon of corporate pigs watching the Super Bowl on a widescreen while gobbling up wings, nachos, tacos, pizza, etc. on a split screen with troops in an empty room asking, "Where's our party?"

You know what? Let's call KBR and Halliburton overcharging us for laundry ($100 per 15 pounds of laundry) and a 12-pack of soda ($45!) the Halliburton tax. In my state of California, the California GOP is running ads saying that Angelides is for raising every tax ever dreamed about. Well let's fight back. Let's say the GOP is for keeping the Halliburton tax, ripping you, the American taxpayer while allowing it to make obscene profits while fucking our troops over. Do you want your money going towards spoiled food, $45 packs of soda, unsanitary kitchens with BLOOD AND ROTTING FOOD ALL OVER THE FLOOR?!

They say that Halliburton: Lodged 100 workers at a five-star hotel in Kuwait for a total of $10,000 a day while the Pentagon wanted them to stay in tents, like soldiers, at $139 a night; Abandoned $85,000 trucks because of flat tires and minor problems; Paid $100 to have a 15-pound bag of laundry cleaned as part of a million-dollar laundry contract in peaceful Kuwait. The price for cleaning the same amount of laundry in war-torn Iraq was $28; Spent $1.50 a can to buy 37,200 cans of soda in Kuwait, about 24 times higher than the contract price; and knowingly paid subcontractors twice for the same bill.

Government waste...The Republicans claim that it's your money and that you should have say over it and that the government just takes it and wastes it. Yet when Halliburton takes YOUR money and wastes it like junking perfectly servicable trucks so that you can pay for more trucks, it's not waste according to the silence coming from the Republicans. It's just the free market at work except that our troops are getting screwed over. Your money is going to accommodate Halliburton contractors at five-star hotels while our troops sleep in tents for a fraction of the cost. Yet, there is no cry from the Republicans who get all pious and teary-eyed when they talk about how taxes for the rich are affecting ordinary Americans and how it's your money and not the government's.

and Remember, the GOP is not the party of the troops, it's the party of Halliburton. Back in 2005, they KILLED a bill that would have investigated Halliburton's ripping off of the American taxpayer with a lame promise that they would eventually investigate Halliburton sometime later...Fast forward to June 2006...Surely ENSIGN would keep his promise to jumpstart a Halliburton investigation after all, he did say this...
"I want to inform the Senator from North Dakota that, hopefully, when we come back for a couple days in December, as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I plan on holding hearings on exactly this. I plan on pulling that curtain back. I plan on getting into the investigation in the same way as Harry Truman. If it happens to be it is embarrassing to the administration, we are going to find out the truth on this--just like Harry Truman went after those cost-plus contracts in those days. It is not only the soul-source aspect, it is also the fact they are cost-plus contracts."
The Republicans killed S.AMDT.4230 which would have dealt with contracting "by eliminating fraud and abuse and improving competition in contracting and procurement."

Wells Fargo has a commercial on the radio wondering how much better the world would be if we all knew where our money goes...Well we can with My Spending Report...It's about time the Democrats ask the same question. Wells Fargo customers...you know where your money goes, but do the American taxpayers know where their money is going when it comes to Halliburton? Do you think that it's going to gourmet food (have a screenshot of troops finally back at home enjoying lavish dinners and parties) or is it really going towards this? Then have a screenshot of a slab of rotting beef (don't mind the smell, it's for the good of the country) Then have a screenshot showing the facts and then blast the GOP for not investigating, then end with this line: "The GOP thinks supporting the troops means providing them with foods that could poison them while Halliburton gets rich. The GOP thinks that your tax dollars should be funneled to Halliburton."

You know what, we shouldn't worry about GOP cries that we are exploiting the troops when we should stand by them. The corporate media does not care that another corporation is exploiting their troops because it would make the GOP look bad. We need to get the message out, especially in the red states in the South where the military is everything to them. Do they even know what Halliburton is doing to their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers serving in the military? Probably not, because the GOP would rather keep them in the dark while appearing in photo-ops with the troops to show that yeah, they really are the party that supports the troops. These Southerners need to realize that the GOP is not providing any oversight to check the abuses being wrought upon our troops and by GOD, we need to make that connection.

There's going to be hell to pay if ABC goes through with this docudrama

2006-09-07T01:07:00.000-07:00

Digby notes that Disney flip-flopped when it comes to showing politically-charged movies. When Michael Moore’s movie which made $200 million came out, it blocked its Miramax division from distributing the movie because…

''It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,'' this executive said.

But now…they’re perfectly willing to distribute it everywhere: to the schools and to Republicans only of course…

Does the movie have the president reacting to the August 6, 2001 memo nonchalantly and staying on vacation while the country faced its greatest threat which eventually came to fruition a month and five days later?

Does the movie have a split screen showing Bush launching golf drives on vacation while the other shows Bush signing Terri’s law?

I wonder if the film has anything about how we OUTSOURCED the upcoming capture of Bin Laden in Tora Bora which allowed him to get away…

I wonder if the film has that infamous video clip where Bush is caught saying, “So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him. … And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 was based on fact even if he did kind of stretch the truth a bit, but overall it was based on fact and what did Disney do? They refused to distribute it. Moore did NOT make up scenes unlike this movie on the other hand has scenes in which the director admitted he made up which portray Clinton administration officials and Sandy Berger in a bad light. They bend over backwards and do their best to promote the movie. At least Michael Moore does not pretend that it is nonpartisan but Bernie Ward points out that the movie was given a R rating so that it wouldn’t be shown in the schools. Shouldn’t this movie be given one too instead of giving it out to 100,000 schools?

What are they so afraid of that they won’t distribute it to Democrats, liberal bloggers, Daily Kossacks? Why are they only giving it out to right-wingnuts? Doesn’t that show you that they’re afraid of what we have to say about the movie and they are tacitly conceding that the movie is blatantly biased against Clinton? What are they so afraid of? Oh, that's right, an internal memo said basically the movie was all about blaming the Clenis, I mean Clinton for 9-11.

But the blame on the Clinton team is in the DNA of the project and could not be eradicated without pulling the entire show....

You know since the movie has made-up scenes, I would not have been surprised if there was a scene with Osama Bin Laden meeting with Saddam shaking hands and plotting 9/11.

And to DeMint who says that if the Democrats spent half the time helping them fight this “War on Terror,” we would be closer to victory, well if Bush spent half the time on Bin Laden as he spent linking 911 to Iraq and misleading the Iraqi people, we would have captured him and brought him to justice.

Please go here to send a message to ABC

2006-08-29T15:32:00.000-07:00

You know a recent discussion in my blog made me think. If the right cares so much about babies born out of wedlock or to rape victims, how come they do not do anything to help fund child care for the baby? How come if the baby is put up for adoption, they not call for the funding of adoption programs and centers?

Is it because once the baby is out of the womb, they do not care about the baby or what happens to him/her? Somehow the reason that pro-choicers would not support such legislation does not satisfy me necessarily.

The fact is the GOP loves to use abortion as a wedge issue, but when it comes to walking the walk, they are afraid to walk the plank. I don't know why the Democrats don't stress this out, but abortion when put up against economic issues such as giving corporations the right to screw the people over economically always comes up short. The example I allude to countlessly ad nauseam is the vote of the 37 senators considered most pro-life when it came to allowing the EPA to use data from studies conducted by pesticide companies which used pesticides on pregnant women who have yes, you guessed it fetuses.

Many of these babies will be put up for adoption, so shouldn't it make sense that if South Dakota was going to ban abortion except when the mother's life was in danger, to also fund foster-care programs, adoption programs, and child-care programs? Wouldn't it make sense to fork aside some funds to ensure that these babies find loving homes where they could lead productive lives?

Or does the criticism and charge that right-wingers only care about the baby if he/she's in the womb ring true more than ever today? So, many of these politicians believe that well the mother should bear all the responsibility for taking care of her child? Is that what it is? Well then, maybe some Republican should bring up a child care bill. Hell, rescind the tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of the country and see how much support is drummed up. My guess is that Republicans and our supposedly pro-life president will not support this bill if the richest Americans have to pay for it. Would they support it even if the tax cuts weren't on the line or would this be another social program that the government shouldn't have to pay for?

Kudos to Senator Coburn for going against the majority of his party in voting no on that legislation. At least he is being consistent on this issue, but shame on the "pro-life" senators who chose money over the unborn.

The right believes in a lazy form of pro-life ideology: they believe that if you ban abortion, then abortions will magically disappear because everyone will be loathe to break the law. How NAIVE! They believe that just being against abortion and stem-cell research will be enough, that they don't have to call for better economic conditions that help lower the rate of abortions. They do not believe in providing a social safety net to ensure that mothers do not have to resort to abortion because they are impoverished and cannot afford to have the baby. Many on the right do not believe that corporations should be prevented from testing their products on pregnant women such as the example I have provided above. Is this pro-life ideology? Many of them do support executing those on death row, even though a true pro-lifer would claim that one innocent executed is one too many when hundreds could potentially be exonerated and probably some have even been executed. I challenge the right to bolster the middle class and the poor so that mothers have a decent income to start a family. I challenge them to put ideology aside and work towards reducing the number of abortions. I challenge them to put their loving rhetoric about how every baby needs a chance and start providing them with one to succeed in life instead of having to rely on the lottery which determines if you'll be born into a rich family or not.

2006-08-25T15:13:00.000-07:00

Will Americans be fooled by the administration’s rhetoric concerning ~~Iraq~~ Iran with a N this time around or will they see that it is indeed recycled rhetoric? Will Iran be tied to 9/11 as Brent Cunningham of the Columbia Journalism Review speculates? Yes Iran is a threat, but is it the boogeyman that the Litterbox and his minions will hype it into just in time for the midterm elections? (Vote GOP or Iran will NUKE your cities!)

The fact is Iran can spew all hate towards Israel and all desire that it’ll be wiped off the map, but would they do anything against Israel knowing that one attack would be enough to invite perhaps a nuclear strike? Maybe the Iranian president’s rhetoric is just populist rhetoric to muster up support from the masses or maybe he is unhinged, but Iran would never attack Israel for that reason. But you wouldn’t know that from the neo-con’s rhetoric. You’d think that Iran was planning a nuclear strike on New York City or the heartland!

This is why they outed Valerie Plame. The administration does NOT want reliable intelligence on the supposed threat from Iran if it exists. They didn’t want reliable intelligence on the WMDs in Iraq that have not been found. They did NOT want reliable evidence to debunk the supposed link that Saddam had with Al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks. It is not surprising that over 60% believe that Saddam helped plan or even was the MASTERMIND of the terrorist attacks. The administration wants a cowed CIA to cherry-pick at best or to distort at worst all evidence so that it could support their rush to war. The administration is supposed to use the evidence and then make a crucial judgment whether to pull the trigger or not, but everything has been turned upside-down in Litterboxland. Now, intelligence is twisted to “vindicate” the administration’s ideology and the administration is trying to pressure the CIA to present intelligence that fits the pResident’s world view.

Will we hear Bill Kristol say that striking at Iran would be a cakewalk? Will he say that a tactical air strike perhaps with nuclear weapons would be enough to take out the Iranian “threat?” Is he naïve enough to think that the Iranians only have one nuclear site? Iran Focus reported that Iran has over 300 reported nuclear sites in the whole country. Is Bush prepared to bomb out all 300 sites? Do we even have reliable intelligence on those sites? Perhaps if the BUSH administration wasn’t so adept at outing CIA operatives for political points, maybe we would.
In fact, let’s take this further. Let’s fulfill the sick, twisted fantasy of the Savage Weiner and the other right-wingers who want to turn the Middle East into a parking lot. Let’s just bomb the whole nation to the Stone Age. Let’s bomb Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and see what the whole world does. Maybe they’ll send flowers and candy to the White House praising us for taking out the Middle East and bringing our version of the Pax Americana to the world. Yeah, let’s see how nuking the Middle East wins us friends and solves problems. Right-wingers are so damn naïve or have their heads stuck up so far up the wrong end that they actually think that this would solve everything. They don’t see that we would just confirm that we are the rogue state and deserve to be a pariah in the court of world opinion. But at least the Rapture would come, wouldn’t it, once the bodies start to pile up in the Middle East?

For once in this administration, can it PLEASE try pressuring Iran through diplomacy and get the court of world opinion on our side instead of alienating our allies and isolating us like the time we went into Iraq with the Coalition of the Willing which included some island countries in the Pacific?

Deceptive Petition-gathering processes threaten gay marriage in MA

2006-08-23T10:42:00.000-07:00

Saw this on AmericaBLOG

VoteonMarriage.org which seeks to overturn Massachusetts' historic gay marriage law has turned to Arno Petition Consultants which has been accused of fraudulent petition-gathering tactics to help get its proposed measure that would overturn the gay marriage law in 2008, Knowthyneighbor.org reports. Voteonmarriage.org reportedly supports the Benefits Fairness Act which supposedly

amend existing laws to extend the following rights and benefits to reciprocal beneficiaries:

1. Hospital visitation rights;

2. The right to designate a reciprocal beneficiary to make health care decisions in the event the other reciprocal beneficiary is unable to do so;

3. Automatic revocation of a health care proxy upon the termination of a "Reciprocal Beneficiary Contract";

4. The right of the surviving reciprocal beneficiary to authorize organ and tissue donations unless the deceased reciprocal beneficiary has specifically and previously indicated otherwise;

5. The right to make funeral arrangements for one another;

6. The right of insurers to include reciprocal beneficiaries, like relatives:

a. In a liability insurance contract;
b. As recipients of annuities under a group annuity contract;
c. In a group life insurance contract;
d. As recipients of life insurance proceeds in the event no designated beneficiary is alive;
e. Under any general or blanket accident or health insurance policy;

7. The right to have health coverage extended for a period of 39 weeks, when a policyholder of a group medical insurance becomes ineligible because of involuntary layoff or death;

8. The right to create a tenancy in common or joint tenancy with survivorship for a home;

9. Certain rights under the Homestead Protection Act which protects home ownership in the event of personal bankruptcy;

10. Inheritance rights when there is no will;

11. Next of kin status for the reciprocal beneficiary of a mental health patient;
12. Right to recover damages arising out of injury to the reciprocal beneficiary.

However, me thinks that gay couples would not be included in this category and the "pro-marriage" website does not mention them. Me thinks that this is an attempt to cast a humane face on the anti-gay marriage movement, to show the people that they're not really the cold-hearted, hard-ass, mean-spirited people that they truly are. Me thinks this is an attempt to sanitize their image to run away from the stereotype of the mean, hypocritical, un-Christian fundie.

The following scenarios have been reported:

Scenario 1 - Citizens were told they were signing the wine petition when the anti-gay marriage petition was actually presented.

Scenario 2 - Citizens were first asked to sign the wine petition and then asked to sign again on a second page. The second page was actually the anti-gay marriage petition.

Scenario 3 - Citizens were told they were signing a petition to protect gay marriage when it was actually the anti-gay marriage petition.

This is supposedly the party of high morals and family values. Well I did not realize that it's apparently okay to lie about your intentions when you're supposedly doing "God's work." I did not know that it is apparently okay to lie and cheat as long as God "approves" of what you're doing.

This is a common deceptive practice I've encountered on the right when it comes to petition signing. First, they'll give you a list of petitions about 10-12 pages deep. Most of it will be like some environmental issue or progressive one. Sometimes it'll even be about preserving the Clean Air Act or something like that or save some stretch of land. They'll pressure you into signing, perhaps instinctively sensing that you're in a hurry which means they can bother you into signing just to get them to shut up. Then as you sign and sign these petitions, you'll finally get to their poison pill of a petition usually towards the bottom after you've wearily gone through 8 signatures along with including your address and email or whatever. By that time, you just want to get the fuck out of there and get to class or whatever. By that time, you're not reading the petitions if you're in a hurry, but you're signing.

My guess is that happened in the anti-gay, anti-family Massachusetts movement's zealous rush to get a measure on the ballot that would overturn the gay marriage law. The fact that they have to hide their intent shows that they are not really proud of doing God's work. They love to trumpet their faith for everyone to see, they love to be the Pharisee that prays in the streetcorner for everyone to marvel at. They love to be the Pharisee who walks with a glum face to show everyone that he's fasting. They love to talk about "loving the sinner, but hating the sin" when it is clear that their mean-streak wants to make our gay brothers and sisters second-class citizens. If they could, if they could, they would even try to take away citizenship and the rights that come along with it, but fortunately we're too far on the road to progress for that. But in this case, they are ashamed, because they have to hide their intentions. If this is supposedly God's work, should they not be proud and have it on the first page and proudly proclaim that this is a measure to "protect the sacred institution of marriage?" This applies to the Creationists in Dover who tried to hide the fact that ID was Creationism dressed up in science even though they proudly professed the fact that they were Christians. Why is it that these religious folk feel that they have to hide the fact that they're doing "God's work?"

My guess is that Scenario 2 is most likely.

This is why one must be EXTREMELY careful when it comes to petition signing because you never know whether you'll encounter a sheep in wolves' clothing. OFTEN these right-wingers will cast themselves as progressives, especially here in California to get those signatures. For example, I've found petitions calling for a measure that would INCREASE the length of a teacher's tenure and the "right to work" petitions buried under progressive or liberal-friendly petitions. My guess is that they throw away the signatures for these petitions and only keep those that they approve of. This is why people need to take the time to read. If you're absolutely in a rush, just ignore the petition-gatherer. If they constantly harass you, this is just more proof that something is amiss and that it isn't pretty.

Judge rules warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional

2006-08-17T10:14:00.000-07:00

A victory nonetheless in the Litterbox Wars but this fight isn't over. It is a given that the administration would appeal to the Supreme Court and this is where it will get ugly. A federal appeals judge has ordered the NSA program halted for she ruled that it is unconstitutional.

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The Culture of Nixonian politics which has its mantra that says. "It's not illegal if the president does it" needs to be stopped right here and now, otherwise we will replace our system of checks and powers with a system where two branches of government are subservient to the first. This is not what the founding Fathers intended. They did not intend to turn the president into a king accountable to no one.

Federalist Paper #51

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

The only problem is the Chimpeviks have strayed from the spirit of Federalist Paper #51 in their Supreme Court appointments and this is where we will rue the day the Democrats turned around on bended knee and bowed down to the president's demand that they appoint his nominees who were supposedly moderate and would practice judicial restraint but are in reality right-wing extremist activist judges who use the law to promote corporatism and the accumulation of executive branch power. Any dumbass could see that these were no moderates, but what could you expect from the Gang of 14? It seems that Alito and Roberts know that they are beholden to the Litterbox for their jobs and quite clearly vote in favor of his interests instead of destroying "all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them. It seems that Bush has installed a Crony answerable to him only everywhere whether it is the Supreme Court or a regulatory agency and this my friends, will most likely screw us over when (not if) this case is appealed.

State secrets excuse has become a convenient one for the Litterbox Administration as Glenn Greenwald notes here, but was rejected here. However, the data-mining by ATT part of the lawsuit was dismissed for lack of confirmation.

This is an important victory but don't expect our Mainstream Media to broadcast it to the American people. It is more important to discuss the sick details of JonBenet Ramsey's final hours to the American people in their need to discuss the gory details. Just reading the link on Yahoo news is enough to disgust you but the media obviously feels the need to go into more detail when this should not be news that is broadcast to the whole American people as the most pressing issue of the day. I'm surprised Fox News even had a tiny link in its latest headlines bar about this judge nixing the NSA program but the whole front page was devoted to JonBenet and her killer. Apparently "Who is John Mark Karr?" was obviously more important than a judge standing up to the belief that the president who thinks he's a wartime president can trample over the Constitution. MSNBC has more of the same, and at CNN.com, three of the four videos are on this case and the other is about a superbug that has some doctors worried. I do not feel the need to dignify their coverage by linking to it.

Cats understand that we need to promote respect for everyone regardless of gender...

2006-08-16T21:58:00.000-07:00

Please go here to the Carnival Against Sexual Violence (the 5th edition) for more information about rape, sexual harassment, and sexism. There are excellent blogs that are featured here that all contribute towards the raising of awareness in what has become a sort of condoned, if not acceptable culture of sexism which promotes a "boys will be boys" mentality anywhere from the Pentagon to the office.

Cheney: vote for Republicans or else DIE! DIE! DIE!

2006-08-14T12:31:00.000-07:00

Let's face it. The Scratching Post of all Scratching Posts, Dick Cheney should come out with a voter's guide that orders Americans to vote for certain candidate that only he approves of. It would be consistent with the utter contempt he holds for the average American voter. How else could he come out and basically imply that voting for Lamont was like exactly what Osama Bin Laden ordered? How else could he come out and say that the voters chose wrongly and pretty much enabled terrorism? How else could he come out and say we voted for the Al Qaeda ticket? (Didn't he say that if you voted for John Kerry, you would DIE in another terrorist attack and it would be well-deserved because you didn't follow Daddy Republican Warbucks' orders?)

It's so easy, all he has to do is make a voter form and photoshop the Democrat's head into that infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. This would reinforce the myth that Iraq = Al Qaeda, Bin Laden = Saddam, Democrats = Al Qaeda that this administration is spewing out to the airwaves, to the unquestioning, subservient media.

But then again, would Americans be fooled by him again if he were to do such a despicable follow-up to his utter damnable commentary? After all, didn't we believe him when he said the insurgency was in its death throes a year ago and that Iraq could attack the United States with unmanned drones? So from now on, we should entrust our democracy to Cheney so perhaps they wouldn't have to tinker with Diebold machines to actually "win."

A party that cannot claim any significant victory on the "War on Terror" even though they would have loved to co-opt the credit the Brits got for foiling the latest credible terrorist plot (unlike these dream scenarios the administration comes up with) is now reduced to linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and insinuating that if you don't vote for Republicans, Osama will then target you for death and destruction.

Save 1-800-SUICIDE: Time is running out!

2006-08-11T18:02:00.000-07:00

A few posts ago, I wrote on the federal government's decision to shutdown the 1-800-SUICIDE network in favor of a government-operated system where the government WILL HAVE ACCESS to confidential information or they'll take over the operation. Nonetheless, this does not bode well for the hotline which is 6 hours away from being shutdown. People who call these hotlines rely on confidentiality for numerous reasons. Perhaps they don't want their families to know of their crisis, perhaps they don't want an employer getting word of how he/she called the hotline. Imagine what employers can do to a suicidal person including termination for reasons to cut health care costs?

Our government has room to fund pork projects including that damn bridge to nowhere (a village of 50 people) but cannot fork over badly-needed funds to support the hotline so it can pay its $266,000 bill just because it refused to turn over management to the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA)?

"Our concern is that in order for suicide hotlines to be effective, the lines must be completely confidential," Save-1-800-SUICIDE spokesman Scott Goodstein told RAW STORY today. "Who will call a suicide hotline if there is any fear that a record of the call can be made by the government or if they are concerned their call might be logged into a government database?" he asked.

This administration has been the most intrusive into our private lives whether it's through domestic wiretapping or this. We cannot allow SAMHSA to get its hands on confidential information. Who can trust a hotline that will just feed its calls to an interested government? Who can trust a hotline that is controlled by a government interested in getting into our bedrooms and our private lives?

What we have to do
Tell the feds to keep their hands off the hotline...

Donate

Analysis of the Pro-War, Pro-Death, Pro-War profiteering right

2006-08-11T11:31:00.000-07:00

Original post here...

The PRO-WAR right lives in an alternate universe which bears little resemblance to the world the rest of us live in. For example, Iraq is a threat and could have nuked us or sent unarmed drones to New York City within 45 minutes! North Korea isn't a threat but Iraq was. We would be welcomed with flowers and Iraqi candy by joyful "liberated" Iraqis and the insurgency was in its last throes about a year ago. Osama is no longer a threat but Saddam must have been the secret mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks.

The Pro-war winger's brain works like this: Paint a rosy picture of progress in Iraq and then use it to justify staying the course. It is very, very hard to deal with pro-war neo-cons because of this. We get strange events like this: the pro-war winger says that the people of Iran would welcome us with grateful smiles, flowers, and kisses if we invade Iran even though it has been proven to be false in Iraq. The pro-war winger says that President Bush would never lie his country into war and that intelligence failed him.

To boil this down, once a PRO-WAR winger stakes out a position, then it must forever be correct - no subsequent facts will in any way, shape or form alter the original pro-war chickenhawk position. It doesn't matter that the WMD "found" in Iraq were degraded chemical munitions dating from before 1991 and forgeries that support the rush to war become credible documents. It doesn't matter that our soldiers are dying over there. At any rate, any contravening evidence is likely manufactured by the Real Enemy to cover up the truth.

The White House sees the Red Alert as an opportunity to score political points

2006-08-10T22:41:00.000-07:00

Leave it to the international media to finally get the story right. While our media is congratulating Bush and his cronies for doing an effective job on the "War on Terror" out of the goodness of their hearts, the French AFP is reporting that the Bush Administration is planning to get political POINTS out of this.

But let me let an anonymous White House official do the talking here.

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

Disgusting and despicable. To the Bush Administration, terror plots are God's gift on Earth because then they could turn around and use them to paint Democrats as defeatocrats and cut-and-runners. They could use it to scare people into voting Republican. While the British do an excellent job in capturing terrorists before they carry out their plots, all what we do is hype up the terror alerts so that they become looked upon with suspicion as nothing more than political stunts to boost the president's sagging poll ratings. Truly a sad day...when the administration cannot hide its pleasure at seeing a terror plot unfold so that they can say that they ARE doing a good job.

Coincidence or not? It's all about Timing...

2006-08-10T11:57:00.000-07:00

It gets even worse. Bush and Cheney most likely KNEW about the investigation the Brits were conducting over this terror plot while Cheney was going about with his "since we didn't choose Lieberman, Osama will KILL US" spiel. He knew they were under surveillance for several days and the police could have pounced anytime. Buzzflash notes the timing of this announcement sounds suspicious in that Lieberman's loss to Lamont shows that the people are beginning to see past the litterbox's rhetoric about staying the course in Iraq to fight the war on terror. They're beginning to doubt that the Republicans are strong on national security, and look what comes up? A terror plot foiled just in the nick of time to give Bush and the Republicans the boost they need to fool the people once again that they are the party of National Security?

This is the party that thought Paris Hilton's inheritance was more important than $1.5 billion to fund port security including $300 million which is chump change to fund the inspection of ALL suspicious looking containers passing through our ports. This is the party that thought a $1.7 billion missile defense system was much more important.

Let's make this clear. The Bush Administration isn't interested in fighting terror but rather only interested in politicizing it to create an atmosphere of fear in the American populace. By the timing of an announcement such as this or leaking highly sensitive information about the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan who was tracking down Al Qaeda operatives for the Pakistani government, further compromising the Al Qaeda sting operation, it is clear that terror is just a way to get the voters to vote Republican. They leaked the identity of a double agent because the public was skeptical about a previous terror alert! This is of course TREASON for political purposes. Of course the media won't highlight this as they have an interest in seeing the Republicans in power because they support media consolidation...

Remember this is the administration that pressured the Pakistanis to try to capture high value targets before the 2004 election so it would seem that Bush's War on Terror was working!

But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), “The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections.” Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations–according to a recently departed intelligence official, “no timetable[s]” were discussed in 2002 or 2003–but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, “The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections.”

Update:

Q But the President, himself, approved the red alert?
MR. SNOW: Correct. It was a recommendation by the Homeland Security Council, by Secretary Chertoff and others.

Q When did he approve it?
MR. SNOW: Yesterday.

Continued

Q: When did the President first learn about this plot and the investigation into it?
MR. SNOW: Again, we're being a little careful on operational details. I think it's safe to say to what I said before, which is he certainly has been extensively briefed over the last few days as the operation that took place became more and more imminent.

Q Was part of that during the teleconference on Sunday?
MR. SNOW: Let's see, what day was Sunday, that was the 6th? Yes. Yes.

Update: saw on DailyKos more proof that the Bush Administration knew of this terror plot and used it not to inform the American people, but to politicize the War on Terror, to paint Democrats as willing to surrender to terrorists and to paint Lamont's win as OSAMA's number one goal. Instead of informing the people right away, they had to wait until Lamont's win to get the maximum political effect...This is pure disgusting bullshit as evidenced by this...

Lieberman lost so what do they turn to? That's right! It's time to play PRETTY COLORS!

2006-08-10T05:20:00.000-07:00

It’s time for a Red Alert, folks! After a year of no terror alerts, we have achieved a milestone in the Litterbox’s Identify the Colors game.

You know I want to believe the litterbox’s Homeland Security Department, I want to believe that the Brits have actually thwarted a legitimate terrorist plot and I do considering the police worked with MI5. But as AmericaBLOG notes, these so-called Al Qaeda cells on our soil have turned out to be all bark and no bite, with most of them being some friends who did more grumbling than doing and another one where they really were going to defy the laws of physics and try to flood Manhattan! Right, we all know Bush probably doesn’t know jack shit about physics and all…but his propaganda machine dreamt that one up in a hurry. I’m sure not all terrorists are that dumb…

In fact, JuliusBlog put together a chart overlapping Bush’s poll numbers and the terror alerts. Considering many of the plots supposedly cooked up were later proven to be false alarms, it isn’t surprising that many on our side of the political spectrum don’t believe anything this administration says. Why should we believe Homeland Security when it pushes the threat level to Red even though the Brits say that they had a major terrorist plot brewing. Yeah, we’ve heard that before, when the Democrats held their national convention in 2004, or when Bush failed to receive a bounce in the polls after the GOP National Convention and whenever something happened in the News detrimental to Bush in that glorious 2004 of bright and pretty colors!

Lieberman, according to the myth of national security Republicans, is a strong Democrat on the War on Terror which actually consists of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL). Since Ned Lamont squeaked out an important, earth-shattering victory, the Litterbox Administration knows that its minions in Congress who march in lock-step to the litterbox’s orders are toast due to a failed policy of “stay the course” in Iraq while letting Osama off scot-free, off to make more videos at opportune times. It’s just a mere cynical attempt to scare Americans into believing the rhetoric of the Republicans, that we must stay the course in Iraq and magically these terrorists will be caught. However if we retreat, this will embolden the terrorists to come to our shores more often and we will be less effective in combating the threat of terror.

The Brits have it all right with their intelligence operations through law enforcement. That is what we should be doing instead of invading other countries that have never attacked us before. We should have special-ops forces on the hunt for Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, people who have been forgotten while the Bush Administration goes hunting for more opportunities to increase American hegemony…

O'Reilly: Rape, murder victim was "wearing a miniskirt and a halter top.

2006-08-04T17:20:00.000-07:00

We live in a culture that condones rape as nothing more than men letting out their sexual desires, because it's part of our evolutionary psychology or something like that, you know man is the hunter and is a natural rapist. Last time that argument was brought forth to justify rape, it was rightfully attacked as nothing more than an excuse for rapists. But my friends, this is lower than low.

O'Reilly: Rape, murder victim was "wearing a miniskirt and a halter top. ... [E]very predator in the world is gonna pick that up at 2 in the morning"

While discussing the recent rape and murder of 18-year-old Jennifer Moore during the August 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly appeared to suggest that the clothing she was wearing at the time helped incite her killer. O'Reilly discussed several factors that contributed to the "moronic" girl's rape and murder, including that she was drunk and wandering the streets of New York City alone late at night. But in addition to those factors, O'Reilly added: "She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at 2 in the morning."

Now I know that O'Reilly is an opinionated asshole but this takes the cake. He claims to be a moderate but in reality he is nothing more than a right-wing hack. He does not feel any compassion for this victim, he does not feel any empathy towards her. I thought the defense of the victim wearing seductive, suggestive clothing was outdated and even banned in the court of law, but in the court of opinion, sexist attitudes die hard even though they should be buried in the dustbin of history....

O'REILLY: So anyway, these two girls come in from the suburbs and they get bombed, and their car is towed because they're moronic girls and, you know, they don't have a car. So they're standing there in the middle of the night with no car. And then they separate because they're drunk. They separate, which you never do. All right.
Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was. 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She's walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she's out of her mind, drunk.

But isn't that the standard defense now? The victim was drunk so she obviously WANTED to be raped and murdered. She was asking for it!

And the thug is so stupid, he uses her cell phone, and the cops trace it back to him and they -- and they arrest him and charge him with murder.

At least he called the rapist a thug, but other than that, I cannot find any condemnation of the rapist for his vile crime. Maybe he could have come out and condemned the culture of sexism which allows us to excuse rapists for their crimes by suggesting that the victims were Sirens who ensnare us. Instead of pouring down curses and condemnation well-deserved upon the thug, he gets on his case not for raping and killing the girl, but for being stupid, for being caught with his hands in the cookie jar! But this seems to be the culture of responsibility on the far right: it's more important not to get caught than to not engage in criminal acts.

I really love seeing how some on the right-wing always ALWAYS become apologists for rapists by shifting all blame and responsibility to the victim. I really love how he is suggesting that it was her fault for putting herself into that situation. I love seeing how he is implying that the poor victim is nothing more than a slut who dressed provocatively and "got what she deserved." I love seeing how O'Reilly makes himself look even more of an ass than he already is. He's said some despicable things in the past, but this has got to be a new low. I love how he has the gall to spit on the victim's body by calling her "moronic."

As I've said before, conservatives and these holier-than-thou Pharisees have framed the rape issue by completely turning around who becomes the criminal and who becomes the victim. O'Reilly is simply reinforcing the stereotype that women are no better than animals who need to be tamed whether through marriage or even rape. Yes, he used the word predator, yes we all do, but O'Reilly frames it into an issue of the hunter vs. the hunted instead of it being the crime it should be. The theme of the hunt is prevalent throughout mythology and in ancient Greek magic which I hope to study someday, to tame the "beast." Congratulations, O'Reilly, you just put yourself in the Religious Right camp when it comes to rape...by blaming the victim, you are no better than the fundamentalist preachers who counsel rape victims to look inside to see "where they sinned." This is why rape victims are more likely than not to decline reporting their rape, because of the condemnation and ridicule our society places upon them.

As I have said before, this is how the right can turn around and tie this to abortion. Now no one likes abortion, unlike what those on the far right would love to tell you. No one wants to be aborted fetuses, but where do we strike the balance when it comes to a rape victim who has been psychologically damaged and would be further damaged if she carried her baby to term? The far right would love to "punish" the victim by having her "keep" the baby as they love to frame it as an "unwanted child" issue, but that is not their main concern. Their main concern judging on studies done on them and these attitudes toward rape victims is punishment and condemnation. The slut got what she deserved and she's trying to find an easy way out?!

Rape SHOULD NEVER BE CONNECTED TO WHETHER YOU ARE "RESPECTABLE" OR NOT. (Yes, I realize it is all in CAPS but this needs to be...) Rape should NEVER be connected to whether you're drunk or whatever you're wearing or however you're behaving. Perhaps we should learn to keep our dicks in our pants when it comes to someone who cannot give consent NO MATTER WHAT, but until we address this issue, both men and women and change our society's beliefs so that women do not become seductive animals in our thoughts and in our minds, then this will continue to happen.

So O'Reilly, I'll call you out as AN ENABLER OF RAPISTS! You and your ilk give comfort and aid to every rapist or potential rapist...everytime you blame a victim while keeping silent on the criminal.

Nevada GOP: Cheating is just a joke, just a game. Don't get too serious

2006-08-03T18:23:00.000-07:00

State GOP resorts to tricks, Democrats say
By MOLLY BALL
REVIEW-JOURNAL
A campaign mailer sent to Democrats over the weekend said it was from a political action committee called Searchlight. But it didn't have anything to do with Sen. Harry Reid, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Searchlight Leadership Fund.

Quite the opposite: The mailer listing judicial candidates came from officials with the Clark County Republican Party.

Democrats on Monday called the flier an attempt to deceive Democratic voters. But the Republicans behind it said it was just a bit of harmless fun and did not violate any rules.
The heading on the flier said, "We know that the judicial candidates listed below share our desire to protect the rights of minorities and the individual from the majority. We support their election to office and ask that you cast your vote for them as well."

It then lists exclusively Republican candidates for the offices of Nevada Supreme Court, Clark County District Court and justice of the peace.

So if it was a joke, then this means that the Republicans aren't serious about protecting the rights of minorities...big surprise there...

The mailer is identified as coming from Searchlight Group PAC. Reid was born in the Nevada mining town of Searchlight and is the author of a 1998 history of the town titled "Searchlight: The Camp That Didn't Fail."
County Republican Party chairman John Hambrick said he and party Executive Director Tim Robison put the mailer together. The PAC, he said, was "formed to do things like this."

So is he admitting that the PAC is engaging in dirty tricks or is he admitting that his PAC is nothing more than a JOKE?

"The purpose was to hopefully put people we believe to be more conservative in their viewpoints before a part of the voting public that might not otherwise consider them," Hambrick said.

Then why resort to distortions and misleading those voters? Either you really think the voters are dumb or you have no confidence in your own candidates to win if they truly reveal their positions. But isn't that what the Republican party is all about? If they came up honest in their platform, suggesting that they really didn't give a damn about gay marriage and abortion and that all that they wanted was to enrich their rich cronies like the big corporations and Big Oil, then would they really win the elections fair and square? Of course not, the Religious Right wouldn't turn out in droves to vote like sheep, automatically pressing the button for Republican or pulling the lever without a thought in the world.

The mailer was sent to Democrats considered likely to vote in the primary based on their voting records, Hambrick said.
He said the flier was not an attempt to deceive or confuse. "We wanted to have some fun," he said. "It was tongue in cheek. Why not?"

Before sending the mailer, lawyers confirmed that it did not violate any laws or regulations, Hambrick said.

Apparently if it was so fun, if it was a harmless joke, if it was not meant to be taken seriously, why did they have to check up on their attorneys? I'm sure they'd get away with it if it were a harmless joke...

"I don't see any deception here," he said. "I don't think Democrats are that dumb."

No, you may not think they are but you're HOPING they are. There's a difference...but apparently lying has become so epidemic in the Republican Party that they just don't realize it anymore. This is supposedly the party of morality.

Kirsten Searer, spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party, said the flier probably was not illegal, but it was unethical. The party sent an e-mail alert to its members Monday about the mailer.
"Most Nevadans associate Searchlight with Sen. Reid," she said. "By calling it Searchlight and putting in language about protecting the rights of minorities, they were clearly trying to make it look like it came from Sen. Reid."

Democrats who received the flier might be duped into voting for the listed candidates in the mistaken belief that they were favored by Reid, she said. "This is further proof that Nevada Republicans will do anything to get elected," she said.

"We believe our candidates are strong enough to stand on their own. They don't have to try to fool people to get elected," she said.

The damage this "joke" can do is documented here...

"When I first saw it, I thought it was from Harry Reid," Sandy Hogan said. Had she not already voted, she might have taken the mailer's suggestions, although her husband probably would have set her straight, she said.

I guess it's a grand joke when people who might have been fooled vote the way the mailer wanted and then realize that they have been duped by the Republican Party. There are no do-overs when you've already turned in your absentee ballot at least not that I know of. I'm sure they're laughing quite heartily over being April FOOLED or psyched. I'm sure voters that your party has disenfranchised were sharing "good ole times" stories over a beer with you, laughing over bygones...after all it's just a joke, right?

It speaks volumes when a party has to go to quite such lengths to distort the other's positions. First you had Hindrocket blatantly cut off the video of a interview with Rep. John Dingell to suggest that he did not oppose Hezbollah. Then you had Santorum's campaign falsely claiming that Bob Casey had the endorsement of Al-Jazeera suggesting that he was in Bin Laden's camp. Back in 2004, there was the RNC Mailing that suggested that liberals would ban the Bible and destroy Christianity.

It's the CONTEMPT, stupid. It's the contempt the Republican Party has for voters on either side. Otherwise why would they have to play a shell game to hoodwink their voters into voting Republican and against their own economic interests?

I've seen these kind of tricks especially when it comes to petition signing. They'll have a petition about some environmental issue or a progressive one such as raising the minimum wage, but they'll stick a petition about "right to work" or increasing the requirements for teachers to met tenure at the bottom after you've wearily gone through like 8-10 petitions.

So basically, this is what it has come down to. The right-wing thinks it's all fun and games to distort the other side's positions much as secession commissioners tried to distort the North by implying that Yankee preachers would come down South to force slaveholders to marry off their daughters to their slaves in the hopes of either disenfranchising voters or having them vote against their own interests. Another example is the time when the anti-ERA campaign tainted the other side by linking ERA to civil rights legislation implying that ERA would desegregate bathrooms, alluding to the specter of interracial rape to scare off women voters who might have supported ERA. Think of the disenfranchisement throughout history African-Americans, women, and other minorities faced. So basically are poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, flyers telling African-Americans to vote the day AFTER the election just a joke too?

You know,

2006-08-01T18:33:00.000-07:00

The Senate voted Tuesday to open 8.3 million acres of federal waters in the central Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling, setting up a confrontation with the House which wants even more drilling in waters now off-limits.

something tells me that record profits for Big Oil are never enough. Who gives a fuck about raising the minimum wage $2.10 over a period of three years when our poor oppressed oil companies are crying due to all the condemnation we Americans heap upon them for ~~profiting off our misery~~ doing an honest day's work (because we all know oil executives work harder than the rest of us Americans combined...

So basically we have to drill in the gulf so that Big Oil will have an excuse to say prices will go down. After all, didn't the Iraq war drive down prices too? Aren't we paying $3.19 for three gallons of gas now? No wait, that's per gallon?! Hell, it's hard work ripping off the American consumer!

Can you imagine a fundamentalist Christianity faith-based suicide prevention program

2006-08-01T11:10:00.000-07:00

What we're seeing here is nothing more than a purge of services the Bush Administration and its allies would like to see replaced by a faith-based substitute of sorts or at least a substitute that they can control. Do you remember the ruckus conjured up by the Religious Right over SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) when they requested that a federally-funded conference on suicide prevention remove the words "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," and "transgender" from its program? It was like they were trying to purge any acknowledgement of the GLBT community and to marginalize them even though a gay teen commits suicide every five hours, unable to deal with the stress and pressure society places upon him or her.

Despite the fact that almost 2 million callers have reached help and hope over the last 8 years, and a government funded evaluation stating the benefits of 1-800-SUICIDE, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), a division of Health & Human Services, has decided to create their own government run system where they would have direct access to confidential data on individuals in crisis.

Now that the fundies are in control of SAMHSA, can you imagine the damage they can do to a suicide hotline if that comes under their control?

Let's envision the scenario here. A young gay teen distraught over life calls Bush's new suicide prevention line and explains that he is depressed. The last thing he is expecting is to be proselytized to and judged, he just wants someone to talk to. Society has placed an unbelievable amount of stress upon him, even in places where a gay person might not be taunted or harassed, what's to say that he or she doesn't suffer from historical discrimination (Troxel et. al., 2003), or the feelings of stress experienced from being one of the few members of a race or in this case different sexual orientation among a majority? I wonder if there has been research done on members of the GLBT community to see if this is applicable to them... What if the person on the hotline asks, "Are you gay?" What's that supposed to do with suicide prevention? You might ask...What if the teen says yes and the person responds, "well that's your problem. Embrace the Lord Jesus, turn away from your sinful lifestyle, and be reborn as a child of God," or "Homosexuality is an abomination" and your depression is from Satan controlling your mind and clouding it, preventing the Lord from working his wonders on you." After a long period of silence, the person directs him to reparative therapy which has been condemned by the APA.

From Religious Tolerance.org...

Common conservative Christian usage	Common usage by other groups
Homosexuality is a behavior.	Homosexuality is an orientation
Homosexuality is what one does.	Homosexuality is what one is.
Sexual preference	Sexual orientation
"I am cured of homosexuality" OR "I am an ex-gay."	"I was a sexually active homosexual; I am now homosexual who has chosen to be celibate."
"I was once in the homosexual lifestyle, but I am a heterosexual now."	"I was a bisexual who engaged in same-sex relationships. My orientation is still bisexual, but, I now choose to have only relationships with the opposite gender."
A person involved in the homosexual lifestyle	A person with a bisexual or homosexual orientation who is sexually active with members of the same gender.

Let me ask you, do these teens need more judging from a suicide hotline when they get condemnation, ridicule and harassment from mainstream society? Robert Kastenbaum, a renowned expert on the psychology of dying and the death process, much like every expert on suicide urges that those who are in suicide prevention absolutely avoid provoking the suicidal person to suicide. What's to say, that a self-righteous fundamentalist is thinking about that over a chance to save a soul from the fires of hell? What's to say that a fundamentalist in charge of this line might not provoke the suicidal teen to suicide with his/her judging and condescension? You're supposed to stay away from judging and value judgments such as "suicide is wrong, you can't do that." The fundamentalists seem to send a mixed message when it comes to homosexuality such as God hates homosexuality but we must love the sin, not the sinner. Since homosexuality is not a choice, would that mean the person is an embodiment of sin? Some message of love, eh?

What if the fundamentalists subscribe to suicide myths much like many of them tend to subscribe to rape myths? What if they pass on the belief that "suicide is a sin," "suicide is the ultimate hubris against God because only He can ordain when your life ends?" Suicide prevention lines are not supposed to judge people. Judging is the LAST thing a suicidal teen needs.

Everyone who relies on the suicide line is in danger if the government establishes its own suicide hotline where it can access the information of everyone who calls it. Our administration seems to favor these faith-based groups, especially those of the fundamentalist variety and to me, that's the greatest danger any suicidal person is facing, giving the penchant these people seem to have of proselytizing and judging.

and the whole PRIVACY issue: What does the Bush Administration want with the information of those who call into the suicide prevention line?

The antidote to GOP poison pills? Poison pills of our own...for great justice!

2006-07-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

As predicted, the GOP decided today to fuck over those who make the minimum wage just in order to enrich the richest Americans who are obviously so oppressed by this so-called "death tax."

http://news.yahoo.com/...

So evil, yet so ordinary for the GOP: Their attempt to tie the minimum wage to a cut in the estate tax, which many Americans think they have to pay because the GOP has framed it as a death tax. Everything they do in Congress has to benefit the wealthy and the well-connected. Funny how these supposed Men of God who tout their so-called morality do not "help the least of our brothers and sisters." I'm sure Jesus did not mean the least numerically of our brothers and sisters.

"It's political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. "Members of Congress raised their own pay -- no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect."

Will the Democrats capitalize on the House Republicans' obvious cynical ploy to enrich their cronies at the top? Tune in to find out...

"It's the one chance for Democrats who want to get a minimum wage increase," the aide said.

You know, why couldn't the Democrats do the same when it came to the Interstate Abortion Bill recently passed by the Senate? Why couldn't the Senate Democrats offer an proposal to some bill that some Republican senator sponsors, rescinding the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans to pay for adoption services, foster care, and sex education to try to reduce teen pregnancy rates? When this bill goes to the Senate, let us offer amendments to the bill to fund abstinence-only education and marriage counseling by doing away with tax cuts on those who don't need them. Of course it would be rejected by the Republicans who care more about their Big Business allies and the wealthy than they do with fetuses and blastocysts. Why couldn't they drive a wedge between the corporatists and the Religious Right like the Republicans are so keen on doing to the Democrats? Why couldn't they offer poison pills of their own?

The title of the article was "Republicans tie minimum wage to tax cut." Now why couldn't we tie oh let's say tax cuts to abstinence education? You know let us play that same cynical game by including a proposal in the next tax cuts bill that would fund abstinence-only education with rolling back corporate subsidies and tax cuts?

Those who make the minimum wage yet still vote GOP, I hope you're really happy. Your wages and economic situation is not getting any better no matter what Bush says about the economy, but at least gay marriage is facing setback after setback in this forsaken nation, at least the "queers can't get married!" You made your litterbox with Bush, now roll in it. (Yes, I'm extremely frustrated and it's not productive to yell, but sometimes you just have to let it out!)

2006-07-27T17:12:00.000-07:00

Think Progress just obtained a press release that said this...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Advisory

Secretary of Energy to Observe One-Year Anniversary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

WASHINGTON, DC – On Wednesday, July 26, 2006, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman will join Senator Pete Domenici and Congressman Joe Barton to deliver remarks at an “EPAct at One” celebration. Secretary Bodman and Chairmen Domenici and Hobson are expected to discuss the importance of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, America’s first comprehensive energy legislation in over a decade. They will also highlight progress towards implementing the Act intended to increase the United States energy security and reduce its dependence on sources of energy from unstable regions of the world.

WHO: Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (NM)
U.S. Congressman Joe Barton (TX-6th)
Representatives of industries who are benefiting from tax incentives available through the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Funny isn't it? How Republicans and their energy executive allies can party it up in Washington while giving you the middle finger. You'd think that a party who was ashamed enough to try to hide its ties to the wealthy, well-connected and corporations behind a curtain of faux populism based on bashing and discriminating against gays wanting to get married and flag burning would try to hide such an affair. You'd think they'd try to preserve their populist, common-man image but those images were nothing more than William Henry Harrison's faux log cabin (he came from a wealthy Virginia family) and nothing more than Bush's "let's have you stockbrokers take off your ties so it looks like middle-class citizens support my tax cuts to the wealthy" game. What kind of party am I talking about? Well Think Progress reported that the White House held a one-year anniversary party for the Energy Firm Welfare Act, I mean Energy Policy Act of 2005 to celebrate the giving away of $14.5 billion to an industry that was already making obscene profits and didn't need them.

Poor Poor Compassionate Conservatives...you always complain about money going to welfare and social programs for the disabled and children, but you stay silent when the Litterbox Adminstration shits away your hard-earned cash and gives it to an industry which is benefiting from the war in Iraq which wasn't fought for oil but to drive prices up by preventing Iraqi oil from flooding the market.

So the message is this. We're looking inside the window while these pigs are gobbling up the gourmet food while we get the slops. A person I forgot where mentioned Animal Farm's final scene. This is exactly that except now that we have Cheney and his cronies telling us to "go eat some cake."

and if you really think that this money on tax breaks is going towards "cleaner-burning" coal plants, then you really need to be raptured up.

Remember when there was that huge uproar earlier in the year and the Republicans came out and complained that the companies were making too much of a profit? Remember how they wanted to give you $100 so that you could piss it all away within a matter of two weeks at the pump? Remember any benefit that came out of all that hullaboo? Of course not, because as this party shows, they were never serious about taking on the energy and gas industry and Big Oil. Of course not, but in an election year, they had to show that yes, they too felt your pain, that they could feel empathy for the common voter, while celebrating with an industry and not divulging what Cheney and his gang of energy execs were planning for the energy bill. We did not know anything about it until it virtually came to the floor of Congress, because if we did know, we would have been up in arms, but then again, Bush fooled us with his faux populism proclaiming that the energy bill was needed to drive down the price of fuel at the pump, blaming Democrats for obstructing this abomination of a bill which did not drive prices down as it was touted it would do.

Sexist attitudes that brought upon the interstate abortion ban need to be addressed

2006-07-26T14:16:00.000-07:00

with focus on fundamentalist Christian preachers

As the interstate abortion bill has been documented here, I would just like to chime in in what is an emotional topic and to explore where these attitudes come from. There was a study done on clergy and attributing blame to rape victims and I think that even though it was written four years ago, it is still highly relevant today. The main point of the study done by Jane P. Shelton? The more conservative, the more fundamentalist, the more sexist the clergyman is, the more likely he is to attribute blame to the victim.

The fact is it is not enough to go on the attack but it is also important to educate and to dispel these rape myths. These rape myths are permeating through our society and these need to be addressed as these lead to such asinine quotes such as Bill Napoli's infamous exception to an abortion. If you want the quote, here is the classic...

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

So basically, he's saying that you know the child shouldn't be punished unless the mother was a virtuous Christian virgin who was psychologically devastated, as if only woman and girls who fit this profile were damaged from rape, as if only Christian virgins decried the fact they were being raped. The others must be enjoying their rape so why should they have an easy way out? The others must have secretly been turned on and we all know that women can't control their sexual urges so why should they be rewarded for them?

As a psych major currently, I did a paper analyzing a study documenting Asian attitudes compared to Caucasian attitudes and many of these myths were the same as the ones being spread by these fundamentalists and their Republican enablers. It is only sluttish and non-respectable women who get raped. A rapist would never dare target a respectable woman. Do you know that in places like Taiwan, rapists often give marriage proposals to their victims in order to escape the legal ramifications and that the legal system over there is often impatient at a woman who does not accept this proposal? So basically their attitudes are the same and they both subscribe to these heinous rape myths which encourage a culture where rape victims are laughed at and scorned instead of helped. These lead to attitudes where the innocent are condemned even to the point where the victim's own mothers sympathize with the rapist over their daughters!

You know, maybe we should go further on the attack by comparing their attitudes of blame to those who practice honor killings. You know how they love to condemn honor killing, right? Well if you read about their attitudes, it is just the same. The rape victim has brought upon dishonor to the family because she allowed herself to get raped. No honorable woman would be targeted, no rapist would dare go after her. Therefore, she must be a slut and is a stain upon the family honor. Sound like a stretch?

Feminist theorists (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975; Griffin, 1979; MacKinnon, 1987) have asserted that a patriarchal society contributes to rape and to negative attitudes toward rape victims by endorsing rigid, traditional gender roles and by maintaining the status quo through male power,dominance, and sexual violence. In keeping with feminist theory, research has demonstrated that individuals with more traditional attitudes concerning women's roles do assign more blame to rape victims (Acock & Ireland,1983; Brems & Wagner, 1994; Proite, Dannells, & Benton, 1993; Willis, 1992) and have more negative attitudes toward rape victims (Acock & Ireland,1983; Brems & Wagner,1994; Burt, 1980; Ward, 1988) than individuals with less traditional gender-role attitudes. Religious fundamentalism is also likely associated with negative attitudes toward rape victims in that it has been found to relate to discriminatory attitudes toward women (i.e., sexism) and to the lack of importance assigned to issues of equality and broad mindedness (Altemeyer & Hunsberger,1992; Feather,1979;
Kirkpatrick, 1993). In the current study, we investigated clergy's religious fundamentalism and level of sexism, expecting to find, in accordance with previous research, that these variables relate to negative attitudes toward rape victims and increased levels of victim blame.

Perhaps we should ask these clergymen who do hold these beliefs who is the exception. Since obviously they think that only virtuous Christian virgins feel psychological devastation and PTSD from rape, would they allow an exception to Napoli's Christian virgin? Would they support having the law confirm that the minor in question is a Christian, preferably fundamentalist and has never had sexual relations before then? What if the preacher's wife fell victim to rape or even worse, their own wives? Would they heap the judgment they heap on all rape victims upon their own loved ones?

It is clear from the support this will get that people, not just in red states, just do not realize that no matter who you are, how "respectable" you are, how wealthy or well-connected you are, you can potentially fall victim to rape. What is even scarier is that 75% of the respondents in Shelton's study reported having some experience counseling rape victims. Imagine all the damage the more fundamentalist and conservative clergy can do when their message is "suck it up, it's your fault for getting raped" as if the rapist was an instrument of God's "just" punishment. That's the message my friend received from her pastor, that it was her fault for "putting herself in that situation." So she had to do penance and is an outcast in her own church all for the "crime" of being date-raped.

Opponents said the Senate measure could threaten the safety of girls, saying parents might beat their daughters if they find out about plans for an abortion. The proponents' approach "is not to deal with the reality of young people" in troubled families, said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). He cited the case of an Idaho man who impregnated his 13-year-old daughter and then killed her when he learned she had scheduled an abortion.

In this sick world, the worst thing was not that the father impregnated his own daughter or that he later killed her, no of course not. It was that the daughter was seeking an abortion. I wonder if they would come out and condemn the father for this brutal act of murder just as they would condemn this girl whom they probably believe "had it coming to her" and now is "burning in hell for even considering having an abortion." In this sick world, it is not important to preserve the well-being of a rape or incest victim but to punish her for her crime, her crime of obviously bringing on the rape by leading the rapist on. It is to punish her for something completely out of her control because she must not have subscribed to their harsh standards of morality. It is the same mentality that leads them to condemn the cervical cancer vaccine which they see as one of Satan's wiles to further the sexification of America by giving girls and women who are obviously immoral naïve children who need to be discipline, the innocent belief that sex can have no consequences. It is the same mentality which leads them to advocate abstinence education which has been proven by studies that it does not work in reducing the rate of teen pregnancy.

With all the condemnation these clergymen heap upon rape victims, have they condemned any Republicans who have been documented abusing and raping minors themselves? Have they condemned the members of God's Own Party who sexually harass women and molest children? The silence is deafening and speaks volumes just as it does when they speak out against helping rape victims but rather condemning them.

In conclusion,

Some of these Fundamentalist clergy believe that ~~rapists should be protected~~ or at least should not receive as much condemnation as his victim.

Some of these Fundamentalist Clergy believe that rapists are instruments of God's just wrath, the belief in a just world theory.

Some of these Fundamentalist Clergy believe that a rape victim is no better than a whore who had it coming to her.

Some of these Fundamentalist Clergy believe that rape and incest victims were enjoying their own rapes and could never be psychologically damaged.

Some of these Fundamentalist Clergy believe that if your mother or your daughter was raped, she should not be comforted but rather condemned, scorned, and made into an outcast in the community.

Some of these Fundamentalist Clergy believe that if you're raped, you should heap self-blame upon yourself and do penance.

Some of these Fundamentalist Clergy believe that they have the right if they work at a pharmacy or hospital to judge if you're a Christian virgin and deserve an abortion.

Some of these Fundamentalist Clergy believe that they alone are the arbiters of morality in America and are the only ones with expertise in deciding who gets the morning-after pill or the cervical cancer vaccine.

Yes, maybe I am overgeneralizing based on what my friend experienced and what the commenter has called me out on I admit, and I apologize for the harsh rhetoric born out of intense frustration and emotion, but some of these people hold these views. It's no accident that my friend's church shunned her after they heard...

1500-year old Byzantine port discovered

2006-07-25T14:26:00.000-07:00

As a Classics major, this highly interests me. Maybe I should have continued on in Classics...

Thank you, o mighty Felines! Thank you for revealing the port. May we offer you some sashimi as an offering?

But what if Inhofe was right?

2006-07-24T14:52:00.000-07:00

But let's be straight here. I'm glad Senator Inhofe is fighting the biggest threat to America today, a threat unprecedented in our short but illustrious history. A threat that threatens to consume this country and blighten all that makes it great. We survived the Civil War when those plantation owners got all uppity and decided their military upbringing was to be used for treason. We survived World War II fought by the greatest generation. We survived the prior greatest threat to our nation, the Clenis and its unholy blight which threatened to extinguish the light of our children's souls.

But this threat, my friends, the Fourth Reich, may finally destroy this country. What if the Environmentalists commit terrorist acts such as blowing up dams just to prove that global warming is real? What if Michael Crichton's book was a prophecy? What if Hurricane Katrina was caused by Crichton's enviro-terrorists who wanted to show the world that global warming was for real? What if that sham hearing Inhofe presided over was to discuss strategy to defeat these terrorists?

What if these scientists and environmentalists are modern-day Telchines who were said to wield the powers of storms and the snows?

It is said that these men were sorcerers and that they could induce clouds and rains and hailstorms whenever they wanted, and similarly bring on snows. They say that they did this just like the mages do.
- Diodorus 5.55

What if they are modern-day versions of Empedocles?

And thou shalt master every drug that e'er
Was made defense 'gainst sickness and old age—
For thee alone all this I will fulfil—
And thou shalt calm the might of tireless winds,
That burst on earth and ruin seedlands; aye,
And if thou wilt, shalt thou arouse the blasts,
And watch them take their vengeance, wild and shrill,
For that before thou cowedst them. Thou shalt change
Black rain to drought, at seasons good for men,
And the long drought of summer shalt thou change
To torrents, nourishing the mountain trees,
As down they stream from ether. And thou shalt
From Hades beckon the might of perished men.
- Empedocles, fragment 111, translated by William Ellery Leonard

Folks, this is the dire threat that Senator Inhofe is bravely attempting to counter to save us Americans from storms, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, heat waves, blizzards, etc. So please join with me in proclaiming them Nazis and members of the Fourth Reich in the hopes that they would be cowed by the Nazi talk, because who wants to be called a Nazi? Let us proclaim a paean which shall include those immortal words, "GO FUCK YOURSELF" that will rise up to the heavens and summon lightning that will burn these environazis to a crisp, leaving behind the sweet smell of burnt flesh and ozone.

Bush and his cronies are right in forgetting Bin Laden! Who gives a fuck about him when we have mage-terrorists on our own shores who are bringing about more intense hurricanes to prove their point and to brainwash the sheep into believing that Bush is bringing the world to an end? In fact, we will turn their magic against them! We shall mix Stygian water with sulfur and then blast them with it. This should kill them instantly. Or we could always have Pat Robertson call down lightning and meteors from heaven if we're too lazy to do the job...

In fact the Environazis have tried to attack us before. Remember the Exxon Valdez spill and all the outrage it produced? Well everyone knows that environmentalist terrorists need pristine pure water to produce their flood magic which they intended to use to flood the coasts to prove that the polar ice caps are melting and that sea levels are rising all due to global warming. Well the Exxon Valdez's captain ~~defiled~~ poured a libation of oil into the water and this foiled their dire plot. To add insult to injury, the environmentalists want to make EXXON PAY for this selfless act of protection!

Senator Inhofe compares scientists and environmentalists to Nazis.

2006-07-24T14:23:00.000-07:00

From Senate Majority Project's Outrageous Quote of the Day

In Saturday's Tulsa World, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, reiterated his stated belief that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" by comparing it to the lies told by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie," Inhofe said

Last time, I checked, the environmentalist movement and the scientists who are treated as Cassandras by Republican senators not willing to acknowledge their studies, did not commit mass murder of 11 million Jews and other "undesirables." Last time, I checked, the environmentalists did not use science to perform horrific experiments on people Dr. Mengele style. Last time I checked the environmentalist movement did not invade a country based on a false pretense of invasion by Polish "soldiers." Last time I checked the environmentalist movement did not attempt to dominate the world.

But Inhofe doesn't care about history. He doesn't care about historical accuracy because history's probably full of liberal bias anyway. He's probably one of the guys who fell asleep in his history class because either he didn't agree with the obvious liberally-biased teacher who trashed conservatives and right-wingers or he just didn't care. But let me ask you this. Doesn't it make your heart feel all warm and cuddly knowing that a powerful Republican senator is validating the right's hateful rhetoric against environmentalists? Doesn't it make you touched that a powerful politician is resorting to the same rhetoric that hate-talk radio is using to inspire its listeners to commit acts of vandalism?

Folks, this is your senator from Oklahoma. What a national disgrace and befitting for a special place in Kitty Hell where the devil kitties will breathe fire upon his room, slowly warming it until he cannot bear it anymore and repents.

From Tolerance.org

Station KGEZ had been vilifying environmental activists for nearly a year with labels like "Green Nazis" and "The Fourth Reich." Blaming them for economic downturns in the local logging and aluminum smelting industries, the station also broadcast names of local conservationists -- and, in some cases, their home addresses -- as well as the names of some businesses that donated to conservation groups.

Those named on the air had their cars vandalized and received hundreds of harassing telephone calls, some of which included broad threats to kill environmentalists. Bumper stickers with green swastikas or the slogan "Just Say No to the Green Nazis" started appearing on some of their doors.

"Nobody elected the Fourth Reich, the green Nazis, the environmentalists."
- John Stokes, conservative talk-show host in Montana

Typical right-wing inciting of hate, wouldn't you say with their infamous campaigns of listing the addresses and personal information of people on their enemy list? Is it just me or is the majority of these incidents of hate mail and death threats the property of the right?

Acts of vandalism also were committed after he publicized names of local businesses that had contributed to an environmental group. One brewery owner, for instance, found a green swastika plastered on his business. Mr. Stokes believes someone other than his followers perpetrated those acts to make him look bad.

Right, here goes the victimization mentality again! Don't blame my listeners, blame the Environazis who wanted to discredit me by vandalizing the property of their allies.

So Senator Inhofe, is vandalism against those whom you perceive as members of the Fourth Reich just a part of the American way? Oh, by the way, I wonder how Senator McCain feels like being compared to Hitler by a member of his own PARTY? He just sent me a petition on global warming today.

The Victimization Mentality and Bush's Civil Rights Division Part 2

2006-07-24T02:32:00.000-07:00

Edit: To conclude, as someone in the Mike MALLOY Boards pointed out, this is affirmative action for conservative right-wing loyalists to which I add that this is just another example of the hypocrisy right-wingers pontificate when it comes to affirmative action. They condemn it while practicing it.

Case point:

Jon Greenbaum , who was a career attorney in the voting rights section from 1997 to 2003, said that since the hiring change, candidates with conservative ties have had an advantage.

So now, it is the conservatives who have been oppressed by those damn liberals who took advantage of the "affirmative action" to stack the division. So in order to balance things out, to even out the "wrongs" that liberals have inflicted upon the conservatives, it's time to use affirmative action itself to bolster unqualified right-wing hacks who do not have an interest in fighting civil rights violations for minorities. Such is the world of the Litterbox where the worst resident in our history can take over the White House ironically due to what Mike Malloy calls the "white man's affirmative action."

The Victimization Mentality and Bush's Civil Rights Division

2006-07-23T11:17:00.000-07:00

As the hiring of right-wing partisan hacks for positions in the Civil Rights Division has been documented by pontificator, it is my interest in analyzing the justifications given by these right-wing hacks. It is my belief that they are using the language of affirmative action and turning it upside down to justify turning the Civil Rights Division into nothing more than the old Spoils System which got a president assassinated in 1881.

Quotes are from Charlie Savage's article in the Boston Globe

The Bush administration denies that its changes to the hiring procedures have political overtones. Cynthia Magnuson, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the division had no ``litmus test" for hiring. She insisted that the department hired only ``qualified attorneys."

Magnuson also objected to measuring civil rights experience by participation in organizations devoted to advancing traditional civil rights causes. She noted that many of the division's lawyers had been clerks for federal judges, where they ``worked on litigation involving constitutional law, which is obviously relevant to a certain degree."

Qualified attorneys in Bushspeak means lawyers who would toe the Bush line, lawyers who would not question the Bush Administration and its ideology. “Qualified attorneys” means that the lawyer must be a conservative, preferably a member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society, an attorney willing to put ideology over results even though this is what they project onto liberals. They are implying that the career attorneys whom they label as liberals are not qualified and only got in due to a system which favors “less-qualified” liberals than “qualified” conservatives, i.e. affirmative action for liberals! However, Magnuson exposes the Bush Administration’s penchant for disdaining lawyers who have participated in civil rights organizations by saying that you don’t need experience in such areas, just clerking for a federal judge means you’re obviously well qualified to handle civil rights violations.

Other defenders of the Bush administration say there is nothing improper about the winner of a presidential election staffing government positions with like-minded officials. And, they say, the old career staff at the division was partisan in its own way -- an entrenched bureaucracy of liberals who did not support the president's view of civil rights policy.

But Roger Clegg , who was a deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights during the Reagan administration, said that the change in career hiring is appropriate to bring some ``balance" to what he described as an overly liberal agency.

Notice how the Bush administration always falls back to the four-letter L word, liberal. It’s not our fault, there was a liberal bias in the Civil Rights Division that needed to be addressed. We were only trying to put some balance into the division to counter this bias. We needed people who would work with the Bush Administration, not try to obstruct it like the liberals in Congress always do. This is nothing more than the old liberals do not get anything done, but can only obstruct a “fairly-elected” government who speaks for the “will of the people” and believes in the rule of law game. If Bush has a view of civil rights policy, it’s to fan the flames of those who believe that liberals are out to get them, mainly whites who feel that they are the victims of reverse discrimination and Christians who believe that the atheist liberal, Democratic swine are out to crucify them.

It should be obvious to anyone with an astute interest in politics by now. Balance to conservatives means not 50% liberals, 50% conservatives, they could care less about achieving fairness even though fairness is such a feel-good word. We all want fairness in life, whether it’s fairness in sharing or in opportunity, but fairness to these conservatives is just another way to hide an agenda that seeks total domination. Balance means 100% conservatives who toe the line of the Litterbox Administration. Even though conservatives and right-wingers make up the majority of the hosts and panelists on the television talk shows, they always end up complaining about a liberal bias. This could only mean that they would not be satisfied until the liberal voice is completely drowned out. In the Civil Rights Division, conservatives won’t be satisfied until every liberal attorney is forced out only to be replaced by a conservative. After all, didn’t the Bush Administration “win” the election? Don’t they have the right to play the Spoils System? Doesn’t Bush have the right to fire all the liberals in the division and replace them with ~~loyalists~~ fair and balanced conservatives who will enforce the law without letting ideology get into the way? (Oh, by the way, is it just me or is the Civil Rights division too important to be placed at the whim of the Spoils System? A president was ASSASSINATED because he did not hire one of the guys who thought he should be rewarded.)

Robert Driscoll , a deputy assistant attorney general over the division from 2001 to 2003, said many of the longtime career civil rights attorneys wanted to bring big cases on behalf of racial groups based on statistical disparities in hiring, even without evidence of intentional discrimination. Conservatives, he said, prefer to focus on cases that protect individuals from government abuses of power.
Hiring only lawyers from civil rights groups would ``set the table for a permanent left-wing career class," Driscoll said.

Notice how Driscoll is trying to play into the lawyers = bad, liberals = bad argument the administration and its cronies in the media always like to trumpet to everyone willing to hear. By implying that the Civil Rights Division is nothing more than affirmative action for liberals who obviously are not qualified and advance ideology over results (as if right-wingers did not), Driscoll is playing the liberals are trying to take over everything game with the implication that it is the fault of the vast left-wing conspiracy that your lives are so miserable. He is implying that there is no problem of disparities in hiring, even though Al Franken notes that employers are 50% less likely to call back a person with an African-American sounding name like Tanisha or Tyrone than a person with a name like Frank or Nancy. Driscoll is implying that this is just hype and a scare campaign in that liberals are coddling and fostering what he considers is the African-American’s victim-mentality when the real victims are not who you think they are and that the government has just created a problem and overhyped it.

The academic credentials of the lawyers hired into the division also underwent a shift at this time, the documents show. Attorneys hired by the career hiring committees largely came from Eastern law schools with elite reputations, while a greater proportion of the political appointees' hires instead attended Southern and Midwestern law schools with conservative reputations.

Driscoll, the former division chief-of-staff, insisted that everyone he personally had hired was well qualified. And, he said, the old hiring committees' prejudice in favor of highly ranked law schools had unfairly blocked many qualified applicants.

Translation: The old way of hiring discriminated against Southern and Midwestern law schools which had a more conservative reputation in favor of the liberal, elitist law schools of the East. What we did was to end the practice of affirmative action for these elitist schools in our hiring practices.

The Bush Administration is sending a dangerous message that says that racial discrimination is a thing of the past and now the oppressed have become the oppressor. It is more important to prove that whites are being discriminated against and that Christians are being oppressed than to protect the civil rights of blacks and other minorities. In fact, I see Bush’s vision of a Civil Rights Division as nothing more than a divider meant to rile the emotions of those who are angry at the progress minorities have made under civil rights legislation and those who are angry at a government they see as increasingly falling under the dire influence of Satanic, Democratic, liberal, progressive swine. By focusing on cases such as these, the Bush Administration tries to project the role of oppressor onto the historically-oppressed, implying that once again conservatives who want to just do an honest job are victimized once again by a system of affirmative action which favors liberals who want to advance the notion that America is bad and racist.

Bush isn't against stem-cell research, it depends on who does it...

2006-07-22T00:22:00.000-07:00

I would like to address the fact that Bush doesn't lift a finger about private stem cell research companies that conduct OMG, embryonic stem-cell research!

But I thought Bush was against stem-cell research. Did he not say that

"It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it," he said on Wednesday.
"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others."

George W Bush

He is just so pro-life, isn't he? Did he not ban the use of federal funds to promote embryonic stem cell research? So is embryonic stem cell research banned in the United States? Not if Big Pharma and its corporations are involved. In fact, to top it all off, the Republicans get MONEY from these very same companies conducting research many of them are supposedly morally against!

To demonstrate my point, here's a revealing quote from a recent BBC article

But Graeme Laurie, an expert in the legal side of medicine from Edinburgh University, said there was an "underlying hypocrisy" in Mr Bush's position.
"The stated reason for President Bush's objection to embryonic stem cell research is that 'murder is wrong'; why then does he not intervene to regulate or ban [embryonic] stem cell research carried out with private funds and which is happening across the US?" he asked.

"It is a strange morality indeed that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research."

Now, here's another article from a year ago...

A handful of large companies in the U.S. began pursuing embryonic stem cell research, sparking protests from some Christian stockholders who say such methods are unethical.
According to an April 12 article by the Wall Street Journal, several companies, including Johnson & Johnson, General Electronic and Invitrogen Corp., have already initiated research programs or have plans to use stem cells for studies that range from testing drugs to developing new transplant treatments.

Big companies have largely avoided the stem-cell debate at least until recent years for fear of drawing "fire from religious groups and other opponents," according to the Journal. To date, research using stem cells have been pioneered by university laboratories and a few privately owned biotech companies.

Now I realize that the article is a year old, but this article is highly relevant today especially when coupled with Graeme Laurie's quote as it shows the point that Bush when it comes to private companies and corporations will forsake his so-called morals for the sake of profit. However, should we not take this and turn it around to further attack the Republicans? Should we not drive a wedge into their constituents? Should we not play the "divide-and-conquer" game the Republicans play with us pitting the corporations against the Religious Right?

Debi Vinnegdge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, encouraged others to contact the companies "at once" and voice "complaint and threaten a boycott!"
Meanwhile, David Prentice, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council in Washington, told the Journal that such protests are quite possible.

"Because of the moral issue, many of us would not want it funded at either the federal or the private level," Prentice said.

Another article from Medical News Today

However, some companies are attempting to keep a "low profile" over their involvement with embryonic stem cells, according to the Journal. A Journal survey of the 12 largest drug firms by sales showed several previously undisclosed research projects involving embryonic stem cells, although many firms denied involvement with stem cells and had policies against such research.

If I have to say about the Christian activists and stockholders protesting these private companies, it is that I give them credit for being consistent. However, should they not hold their so-called God's Own Party representatives responsible? Why did not President Bush call out the companies that are conducting embryonic stem-cell research? Why did he not mention them in his statement concerning the veto? Why did he not call for banning funding for stem-cell research, federal AND private? How come Senator Brownback did not come out against private companies conducting research? How come did he not include them in his snowflake photo-op presentation? Could it be that Brownback is not willing to push his standards of morality on those big corporations that have undertaken stem cell research?

Now it is a pie-in-the-sky dream for me, but seeing dengre make the excellent point that forced abortions probably contributed to Ralph Reed's defeat, could it be possible that we can turn private stem cell research against the Republicans too? The Republicans love to pretend that they are the party of morality, the party of life, but their actions are quite far from this standard. Isn't it time that Democrats call them out on this hypocrisy? If the Dems can capitalize on the veto, could they not add more fuel to the fire by attacking them on another front, perhaps to alienate the fundamentalist base the Republicans count so heavily on?

I don't claim to have the answers, but here goes... Let us have the Democrats point out that Bush has done NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to curb the corporations who are undertaking stem cell research, including the embryonic kind. Does this mean that Bush will forsake his morals if it goes against a corporation's wish to exploit a technology for future profit? Have the Democrats ask this question. Make the fundies think before they blindly press the screen or pull the lever for Bush. The Republicans have done an excellent job of making voters second-guess any Democratic candidate and are exceptionally adept in cowering the Democrats into the defensive. It's about time we put THEM on the defensive too in more than one front in the debate. It's about time we show these fundamentalist theocrats and their base that they are only second at the trough and are as John Aravosis points out the crazy aunt the Republicans love to shut up in the attic when company comes calling. Let's show them that Bush and Brownback's opposition to stem-cell research is only token opposition that does not dare offend Big Pharma and other companies that could stand to make a future profit off stem-cell research. What would it take for a Senator Feingold or Senator Edwards to call out the Republicans on their hypocrisy when it comes to so-called family values?

What would the Republicans' response be? That the Democrats have no morality to speak out on this issue because they're not God's Own PARTY? Who cares? We should stop caring what the Republicans think about our campaign strategy and take it to their home-field. We've backed down every time the Republicans complained, the latest example being the DNCC ad featuring the flag-draped coffins, but we have not held them responsible for ANYTHING. It's about time this changes now.

Some companies found on this website

Geron Corporation
230 Constitution Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA
Telephone: 650-473-7700
Fax: 650-473-7750
www.geron.com

On its front page...

Geron is a Menlo Park, Calif.-based biopharmaceutical company that is developing and intends to commercialize first-in-class therapeutic products for the treatment of cancer and degenerative diseases, including spinal cord injury, heart failure, diabetes and HIV/AIDS. The products are based on Geron's core expertise in telomerase and human embryonic stem cells.

Advanced Cell Technologies, Inc.
One Innovation Drive, Biotech Three
Worcester, Mass. 48105 USA
Telephone: (508) 756-1212
Fax: (508) 756-4468
http://www.advancedcell.com/

We are a biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing human stem cell technology in the emerging field of regenerative medicine.

I wonder what the fundamentalists have to say about THAT?! I mean could this be another example of the National Litterbox Administration seemingly delivering on a pro-life issue but not really doing a thing to lift a finger on it?

O btw, CATS love us...especially Chloe.

Prohibition of Shellfish Amendment

2006-07-20T12:46:00.000-07:00

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the sale, or transportation of shellfish, including clam, mussel, oyster, winkle, scallop, shrimp, prawn, crayfish, crab, and lobster, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for consumption purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress, the churches, and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution with a simple majority in Congress as this is the law of Leviticus and therefore trumps secular law. The States will have no say in this matter as we must act to enforce God’s Law immediately.

Section 4. Those found in violation of this amendment shall be placed on death row without trial and executed in a swift and fair manner, by stoning.

Section 5. The constitutionality of this amendment will not be in the jurisdiction of the courts as God is higher than any liberal court.

Section 6. To enforce this law, a new police force which will be trained in Biblical law shall hereby be instituted. It shall be named Tribulation Force in honor of the Left Behind series.

Section 7. All restaurants featuring shellfish will have 10 days to comply with the amendment after it is ratified by Congress or risk seizure by the Tribulation Force.

In honor of the Republicans' devotion to the Pledge of Allegiance

2006-07-20T00:37:00.000-07:00

I pledge allegiance to the FELINE KINGDOM and to the CATS who protect it...one kingdom under the goddess and Chloe, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all!

Really, they really love the pledge and aren't trying to use it as a political prop...

2006-07-18T16:34:00.000-07:00

Why don't the Republicans just pass a law that states Bush is a wartime-president and can do anything he wants?

And so much for Law and Order Republicans...

Found this on Atrios

2006-07-16T17:17:00.000-07:00

I found this on Atrios: he does an excellent job in disproving the notion that Hillary was attacking her fellow Democrats when she was really attacking as John Aravosis points out, the "do-nothing" Republican Congress.

I know that we tend to roll our eyes at history thinking, "Why should we study the exploits of dead white men?" (as my History 4C professor would say, not the why should we study part). However, there are lessons we can learn from history so that we do not repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Rewind back to the middle of the century, the year is 1948. The 80th Congress, made up of Republicans has just alienated many interest groups such as farmers amd especially labor. After all, back then Congress' priorities included the highly unpopular Taft-Hartley Law or as Truman called it, the "slave-labor" law which included allowing states to ban the closed shop through the passage of "right-to-work: laws, forbidding unions from contributing to political campaigns (funny, how that was considered bad but Big Money wasn't), calling for an 80-day cooling-off period in strikes that threatened national security (there goes that word again, but the Republicans could potentially point out that EVERY strike threatened national security). President Truman asked Congress for stronger price supports for farmers, but the 80th Congress responded by weakening them. He asked them for national health insurance, but they of course refused. Public housing funding and aiding public education were deemed not as priorities that the 80th Congress should persue. Antilynching, anti-poll tax, and fair employment legislation fell by the wayside along with increased unemployment comp and the minimum wage. Everything that TRUMAN proposed, Congress spit in his face by rejecting them.

The cocky Republicans believed that they had the 1948 election in the bag. After all, the Democratic Party was badly split as segregations defected to form the States RIghts Democratic Party while Progressives saw Henry Wallace as their savior. It looked glum for the Democrats and Thomas Dewey, the Republican nominee confidently predicted victory. Instead of rolling over and playing dead like many of our Democrats do (witness the DCCC ad debacle where the Democrats were intimidated into pulling their ad down while Republican (naturally) Senator Dewine continues to exploit 9/11 images for yes, a political ad. BY the way, when will HE be held accountable? Of course not, the Democrats won't do a thing.), Truman went on the offensive. He called the GOP Congress into a special session and dared them to enact all the planks in their platform, but the GOP Congress did nothing. Truman then went across the nation by train condemning the "do-nothing" 80th Congress.

Well, we're in the 109th Congress right now, and yes, things are different, I admit. Instead, we have a hostile press that deems it its duty to print Republican talking points as if it were the Gospel Truth while simultaneously twisting and taking out of context quotes by Democrats. For example, the New York Times which is supposedly considered liberal by the Litterbox Right starts an article with this propaganda gem which can be found on Atrios' site.

Anyone reading this quote in its FULL CONTEXT can see that Mrs. Clinton is talking about the GOP-Dominated Congress which thinks our priorities involve destroying the middle-class while satisfying the rabid hunger of Jerry Falwell and his ilk. The similarities are the 80th Congress and 109th Congress are basically both do-nothing Congresses. Sure, the 109th Congress is quick to act when they sniff an opportunity to pander to the Religious Right such as in the Terri Schiavo case or when it comes to issues like gay marriage which causes the Rapture Right to come barking, foaming at the mouth. You never saw the National Litterbox rush to Washington when he was warned on an August 6, 2001 memo basically declaring that Osama was intent in attacking the United States INSIDE OUR BORDERS. You never saw him rush back when Hurricane Katrina struck. You never saw him Instead of doing something about rising gas prices and reducing our addiction to oil, the GOP Congress thinks that we want to waste our time on issues such as gay marriage and flag-burning. Well according to this poll, the BIGGEST concern we have is Iraq (24%) while the economy is a close 2nd (23%).

What has the Congress accomplished of significance for middle-class citizens? Well, let's see the flag-burning amendment which came up short of the necessary 2/3 votes. Can't see how that affects the middle-class. An energy bill! OMG it'll lower gas prices, right? Wrong, even its supporters said it wouldn't immediately. Basically the GOP Congress thought that the middle-class' top priority or one of them included in giving the oil and gas industry major subsidies that they don't need. Apparently they thought we really wanted our tax dollars to go into such endeavors instead of conservation and renewable energy. A bankruptcy bill that rewards the banking industry at the expense of those who might fall into bankruptcy due to medical emergencies or a death in the family...Yeah, I'm sure the middle-class wanted to be told by holier-than-thou bastards that they were shiftless and lazy and should get another job even though they had to spend a good portion of their money on surgery, because well people should have taken personal responsibility in not getting injured or sick. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 which basically was a payback scheme to the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry because it's really your damn fault you were exposed to asbestos even though you didn't know it...Yeah, this helps us.

(Now, let's give Congress credit for passing the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act which prohibits protests 300 feet away from the cemetery an hour before and after a funeral with a fine of $100k and up to a year imprisonment and H.R. 539: Caribbean National Forest Act of 2005.)

We need MORE Democrats denouncing the GOP-dominated Congress for neglecting the nation's top priorities. We need them to be like Harry Truman was in that MAJOR Upset he pulled off in 1948 by telling ordinary Americans that the GOP Congress' priorities don't match theirs and that instead it is in the pockets of big business. Of course, the Republicans have their wild card, a media which is not willing to chronicle Democratic complaints about the cronyism and willing to distort everything that Democrats say while allowing Republicans to say anything without holding them accountable.

The Army and Sexual Harassment

2006-07-15T17:03:00.000-07:00

From the Miles Foundation:
Recent estimates suggest that sexual assault in the military is experienced by three percent of female servicemembers, according to a recent survey released by the Department of Defense.-Armed Forces 2002 Sexual Harassment Survey, 2004. An earlier study conducted by the Defense Manpower Center indicated that 6 percent of female respondents and 1 percent of male respondents were victims of actual or attempted rape.-Department of Defense Sexual Harassment Survey, 1995.

~The prevalence of adult sexual assault among female veterans has been estimated as high as 41%.-Prevalence of physical and sexual abuse in women veterans, Military Medicine, 1996; Factors associated with women's risk of rape in the military, Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2003; and Prevalence of military sexual assault, Interpersonal Violence, 2000.

~Thirty-seven percent of women who reported a rape or attempted rape had been raped more than once; fourteen percent of the victims reported having been gang raped.-Factors associated with women's risk of rape in the military, Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2003.

We live in a culture that tends to blame rape victims for their own rapes. We judge them as sluts and loose whores who got what they deserved because no respectable woman would have "put herself" in that situation to be raped. I discussed this in an earlier post about the prevaling attitudes from people from the clergy to ordinary people like us, but it's about time we talk about the army and sexual assualt.

Specialist Suzanne Swift was prepositioned for sex by three sergeants during her first tour of duty in Iraq. Subsequently she was sexually assualted and later refused to redeploy to Iraq for a second tour, instead staying in Oregon. She was arrested and could be COURT-MARTIALED, all because she wanted to escape her sexual tormentors. She is now being held in Fort Lewis, Idaho, not allowed out of the base to go see her mother. Spc. Swift should be LAUDED for her willingness to stand up to the armed forces' culture of sexism (now I'm not saying all our soldiers are but I am discussing the Pentagon's willingness to look the other way when it comes to sexual assualt and rape.) Anyone who believes that women soldiers should be treated with the respect any soldier deserves for fighting for his or her country knows that her going AWOL was justified because how can one live with the threat of impending rape hanging over her head? How can a soldier to borrow Jerry Falwell's infamous phrase, face two different enemies, one from the front and one from the rear?"

If ANYONE should be court-martialed, it should be those who sexually assualted Army Specialist Swift. By not holding those who commit such despicable acts responsible or by dragging its feet when it comes to such issues, the Army sends a message to the women in the armed forces that they are no better than sexual toys to be used at the whim of any soldier who wishes to. This is a despicable message and implies that she is responsible for her sexual assualt and that her going AWOL is a worse crime. It sends the message that to the Army, our soldiers are nothing more than cannon fodder while doing nothing about the sexual abuse our women in the military undergo. It sends the message that a female soldier is valued less than a male soldier, perhaps that one woman equals 3/5 of a man (here we go again!). Hopefully the Army is acting upon it but it speaks volumes such that it takes an outcry to get the Army acting. One cannot blame her for going without leave after all the abuse she underwent, but it seems that the Army does not care only as long as she sucks it up and goes back to Iraq. I suggest that the Army take a look at Post-Traumatic Syndrome Disorder and take it more seriously.

Please go to the petition site to show solidarity with this courageous soldier...

When Republicans talk about relief for the consumer especially when it comes to gas prices,

2006-07-15T11:22:00.000-07:00

they like most of the pro-drilling people out there are talking about is more relief for Big Oil. They say that drilling in our coastal waters will drive prices down. Well, didn't they say that invading Iraq would drive prices down? Bush's senior economic advisor Laurence Lindsey specifically said, “The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost. DIdn't they say that with Iraqi oil flooding the market, prices would plummet and that we would pay a dollar a gallon like the days of old before this OIL ADMINISTRATION came to power? Well, we all know what happened. We're paying a dollar alright, for a 1/3 OF A GALLON. Perhaps what he really meant to say was that it would facilitate an increase in profits.

The Republicans know that their true agenda is to do anything that benefits Big Oil and their other corporate masters which is why they have to mask their intentions by using populist rhetoric. No one likes to pay high prices at the pump and no one wants to subsidize Big Oil. Just like how they sold fear, they are using fear of higher gas prices to try to push their pro-Big Oil agenda. Why does Big Oil need more profits? Why do Republicans think that the combined $63.8 billion in profits for ExxonMOBIL, Chevron and ConocoPhillips isn't enough? $63.8 billion. We would have to earn at least $30.6 million an hour to make that full time in a year.

THE damage coastal drilling does to our waters is staggering. According to a letter I received from the Sierra Club, 500 GALLONS a day are spilled off our coasts. Think of all the damage that does to our marine wildlife. Think of all the damage it does to the fish we eat. We could invest in renewable energy sources but that would cause a ruckus in the ranks of Big Oil and they would come to complain to their slaves in the White House and Capitol Hill about how they're being so OPPRESSED by the Fourth Reich (the right's term for environmentalists).

Republicans think that they can fool you into believing that opening up ANWR and our coastal waters would bring back the days when gas was under a dollar. Hell it was $1.40 in the early years of the Bush Administration and many of us complained that even THAT was too much. Now we're paying $3.00 for one gallon. Republicans think that they can fool you with $100 rebate gimmicks which will only go to Big Oil anyway as we would have used them for more gas, which shows you how much contempt they have for you, the ordinary voter. They think that Congressional Pay Raises are MUCH more important than raising the minimum wage, because well it's so hard to live on a 6-figure income and they do SO much work. (Hell, CRY me a river, assholes.)

Their solution? Blame the DEMOCRATS. It's their fault that gas prices are SO high! It's their fault that they won't let the righteous oil companies drill and rape our lands. It's their fault that gas isn't a dollar. Do you remember the oil rebate they were pushing in the Senate? John Thune (R-SD, naturally) said "A lot of these other things we're talking about today, supply, like ANWR, have had Democrats oppose them in the past, when gas was $1.25, $1.50. Gas is now $3. "I would expect that there would be a lot more bipartisan support for proposals that would increase supply in this country." Well the Republicans had their chance. They said that Operation Iraq Liberation I mean Freedom would drive oil prices down. Well gas is now $3, to take the senator's words. Let us not fall for this shell game again with the SAME rhetoric as coastal and ANWR oil would not be available until 2013 at the latest and if you think that'll instantly cause gas to drop below $1.50 you're a fool and no wonder why the Bush Administration loves you so much.

Besides, when the Republicans came out and said they would support repealing incentives to Big Oil, they knew that the oil executives had declared that they didn't NEED anymore incentives. So it was safe for them to go out and spew their populist rhetoric which attempted to say, "We're actually trying to rein in Big Oil before they go out of control." That was the ONLY reason, otherwise they would not have done anything about it.

Republicans must think that the word consumer means big oil executives...because they use the consumer word a lot.

Look what these Chimpeviks have turned our country into...

2006-07-11T13:59:00.000-07:00

U.S. vows to comply with Geneva Conventions.

Truly a sad day when an AP headline has to point out that we will "vow" to follow the treaty we signed. Truly a sad day when that headline shows how far we have plummeted in the Age of the Litterbox. Truly a sad day when we have become a nation that tortures while simultaneously condemning human rights abuses everywhere. My question is "What makes us different?"

It seems as if Republicans don't give a SHIT about the "will of the people" or the "law of the land"

2006-07-08T20:39:00.000-07:00

Those terms are "shorthand for good and bad," said Tony Perkins, the group's president. "Good in that he understands the role of the court is not to create law. That's good. Activist, that's bad."

"Not legislating from the bench to our people means that he will not try to take on the job of the Congress," said William J. Murray, president of the Religious Freedom Coalition, a national evangelical advocacy group.

Once again, President Bush has confounded his critics by doing what he said he would do. He has nominated to the Supreme Court someone he believes will not make law from the bench, but interpret laws in light of the Constitution as the Founders wrote it.
- Cal Thomas

These are quotes from right-wingers when Bush put forth Roberts as his nominee for Chief Justice and judging by them, it seems as if Judicial Activism is primarily the domain of liberal activist judges who want to destroy our supposed Christian nation by rewriting law to fit their “immoral” atheist world-view. If you were to believe those on the right, you would think that it was a vast-liberal conspiracy to usurp the rein of power from those godly, patriotic conservatives fighting to make our country great. You would think that liberal activist judges were plotting to overextend the reach of the judicial branch into our very lives, threatening the balance of power, when it is the executive branch, the Imperial Presidency that threatens to do the very same, making the legislative branch impotent and useless as Bush ignores the very laws Congress passes and reserves the right to decide HIMSELF whether laws are unconstitutional or not. You’d think that conservative judges were only looking out for the country’s best interests by strictly adhering to precedent.

But let’s get it straight. Conservatives hailed Roberts as someone who wouldn’t legislate from the bench like those damn liberals always did. They said he would be fair and show restraint. Roberts himself said that he would show “judicial modesty.” HE would RESPECT the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and the LAW OF THE LAND by not CREATING new law. But as the article points out, this judge is nothing more than a servant to Big Business and the core-constituents of the GOP. Perhaps, what we should really call Roberts a Judicial Servant, a judicial FLUNKY, which is defined on dictionary.com as a “A person of slavish or unquestioning obedience; a lackey,” a judicial LACKEY (defined as “a servile follower; a toady”). I don’t care what we call them, but we should get into the framing argument too, Lakoff style. They call our guys judicial activists, let’s point out their slavishness to corporations and conservative causes. Let’s point out that Roberts has decided that well judicial modesty is only for cases where conservative interests are threatened by the plaintiffs. Let’s point out that he will show his judicial modesty when it comes to helping the average American who doesn’t earn a six-seven-figure income.

Let’s ask the average American Joe if he wants labor protections struck down by an ultra-conservative court? Let’s ask the average Joe if he wants environmental protections struck down in the name of unholy profit? Let’s ask the average Joe if he wants a court beholden to Bush’s dream of a police state where dissent is not tolerated and free speech goes down the drain unless Bush and his minions approve of it? Perhaps we should follow Lakoff’s advice and frame it as a family values issue since family values is apparently the domain of conservatives because as he argues the conservatives have framed it as being exclusively on the right. Perhaps instead of going through awkward 150-page explanations which no one is going to read, we should try this family values thing. Does your family value privacy? Does your family want their phone calls monitored? What if your conversations are extremely personal? Is it a family value to allow corporations and factories to pollute the air OUR CHILDREN breathe, the water OUR CHILDREN drink, etc.?

Which brings me to my point about Republicans and respecting the people's decision expressed in the vote...

These liberal activist judges decided that their personal support of gay marriage was more important than the will of the people and the law of the land.

It seems that Republicans only respect the will of the people if they can get the people to vote their way. They always cite the will of the people in gay marriage cases looming before the court. What did Roberts do? He tried to strike down the will of the people who voted in the Oregon Death With Dignity Act by siding with the administration. Isn't this Death with Dignity Act the "law of the land?" I thought judicial activists ignored the will of the people which is so important apparently to the Republicans when it comes to gay marriage, but I guess it doesn't mean a damn when they vote against how Republicans desire them to vote. I guess in that case, the GOP shows their utter contempt for voters by keeping silent when a judge tries to overturn the "will of the people." So are they being lawless just like they wish to portray gay rights advocates as lawless? I thought Republicans were all about the Rule of law and the law of the land, but I guess they show their true colors when they cry and moan about laws they don't like, because when the people vote their way, they are expressing the "will of the people" but when they don't, they are only being sheep willingly being led to the slaughter by the agents of evil incarnate, gay marriage advocates and other liberal "scum."

Of course as this excellent essay points out, sometimes the will of the people HAS to be overruled for the good of all. The Constitution is a LIBERAL document. I shall add another example to back up this excellent article. Back in the days of the Civil War, not many favored giving African-Americans the right to vote much less emancipating them. It took the courage of the Radical Republicans to at least partially write the wrongs our country has inflicted upon them, but of course who were there to block them from achieving their goals? Yes, the so-called moderate Republicans watered down the 15th Amendment allowing the South to impose loopholes that allowed them to disenfranchise African-Americans by instituting poll taxes, grandfather clauses, understanding clauses, literacy tests, etc. But let's get the point here. James McPherson writes, "After much tugging and hauling, Congress passed the first and most conservative version of the amendment" (James McPherson, Ordeal of Fire (New York, 2001), pg. 589. The first version would have only forbidden states to "deny citizens the right to vote on grounds of race, color, or previous condition of servitude while the other versions would have forbid literacy tests and allow ALL male citizens over 21 to vote. Yes those conservatives were Democrats who opposed the amendment, a fact that Republicans love to point out as they try to divert attention away from their record, but things have changed now. Those Radical Republicans were LIBERALS, not conservatives, so nice try.

On this Fourth of July...

2006-07-04T00:39:00.000-07:00

On this Fourth of July, let us all take a time to reflect on what America means and what it means to be a patriot and the word patriotism…

Does it mean that we should all blindly wave the flag while attempting to ban a form of political speech that arouses strong emotions in us?

Or do we give them the right to burn the flag while reserving the right not to be pleased with this action?

Does it mean that we embrace our historical heritage of racism, sexism, and homophobia rather than fix the great wrongs we have committed in the name of Manifest Destiny and “making America great?”

Or do we embrace the dream of the Civil Rights Movement by trying to purge ourselves of the prejudice that pervades through our society?

Does it mean that history teachers should whitewash American history by glossing over the uglier aspects of our history such as the genocide against the natives, John Adams “forgetting the ladies,” slavery and homegrown terrorism against African-Americans, sexism, denying women and minorities the right to vote, etc. just because they might offend so-called patriots who say teachers are a part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to corrupt our youth? Do we cater to those who want to censor American history so it fits their “America can do no wrong” worldview?

Or does it mean that history teachers should teach their students that while America has done good deeds in the world, it cannot escape the darker legacies of its history which threaten to overshadow the ideal America can yet become?

Does it mean that we should deny gays and lesbians the right to marry and the benefits that come with marriage while declaring this non-issue the paramount concern for homeland security? Does it mean that we should deny gays and lesbians the right to marry because we declare that gay marriage destroys marriage while the countless number of Republican elected officials who engage in soliticing sex, adultery and divorce go scot free because they are at least shouting that they are defending marriage?

Or does it mean we fight for the rights and freedoms of all citizens no matter what race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. (s)he hails from 230 years after the colonies split their ties from Great Britain?

Does it mean that we should stand by silently while a so-called president signs laws passed by Congress with no intention of ever obeying them?

Or does it mean that we should fight for the balance of power between the three separate but equal branches of government?

Does it mean that we should blindly support the US in whatever it does including invading a country based on false pretenses of WMD and a fictitious link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Or does it mean that we should hold our leaders accountable for misleading the country into war?

Does it mean that we should advocate the detention and even execution of those who do not share our political beliefs?

Or does it mean that we give them the right to say anything they want provided that it isn’t “Fire” in a crowded theater where there isn’t any?

Does it mean that we should attempt to silence the 9/11 widows with useless name-calling and smearing just because they might not share our political beliefs?

Or does it mean that we should defend their right to speak out without vilifying them much as Ann Coulter and her ilk do?

Does it mean that we should blindly and misguidingly (look at deathdisko's comment) declare that the soldier who planned the rape/murder of an Iraqi woman and her family innocent because he is an American and that we value the lives of Americans more than others while simultaneously proclaiming that we are pro-life here?

Or does it mean that we should fully hold those guilty of war crimes responsible even though they are our fellow American citizens?

Does it mean that we should all join in the base attack on the NYT for reporting on common knowledge about a program designed to trace the financial transactions of terrorists which was touted by National Litterbox George W. Bush right after 9/11? Does it mean that we should call for an Office of Censorship that will regulate the media?

Or does it mean that we should defend the NYT because freedom of the press should be guaranteed if not for reasons of liking its reporting.

What does America mean and what should be its future? The future many right-wingers hold for it where the democracy is replaced by a secretive police-state or a fulfillment of the promise made on that hot July day 230 years ago?

2006-07-02T12:24:00.000-07:00

Whoops, there goes the "9/11 changed everything" excuse...

Enemies of freedom: the Bush Administration.
Well since Bush claims Al QAEDA hates us for our freedoms, this means he had surrendered even BEFORE the 9/11 attacks which he claimed was a declaration of war. If that's not a "surrender monkey," I don't know what is...

July 2, 1776 and July 2, 2006: a new declaration: this time from the Rapture Right

2006-07-02T00:22:00.000-07:00

The Continental Congress decided on the 2nd to sever their ties with Great Britain and it was on the 4th the Declaration was adopted.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women regardless of the color of their skin, gender, and sexual orientation are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure salvation and meaning for mankind, Religions are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Religion becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new religion, laying its foundation on such principles of love, acceptance, tolerance and the true teachings of Jesus in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that religions long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such religion, and to provide new Guards for their future religious liberty. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these gay men and women, long demonized by the Religious Right; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to speak out against these denominations that seek to do away with them and silence them. The history of the present Religious Right is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the attempted establishment of an absolute Tyranny over America. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Using the politics of fear and divine retribution, the Religious Right has attempted to silence all dissent from other denominations who if they do not approve of gay behavior, just as equally disapprove of the pilloring and hatred of gays and lesbians the leaders of the Religious Right spew out.

Using the politics of fear and divine retribution, the Religious Right has intimidated ordinary voters to reject civil rights for Americans based on sexual orientation rather than to bring voters together to work together on issues of faith including protection from being fired on the job for being gay.

Using the politics of hell, the Religious Right has ignored the teachings of Jesus in favor of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who displayed their so-called piety in the streets and sought to oppress the Jews into following their interpretations of the Laws of the Old Testament while ignoring their standards of morality.

The Religious Right has refuted their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

The Religious Right has mocked other denominations like the United Church of Christ who by understanding the teachings of Jesus, have tried to welcome gays and lesbians as fellow human beings even to the excess of vandalizing a church with the message that its members were sinners.

The Religious Right has condemned Christians who do not hold their beliefs as non-believers and heretics.

The Religious Right has condemned people who do not share their beliefs as immoral and deserving of eternal damnation.

The Religious Right has forbidden legislatives to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance to the gay community; and when they are passed, has threatened boycotts and called down the divine wrath of God as if it speaks for God like the Old Testament prophets.

It has attempted to make Judges dependent on its Will alone for the tenure of their offices.

It has declared an installed puppet the "Man of God" and God's chosen one even though he did not come to power as a result of a fair election.

It has supported an unjust war for the purposes of evangelization of an unwilling people that desire to be left alone.

It has supported an unjust war for the purpose of initiating the Rapture and Armeggedon to harken the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

It has affected to render the Will of God superior to the Civil Power.

It has conspired to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to the tearing down of the wall between Church and state:

For imposing their standards of morality on us without our Consent:

For standing in the way of the cervical cancer vaccine.

For condemning us to hell for pretended offences such as voting for John Kerry and not supporting their false idol, George W. Bush:

The Religious Right has abdicated the responsibilities of a Christian religion here, by declaring gays and lesbians out of God's Protection and waging War against them.

It has plundered our state constitutions and destroyed the lives of innocent people who happen to love the "wrong" gender.

It has constrained our fellow Citizens to bear Arms against the gay and lesbian community, to become the oppressors of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by its Hands.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Religious figures, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, are unfit to be the arbiters of morality of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to ordinary Christians. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by the Religious Right to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of the establishment of separation of church and state here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred as human beings to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We have reminded them of the dangerous precedent of denying rights and discriminating in our sacred document, the Constitution. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the cats and their servants, in America, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Goddess of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of the United States of America, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to any religion, especially that which desires to become the official religion of America, and that all connection between them and them, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to guarantee civil rights and liberty for all and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor to ensure that the promises of a newly-created America 230 years ago are fulfilled for ALL members of our society.

To reaffirm our mission statement

2006-07-01T23:47:00.000-07:00

Here in Philosopher CATS for Peeing on Bushes, we believe in the TRUTH unlike the other group that inspired this name: Swift-boat Veterans for ~~Truth~~ Lies. We believe in a world where CATS can live healthy and productive lives in a healthy environment in peace where CATS and people come first instead of faux people like corporations and the Almighty Dollar.

The Cervical Cancer Vaccine: A must-have...

2006-07-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

"You can't catch the virus, you have to go out and get it with sexual behavior," said Linda Klepacki of Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group based in Colorado Springs. "We can prevent it by having the best public health method, and that's not having sex before marriage."

Ignorance kills...It might be possible to catch the virus by coming into contact with fomites: inanimate objects such as towels and clothing belonging to people who ARE infected. Again science comes dead last when it comes to ideology. As I have pointed out in other posts in livejournal, are we to condemn someone who has touched a towel and contracted the virus as a SLUT even though she was a virgin for example?

The Religious Right refusing to allow their daughters to be vaccinated against a virus that causes a life-threatening cancer just shows how little confidence they have in the raising of their children. Perhaps if they told their children the risks of sexual behavior including AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases, their children would take into mind those things before thinking of engaging in sexual behavior, instead of making it seem like a forbidden fruit or something. For if they truly believed in their ways of teaching their children their standards of morality and ethics or whatever, they would go out in droves to get the vaccination, which would be the ultimate test of their trust in their daughters. Instead, they secretly fear that truly inside, their daughters really ARE sluts because women are not to be trusted with their sexual chastity.

Would not allowing their daughters to get this life-saving vaccine be the ultimate sign of trust? Are we not taught by Jesus about the virtues of trust? I wonder how they feel about their fathers' insinuations that they are sluts whose sexuality has been repressed? Instead the Religious Right and its members have taken the Gospel and perverted it to ensure that they hold power and sway over the lives of their families. Jesus forgave the adulterer but the Religious Right would have much rather stoned her to death without any further thought of compassion and mercy. Mercy is for the weak, rather we should live by the sword. Those who dare to have sex deserve anything they get. By not allowing this boon to their families, all they are doing is attempting through fear to control their daughters' and their wives' lives. I have not researched the literature, but do they hold the same complaint about condoms? Shouldn’t they also come out vehemently against condoms? Of course not, because men have some leeway to be "bad" while women are condemned no matter what. Update: yes, they do because there is some weird science going around that says condoms have holes and "accidents" happen because of the way condoms are manufactured, not through their use.

The ancient way of thinking still pervades through our society and it’s grown outdated. The ancient Greeks believed that women were like animals who could not control their sexual appetites. Marriage was the only way to “tame” them. Lysistrata also shows some of these attitudes in that the women are portrayed as sex-crazed although to be fair, the men are also shown in the same way. I’m reading a book where it makes the case that many of the goddesses of classical mythology dating back to pre-hellenic times were recast in a mold that suited the patriarchal societies that conquered the pre-hellenic societies. For example, the book claims that Hera who symbolized the sacred union between the lunar cow and the solar bull in pre-hellenic times now represented the sacred union between her and Zeus (Spretnak. Lost Goddesses of Early Greece, 21). Pandora as we know her is the cause of all the world’s ills when she released them from her jar, but according to this book, she is the “Giver of all gifts (57).” So too the Religious Right has been taken in with this belief. Women are the cause of all evil, of sin everywhere, of the curse of death while men get off free. Adam is not as condemned as Eve because it’s her damn fault she ate the apple and like the temptress seen throughout literature, she lures Adam into sin according to Genesis. So too today, the Religious Right believes that ALL women are potential Sirens who could entrap virtuous men into a life of sin without for a second considering that it could be the other way around in some cases...

Rape victims, you are not to be spared in the Religious Right's culture of ~~life~~ death. Since rape is obviously your fault, you are a slut who was bound to get the HPV virus anyway.

OK, the thing with Jesus was he healed everyone, no matter who asked for it: the rich, the poor, those whom the Pharisees considered sinners like the blind man. Apparently nowadays, if you're someone who is considered immoral, you are not worthy of life and you are not worthy of life-saving treatment. Life-saving treatment does not suddenly turn off one's sense of right and wrong as they would like you to believe. Getting vaccinated won't mean that you will suddenly go in heat and start screwing everything in sight. It might happen in those twisted fantasy worlds the religious right has conjured up, but not in Earth. Here on Earth, we believe that saving lives is more important than imposing your moral standards on everyone.

2006-06-17T13:18:00.000-07:00

If the Democrats were smart, they wouldn’t have fallen into this trap. If they were smart, they would have boycotted this resolution which is only designed for Karl Rove and his minions and their talking points. If the Democrats voted against this resolution, then Rove and his gang can go out to the ready and willing Sunday talk shows and say the Democrats HATE our troops. They want THEM DEAD at the hands of Osama Bin Saddam or whoever. They are playing into the hands of Osama who obviously wants them “defeated.” Salon reports that the bill was crafted so that a vote against the resolution would technically be a “vote against honoring the troops.”

To vote against the measure, you also had to vote against the part that said that the House "honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles."

This is nothing more than election year politics and the Rethugicans know it. Instead of offering viable solutions to better protect our troops and to further our counterterrorism efforts, the Republicans can only offer a resolution devoid of all aid which spits on our troops by offering faux support and nothing more. Republicans are probably going to have their way on this, but the Democrats have proof that they need that the Republicans are politicizing the troops. In order to honor the troops, they must be provided the best equipment and treatment if they should come home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Many of the GOP could care less about our troops beyond the fact that they consider the troops useful tools for photo-ops and campaign tools. Many of the GOP could care less that troops are coming home stressed, depressed, or even suicidal. That’s why the GOP offers meaningless resolutions designed with the 2006 elections in mind. That’s why the GOP offers resolutions that offer “support” to the troops, but not beyond rhetoric. To a Chimpevik neo-con, a soldier with PTSD should just suck it up and hold it in so that he could return to the killing fields in Iraq. Some morality there from people who supposedly call themselves pro-life.

But you know what? If they want to play hardball, we can play it too Perhaps, what the Democrats should do is to call for rescinding the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans to pay for the troops’ equipment and armor, perhaps a raise in their danger pay, to fund VA services and hospitals, treatment for PTSD. Perhaps the money that would be saved this way should go to Operation Helmet which is donating money to modify our troops’ helmets so that they would be able to better absorb the shock resulting from a bomb blast. Perhaps they should offer an amendment that does exactly that to every bill that will be discussed in the House or however it works. Perhaps they should make the Republicans feel uncomfortable just like the Republicans are attempting to do with the Democrats. Of course the Republicans will sanctimoniously proclaim that the Democrats are exploiting our troops, forgetting that they are doing it themselves for political reasons and yes, I understand the media will trumpet that talking point, but we have to try something. Yes, I know the odds are stacked against us but if Ghana can upset the #2 team in the world today, then we can overcome this too.

That would go far more in supporting the troops than a mere campaign prop designed to discredit the opposition at the troops’ expense. But do you hear about the Republicans’ attempts to cut back funding for the Veterans’ Administration? Of course not, because the media buys into the myth that the Republicans are the only ones who support our troops while the Democrats are giving Bin Laden and whoever’s in charge of Al Qaeda in Iraq aid and comfort. Never mind that the Republicans are only interested in enriching their cronies in the defense industry. Never mind that the Republicans are only interested in using the troops for propaganda purposes and to drum up support for their failure of a war. If that is supporting the troops, I don’t know. If that is not treasonous by the media, I don’t know what is.

If you look at the Majority Leader’s memo that recently went out, it clearly shows the Republican’s playbook for 2006: EXPLOIT 9/11 mercilessly while claiming that Democrats are the one politicizing the tragedy. Project your faults and shortcomings unto the Democrats. Apparently these days, to question the Administration on the “War on Terror” and Homeland Security is to politicize 9/11, to use the deaths of the gallant fallen to attack the president baselessly.

It isn’t the Democrats who are politicizing 9/11. Apparently it’s not okay for the 9/11 widows to support the Democrats because they realize that the GOP has nothing new to offer in protecting our country besides getting into wars designed to maximize the profits of corporations. However, it’s ok for the White House to show United 93 in the White House itself to further its propaganda campaign to show us their version of the events that happened that tragic day in which Bush is a resolute leader who had his finest hour instead of the commander-in-chief who was motionless for the first few minutes while his country needed him the most. It’s ok for the GOP to connect 9/11 to Iraq and Saddam to falsely justify going to war to enrich their corporate buddies. It’s ok for the GOP to cry out 9/11 to justify anything from tax cuts to Halliburton’s contracts to the quagmire in Iraq, but it’s not okay for the Democrats to ask questions in where this administration’s policy is going, because nowadays, you’re supposed to follow in lockstep with the Dear Leader and not question him because he is the Man of God, whom God talks to, whom God has sent to save the world from itself.

Is there any wonder that Congress has an extremely low favorable rating in the 20s?! Is there any wonder that people figure that Congress does not have their best interests at hand? Murtha was correct in saying that it is our troops who fight the war while these bastards in Congress with their air-conditioned chamber politicize them by using them as political props to score points against the Democrats so that they could distract the American people away from their fuck-ups and incompetence that isn’t just incompetence but criminal in nature. Tragically, this will probably work because the media is on their side and the liberal media bias is nothing more than myth. (If you need proof, look at this article where it points out that liberal cartoonists have been censored while there has been NO censorship of conservative cartoonists anywhere.)

The lesson here is that if you're a Republican you can do anything you want and the media will give you a pass. If you're a Democrat or a liberal, you'll get pounded even if you had the best intentions in mind. Time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

2006-06-16T09:30:00.000-07:00

This Bush = man of God, Pro-lifer facade needs to stop. Sure, Bush may have signed a major overhaul concerning mine safety, the first one in years as the corporate media shills love to point out, as if that is a significant achievement that deserves a royal crown or something. The media is running with the talking point that Bush loves the common man and that he is actually a compassionate conservative, forgetting that he opposed these sort of regulations before public outcry forced his hand after the deaths of these miners.

Look closely at his new pick to head the Mine Health and Safety Administration (MHSA). Look at who he is: a coal industry executive. Isn't this a common feature in the Litterbox Administration? Consider that every regulation agency including this one is now run by Trojan Horses from the very industries they are supposed to regulate. Smarter regulation, my ass. It is meant this way so that these agencies become the fox guarding the henhouse.

I suspect that the provision in the bill that "requires" the government to study whether rescue chambers are placed in mines is only meant for show and does not show a serious attempt to further mine safety. Common sense dictates that since these chambers helped save the lives of 72 Canadian miners trapped in a mine, every mine should be required to place them. What is there to study? The impact on mine profits?! Yeah, some good that will do. It will probably not be recommended in the name of profits and competition, showing that how much these mine executives value the lives of their workers. For an administration that gives pocket change as fines to show that at least they're on the side of the consumer, it won't press mine owners to provide this safety net because it would cut into their profits. If Bush were truly pro-life instead of pro-profit, he would use his bully pulpit to DEMAND that the owners go the extra mile to ensure that every miner has a chance to survive.

To Bush, this is another photo-op to show that he cares, he really feels empathy just like President Clinton did back in the day. This is only to show that yes, he really cares for the common man, the miner, the average joe whom he loves to portray as his base. This is another attempt to show that he is the Father Figure who knows best and that we are only children who don't need to be in the know, that we should all just go about in our daily lives playing while Father goes through our rooms to protect us. Father knows best...and if Father wants a mine executive in charge of miner's safety, then so be it because who are we, the children to complain about anything just as long as we have our games and our celebrities making news on tv.

Gay Marriage and Classics Departments?!

2006-06-14T13:08:00.000-07:00

Dear ~~President~~ Supreme Leader Bush,
I fully agree with you that the greatest threat to our society is the rising, insurgent homo agenda. While people may point to our liberal media or Hollywood’s obsession with gays and lesbians as evidenced in the movie, Alexander and other shows like the infamous Will and Grace (by the way it is not helping that most of the queers are so damn hot) and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, I would like to point to a more insidious source which will not surprise you, o Supreme Leader Bush: Classics programs found in many of our liberal traitorous institutions of higher learning, our universities infested with liberals, Al Qaeda sympathizers and adherents of the homo agenda which threatens to engulf the country like swarm of illegal immigrants (we’ll get to that later).

The basic class in any Classics department and a highly popular one is Mythology. Unfortunately for those opposing the homo agenda, this class isn’t exclusive to Classics majors but is offered as a general education course in virtually every university. It is not 100-150 students who take this per year per campus, but rather 1000-1500 throughout the course of one year. To emphasize my point, this is not the whole country we’re talking about but one campus. Surely is this not a plot by evil Classics professors to twist and pervert the minds of our youth by reaching out to countless majors who might not take the class if it didn’t help them to graduate? Are these mythology courses nothing more than their weapons of mass destruction to brainwash our children into thinking that gay marriage and homosexuality are perfectly legitimate?

The Federal Marriage Amendment’s detractors may point to Zeus’ various extra-marital affairs with mortal women but this is not the point here. Sure Zeus may have seduced or even raped 166 women but what should raise a red flag is the episode concerning Zeus and Ganymede. After all, did not Zeus stay married to Hera? Did not Hera decide not to leave Zeus? Surely, this must mean that extra-marital affairs as long as they are heterosexual do not destroy the institution of marriage. No, Ganymede is not a woman. No, he was an attractive Trojan who caught the fancy of Zeus. Ironically, since the Greeks destroyed that Sodom, Troy, it must have been Zeus and Ganymede’s fault since gay marriage and/or homosexual relations are the downfall of our society. To those who say divorce is the main enemy against marriage, I say to you that many of our divorcees are getting married twice or even more. There’s even one of our own who was married to more than one woman at the SAME TIME! Surely this must mean that divorces lead to more marriages which means that the institution of marriage is strengthened. I always say strength in NUMBERS, because they say old marriages never die, they just fade away!

To those who point out the hypocrisy of the GOP which is full of “adulterers.” I point out that our motives when committing adultery are more noble and just, the only instances when this sin is justified. For when we cheat on our wives, it is not for reasons of pure lust like that unnamed president I do not care to mention (For every time you mention his name, a catastrophe happens. Hell, Robert Jordan should have named Shai’tan Clinton or something.). Rather, it is to spread the joys of marriage around so that we may inspire our girlfriends or boyfriends to get married themselves. By seeming to destroy the institution of marriage, we are actually strengthening it by inspiring more to partake in its blessings so the accusations of hypocrisy are unfounded. Ergo, I praise these prominent representatives of the GOP for risking their reputations and becoming the butt of jokes everywhere in the liberal community just for protecting the sacred institution of marriage.

Of course, everyone knows if you allow gays to get married then what’s to stop a man from marrying a pig or a woman a bull? Surely it has never been thought of before! Alas, we now turn to an episode in Greek mythology infamous for its immorality and as we remember Pasiphae and the bull she had intercourse with! It is obvious that since Greek Mythology is polluted with instances of homosexual love, it must also be tainted with bestiality which means they automatically lead to one another. Take heed, America of this lesson for we shall lose our country once gays get married and people start marrying bulls, horses, pigs, and God knows what! We do not need animal-hybrids running around feasting on the flesh of man as our glorious Leader has pointed out before. Also, since Teiresias said himself that women enjoy sex more than men so that must mean that when men sleep around, it’s legitimate but when women do, they’re immoral. This is about the only thing that Greek mythology got right, but I guess even a broken clock has to tell the time correctly once in a while.

The horrors do not end there. Take the Sacred Band. Everyone knows that queers cannot fight and are nothing more than what the Governator (not the Gropinator, you damn liberals! Now that’s a man’s man for you) calls “girly men.” Therefore, tales that they defeated the manly Spartans at Leuktra are obviously false. The Spartans were an ideal of masculinity and would have never lost to such women. Perhaps the Spartans were tired that day or simply felt sorry for these effeminate men. If the Spartans lost to the Thebans at Leuktra, then the most effeminate of all, those Persians defeated the Greeks during the Persian Wars. What kind of message does this send to our troops who constantly have to worry about the enemy in the front lines and in the rear as the most holy Jerry Falwell has pointed out? What kind of message does this send when Classics professors point to the Sacred Band as one of the greatest fighting forces in ancient Greece before Alexander’s time? What kind of message does this send when our men are fighting for their lives? That it’s okay to be feminine?

Why stop at military history and mythology? Take the art of Ancient Greece. Why are the Greeks portrayed in the nude while fighting? Why are we allowed to look at nude flesh? This obviously must be a conspiracy by Greek liberals who undoubtedly knew that they would be studied in our universities to corrupt future minds and convert them to the cult of homosexuality. Also, that dying warrior in the West Pediment of the Temple of Aphaia? Why is he smiling? Is it because he is dying and is anxiously waiting for the homosexual orgy in Hades? So many answers, so many things to be suspicious of. After all, these are Greeks we are talking about. Also those koiroi. Why were the Greeks so obsessed about creating giant statues of nude boys and men? If our youth were exposed to them in our museums, what is to prevent them from looking at, o I cannot finish this sentence, such is the horror of the thought. Pat Robertson’s brain might explode, that is if he does not hurl them like a discus far far away before that happens. Are we to send our children to Hell in the name of art appreciation? I think NOT!

Even the Romans were not fully without blame. I was at a fundraiser for you when I heard one of my colleagues bemoan the fact that his son was learning Catullus at his commie-pinko university! Did you know that Poem 16 starts off with the unholy phrase, “pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo?” Do you know that this phrase can cause the minds of angels to explode? Do you even know what that means? If you don’t then don’t look them up! A true patriot refers to it as Clintonizing which reminds me to thank you for not dragging our country into the fiery gates of hell like he did. I truly fear for that virtuous child as since he is learning about buggering, he must get the urge to go bugger someone or even worse get buggered himself!

In fact, my suspicions were confirmed as my colleague reported that he caught his son in a gay chat room! Next thing you know, the dad finds out that his boy has registered as a Democrat and has joined Human Rights Campaign’s mailing list. (Therefore we must also monitor all internet activity, FOR THE CHILDREN’S SAKE!) He has also donated to Francine Busby’s campaign, that uppity bitch who praised a teacher who had CHILD PORNOGRAPHY on his computer (This is PROOF that Democrats support child pornography. Yes we do have our bad apples but I emphasize that these are an extreme minority who look for the chance for redemption and forgiveness!)! I mean why Busby? Why not Bilbray? I blame Catullus as I am sure you would for this sheep being led astray. The heartbreak on the poor father’s face cannot be described with mere words, dear Supreme Leader. Oh the horror! See what a Catullus class can do to the young minds of our country?

Surely this must mean that Catullus is connected to child pornography even though the liberals are trying to paint us as hypocritical child molesters ourselves. Surely, if the FCC is handing out indecency fines, surely you can investigate the universities for these corrupting Catullus classes, which brings me to my point about abstinence-only programs! I thank heaven every day that you are promoting these programs because if we teach our children about the dangers of sex and the effectiveness of condoms, they will just go out and have sex. If our children want Roman lyric poetry, they should turn to Tibullus and Propertius for at least they wrote about their lovers even if they weren’t married to them. That’s okay because it does not destroy marriage like gay marriage would. Anyways, please pray for this lost soul as I fear it may be too late unless you step in to intervene with your holy powers. In addition, we must ban Sappho because any girl reading her poems will instantly be enthralled by Aphrodite and become a lesbian even though lesbianism is more acceptable because it's so damn hot!

I long for the days of ancient Rome where fathers had absolute control over their families. If a son talked back to him, then the paterfamilias could order his son killed! Brutus, that honorable man ordered his sons executed when they were exposed as traitors collaborating with the Tarquins to restore the Roman monarchy. Oh, if we had multi Bruti today to deal with those traitorous liberals who undermine the war on terror by protesting against this constitutional amendment? Brutus would not stand idly by while liberals take the side of Osama Bin Laden who obviously wants us not to pass this Federal Marriage Amendment because if we do not, then ~~Allah~~ God will destroy this country in a wave of divine flares from high above. We must not allow Bin Laden to dictate our domestic policy in addition to our foreign policy. I long for the days where Romans condemned Greeks for their lack of morals while simultaneously enslaving them as tutors. I long for the days when we condemned the Greeks for their homosexuality and political instability. I long for the Golden Age in this age of Iron, no Rusty Iron where our morals have corroded so much that our godly nation is silent when Churches are about to be forced underground for fear of being turned in for hate speech against queers. I shudder to think about the day liberals will throw us conservative Christians to the lions.

I can go on and on but I fear that I would cause your precious mind to explode, o Supreme Leader Bush and if that would happen, who would lead our country? If you were not there, surely the homo agenda forces would attack us in the rear just as the Persians did at Thermopylae (O if we only had the Tribulation Force at our side). Perhaps I shall send you another letter continuing this discussion if you can follow me. I know you’re a busy man and contrary to what those liberals say you are too busy protecting the country from the homo agenda to worry about reading, not because you are stupid. How dare they say that about you, the Man of God, the Augustus of our time? Please read this letter for the fate of Western Civilization counts on it. Already I can feel the homo agenda’s grip pollute my thoughts as I am desperately trying to fend off their propaganda with a pure-hearted mind like the mind you have.

And to those who say that this is a distraction, a wedge issue meant to turn out the Religious Right vote in droves, I recite the immortal paean first chanted by a true Christian, which reaches out to the heavens and bestows upon the angels their wings whenever it is heard, “GO FUCK YOURSELF!” It is obvious that your friend does not know you as well as this godly dittohead who can peer into your soul and see the true goodness there with a gaze that transcends mere words which are like leaves cast away in the wind, not to be remembered as the truth. The liberals say you sounded bored today when you came out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and this must mean that you were doing this not out of sincerity but political expediency, but I refuse to believe them. After all they are liberals and when have they ever told the truth about anything? You must have been exhausted, worrying yourself sick about the greatest homeland security threat our nation has ever faced.

OH GOD! I JUST REALIZED THAT MAN IN LATIN IS HOMO! WE’RE DOOMED! Therefore, we must ban Latin Masses in addition for Latin must be stamped out from the earth. Our children must not be allowed to substitute homo for man. Homo is only reserved for those who truly deserve it: liberals and their gay, homosexual base.

In conclusion, most holy light of the world, a shining beacon in the darkness that shrouds our nation, the one who can tear the world asunder with one word, we must ban the liberal subversive Classics departments in our nation because they threaten the very fabric that holds our country together. Countless tales have been told of Classics majors who engage in fornication and unholy Bacchanalias after learning about the Bacchants in your average Roman Civilization class. The annals of our history are written with accounts of Classics majors researching homosexuality in ancient Greece and in ancient magic when it is clear that the Greeks were nothing more than decadent faggots who were conquered by the virtuous Romans. What kind of message are we sending our children when the very institutions that are supposed to educate our students in being productive and godly members of our Christian nation are nothing more than Trojan Horses meant to destroy our country by crumbling our most sacred institution, marriage? As they say, “Beware Greeks (in this case, Classics departments) bearing gifts.”

Sincerely,
A concerned ~~Classics major~~ (o shit!) Christian and Bush supporter!

Obviously this is satire, but I hope I have not offended anyone, especially with the use of the F word and the blatant sexism concerning lesbianism. I was trying to impersonate a Religious Right fanatic.

Bush's speech (with his true thoughts added)

2006-06-03T12:27:00.000-07:00

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification (Because I need your votes, you stupid fundamentalists).

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society (but it's alright to divorce as long as you were in a heterosexual marriage because well yeah it might hurt the children but at least they won't turn gay or somethin'. A small price to pay. Gee I better not mention divorce or else I'll lose the fundie vote). Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all (corporations and the top 5% of the country).

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives (except if you're queer). And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts (but it's ok for the courts to make decisions kow-towing to corporations, my true base). The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box (thanks to us fear-mongering and implying that gays will kidnap their children and brain-wash them into turning homosexual). In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law (about the only thing he did right). And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage (the voters finally did something right for a change. I guess in some rare cases, you can trust the people to do the right thing). And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman (Because if we let the gays get married, who knows what might happen? People might start marrying pigs or dolphins!). These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years (damn liberals! they control EVERYTHING). Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation (because if the gay agenda comes forth, our nation will crumble to the dust, but that might not be so bad...because Jesus will come and smite down the queers and all heathens and rapture all us good Christians up). The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco (I'm surprised God hasn't told Pat Robertson that an earthquake or meteor swarm will destroy our Sodom and Gomorrah), no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance (o yeah, we all know that gay marriage is the biggest threat of terraism that we face today. Hell for all I know, the homo agenda might be in league with what's that guy's name again?), that solution should come from the people, not the courts.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. (Only they were following the will of the people when they appointed me to the White House, yup, no judicial activism there, just good ole democracy working hard) The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage (I know it won't pass but Karl tells me it'll bring out the fundies, the rednecks, and the bigots to the polls). A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity (as long they agree with my political views). All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard (as long as they are on my side, everyone else can go fuck themselves). A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America (except when it comes to stealing elections and giving corporations their just due).

Thank you for listening (ya dumbfucks. O wait, did I say that out loud?).

2006-05-25T21:32:00.000-07:00

The House voted to drill in ANWR...

Like this will drive prices back below $2.00 as the GOP is trying to spin it. So Americans are in an uproar about gas prices and the House's solution is to approve drilling in ANWR as if that will drive the prices down.

nonetheless, if you believe that drilling in ANWR will bring back .99 cents/gallon oil you deserve to pay these outrageous prices.

The chairperson of the FTC is none other than an oil industry person so yeah, of course they're going to find no evidence of price gouging! Deborah Platt Majoras, a former point person and representative for KBR and CheveronTexaco

2006-05-25T09:22:00.000-07:00

Now watch Bush pardon them at the right time...

2006-05-23T01:27:00.000-07:00

Bush said he would remind Western Hemisphere nations such as those that "respect for property rights and human rights is essential," that "meddling in other elections ... to achieve a short-term objective is not in the interests of the neighborhood," and that the United States expects other nations to stand against corruption and for transparent governance.

Notice how he said property rights first and then human rights...Notice how Republicans always talk the human rights line but when it comes to business and corporations wrecking havoc on the world around them, they always turn a blind eye. See no evil, hear no evil...Property rights trump human rights anyday in the Flying Monkey Right. So basically since corporations are considered humans even more so than real humans, the Bush Administration can cry and moan about a leader's attempt to lift up his people socially and economically.

Basically Bolivia nationalizes its natural gas reserves and this constitutes a human rights violation because corporations are furious over the move. This is human rights in the Age of the Litterbox.

"Let me just put it bluntly: I'm concerned about the erosion of democracy in" Venezuela and Bolivia, he said.

Perhaps if he were TRULY concerned about democracy, then he would do something about Diebold and the disenfranchsing of African-Americans in Ohio and Florida. It is laughable for a president who was appointed by the Supreme Court and who stole another election with the help of his lackeys to be concerned about another country's democracy. Of course, when corporations are allowed to rape a country of its resources without intervention from that country's government, this is a democracy because the will of the "people" is being respected. No matter if a brutal military dictatorship is in power. However, if a populist leader wants to take back power from the corporations and give it to the people, this is a dictatorship. If a leader wants to switch to the petro-euro, then Bush is concerned about democracy.

Bush steals from teenagers who want a college education...

2006-05-21T17:57:00.000-07:00

Bush pledges not to raise taxes, eh? Well he just TRIPLED taxes for teenagers who have been saving up for their college education with capital gains and dividends. Wait, I thought he didn't want to tax those, but I guess if you're under 18, you can't vote anyway so it's okay to steal from you to pay Paul, just as long as those who CAN vote don't get affected. It's great, isn't it?

Let's see, what will the excuses be? OMG the Democrats forced us to increase taxes to make up for our tax cuts! Let's see, that's a 3 to 1 wager right there. Teenagers can't vote so we won't get screwed in the elections (5 to 1). Bill Clinton's fault for running up the deficit! (7.5 to 1). We have to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (10 to 1).

Maybe it's a part of their plan. Have only the children of the elite, the top 5% go to college while everyone else either goes to work at places like Walmart or even better join the army so they can ~~die~~ serve their country ~~for oil and American hegemony~~ in the fight against terrorism. Sure, the army will offer money for college, but chances are you might not ever see that money if you're KIA or MIA.

I don't agree with Grover Norquist about anything but at least he's being consistent and I applaud him for pledging to fight this tax increase.

They should collect back-taxes for the corporations. The IRS comes after you if you underpay your taxes, but why aren't corporations given the same treatment? O that's right, I forgot! Their slave is in the WHITE House...

2006 which means

2006-05-18T09:59:00.000-07:00

It's that time of year again... It is 2006 which means the gay-bashing homophobic Federal Marriage Amendment is hereby on the table again. With poll numbers in the dumps and many of the hardcore base turning against him, Bush is hoping that this will inspire conservatives to come out in droves to the polls because other than fear, Republicans have the tired, overused homophobia.

Specter says he opposes the legislation. Well he could have voted against it in committee and sent the bill into gridlock, virtually killing it, but that's not his intention. He wants to look like a moderate to fool his Pennsylvania base but he is just enabling the Chimpeviks to go on to use their wild card in desperation. That's how it is with so-called Republican moderates. They always speak their opposition to things but the way they vote is in lockstep with the White House unless they know their no votes won't affect the outcome.

The GOP is fearful that the Religious Right isn't falling for their shell game of Napoleonic rhetoric with Lilliputean results, and they're right. Hopefully the dominionists and the fundamentalists see through this because they should know by now that this federal marriage amendment is doomed to fail from the start. Hopefully they stay home or even better, vote for someone like Roy Moore if he decides to run for president in 2008. Perhaps they will finally notice that this is just lip service after seeing their agenda of banning gay marriage, instituting prayer in schools, and establishing harsher obscenity standards fall to the wayside in favor of tax cuts, Social Security privatization, tort reform, etc.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of reaction James Dobson or Jerry Falwell has to this. Will they come out in support of this or will they turn their backs on the GOP saying that playing games is not enough?

These phone companies should PAY for this...

2006-05-17T00:57:00.000-07:00

It's about FUCKING time we hold these corporations accountable for violating our privacy rights...but chances are the Litterbox Administration will find a way to kill this lawsuit, perhaps in the name of you guessed it: NATIONAL SECURITY! They always bow down to their corporate masters who get some while we ordinary Americans get fucked...

$200 billion or $1,000 per person whose phone records were disclosed...

and Bush always repeats his DAMN "But if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know, and we want to know why." line, but tell me this...is it just me or does 200 million people calling Al Qaeda seem the most ridiculous thing on Earth?

o you self-righteous GOP hypocrites: Bush wants to know which phone sex sites you're calling...because we all know that Osama could be posing as one of those phone sex ladies you know...with his voice changer and all...

Probe on Domestic Spying on Political Opponents Killed. (Who didn't see THIS coming?)

2006-05-10T23:54:00.000-07:00

WELL NO SHIT they were not going to get clearance into investigating this domestic wiretap program because the Litterbox Administration thinks that it does not have to be held accountable for anything. This is bullshit. We have basically the Justice Department investigating itself. Of COURSE they were going to call off the investigation because Bush is a Man of God and his minions and groupies can do no wrong.

National Security is the excuse for EVERYTHING this FUCKING ADMINISTRATION puts out when they are being investigated. National security. Well you damn Republicans...you had no qualms investigating Clinton for baseless rumors and his blowjob when he could have spent his energy going after Al Qaeda and now you're sitting idly while the NSA cries National Security? Let me ask...what is the threat from Greenpeace? Peace groups in Fresno? What is the threat from UC Santa Cruz protesters?

It is clear that Bush doesn't really give a fuck about Al Qaeda but only on silencing his critics. It's clear that this administration doesn't really give a damn about national security but is rather interested in creating an atmosphere of fear that threatens to chill freedom of speech which is only for gung-ho, cheerleaders for the war.

Conservatives, you deserve all you get from this piece of shit administration. Your hatred for gays and fear that they'll come in and seduce your children to participate in the UNHOLY Bacchanalia bought us another four years of Bush. You wanted small government, you did not get it. You wanted tax cuts for the rich, but you lost your civil liberties over this. You thought Bush was going to keep you safe from Osama Bin Laden when a REAL LEADER would have caught him by now instead of playing into his hands by invading Iraq, a country that did us no harm on 9/11, allowing him to say we're on a crusade against Islam.

What do we have to worry about from the NSA? It's only investigating terrorists, you say. That's BULLSHIT. Hayden did not say ANYTHING when he was asked about this program spying on POLITICAL OPPONENTS, basically an admission that this UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARRENTLESS SPYING PROGRAM is. Why are those people protesting military recruitment in our schools being labeled as potential terrorists?

Because they're going against the establishment, the industrial-military-media-religious complex. Anyone who dares speak out is fair game for being called a terrorist sympathizer or unpatriotic.

YOU DESERVE THIS, Bush voters. You let your hatred of gays and the Swift Boat Liars hoodwink you into voting against your economic interests. You hardcore Bush voters believe anything he says to you without critically thinking, which brings me to my point about the GOP wanting to kill education until only those who can afford it can receive a good education. They just don't want you to critically examine politics and the candidates but would rather have you like sheep nod yes to everything their propagandists say. Good luck in pulling yourself out of the gutter, good luck in pulling yourself into the ranks of the top 2% because you and I will never get there. Thank the Man of God for your $50 tax cut while social services go down the drain, sacrificed to the altar of the $42,000 tax cut for those to whom $42,000 is a week's pay. Good luck in finding that job that pays in the six-figure range because you and I will never see that one now.

E.J. Dionne's excellent op-ed piece

2006-05-06T09:46:00.000-07:00

The current reaction is not simply to President Bush's low poll numbers. It's also a response to the failure of conservative policies and to the declining appeal of conservative rhetoric. Conservatives are trying to save themselves by offering progressive-sounding criticisms of the status quo, much as liberals offered ersatz conservative critiques two decades ago.

Might I add that this is more election-year posturing by the Republicans. Isn't it ironic how the Republicans who deride the Democrats for having no ideas are embracing what stereotypically is portrayed as what a hippie, pot-smoking Democrat would embrace? environmentalism and social justice? Bush prides himself for not looking or caring about polls, but it seems that his minions aren't living up to that lofty ideal. Now which is the party with no ideas or ideas that don't work? Republicans pride themselves for actually having ideas, for not pandering to the other side's voters by trying to sound like liberals. They pride themselves for never backing down in times of pressure and sticking to their beliefs much like how General Grant was portrayed as a bulldog who would bash his head against a brick wall constantly to knock it down. They pride themselves

I, like many others have complained about Democrats trying to out-Republican the Republicans. I have always complained that the Democrats were moving to the right and ignoring progressives and liberals out there because the media says if you're liberal, then you don't know what's best for your country, repeating the conservative mantra that has turned an honored word that has brought about the things that make our country great into a four-letter word. They were scared off into supporting this war based on lies to try to portray themselves as tough as the Republicans on national security even though all what the Republicans have done is fuck-up on this issue. They were scared off into supporting the Patriot Act even though it is the most gross violation of our civil liberties because they did not want to be seen as supporting Osama. Countless times the Democrats have succumbed to the pressure from the corporations into voting against the interests of the middle-class whom they supposedly represent.

Nonetheless, I savor Republicans trying to "out-Democrat" the Democrats as I agree with E.J. Dionne that this is more of a judgment against conservatism no matter how it's dressed, whether it's compassionate conservatism (no such thing unless you're a corporation) or the "we too follow the ideals of Jesus" conservatism which now tries to hype its members' "concern" for the poor. I have always felt that conservatism never worked and that the GOP always used the "liberal media" myth to blame for the failure of their ideas and this election-year pandering just confirms it. It amazes me how much these "strong, tough" men are backing down from their ideas.

Of course, one must realize that this is an election year. Rhetoric does NOT match action, especially with the "opposite day" crowd in the GOP. Of course this also shows the contempt they have for you, the average American voter because they believe that you're either stupid enough or don't have the time to actually call them out on their "hippie, tree-hugging" rhetoric. They think that you'll be satisfied with rhetoric that "shows" that they're actually doing something. The best example was them crying out and criticizing Big Oil but refusing to cut its huge tax breaks. Everyone, including their base is mad at Big Oil and the GOP realizes that, but they do not have the courage, much like the DEMOCRATS don't of going against their corporate masters who allow them to rant and rave against them as long as they don't do anything. What will it take for the American voter to realize that the Republicans are best at masking the fact that they are doing less than nothing for them? What will it take to get the voter to see past this empty rhetoric? Yes I realize that the conservative base is mad at the GOP for trying to "out-liberal" the Democrats, but we're talking about the voter who doesn't care for politics and only votes on fear.

DEMOCRATS, take a lesson from this. Don't be afraid of liberal ideas. Don't be afraid of advocating for the environment. Don't listen to this hippie, environazi rhetoric that the right uses to demonize you. Don't be afraid to offer a new alternative to the Republican's tired and tired stay the course bullshit on homeland security. Don't be afraid to say you'll actually call for the inspection of ALL shipping containers that enter into the country and that it was the Republican Party that bowed down to industry. While you have to present your ideas, you have to ATTACK. You have to show that the Republicans don't care for homeland security if it goes against the interests of industry. You have to show that the Republicans are for a permanent occupation of Iraq. You have to show that the Republicans are using empty promises like a constitutional ban on gay marriage to get you to vote against your best interests.

Archeologists Excavate 2,000-Year-Old Road

2006-05-06T09:16:00.000-07:00

Exciting news on the Classics front: a Roman road in Paris has been discovered dating back to the reign of Augustus. This is obvious evidence of the ruins represent a blending of two o what's the word? influences: Roman sites built with local material. However, one must note that it was the Gallic ELITE that was Romanized and that does not necessary mean that all the Gauls were. Romanization came from the provincial elites downward if at all. Romanization could take on many forms: from urbanization, to aqueducts and sanitation and to the examples shown along the road: baths in private homes. and as always, this could be taken as an example of the local elite wishing to achieve political and economical advancement.

SAVE THE INTERNETS FROM THE LITTERBOX'S MINIONS!

2006-05-02T10:45:00.000-07:00

Again, I fail to see how the Republican party and the Corporate Democrats are these so-called populists looking out for our best interest. The internets have always been a place where you could look up anything, a realm where the First Amendment held sway. It didn't matter if you were a liberal or a conservative, you could find sites that appealed to you. Sites like AmericaBLOG and free republic could be accessed by either side. Now the corporations want to control the message that you see as they are afraid of true freedom of speech that goes against them. Corporations like Telus which blocked a website sympathetic to its striking workers can hereby block access to any site they deem as a threat.

Soon are we to see a internet where only right-wing, free-market, corporate-friendly sites are allowed while other sites are blocked? Perhaps this is what Joe Barton and the Litterboxites want in Congress as they are afraid of what blogs are doing: exposing the scandals of the Litterbox Administration and Congress itself. Are we to see an internet where pro-Exxon-Mobil sites distort the truth and persuade the public that Exxon shouldn't be responsible for paying their $5 billion fine because it was the personal responsibility of the Alaskans affected by the oil spill not to live in that area where spills could happen? Are we to see an internet where websites like Theocracy Watch are suppressed because the Religious Right sees them as a threat?

These corporations have finally gone too far. We stayed silent when they tried to evade corporate taxes by setting up tax shelters in the Cayman Islands or heaven knows where. We stayed silent when they started lobbying up on K Street. We stayed quiet when they lobbied for an energy bill that basically served as a giveaway to the energy industry. We stayed silent when they helped pass tort reform and tried to evade their corporate repsonsibilities (cough* Exxon). America has become a nation where corporations are considered more than us as people, where Republicans and DLC Democrats bend over to do the will of these pseudopeople while fooling us real people with a populist agenda whether it's gay marriage, gun rights, or prayer in schools.

If it weren't for the INTERNETS, we would have all lost hope long time ago, having to only rely on a CORPORATE media that does not serve our best interests but rather plays along this shell game politicians play. We can start by TAKING AWAY the right of corporate personhood which of course conservatives put into play, proving once again that conservatives subscribe to a SELFISH ideology that encourages a dog-eat-dog world where you fuck over others in the quest to hoard wealth so that you could take it to heaven, because as Supply Side Jesus said, "It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle.

2006-04-26T11:15:00.000-07:00

Sure, the Republicans are VERY concerned about rising gas prices, right? After all, people like Senator Specter (R-PA) have expressed a "willingness" to explore the merits of a windfall tax on the oil companies. National Litterbox Bush himself has come out and criticized the oil companies and called for the repeal of $2 billion in tax breaks to an industry that he finally realized that doesn't need them, or did he? Hastert says that he expects oil companies to do their part to relieve the suffering of America's families. Sounds good, right?

Bush's solution? Ease environmental controls on the oil industry. It is a brilliant Machiavellian move that serves to kill two birds with one stone. First, it takes off the heat from the oil companies as gas prices will fall a bit. Second, Bush can then tout his "reform" and getting rid of environmental regulations which he claims are driving the price of gas sky-high.

Bush said the Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department and the Energy Department were investigating whether the price of gasoline has been unfairly manipulated. The administration also contacted all 50 state attorneys general to offer technical assistance to urge them to investigate possible illegal price manipulation within their jurisdictions.

Right, this is another example of the fox guarding the henhouse. It is only posturing so that the GOP can actually look like they're concerned and doing something about the rising gasoline prices.

The free market capitalists always blame environmental regulations for rising gas prices. Furthermore, the assistant professor who wrote this article discredited himself by using such sophomoric logic as "Environmentalists are not actually concerned with the well-being of man. Their real motive is to sacrifice man to nature by stopping industrial activity. This is what they explicitly state. For instance, Adam Kolton of the Alaska Wilderness League states, "Drilling the wildest place in America is objectionable no matter how it's packaged." Nowhere does it say that Kolton advocates bringing down the standard of living for Americans in the name of nature. This is more scare tactics by capitalists and right-wingers to persuade the sheep that environazis who make up the "Fourth Reich" are to blame for their troubles. The administration tried to blame environmentalists for Hurricane Katrina to distract Americans from the fact that it was under the Litterbox Administration that work on the levees stopped for the first time in 37 years due to it SLASHING the Army Corps of Engineer's budget. Sure Bush apologists can claim the budget was cut from presidents like Carter and even Clinton, but they cannot get past the fact that work never stopped under those administrations.

The economists' solution: de-regulation after all, regulation drives up prices and forces the oil companies not to build anymore refineries because of exorbitant prices. Well that's bullshit to be blunt. Memos show that it was the oil companies themselves who created artificial shortages to drive up profits themselves and used the regulation itself as an excuse. The major oil companies actually PREVENTED a smaller oil company from reopening up a refinery in California (warning PDF file). Gee, there goes the ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE TO BLAME myth. IN ADDITION, the companies themselves would reduce refinery production and then turn it around and blame the regulations which many of them supported.

To top it all off, the Republicans are playing the same shell game the oil companies are with their cheap Napoleonic talk with Lilliputian results. The GOP blocked any measure that would have boosted taxes on Big Oil today, proving which side they are really on. I'll give you a hint, Bush voters. It's not you, no matter how much he touts his opposition to gay marriage and abortion, issues designed to distract you from its economic policies that piss on you while calling it badly-needed rain. Don't you get it? Rhetoric DOES NOT equal the results in the GOP party. The Party of God is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. They claim to be the populist party while the Democrats are the party of snobbish liberal and Hollywood elites who truly are the ones pissing on all of you while those poor oil company CEOs struggle to put food on their families, truly oppressed by the big, bad environmentalists who think that a $400 million retirement package is too excessive when $400 million can barely feed a CEO's family and buy heating for the long and cold winters.

In the homework center I work for, the kids have a game called "Opposite Day" where everything is turned upside down. They say stuff like I don't want to go get a drink of water," etc and no for yes and vice versa. It's cute when they do it but is it just me or is the GOP in perpetual opposite day mode? Everything they say is contradicted by everything they do. Clear Skies = dirtier air, Healthier Forests = Healthier Profits for Lumber Companies, Leave No Child Behind = Leave Any Child who is not rich behind, etc.

Today is a VERY important anniversary and as always we must be mindful of the CATS!

2006-04-21T21:06:00.000-07:00

Rome was founded today in 753 BC...2759 years ago (I hope my math is correct as there was no year zero). Gratias agamus to the feral cats who watch over Rome and prevent it from being destroyed completely.

Every tourist visiting Rome senses it: Rome's cats are different. Unlike the cuddly and sometimes aloof balls of fur you're likely to know and love, Rome's cats, the ones you see, are largely feral, prowling ancient monuments as if they owned them and answering to no one.

That's because THEY OWN THEM! We visit the ancient sites as if they were ours but we are only borrowing them from the CATS who graciously allow us to view them. Rome has done right to its guardians, declaring them a part of their bio-heritage.

and please visit Friends of Roman Cats whose mission statement goes as follows:

Friends of Roman Cats (FORC) is guided by the desire to help homeless cats through international cooperation and educational initiatives. Our goal is to support and disseminate ideas and practices taken from the U.S. feral cat community and from a cat sanctuary in Rome known as Torre Argentina. We believe that an exchange of ideas can benefit attitudes toward homeless cats in both the United States and Italy.

The Slippery Slope

2006-04-19T15:26:00.000-07:00

It is my hope that the American taliban can learn to accept that not everyone will accept their standards of morality, ethics, or religion. I shall turn to a story that made the rounds a week ago in Kansas where the State Board of Education recently voted to redefine the science standards that cast doubt on evolution.

I have no problem against Intelligent Design. If you believe in God, you should be free to believe that perhaps he steered the course of evolution. What I have a problem is the slippery slope.

Connie Morris, a member of the State Board of Education has requested that a middle school teacher take down a cartoon of the famous Flying Spaghetti Monster which was created to mock Kansas' debate on teaching evolution. Why? Apparently it offended her.

Which brings me to my point. Academic freedom. Apparently to the fundies and the more conservative factions, it means the freedom to impose their own views on everyone else. Right-wingers have always complained about the liberal bias in the schools whether it'd be civics or history. Well, I'm sorry to say but the facts throughout our history are biased towards liberals. Is it bias when you teach that there were some conservatives on Wall Street who urged Lincoln to appease the South because they feared war would bring about another crash? Is it bias to teach that conservatives were against federal anti-lynching laws being proposed?

If they want their academic freedom, let them have it but let them if they want to teach Intelligent Design, let them also teach that the Higher Power may not necessarily be God. It can be a bunch of other deities from whatever religion you follow. Perhaps it's a Great Cat who brought forth the universe with a meow. Perhaps the universe emerged from Chaos as in Hesiod's Theogony. Why not teach some of the Native American myths while you're at it? I mean the concept of an intelligent designer is supposed to be neutral right? Let's see how long it takes for the fundies to reject this compromise.

The danger is that there is a movement that is seeking to censor anything it deems offensive. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is deemed offensive because it mocks and parodies the Creation Myth of Genesis. In Alabama, they were contemplating removing all books by gay authors or that which contains gay characters from public libraries. Books like The Color Purple would have been gone under this new era of book-burning. The sponsor of the bill wanted to EVEN BAN Shakespeare who is a mainstay of any English class whether it's high school or college. Sure he backed down on that, but if we set a precedent, how are we to know that we won't fall down the slippery slope AGAIN?

As a Classics major who is considering going on in either Classics or Psychology, it is in my deepest interest to see that they do not touch the things I and countless other Classics majors hold dear. Is Greek Mythology to be banned? After all, there are episodes of mythological characters such as Zeus and Ganymede which probably would not meet the American Taliban's standards. Moving further on, is Classics also to be banned? After all, there are many examples of pederasty found in ancient Greece. So are we to ban Plato too? Are all references to Socrates who advocated chaste pederasty to be purged from our books?

The slippery slope is a scary place and if we don't stop the Taliban, we will just embolden them to reshape our society until there is nothing left of the institutions we hold dear. This movement would rather have thousands of women get cervical cancer than to vaccinate them against the HPV virus because it believes that if you allow them to obtain vaccinations, then women will think that it's alright to go out and screw anyone they please. (Notice they don't say much about condoms.) This movement would rather impose their abstinence programs than to educate youth about safe sex. This movement would prefer our public schools system done away with, replaced with heaven knows what, voucher systems that move towards a system where education will only be a gift of those who can afford it and those who are of the right faith (Another example of the National Litterbox Adminstration's desire to PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING). This movement would like to impose their own psuedoscientific "research" that "proves" that homosexuals are diseased while purging any research that suggests that homosexuality is NOT a choice. May we stop them in their tracks before they completely corrupt the minds of our youth in the name of God.

If they want their own standards, let them have them, but over my dead body will they impose it on all of society. Considering the many examples we have of fundies either murdering people, soliciting sex from prostitutes, divorcing, or molesting their own children, perhaps they should look toward themselves and work towards bettering themselves.

If you're in Ohio, it's more important to forbid gays to marry than it is to protect women from domestic abuse

2006-03-27T08:55:00.000-08:00

The amendment says the state cannot "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the ... effect of marriage."

Family values, Ohio style?

Since Ohio has passed its precious Defense of ~~Marriage~~ Homophobia Amendment, it conflicts with its domestic violence law. Now I understand that the case that was dismissed was against a woman who assualted her live-in boyfriend. Yes, domestic violence can happen to men, but let's face it, the overwhelming majority of the victims are women. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that 25-31% of ALL women will face domestic violence. In Salt Lake City, the ratio of victims of domestic violence is a 9:1 overwhelmingly in favor of yes, you guessed it women while 95% of the perpetrators are men.

Truly, I am afraid of the message this will send much as Bill Napoli's infamous exception for rape which only virtuous Christian women should be allowed to get abortions if they are raped. This sends the message that if you're living with someone you're not married to, you are obviously immoral and therefore, do not deserve protection under the law. Basically, you are on your own because you obviously do not have morals and are not paragons of Christian virtue. I wonder how many fundamentalist, evangelical, or Catholic preachers believe that domestic abuse in this case is justified as the instrument of God's punishment? Care to speculate? Basically instead of slapping the offender with a FELONY Domestic abuse charge, they are to be slapped with a misdemeanor assualt charge.

As I have stated in the past, I am sick and tired of this Puritan mentality that threatens to overrun this country as the Religious Right is slowly taking over. This mentality can be found from anywhere from the War on Drugs, the abortion debate, AIDS, the HPV virus vaccine which can possibly protect against the virus that causes cervical cancer and save MILLIONS of lives, and now this.

Is the most pressing concern in our country the non-existent Homo agenda? Is the most pressing concern in our country preventing gays and lesbians from getting married? Does this trump protecting women from domestic abuse and rape? Is the Religious Right willing to sacrifice the lives of young teens who make up a significant proportion of the victims?

Stats from about.com

As many as 324,000 women each year experience domestic violence during their pregnancy.

Shouldn't this be one of the Religious Right's concerns considering how much they love the fetus? Perhaps not, because they were silent when members of Congress wanted to allow pesticide testing on fetuses. Are they willing to charge the abusive spouse with murder if the mother miscarries? My intuition says no.

On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the US every day.

As Mike Malloy would say in his catch line in his mock Religious-Right, stern preacher voice, "AT LEAST THE QUEERS CAN'T GET MARRIED!"

In a survey by the US Conference of Mayors, 56% of cities surveyed cited comestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness.

Gee, there goes the "you're homeless because you're lazy and shiftless" myth that conservatives love to promote to justify not helping the homeless. But then again, many of them would blame the victim in this case, as asinine as it sounds.

50% to 70% of men who abuse women also abuse children.

Considering that I've heard that even children are blamed for the sexual abuse they suffer, I'm not surprised there is no outcry.

In conclusion, SILENCE AND BIGOTRY KILLS.