The Pragmatist

More to Come, but for Now...

2006-04-05T17:02:00.000-04:00

So, I was a jerk to post the picture that used to be here. I am sorry if I offended anyone.

I have also removed the comments since they mean very little without the original post.

Besides, come November I expect it will be considerable more blue ;^]

Clarification

2006-03-13T09:53:00.000-05:00

This is what I meant to point out in the last post...not the fact that someone from the Bush Administration didn't show up. It seems that the point got lost in the politics...what a surprise.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/12/BUSH.TMP

At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic

2006-03-08T13:08:00.001-05:00

From the Washington Post
By Dana MilbankWednesday, March 8, 2006; A02

Interesting...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_pf.html

Cut and Run!

2006-02-24T10:38:00.000-05:00

Summary: Bill O'Reilly suggested that the United States "hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "[t]here are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them." O'Reilly has previously called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers.

During the February 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly suggested that the United States "hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "[t]here are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them." O'Reilly then claimed that the "big mistake" was actually "the crazy-people underestimation."

As Media Matters for America has documented, during a November 30, 2005, appearance on NBC's Today, O'Reilly called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers.

O'Reilly's comments followed his mention of a report regarding Karbala, a province in the Shiite-controlled Iraqi south. O'Reilly falsely claimed that "the mayor of Karbala ... has banned any further government dealings with the American military in his province." In fact, according to a February 20 Associated Press report, the Karbala governing council suspended contact with U.S. forces "until U.S. forces apologize" for their behavior during a recent visit to the governor's office. The Karbala provincial spokesman complained that "U.S. soldiers brought dogs inside the [governor's office] building," which was "considered an insult by the council," and "blocked roads leading to the governor's office, preventing council members and the governor from parking cars outside the building." While the AP reported the Karbala spokesman's specific complaints, O'Reilly characterized the complaints as "the mayor of Karbala" alleging that U.S. soldiers were "not behaving well."

From the February 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Somewhat of a disturbing report out of Iraq, and it's more important than it first appears. The governor of -- or the mayor of Karbala, which is a town in the south part of Iraq, Shiite-controlled, has banned any further government dealings with the American military in his province, saying that they're not behaving well.

Now, it's a small little thing, but I picked up on it, because here is the essential problem in Iraq. There are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them. And I don't -- we're never gonna be able to control them. So the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible. Because we just can't control these crazy people. This is all over the place. And that was the big mistake about America: They didn't -- it was the crazy-people underestimation. We did not know how to deal with them -- still don't. But they're just all over the place.

COMMENTARY

"The crazy-people underestimation." Yeah, that is a real articulate way to outline the problem with the war. Nice 8th grade vocab Billy boy. And wait...they're "crazy" now, but they weren't 1 or 2 months ago when Murtha called for the withdrawl of troops? Isn't this cut and run? This guy is as weak as a liberal! He might as well just sanction the holocaust he is SOOOOO weak on National defense...just like the Democrats, right? Come on Bill...shouldn't we stick to our guns? Shouldn't we stay until victory? Shouldn't we not falter?

Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop.

What a wheelbarrow full of b*llsh*t this guy is . Who is he to call ANYONE crazy???

I Can't Resist

2006-02-15T15:55:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday accepted full blame for shooting a fellow hunter and defended his decision to not publicly disclose the accident until the following day. He called it "one of the worst days of my life."

"I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry," Cheney told Fox News Channel in his first public comments since the shooting Saturday in south Texas.

Cheney described seeing 78-year-old Harry Whittington fall to the ground after he pulled the trigger while aiming at a covey of quail.

"The image of him falling is something I'll never ever be able to get out of my mind," Cheney said. "I fired, and there's Harry falling. It was, I'd have to say, one of the worst days of my life at that moment."

Cheney was soft-spoken and somber during the interview with Fox's Brit Hume.

"You can talk about all of the other conditions that exist at the time but that's the bottom line and — it was not Harry's fault," he said. "You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

COMMENTARY

Bravo, Dick.

I have to say that, although mildly entertaining, leave the guy alone. I am not a fan of his particularly, but he shot his friend in an accident while doing something together that they both loved - he is clearly not happy about it, nor did he mean to "deceive the American people." Let the guy feel bad and move on.

As much as we bitch about the gov't and Bush's Administration not worrying about what is important, and wasting money and time, etc., that is exactly what the media is doing here. Come on guys, it is surely a news item, but not 3 days worth. Let's try to concentrate on what is happening, like half of Iran burning down embassies, for example, or maybe the gynormous defecit that is going to make us all wish we were Mr. Whittington soon enough.

On that note...interesting piece here:

http://www.rense.com/general69/nucon.htm

Amen

2006-02-01T17:27:00.000-05:00

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people, and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence, that spreads all too easily to victimize the next minority group.

Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the civil rights movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

- Coretta Scott King, in 1999 at the 25th Anniversary luncheon for the Lambda LegalDefense Fund.

"Who Cares What They Think?!"

2006-01-31T10:20:00.000-05:00

Putin Touts Russia's Missile Capabilities

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin boasted Tuesday that Russia has missiles capable of penetrating any missile defense system, Russian news reports said.

"Russia ... has tested missile systems that no one in the world has," the ITAR-Tass, Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies quoted him as saying at a news conference. "These missile systems don't represent a response to a missile defense system, but they are immune to that. They are hypersonic and capable of changing their flight path."

Putin said the new missiles were capable of carrying nuclear warheads. He wouldn't say whether the Russian military already had commissioned any such missiles.

He said he had shown the working principles of the missile systems to French
President Jacques Chirac during a visit to a Russian military facility.

"He knows what I'm talking about," news agencies quoted Putin as telling reporters after state-run news channels had cut their live broadcast of the news conference.

In April 2004, Chirac became the first Western leader to visit Russia's top-secret Titov space control center, which is also involved in launches of its intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Putin said that the new missiles were capable of changing both the altitude and the direction of their flight, making it impossible for an enemy to intercept them.

"A missile defense system is designed to counter missiles moving along a ballistic trajectory," Putin was quoted as saying.

Putin and other Russian officials have boasted of the new missiles in similar comments in recent years, but they haven't identified them or given any further details other than about their ability to change their flight path on approach to a target.

Most analysts viewed the earlier announcements about "hypersonic" missile systems as Moscow's response to U.S. missile defense plans.

Military analysts have said that the military had experimented with a maneuvering warhead during a missile launch several years ago, but voiced doubt about Russia's ability to deploy such weapons anytime soon.

Analysts said the new warheads, designed to zigzag on their approach to targets, could be fitted to new land-based Topol-M missiles and the prospective Bulava missiles, now under development.

COMMENTARY

OK, so maybe this is not exactly true. I am sure, considering their propensity to exaggerate and embellish, that they have not developed a super-duper weapon. But the fact that it is a priority to evade our defenses, and something about which they are holding press conferences should not only be mildly frightening to Americans, but a reassertion of the fact that we are not an island.

You can feel however you want about France - God knows I am not the biggest fan - but the fact that they are touring Russia's nuclear facilities is not only significant, but given the way the French and the rest of Europe feel about our nation it may an indicator of the future of our "alliances." I only hope that Poland, Italy and Bulgaria, our new European allies, can hook us up....oh wait, it soon to be only Bulgaria.

You can only bully for so long before the schoolyard geeks gang up and beat the crap out of you.

Moving Right Along...

2006-01-30T15:57:00.000-05:00

Key finding from the new ABC News/Washington Post poll: Americans — by a 16-point margin, 51 to 35 percent — now say the country should go in the direction in which the Democrats want to lead, rather than follow Bush. That's a 10-point drop for the president from a year ago, and the Democrats' first head-to-head majority of his presidency.

In addition, Democrats lead Republicans by 14 points, 51 to 37 percent, "in trust to handle the nation's main problems," the first Democratic majority on this question since 1992. And the Democrats hold a 16-point lead in 2006 congressional election preferences, 54 to 38 percent among registered voters, their best since 1984.

COMMENTARY

While this is encouraging for those of us so inclined, it is far from a certainty. It would be a coup if the Democrats could pull off a major victory, but my faith in their ability to do so is understandably shaken. Then again, no more so than my faith in the current administration's ability to lead. Only the next several months will tell...especially after his Majesty releases the information on his political enemies that he gathered during a three-year long orgy of illegal, unfettered wiretapping.

2006-01-23T15:55:00.000-05:00

Original Post:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_digbysblog_archive.html#113804286022555906

Killing Me Softly

by digby

I'm feeling down right now. I know I shouldn't. The fact that Tom DeLay has stepped down is such a huge victory for humanity all by itself that I should be dancing a jig for the next six months. But, I'm down in the dumps, mostly because I am watching George W. Bush repeat his patented mantra for the 514,346th time. It's filled with lies, mischaracterizations and simple-minded gibberish, as always, and I'm watching it go out unfiltered, in its entirety, unchallenged by the media, no Democrats in sight, on every cable channel. I think they are personally trying to drive me crazy.

There is one new wrinkle. Regarding the illegal wiretapping, he just said, "it's amazing to me when people say I just wanted to break the law. If I wanted to break the law why would I brief congress?"

His masterful sound guy is there, compressing the sound, building the audience response to statements like that from a distant chuckle to a soft moan of appreciation, slowly ratcheting it up to a low roar until it reaches a crescendo of ecstatic, sustained hysteria. I think I even saw some rending of garments in the fourth row.

They are going to the 9/11 well again. They say that Democrats are sending talking points to Osama and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Rove says we don't believe that the government should monitor al Qaeda's telephone calls. The next several months will be spent fending off accusations that if we don't let the president do anything he damned well pleases we are all going to die.

I don't know if it will work again. But I also don't know if I can take this campaign one more time. Five years of hearing the same thing over and over again and watching American sheeple fall for it over and over again is just too depressing. I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to January 20, 2009 (and I'm of an age where rushing the future is no longer wise.) The day I no longer have to listen to one more word from this immoral, dishonest, incompetent, delusional prick will be the best day of my life.

COMMENTARY

Amen.

So it begins...

2006-01-20T11:21:00.000-05:00

It has been a while since I have added anything, but having been inspired by a particular song this morning getting ready for work, and after reading the below article, I felt compelled to again sound my "voice."

Bill seeks abortion's end in Ohio
Backers say it could help overturn Roe v. Wade

By Jon CraigEnquirer Columbus Bureau

COLUMBUS - A Cincinnati legislator's bill to ban abortion in Ohio drew widespread support here Wednesday from a dozen groups eager to trigger a review of Roe v. Wade by what they see as an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

At a Statehouse news conference marking this week's 33rd anniversary of the landmark 1973 decision, opponents called on the Ohio General Assembly to debate a bill banning all abortions.
Introduced nine months ago by Rep. Tom Brinkman, R-Mount Lookout, House Bill 228 would make it a felony to carry out abortions or transport a woman across state lines to have one. It would allow abortions only to save the life of a mother.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, warned that anti-abortion advocates "are using the states as laboratories" in their efforts to overturn Roe. Indiana, too, is considering a ban on abortions, and other states are adding restrictions to when abortions are allowed.
Mark Harrington, executive director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Midwest, called Brinkman's bill a test case. Anti-abortion groups say that a Supreme Court reshaped by President Bush - with new justices John Roberts and, expected soon, Samuel Alito - will be inclined to overturn Roe.

"House Bill 228 provides the necessary constitutional challenge to strike down Roe versus Wade," Harrington said. "It will immediately be challenged in the courts, and that's the strategy. House Bill 228 is a trigger law. The U.S. Supreme Court needs a law to trigger a review of Roe versus Wade."

Cincinnati attorney Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, who represents a number of abortion providers across Ohio including Cincinnati Women's Services, questioned whether the ban would pass in Columbus.

"I guess I thought that was dead," Gerhardstein said. "If they pass a law knowing full well that it's unconstitutional, sure, there'll be a test case."

Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, a Republican, earlier this month said the House would not hold hearings on Brinkman's bill, then reversed himself. Brinkman said Husted promised "at least one hearing."

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, states would have to pass their own laws, Brinkman said. "Abortion will not end in America automatically," he said. "Each state will have their own right to decide what is the best public policy for their state."

Rep. Michelle Schneider, R-Madeira; Dr. John Wilke, president of the Life Issues Institute of College Hill; Cincinnati attorney Thomas Condit of the Pro Family Network; and spokeswomen from Cincinnati-area anti-abortion groups also expressed support for Brinkman's bill.

COMMENTARY

Why is it always fat, loud-mouthed white men with really bad (and in this case, poorly tied) neck ties that want to keep the people down (um...I don't think that diet Pepsi is going to help you there Tommy) ? Maybe it is over-compensating for something, or maybe it is just that no one will sleep with them and they want to ensure that when they finally get the chance to knock someone up, they can take advantage of their only chance to procreate. Who knows...we may never know the anatomy of the brain of such tools as Tommy B.

OK, so that was cheap...but come on...I haven't written in a while and needed to get some frusutration off my chest.

In all seriousness, there are a couple points in this article that I think deserve mention. One of my favorite parts is:

"House Bill 228 provides the necessary constitutional challenge to strike down Roe versus Wade," Harrington said. "It will immediately be challenged in the courts, and that's the strategy. House Bill 228 is a trigger law. The U.S. Supreme Court needs a law to trigger a review of Roe versus Wade."

This is clear evidence that it is not the left that intends on benching legislative judges, but rather the reactionary fascist movement that seeks to destroy our nation and our Constitutional rights through the courts. Just listen to the words, "The Supreme Court needs a law, etc., etc., etc." The way it is quoted, it is as if the new judges appointed by W are sitting around, licking their lips and gnashing their teeth, waiting for the case that will allow them to exact their agenda.

In addition, the section before that speaks to the case as a test case...one that will test the waters. I am so glad that while 45 million Americans (and counting) go on without health care, while our high school students continue to seriously lag behind students in places like North Korea and Russia in basic skills and while our government is spying on its own people - Soviet-style - all during a war in which there seems to be no end, no reprieve, outrageous costs and no winners, we are forced to spend our tax dollars on matters that have been settled for 30 years by the courts...let's just hope that everything John R. and Sam A. said about precedent holds true.

Finally, does anyone else see the extraoridinary flip-flop in these scenarios? So abortion is murder, right? (Just go with it for a second). And murder is never acceptable in a society ruled by law that ensure its people the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, why is it that all of these groups think that it is OK to abort a zygote when the mother's life is in trouble? So, in that situation it is OK to murder? I mean, if someone comes at me with a knife, and in the struggle for my life I end up killing him or her, it is not murder, it is self-defense. But the cluster of cells in her womb has no choice whether it is endangering the mother or not, and certainly not wielding a weapon...so why is it suddenly not murder in these situations when none of the circumstances have changed? Aren't you still killing a baby?

I guess a political movement that doesn't care about it's executive powers peering into the details of their personal lives at will can hardly be expected to comprehend nuance or care about reason.

What are they scared of???

2005-09-14T14:31:00.000-04:00

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/hurricanes_and_tropical_storms

They had no problem forming one to see if Bill Clinton got a blowjob, but point out where their fallen idol and state and local officials went wrong in protecting thousands? NEVER!

I wish they cared as much about finding out about Katrina's response than they did about the 2006 or presidential elections.

Yet another sign that they are out of touch...70% support it. But it is the liberals that are wrong to think the rest of the country thinks like them, right?

Morons.

It is the End of an Age

2005-09-13T14:03:00.000-04:00

End of the Bush Era
By E. J. Dionne Jr.Tuesday, September 13, 2005; Page A27

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091201433.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country.

Recent months, and especially the past two weeks, have brought home to a steadily growing majority of Americans the truth that President Bush's government doesn't work. His policies are failing, his approach to leadership is detached and self-indulgent, his way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional public square. We dare not go on like this.

The Bush Era did not begin when he took office, or even with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It began on Sept. 14, 2001, when Bush declared at the World Trade Center site: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." Bush was, indeed, skilled in identifying enemies and rallying a nation already disposed to action. He failed to realize after Sept. 11 that it was not we who were lucky to have him as a leader, but he who was lucky to be president of a great country that understood the importance of standing together in the face of a grave foreign threat. Very nearly all of us rallied behind him.

If Bush had understood that his central task was to forge national unity, as he seemed to shortly after Sept. 11, the country would never have become so polarized. Instead, Bush put patriotism to the service of narrowly ideological policies and an extreme partisanship. He pushed for more tax cuts for his wealthiest supporters and shamelessly used relatively modest details in the bill creating a Department of Homeland Security as partisan cudgels in the 2002 elections.

He invoked our national anger over terrorism to win support for a war in Iraq. But he failed to pay heed to those who warned that the United States would need many more troops and careful planning to see the job through. The president assumed things would turn out fine, on the basis of wildly optimistic assumptions. Careful policymaking and thinking through potential flaws in your approach are not his administration's strong suits.

And so the Bush Era ended definitively on Sept. 2, the day Bush first toured the Gulf Coast States after Hurricane Katrina. There was no magic moment with a bullhorn. The utter failure of federal relief efforts had by then penetrated the country's consciousness. Yesterday's resignation of FEMA Director Michael Brown put an exclamation point on the failure.

The source of Bush's political success was his claim that he could protect Americans. Leadership, strength and security were Bush's calling cards. Over the past two weeks, they were lost in the surging waters of New Orleans.

But the first intimations of the end of the Bush Era came months ago. The president's post-election fixation on privatizing part of Social Security showed how out of touch he was. The more Bush discussed this boutique idea cooked up in conservative think tanks and Wall Street imaginations, the less the public liked it. The situation in Iraq deteriorated. The glorious economy Bush kept touting turned out not to be glorious for many Americans. The Census Bureau's annual economic report, released in the midst of the Gulf disaster, found that an additional 4.1 million Americans had slipped into poverty between 2001 and 2004.

The breaking of the Bush spell opens the way for leaders of both parties to declare their independence from the recent past. It gives forces outside the White House the opportunity to shape a more appropriate national agenda -- for competence and innovation in rebuilding the Katrina region and for new approaches to the problems created over the past 4 1/2 years.

The federal budget, already a mess before Katrina, is now a laughable document. Those who call for yet more tax cuts risk sounding like robots droning automated talking points programmed inside them long ago. Katrina has forced the issue of deep poverty back onto the national agenda after a long absence. Finding a way forward in -- and eventually out of -- Iraq will require creativity from those not implicated in the administration's mistakes. And if ever the phrase "reinventing government" had relevance, it is now that we have observed the performance of a government that allows political hacks to push aside the professionals.

And what of Bush, who has more than three years left in his term? Paradoxically, his best hope lies in recognizing that the Bush Era, as he and we have known it, really is gone. He can decide to help us in the transition to what comes next. Or he can cling stubbornly to his past and thereby doom himself to frustrating irrelevance.

COMMENTARY

So I have to say that I think this is well written, insightful and clearly knocking on truth's door. It is a shame that we will have to go through the next four years without a leader that is able to accomplish anything politically or in any real terms. Not that I would agree with many of the things he has tried to do in the past, but still, a ship without a captian is a perilous position for our nation.

His party members find themselves in a real predicament. What do they do? The rhetoric and the partisanship was so incredibly bitter during and post the last election that I can not imagine having to try and squirm my way out of stopping just short of calling W the Messiah. Not only that, but the disenfranchising effect abandoning the lame duck will have on the party loyal that are still hanging on to 2004 will most certainly spell doom for some in the 2006 midterms. With the exception of Mr. McCain, many will find themselves an uphill battle in next year's elections.

On the flip side, finally the zealots and the fundamentalists will see that their divine backing may not be so holy. As huge percentages of people begin to turn away from the administration, it is a wake-up call that we are not a theocracy and an opportunity for the cooler heads of the Republican Party to take the lead, as the author above states.

Finally, this is a real opportunity for the Democratic Party to flex its muscle. However, I am praying that it is not the partisan muscle, but rather the visionary kind that is required to lead a country, and which I believe does exist (much to the dismay of the right) in the party ranks. What I hope is that they do not squander this chance to moveour country forward by being blindly partisan and whiny, and not putting forth a progressive agenda worthy of our great nation.

This should be an interesting ride.

It's Been a While

2005-09-12T15:02:00.000-04:00

Sorry for not posting anything lately, but my regular job has been quite busy.

While I am not a fan of the last paragraph....still some interesting reading.

Enjoy:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/

Nurse! Valium!

2005-08-26T09:44:00.000-04:00

Is Bush Out of Control?
By DOUG THOMPSON

Buy beleaguered, overworked White House aides enough drinks and they tell a sordid tale of an administration under siege, beset by bitter staff infighting and led by a man whose mood swings suggest paranoia bordering on schizophrenia.

They describe a President whose public persona masks an angry, obscenity-spouting man who berates staff, unleashes tirades against those who disagree with him and ends meetings in the Oval Office with “get out of here!”

In fact, George W. Bush’s mood swings have become so drastic that White House emails often contain “weather reports” to warn of the President’s demeanor. “Calm seas” means Bush is calm while “tornado alert” is a warning that he is pissed at the world.

Decreasing job approval ratings and increased criticism within his own party drives the President’s paranoia even higher. Bush, in a meeting with senior advisors, called Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist a “god-damned traitor” for opposing him on stem-cell research.
“There’s real concern in the West Wing that the President is losing it,” a high-level aide told me recently.

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

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

“I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,” Dr. Frank said. “He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”
Dr. Frank’s conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

As a recovering alcoholic (sober 11 years, two months, nine days), I know all too well the symptoms that Dr. Frank describes and, after watching Bush for the past several years, I have to, unfortunately, agree with him.

Conversations over the last few weeks with longtime friends who work in the Bush White House confirm even more what Dr. Frank says and others have suggested.

The President of the United States is out of control. How long can the ship of state continue to sail with a madman at the helm?

COMMENTARY

I just couldn't resist posting this.

While it does sound suspiciously like the worst kind of propoganda/slander there is, it was too entertaining to not make available. There is something sickeningly comforting to believing that he is insane, because then maybe his inner circle (save Karl Rove) is not that terrible and they just have to deal with him...even though I really can't believe that, or the details of this post, in good faith.

Good Christian Leader

2005-08-23T12:53:00.000-04:00

Pat Robertson Calls for Assassination of Hugo Chavez
Televangelist Calls Venezuelan President a 'Terrific Danger' to the United States

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (Aug. 22) - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

COMMENTARY

I don't think I need any commentary here - even though I do have to say that I don't much care for Chavez. Then again, I don't much care for Pat Robertson either.

Here are some other great quotes from Mr. Robertson. Such a respectful, understanding and God-faring/loving man.

"If they look over the course of 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."-- On whether "activist judges" are more of a threat than terrorists, May 2005

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up." -- Referring to the State Department's location while criticizing the agency, October 2003

Swift Boating

2005-08-22T11:22:00.000-04:00

GOP Senator Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq. Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the
Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.
In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand — and some of my colleagues — the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq — well over 100,000 — for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give
Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."

COMMENTARY

Hmmm...I wonder how they can try to discredit and villify his 2 purple hearts. I mean, if he thinks things are going poorly he must not be a REAL war hero. Chuck, why do you hate America?

True Illusion

2005-08-09T20:28:00.000-04:00

To the person that loves the drama of today's wide assortment of reality programming, it may have just seemed like another scandalous incident during an innocent parent swap. On tonight's episode of "Trading Spouses," an argument erupted between the uptight clean freak from Minnesota and the pro-Bush, pro-war father of her host family in Tennessee (was it Tennessee?).

Mia, standing in for the Matriarch of the home, baited the father into an argument about the war. Somehow she came to the decision that it was appropriate to ask how he felt, as a supporter of the war, if his son-in-law in the armed forces didn't come home, if he, "...dyyed ooover there in eye-Rahhck?" You see, the little boy of the family liked to play with army men and he killed a worm with a handful of salt. Granted, when his answer to "why?," was, "I like to kill things," I was a little freaked out. Teamed with the fact that his father taught him how to do it, I could understand the point that Mia (the mother...are you still with me?) was making. The kid definitely was, after editing, obsessed with war and killing other living things. But here's the deal...

Maybe you shouldn't teach your kid that killing other living things is acceptable, just as you shouldn't ask a stranger how they would feel if a family member were to die in a war he volunteered to go to...especially if you are on national television. Fine. But how is this entertainment while REAL people are REALLY dying? In a reasonable nation, the sad drama being played out in front of our hungry eyes and ears should not, as a reasonable People, entertain us.

‘GAYSROK’

2005-08-05T16:08:00.000-04:00

SALT LAKE CITY - The state of Utah can't block a woman from using her license plate to tell the world "GAYSROK," a judge has ruled.

The state has no good reason to prevent Elizabeth Solomon from having that plate - which can be read "Gays are OK" or "Gays Rock" - or another one saying "GAYRYTS," according to Jane Phan, an administrative law judge with the Utah State Tax Commission.

"The narrow issue before us is whether a reasonable person would believe the terms "gays are OK" and "gay rights" are, themselves, offensive to good taste and decency. It is the conclusion of the commission that a reasonable person would not," Phan wrote.

The state can appeal the July 19 decision.

"We're discussing it, and we have 30 days to do that," Barry Conover, deputy director of the commission, which oversees Utah's Department of Motor Vehicles, said Wednesday.

"It kind of opens up the door for all types of people who want to make a license plate a public forum, for every initiative," he said.

Dani Eyer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, which represented Solomon, countered: "The government can't pick and choose what subjects it likes and does not like."

Solomon, of Park City, on Wednesday said she considered the judge's decision as a victory for her daughter, who is gay, and for two gay male friends.

COMMENTARY

What is most amazing about this article is that any gays choose to stay in Utah.

This is another clear example of how the far right is pursuing an active, systemic campaign to destroy the gay community and send us back to the shadows.

"It kind of opens up the door for all types of people
who want
to make a license plate a public forum,
for every initiative,"

Oh, you mean just like the "PROLIFER" plate that I saw yesterday? Are license plates really that important of a medium? Personally, I think vanity plates are annoying and self-indulgent, but meaningful and impactful? No, I think not. And I don't think they do either...but it is one more place to try and stick it to us (forgive the pun, please).

"They" love to publicly claim that there is no intention to strip us of rights or treat us as second class citizens, just that they are simply preventing the implosion of our society - a claim which, in and of itself, is ridiculous. They insist we deserve the same as everyone else...just not marriage, equal protection, due process, and now license-plate design. What a collection of ass clowns!

Intelligent?

2005-08-03T13:32:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives - a substantial part of Bush's voting base - have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.

COMMENTARY

So, life is too complex to be explained by evolution - even though that is exactly what biologists have done - so it must be that a sentient diety set this whole thing up? Aside from the fact that teaching a clearly religious view of life's creation in public schools (as part of a science unit, no less) is absolutely absurd, there is a larger issue at hand.

It seems so simple to me to reconcile these two arguments. There are a great many scientists that are religious, pious people that believe in God AND evolution - though I suppose they would be considered false believers. So why can't these two concepts get along? Why is science not the study of God's work? The reason lies at the very heart of the reason why fundamentalists are so obnoxious, yes, but also dangerous and scary. This reason is because to them, the world is black and white. It is one way or the other. It is evolution or creationism (or, "intelligent design," in the mills of the evangelical propaganda machine). It is Republican or Democrat. You are either with us or against us. While I believe in an objective reality, I hardly think that is what Ayn Rand meant.

It is not Christianity, or Islaam, or the devil that flies planes into buildings or blows up abortion clinics and gay bars. It is the resignation to ignorance and easy answers, the subjugation of the individual and his/her power of reason to the dogma of one singular school of thought and moreover, the men and women who preach this path, that are truly to blame.

Patty McFatty

2005-07-29T11:17:00.000-04:00

I really can't believe I am posting this, but it is really quite extraordinary that I agree with Mr. Buchanan on something...except for maybe his inappropriate comments regarding Mexico's two biggest imports.

OK, here goes:

CAFTA: Ideologyvs. national interests

Using the Clinton playbook for enacting NAFTA in '93, the White House is twisting arms and buying votes to win passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

And the seductive song the White House is singing sounds familiar. It is the NAFTA theme song. CAFTA will ease the social pressures that have produced waves of illegal aliens. CAFTA will increase U.S. exports. CAFTA will not cost U.S. jobs. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If Tom DeLay's caucus delivers 200 votes for CAFTA, economic patriots will begin to look outside the GOP for leadership.

In 1993, Republicans, by four to one, signed on to NAFTA. They believed the promises that our $5 billion trade surplus with Mexico would grow and illegal immigration would diminish. They were deceived. The NAFTA skeptics were proven right. The U.S. trade surplus with Mexico vanished overnight. Last year, we ran a $50 billion trade deficit. Since 1993, 15 million illegal aliens have been caught breaking into the United States. Five million made it, and their soaring demands for social services have driven California to bankruptcy. As for Mexico's major exports to us, they appear to be two: narcotics and Mexicans.

With Middle Easterners turning up on the Rio Grande, patriotic Minutemen are patrolling the border because President Bush will not enforce our immigration laws. Who can believe this White House is serious, then, about halting the invasion from the Caribbean and Central America?

It is time for Republicans who represent a Middle America that never wanted NAFTA to tell the White House the old talking points will no longer do. The open-borders, free-trade ideology of Clinton and Bush has run its course and begun to endanger our national existence.
Today, "free trade" is about something other than the simple exchange of goods. Henry Kissinger tipped the Trilateralists' hand in 1993 when he wrote that NAFTA was the "architecture of a new international system," a great "step forward toward the new world order."

Today's trade agreements are about reshaping the world to conform to the demands of transnational corporations that have shed their national identities and loyalties and want to shed their U.S. workers. Tired of contributing to Medicare and Social Security and having to deal with Americans who need health-care and pension benefits, they want to dump them all and hire Asians who will work for $2 an hour.

Trade treaties have become enabling acts by which global companies desert their home countries. CAFTA will enable U.S. firms to shut down factories here, lay off their labor force, and hire Dominicans and Costa Ricans, but retain free access to the U.S. market. They get to fire their American workers – and keep their American consumers. What a deal.
NAFTA and CAFTA are the shield laws of corporate absconders.

What these companies want ultimately is a world government that will protect their absolute freedom to go where they wish and do what they want – the country be damned.
Before Republicans go down to the well of the House and vote for CAFTA, they need to look at what has already happened to America.

Under Bush, 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared, one in every six. States like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois – which went for Reagan twice – are gone. A shift of 60,000 votes in the GOP bastion of Ohio, and Kerry would be president.

The U.S. trade deficit in 2005 will exceed $700 billion – 6 percent of our entire economy. We are awash in foreign debt.

With China, our trade deficit last year was $162 billion. Beijing is using its trade surplus to buy U.S. bonds, giving her a giant claim on U.S. interest payments – and to build and buy the ships, planes and missiles needed to fight a naval war off her coast. Wal-Mart is subsidizing China's strategic buildup.

The industries we are losing now are not only textiles, shoes, TVs and toys, but autos, airplanes and computers. We are no longer the self-sufficient nation of 1940 or 1960. Even American sovereignty is being eroded, as the World Trade Organization orders Congress to change U.S. tax and trade laws, and Congress meekly complies.

America can yet turn this around, but we are reaching a tipping point – where a sovereign, independent and self-sufficient American republic will cease to be.

Thirty House Republicans can stop this process cold by just saying no to CAFTA. The Business Roundtable will get over it. After all, they have no place else to go.

2005-07-28T17:09:00.000-04:00

EDMONTON - Perhaps he is still stomping around somewhere, but a DNA test has confirmed that it was not Bigfoot roaming the Yukon earlier this month — it was just a bison.

A hair sample was reportedly plucked from a bush near Teslin in the Yukon at a spot where several people claimed they saw and heard a large, hairy creature making a late-night run through their community. They also reported seeing an unusually large footprint. The witnesses speculated that they had seen Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, an ape-like creature said to haunt the wilderness of western Canada, among other places.

But Bigfoot's presence was refuted after a geneticist from the University of Alberta did tests on the sample, and said the DNA match for a bison was 100 per cent. David Coltman, the geneticist, says the DNA suggested the hair sample was not fresh.

Coltman agreed to do the tests as a favor to a colleague, and had said Monday that he suspected the hair was actually left behind by a much more mundane Yukon bison. “If Sasquatch is indeed a primate, then we would expect the sample to be closer to humans or chimpanzees or gorillas,” Coltman said at the time.

COMMENTARY

I just think this is really hilarious. They thought a bison looked human-like. What does that say for the residents of Western Canada?

As for Sasquatch, he may not exist, but I am stil certain that somewhere out there sloofoot roams free.

Cut and Spend

2005-07-25T16:14:00.000-04:00

So no media posting today, but I would like to begin a discussion that can hopefully stay civil. I have been speaking with a close friend of mine about tax cuts for the past several days (Friday and again today), and we seem to be at an impasse.

So the argument goes somehting like this:

Tax cuts, even if only to those that earn the most, are a way to encourage investment and growth, and a way to energize the economy. The numbers are - GDP 1st quarter growth of 3.8% (higher than 1st quarter 1995,1996,1997,1999,2000,2001), unemployment rate 5.0% (1997 levels), inflation rates holding, even with the jump in oil and the DOW is back over 10,600. While I think most very achieved economists would have a hard time giving the cuts credit for bringing up the DOW...the rest seem to ring positive. And besides, healthcare, standard of living, education and the rest of it are seperate issues from taxation. So why would you want to roll them back? They have clearly helped to fuel the resurgence of our economy.

The counter argument is that these numbers may reflect quarterly results in our market (that by the way may change and over which the admin. holds little sway), but do not reflect the reality of people's lives - 45 million without healthcare, a great deal of the "employed" earning below the poverty line, personal savings in the country being lower than any other nation in the developed world (something which tax cuts are supposed to change), an addiction to foreign debt and all in a time when prices are climbing and it is getting harder to make ends meet for poor and low-income families (the number of which is growning, not shrinking). Further, Reagan-esque tax cuts might make sense when you cut spending significantly as well, but assuming that the above items are priorities, given our necessary increase in war-time and security spending as well as the vast expansion of government we have seen in the past 5 years, tax cuts now seem to be quite irresponsible and counter-intuitive.

So the question I pose to you is three-fold:

1) Are taxes and items like healthcare and education connected or seperate?
2) Why does the economy seem to be getting better if the tax cuts are so terrible?
3) Assuming we have to cut spending, what items are priorities, and which should go?

BE NICE!!!

"Riding for a Fall"

2005-07-22T15:10:00.000-04:00

I think this reading material is excellent for anyone that is concerned/interested in our economic forecast here in the US. It really changed the way I look at our fiscal reality, and after having several conversations about this today I think it is important for people to read.

I have been following this guy for a while after hearing an interview on NPR (the link to the transcript is the second link), and I think he is brilliant. As much as my lefty friends are going to cringe when they realize he is a life-long Republican and Sec. of Commerce for Nixon, don't sweat it. He is Chairman of the Federal Reserve in NY, and is extremely pragmatic about our circumstances. Just give him a shot. I think both sides can find value in what he says.

The first link is an article, and it is a bit of a read (but well worth it), and the second is an interview which summarizes his points quite well. You may have to copy and paste. ENJOY!

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83510/peter-g-peterson/riding-for-a-fall.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_peterson.html

NARAL for Bloomberg

2005-07-22T13:28:00.000-04:00

Major Abortion Rights Group Gives Approval to Bloomberg

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: July 22, 2005

A major New York City abortion rights group gave its approval to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday, saying his record of support outweighed his affiliation with a party whose national leadership was overwhelmingly opposed to abortion.

Announcing her group's endorsement in Brooklyn yesterday Kelli Conlin, the executive director of Naral Pro-Choice New York, called Mr. Bloomberg's record on abortion "unparalleled in the city."

The endorsement is unquestionably a boon to Mr. Bloomberg and a setback for the Democrats, who just last week had to deal with the desertion of another group traditionally aligned with the party when the city's largest union of municipal employees, District Council 37, endorsed Mr. Bloomberg. The backing from Naral could also help the mayor court female voters otherwise reluctant to vote for a Republican.

The group's endorsement, coming long before the Democratic primary is held, could greatly help Mr. Bloomberg to hammer home to the predominantly Democratic city electorate that, party affiliation aside, he is generally a liberal on important issues.

Mr. Bloomberg was said to be furious four years ago when Ms. Conlin backed Mr. Green instead of him. He had been a longtime donor to the group's national foundation and had supported its positions in his campaign fliers. He did not cease giving money to the group, though at the time he told some aides he might.

Ms. Conlin said yesterday it was "a real show of his character" that among Mr. Bloomberg's first acts as mayor was an executive order directing that resident doctors at city-run hospitals and clinics be trained in performing safe abortions, unless they were opposed on moral or religious grounds.

"We didn't support him," Ms. Conlin said, "and one would expect a person of less character and principal to hold that against us, to treat us as persona non grata at City Hall."

Mr. Bloomberg has since begun a $3 million campaign to help reduce unwanted pregnancies that included a provision to increase access to emergency contraceptives, and he has publicly urged Gov. George E. Pataki to sign a provision allowing women to obtain morning-after pills directly from pharmacists.

Naral's endorsement did seem to have one string attached: a strong statement by the mayor concerning President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts.

Mr. Bloomberg did not go as far as the group did in criticizing Mr. Roberts, but he did say he would support him only if he gave "a clear indication that he accepts Roe v. Wade as the law of the land."

After the endorsement, reporters asked Ms. Conlin and Mr. Bloomberg several questions about his financial support for the Republican Party and members who have taken anti-abortion stances.

Ms. Conlin said, "We have to remove ourselves from that kind of partisanship and really look at a person's record and what they've done."

Mr. Bloomberg said he tried to back candidates who suport abortion rights whenever possible but has veered here or there to support those whom he said had been helpful to the city in other ways.

"If you cut out donations to everybody who disagreed with you on any one issue, you would support nobody," the mayor said. "The people I agree with are people that are clearly pro-choice, but there are times there are other issues."

On Wednesday, the campaign of one Democrat seeking to unseat Mr. Bloomberg, Fernando Ferrer, had sent a list of Republicans that Mr. Bloomberg has supported who it said were anti-abortion. It noted that Mr. Bloomberg had donated not only to President Bush but also $4,000 to Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama in 2003 and $2,000 to Vito Fossella last year. It listed votes by both men against late term abortions. Mr. Fossella is also a chairman of Mr. Bloomberg's campaign.

Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, said the mayor had supported them because they were on Congressional committees crucial to the city.

Mr. Ferrer told reporters yesterday that Mr. Bloomberg was trying to "have it both ways" by saying he was pro-choice and supporting Republicans who were not.

The New York County Republican committee, which has backed Mr. Bloomberg, sent an e-mail message with past statements from Mr. Ferrer about late-term abortions and one from a former spokesman for him in 1997 saying Mr. Ferrer "doesn't believe in late-term abortions because it is a horrendous procedure."

Mr. Ferrer's campaign responded that by 2001 he had given his full support to the Naral agenda and it provided a 2001 quotation from Ms. Conlin - who had been critical of him in 1997 - saying she believed he fully supported her cause.

COMMENTARY

R.I.N.O.'s...such an interesting breed. Mr. Bloomberg was a Democrat before he decided to run for mayor...it may be of interestv to note. This is one of the reasons that we will not in the near future have a President Giuliani, Pataki or, even though I don't think he has this ambition, Bloomberg. The Democrats will never accept them, and the Fundamentalist zealots will never endorse their bid in the primaries. Maybe sad, but true.

I was kinda sorta struggling with who to vote for this November, but I really do think Bloomberg deserves another term. That could stem from the fact that I was pro-West Side Stadium and pro-Olympics. And even given that pesky lawsuit the city filed RE: gay marriage, I think that we are in good hands with Mike.

Disappointed

2005-07-21T09:46:00.000-04:00

I haven't seen the movie, and I have to say that I probably wont. I take issue with it because the original show was about two good 'ol boys, never meaning no harm, that everybody could love because they were just good guys caught in the corrupt, tangled web of Boss Hogg.

However, with the casting of notorious troublemaker Johnny Knoxville and Stiffler, I feel like this frat-boy version of Bo and Luke are sure to disappoint. In fact, just watching the previews makes me already hope that at the end of the movie the General Lee is in flames, Jessica Simpson is knocked up and the two boys are in a Federal "don't-drop-the-soap" prison.

Maybe it is also a reflection of my general disappointment that every show of my youth has been remade and changed to be super-fandango and 21st Century. Have you heard about "Adventures in Babysitting?" That's right...being remade. This is very disturbing.

P.S. Jessica, leave the boots for Nancy - you sound awful.

Lord of Illusions

2005-07-20T17:33:00.000-04:00

ATLANTA - Zell Miller said Wednesday he has paid $156,668 to the state to resolve questions about money he kept from an entertainment allowance he received when he was governor.

Miller, who retired from the U.S. Senate earlier this year, said he obeyed the law "by the strictest standards," but returned $112,956 plus interest to erase any doubts. At issue is the $40,000 annual allowance Georgia governors receive for entertaining at the executive mansion. Atlanta's WSB-TV reported that Miller had kept and reported as income thousands of dollars that he did not spend from that allowance when he was governor from 1991 to 1999.

Miller cited a 1969 attorney general's opinion saying such allowances are part of a state official's gross income. Keeping the excess is legal, as long as taxes are paid on the amount, he said. "It was legally mine," he said. "But rather than let people think Zell Miller has some taxpayers' money, I sent the whole thing back to them."

COMMENTARY

Oh, like rather than making people think that Zell Miller is a Democrat with his own ideas, you came to NYC last September and admitted to Chris Matthews that you just read what they wrote for you. By the way, does anyone else think it is weird that he refers to himself in the third person?

RE-POST...not mine originally

2005-07-20T16:38:00.000-04:00

David Corn
Tue Jul 19, 6:23 PM ET

Now that I've been sucked into the right-wing disinformation machine, I am struck by how unrelenting it is. Cliff May posted a dumb column claiming that Joe Wilson told me on background that his wife was an undercover operative and that I was the first person to really out Valerie Wilson (nee Plame). I debunked that nonsense here. But pesky May still sent me email asking me to explain what I had already explained. By not accepting my explanation--and by claiming that what I've written previously is misleading--he is essentially calling me a liar. I take such things personally. (This fellow once asked me if I would be willing to be his partner in a right/left cable-TV face-off. I'm glad it never came to pass.) And there he was again yesterday on CNN expanding his web of fabrication. He said:

"You can say what you want about Bob Novak. He has insisted since the beginning that he didn't know she was a secret agent. He just knew she worked at the CIA. Nobody told him that. And if he had known she was secret, he wouldn't have published her name. Now who did publish her name first was David Corn of "The Nation," and he was the first one to say she was a secret agent, and he did that in a conversation with, guess who, with Joe Wilson."

How does one combat repeated silliness of this sort? Who knows what Novak would have done had he been told Valerie Wilson was an undercover officer? And maybe he was told. All we know is that Novak claims the CIA informed him it would prefer if he not name her but did not go ballistic about it. This tale may be true; it may not. (In his own account, Novak still turned down the CIA.) Moreover, Novak did publish her name first. It's right there in the column that prompted the CIA to ask the Justice Department to investigate the White House. CNN anchor Carol Costello should have stopped May and told the audience he was either lying or misspeaking. And May states as a fact that Wilson told me his wife was an undercover officer, even though he has no evidence of this and I have said precisely the opposite. What chutzpah! He doesn't even have an anonymous source to rely on. Is this the sort of journalism he learned when working at The New York Times? Or did he perfect his smear skills when he subsequently served as a spokesperson for the Republican Party? In his absurd article, he at least had the courtesy to present his bogus charge as the product of his own deductive reasoning (as defective as it was). On CNN, he stated as a fact that Wilson had spilled the beans to me about his wife--which is not true.

Having responded fully to his initial piece, I was not going to fuel this sideshow with further comment. But yesterday, I was on a public radio program--Warren Olney's To The Point--discussing the Rove scandal with Byron York, a columnist for the National Review. And as our segment was ending, he piped up and said, Well, Bob Novak didn't really out Valerie Wilson as an undercover official; it was David Corn. The show was ending, and I barely had time to exclaim, "Preposterous," and refer listeners to my website. But this is what happens: one person launches an unfounded smear and then others employ it. The point: I'm now thrown on defense, and, perhaps more importantly, a distraction has been achieved.

Disinformation, distraction--that's the plan, as trouble-causing details emerge from the investigation that threaten Karl Rove and other senior Bush aides. For GOP operatives, it's all-hands-to-the-deck time. And the strategy is to fire whatever ammunition the have, whether it is real or a dud. They want to turn this into a partisan mud-wrestle, realizing that much of the public turns off to such cat-and-dogs nastiness. They try to make the victims the culprits, calling Joe Wilson the biggest liar of all time and making claims about Valerie Wilson that are unsupported by the known facts (e.g., she was no more than a desk jockey). Change the focus to anything but what Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other White House aides did and whether the White House and the president has covered up for them.

One could spend all day responding to the disinformation and misinformation--and that's their goal. A few days ago, The Washington Times put into circulation a quote from a former CIA officer who once supervised Valerie Wilson and who claimed she wasn't really a covert officer. The newspaper wrote:

"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee."

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here....The agency never changed her cover status."

Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover"--also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson--also said that she worked under extremely light cover....

"She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee."

The newspaper didn't emphasize that Rustmann knew nothing about Valerie Wilson's CIA duties after he left the agency in 1990. Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst who went through training with Valerie Wilson at the CIA, told me that "my understanding is that Valerie went undercover after 1990." If that's true, then quotes from Rustmann are rather irrelevant. Yet I saw his remarks scattered across the Internet, as the distracters and disinformationalists look for any stone to hurl. Even The Washington Times partially refuted Rustmann's remarks when it quoted one neighbor of the Wilsons--David Tilloston--who said he did not know she worked at the CIA and thought she was an economist.

So much to disabuse, so little time. Let's turn now to Victoria Toensing, a Republican lawyer and commentator who was involved in drafting the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I've had pleasant dealings--professional and social--with her over the years, and many moons ago I was friendly with her daughter, a wonderful photographer. But Toensing sure is doing her duty for her side. Here's a bit from today's Washington Post:

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer and longtime Republican who helped write the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which is at the center of this case, said Bush is now saying what he probably meant to say when the leak investigation was launched. "Of course you are going to be concerned if a law was broken," she said. "But what is it that somebody did wrong if they didn't break the law?"

Toensing has been in Washington long enough to realize that not all wrongdoing in Washington is criminal. But she's now toeing the White House line: only aides convicted of a crime will be fired. (In Washington, when the supertanker White House changes its course, all the tug boats have to follow.) Compare her observation to a portion of a New York Times article published today:

"Elaine D. Kaplan, who from 1998 to 2003 was head of the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency that investigates complaints of prohibited personnel practices, said: 'Government employees and officials who are negligent with classified information can lose their jobs for carelessness. They don't have to be convicted of intentionally disseminating the information. Crime has never been the threshold. That's not the standard that applies to rank-and-file federal employees. They can be fired for misconduct well short of a crime.' "

Much of the attention has (justifiably) been on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But as Representative Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record) has recently noted, when Rove shared Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA--which was classified information--he might have violated Executive Order 12958, which says:

"Officers and employees of the United States Government...shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently....disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified. "

So the Bush/Toensing standard--leaking classified information that outs a CIA undercover officer and then not coming clean about it is not a firing offense; you're in trouble only if you break the law--is not based in law. Shouldn't she know that?

But truth is not the issue at hand. Winning is. For the right, that means firing up the fog machine and creating as many smokescreens as possible. This comes as no surprise. Still, I find it disheartening. (I can only imagine how Valerie Wilson feels.) Larry Johnson says it's a sign of how desperate the White House and its pals are. He quips, "I love the smell of fear in the morning. It smells like victory." Perhaps. A conservative journalist I know recently emailed to say he was coming to Washington and to ask if I wanted to have drinks with him (which we have occasionally done in the past). I told him I'm in no mood these days. He has yet--as far as I know--not pushed Cliff May's ridiculous Corn-did-it trash. But I need some way to vent my anger and disappointment at folks like May, York and Toensing. This episode is causing Bush's defenders to go to the most ugly extremes. Maybe Larry Johnson is right.

Cautiously Hopeful

2005-07-20T10:36:00.000-04:00

So yes...I have to write something about George's Supreme Court nomination, John G. Roberts. I have to say that I am hopeful of his choice, given the fact that I could not have expected someone totally in-line with my views. He doesn't, however, seem to be too hard core...which is all we can hope for these days.

For those that may not have heard...though I don't know how that is possible if you read the news...as an advocate in the court, he argued that nowhere in the Constitution is a woman's right to choose specifically protected. However, in another statement he stated that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and as a follower of legal precedent he will uphold it. Could it be that Bush's claim that judges should not "legisate from the bench" (which is ridiculous) will actually work in the favor of the pro-choice movement? Unlikely, but it is unclear...we'll all have to stay tuned.

However, aside from this one issue that everyone seems so focused in on, what about the other issues that he will have to help decide? Is it true what Arlen Specter said, that his arguments as an advocate/lawyer do not necessarily act as a guide to his expected findings as a Justice?

No doubt the Senate hearings will clear some of this up, and for many issues, say gay marriage, we'll have to wait and see - though I can assume how he would rule. For now I will hold off on my judgement, hopeful that GW chose someone that, although conservative, our country can live with for 20-30 years. However, I have to say that it is a thin hope, at best. If this goes the way the rest of his legacy seems to be going, I will soon be disappointed yet again.

Secrets, Secrets are No Fun...

2005-07-19T10:18:00.000-04:00

A new poll shows that only a quarter of Americans believe the White House is fully cooperating with the investigation into who leaked the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame (search). But the public seems less disapproving of media figures that are not cooperating.

In the case of New York Times reporter Judith Miller (search), who is in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail for refusing to reveal her source, 60 percent say she did the right thing.

--Brit Hume

COMMENTARY

First of all, FoxNews should be rather happy that Judith Miller did not cooperate seeing as whomever gave her info was most likely another tie to the administration, and as such an FNC ally. But that is just speculation.

What I do know is that there is a clear difference between the cooperation of the very Federal body charged with enforcing law and protecting national security, and one that is to report on the state of such a government body. As President, your administration's first priority (and indeed we have had this point rubbed in our faces) should be the welfare and protection of your ctizens, so why would you not cooperate? It is intolerable to have a President who appears to be in collusion with those that did something of this nature. G Dubs may very well not be, but when you are not forthcoming with the public regarding your investigation or involvement (including lack thereof), people get suspicious. And lets remember, in a Democracy OR a Republic, you are accountable to your electorate.

As for Judith and the press, I think we all have a vital interest in the privacy and sanctity of media sources - though I don't really expect Fox News to promote this. It is called the free press, and (unlike marriage defined as only between a man and a woman) it IS part of the Constitution...that pesky little First one, to be exact. Maybe the reason people support her defense more than the President's lack of cooperation is because, much to the chagrin of some members of the GOP (I said "some"), our populous is not ready to be ruled by a single-party despot.

Poor Harry!

2005-07-19T10:06:00.000-04:00

New Mexico Church Protests Potter
Monday December 31 11:04 AM ET

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (AP) - As hundreds protested nearby, a church group burned Harry Potter and other books. Jack Brock, the Christ Community Church founder and pastor, said the books burned Sunday were "a masterpiece of satanic deception.'' "These books teach children how they can get into witchcraft and become a witch, wizard or warlock,'' Brock said. Members sang ``Amazing Grace'' as they threw Potter books, plus some other books and magazines, into the fire. Across the street, protesters chanting "Stop burning books'' stretched in a line a quarter of a mile long. "It may be useless but we want (the church) to know the community is not behind them,'' said Joann Booth, who protested with her four grandchildren. One protester dressed up as Adolf Hitler. Brock told the congregation that he viewed the attention the church received as a blessing. "There are those that are doing their best to make us look bad.'' Brock said. "But because of this, I've been able to preach the gospel around the world.''

A letter to the Alamogordo Daily News inviting the community to attend the fire sparked debate in the town of 36,000. On Tuesday, protesters held signs reading "Book burning? Shame on our town'' in front of the public library. Inside was a display highlighting the books.

COMMENTARY

Are you kidding me? "A masterpiece of satanic deception." To think all this time I could've been well on my way to becoming an all-powerful wizard or warlock.

My favorite part of the article is how they bill the event as a "good, old-fashinoed book-burning," and how much their members are enjoying it. I would think that they would have something better to do like, convert the Jews or, blow up abortion clinics or, hey, instead of books, why not just burn the gays?

One thing I will give them, the hyphens and commas are placed correctly in the picture's caption.

My first entry

2005-07-18T16:06:00.000-04:00

When my brother announced the launch of his blog ( kurtobrown.com for those so inclined), and after my subsequent reading of his commentary, I knew the time had come when I myself needed to find a corner of cyberspace. Maybe to the credit of my parents for having raised independent free-thinkers, my dear brother and I have differing views on many things of the socio-political nature. I could not let him alone represent my bloodline to the masses, so here is my little column ;)

I give you, "The Daily Pragmatist." Check back for my ideas and reactions to the world's daily happenings, and check out the comments for what others (including my brother to the right, I am sure) will have to say.

Thanks!
AKB