Saturday, June 23, 2007

And now, in this corner...

Elizabeth Pearson of Elmhurst, Illinois goves us this gem:
I don't understand why so many feel the war in Iraq unnecessary and unwinnable. It is of greater import than any we have ever been engaged in to date. While our forces fight overseas against a more ruthless enemy than we have ever known, we extend our freedoms here. More important than assisting a beleaguered country is our ability to keep our fanatical enemy engaged in lesser pursuit before it enters our shores, which it is eager to do, with more loss of life than can be imagined, far greater than our loss to date, soldier and civilian. Our enemy has successfully intimidated former allies, who shrink from our battle. The stakes have never been higher for the entire world and the goal of our warriors never more important, worthwhile and noble. If we cut and run, with our tail between our legs, we just hasten the escalation of this conflict on our shores and nuclear weapons are inevitable. Some may have to eat crow when they discover our president not so naive after all.
Wow, that is one extra-crispy bucket of stupid. How do people get like that?

We're fighting "a more ruthless enemy than we have ever known?" Hmm, a few thousand Sunni rebels and a couple renegade Shi'a militias are more "ruthless" than the Nazi Wehrmacht? And "we extend our freedoms here?" By illegal wiretapping? Declaring people to be "enemy combatants" and denying habeas corpus? By turning the Justice department in to a virtual Republican secret police?

Lizzy says we're "assisting a beleaguered country." I suppose so, if you define "assisting" as invading without cause, drstroying the infrastructure, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands, imposing a stooge government looting the natural resources and maintaining a hostile occupation.

And finally, "Some may have to eat crow when they discover our president not so naive after all." Naive? No. Stupid, incompetent, venal, cruel, soulless, mendacious, petty, shallow, etc. etc. yes, but naive? Nah. So Lizzy, in a word..


Friday, June 22, 2007

Off to D.C.

Well, I'm off to our nation's capital for a few days. First, a conference for physics teachers and then a few days visiting friends. On Thursday mornings when the Senate is in session, our Illinois senators have a gathering for constituents who want to come by and ask questions, so we'll meet up with Durbin and Obama and see what they're up to. I hope to get a chance to ask Durbin why he voted for the continued funding of our occupation of Iraq.

On the other hand, I have no expectations that I'll be in a room with Chimpy or Shooter, so I'm not packing a bat.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

You lookin' at me?

From Rep. Henry Waxman's site (you know, the chairman of the House committee on oversight and government reform, part of that whole "checks and balances" nonsense)
Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information

The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”
Yeah, who needs those pesky vice-presidential records?

Amidst the talking points, a kernel of truth

We previously mocked Sen. Mitch McConnel's "Face the Nation" appearance where he mouthed the GOP talking points and blamed the Iraqis for not capitalizing on the wonderful "opportunities" we "gave" them. Amidst the nonsense, though, some of the GOP's version of truth slipped out:
The Iraqi government, so far, has been a big disappointment. They've not done the things that they know they need to do to hold their country together, things like the new oil law
Ah, the new "oil law." The law that will hold their country together by giving control of Iraqi oil to western companies and fulfilling a Bush-ite wet dream of ending OPEC hegemony. My pal Joshua Holland over at Alternet has been all over this for a LONG time, here, here and here.

Yes, Mr. President. We're making progress--progress toward looting and permanently occupying an Arab country.

On Morality and Hypocrisy

Well, once again the president has found his veto pen on stem cell research. We've been all over the ideology trumping science, and how these "lives" not used for research will end up down the garbage disposal with yesterday's leftover pizza. What is so galling is this man's hypocrisy, when he smirks that "America is also a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred."
Hmm, I would initially doubt the historical veracity of that statement (Alex, may I have "Slavery" for $500, please?) Beyond that, though, it is too repulsive to watch the ex-governor who giggled with glee when presiding over executions, the most of all the states during his tenure, and a president who started a murderous war for sport and profit, speak of the "sanctity" of life.

He finished this bizarre carnival (again, complete with human props) with
This science which does not cross ethical lines requires money. I believe it is a good use of taxpayers' money to spend money on this kind of science and research. And Michael [Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services] is going to expedite it, that's what that means -- it's a fancy paragraph for saying he's going to get it done.
(Ladies and gentlemen, President Larry the Cable Guy.)

Monday, June 18, 2007

Nor-mal (adj.)

Normal (adj)--Conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

I guess some people's idea of "normal" is different from others. On
Face the Nation, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Clueless) said
We've given them an enormous opportunity here over the last four years to have a normal country, and so far they haven't been able to take advantage of this opportunity.
Let's see. They were invaded without cause, and had their social, political and economic infrastructure destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed and maimed, an outside western power imposed an alien form of "government" on the country in a way guaranteed to exacerbate ages-old sectarian tensions, a foreign army is occupying the country while building permanent bases and an embassy the size of Rhode Island.

If that is normal, I'd hate to see abnormal.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Why does Kathleen Parker have a job?

For those of you lucky enough to be unfamiliar with Chatty Kathy, she is a dimwitted winger columnist based in Cracker City, USA (Orlando). She had a gem today, it has to be seen to be believed.

She has her shorts in a bind over the administration's decision not to re-nominate politicking ruthlessly ambitious climber Peter Pace to head up the joint chiefs. In one of the most bizarre bits of intellectual gymnastics ever, and proving once and for all that the shortest distance between two totally disconnected points is at a bottle and a half of pinot grigio, Chatty Kathy finds the roots of Pete's demise not in his leadership of a disastrous war but rather in the political machinations of HILLARY CLINTON! Oh the humanity!

I know it is tough to follow, but--Pace made dumb anti-gay comments back in the spring. I'll let you read the rest for yourself:
One doesn't need much of a running start to make the leap to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who also sits on the Armed Services Committee and who, you may have heard, is running for commander in chief. No one benefits more from Pace's removal than Clinton, who would have had to vote for or against the man and be stuck with a position that could hurt her. As the Democratic candidate for president, Clinton couldn't endorse Pace, now identified in some quarters as anti-gay. Her husband is responsible, after all, for the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy that evolved as a compromise to his campaign promise to lift the ban on gays in the armed forces. As a future commander in chief, Sen. Clinton could ill afford to be perceived as siding with the liberal agenda and the gay lobby, which continues to push for the original Clinton promise.
So it is all about gays and Hillary? The WHITE HOUSE killed the nomination which does wonderful things for the Democratic frontrunner? Good God.

One doesn't need much of a running start to make the leap to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.... Well, Kathy, actually the only people who could make that leap are slow-witted administration apologists like you. I'm going out on a limb here, but since Gates wanted him back, do you suppose that the White House didn't want angry public hearings on its ongoing disaster? Just a thought.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Hey Pete - I think Mike Huckabee would disagree with you!

From ThinkProgress:

Later, on CNN’s Late Edition, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) expressed his disagreement with Powell about closing Guantanamo, saying “most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo and less like the state prisons that people are in in the United States.” (emphasis added)

Pressed by host Wolf Blitzer to address the fact that “detainees are being held, by and large, without charges, without any evidence,” which is “causing a smear on the U.S. reputation,” Huckabee said it didn’t matter because hypothetically, “if we let somebody out” they could “come and fly an airliner into one of our skyscrapers.”

Let's hear it for the 4th Circuit

One 3-judge panel, at least, a panel that rejected the Bush administration's Star Chamber claims to hold "terrorists" without charge.
"For a court to uphold a claim to such extraordinary power ... would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution."
Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri may be a very bad guy. He may have been an al-Qaeda operative. As reported in the Chicago Tribune,
Although not charged with a terrorism offense, al-Marri was tied by authorities to Al Qaeda because he allegedly placed calls to a phone number in the United Arab Emirates linked to one of the paymasters for the Sept. 11 operation. His computer contained more than 1,000 apparent credit card numbers and instructions on making hydrogen cyanide.
So let's CHARGE HIM and TRY HIM. Try him in the courts that try criminal matters EVERY DAY. I don't care at all what happens to Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. I care what his treatment does to our constitutional liberties. A legal U.S. resident, he has been held IN MILITARY CUSTODY WITHOUT CHARGES for almost four years. That is horrifying.

The Bush administration, desperate to hold on to their power to make people disappear, will seek en banc review of this three-judge decision, i.e., consideration by all 12 circuit judges. It rarely is granted, but this is a very conservative circuit. If the court denies an en banc review or affirms, then the Supremes are next. If this court, as conservative as it is, desires ANY institutional integrity, they cannot reverse this ruling.

Monday, June 11, 2007

King George, redux

From Salon's WarRoom:

"Yes, it's an interesting comment about Congress, isn't it?" Bush responded. "On the one hand, they say that a good general shouldn't be reconfirmed, and on the other hand, they say that my attorney general shouldn't stay. And I find it interesting. I guess it reflects the political atmosphere of Washington. And they can try to have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to determine -- make the determination who serves in my government."

So, the Giggling Murderer in Chief comes out and puts it as plainly as he can, given that he has spent his life abusing that sad excuse for a brain he was born with. It's his government, dontcha know, and he'll do what he wants.

He is frighteningly dismissive of Congress - "they say a good general shouldn't be reconfirmed" - well, George, they do have that power (remember that Constitution thing?). And "They can try to have their votes of no confidence..." Wow, does that have a ring of "go out and play, young Congress, and let daddy take care of the country." There is something Congress could do about this, to let his lordship know they're not his serfs. Of course, there are too many of them who are still his willing lapdogs.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Friday, June 08, 2007

"Non-Alcoholic" Beer

So the official White House line is that the beverage of choice was "non-alcoholic" beer.

Yeah, right.

First of all, find an N/A with the legs or "lace," the foam pattern left in the glass, like that. Secondly, he chugs that stuff. try that with an N/A. The stuff is gawdawful, it has the bouquet of old dishcloths boiled in sweat.

And the clincher, of course, is that it is not "non-alcoholic." It is LOW alcohol, but alcohol nonetheless. The only people who should drink non-alcoholic beer are non-alcoholics.

Those crazy kids!







Clearly a member of the "32% Club"


Here in the "Heartland of America (tm)" apparitions are a fairly common occurrence. Normally I pay them no attention at all - as most of them deal with one or the other of a fairly famous mother/son team. However, the latest one caught my eye, as it concerns the recently deceased mayor of the "made" city of Rosemont, IL - Donald E. Stephens. Stephens was the only mayor Rosemont had ever had. Blessed with a great deal of land, relatively few residents and easy access to the world's busiest airport, Stephens turned his little hamlet into a veritable cash cow. His alleged connections to organized crime however, resulted in the loss of the biggest prize of all - a casino within walking distance of lots of people with time on their hands. Anyway... apparently something like his visage is now visible in a tree near the city-owned health club... CNN went out to investigate the story, and in doing so they interviewed one Cathy Sansone, membership director of the aforementioned health club. It is her reaction which summons the title of this blog entry:

"I see Jesus. Any resemblance to the late mayor is (due to) the power of suggestion."

Thursday, June 07, 2007

A horror of horrors

First of all, may we offer all our condolences to the family of Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas. By all accounts, he was a good and decent man.

Wyoming has interesting laws on this. In most states, the governor gets to appoint the interim senator. Not in Wyoming--the PARTY picks three and the (now Dem) governor chooses one. The rumor mill has that one of the three is

LYNN CHENEY!!!

Oh, the horrors!

If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others?

The right-wing base is in a tizzy over some comments made by NASA chief Michael Griffin dealing with climate change. In an interview with NPR, Griffin said:

I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Griffin has come out recently as saying that these are his own beliefs, not the official position of NASA, but his position lends a credibility to his comments that the Luddites are clinging to like a polar bear clings to the last ice floes in the arctic. While it is indeed true that the world has undergone dramatic climate changes in its multi-billion year history, the point of view espoused by Griffin is dangerously short-sighted and ignorant.

There are two primary problems with this idea. First of all, the current climate change is *not* a natural phenomenon. The evidence is overwhelming that it is being caused by human activity. Secondly, regardless of the mechanism of change, we have a moral obligation to respond to it. The last major fluctuations in the Earth's climate occurred when the population was much much smaller than it is now. There are roughly 6.6 billion people living on the planet right now, many of whom live in cities on the water (New York, anyone?). Consider the devastation caused by the tsunami in December 2004, and think about what would happen if every city around the world that was on an ocean was flooded. Indonesia. India. London. New York. How many refugees would there be? How much farmland would be under water? What kind of burden would this place on the economies of the world? Even if this was entirely a natural process, if we didn't respond in some way, we would be witnesses to the greatest disaster humanity has ever faced. Do we ever hear any of these pundits blathering on about how this is natural, etc, discussing the cost of housing a billion refugees? Feeding them? Rebuilding whole segments of societies (think New Orleans on a global scale)? And that's only considering the rising of the oceans - I'm ignoring the other effects of climate change - habitat migration, different seasonal patterns, increases in storm frequency and intensity, etc.

Now, consider that we know that we're causing this. It is most decidedly not arrogant to think that if we're messing with the global ecosystem, it's our job to fix it. Think about Griffin's logic for a minute - if we follow his path, then there is no such thing as responsibility. Who says that you wouldn't be hit by a bus tomorrow, so if I shoot you today, why is that wrong? It's absurd. So, we have a situation where we know that we're changing the earth's climate. The consequences of the change could be devastating on a scale we can't fathom. We can (a) ignore it, and say "well, maybe it will be better that way - who are we to say which way it should be", or (b) try to limit the damage we cause, and hope that within the span of existence of humans on the planet, we find the means to prevent the death and destruction global warming will bring, whether it is caused by us or a natural event.

Doesn't seem like a tough choice to me, nor apparently, to Mr. Voltaire. Michael Griffin, on the other hand, is an idiot.

A "contact your representatives" moment

Just like last year, both the Senate and the House have passed (by sizable margins) bills which would expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, the culture of death that surrounds the Chimp will cause him to veto the bill, since it might save lives and he still kowtows to a rabid and moronic base of troglodytes who hate life and want the apocalypse to come this afternoon. If your representative or senator voted against the bill, please urge them to change their mind and override the upcoming veto. No one knows whether or not embryonic stem cell research will ever lead to any tangible outcomes, but the hope is there. All this bill is saying is that embryos which would otherwise be incinerated be delivered instead to researchers who are trying to find cures for horrific conditions from which millions and millions suffer every day. No fetuses will be aborted, no children will be cloned.

It's staggering that we're still talking about this - Europe and Japan are years ahead of us in research, because they're not being dragged down by drooling fundies who still think the Earth is flat and there are dragons out beyond the horizon. Let's all pretend that this is the 21st century, people, and use our brains to help the world.

Lawrence of Arabia, redux

T.E. Lawrence, 1920
The people...have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.

We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?

Who ARE these people?

WASHINGTON — Public approval of the job President Bush is doing now matches its all-time low, an AP-Ipsos poll says. The survey, released Thursday, reflects widespread discontent over how Bush is handling the war in Iraq, efforts against terrorism and domestic issues. It also underscores challenges Republican presidential and congressional candidates will confront next year when they face voters who seem to be clamoring for change. Only 32 percent said they were satisfied with how Bush is handling his job overall, the same low point AP-Ipsos polling measured last January and a drop of 3 percentage points since May.
I have two questions. Who are those 32-percenters, and how can I get to play poker with them?

Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls...

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Hundreds of Turkish soldiers crossed into northern Iraq on Wednesday pursuing Kurdish guerrillas who stage attacks on Turkey from hideouts there, Turkish security officials and an Iraqi Kurd official said.
One recalls the words of the prophet Hosea, who said "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

Looks like it's reaping time. Windy today, isn't it?

SHE ran a national campaign? And she is a "law professor?"

Susan Estrich, the "mastermind" of that great Dukakis campaign, and a professor of law, wrote that
The only problem here is that there was no underlying crime.
Susan, pardon me (pun intended), but you are a "professor" of criminal law. This involved testimony to a GRAND JURY. What do GRAND JURIES do? They INVESTIGATE. They decided not to indict a primary violation under a crappy statute, but a large part of the problem in that failure to indict involved the Scooter lies.

So Susan, it is OK to lie to a grand jury as long as the INVESTIGATIVE JURY does not indict???