Vatican: Get More Exorcise!

The Holy See apparently thinks we need more exorcists, as a Vatican-endorsed university is offering a course on "Exorcism and Prayer of Liberation" to train future expellers of demons. The Pontifical Academy Regina Apostolorum ("Go Pontifical Academy Regina Apostolorum, Go, Go, Go!" or "Cheer, Cheer for Old Pontifical Academy Regina Apostolorum!") offers the course "to express a clear vision of the phenomenon," said Italian Bishop Andrea Gemma, a leading exorcist who delivered the opening lecture." It was also reported that Pope Benedict XVI "welcomed a large group of Italian exorcists who visited the Vatican" in September.

This raises a couple of questions. First of all, Bishop Gemma is a LEADING exorcist? Is there a poll out there? Does Time Magazine do an "Exorcist of the Year?" Are there aspiring exorcists playing in the low minors of exorcism who are waiting to be called up to expel big demons? Then we see the Pope welcoming a "large group" of exorcists to the Vatican. Is there a lot of this going around? How many people are out there casting out demons? Perhaps your Uncle Jake, who really isn't your uncle, but let's not get into that now, who always gets liquored up at Thanksgiving and hits on your hot divorced cousin, isn't just an ass, he might be possessed?

[editorial note to anyone who believes Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD: While the news story cited above is true, the content below is satirical in nature.]

Sources close to the Vatican also announced that they will be offering refresher courses in burning at the stake. "Let's face it," said an academy source, "we live in a Duraflame log and gas fireplace world now, we've forgotten how to build a proper pyre to send the damned souls of heretics to God for judgment on the tongues of flame." A class designed to curb child abuse, "Youth Ministry: Piety with Pants," was cancelled due to low enrollment, however.

THE PROBLEM WITH BUSH'S IRAQ SPEECH

THE PROBLEM WITH BUSH'S IRAQ SPEECH

People Power

by Lawrence F. Kaplan

Only at TNR Online Post date 10.07.05


Yesterday, in his long overdue bid to rally public support for the U.S. enterprise in Iraq, President Bush sounded less like a president determined to win a war than a president determined not to lose one. Long gone were the war's cascading rationales. In their place was a defense of the war which amounted to this: If we leave, things will be worse. Or, as the president put it, "Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?" About the war in Iraq, there is no more essential and urgent truth than the one Bush's question raised. But when it comes to the American public, this particular truth won't have much traction.

To begin with, the alternative-would-be-worse line of reasoning has been employed by so many presidents, and so disingenuously, that it's not even clear the public would respond to the argument were it offered sincerely. "In Iraq," Bush said, "there is no peace without victory." This counts as a far cry from Richard Nixon's Vietnam mantra, "peace with honor." But Nixon, too, pledged never to abandon an ally, promising that he wouldn't be the first American president to lose a war. He was. A decade later, in the aftermath of the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, President Reagan vowed not to withdraw U.S. troops from Lebanon. "Are we to tell them their sacrifice was wasted?" he asked in a publicly televised address. He promptly withdrew the remaining U.S. forces. Exactly a decade after that, in the aftermath of the October 1993 fiasco in Somalia, President Clinton repeated the exercise: "We face a choice: Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive?" Clinton opted for the former, ordering U.S. forces to hunker down in their bunkers, and then withdrew them altogether.

Bush, unlike Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton before him, seems genuinely committed to the cause of battlefield success. But he faces a vastly more skeptical public than either of his predecessors did. Nixon, for one, didn't have to contend with opinion polls showing majority support for withdrawal from Vietnam until 1970-1971, by which time he had enshrined withdrawal in official policy. As for Reagan's experience, in the aftermath of the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, public support for the U.S. intervention increased. Similarly, when 18 Rangers were killed in Mogadishu, NBC, ABC, and CNN polls found that 61, 56, and 55 percent, respectively, favored sending more troops to Somalia. These levels of support evaporated only as it became clear the presidents themselves no longer backed the missions. Today, the situation has reversed itself: The president supports the mission, but no one else does.
Hence, in the space of two and a half years, Americans have arrived at a point it took them six years to reach during the war in Vietnam: Opinion polls today show clear majorities favoring one form of withdrawal or another. Various measures of wartime opinion can be, and have been, turned around--during the Korean War, for example, poll respondents swung wildly between saying the war was a good idea and saying it wasn't. But never before has a war survived a public verdict in favor of canceling it altogether. If history offers any guide, nothing the president can say or do will reverse this sentiment.

Which isn't to say he shouldn't bother trying. Historically, one of the preconditions for sustaining public support during wartime has been a president's ability to make the case for pressing on--a finding culled from a mountain of opinion data by, among others, Peter Feaver, a Duke University scholar who now works in the White House. But the same data shows that two other conditions must be fulfilled as well: The public needs to believe the stakes justify continued casualties and it must believe the United States will emerge triumphant. As to the former, surveys dating back nearly two years have reported that the public sees no compelling interest to justify further casualties in Iraq. In theory at least, this measure can be reversed, especially if Bush succeeds in making the case that the stakes have increased along with the specter of "Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq." What Bush can't reverse is the perception that we're losing the war.

Nor, absent some clear evidence or at least barometers of success, do events in Iraq seem likely to change people's minds. Suicide bombings, U.S. casualties, political mayhem--no amount of speechifying can wish away the nightly news. If the administration really intends to persuade Americans that the war can be won, it would have to make some progress toward actually winning the war. That would mean bolstering rather than cutting troop levels in Iraq, and substantially expanding the army's ranks. It would mean overhauling tactics on the ground, moving away from big-unit sweeps and toward a viable counter-insurgency strategy. It would mean not rushing headlong into a constitutional crisis or otherwise devising fig-leaves for a U.S. withdrawal. It would mean mobilizing national power on a scale not even contemplated by the administration. Yes, the president delivered a fine and necessary speech yesterday. But no war was ever won by spin alone.

Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at TNR.

I am shocked and stunned.....

Actually, I am shocked and stunned that the mainstream media reported it. Ladies and gentlemen, the emperor has been buck naked for a LOOOONG time!

It was worse on ABC News, whodathunkit, when they showed the rehearsal and the extra prep for when Chimpy would screw up.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1210762

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

President Bush Teleconference With U.S. Troops Was Choreographed to Match His Goals for Iraq War

By DEB RIECHMANN

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering how often do we train with the Iraqi military who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit the hometown and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

Dr. Dobson? Mr. Rove is calling on Line 1

So WHY is Karl Rove, apostate of Hell, calling James Dobson, pseudo-Christian freak show, about Ozzie's Harriet? WHY is this pervert vetting a Supreme Court nominee?

For those of you who aren't familiar with this Dobson psychopath, he is the anti-Spongebob activist who gave us this useful nugget for childrearing:

"You see, the parent should have some means of making the child want to cooperate, other than simply obeying because he was told to do so. For those who can think of no such device, I will suggest one: there is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the neck. Anatomy books list it as the trapezius muscle, and when firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain saying, "This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs."

Nothing says I love you like a little child abuse!

Now in all fairness, Dr. Dobson has admitted that a man can be an actor and a cook without being a homosexual. I am thankful for that.

This nutball also tells us parents that we can keep our sons from becoming gay by showering with them, where dad can "mirror and affirm his son's maleness." Right.

As Jack Nicholson's Melvin Udall said in "As Good as It Gets, "Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here!"

The Aptly-Named "Dick" Cohen

Bloggers who are good at this have been all over this one today (to twist Oscar Wilde a bit, and he reportedly liked that, "work is the curse of the blogging class"), but you really should look at an op-ed piece by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. Dick gives us this gem:

"The best thing Patrick Fitzgerald could do for his country is get out of Washington, return to Chicago and prosecute some real criminals. As it is, all he has done so far is send Judith Miller of the New York Times to jail and repeatedly haul this or that administration high official before a grand jury, investigating a crime that probably wasn't one in the first place but that now, as is often the case, might have metastasized into some sort of coverup -- but, again, of nothing much. Go home, Pat." He concludes that the Valerie Plame affair was no more "than what Washington does day in and day out."

I think we see some of the reason that Dick is unhappy, when he cries that "I have no idea what Fitzgerald will do...My own diligent efforts to find out anything have come to naught. Fitzgerald's non-speaking spokesman would not even tell me if his boss is authorized to issue a report."

Mommy! Pat won't play with me, make him stop! Dick is angry about being rendered irrelevant on this one.

But beyond pampered, privileged petulance, this one shows ever so clearly that Dick just doesn't get it: "This -- this creepy silence -- will be the consequence of dusting off rarely used statutes to still the tongues of leakers and intimidate the press in its pursuit of truth, fame and choice restaurant tables. Apres Miller comes moi ."

No, Dick. No. This has nothing to do with the free flow of information, a vigilant and independent press or the public's right to know. This case is first and foremost about a CRIME, a very real and cognizable crime. Beyond that, though, it is about whether government officials are above the law. We have before us the very real possibility that senior members of this administration actively conspired to keep the truth about perhaps the most momentous decision a nation can make, the decision to go to war. They were not trying to intimidate YOU, Dickie, they were trying to intimidate US with the "cross us and we will crush you" message.

I like the notion, though, of "the press in its pursuit of truth." You should try that some time.

What, Me Worry?

The Potemkin Constitution

Potemkin village: (noun) "An impressive facade or display that hides an undesirable fact or state; a false front."

The phrase above comes from 18th-century Russia, where Grigory Potemkin, a Russian prince and statesmen under Catherine the Great supposedly (and probably mythically) had elaborate and handsome villages built for the Empress to see on her tours of the provinces, creating a facade of peace and prosperity that hid the real squalor and desperation.

This Saturday, Iraqis will vote on a Potemkin constitution. Like the "elections" in January, when no one knew who or what they were voting for, a major Sunni group has agreed to withhold opposition because they have been promised negotioations later that could lead to major changes. In other words, they are voting for a non-constitution.

This becomes even more bizarre, as the country descends further into a chaotic maelstrom so violent and pervasive that the "government" that might be "constituted" on Saturday would have no hope of controlling it. The "Potemkin village" of constitutionalism and "democracy" is a cheaply constructed facade barely obscuring a violent nightmare of death and destruction.

Some thoughts from Britain's The Independent:

Iraq Has Descended into Anarchy, Says Fisk

By Nigel Morris Home Affairs Correspondent

Most of Iraq is in a state of anarchy, with insurgents controlling parts of Baghdad just half a mile from the so-called Green Zone, an Independent debate was told last night. Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The Independent, whose new book The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the Middle East has just been published by 4th Estate, painted a picture of deepening chaos and misery in Iraq more than two years after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

He said that the "constant, intensive involvement" in the Middle East by the West was a recurring pattern over centuries and was the reason why "so many Muslims in the Middle East hate us". He added "We can close doors on history. They can't."

Fisk doubted the sincerity of Western leaders' commitment to bringing democracy to Iraq and said a lasting settlement in the country was impossible while foreign troops remained. "In the Middle East, they would like some of our democracy, they would like a couple of boxes off the supermarket shelves of human rights as well. But I think they would also like freedom from us."

Recalling the sight of an immense US convoy rolling into the country's capital, he said: "A superpower has a visceral need to project military power. We can go to Baghdad, so we will go to Baghdad."

He told the debate in London: "The Americans must leave Iraq and they will leave Iraq, but they can't leave Iraq and that is the equation that turns sand to blood. At some point, they will have to talk to the insurgents.

"But I don't know how, because those people who might be negotiators ­ the United Nations, the Red Cross ­ their headquarters have been blown up. The reality now in Iraq is the project is finished. Most of Iraq, except Kurdistan, is in a state of anarchy."

He said that the portrayal of Iraq by Western leaders ­ of efforts to introduce democracy, including Saturday's national vote on the country's proposed constitution ­ was "unreal" to most of its citizens. In Baghdad, children and women were kept at home to prevent them from being kidnapped for money or sold into slavery. They faced a desperate struggle to find the money to keep generators running to provide themselves with electricity. "They aren't sitting in their front rooms discussing the referendum on the constitution."

With insurgents half a mile from Baghdad's Green Zone, Fisk said the danger to reporters from a brutal insurgency that did not respect journalists was increasing. "Every time I go to Baghdad it's worse, every time I ask myself how we can keep going. Because the real question is, is the story worth the risk?"

He attacked television reporters for flinching from depicting the everyday bloodshed on the streets of Iraq. "You can go and see Saving Private Ryan or Kingdom of Heaven ­ people have their heads cut off. When it comes to real heads being cut off, you can't. I think television connives with governments at war." He added: "Newspapers can tell you as closely as they can what these horrors are like."

Asked if the "anger and passion" he felt over the events he witnessed had affected his objectivity, he said: "When you are at the scene of a massacre, you are entitled to feel immense anger and I do."

He rejected suggestions that graphic pictures of the dead in newspapers took away their dignity. He said: "My view is the people who are dead would want us to record what happened to them."

GOP dealmaking

He gives us another Scalia, We keep pretending that smirking alcoholic C-student chimpanzee cheerleader is Winston Freakin' Churchill. That was the deal.

Decisions, decisions

Iraqis Must Choose Between Anarchy and Chaos

(From Baghdad wire services) As Saturday's constitutional referendum approaches, Iraqi voters are faced with a clear choice. They can accept the new constitution over Sunni objections and lead the country into chaos and violence, or they can reject the constitution and leave the country in anarchy and violence. A source close to the Iraqi government stated that "It is time to make a choice, and that choice must be chaos. We tried anarchy, and that didn't work out so well. It is time to give chaos a chance."

Also on Saturday's ballot, the electorate will vote to approve the vulture as the new national bird and a new national anthem, Lee Greenwood's stirring "Allah Help Iraq, Death to the USA:"

If tomorrow all the things were gone (hey wait, they already are!)
I'd worked for all my life,
And I had to start again with just my two surviving children out of twelve and three of my five wives,

I'd curse the stars in heaven
to be living here today,
I once had dreams of freedom
and they took all those away.

It sucks to be in Iraq today
where destruction's all I see
And I won't forget the men who died (dozens of them today)
Thank Allah it wasn't me,

And I gladly stand up next to you
and leave this dump today,
'Cause there ain't no doubt I hate this place

Allah help Iraq--AND DEATH TO THE USA!

Bill Maher's New Rules

New Rule: You can only kill the number-two man in Al Qaeda once. According to the White House, we've killed the number-two man in Al Qaeda about nine times now. He's not a terrorist. It turns out he's a zombie. We're fighting them over in Transylvania so we don't have to fight them here.

New Rule: George Bush must meet some new people. You know, when Americans see their president giving every job to the same old cronies, they use words like “loyal to a fault” and “stubborn” and “close-minded,” “lives in a bubble,” “sock-puppet,” “asshole.” “Worst president ever.” But they're missing the point. The problem isn't his political philosophy – “kill people and animals and take their gas”– the problem is he has to expand his circle of friends beyond his mom, Karen Hughes and the House of Saud. Which is why before George Bush makes another political appointment, he has to join Friendster.

This week, President Bush had to nominate a Supreme Court judge, and he picked the most qualified person within 30 feet of his office. Her qualifications: well, she is a lawyer and former commissioner of the Texas State Lottery. And she's seen every episode of “Judging Amy.” Abortion, affirmative action, separation of church and state. Yeah, let's ask the lady who peddled scratch tickets to liquor stores.

Does he just go with the first person he sees? I wouldn't be surprised if Laura was his sister. Now, of course – I keep checking with him – of course, George Bush isn't the first politician to hand out graft gigs to his pals, but he doesn't seem to understand that that's what the bullshit jobs are for: ambassador to the Bahamas. The Recycling Czar. Head of the CIA. But George Bush puts stooges where they can do real damage: Director of FEMA? That guy from the horsie show is available. U.N. Ambassador? Dick Cheney knows a guy with a mustache and anger issues.

Supreme Court justice? Lady down the hall. Labor Secretary? The guy who helped me move that hooker's body at Yale could probably do it. You know – you know, Mr. President, when you got elected, we all figured you were no genius, but smart enough to hire qualified people. But it turns out you're just a dimwit who enjoys feeling superior. And the only way to accomplish that is to surround yourself with the likes of Mike Brown and Harriet Miers: Goober and Aunt Bea. Unspectacular souls who make you feel comfortable and unthreatened. Kind of like when Madonna used to hang out with Rosie O'Donnell.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble. But real friends are the ones who tell you the truth. They're also the ones who work hard so as not to embarrass you. These people who work for you aren't behaving like friends. They're behaving far worse. They're behaving…like...your family. Yes, it's almost enough to make you miss the old pre-“honor and integrity” days. Because at least when Clinton talked about tapping the woman down the hall, he was just having sex with her.

Devilish News

White House Email Proves Karl Rove is Satan

(AP) Sources close to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office have confirmed that emails recently released by the White House conclusively show that presidential advisor Karl Rove (pictured left) is indeed Satan, prince of darkness. In a series of communications between Rove and Judith Miller of the New York Times, the reporter confirmed that she was serving "Beelzebub, my dark lord" and the "soulless destroyer of virtue."

When asked for comment, a member of Fitzgerald's staff stated that "we always had our suspicions, but we needed Judy to give us the proof. Initially, Rove's Secret Service code name, `Lucifer,' tipped us off, and there was always that peculiar smell of burning sulphur around him, but we just didn't have the hard evidence until now."

While it is expected that Rove will be indicted on several charges stemming from the Valerie Plame affair, Fitzgerald's office indicated that no further charges will result from the fact that Rove is the demonic enemy of goodness. "We've looked at this really closely, and there simply are no applicable federal laws or regulations that prohibit an apostate of hell or any incarnation of evil from serving as a senior member of the president's staff," said the source. "In addition, throughout this investigation, Mr. Rove has never denied that he was Satan."

The White House also confirmed that in response to a subpoena, it had produced the bill of sale for the president's soul. Investigators recovered similar receipts for soul sale transactions from Rove's office, including those signed by "Friends" star Matt LeBlanc, "singer" Ashlee Simpson and drugged-out radio host Rush Limbaugh.

The Dirty Bird

"Dirty Bird" Suspect Sought

The Department of Homeland Security announced that it has learned of a so-called "dirty bird" plot. Similar to the alleged "dirty bomb" plot involving imprisoned "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the "dirty bird" plot involves an individual suspected of distributing large numbers of chickens throughout the United States. The department advised that, as in the case of the "dirty bomb," there is no evidence of any actual wrongdoing or any real threat involving a "dirty bird." Homeland Security admitted, however, that with all the bird flu talk that people really don't understand and the need to distract attention away from the crummy week the White House was having, that it seemed as good a time as any to increase the terror alert level from its current "ochre" to a new level of "sea foam."

Below is a police sketch of the suspect:

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because *some liberal* union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day.

He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Hey, Rico!

Rico Carty

















Rico Petrocelli













RICO President

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act president, that is! It is amazing how the man who promised the return of "honor and dignity" has turned the White House into a looting free-for-all.

Reducing the crime rate

"If you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could click on every ad to the right, and your crime rate would go down....it would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but the crime rate would go down."

Bush Acts Quickly on Pakistan Earthquake

Bush to Send Mom, Dobson to Pakistan

(AP) The Associated Press has learned that President George W. Bush has sent the Rev. James Dobson and the president's mother to Pakistan to deal with the massive earthquake. According to Rev. Dobson, "I will try and find any Christian survivors and minister to them, and celebrate all those others that the Almighty has sent to His eternal fires." When asked to comment on the thousands of dead, Mrs. Barbara Bush stated that the dead were "underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

The Happy Dance, or not so fast

It is quite appropriate to relish a few moments of glee, as the GOP legislative leaders are indicted and investigated and conservative pundits engage in self-immolation, and yes, we may even engage in flights of fancy:
The temptation to turn the happy dance into a full-fledged "They Shoot Horses, Don't They"-style marathon may become irresistable when the indictments come down soon from Pat Fitzgerald's office. And believe me, they are coming. For those of you unacquainted with him, Mr, Fitzgerald is fearless and relentless. Unlike so many other high-profile U.S. attorneys (insert "Giuliani" here), he is a prosecutor rather than a poltician. Here in Illinois, where there has been a familial relationship of graft and corruption between Chicago and Springfield (effectively one-party rule, the Corrupt-ocrat or Republi-scam party) for years, Fitzgerald has convicted several major players, has a former governor on trial and has gotten closer to Mayor Daley's office than anyone ever thought possible. Bush's gang who couldn't shoot straight wouldn't phase anyone who has stared down the Daley machine!

Even the long-term incarceration of Karl Rove and the naming of Darth Cheney and Mini-Me as unindicted co-conspirators won't do the trick, however. Remember, we start with a basic problem:












The problem is that those 59 million people who chose to vote for four more years of this disaster are still out there. I am reminded of a common phenomenon in 19th-century Russian history. Russian peasants lived in serfdom and grinding poverty, and were regularly abused by corrupt local bureaucrats. Despite their misery, however, the peasants loved their "little Father," the Tsar. They plaintively claimed their heartfelt belief that the Tsar would help them "if he only knew" of their lot, but alas the truth was kept from him by his corrupt ministers.

So, even if we haul the "corrupt ministers" off to jail, and even factoring in the president's tumbling poll numbers, we still have millions of people perversely loyal to their "little Father." We also have to recognize that the Republicans are in so many ways, from packaging their candidates to focusing the message to this little problem, better at this than we are:




















So yes, enjoy the guilty pleasure of watching the GOP implode, but please don't assume that voters will link the grotesque incompetence and shameless corruption they have displayed to their personal voting decisions. The Democrats face a huge challenge in the next two elections. They must clearly define what they stand for (Rep, Rahm Emanuel of Illinois made a good start last week on Meet the Press), and they must articulate a strong, decisive and positive view of America.

That being said, however, they have to be willing to fight back. No more of John Kerry windsurfing past the Swift Boat vets. As Sean Connery's Jimmy Malone said in The Untouchables, "you wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get [substitute "the Republicans" for "Capone"]! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"

Another key is to avoid the fear of the foolish consistency. Members of Congress and presidential contenders cannot be hamstrung by the fact that they may have voted early on for this miserable war. learn from your mistakes and move on! Implicit in that is also the importance of forcefully defending dissent as a patriotic American virtue.

The last obstacle I don't know how to address right now. This one will take some work:

Miller Time redux

On July 6, 2005, yours truly wrote, “Can we PLEASE let go of any sense that Judith Miller is any kind of hero or martyr for a free press? For one thing, her drumming up support for the Iraq war in the New York Times (the supposedly "LIBERAL" New York Times, that led the headlong rush into war and was the primary water carrier on Whitewater) would have done Keith Moon and John Bonham proud. She is not protecting a SOURCE--she is protecting a CRIMINAL!

And guess what? Today we get from Reuters that New York Times reporter Judith Miller discovered notes from an earlier conversation she had with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and turned them over to the prosecutor investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity, legal sources said on Friday."

She just DISCOVERED these “notes?” How convenient.

She is a disgrace, and honestly, so is the New York Times

Thanks but no thanks......

From the Desk of God

From the Desk of God

Dear Humanity:

I have recently heard that President George W. Bush said that I told him to invade Iraq. As the creator of the world, of all that is seen and unseen, I have but one comment on the president's statement:

ARE YOU %#!&-ING KIDDING ME??????

Let's see. I made this:









and this:









and this:









I inspired him:












and him:



















and her:













Do you SERIOUSLY think I told HIM









to do THIS?????









Now I admit that once back when he was at Yale that I DID tell him it would be a good idea to have a 12-pack of Schlitz and then go over to the Kappa house and serenade the sisters with "Apples, Peaches, Pumpkin Pie" by Jay & The Techniques without wearing pants. That was strictly for fun though. Deities need a laugh or two once in a while as well, you know! But this mess? Home, no! (sorry, heavens no!)

One more thing. He said before that Jesus was his "favorite philosopher." I saw the boy a couple of months ago. Oh, don't act surprised, you know, he's busy, I'm busy, that whole "seated at the right hand of God" thing is way overblown. He said to tell you, though, Georgie, that while he appreciates the thought, he thinks you're a dick.

Have a nice day, all.

God

From my voice mail

From the voice mail this morning:

Peter, this is Alexander Hamilton. Thanks again for inviting me to visit with you. I have one more thought I would like to share on original intent and the role of the courts. Those of you above ground can find it in From Here to Constitutionality, oops, I mean Federalist Paper #22:

"Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation. The treaties of the United States, to have any force at all, must be considered as part of the law of the land. Their true import, as far as respects individuals, must, like all other laws, be ascertained by judicial determinations."

Well, thanks again. Back to old Trinity Church, I have just been getting buried lately!

Originalist, or BS artist?

From Salon:

OK, so we take it all back. It turns out that Harriet Miers does have experience in matters of constitutional law: As the Wall Street Journal reports today, she has argued a case involving the rather obscure 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Her client: George W. Bush. Her argument: Dick Cheney wasn't really a resident of the state of Texas even if he was really a resident of the state of Texas. ed: sound familiar to anyone?

As the Journal says, the 2000 case of Jones v. Bush was mostly lost amid the clamor over a case called Bush v. Gore . But the Jones case could have been just as important for the man who would be president, and Miers was there to help him out.

The 12th Amendment prohibits the electoral college votes of any one state from going to both a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate who come from that state. In the days after the 2000 presidential election, some Texas residents filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that Texas couldn't cast its electoral college votes for the Bush-Cheney ticket because both Bush and Cheney were Texas residents. Bush didn't dispute his Texas-ness, but Cheney did -- despite the fact that he had lived and voted and held a driver's license in Texas until just after Bush picked him as his running mate in July 2000.

Miers led the legal team that successfully fought off the lawsuit. There's nothing surprising about that: While Miers doesn't have a national reputation as a litigator on constitutional law issues, she was Bush's personal attorney and apparently well respected in Texas. What is unusual, the Journal notes, is the argument that Miers' legal team made. While conservatives like to say they believe in reading the Constitution strictly, the Miers team had to rely on what it called a "broad and inclusive" reading of the Constitution to ensure that Bush made it to the White House. Miers' co-counsel argued that, whatever the 12th Amendment might have meant when it was adopted in 1804, the provision's meaning had evolved over time. "Differences between the year 1800 and 2000 is more than two centuries, it's light years," her co-counsel argued, noting that the "rapidity with which each of us have changed addresses from schools and college to various marriages and jobs."

In any other situation, that sort of argument would elicit groans of protest from Antonin Scalia, who counters talk of a "living constitution" by insisting that the document is very much dead. But 2000 wasn't like any other situation, and the legal wrangling over the disputed 2000 election wasn't like anything else. At least that's what Republicans on the Supreme Court told us when they suddenly found themselves interested in an expansive reading of the Equal Protection Clause -- and then just as suddenly warned that the decision they were handing down in Bush v. Gore shouldn't be considered precedent for any other case."

The No Exit Strategy

The president’s speech today was bizarre. He starts out in typical goofy fashion by saying that “I appreciate Carl Gershman…I appreciate Chris Cox, who's the chairman of the U.S. Security (AHEM---GET THE NAME RIGHT PLEASE!) and Exchange Commission….I appreciate the secretary of state, Condi Rice.

You don’t appreciate them being there, you just appreciate them. Period. How sweet.

From there he jumps off the deep end, with “the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people and to blackmail our government into isolation.”

So, this ragtag group of disparate and unconnected cells of thugs, while admittedly capable of causing havoc and criminal damage, could “establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia,” DESTROY Israel, intimidate EUROPE and ISOLATE the United States? Oh please. From there he moves into a completely inappropriate comparison of “terrorism” with “communism.” Of course the “communism” that confronted the United States was the apparatchik-laden statism of the Soviet Union as compared to the stateless wanderers of modern “terrorism.”

You might attribute this to a simple-minded man speaking about things he doesn’t understand in the usual hyperbole, dragging out all the old shibboleths that let him lie a nation into war before. You might wonder about his mental health, if he has again taken up the bottle or become Marlon Brando’s Col. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now.

I however, think there is something more sinister afoot. We all know why we invaded Iraq (if anyone out there thinks that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of “weapons of mass destruction” that provided an “imminent threat” to our “national security.” STOP READING NOW. Log off and resume your fascination with small shiny objects.) We invaded Iraq because the 9/11 attacks provided the harmonic convergence allowing this “president” the excuse to exorcise his familial insecurities while promoting a bizarre neocon agenda once played out in think tanks but now elevated to the halls of power that called for a “re-engineering” of the Middle East to make it more U.S. and Israel-friendly.

In the neo-con’s perfect little world, an invasion of Iraq that everyone expected to succeed with ease would be followed by the effortless installation of a U.S. puppet government (insert “Chalabi” here). But lo and behold, the Shi’a majority in Iraq didn’t want to play the part of the compliant stooges, and the Sunni minority did not take kindly to being overthrown and marginalized. The end result is of course the administration being forced to put forth all of this nonsense about “elections” and “democracy” with the predictable outcome of us being in the middle of a low-grade civil war.

What always puzzled me was the question of why, in this low-grade civil war, we were taking the side of Shi’a fundamentalists who wanted to establish an Islamic republic closely allied with Iran. Why would we want to “train” and turn over authority to an inherently radical and hostile regime?

Then it dawned on me (Hello, McFly????) We ARE not turning over authority because WE ARE NOT LEAVING. In Iraq, we have engineered a “constitution” guaranteeing a permanently hostile Sunni minority, and many of them will act as an armed resistance. Violence justifies our staying, as the “Iraqi” (insert `Shi’a militias’ here) forces cannot “stand up” so we cannot “stand down.” A tailor-made excuse for a permanent occupation, accomplishing directly (the U.S. military) what we could not do indirectly (the puppet-stooge state.)

As Deep Throat once advised, follow the money. Dick Cheney told us to prepare for “decades” of war. Barely hours after this poorly-received speech, we have a “credible threat” in New York. Credible, right? Follow the money. Years of contracts for Halliburton, General Dynamics, Halliburton, Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.

The reason that there is no exit strategy is that there is no exit strategy. A truism, but it is oh so true. This is not a war on terror or violent extremism. It is a war on peace.

I hate to drag out an oldie but a goody, but may I remind you of Randolph Bourne’s thoughts in 1918, coming out of the nightmare of World War I. He said that “war is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense…minorities are rendered sullen, and some intellectual opinion bitter and satirical, but in general, the nation in wartime attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war. Loyalty - or mystic devotion to the State - becomes the major imagined human value. Other values, such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed”

The state may then be quite healthy for some time to come!

We're on a mission from god

(Said in my best Chicago/Blues Brothers voice). Okay, I'm not, but apparently President Fucking Moron thinks he is. From an upcoming BBC special:

God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

The series charts the attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999/2000 to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last August.

Norma Percy, series producer of The 50 Years War (1998) returns, with producers Mark Anderson and Dan Edge, to tell the inside story of another seven years of crisis.

Presidents and Prime Ministers, their generals and ministers tell what happened behind closed doors as peace talks failed and the intifada exploded.

Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace - Mondays 10, 17 and 24 October, from 9.00 to 10.00pm on BBC TWO.

Be afraid.

The president is absolutely right

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush told Americans on Thursday that evil men must be stopped "before their crimes can multiply"

I couldn't agree more.

Alexander Hamilton on Harriet

Much has been made of "original intent" with regard to the framers and the constitution. Let's ask one, shall we? Again, the Thinker spares no expense to bring you the news you need. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Mr. Alexander Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton, I must say you're looking quite well for someone long dead.

Hamilton: Thank you, Peter. Normally I wouldn't make such an appearance, but lately I seem to have a real Burr in my saddle.

The Thinker: Ahem, well, anyway, I know your time with us is short, so I just have one question. You helped shape the constitution and the process of presidential appointments. I'm assuming that "Burr" you mentioned is the appointment of the president's personal lawyer to the Supreme Court?

Hamilton: Exactly. But first, one quick thing. I owe you all an apology. You know the national debt? That was my idea. I thought that by placong long-term bonds with our leading citizens, we could tie their interests to those of the new government. Jefferson hated it, but he hated everything until Louisiana. Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. I had no idea, though, that a dimwitted frat boy would plunder the Treasury like a Barbary pirate and then spend like a drunken sailor on credit drawn from the Bank of China!

But anyway, back to Harriet. I addressed this specific issue in Federalist Paper #76. By the way, who came up with that lame title? I suggested "To Kill a Monarchy" or "For Whom the Liberty Bell Tolls," and we end up with "The Federalist Papers." It sounds like we're housetraining Washington's dog, but anyway, let me read it to you. After all, given that I'm dead, my memory isn't so good. Let me skip to the good parts. Why involve the Senate?

"I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity....he would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

Get my point?

The Thinker: Absolutely. You consider the appointment of a personal crony to be an affront to the constitution?

Hamilton: Without a doubt. Well, my time is up. Many thanks, Peter. It's back to New York, if I can be buried there, I can be buried anywhere. By the way, could I borrow ten bucks?

Bulls Trade

The Chicago Bulls recently traded Eddie Curry to the New York Knicks.

Normally, I am not much of an NBA fan, but I mention this only because they traded him for Jermaine Jackson:


and a Tito to be named later.

With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein...

Sing to the tune of "My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music (you know, the whole “raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens” thing!) and pronounce the "double-u!"

George W Things

Floating dead bodies and tax cuts for Wal-Mart
Big no-bid contracts and cutbacks for Head Start
Unqualified judges all from the right wing
These are some very George W things!

Crony appointments and huge budget shortfalls
Insider stock sales when we all make windfalls
Hoping that Tom DeLay’s buddies don’t sing
These are some very George W things!

Illegal invasions and gay male hookers
Cowing the press into timid onlookers
Stealing elections with Diebold machines
These are some very George W things!

Prayer back in classrooms and laws based on Jesus
Don't give a damn how those foreigners see us
Let's drill for oil right behind the West Wing
These are some very George W things!

(Refrain)
When the war tanks
When the polls sink
When I'm feeling sad
I get liquored up and cut aid for the poor
And then I don't feel so bad!

Repeat!

Ignorance on Parade

I would like to address a syndicated column that appeared in today's Chicago Tribune. This brilliant piece of journalistic analysis comes to us courtesy of Kathleen Parker, a talentless right-wing hack who writes for the Orlando Sentinel. As evidenced by this impressively thoughtful piece, it is obvious that Ms. Parker is, hmmm, I'm looking for the right word, hold on just a second, it will come to me..oh right, STUPID!!!!

She begins her blather by stating that "the 1st Amendment has been getting a workout in recent weeks on two college campuses--the University of Florida and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill--where students are learning that free speech is a messy business."

Pssst, Kathleen, unless there are jackbooted thugs in the employ of the U.S. government arresting these students or shutting down the papers, there is no "1st Amendment" question. Let me explain something to you. The 1st amendment to the constitution (you know, the constitution, old yellow paper, fancy writing, We the People and all that?) clearly states "Congress shall make no law." Congress, get it? It doesn't apply to the states and it certainly doesn't apply to individuals or non-government entities.

In a series of decisions (that really annoy conservatives), the Supreme Court has held that many of the basic protections listed in the Bill of Rights are also found within the 14th amendment. Even still, this applies to GOVERNMENT action.

Kathleen is bleating about a Michelle Malkin in training pants who was fired from a campus newspaper. Why? Well, this is a lot of he said, she said about quotes out of context, but basically the issue is that she wrote that "I want all Arabs to be stripped naked and cavity-searched if they get within 100 yards of an airport."

Chatty Kathy continues "one could make a strong argument that Bandes' column was silly, amateurish, lacking in taste, strident and ineffective. Being outrageous for the sake of outrage requires no special talent. Witness Howard Stern. But people have a clear and protected right to be both silly and amateurish."

Amazing. OF COURSE she has a right to be "silly and amateurish" but she doesn't have ANY right to do so in the employ of ANY newspaper, even one sponsored by a state university. This is an issue between the employer and the employee and has ABSOLUTELY NO constitutional implications!

Kathleen, meet the constitution. Constitution, this is Kathleen. I'm sure you two will have NOTHING to talk about!

Harriet and the High Court

There are so many things to dislike about this appointment.

First of all, I expect anyone sitting on the Supreme Court to have attended a better law school than I did. Sorry all you legal Mustangs out there, but SMU doesn't cut it.

I am also very concerned about a statement by the National Review's David Frum:

"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met."

Obviously she needs to get out more.

I am also not comforted by the fact that wingnut groups are displeased with her. So the qualification to sit on the high court is that you are not demonstrably crazy??? What about competence? I have often said that the biggest problem with the confirmation of Clarence Thomas was not that he in all likelihood was a repugnant sexual cad, but that in all of the Coke can and adult film hoopla, the Senate forgot to look at the fact that the man was grossly unqualified to serve on the court. I hope that they do not hunt so hard for an ideologue that again they miss the incompetent.

Her lack of judicial experience is not a disqualifying condition. Many outstanding jurists have come to the court from other environs, and dreadful justices have been promoted from within. A fellow contributor (JTB) observed that some variety of experience could be good for the court. For those of you unfamiliar with the legal world, there is a "judge-professor" track, where top students at top schools make the law review, get post-graduate judicial clerkships, have a stopover at a prestigious law firm and then head off for the bench or academia. JTB's premise is that this pool of talent is not exposed to "real" law and that a court comprised solely of those breathing this rarefied air could be rather intellectually stagnant. Now mind you, we are not talking about elevating the guys with bad hair and cheap suits down at Traffic Court or that you see on late-night infomercials, but real world experience certainly can be a positive attribute.

Not this "real world" experience, however. Her career in private practice as a commercial litigator does not stand out from thousands of other competent attorneys and certainly does not say "Supreme Court." From there she moves into George Bush's political orbit as advocate and apologist, hardly distinguishing characteristics. With the unmitigated disasters of Iraq and Katrina before us, we also cannot help but notice the hideous stench of cronyism. This insider also comes from far too deep inside. First of all, she will be placed in an untenable position as many administration policies which she helped to promulgate will come before the court. In addition, her political partisanship and unabashed loyalty to the president will make it impossible for her to bring with her the balance, objectivity and judicial temperament appropriate to the high court.

Ozzie and Harriet

Okay, cheap joke, but what do you expect?

Think of the kittiesI

If you agree, click on an ad----------->

If you disagree, click on an ad!------>

My new favorite ice cream place!

I have a new favorite ice cream store--perhaps.

It begins this way, Please, dear God, don't ask me why, but while waiting for Monday Night Football, I tuned into Bill O'Reilly's show (like I said, don't ask.)

He was reading the email from his dumber-than-dittohead fans when one said that Ralph's Italian Ice in Lake Ronkonkoma, New York, refused to serve her because she was wearing an "O'Reilly Factor" t-shirt! I was all ready to give Ralph's a big shout out and a solemn promise to visit my next time in New York, until I looked up Ralph's website. According to Ralph's site, they don't have a location in Lake Ronkonkoma! Now there is a "Rita's Italian Ice" there and remember, anyone stupid enough to wear an O'Reilly shirt could easily not know where they are. So I admit to not being sure.

As a result, if you're on Long Island, find out which one it is and always go there to satisfy your sweet tooth!

Six plus six=six?

Apparently Republicans forget basic math when they are on the spin cycle of damage control. On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) made a big deal, in responding to Rep. Rahm Emanuel’s (D-IL) statement that it was “a grand jury that indicted Tom DeLay,“ of the fact that it was just a “six-member jury.” See transcript. Apparently, the congressmen was suggesting that only six individuals needed to be convinced, and therefore, the indictment was somehow less credible.

But a local TV station in Austin reports differently, and their information comes from a man who should know, grand jury foreman William Gibson. He reported that "he did his duty and that bound him to look at Tom Delay as just another Texan accused of criminal conspiracy. I like his aggressiveness and everything, and I had nothing against the House majority man, but I felt that we had enough evidence, not only me, but the other grand jury members, Gibson said."

"The grand jury foreman also takes great exception to accusations that he and 11 other grand jury members followed the lead of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle instead of following the evidence. It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us, Gibson said....We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed [editor's note, a no-bill means the grand jury declined to indict] the man, if we didn't feel there was sufficient evidence, said Gibson."

"The evidence is there to prove Delay was involved in wrongdoing and also prove that he and his fellow grand jurors acted independent of political influence, Gibson said...It wasn't Mr. Earle that indicted the man. It was the 12 members of the grand jury, Gibson said."

http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=146685.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy, Part II

DeLay Indicted Again!

AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas grand jury indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.

Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.

DeLay's earlier indictment charged that conspirators carried out a fund-raising scheme by having the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee send corporate money to the Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent back a like amount — $190,000 — to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.

msnbc.com

More fun with George

"Listen, I, I, I wanna thank, uhh, leaders of the -- in the faith, and uhh -- faith-based and community-based community for being here, we've got people who represent thousands of volunteers who are in the midst of helping save lives."

"Secondly, we're strengthening the defenses at our most important and vulnerable locations. In other words, part of a strategy is ta -- to try to figure out where the enemy may attack. You assess your weaknesses, and you build on those -- and you, and you, strengthen your weaknesses. That's the -- remember, we're, this is a war. This isn't a -- you know, maybe a, you know, a kinda, a law enforcement adventure. We're at war with these people, and therefore, during a time of war, you've got to do everything you can to strengthen your defenses. And so we'll continue to enhance protection at our borders and coastlines and airports and bridges and nuke-u-lar power PANTS!"

Find the audio here.

Letters, we get letters...

Well, in this case, the Chicago Tribune received the letter (you can always post comments or contact us at sittingorthinking@yahoo.com) but still...

This one is from Alan Tigner of Hawthorn Woods, Illinois (picture below)


He writes "I wonder how Cindy Sheehan and the war protesters who gathered in Washington recently would have reacted more than half a century ago when things were not going well for us during the first few years of World War II. We were losing many young Americans every week, young people who also were fighting in far-off lands, and we were scoring few victories."

Well, gosh, Alan, maybe they would have thought that we were FIGHTING AN ENEMY THAT ATTACKED US OR DECLARED WAR ON US. Maybe they would think that WE WERE FIGHTING FOR AMERICA'S INTERESTS against CLEARLY-DEFINED ENEMIES WITH SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES. That WE WERE FIGHTING A WAR THAT WOULD MAKE THE WORLD SAFER RATHER THAN THIS MISBEGOTTEN ADVENTURE THAT HAS MADE IT EVER SO MORE DANGEROUS? What do you think there Alan, any chance of that?

"In those days we were united as a country and stood behind our leaders, whose job it was to make the tough decisions and to do what they believed was the right thing for America. In those days people like Sheehan, and there were some, would have been scorned as traitors by both the public and the press for suggesting that we retreat from our commitments."

Alan, let's check in with FDR's distant cousin, Teddy Roosevelt, who said "to announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." And just what are those "commitments," Al? A commitment to supporting a fundamentalist Islamic republic? That is in the best interests of America???

Alan concludes "If we had cut and run in World War II like the anti-war movement would like us to do today in the war on terror, we would be living in a very different world where the freedom and prosperity we have enjoyed for the last 50 years would not have been possible."

All I can say is thank God FDR was president rather than the current idiot.

Better run, Alan, Rush is on.

While I was gone.......

I spent the last two days howling in pain and hugging Mr. Porcelain after some of the FDA's under-inspected meats gave me one hellacious case of food poisoning. My incapacitation gave me the opportunity to do something I rarely do. I watched the Sunday-morning talking heads.

I was watching Tim Russert when he gives us this gem, "The president has said, and everyone seems to agree, our only exit strategy is when the Iraqi troops stand up, Americans stand down."

Everyone, Tim? Everyone? I don't have to look too far to find some who doesn't "seem to agree." And I wanted to scream when he wouldn't ask Gen. John Abizaid, commander of Iraqi operations, about how this ill-trained group of people with questionable loyalties to the new "government" can do something that the United States Army has been unable to do.

Then NBC went to break, and I kid you not, here are the three commericals that aired:



















and finally, of course










I guess you get what you pay for!

Hacky Sack? Captain Crony?

Harriet Miers has been nominated by Blinky the Chimp to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I repeat, Harriet Miers.

The overwhelming response so far has been, "WHO???"

The proper response should be
"Oh my God, not again!"

Here we go again, another crony put in a position where they have no business being.

A woman with no judicial experience, a fiece Bush loyalist who helped Governor W to cover up his little drinky drivy problem and the former director of the Texas State Lottery (and the fifth winning number is seven!). Now if those aren't qualifications for the Supreme Court, I don't know what are. Buddy-system government, cronies in the capital, call it what you want, but this is a national disgrace.

Another point from a purely legal standpoint. I love it when conservative judges, as a means to advance their agenda, call themselves "strict constructionists" and say that they adhere to "original intent."

Are we channelling James Madison now, is George Mason speaking to you through messages in the classifieds?

Just a quick note on this. "Original intent" sounds good in theory, and the old boys did the best job they could in Philadelphia that summer, but--they were by no means perfect. Their document protected slavery and treated slaves as 3/5ths of a person. The constitution contained no right to vote and provided that the senate would be appointed by state legislators. After all, it was 1787. I would suggest to (I hope she is never) Justice Miers, if she wants to interpret the law as if it were 1787, I suggest she return there.

For love of the game

First of all, congratulations to the Chicago White Sox for winning the AL Central Division.

As the Sox headed to Cleveland for a season-ending series rendered somewhat meaningless, I heard many talking heads ruminate that it would somehow be inappropriate for the Sox to rest starters and set their rotation during these games, that it would be an affront to the "integrity of the game."

Bullshit.

The White Sox, or any team in a similar position, don't owe any duty to Boston, New York or the game of baseball that would be violated by giving the regulars a couple of days off. Any particular team's duty is to do what it can within the rules to win the World Series, and if the Cleveland Indians face a lineup largely made up of reserves, so be it (editor's note: the Sox swept Cleveland anyway.)

Want to see an affront to the integrity of the game? How about Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire, Rafael Palmeiro and any other walking science project? Affronts? Ladies and gentlemen, meet Bud Selig. This grinning idiot happily held the tethers of the afore-mentioned Macy's parade balloons while they turned the game into a home run circus. There are legions of other offenders, from self-important umpires with made-up strike zones to batters wearing body armor that charge the mound on inside pitches to George Steinbrenner's wallet to absurd over-expansion.

But getting a team ready to have its best chance in the playoffs? Hardly.

A Call for Civility

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165

It's a post by Barack Obama on the daily kos, if you haven't read it yet (just read it myself, after reading other posts referencing it). It's essentially an argument that, regardless of what those on the right do, people on the left shouldn't attack each other just because we don't always agree or vote lock-step on things. To me, it's a strong call for civility, not weakness, and a request for an essential change in politics that can be used to attract moderates. Among other things, Obama argues that making every issue an us or them sort of thing alienates those who don't have a strong ideological bent. For example, most people agree that the war in Iraq is a bad thing, mismanaged and a mistake, but that doesn't (for some) mean that they hate the president. So when our case is "Bush=Hitler", they tune us out. But we can argue against the war and then explain to them what we'd do differently. And then if a democrat doesn't buy into a given plan, for one reason or another, we allow them the right to disagree without making them the enacter of evil. Another example he gave was on the Roberts vote, Russ Feingold is getting attacked bysome (especially in the blogopshere) as someone who doesn't support civil liberties. Feingold voted against the Patriot Act, and I think he was the only one. Obama argues that, while we might disagree with Feingold here, this one vote doesn't make him someone to hate, and that Democrats need to have a civil discourse about their disagreements.

I don't know where he'll go, or if a strategy like this just allows the corrupt sociopaths that call themselves republicans another way to attack us, but I really like reading what Obama writes. It's so much more articulate than what we're used to in politics, and it is a call for a different America, where (as he talked about in his Con speech) we don't focus on what divides us. I hope that message sells. I'm also glad that I get to live in a state that, until something changes, on election day I actually want to vote for my current Senators.