A home run dumbass

Wow. Check this one out from a Sandeep Mehta of Naperville:

Bonds innocent until proven guilty

Can we all stop complaining about Barry Bonds? I know there's a strong chance that he took some kind of performance-enhancing drugs and maybe he did do it on purpose, but does it really deserve the type of vilification that Bonds has received? The fact of the matter is Bonds is an exception baseball player. He hit at least 30 home runs in every season between 1992 and 2004; since his rookie season he's never struck out over 100 times in any season; he's accumulated over 500 stolen bases; and he's batting almost .300 for his career. These are not numbers that can be accumulated by an average player on steroids. In addition, during the current season Bonds has received more walks than any other player in the league, evidence that pitchers still don't want to pitch to him even at the age of 43. And with all testing procedures in place and no suspicion of steroid use this year, Bonds still ranks among the top 25 in the majors with 17 homeruns.So before we all stand up and boo the man without mercy let’s consider what he has accomplished and whether the supposed crime fit the punishment.

With all those impressive years behind him, does he really deserve to be treated like a criminal every time he takes the field just because he is SUSPECTED of steroid use? There is no way of knowing if Bonds did purposely take steroids or how much they might have helped his numbers. Also, there are many others under suspicion of steroid use and none of them have come close to matching the numbers that Bonds has put up. With or without steroids, Bonds has been a tier above the rest in his abilities as a baseball player. Steroids did not create the numbers Bonds has put up. In my humble opinion instead of boos, this man deserves many more cheers and standing ovations.

Wow, that is staggering, on so many levels. I will let most of it stand on its own because of its obvious ridiculousness, but let's just note:

1) Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he started doing this. We know that. That compounds the tragedy and the farce of this.
2) He isn't SUSPECTED of using steroids. We KNOW he
did.
3) MLB and its testing is WAY behind the dopers.
4) On the #s, you think it was natural to go from 37 home runs in 1998 (when we had the Great Juicer Race) to 73 in 2001?
5) Besides that, he's just a miserable person.

Sandeep, look at his rookie card and him now, and

Draft College Republicans

h/t TPM

Plame lawsuit dismissed

A federal district judge dismissed Valerie Plame's civil suit for outing her against Cheney, Rove and Libby on "jurisdictional" grounds. I'm guessing, without having seen an opinion, that it is based on some form of sovereign immunity. As the repulsive Drudge would say---developing!

Cruise Lines from Hell

A reporter for the Independent, a paper in Britain, recently took part in a cruise organized by the National Review, that bastion of hate and ignorance. Apparently, they do this every year, so if after reading the article, you want to share in the experience, you can.

It's a fascinating and terrifying read, and I'll post one sentence here just to give you a taste.

The familiar routine of the dinners – first the getting-to-know-you chit-chat, then some light conversational fascism – is accelerating.

h/t Glenn Greenwald

Who let the dogs out?

The notion of a dogfight conjures up images of daring aviators in mortal combat, but no--AN NFL QUARTERBACK? Dogs?

You've heard by now that Falcons QB Michael Vick was indicted on charges connected to dogfighting.

I am a dog lover (I have the world's cutest, sweetest and dumbest Pomeranian, Gizzmo, who can't be housetrained for anything but I love him to death.) I have to wonder how anyone could subject dogs to such cruelty, not only the horrific fighting but HANGING or DROWNING those no longer needed? And who enjoys this, who bets on this? (I can't claim PETA perfection on animal gambling, nor would I want to, as I do enjoy 3 or 4 afternoons a summer at Arlington Park, and as Rousing knows, the most exciting two minutes in sports, but that is betting on who wins, not who survives!)

And again, an NFL quarterback???

Vote for "None of the Above"

AP Poll: GOP pick is 'none of the above'

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.

A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.

"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," said David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."

More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

Where's Richard Pryor when we need him?

From the archives

I was browsing through some old posts, and I came across this comment from Schmidlap:

I see one last hope of knocking the evil fuckers down, but it may not be too solid.

The one thing that is really killing them right now is a vigorous, aggressive, non-politicized Justice Department. Fitz and the boyz are crawling up into each and every orifice, examining each rancid dingleberry. And because the evil cabal is the most gutless, chickenshit bunch of bastards on the planet, at the first sign of DoJ involvement, they are going hoarse from all the squealing they are doing on their "pals." The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing.

But I say it may not be too solid for two reasons. One, Chimpy McGlowstick-in-Anus can just pardon everyone. Two, he can keep appointing cronies to head Justice and then nothing will really get done. Why Ashcroft recused himself at the beginning of the Plame investigation is one of the great mysteries of our time. You can be sure Abu Gonzalez is more of a team player than that and this breach of trust won't happen twice.

Prescient.

Why we must impeach

Tonight Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate are stepping up the pressure on the GOP by actually making them filibuster the Reid-Levin amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. The Reid-Levin amendment would actually require a withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 120 days. It's a good idea, but, sadly, irrelevant. The best case scenarios are either that enough Republicans feel the pressure and either the amendment gets the 60 votes it needs to end the filibuster, or the GOP drops the whole idea of the filibuster and lets the amendment pass with a simple majority.

What if that happens? Well, President Bush has already made it clear he will veto any bill limiting his power to do whatever he wants in Iraq, so he'll veto this one.

Then what? Okay, let's say that the GOP finally sees what the rest of the country has seen, and we get the 67 votes we need to overturn the veto (and the same thing happens in the House). Yippie! Right?

Wrong. Two words - signing statements. President Bush will never allow something like Congress overturning a veto to stand in his way. The war will not stop while he is in office. There's precedence for this model of "governing": Richard Nixon.

From the Boston Globe:

In Iraq bills, a Vietnam echo: Legislating an end is a thorny quest

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | July 16, 2007

WASHINGTON -- In December 1970, Congress passed historic legislation revoking the 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution, which had authorized military force in Vietnam, and banning the deployment of ground troops in Cambodia. War opponents hoped Congress was on the verge of forcing a quick end to the bloody quagmire in Indochina.

"The president, in our judgment, now lacks legitimate authority to keep on prosecuting the war," said Senator Frank Church , Democrat of Idaho, in a 1971 speech. "Under these circumstances, a great opportunity is presented to Congress -- the chance to fill this constitutional vacuum with a disengagement policy that could help unite the country again."

War opponents' hopes were dashed. Despite signing the bills, President Nixon said he had independent authority as commander in chief to keep combat in Vietnam going. For the next two years, Congress failed to agree on further restrictions, and nearly 3,000 more American soldiers died. Nixon finally ended the war on his own terms with a cease - fire agreement in January 1973.

Charlie Savage, you may recall, is the reporter who blew the lid off Bush's signing statements. He knows what he's talking about. Does anyone doubt that George Bush, controlled, err, advised as he is by Dick Cheney, would fail to follow the lead of Mr. "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."?

Not only have our President and Vice President wantonly and repeatedly violated the Constitution, but they continue to do so, ignoring the intent of the founders and any semblance of respect for the balance of power which has served our nation so well. How can we stop them - before more unnecessary deaths? Before an attack on Iran? Before our willful ignorance of the real threats to our nation lead to more terrorism on US soil? Before even more of our civil liberties get trampled?

George Bush will never listen to "reason" - he believes that he is guided by his God in this war. He must be removed from office - not in January 2009, but now.

Impeach.

The Vicar of Christ

I generally do not get too worked up about things theological, but lately, Der Popenfuhrer has really been pissing me off.

I have long had many quarrels with the church of Rome, and have proffered my sage advice on many an occasion:

1) Lose the dresses, start wearing pants;
2) Stop making shit up and
3) Leave the altar boys alone (does a headline like "L.A. Archdiocese to settle suits for $600 million" make you want to toss some change in the plate??)

But the pope has been on a tear lately. He seems to want to reject the progress (and in terms of this institution that still is angry about Galileo, "progress" is a very relative thing), as he embraces the Latin mass. You know, the one that asks the faithful to

pray for the conversion of Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness.

Thanks for that, I'm sure they are thrilled.

And then he does his "one true church" bit, where we poor Protestants "cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense.” I guess I should say thanks there, Benny, you've cleared out some Sunday mornings for me.

I just have one quick question. Jesus preached of humbling yourself, of giving your coat to one who has none, and cautioning the rich about heaven and needle's eyes and camels, etc. How would an itinerant penniless prophet feel about

and

and
Yeah, that is ministering as the vicar of Christ. I see a bunch of camels getting stuck in one nasty needle eye...

Which headline do you think the media will focus on?

And which one is more relevant to most of us?

Dow tops 13,900

Retail sales take sharp plunge in June

It's a plot! Fire up the nukes!

Brown people are trying to kill us!!1`!!:

A flood of calls overwhelmed the city on Thursday as news of a salmonella outbreak at the Taste of Chicago continued to spread...

The number of possible cases widened on Thursday to 126 people who reported becoming ill after eating at the Pars Cove Persian Cuisine booth at the festival.

OMG Persian means Iranian! The turrists have followed us over here! This must be Chertoff's gut feeling!

Punch in the launch codes, Chimpy! Git-r-done!

Just to make Schmidlap feel all warm and fuzzy...

"if you ever come down and visit the old, tired, me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics. And that's important to me. "

Vocabulary Lessons

A "Jerusalem Artichoke" is not an artichoke (and it has nothing to do with Jerusalem!)

A Boston cream pie is not a pie

Headcheese is not a cheese

Sweetbreads are neither sweet nor bread.

"al Qaeda in Iraq" is NOT an operational wing of bin Laden's terror network.

Are we clear on this one?

It's his government

h/t Atrios

Of course not

In reality, there is no point in complaining about anything the Giggling Murderer does. It won't change my mind, or the minds of roughly anyone who reads this, since my level of blinding hatred for the chimp is high enough that going higher is irrelevant. It won't change the minds of the 26% who still support him, because they're as stupid and greedy and racist and evil as he is. The GOP has decided that, unlike when Tricky Dick was using the Constitution as a snotrag and they eventually stood up in disgust, they're too terrified of losing power (or maybe it's fear of being asked to go hunting by Shooter) that they'll band together to protect Der Chimpenfuhrer no matter what he does. The Democrats have scattered within the party a few brave souls, but not enough of a backbone to impeach a President and Vice-President who are a bigger threat to America than anyone in my lifetime.

That being said, sometimes he just pisses me off. During today's falsehoodfest about Iraq (of course the Liar in Chief is familiar with grade inflation - he went to Yale, after all), he was asked if, now that the Scooter Libby case is over and done with, he had talked to anyone who worked for him about the case, and whether he'd expressed any disappointment in any of them for a lack of morality. Well, obviously not, but if you can stand it, watch the video (thanks to Josh Marshall at TPM for this), and see the utter contempt on his face for anyone who would think that such a thing would be relevant, or even possible. He has no humanity.

Impeach.

Smackdown Time?

Well, it looks like we may have a constitutional crisis on our hands in subpoena land if the Democrats stick to their guns (good luck on that one!) The president can't have it both ways. In fact, he can't have it either way. If he was not involved in the U.S. attorney discussions, then there is no executive privilege that extends to his aides. If he was, then Congress may properly investigate what may be criminal activity (vote caging), and there is no executive privilege that extends to his aides.

Today's visit from Mr. Dictionary Man

BENCHMARK (bench-mark, n) a standard of excellence, achievement, etc., against which similar things must be measured or judged.

It appears that the Iraqi "government" will fail to meet any of the benchmarks laid out in connection with the surge. There is one major reason why this is not surprising--

THERE IS NO IRAQI GOVERNMENT!

This fraud of a parliament meeting under U.S. protection in the Green Zone commans no loyalty and exhibits none of the common attributes of sovereignty or statehood. It will accomplish no objectices because it cannot.

In a classic little book written many years ago, Joseph Strayer described some of those attributes of statehood. He uses the medieval example to illustrate how states spring from 1) relative permanence in space and time, 2) relatively permanent and impersonal political institutions and 3) a fundamental transfer of loyalty from tribe, sect, region or religion to the new state. Sound like Iraq?

That makes the continued use of American troops to support this illusory mirage of a government even more tragic and criminal. The frightening part is, though, that the president will continue unabated for one very simple reason.

He has nothing to lose.

He has no concerns about facing the electorate, or as so many second-term presidents experience, having their vice president preparing a presidential run. He has no further need of Congress, as his pet legislative projects, "reforming" Social Security and and immigration are so dead that they make Jacob Marley (or Bob Marley, for that matter) look perfectly sprightly by comparison. He has already reshaped the Supreme Court profoundly, so even lower court (dis)appointments that will happen in the future can be taken in stride.

His legacy, such that it is, is also firmly etched in the hardest of stone, a legacy of failure, indifference, corruption and incompetence. He now is less popular than skin rashes and open sores, and history will place him at the peak of the firmament of the gawdawdawful, joining Buchanon and Andrew Johnson as the worst of all time.

Because of this perfect storm of events, the president is no longer constrained by conventional political checks. His Libby commutation and the continued incoherent rantings about "al Qaeda" and "fighting them there" are a giant middle finger waving at us with a "you can't touch me" smirk.

But we can. Not only can we, but we must.

"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."

Guess the quote

The United States has concerns about taking unilateral action in a sovereign nation without their consent.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Karl Rove

drmagoo and the Washington Senators

So, we're back from the east, and we did get our audience with Senators Durbin and Obama. For other Illinois folk who might be interested, it worked like this:

We called ahead to confirm that the Senate would be in session that week, and they asked us to contact them the day before the gathering to find out what room it would be scheduled in (this one was in the Dirksen Senate building). On the morning of, we were there by 8:10, passed through security, and found the room. There was a very large crowd of over 200 people there, so we went up to the front row. Some guy (we have no idea who he is, but suspect that he's an aide to one of the Senators) came by and chatted with us for a few minutes, and then we got started. They asked representative of groups visiting that day to stand and identify their group, and then Durbin went through a quick discussion of what was on the plate for the Senate (that day was the cloture vote on immigration). After that, they took questions.

Since we were in the front row, I did get a chance to ask my question (they did Q&A for about a half hour) to Senator Durbin about why he voted yes on the most recent supplemental appropriations bill.

The (paraphrased) responses:

Obama was fielding questions, and he went first: This was a very tough decision, but in the end, he couldn't trust Bush to spend the money wisely (i.e. end the war), so he voted no.

Durbin: Told a story about a vet at the Rehab Institute who he has visited a few times and was relearning how to walk after doctors told him he never would. Got rather emotional and talked about ending the war, but said that he always voted yes on funding troops in the field. Said that when the Senate came back after July 4 (today) he would lead new efforts to end the war.

I was disappointed in Durbin's response - I believe that if we cut off funding, it's not like we'd be leaving them there to die, but that we'd have to start bringing them home with the money that's already allocated. On the other hand, he is still one of the few people who voted against the war originally, and has always opposed the administration, so I won't throw him out the door. I am waiting to see what he does now, though.

Afterwards, they took pictures.

Chalk up one for me

But "in dispute?" Please.

CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
Published July 6, 2007*

The authenticity of a quote attributed to James Madison in a letter in the July 4 Voice of the People is in dispute.The Tribune regrets the errors.

And in this despicable corner..

We have one of the lowest forms of corner inhabitants today. Not only is she criminally stupid, but she is also also criminally dishonest. First of all, the ridiculous rant from one Mildred A. Para of Evergreen Park:

July 4 is a celebration of a people who decided to take a bold step and declare independence from an ongoing, controlling government. Our founding fathers were a small group of men whose destiny was defined in 1776. They knew the personal danger that awaited them, but they persevered.When the Constitution was written some years later, James Madison, one of the leading authors of the document, had this to say: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the 10 Commandments."

So simple, a wonderful blueprint for individual happiness and success. This was the engine that propelled America to become the beacon of liberty throughout the world. Our culture has now lost this sense of the moral code due, in part, to the loud voices that declare separation of church and state. And what has been the result of that slogan? Just listen to and read the headlines day after day, and to all the other sordid stories and TV programs in between.

Yes, folks, the reason we have societal problems today is because we have not quite completely embraced theocracy. The stupidity is bad enough, but Mildred, let me cue you in on a little secret. MADISON NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. It is in none of his papers, letters, accounts of his remarks or mentioned in any scholarly biography. It was made up out of whole cloth by the religious right freakshow, and it's been out there as a fraud for a long time (nice editorial work, Tribune staff.). Any high school senior in honors U.S. history would know it is bogus, as it is COMPLETELY out of character for Madison.

But then again, I doubt Mildred was in honors classes. Oh Mildred..

Justice? Who serves more time?

Some Georges never change

Here are some of the abuses charged by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Jefferson concluded, as should we:

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

The British, they get it

From an editorial in today's Financial Times written by Gideon Rachman (maybe subs. required):

Ever since the Tube bombings of July 7 2005, we have been warned that further attacks are inevitable. Given the grisly array of possibilities - dirty bombs, truck bombs, even nuclear terrorism - the startling incompetence of the recent attacks has come as something of a relief. Setting yourself on fire and then punching a policeman, while shouting "Allah", is about as low-tech as it gets.

My brother-in-law observed, quite correctly, that while American coverage of what happened in Britain has been wall to wall, floor to ceiling, can't go ten feet without somebody asking, "Could a terrorist drive a flaming car through the window of my local Hallmark store and deprive me of the opportunity to purchase collectible holiday ornaments?" (Yes)

There was a great diary on Daily Kos to that effect the day of the incident. A car with gasoline, propane and nails isn't dangerous. A car with nails and, I dunno, Semtex or some other true explosive, now THAT is dangerous. And the fact that Britain hasn't had one for a while and the US hasn't had one for a while, either, despite the ever-widening reach of Skeletor and his band of merry men seems to point to something working somewhere.

A lot can happen in two weeks

On June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal appeals court properly found that a sentence for false statements that fell within the federal sentencing guidelines was presumptively reasonable. Less than a fortnight later, the president calls the sentence of I. Lewis Libby, within the same guidelines, for the same crime, to be excessive.

Today's dictionary entry:

Rule of law (n) Government by law : adherence to due process of law

Happy Independence Day!

On this date, July 2, in 1776, the American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain. On that date, the Continental Congress adopted the resolution put forth by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, that "these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.''

John Adams thought that this anniversary should be the one celebrated. However, we observe the day that the congress adopted the written DECLARATION, not the act of declaring independence itself (the document would not be signed until much later)

Below is what John Adams wrote to his wife. In his honor, you all have my permission to take the day off..

"The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

RIP

Brown v. Board of Education

Born 1954

Died 2007

Remarkable--even for him

Even for someone as pathetic as George Bush, yesterday's speech was amazing. In a rather short address, he mentioned "al-Qaeda" almost 30 times. I know it is the new stategery to re-frighten the stupid, but I would think that even the mouthbreathers would get it by now. This one is comically absurd:

Now we're in a new and unprecedented war against violent Islamic extremists. This is an ideological conflict we face against murderers and killers who try to impose their will. These are the people that attacked us on September the 11th and killed nearly 3,000 people. The stakes are high, and once again, we have had to change our strategic thinking. The major battleground in this war is Iraq.

I don't expect dittoheads to understand that "al Qaeda in Iraq" and Zarqawi had no operational connection to Osama bin Laden, or to know that Iraqis are different from Saudis, but can something this basic be so hard to grasp?

Or try this one on for size:

Anbar is a largely Sunni province that accounts for nearly a third of Iraqi territory. It's a big place. Anbar stretches from the outskirts of Baghdad to Iraq's borders with Jordan and Syria. It was al Qaeda's chief base of operations in Iraq. Remember, when I mention al Qaeda, they're the ones who attacked the United States of America and killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001.

"See, if I say it enough, maybe they'll believe me!"

Think of great presidential oratory..the better angels of our nature..the only thing we have to fear...ask not what uour country can do for you..nut that all pales in comparison to "According to a captured document -- in other words, according to something that we captured from al Qaeda ." Then we have the clincher, "one reason it is different is that the Iraqis are beginning to understand that al Qaeda is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni, and Kurds alike."

Oh good God.

Congratulations, Wayne!

Below is proof positive that Freepers and Dittoheads should not be allowed to spawn.

Wayne Meyer of Chicago writes

I'm confused. How could "Chemical Ali" have been convicted of killing more than 180,000 Kurds by use of chemical nerve agents and poisonous gases when we all have been told time after time that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction?

Wayne, who ever said that Iraq NEVER had chemical agents? We GAVE them to him to use against Iran and helped fund purchases from German companies. The Reagan administration looked the other way at the atrocities against the Kurds that happened in 1988.

The Sounds of (Cicada) Silence

I miss them already.

While not totally silenced, the roar of the 17-year cicadas has all but died away around my office.

I will miss them.

These big, ugly, harmless (and some say tasty) bugs reminded me of the wonders of nature. They crawl out of the ground as if on cue, roar and fly and mate and die in a few weeks, and their offspring will do the same, in 2024. The timeless rhythm and the deafening roar shouted the mystery of nature at its finest and noisiest. Farewell, small friends, I hope I will be here to greet your children!

Another Lefty Defeat-o-Crat

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.

Just another left-wing terrorist loving liberal? Try Richard Lugar (R-Ind).

Care to be a fly on the wall at an evening news production meeting?

Producer 1: Let's see, we have a Washington Post story saying that the vice president has usurped the president's authority, is running a shadow government, torn up the constitution and was the point man on torture. Killer stuff, huh?

Coiffed Talking Head: Paris is out of jail!

Producer 2: Well, Iraq is going to hell, we've lost almost 20 kids in the last week and the lid is going to blow off Gaza any time.

Coiffed Talking Head: But we've got missing white girls!

Producer 3: The Supreme Court apparently overruled an existing precedent in the campaign finance case and gave a big boost to the faith-based initiatives program.

Coiffed Talking Head: What about the concert for Princess Di? William and Kate are back together!

Producer 4: The more we learn about the US Attorney scandal, the more apparent it becomes that this was designed to suppress the 2008 vote. The attorney general is also up to his eyeballs in the vice president's power grab.

Coiffed Talking Head: The Tiger Woods baby! And maybe a story about puppies! We're done here.

Al Who? (and we live in the world's dumbest country)

Take a look at any news report out of Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck. Odds are, you will see more references to "al Qaeda" than the much-less emotionally charged "insurgents" or the geopolitically-accurate, and beautifully-simple "Iraqis." Looks like the "liberal media" has willingly taken hold of the White House talking points.

First of all, to my friends in the media. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. Whatever "al Qaeda in Iraq" IS, what it IS NOT is a "branch" of bin Laden's operations. Oh, OBL sits back and chuckles as he sees us caught in this nightmarish quagmire, but there is no real connection between him and the group of thugs started by Zarqawi, a Jordanian petty criminal and publicity hound. STOP LISTENING TO WHITE HOUSE SPIN. Do your job for a change.

Oh, 41% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

God help us.

People who should be thinned from the herd

In church this morning I witnessed the baptism of a baby girl--

Reagan Cheney ****.

Good luck with that.

Heard on the "Street"

It is common knowledge that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is collectively nuts. They are such an odd group of bizarre wingers that I've often said that the news division doesn't tell them where the Christmas party is. One of them, Dorothy Rabinowitz (in a byline piece) on Friday took the crazy cake. She, amidst great wailing and gnashing of teeth, decried those two "out of control" prosecutors--Mike Nifong of the infamous Duke case and PATRICK FITZGERALD!

The very idea of Patrick Fitzgerald as a renegade prosecutor is absurd. The man is a button-down Republican who won't let pols or reporters buy him a cup of coffee to avoid any potential conflicts. he did what prosecutors are supposed to do. He investigated through the grand jury process rather than through the media. He did not bring sensationalistic charges that he could not prove (the statute in play is a horribly written mishmash that makes proof of a criminal case almost impossible) and he brought and won a perjury case. Fitzgerald himself was frustrated because all signs of his investigation led to one common source--the vice president--but that inquiry was stonewalled by Libby and others in the administration.

I seem to recall the Wall Street Journal beating the drum for the Clinton impeachment to vindicate the "rule of law." Funny how trivial perjury and obstruction of justice has become since then. They also misspelled the name of the renegade prosecutor acting on an agenda. The correct spelling is K-E-N S-T-A-R-R.

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..

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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???

Fish fish fish!

From The Shawshank Redemption, where Red bets on the first to crack:

That tall drink of water with the silver spoon up his ass.

So now when you crack--they let you out to MANSION arrest.

That crazy activist judge!

Here's the wacko that sentenced Scooter

Judge Reggie B. Walton assumed his position as a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia on October 29, 2001, after being nominated to the position by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. In May 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Walton to serve as a Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is a 7-year appointment...Former Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Judge Walton to the federal judiciary's Criminal Law Committee, effective October 1, 2005. Judge Walton previously served as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and 1991 to 2001, having been appointed to that position by Presidents Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George H. W. Bush in 1991 (link).

Looks like Scooter found a real conservative judge, one who doesn't like people who lie in the process.

Who spends more time in jail?

With today's developments, does Scooter see the inside of a cell for longer than Paris?

If you don't stop building nukes, we'll nuke you!

So, we're watching the GOP debate tonight (the Cubs game hasn't started yet), and Wolf is asking the candidates about whether they would use a tactical nuclear weapon to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon of their own. Their answer, of course, is yes. Yes - we're so opposed to you having the same weapons we have that we will use them on you.

Whee!

Alex, may I have "Triangulation" for $1000, please?

Dear Senator Clinton:

In response to the question, "do you agree with Senator Edwards that this war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker; at least the way it's been described" you responded:

No, I do not. I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda. And I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough.

You lived with the aftermath of 9/11. So? What connection does that have with your answer? Thank you for parroting a right-wing talking point equating responding to a particular incident to a "war on terror." And in what possible sense are we "safer?" The military has been crippled perhaps for generations, millions across the world hate us with a new-found passion, National Guard equipment has been destroyed, first responders have not yet been provided for, the budget teeters on the precipice of disaster, etc. etc. Please, Sen. Clinton--STOP.

30 months, aaah...

We'll be Scooter-free for 2 1/2 years! Let's just hope the judge has the guts to send him away pending appeal (more).

The Lasting Bush Damage

Yes, he has destroyed the constitution and made the world hate us, but some damage can be undone with a Democratic president and Congress. This however, can not be undone, the damage to the federal judiciary, with LIFETIME appointements. Check out Leddbetter v. Goodyear, where the Bush-appointed freaks fundamentally changed discrimination law.

This case appears simplistic on its surface because it was effectively decided on procedural grounds. It did not address the substantive question of pay equity. Rather, it dealt ONLY with the procedural aspect of WHEN the statute's 180-day limitation period began to run.

The case was clearly wrongly decided. You basically have 180 days to act after a discriminatory "event." That is reasonable with such discrete events as not getting hired, not being promoted, getting fired, etc. You KNOW when one of those things happens to you. How is anyone supposed to know they have been subjected to pay discrimination? Was she, without reason to suspect a problem, supposed to file interrogatories every six months just to be sure? THAT would make you popular! It basically guts the statute, as it limits any liability for the immediate six months before they got caught.

In addition, I don't think this trend of 5-4 decisions over heated dissents is good for the institutional integrity of the court--or what is left of it.

Back from wandering

I return from the desert to find that the Democrats, as feared, have no spines. Trying to stay rational, so I don't go nuts...

I can't fire them. I have no choice. W and his cronies of hate need to be stopped, and the Democrats, I'm sad to say, are the only possibility right now. We need to continue sending them the message, however, that this sort of behavior is simply unacceptable.

My note to Senator Durbin:

"With your recent vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, you have failed all of us. Be ashamed. Next Memorial Day, remember to think about the soldiers who died during the past year and your failure to do everything you could to save them. I have been a huge supporter of yours, but this is woeful. You have a year and a half to try to redeem yourself if you still want my support in the next election. If you cannot find it within yourself to help lead us out of Iraq, we'll just have to find someone else who can."

Iraq-No-Phobia

Still feeling that ol' Democrat disgust. I would especially like to take the junior senators from Illinois and New York out behind the woodshed. Way to triangulate until the last possible minute and not vote until the cause was lost, guys. Keep up the good work.

I just don't get it. You have a president who is less popular than open sores, his administration is reeling from the Scandal du Jour, and then he looks absolutely CRACKERS at his press conference, complete with bird poop--and the Democrats are terified of him.

Coast Guard, they're the boat guys right? Life jackets, no drinkin' on the boat?

Fearless Leader addressed the graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy.

Guess what--SEPTEMBER THE ELEVENTH!!

In this war, we face a brutal enemy that has already killed thousands in our midst

Gosh, I thought we were fighting native Iraqi resistance.

That means the best way to protect our people is to take the fight to the enemy.

OK, and the enemy is WHO?

in Afghanistan...25 million people have been liberated

Hmm, maybe we should tell them that they are just imagining the warlords, the re-emerging Taliban and Opium, Inc.

In Iraq, we removed a cruel dictator who harbored terrorists, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers

Hmm, George, Hussein was a latecomer to the payments thing, joining in with SAUDI ARABIA, the UAE, Qatar, etc.

I've often warned that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy will follow us home.

Yeah, they couldn't find the way here otherwise unless they followed the bread crumbs.

in January 2005, Osama bin Laden tasked the terrorist Zarqawi -- who was then al Qaeda's top leader in Iraq

Oh good God. He was a Jordanian thug that bin Laden had no use for and was the White House's "Iraqi Idol" until they needed to kill him.

The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does.

George, what would you know about Viet Nam? And a couple thousand foreign fighters in Iraq are going to "strike us?"

The question for our elected leaders is: Do we comprehend the danger of an al Qaeda victory in Iraq,

DO YOU??? There will be no "al Qaeda" "victory" in Iraq. It is a SHI'A country and the Shi'a DESPISE al Qaeda!

New and...Improved?

Stuff you can't make up:

Top U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq are completing a far-reaching campaign plan for a new U.S. strategy

Hey, look, a new strategy! it will help us win! Winning is good, especially the extra win-ny kind!

Amazing. After four years of botched nation-building and an occupation that makes even the most pro-western Iraqi hate us, they come up with a new strategy, one that unfortunately does not involve--LEAVING.

I belong to no organized political party

I'm (ashamed to be) a Democrat.

The cave on Iraq funding is so humiliating. The Democratic Congress was elected to stop the madness, and they cave in front of Chimpy's veto pen.

Hey Dems, here's a thought--You've sent hima bill, and he pulled out the veto crayon. ALL the leverage is YOURS. If NOTHING happens, the war funding stops. You had every advantage and you pissed it away. Disgusting.

E-mailed to the Speaker of the House...

Humbly submitted by your esteemed Zinfandelfan to Nancy Pelosi's website (www.speaker.gov):

It is being reported in conflicting fashion in several places (DailyKos, TalkingPointsMemo, Fox) that an agreement has been reached with the White House on Iraq war funding and that the funding would be provided without timetables, benchmarks or other caveats which could allegedly "hamper" the President's style.

As someone who went out in the last election cycle and not only contributed significantly for the first time in his life but also phone banked and canvassed, it would be a tremendous disappointment and a rebuke of all the time, effort and financial commitment of everyone who helped bring the Democratic Party to power in November.

While I realize that negotiations are "on-going" with the White House, despite the heat that members of the caucus may be feeling, it is important that we continue to do what the majority of Americans have called for in *every* poll and that is to bring the troops home and to not give the President a blank check with no restrictions or conditions.

No matter how many people continue to be paraded before the podium and the war keeps being packaged as a, "No, really, THIS time it will work;" the fact is that the Administration has lost all credibility and, further, the right to unquestioned fealty in their decision making process.

Do not concede, do not waver, do not yield. Bring our men and women home soon to rest, recover and reconstitute our fighting forces to fight the "Global War on Terror," not play arbiters between factions linked to unstoppable bloodshed.

In much the fashion that contributor Schmidlap put in his message to his guy, I don't think that we can let our elected representatives who were swept to power on a platform that includes doing something different about the war, think that giving der Chimpenfuehrer everything he wants is a "compromise". Somebody once defined compromise (or perhaps it was 'negotiation') as neither party getting everything they want but both parties being satisfied.

Unfortunately for The Decider, his definition of compromise is getting everything he wants and screw everybody else. Well, it is high time that Congress ceases to be the pet of the Executive Branch and that if he gets a bill that gives him all of his money with those "strings" that he threatens to veto, every radio, television, newspaper, billboard and MP3 player should ring with the very clear point that it is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS PLAYING POLITICS WITH THE TROOPS AND NOT THE CONGRESS.

The man from Plains

In November 1976, at the ATO house in Greencastle, Indiana, Tom Garrison invited me and my new girlfriend (I wonder what ever happened to her? She was really cute. By the way, selfless shilling, you may wish us a happy 25th next Tuesday) to watch the election returns, where the Georgia governor defeated the incumbent president.

30-plus years later, that Georgia governor said that "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

Please tell me where he was wrong.

On teaching--and Iraq

I took my 13-year old for one of his regularly-scheduled cheap haircuts. In the line in front of me was a young man, military cut and lean and mean. he was talking things military with his barber, and then he turned around. Immediately, he said "Professor Peter!" I hesitated at first because (as Doc would know, I was a humble instructor, not a "professor") and I did not recognize this lean taut young man. Then I saw and recognized the face--he was a really bright student who I taught at the local community college and yes, I inspired him to go into teaching (that's my one!). I thought I had demoralized him when I saw him in another part-time job when I said I'd given up teaching for the money but he remembered me and said he had given up his teaching job for an officer's commission in the Army--and Iraq. God bless you.

I would question his judgment (as I would for looking up to me in the first place!) for doing so, but please return safely.

Places to go, pictures to take

So tomorrow morning I'm off for a week or so in sunny middle of frackin' nowhere New Mexico. City of Rocks State Park, to be exact. One might realistically ask why I'll be headed there, to sleep in a tent, try to avoid rattlesnakes and scorpions, stay up til 2 or 3 every night, miss mrsdrmagoo terribly, and try to demonstrate some semblance of sanity. The answer, of course - work! We've organized a travel course on Astrophotography, and this is one of the darkest public sites in the country. There will be 5 professors (two of whom are teaching the course, two of us who are doing a little teaching, but are mostly learning how to do this stuff and to assist, and one who is coming along because he can) and 17 students. We'll be doing all sorts of late-night activities - well, the sort that involves a camera, a telescope, a computer, and looking up - and a bunch during the day - trips to historic towns, petroglyph sites, the VLA (where we can stand in the footsteps of Jodie Foster - and many brilliant scientists), and assorted natural wonders. Have fun whilst I'm gone, and don't burn down any important buildings (unless you can trap certain politicians).

Oh, and IMPEACH!

And in this corner...

From today's letters to the editor:

When will we admit that, if and when we abandon Iraq, we are still at war? How foolish to alert the enemy of our withdrawal when we are in a lifetime struggle against a foe that will never go away. We have got to toe the mark and convince other nations that if America loses, they are goners too.

We now struggle alone.

The threat of global dominance requires global resistance, not just one nation fighting Goliath. David slew the giant with help from his God. America seems to have forgotten our past, when we honored our creator. Many a battle is fought and won on one's knees.

Elizabeth Pearson
Elmhurst

Wow, this one is a stunner First of all, Lizzie, we are not "AT WAR." The "war" ended about 20 days after it began. Now we are just slogging through a botched occupation that will end badly, sooner or later. Global dominance? Wild-eyed fanatics in caves with box ciutters and backpack bombs. Please, be serious. I can show you global dominance if you want. Pull out your map and take a long look at that REALLY big country called China.

And God? Yeah, I'm sure the supreme being, creator of the universe has a vested interest in the outcome of the misguided imperial delusions of a drunken failure with daddy issues. Lizzy, please, on your way back to Elmhurst,