So funny...

... it almost hurts.

Some far-right sites that subscribe to the Associated Press feed, for example, will use auto-correct to change "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party." This, of course, is because they have the temperament of children.

But the American Family Association's OneNewsNow website takes the phenomenon one step further with its AP articles. The far-right group replaces the word "gay" in the articles with the word "homosexual." I'm not entirely sure why, but it seems to make the AFA happy.

The problem, of course, is that "gay" does not always mean what the AFA wants it to mean. [...]

"Tyson Homosexual easily won his semifinal for the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials and seemed to save something for the final later Sunday.

His wind-aided 9.85 seconds was a fairly cut-and-dry performance compared to what happened a day earlier. On Saturday, Homosexual misjudged the finish in his opening heat and had to scramble to finish fourth, then in his quarterfinal a couple of hours later, ran 9.77 to break the American record that had stood since 1999. [...]

Homosexual didn't get off to a particularly strong start in the first semifinal, but by the halfway mark he had established a comfortable lead.... Asked how he felt, Homosexual said: "A little fatigued."

from the War Room

Obama Is Better Than McCain. Period.

Forget FISA. Forget Heller. Forget campaign finance. Forget comments by Wes Clark and photo-ops with Muslim women.

Obama is still better.

And it's time for those who loved Obama most to remember that.

Remember the primary season? It wasn't that long ago.

You spent hours at the phonebanks. You donated until your bank account was empty. You wore the t-shirts and the buttons; you proudly planted a sign in your hard; you stuck a bumpersticker on your car. Maybe two. You played that will.i.am video over and over and over again.

You admired him for his principles. You admired him for his convictions. You thought he was brave to take a stand against the Iraq war way back in 2002, when almost all the other Democrats -- including the other Democratic candidates -- hid behind their fear of being labeled "unpatriotic."

You fought against the Clinton supporters. You answered their concerns about the strength of Obama's convictions by quoting his books and providing links to his website.

Obama wasn't like the others, you said. He is not beholden to special interests. He is not on the payroll of the lobbyists. He is not afraid to take an unpopular position. Obama is not a coward; he is a leader.

You didn't want to hear the concerns. Or you didn't think they were valid. Or you didn't think they mattered, since Obama was still the best candidate in the field and infinitely better than McCain.

Some disagreed. Some didn't think he was the best candidate in the field. But that doesn't matter now. Short of replacing Obama with another nominee at the August convention, he's our choice. He's your choice.

And most of us, even the ones who weren't in love with him, fell in line once he secured the nomination.

I know I did.

And now there is disappointment? Now there is frustration? Because he is moving to the center, because he is making politically expedient decisions?

Of course he is. He's a politician running for president. The next six months are going to be about framing and positioning and yes, pandering. The next six months are not going to be about ideals or convictions or brave stances. The next six months are going to be devoted to winning the White House.

Complain if you want. Complain if it makes you feel better. Complain if you think it makes a difference.

But really, does it? Do you really think you are the ones he's trying to persuade in the general election? Do you think Obama is going to move further to the left now, after he has already won your endorsement? I don't.

I've been a doubter from the beginning, so the recent disappointments don't really disappoint me all that much. I don't like his position on FISA. I don't like his position on the Second Amendment. I don't like that he's distancing himself from Muslims. I don't like that he's distancing himself from General Clark's statements, with which I agree.

But I don't care. This is the Obama I've seen all along. A savvy politician with whom I agree on most, but not all, issues. His latest statements and positions do not surprise me; they merely meet my expectations. And I'm not going to waste my time and effort condemning him now. What's the point? I'm going to vote for him in November anyway. I'm going to do what I can to help defeat McCain. FISA isn't going to make the difference for me this year.

The point, as Hillary Clinton has been telling her supporters, is that there is a world of difference between Obama and McCain. And since I do not want President McCain to invade Iran or pack the courts with conservative ideologues, Obama is my only option.

And that's fine with me. I had my opportunity to vote against him during the primaries. And I did just that. I had my opportunity to raise concerns about him during the primaries. And I did just that.

But now? Now, when it's Obama versus McCain? The question of who causes me greater concern is pretty easy to answer. It should be an easy question for any Democrat to answer.

And between now and November, that's really all that matters to me.

So, here's the point:

Obama is better than McCain.

And so I will vote for him, despite my concerns, my reservations, my complaints, my disagreements, my disappointments, my questions, my hesistations, and which way the wind is blowing.

Obama is better than McCain.

It's what many Obama supporters pointed out as the primary season came to a close and there was some concern about those few Clinton "supporters" who were threatening to vote for McCain instead. And they were right. Anyone who truly supported Clinton can easily see that Obama shares their values much more than McCain does.

Obama is better than McCain.

Do the specifics even matter? To me, they don't. My mind is made up. I know how I'm voting in November. What happens between now and then doesn't mean much to me.

Of course, once Obama is in the White House, I'll be keeping a careful watch. I'll be doing my part to question the decisions he makes. I'll be doing my part to push him to the left. I'll be criticizing him when he's wrong, and praising him when he's right.

But that will happen in January. And we have a long battle ahead before we get to January.

So to quote the many Obama supporters who have often quoted Bill Clinton, it's time to fall in line.

Obama is better than McCain, and so I will vote for him. Period.

[Cross-posted at DailyKos]

Stuff happens

Nick Revell's blogging for Huffington Post. My life just got a little funnier.

Be honest, if there were any justice, if the world really did conform to a plan, then how come most of us know deep down, that despite everything, it is entirely possible Donald Rumsfeld might end up dying peacefully and painlessly in his sleep? Instead of in a friendly fire incident, followed by an inquiry where the pilot responsible for accidentally dropping the cluster bomb on that Rumsfeld-Bush family wedding would petulantly throw up his hands, shrug his shoulders and say, "Freedom's messy. Stuff happens."

Love him big time.

More on happy, happy Pakistan

NY Times:

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Mr. bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.

But The Surge rocks!

Unbelievably stupid "journalists"

Of course the McCain campaign would take the opportunity to twist Wesley Clarke's words. They are a political campaign. That's what they do.

But the "journalists" of Washington didn't even need a nudge from the McCain camp. They just heard what they wanted to hear, got their man panties all in a bunch, and went bonkers. And not just the Fox News team and Joe Klein, either. Pretty much every moron on every network and every news outlet have made asses of themselves over this total non-issue.

Fucking idiots. How do any of them have jobs? How are we supposed to take any of them seriously?

Columbia Journalism Review:

Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Clark, in reference to John McCain, said:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

The "Civility Scam"

My crazy-ass friend sent me an email this week (which was nice, thank you). One of the things he said sort of cracked me up,

I had actually never seen your website before that day and I was a bit shocked by the tone of it. I suppose I shouldn't have been, as it is typical of tone found at most Leftwing blogs.

Ah. The tone thing.

I responded that I figured I'd seem mild to someone who hangs out at LGF and links to Malkin, but there you go. No accounting for subjective preception.

Anyway, FDL has a bit on the "Civility Scam" this morning, a short one, but still rings close to home.

Bush foreign policy and national security, or, McCain? Really?

The Army War College (patchouli-soaked hippies) has released a report on the Iraq occupation, concluding that Rumsfeld and the neocons really never knew there asses from a hole in the ground.

Not that we didn't already know that.

And not that a solid review of the mess that got us into and sustained this grand adventure isn't needed. It is, if only to maybe put a few red flags in people's minds in case our government decides to launch a new grand adventure (like, I don't know... in Iran?)

But there's more to our global situation than Iraq, unfortunately. There still exists a nagging little problem called Afghanistan, the first one we invaded, because the governing body there was actually harboring al Qaeda, plus they were (are) total assholes.

And there still exists the nagging problem of Pakistan, a country that actually has nuclear weapons. Like the kind we were sure Saddam Hussein was hiding under his bed, the kind we pretty sure the mullahs in Iran keep beneath there skirts, the kind North Korea has developed over the last few years of non-engagement.

NY Times:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — In the last two months, Taliban militants have suddenly tightened the noose on this city of three million people, one of Pakistan’s biggest, establishing bases in surrounding towns and, in daylight, abducting residents for high ransoms. [...]
The threat to Peshawar is a sign of the Taliban’s deepening penetration of Pakistan and of the expanding danger that the militants present to the entire region, including nearby supply lines for NATO and American forces in Afghanistan

Today the Times reports:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — With Islamic militants tightening their grip around Peshawar, kidnapping residents and threatening the city itself, the new coalition government of Pakistan delivered its first military response to the Islamists on Saturday.

The action was limited, with security forces shelling territory outside Peshawar held by an extremist leader. Army forces were not used, and the intent apparently was merely to push the militants back from the city’s perimeter.

But the shelling was the first time the new civilian government, which has been committed to negotiating peace accords with Pakistani Taliban and other Islamic militants, resorted to military action.

In response, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, announced that he had suspended his participation in peace talks.

It remains to be seen whether this initial action has accomplished anything: it is likely that the militants left the area ahead of the force, and shutting down shops and imposing curfew are temporary controls, one would think.

The news from Peshawar this week is a reminder that Afghanistan hs not been stabilized at all. That outside of Kabul, muscle is the only government, and Taliban have a lot of muscle.

And that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is still a dangerous home base for extremism. Focusing only on our grand adventure in Iraq lets the administration off the hook for the complete bungling of Afghanistan.

And this region was always where the threat lay, and this region was always where we had the chance to be the "liberators" our government assured us we were destined to be.

Any discussion of national security needs to include these facts.

And the idea that McCain is still seen as "strong" on national security would be laughable, if it wasn't so frightening. This is a man who still believes that Iraq was a great idea, who still believes that concentrating all of our might and money to Iraq will lead to a bright and beautiful and capatalist middle east.

And who hasn't addresses Afghanistan to any real degree.

Just keep celebrating the surge, senator. That will make everything perfect. No, for real.

The birthrate thing

Very interesting article in todays NY Times Magazine on declining birthrates in Europe, which, as you've undoubtably heard, mean that selfish, secular, childless women are opening the gates for the fertile muslim hordes to enter and destroy western civilization.

You haven't heard that? Well you clearly don't read the right books.

Data indicates, according to the article, that the decline in birthrate is higher in societies that have not really embraced modern family paradigms. Meaning, the need for women to work butting up against a society that expects them to stay home with the kids.

In Scandanavia, the welfare state helps families make ends meet, supports life/work balance with paid leave, and offers child care and education for the very young. And Scandanavian birth rates are substantially higher than in Southern Italy, where economic realities mean that young people live at home longer, and when they venture into marriage there is no social or economic "safety net" if they decide to procreate.

In the US, the welfare safety net may not be generous, but the society at least accepts changing gender roles, and there are resources for families to get started. And women will not be cast forever out of the work force if they stay home for a few years, the risk of temporarily giving up their jobs or careers is not nearly as great as in more traditionalist cultures. Hence, the birthrate here is substantially higher than in southern Europe, Japan, etc.

But also fascniating is this question: on a planet that is increasingly taxed by overpopulation, can't the declining birth rate be viewed as a net positive?

In one German region (Germany has perhaps the lowest birthrate in Europe), local officials and the BauHaus Institute are busily reimagining villages that have shrunk by 25% or more. And their visions are inspiring. They see not economic and social collapse, but renewal and long-term vitality.

Anyway, good read, much food for thought.

But then, I'm a feminist with 1 kid and no plans for more, so maybe you should go to mass rather than listening to me.

Obama and public financing

This outrage over Obama's decision not to take public money for the campaign is stupid. It depends on a superficial review of conditions and positions, and the media has been, as usual, mostly complicit in spreading the "politics as usual" meme.

Look. Obama said he wanted a campaign that was different, that was powered by the people, so to speak. That concentrated on ideas, that was strong enough to communicate ideas to the voters. All of the voters: not just those of us who consider ourselves politically aware (or political addicts).

Look: We have had a primary season that felt unprecedented. It went on for months, without any real force of inevitability, of coronation. I never felt that Rahm Emanuel and Terry McCauliffe were going to pick my candidate for me.

Look: We have a commitment from the DNC that no lobbyist money will be accepted for the campaign. No, of course that doesn't close the door entirely to "power" money, but it makes a huge statement, and does have a huge impact on who is driving this campaign, and who, ultimately, is owed attention.

And look: Obama said that the rise of the 527s was a bad thing, an unpredictable thing, and he wanted no part of it, but he definitely wanted to make sure he had the resources to fight back, should a swift-boat style group arise on the right this summer.

And look: our side's biggest 527 name, MoveOn, immediately shuttered its 527 in response. That is, MoveOn (I'm a member) immediately said, if the Senator doesn't want 527 involvement, we respect that, and we won't do it. Yes, there's still MoveOn PAC, which will raise money and organize action- not a bad thing. But 527 attacks are now off-limits.

What Obama has said is that he wants a change in the national dialogue this season. And he's making it happen.

That's what the public financing thing is about.

And look: I don't want to cannonize the man. I admire him and I was sure from the first time I heard him speak that he would one day be president, and I am sure that he will be a good one.

And I am sure that once he is in the White House, there will be a host of opportunities to hold his feet to the fire. He is a man, not an angel sent to fulfill each of our political prayers.

But he is a change, a fresh breeze, perhaps even an epiphany. Whether he's the right change is something for you to sort out on your own, of course.

Stuff that's so funny I lack the imagination to have made it up

Via:

Senators Craig and Vitter are cosponsoring SJ res 43, a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Not clear: whether adults wearing diapers or trolling for sex in restroom stalls are specifically included in the classes "man" or "woman".

David Brooks: Bush Sucks (And We Should Love Him For It)

It must be hard to be a conservative columnist in the waning days of the Bush empire.

It must be hard to be a conservative columnist in the months leading up to what will most likely be a crushing defeat of John McCain.

And it must be very hard to be David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times, trying to salvage your credibility as report after report after report proves that you have spent the better part of the past eight years on the wrong side.

In his column The Bush Paradox in today's New York Times, Brooks struggles once again to vindicate not just the disastrous policies of George W. Bush, but the personality flaws of the man himself.

Brooks takes us back to the winter of 2006-2007 when, in Brooks's own words:

Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.

But Bush paid no attention to the "stunning electoral judgment" of his war policies. He wanted to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq, and nothing would stand in his way.

He paid no attention to the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report, "which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria."

He paid no attention to the Democratic leadership or the op-ed pages across the country that called for Bush to start withdrawing troops from Iraq.

He paid no attention to his own generals -- the "generals on the ground" Bush often invokes as a reason to ignore the call of the "stunning electoral judgment."

When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

But according to Brooks, Bush's refusal to listen to anyone -- American citizens, the commission tasked with offering solutions to the quagmire, or even his own advisers -- is exactly why Bush is, apparently, a visionary.

The secret to Bush's success, Brooks argues, is those very traits the rest of us decry.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

...

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

See? He's stubborn, arrogant, and secretive -- and, oh yes, he listens to Dick Cheney, the man who claimed the Iraqi insurgency was "in the last throes" three years ago.

But these are all good qualities because look how Bush has been proven right, while everyone else has been proven wrong.

And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility.

We should not be criticizing. We should not be investigating. We should not be questioning. We certainly should not be withdrawing.

No, we should be enjoying our "season of humility."

And then:

...the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today.

So we must humble ourselves before the great and brilliant President Bush, and then we must concede that he "actually got one right."

Why does this matter? Bush will be leaving the White House in another six months, and if the current polls are right, he will be taking his failed policies with him as the Democrats sweep the White House, the House, and the Senate, ushering in a new era of politics and policies that are actually based on something slightly more substantive than stubbornness, arrogance, secrecy, and listening to Dick Cheney.

But this is why it matters.

Because David Brooks is still at the New York Times. And as of this year, William Krystol is too.

And countless other talking heads who were wrong -- absolutely, unequivocally wrong -- are still writing and talking, and we are still listening.

And despite Brooks's rather hypocritical call for the "cocksure surge opponents" to humbly admit how wrong they were, we have yet to see such humility from the chattering class that helped to get us into this mess in the first place.

Yes, some newspapers and magazines have attempted to analyze their own failings in covering the build up to the war.

In May of 2004, the editors of the New York Times published FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq, in which they concluded, after "reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation", that:

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.

Too bad about all the dead people. Wish we'd been more rigorous. Wish we'd been more aggressive. (No mention of the reporter, Judith Miller, who wrote the bulk of these stories. No mention of her complicity in allowing members of the Bush Administration to cite her stories, the stories that were fed to her by the Bush Administration, as evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.)

Later in 2004, executive editor of The Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr. acknowledged that Post's coverage was, well, flawed.

"We were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale," Mr. Downie said in a front-page article that assessed the newspaper's prewar coverage. "Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."

It was a mistake. See? Mistakes happen. Oh well. Thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, but, you know, that was a mistake.

Whoops.

But has the media really learned its lesson? Have we?

Has the coverage of Iran's nuclear program been any different than the coverage of Iraq six years ago?

Just last month, the New York Times published this story:

Atomic Monitor Signals Concern Over Iran’s Work

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation.

A few days later, the Times ran an editorial titled "Iran and the Inspectors," in which it warned:

This latest report is alarming, but it must not be used as an excuse by Washington hard-liners to launch another war. There are no good military options.

That seems like an improvement, doesn't it?

But we shall see. If, for some reason, the Democrats fail to capture the White House, we will likely see an increase in stories about the supposed threat Iran poses to American security. We already know John McCain's foreign policy regarding Iran:

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" the Republican presidential candidate said. Then, he sang. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

So while Bush may be on his way out, we do not yet know what we will get in his place. And we do not know how the major media will cooperate as it did in 2002 and 2003.

But David Brooks is right about one thing:

Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact.

[Cross-posted at DailyKos]

Is it wrong to say "Bring 'em on"?

My church will be voting on adopting a resolution which states that we will publicly denounce the proposition to amend CA's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. I got home from work and was responding to some emails on voting procedures and such. Took a break, went to Sadly, No! for a giggle, and found a link to this:

Anti-gay activists crash worship services
Minutemen take 'word of God' to 2 congregations

A conservative Christian values group has been interrupting services at two central Ohio churches to protest their support for homosexuality.

Minutemen United vowed to attend services every Sunday.

And they're not even going after UU or UCC, it appears to be Baptists and Methodists they're harrassing.

I do not like it when people harrass churches. ANY churches. It shows a dangerous level of crazy.

And, unfortunately, there is always the mama-bear part of me that screams, "TRY THAT IN MY HOUSE, MOTHER FUCKER!" while the rest of me tries to coax the she-bear back to calm and peace.

And everyone will greet us as liberators...

John "the meanest mustache in the world" Bolton, this morning:

I don’t think you’d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

What a fucking asshole.

To my Libertarian friends

The husband rightly says, "There's no way you could call yourself a "Libertarian" or a "Constitutionalist" and vote to continue Bush policies." (Did I mention that, in our naive 20s, we were both, briefly, registered Libertarians?)

So vote Bob Barr. If your convictions are worth anything.

On crazy-ass friends

On a long drive today, and I thought I should humbly add to the post below.

I'm a suburban middle-aged white woman, and I've never been to a war zone. I am one of the people one might see at a demonstration photographed by Ringo, of course, and I don't want to sound overly pious about it.

I'm not a veteran or a minister, and I don't mean to hide my opinions behind others. My opinions are my own, and not necessarily enobled by the fact that I've stood next to farm workers, immigrants, veterans, Gold Star family members, etc. Nor do I mean to imply that ALL people who belong to any of the above groups would agree with me. I've been out enough, and met enough people, to know that that isn't the case. (and I have witnessed some really great dialogue between opposing sides, which will always inspire me.)

I do hate it when people pretend that those groups do not exist in opposition to the current state of affairs, that they're "phonies", that they are somehow less valid or patriotic or whatever than, say, the President.

I just get my back up because I don't like to see them ignored.

Deja vu

via Atrios:

Late payments and defaults in every other major category of consumer debt also rose in the first quarter, the American Bankers Association reported. Auto loans issued through car dealers have a delinquency rate of 3.13 percent, the highest since at least 1990, according the ABA.

"The rise in consumer credit delinquencies is consistent with a rapidly slowing economy," said James Chessen, the ABA's chief economist. "Stress in the housing market still dominates the story, but it's a broader tale of an overall weak economy."

Emphasis mine. Original here.

Hm. 1990. What was happening then?

Oh, yeah. We'd recently completed 8 years of spending a bunch of money the government didn't have, because the Reaganites sincerly believed that money would appear out of thin air if we just lowered taxes on the wealthy, deregulated everything, busted unions, and prayed.

New category: Crazy-ass Friends

We've all got them, and we love them, and we shake our heads or laugh uncomfortably loudly when they give voice to their delusions.

So, here's one of mine.

Ringo, as he prefers to be called on the web, attends LA area demonstrations and takes photos and posts them. Which is lovely. Except that he professes complete disdain for the people he's photographing and their demonstrations.

Which is, of course, his right.

And he refrains from writing truly hateful things about his subjects, mostly, which I appreciate.

Still, having attended one or two demonstrations in my time, I feel the need to point out some fallacies in his views.

1: When the anrchists show up, it isn't usually at the invitation of the organizing groups, and focusing doesn't (usually) provide an accurate representation of the vast majority of people in attendance.
2: Red is not an evil color. And the cold war is over, so the word "commie" doesn't really carry the weight it once did, even in paranoid circles.
3: While ANSWER does often pull the permits for anti-Iraq war protests, the groups who show up will represent a broad picture of the American landscape, if you care to notice. Churches and religious organizations, veterans groups, community groups, mothers and fathers and retirees (most of them not "old hippies"). And do you really think the sign which read "So many hippies, so few grenades" was a witty counter to such a gathering?
4: I know anything that looks mid-eastern freaks you out (I note the links to Malkin and Schlussel in your sidebar), but your fear is nothing but intellectual and moral laziness.

I have a friend, he's Palestinian/Lebanese. An American citizen, father, business owner, salt of the earth. He lost a brother to al Qaeda when they bombed the complex where he lived in Saudi Arabia. His family is mostly still in Lebanon.

And do you think he'd have been carrying an anti-zionist poster at such a march? Flying the flag of Palestine? Yeah, he probably would. Because his family and their neighbors are directly influenced by US and Israeli policy in the region, and he detects no mainstream concern for the destruction of those people, their communities, their homes. And he wants you to know: when Hamas moves into a destroyed neighborhood and starts handing out food and medical services, and offering security, the people take it. And that's how Hamas' influence grows, and sitting in the US complaining about extremism and doing nothing to stabalize the safety of these communities will not bring about peace or justice.

So, my friend, take your pictures and send your little green friends over to my blog when you have the inclination. But know this:
You can call me a moon bat, but I was right about Iraq and you were wrong.

You can make fun of all the hippies who protest Bush administration foreign policy, but some of those "hippies" are veterans, or loved ones of dead soldiers. It's pretty disgusting to pretend they don't exist. It's summer now, so maybe you should take a trip down to Santa Monica and have a word with some of the vets who keep the Arlington West memorial up every weekend. Maybe you can explain to them how they're misguided moon bats with BDS.

And finally, your privelaged suburban upbringing has shielded you from a lot of pain. Be grateful for that. But don't presume to judge how others respond to their experiences.

You always seemed to be the kind of guy who understood that.

Things are getting exciting around here...

So Mittens came to Thousand Oaks yesterday, to raise money for Tony Strickland's campaign.

I may have mentioned that I'm not a Strickland fan.

Because he wasn't getting enough attention from the Green Wave Energy BS, I suppose, he decided to accept a bunch of money from big tobacco, further exciting the passions of local liberals, democrats, and at least one republican, according to the local paper.

But tobacco money isn't nearly enough to buy yourself a seat so you can peddle your influence and reap in cash, so Romney came to town to tell the folks that Tony has the solutions to California's budget crisis, among other things.

A couple of years ago, I doubt this would have brought more than a few people out of doors, but yesterday, apparently Audra's chief of staff and some suited young republicans clashed with protesters in front of the Hyatt on Westlake Blvd.

The Star's story is here. Ok story, amusing comments thread. (Note to commenter Dmeeks: When you wrote: "The Strickland supporters had been at their location with no problems and it was the protesters and anti-Strickland crowd who caused the "tussle". How sad." the words "how sad" out you. You're a concern troll, and probably lying.)

Better coverage is at Brian Dennert's blog, here. Great photos, some video, first person witnesses, etc. The police may or may not bring charges against Audra's chief of staff for assault.

I continue to question Tony's conflicts of interest (Green Wave and tobacco money being the most obvious), and I also question whether Audra's staff, paid by our taxes, is properly employed as an anti-first amendment campaign thug. As a commenter there said:

Joel Angeles was stupid for getting caught strongarming people and holding a sign. He's a chief of staff for crying out loud and certainly knows better. His office works for all of Audra's constituents - not just the Republican ones that vote for her or her husband. He should resign before anymore political damage is inflicted.

Another interesting note: the comments thread is great, lots of first person accounting, etc. But note the commenters who write that "Union thugs" were harrassing Strickland supporters. Really? Because I have never once encountered a "Union thug" at any political event in Thousand Oaks.

Kind of like the "How sad" commenting. If you think thugs and paid protesters were there to stir up shit with Strickland supporters, you have taken the jump into dark fantasyland.

Yay! Angry Mouse is here!

Dear friend and sharp wit Angry Mouse has been doing some great writing over at the Great Orange Satan, and I asked if she wanted to cross-post over here. Mostly because I rarely get over to kos to find her diaries, and this way they come right to me :-)

Welcome, Mouse, and thanks.

Bush: If You Want To Slander America...

If you're still questioning the righteousness, morality, or constitutionality of the activities at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, President Bush has a message for you:

Stop slandering America.

In an interview with British Sky News reporter Adam Boulton, broadcast Tuesday morning on Democracy Now!, Bush once again displays his hostility toward the rule of law, particularly the Supreme Court, who had the audacity to order him -- once again -- to uphold the Constitution.

Boulton: I mean, you’ve talked a lot about freedom. I’ve heard you talk about freedom I think every time I’ve seen you.

Bush: Yes.

Boulton: And yet, there are those who would say, look, let’s take Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the complete opposite of freedom.

Bush: Of course, if you want to slander America, you can look at it one way. But you go down—what you need to do—I think I suggested you do this at a press conference. If you go down there to Guantanamo and take a look at how these prisoners are treated—and they’re working it through our court systems. We are a land of law.

Got that?

Let's review.

Those who would look at the myriad scandals surrounding Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and those who would question the policy of rendition, well, they're just slandering America.

Later in the interview, Bush says:

My only point to you is, is that, yeah, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn’t happened, but that should not reflect, you know, America. This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn’t show the heart and soul of America.

Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, Bush still insists that widespread reports of abuse and violations of the Geneva Convention -- "quaint" though it may be -- are merely the actions of "some soldiers."

This, despite the fact that in April of this year, ABC News broke the story that, in fact, discussions of torture methods went far beyond "some soldiers."

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

...

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

...

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

...

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

Some soldiers, huh?

Yesterday, Michigan Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, held a hearing investigating this very matter.

From Senator Levin's opening statement:

Today’s hearing will focus on the origins of aggressive interrogation techniques used against detainees in U.S. custody. We have three panels of witnesses today and I want to thank them for their willingness to voluntarily appear before the Committee.

...

So, how did it come about that American military personnel stripped detainees naked, put them in stress positions, used dogs to scare them, put leashes around their necks to humiliate them, hooded them, deprived them of sleep, and blasted music at them. Were these actions the result of “a few bad apples” acting on their own? It would be a lot easier to accept if it were. But that’s not the case. The truth is that senior officials in the United States government sought information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. In the process, they damaged our ability to collect intelligence that could save lives.

Today’s hearing will explore part of the story: how it came about that techniques, called SERE resistance training techniques, which are used to teach American soldiers to resist abusive interrogations by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were turned on their head and sanctioned by Department of Defense officials for use offensively against detainees. Those techniques included use of stress positions, keeping detainees naked, use of dogs, and hooding during interrogations.

Ah, but that's just slandering America, because, Bush insists, "This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn’t show the heart and soul of America."

Despite the fact that Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet and Ashcroft were having top secret meetings in the White House, in which they "choreographed" torture techniques, and that the discussions were so troublesome that even the tender sensibilities of John "Soar Like an Eagle" Ashcroft were offended. Or at least, he had the foresight to be concerned about how history would judge them.

But never mind all that. We're just talking about "some soldiers."

In the same interview, the president also reveals, once again, his shocking ignorance of the judicial process.

Boulton: But the Supreme Court have just said that—you know, ruled against what you’ve been doing down there.

Bush: But the district court didn’t. And the appellate court didn’t.

Boulton: The Supreme Court is supreme, isn’t it?

Let's pause for a moment.

To Bush, apparently, it does not matter that the Supreme Court of the United States -- the highest court in the land and the final voice on whether a law is or is not constitutional -- because the lower courts agreed with him. The fact that the lower courts agreed with him has no legal impact whatsoever, since their holdings were overturned by the Supreme Court, and it is the opinion of the Supreme Court that matters.

Let's continue.

Bush: It is, and I accept their verdict. I don’t agree with their verdict. And it’s not what I was doing down there. This was a law passed by our United States Congress that I worked with the Congress to get passed and signed into law.

Boulton: But it looked like an attempt to bypass the Constitution, to a certain extent.

Bush: This is a law passed, Adam. We passed a law. Bypassing the Constitution means that we did something, you know, outside the bounds of the Constitution. We went to the Congress and got a piece of legislation passed.

Boulton: Which is now being struck down, effectively.

Bush: It is, and I accept what the Supreme Court did, and I necessarily don’t have to agree with it.

See?

The Supreme Court has ruled that it's unconstitutional, but Bush disagrees because, after all, he worked with Congress to pass and sign the law (that the Supreme Court just ruled unconstitutional).

If it sounds like circular logic, that's because it is. Congress passes a law and the president signs it. The Supreme Court reviews the law and deems it unconstitutional. But Bush thinks the Court is wrong because he worked with Congress to pass and sign that law -- and therefore, it can't be unconstitutional.

Are you dizzy yet?

The president is technically correct. He does not have to agree with the Court's ruling. But he does have to follow it. And invoking the rulings of the lower courts is, well, pointless and kind of stupid. But that's what we've come to expect from our president, isn't it?

And for anyone who would question this logic, who would question the activities at Guantanamo that the Supreme Court held unconstitutional, who would investigate the lawfulness of these activities, who would question whether such activities are consistent with American principles, or with Bush's mantra of "spreading freedom," who would seek accountability for possible crimes committed by our government and members of our military, well, they're not actually upholding the Constitution. Not even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who, during the hearing, denied that Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples. He blamed bad administration policy, and suggested pretty strongly that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Haynes, and Yoo are among those responsible. But Senator Graham and others aren't trying to restore America's reputation in the world.

Nope. They're just slandering America.

[Cross-posted at DailyKos]

Ending the day with more love

I call that mind free which master the senses, and which recognizes it own reality and greatness: Which passes life not in asking what it shall eat or drink, but in hungering, thirsting and seeking after righteousness.

I call that mind free which jealously guards its intellectual rights and powers, which does not content itself to a passive or hereditary faith: Which opens itself to light whencesoever it may come; which receives new truth as an angel from heaven.

I call that mind free which is not passively framed by outward circumstances, and is not the creature of accidental impulse: Which discovers everywhere the radiant signatures of the infinite spirit and in them finds help to its own spiritual enlargement.

I call that mind free which protects itself against the usurpations of society, and which does not cower to human opinion: Which refuses to be the slave or tool of the many or of the few, and guards its empire over itself as nobler than the empire of the world.

I call that mind free which resists the bondage of habit, which does not mechanically copy the past, nor live on in its old virtues: But which listens for new and higher monitions of conscience, and rejoices to pour itself forth in fresh and higher exertions.

I call that mind free which sets no bounds to its love, which, wherever they are seen delights in virtue and sympathizes with suffering: Which recognizes in all human beings the image of God and the rights of God’s children, and offers itself up a willing sacrifice to the cause of humankind.

I call that mind free which has cast off all fear but that of wrongdoing, and which no menace or peril can enthrall: Which is calm in the midst of tumults and possesses itself though all else be lost.

Saw my minister this evening, after she spent the day at Ventura County Courthouse, embracing and celebrating same-sex couples who'd come to make their unions legal. She read the above, from William Ellery Channing, at the start of our meeting.

The three UU ministers from Ventura County were there, and congregants in and out all day. I hear the couples were suprised- there were more UUs there than licensees most of the time- but when they would come out, those gathered would sing "Standing on the Side of Love", and hand them flowers, cupcakes, champagne.

I suppose that while couples throughout the county may be weighing their options or deciding whether the license is really what they want, for us local UUs, the fact that they can decide for themselves is, in and of itself, a reason to party.

I'm really proud of my friends and my church today.

God, they don't even bother to code it...

Happy as I am to think loving squishy thoughts about the marriages at the County today, I didn't really want to get into this, but it KEEPS COMING UP, NO MATTER WHERE I GO ON THE INTERNET.

I thought the Obama nomination and subsequent campaign would mean coded racism from the right. Boy, was I wrong.

There's this little gemfrom today's Texas Republican Convention.

There was this lovely Fox chyron last week.

There was this fantastic comments thread, pulled to the light by Sadly, No!

All of which is almost - almost- laughable. When you read this stupid racist fuck stream, you kind of have to remember that THEY ARE LOSERS, AND THEY WILL LOSE.

But then I happened over to Orcinus today (and if you haven't lately, you should), and Dave actually kind of scared me. Not to mention turning my tears of happiness into tears of frustration. Because in this day and age, how can this be so pervasive?

Bradley T. Kahle, 60, of Troutville, was one of five people arrested in last weekend's sweep. He told undercover agents he hoped Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama would be killed if they were elected president, and that he would shoot judicial and law enforcement officials if he became terminally ill, according to an affidavit of probable cause made public Tuesday.

"Kahle said words to the effect of, that 'if Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, get elected, hopefully they will get assassinated, if not they will disarm the country and we will have a civil war,'" the affidavit stated.

The same man also told authorities he planned to visit Pittsburgh so he could get on top of a high rise and start shooting black people. And of course, the judge let him go on bail. Would I be crazy to suspect that if he were a Muslim talking about shooting white people from a high rise and hoping John McCain would get killed, no judge on earth would let him go?

Ok, just one freak. Deep breaths.

But wait:

The extremist right went into remission, largely, with the election of George W. Bush; militias disbanded because their followers believed the threat of an oppressive, gun-grabbing, baby-killing "New World Order" had largely passed. They bided their time by forming Minutemen brigades. Now they can see that their "safe" era is coming to an end.

All this time, there really has been hankering for an excuse to start acting out violently, and they see any Democratic presidency as providing that excuse. But an Obama presidency in particular will do so.

All of which makes rather ironic the fears expressed by the fellow who propped up that phony "Hillary Clinton Supporters For John McCain" page:

What good is a great economy if you have to worry about getting blown up by a car bomb every time you go to the Mall? You want another Baghdad here in the USA, not me! I want my grandkids to be free and that includes being free from the fear of being killed by a terrorist. If Obama is elected, you better hope he adopts Hillary Health Care plan, because you are going to need it with his idea of "Security" for this country.

Well, there is indeed a potential threat looming after this election in which terrorists will make ordinary people feel unsafe about going to places like malls -- just like they did in the 1990s.

But they won't be Arabs coming from Baghdad. They'll be little Timmy McVeighs from Buffalo.

Dave covers hate groups and home-grown terrorists regularly. He's really, really good at it, very well researched.

I truly believe that the vast majority of this country can see a leader with black skin, just as I know that California will not vote to amend the constitution and ban same-sex marriage.

But the freaks have their forums.

Those offensive stupidities that Sadly, No! has chronicled may only mean that I hope none of those people are my neighbors (because I would start screaming if they ever opened their mouths and let the sickness pour out). That's a level of frustration I can live with, believing as I do in the progress of our national conscience.

But there is, of course, the threat of real violence. Like the anthrax attacks (and the fake anthrax attacks), and worse.

shudder.

(and thanks to SN! for always making it funny)

Love

And hope, and fairness, and a step toward more perfect union...

The Star's embed code isn't working, but video from the VC Courthouse is here.

And that's my minister, by the way.

Happy happy happy.......

If not racism, then what?

I have been thinking for a couple of weeks about the "If we can't have Hillary, we will elect McCain" camp. And I have been thinking that if their issue with Obama isn't race, then I don't know what it is.

Now, I do know people who are disheartened by Obama's nomination victory. They really believed in Hillary, and they're not so sure about Obama. And they frankly aren't sure what they want to do on election day.

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about this guy and this woman.

Surely it's not about feminism. For one thing, I doubt the Texas good ole boy has been waiting and pleading with the gods for a woman POTUS his whole adult life. Sure, I'm making assumptions based on his gender and where he's from, but I'd say they're pretty safe assumptions.

Aside from that, though, there isn't any reason for a feminist to want McCain in the White House, unless they're hoping that he'll screw women over so badly that there'll be a decades long backlash against conservative patriarchy. And that would be a considerable longshot.

Policies not having to do with women? Ok, so maybe they really want a POTUS who casually tosses around the idea of bombing several million people into oblivion. They thought Hillary could do it, now she won't have the opposrtunity, and MCCain certainly loves to talk about fire power.

But for one to be exercised enough about jumping to McCain, for one to make a few waves and get some screaming into the collective consciousness, one is presumably paying attention to the politics, has some strong opinions on policy and the direction of the country. This type of person couldn't easily switch from the first serious female democratic nominee to John McCain over Barack Obama based on policy ideas, could they?

I'm doubting it.

It's race.

Fortunately, I don't belive that racism will win this time around.

Party all the time

As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you're a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won't be accepting your contribution.

This is an unprecedented move for a political party to make -- one that has sent shockwaves through Washington and has turned the debate on clean campaigns upside down. We've unilaterally agreed to shut lobbyists out of the process, and are we're relying on people just like you.

The last couple of election cycles, I've opted not to give money directly to the party, but to donate to specific candidates and causes. The major reason was that I didn't like the way the party always made what looked like top-down decisions.

Howard Dean has done a lot to change that. He ran a successful 50 state strategy two years ago, and this primary- long as it's been- has depended on voting, rather than coronation.

Dean and Obama are a good match, it seems to me. And I'm really pleased with this policy decision.

So this year, I'll donate to the DNC. I will also donate through John Cole's Act Blue page, because, as I've said before, I love Obama coffers growing through a Pajamas Media site.
Ballons-for-Obama here.

Suck on that, Terry Mcauliffe.

Is it me...

Or is the McCain team having some trouble editing their style sheet?


Gentlemen: Pick a color. And maybe not the same color that Obama's using. And maybe not anything that reminds folks of the green jello speech.

Hillary Clinton Supporters Count, Too!

But, unfortunately, they build really ugly websites.

Unless he proves me wrong

Tom Delay is a pedophile who keeps illegal immigrants chained in his basement, shining his shoes and painting his dentures with reflective white glaze.

Little Green Benchwarmers

Hey, Jon?

I noticed you have friends at LGF, and that you would like them to come over and point out my "severe BDS".

And I'm just extending an invite: you're welcome to comment here, too, you know.

Love,

Note

About the posts below:

No, I don't want to spend the next few months looking backward. Yes, I am thrilled at the feeling of opportunity and transformation that the presidential race is inspiring.

I'm all about celebrating, this week.

But unpunished crimes of this magnitude upset me. And being lied to by a guy whose salary I pay and who obviously holds our concrens, our fears, our morals, our opinions in total comtempt really pisses me off.

Fraud

Although phase 2 of the Senate Intel committee's report on the handling of pre-war intel is 5 years late, it is finally done. TPM provides links to download the entire report here.

A quick and not at all thorough glance tells me that (like Scott McMoonface's confession) there isn't much new stuff there. The fact that the Bush administration committed fraud on this country is easily documented by available public record statements and documents, and has been for years.

What is significant is that it came out of the senate, and that Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel approved it. Just as Scottie's book is significant because he's the first of the Texas loyalists to confirm pretty much everything every former administration member has said over the last 7 years.

I really think the only way to drive home the point that fucking Bush and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfie have killed tens of thousands of people because they WANTED TO, and not due to any actual threat against this country, would be full-on impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney, and fraud prosecutions for the others.

Not going to happen though.

From around the intertubes:

Balloon Juice:

“Shorter Phase II Intelligence Report- the dirty fucking hippies were right about everything.”

Think Progress notes that Bush's claim of credibility on this issue is somewhat undermined by the report:

Q: Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?

BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David.

To which Atrios responds:

Also undermines claim that he's not a sociopath who lied to bring the country into a war which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Just sayin'.

More memories

Lots of Katrina talk this week, including John McCain completely lying about supporting any review of what went wrong and why.
Over at Salon , more on what was going on in the White House while New Orleans drowned.

On Monday, August 29, 2005, at about 6:00 a.m., Hurricane Katrina slammed into the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. A category 5 hurricane until just before landfall, it was one of the worst storms ever to hit the Gulf Coast. Kathleen Blanco, the governor of Louisiana, had been briefed extensively about what to expect when the storm hit, which was why, on the Friday night before the storm reached the coast, she signed papers declaring Louisiana to be in a state of emergency.

Returning that week from camping in a ditch in Crawford, Texas, I watched the tragedy unfold on TV and wrote:

Let’s just take a moment to reflect: Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi were being slammed by a category five storm, with much loss of life anticipated. A couple hundred people were camped in ditches next to war memorials, begging for recognition of their pain.

The president was going golfing in AZ, and then on to San Diego to stay at Hotel del Coronado. Unlike, say, the Teri Schiavo craziness, which saw him zooming back from Crawford and signing “emergency” legislation in his pajamas, he was flying as far away from death and reminders of death as he could. And while the papers would cover his irrelevant speeches on Medicare or whatever, Camp Casey was mobilizing to address grief and pain once again.

I remember Buddy saying, when he first told us the news on Katrina, “People are going to die.” Maybe lawyers have better forecasting skills than fake cowboys? Is that why Bush didn’t seem to get it?

Remember

In the comments, darth someone asks if I remember 9/11/01.

Yes, Mr. Vader, I do.

And that day struck me so deeply that I began to research and gather information from all available sources, and so I am quite confident in my assessment that the Bush admin are a bunch of war criminals and that William Kristol is an asshole.

That is all.