Spread the word

If you don't have good ideas, then try your best to piss people off. Instead of trying to wow the voters with positive rhetoric, the Republicans have resorted to some nasty tricks. They are using robo-calls to continually harass undecided voters under the assumption that the Democratic party is making these calls. Here is an example of how they work:

Apparently the call starts with something along the lines of "Diane Farrell has some information for you," then pauses, waiting for annoyed people to hang up, and then delivers a negative message about Farrell. The canvassers say the call has hit some people as much as 6 times, and at 5 - 6am as well. Presumably, the intent is to annoy people and stick Farrell with the negative name ID as somebody who keeps robo-calling them.

Also from the post:

What we're seeing is an apparent coordinated effort from the NRCC -- the House GOP committee -- to place calls that appear to be from the local Democratic candidate and then automatically call the same number back as many as seven or eight times each time the caller hang-ups. If the caller listens to the whole message it goes on to bash the Democratic candidate. But if the caller hangs up prematurely, the computer calls right back. Hang-ups are the achilles heal of robo-calls. So this seems to be an attempt to cover for that weakness by making those who hang up think the Democratic candidate is basically harassing them with phone calls. The GOP wins either way.

The Republicans are doing this all over the country, all in races that are too close to call. It makes you wonder how far they will go to destroy all that we hold dear. It is beyond trying to win elections, it is about subverting the democratic process. Our only hope in stopping this kind of trash is to make sure the press hears about it and gets the word out.

Crickets...

Just in case you were wondering...

Patriotic Americans Won't Vote for Democrats

Patriotic Americans will not vote for the Democrat Party. They will come out in droves and vote for the party that supports the troops. Because of their sacrifice, America is safer. They are performing a noble and exemplary job in Iraq and Afghanistan. God bless America, our awesome troops, and President G. W. Bush, an honorable man who will not abandon Iraq and the Iraqi people.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up...

From the Huffington Post...

Colorado Springs' New Life Church just announced that it has fired Pastor Ted Haggard for his "sexually immoral conduct." The much publicized meth and gay hooker scandal has elicited a little bit of soul searching and a lot hemming and hawing from Haggard's fellow Evangelical leaders, but perhaps the most ridiculous response came yesterday from Pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle's Mars Hills mega-church-wannabe.

Writing in his personal blog, Driscoll offers his fellow pastors "some practical suggestions" on how to avoid the type of temptation that consumed Pastor Haggard. And near the top of his list?

"Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either."

Uh-huh. Leave it to a fundamentalist Evangelical preacher to have such a profound understanding of human sexuality. Or as the inimitable sex columnist Dan Savage so aptly put it:

"I'm sure Ted Haggard is saying something along these lines to his wife right now: 'Oh, honey... I wouldn't have been having those meth-fueled ass-banging sessions with that gay hooker if you hadn't have let yourself go like that!' "

I'm a sap

Every time I see this video, I think it would be a lot of fun to be hanging out on Disco's porch drinking a Black Butte Porter and just chat...

I love Philly, but nothing beats the west coast.

Haggard confesses....

[T]he board of overseers has met with Pastor Ted. It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true. He has willingly and humbly submitted to the authority of the board of overseers, and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation.

Some might read this and think "this is not news, this is fluff." To which I say, "no way." I read this with extreme satisfaction. I have a seething rage for all these holier-than-thou religious conservatives who gay-bash. These people, like Dobson, make me want to puke. I have so much satisfaction in seeing them exposed for what they are, morally corrupt. Not for being gay, but for being so anti-gay. This is one of the biggest religious leaders in the country, featured in an earlier blog [here and here] as having direct access to the white house on a weekly basis. He has been spearheading an anti-gay amendment in Colorado. He has called homosexuality immoral and something that "excludes one from the Kingdom of God." Reaction Formation anyone?

Richard Dawkins Questions Evangelical Pastor

Interesting video of Ted Haggard.

Would have been nice to hear this 3.5 years ago

The press pisses me off, a lot.

While in some sense I appreciate their honesty in this article. It is the type of thing that they should have brought to our attention when it happened. Take this little nugget:

Anne Garrels
NPR

People were shocked that the U.S. did nothing, and they will forever remember that virtually the only building — it wasn’t the only building but one of the few buildings — that was protected was the oil ministry; that just summed up to so many Iraqis why the U.S. was there, and confirmed their worst fears. And it also played to the utter naïveté of the Americans, because it wasn’t just Iraqis letting off steam, as Rumsfeld said. It was Baathists going around destroying documents — making Iraq ungovernable: destroying drivers’ license records, all of the things that make a city able to be governed. And it was the beginning of the insurgency.

Years from now when we retell the history of this era, the media will ask about the failings of the government and the military. However, they will never bring up how they were perfectly complicit in all of this and are, perhaps, the party most responsible for this mess.

Sanctimonious BS

By all mainstream media accounts, John Kerry is the worst person to ever live. Why? Because he 'botched a joke' about George W. Bush. His comments were intended to point out that Bush's horrible actions have led to the needless deaths of thousands. Instead the right wing machine and their gimp's in the regular media jumped all over the fact that it seemed like he was insulting the troops.

Yet when the President unapologetically joked about sending thousands of young men and women to needlessly die? That's comic gold:



These people are sick S.O.B's and need to be thrown out of office.

Balanced Reporting

This article presents both the A and not A as true. I think this is what counts for balance now.

The banner on the front page of MSNBC: MAKING GAINS: Poll shows Bush, GOP closing gap with Dems

The article? Well...not so much:

As the race for Congress enters the homestretch, the Republicans find themselves limping to the finish line, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. President Bush’s approval rating continues a slow but steady climb—from an all-time NEWSWEEK-poll low of 33 percent three weeks ago to 37 percent today. But it may be too little, too late: if the midterm elections were held today, 53 percent of those likely to go to the polls would vote for the Democratic candidate in their Congressional district versus just 39 percent who would vote for the Republican.

Oy.

We Care About You

We at Discomo truly care about you, our religious conservative readers. Hell, I mean Heck, it's been a rough time. Here you thought that you could vote for a Republican administration that was inherently good because Bush prays like you pray. I mean sure, to date he has sent almost 50,000 civilians in Iraq to their death. Sure, he cut programs to help the poor, supports the death penalty, and actually doesn't take you seriously [here and here]. It's all ok, he's against abortion. Then, your Grand Old Party gets found protecting pedophiles.

Well buck up, you bible-belters! There's a cool new game for you, Left Behind: Eternal Forces. Now you don't even have to leave your couch to proselytize!

1) Start Spreading the News In addition to points for standard attributes like Health, Strength, and Attack Speed, each avatar accumulates Spirit points, which help players convert the heathens. Pray regularly for more Spirit points – if one of your teammates runs low, they're susceptible to sinful temptations.

2) Shout at the Devil It's bad enough that the Antichrist commands a UN-like international army – he also has devil-worshipping heavy metal on his side. Get too close to satanic rock stars and the game warns, "Beware of musicians! They may play their screaming guitars to influence you to their side."

3) Surrender to Jesus According to the book series this game is based on, all this maneuvering by mere mortals is ultimately moot anyway, for the Lord returns to Earth, vanquishes his foes, and takes the faithful to heaven. Sorry, Lucifer, no power-up can help you defeat this final boss!

Prediction

I have determined to put my money where my mouth is by offering a prediction for the upcoming elections. I believe the following will occur:

• The Democrats will take the House of Representatives by five seats.
  
• The Democrats will not take the Senate, but will be within one.
  
• We will pick up Senate seats in PA, MT, OH and RI.
  
• We will maintain all Senate seats currently held by Dems
  
• We will lose in TN and VA.
• Howard Dean will not get any credit for our successes.

This last prediction is particularly irksome, if there is one person who is responsible for the change in the Democratic party it is the good doctor. He has employed a brilliant strategy in going back to the local level, as more districts were in play than ever before. This strategy will continue to play huge dividends in the coming years.

Why won't he get the credit he deserves? Because he went outside the Beltway. To the mob of political insiders, the idea of actually building a base at the community level is like putting ketchup on Cheerios. In their view, the way to build political movements is to meekly put your points across on the Sunday talk shows.

Underrated

I have meant to post this for a while, but have never gotten around to it. So here it is...

Philly is a pretty terrific place and you would probably have to be a freedom hater to not visit.

More proof

In my last post I talked about having class. Interestingly enough, the Republicans go on to show that they lack any sense of decency. What a bunch of losers.

A lesson to learn

When I was in high school, my favorite coach told our soccer team that no matter what you do, you always play with class. There is a lesson here for the Republican Party, as they are running racist and sexist ads in Tennessee



The Dems response? Here is Senate Candidate Harold Ford Jr.



Which one do you think is playing with class?

Sometimes listening to the President is like drinking sulfuric acid

On ABC's This Week yesterday morning, George Bush gave this response to a question by George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”

BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job, and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics. Constantly.

You know, it wouldn't be all that hard to expose this lie. All you would need is some visual evidence that the President used that exact terminology. Where could you find such evidence? Oh, I don't know...maybe here?



Perhaps the folks who put this movie together could work for CBS or the AP, as they obviously need someone who can check the public record.

Heaven Help Us

From AmericaBlog, this is a link to a BBC documentary that is following a US Army unit in Iraq. It is absolutely horrifying to watch, as it lays out in no uncertain terms that we are, unfortunately, doomed to fail.

Why?

As you can see in the video, the US Army has an impossible task. They are supposed to a) protect themselves from harm and b) encourage the Iraqis to 'stand up'. When they attempt a) they almost certainly fail at b) & when they try b) they put their own lives at risk, thus negating a). You also cannot blame the Iraqis for this, they are just doing what they can to stay alive. In a perfect world, they would be able to work with the Americans without worry. Instead, they live in communities with people who are determined to harm them if they cooperate with the US.

In watching this video, I can't help but seethe with anger. Four years ago, the airwaves and newspapers were saturated with 'serious' thinkers who saw our involvement in Iraq as a realistic and rational foreign policy. Anyone who deviated from the accepted hawkish view on Iraq was seen as an unhinged moonbat. Anyone who asked what the long term plan was going to be was labeled an alarmist. Yet, time after time we were proven right and it is not fun to be right about such matters.

Bush is drinking again! (Late Late Show)

Don't step to Jeff Tweedy

So, basically the best songwriter in the country had a fan come up and try to hug him when they were playing a show in Springfield, MO. Here are a few rules on how to deal with the band:

Rule One, don't mess with Wilco, cuz they will provide the beat down-



Rule Two, don't mess with Wilco, cuz if you do, Jeff Tweedy will get really sad-



Hat tip to the most Irish person on the planet.

A comparison in political strategy

There is a good reason why the Republicans need to be removed from power in November, here is a small sample of the types of campaigns they are running:

• In Massachusetts, they have accused Deval Patrick of being a criminal (which has been compared to the Lee Atwater inspired Willie Horton ad in 1988).
• In North Carolina, they have accused the Democratic incumbent of supporting the idea of having teenage girls view pornography.
• In Ohio, the Republican candidate for Governor has tried to insinuate that his opponent is linked to sexual predators.

Meanwhile, on the side of the Democrats, they have taken to calling for the Common Good, which has been a long time coming.

Please go vote on November 7th, we need to put the Repubs out of office.

It is time to get the message out

According to more than a few news reports, the Dems are looking ready for a November landslide. Yet, one of the elements of the campaign that has been missing is the "so what". If the Democrats come into power, how is that going to change the way the country is run? Unfortunately, the Dems have run on the platform that they are not the Republicans, and while that notion may garner some initial attention, it does not get people out to the polls.

Well, this article from the Washington Post offers some terrific insights into what the first few months of Democratic rule would mean:

In the House, the Democrats have made clear that there's a first tier of legislation they mean to bring to a vote almost immediately after the new Congress convenes. It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

This is exactly the message that needs to come out. The Dems have great ideas and on the vast majority of issues the American people are in agreement with them (contrary to what the press would like to report). Also, there is another nugget in the article about how the Dems will try and return order to Congress:

Cognizant that they will owe their victory in part to the public's revulsion at the way Congress does (or avoids) business, the Democrats also plan to revise House rules to enable the opposition party to introduce amendments and to sit on conference committees, from which Republicans have routinely excluded them since Tom DeLay became majority leader. They also will ban members from accepting gifts and paid trips from lobbyists.

I think this is one of the problems with Republican rule that has gotten lost in the fog of political war, most people are unaware that Tom Delay completely changed the rules governing Congress. After taking power they stripped the minority party of, virtually, all protections; thus, creating a political system that is far different then what the Founding Fathers envisioned. And while turnabout could be considered fair play, it is more important for our country to have healthy democratic institutions.

Olbermann Pt. 2: Bush Ridicules His Faith-Based Base

Bush Insider Speaks Out On How Republicans Use Evangelicals

Olbermann reviews the interesting manipulations of Christian Evangelicals in the Bush White House.

Something neat

As some of you may know, my academic focus is on the different ways advertising and marketing impact both the individual and society. One avenue I am interested in is how marketing relies on showing us the 'unreal' while, simultaneaously, convincing the audience that they are seeing real life. In that same vein, Dove has started on the 'Campaign for Real Beauty' which uses average people to sell their products and for a number of reasons (which I will not enumerate here) fascinates me.

For instance, check out this video they put together of a model going from regular everyday person to billboard material. I think it is one of the best ads I have ever seen.

hmmmm....that's weird

A couple of days ago I posted this, in regards to Condi Rice's visit to Fox News Sunday. Well, it turns out that Fox was sent 20,000 e-mails asking Chris Wallace to follow up about the USS Cole and, wouldn't you know it, he didn't ask.

If you can't trust the journalists at Faux News to ask the hard hitting questions who can you trust?

Republicans Blame "Democratic Operatives"

Ocum’s razor? How 'bout Norquist's Bathtub?

News today in the Washington Post that Grover Norquist pandered to lobbyists like Jack Abramoff to affect lawmakers. Wow, these Republican "operatives" are really driven by values. Norquist is known for saying "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."For what purpose, better for the people? No, just better to his special interest groups. I love that smug Jonah Goldberg, who recently said in an article that liberals are different from social conservatives because...

What liberals don't understand is that social conservatives actually believe their moral rhetoric, even when it's politically inconvenient.

No matter how much evidence stacks against their leaders and the conservative "movement," they still play upon the Christians-as-victims self-rightous party line. Have fun in the minority.

Sweet sweet Condi is on Fox

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is going to be on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. As has been revealed since the infamous Clinton appearance, Chris Wallace has neither been fair nor balanced with his questioning.

Here is a chance to hold his feet to the fire, e-mail Mr. Wallace and request that he ask those tough questions to Secretary Rice.

Broken record

I have brought this up before, but if you are not watching Keith Olbermann there is something wrong with you. He is usually pretty funny, remarkably poignant at times and almost always dead-on. Case in point (from Crooks and Liars).

Tell your friends to watch.

Party like it's 2003!

I caught this on MSNBC today, as I am a huge Streisand fan. The headline kills me:

Streisand’s outburst spoils triumphant return

Singer shouts expletive at heckler during anti-Bush skit during NYC show

I don't think fans of Streisand were all that dissappointed or shocked to discover that she is not a fan of President Bush. First, only if you lived under a rock would you be surprised to know that Streisand is an outspoken Democrat. Second, it is 2006 and the President is about as popular as genital warts, this isn't another case of Dixie Chickitis circa 2003. I am sure the vast majority of people loved what she had to say.

The problem here is that there is a large contingency of the press that believes President Bush is popular. Contrary to any and all evidence, they think it is a mainstream belief to love this guy and it is probably the chief reason why his approval rating isn't lower (in the teens).

Oh yeah, Bush was on the case

I would have more confidence in Bush finding the Pink Panther than dealing with just about anything else.

I am posting the following in full, I found it on Rox Populi (she got it from Bob Woodward's new book), just remember it when the Bush administration tries to scare the bejesus out of you in hopes of getting you to vote for the GOP (the President's dialogue is in bold):

George W. pulled Bandar aside.
"Bandar, I guess you're the best asshole who knows about the world. Explain to me one thing."
"Governor, what is it?"
"Why should I care about North Korea?"
Bandar said he didn't really know. It was one of the few countries that he did not work on for King Fahd.
"I get these briefings on all parts of the world," Bush said, "and everybody is talking to me about North Korea."
"I'll tell you what, Governor," Bandar said. "One reason should make you care about North Korea."
"All right, smart alek," Bush said, "tell me."
"The 38,000 American troops right on the border." ..."If nothing else counts, this counts. One shot across the border and you lose half these people immediately. You lose 15,000 Americans in a chemical or biological or even regular attack. The United State of America is at war instantly."
"Hmmm," Bush said. "I wish those assholes would put things just point-blank to me. I get half a book telling me about the history of North Korea."
"Now I tell you another answer to that. You don't want to care about North Korea anymore?" Bandar asked. The Saudis wanted America to focus on the Middle East and not get drawn into a conflict in East Asia.
"I didn't say that," Bush replied.
"But if you don't, you withdrawl those troops back. Then it becomes a local conflict. Then you have the whole time to decide, 'Should I get involved? Not involved?' Etc."
At that moment, Colin Powell approached.
"Colin," Bush said, "come here. Bandar and I were shooting the bull, just two fighter pilots shooting the bull." He didn't mention the topic.
"Mr. Governor," Bandar said, "General Powell is almost a fighter pilot. He can shoot the bull almost as good as us."

Words fail me.

Very good news

Typically, it would be hard to get excited about this as it doesn't mention specific candidates. However, things are looking very good for the Dems in November. From the USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Four weeks before congressional elections, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows Democrats hold a 23-point lead over GOP candidates. That's double the lead Republicans had a month before they seized control of Congress in 1994.

President Bush's approval rating was 37%, down from 44% in a Sept. 15-17 poll. The approval rating for Congress was 24%, down 5 points from last month.

I am a bit more optimistic about this because with only a month to go, the Dems are going to start pulling money out of campaigns they can easily win (e.g. NY-Sen, PA-Gov, MN-Sen) and putting into races that are very close (e.g. MO-Sen, VA-Sen, TN-Sen) or leaning Republican (e.g. NV-Sen, AZ- Sen, MI-Gov). Republicans, on the other hand, will not be able to shift as many resources, as the Dems will now be more competitive in seats that were originally thought to be safe.

And, it seems, the Republicans share the same assessment. From the Washington Post, they are expecting to lose as many as 30 seats:

Republican campaign officials said yesterday that they expect to lose at least seven House seats and as many as 30 in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, as a result of sustained violence in Iraq and the page scandal involving former GOP representative Mark Foley.

Keep your fingers crossed...

Oh yeah...what the hell is this? From the same article:

At the same time, the White House plans to amplify national security issues, especially the threat of terrorism, after North Korea's reported nuclear test, in hopes of shifting the debate away from casualties and controversy during the final month of the campaign. These efforts are aimed largely at prodding disaffected conservatives to vote for GOP candidates despite their unease.

You have got to be kidding me, the President is fully responsible for the mess in Korea and he is going to use that as a reason to vote for Republicans and his agenda? Say what you want about the guy, he's got some big brass b...well, you get the picture.

This has to be the Democrats fault

News from North Korea tonight is that they have tested their first nuclear device. It may take a couple of days to know for certain, but all signs indicate that it is for real.

This is a direct consequence of Bush's horribly failed foreign policy, every step he has taken on North Korea has been wrong. From refusing to engage with them, to his cowboy posturing, and to invading Iraq, each decision he has made has pushed North Korea to this point. I just hope that the damage being done is reversible and the boot-licking Republicans and press stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, I think we will get more of the same. The Cult of Bush will declare that now, more than ever, we need to listen to the President and the press will write stories about how this story is good for the administration.

These people live in a world where complex problems can be solved with simple solutions. They believe that if the President acts tough enough, any and all problems can be solved. What sucks for the rest of us, is that the world doesn't work that way. Complex problems require complex solutions that are not always pretty. For all of our sake, we need some leadership that understands that.

UPDATE: A special prize goes to the fine folks at MSNBC for being the first to write about how this fiasco is good for the Bush administration. If they just read Josh Marshall, maybe they would understand why it is not good for anyone.

Hastert Did Not Apologize

Mainstream media continues to insist that Dennie Hastert apologized for the Foley/Page scandal, taking "full responsility." Yes, except that part where he said "I haven't done anything wrong" in the same interview. Damn "liberal media." Now, the paradigm or virtue, Focus on the Family uber-priest James Dobson suggests that the page scandal is an overblown prank by the pages, that they weren't actually victims. WWJD? I doubt blame the children, you jerk. I guess Jesus has other things to occupy his time, as seen in a guide from Dobson's Focus on the Family, on how to discuss the election in the church:

If a congregant says her top concerns are healthcare and national security, suggest that Jesus would make abortion and gay marriage priorities.

Ad nauseam

Wonderful photographer, Paul Fusco, has been working on his photojournalism project, A Bitter Fruit. Here, he documents what we are not "supposed to see," the tragedy as it comes home in coffins and broken families.

A War without casualties? A war where only the evil get hurt? As much as we would like to believe this, such an idea does not exist. War produces casualties and destroys lives. Since the beginning of the Iraqi war the government has consistently tried to divert media attention both visually and factually. An obvious example of that effort was closing Dover Air Force Base to the press so we cannot see rows of flag-draped coffins ready to be shipped to grieving families.

As increasing numbers of families grieve in the small towns of America, Paul Fusco shows us the bitter truth associated with the intolerable loss and pain from this war.

More here and here.



Why aren't we allowed to see our soldiers coming home, "President" Bush, Sec. Rumsfeld?

The Real Mark Foley

I think this guy has gotten a lot of bad press over a little misunderstanding. Here is the transcript:

Maf54 (7:37:27 PM): how my favorite young stud doing
Editorz (7:37:52 PM): he’s ok
Editorz (7:38:32 PM): just gave him some oats
Maf54 (7:39:32 PM): tahts good
Editorz (7:39:37 PM): thanks for letting me take care of your pony, btw
Editorz (7:39:44 PM): my apartment is small but he seem happy here
Maf54 (7:40:32 PM): you need a massage
Editorz (7:41:32 PM): I’m going to ride him around the kitchen again
Maf54 (7:42:27 PM): love to watch that
Maf54 (7:42:33 PM): those great legs running
Editorz (7:42:52 PM): The kitchen’s kinda asmall
Editorz (7:43:20 PM): cant really do much more then a slow trot

You can read the whole transcript here at The Poor Man Institute, while you are there you can watch Ann 'Respected Vietnam Historian' Coulter and Michelle 'racism is my day job, smearing war heroes is more of a hobby' Malkin get it handed to them. All three links are great time wasters.

Good idea

From an article in The Hill, Congressional Democrats are going to block pay raises for themselves until the minimum wage is increased.

Democrats are renewing their vow to impede the annual congressional pay raise until the minimum wage is increased, but their options for a successful block during the lame-duck session likely depend on the outcome of the Nov. 7 midterm election.

This is the kind of think Democrats need to do more of, and it is amazing that it hasn't come up before. One of the ways for the party to gain traction with voters is to get the message out that they are part of the population, rather than a convenient proxy.

Who are we now?

I got this photo from AmericaBlog, and it is a fitting display of what the torture debate is about. Currently, I am suffering from bit of dissonance over all of this. I grew up with the notion that this country is noble, and while I have come to realize how that view is extremely naive, there is still part of me that wants that to believe it. I worry that when they record the history of our nation, this will be the point when it all fell apart, it is this point that we have stopped being a beacon.

Something interesting

I have written about how the Bush Administration has been able to evade responsibility for 9/11 (here) . This piece by Keith Olbermann does a good job of presenting some of the evidence, check it out.

Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

File this under the "Wow, that's really shocking" category. Get this, Iraq is causing more terrorism, not causing less. Next they'll say that standing in the sun will give you a sunburn.

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded. -Washington Post

Me of little faith

I would really like to believe that the Dems are going to take Congress this fall. However, I don't think that is going to happen. Why? The Democrats don't know shit about controlling the message. For the left in this country, the message is an annoyance. It gets in the way of truth. What they don't realize is that the message is truth.

The left would like to believe that offering a reasonable alternative is the answer. Their image of the voter, is the thoughtful person sitting by their window thinking deeply about the issues until they get it right.

Quite simply, it has never worked that way. The voter attaches themselves to archetypes and votes with the image. Karl Rove has used this truism to win three straight elections and the Dems are overmatched.

Case in point, the Republicans are selling this image of the President while the Democrats are left stammering. Instead, the Dems should have latched onto the criticisms of the right and exposed it to all Americans. Unfortunately, that is not happening. As such, I am eagerly awaiting the opportunity to own my wife's uterus.

Stupid facts always get in the way of good journalism

Sweet fancy Moses. You would think it would be pretty damn easy for the AP to add context to the President Clinton/Chris Wallace interview. Unfortunately, that would be called journalism and it isn't the press' job to get at the truth.

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"

Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?'"

"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.

You would think that a careful reporter would take the statement Clinton made:

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?

And say, "Hey, I wonder if that statement is true?" It is certainly verifiable, just go to your trusted Lexis Nexis (or whatever handy database you have available) and find out whether Chris Wallace & Company have ever asked that question.

And what to you know? That has already been done by the wonderful folks at Think Progress (here, here, & here) they found that, in fact, NO ONE on Fox News Sunday has asked those questions of administration officials. So, instead of being a chance to empirically show that Fox News is not "Fair & Balanced" the story that the AP is selling is that President Clinton is unhinged.

What can we do? Email the AP and let them know we aren't going to let them get away with shoddy reporting- info@ap.org

It is about damn time

To those of you with a television, I am going to recommend you do something you have, hopefully, never done before. Turn on Fox News and watch Chris Wallace's interview of President Clinton. If you would rather not watch, you can get the transcript from Think Progress. Here is a little taste:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him (Osama Bin Laden).

WALLACE: Right…

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn't… I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX'’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know.

This is EXACTLY what all good liberals and progressives should do when they go on Fox News. Call them on their bullshit out in the open and mock them. By being nice and polite we give this horrorshow of a 'news' network the appearance that it is a respected news source (I am looking at you Joe Lieberman). From personal experience, as this fine nation's Smart Ass Laureate, I can vouch for the power of mocking, there is no way you can effectively respond to someone that is mocking you. As an example, have you ever seen Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart taken off of their game when they are messing with someone? Never.

For too long, we have had Nice Sensible Democrats go on Fox News and this has made us look like a bunch of paste eating retards, it is about time a Real Democrat has gone to that journalistic wasteland and dished it out. I think this dynamic can be explained in one line from the best action movie ever made that featured only puppets.

UPDATE: Is Chris Wallace even-handed? Check out the evidence- here, here, here and here.

Win a dream date with Bill O'Reilly

One of the things you learn when you study advertising and its effect on society is that you need to sell things with some zazz. And, I think the title to this post does so nicely. In a few short hours, the page views on this site will reach the millions.

But I digress...

You would think that Bill would have disappeared after the phone sex thing came out. Not for the fact that he had phone sex, but that he was so very, very bad at it:

So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind... and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'd put it on your p***y but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business.

I mean come on, the man has the sexual charisma of a high school gym teacher. Nevertheless, like most conservatives he can do or say anything and remain in the public spotlight. Yet this week, he showed just how crazy he is. He falsely claimed on ABC that he was on an Al Qaeda hit-list:

"With the controversy comes death threats on a daily basis," O'Reilly said. "Not only from kooks. But the FBI came in and warned me and a few other people at Fox News that al Qaeda had us on a death list. ... That's a little disconcerting."

WOW. Bill O'Reilly is so nuts, that it would be an absolute joy to meet him. Not because I think I would like him, just because I could see if my following impressions of him are true:

1. I bet he wears and ungodly amount of cologne, and not anything good. Probably Drakkar Noir
2. I can guarantee he loves "REO Speedwagon"
3. The man owns every Hustler magazine ever made and loves to show off his collection
   
4. He would tell an endless number of stories about how he kicked Scott Baio's ass
5. The man has horrible gas and blames it on everyone else
6. I don't know how to find this out, but I think all of his underwear is tight and feline in nature.
   

A House Divided? The Psychology of Red and Blue America

From the American Psychologist [Conor & Newman]...

Recently it has become commonplace in America for commentators and the public to use the terms "red" and "blue" to refer to perceived cultural differences in America and American politics. Although a political divide may exist in America today, these particular terms are inaccurate and reductive. This article presents research from social psychology demonstrating that the increased use of these terms is likely to increase the conflict between political groups in America by making political conflict salient in nonpolitical contexts, reducing the ability of Americans to form multifaceted complex identities, pushing Americans to misperceive political in-groups and out-groups, and contributing to a "spiral of silence." An alternative model for discussing cultural differences is proposed.

Roosevelt for President

I thought this was an apt quote....

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Procrastinating

I am supposed to be working- but motivation is in short supply (normally, I would be totally game to conduct a test of heterogeneity for a meta-analysis). Here is some unadulterated randomness:

• I came across this article and at first I had no idea they were talking about. Pretty goddamn refreshing.
  
• Disco- I'll miss Petey (even if he did bite me)
• Who is CBS News' Senior Irony Correspondent?
• Does anyone know whatever happened to Pork Rinds? Salty, crunchy and delicious.
  
• There are two types of people in this world, those that like seeing a squirrel on water skis and those that like pretending that squirrels can take pictures. Pick a side people. I know which side I am on. (via Movering)
• Give money to a great cause, probably one of the ballsiest (sp?) ways to raise money for a friend.
  

A night at the theater, Mars and other things

We saw a really interesting show last night as part of the Philly Fringe Festival. It was an adaptation of David Rees' great comic strip Get Your War On. If you get the opportunity to see it, I would highly recommend it. While not exactly a play, the show catalogs all the failures of the Bush administration over the last 6 years by using a system of overhead projectors, musical interludes and profanity laced tirades.

One of the themes that was continually covered in the show, was something that has completely escaped my memory. Does anyone else remember that this President suggested we spend a lot of money and go to Mars? Of all the mixed up crap that this President has done/proposed, I think this 'plan' best typifies the absolute vacuousness of the last 6 years.

In other news...what the hell is wrong with David Broder? In an online chat, he intimates that President Clinton should have resigned because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal BUT President Bush (or any other administration figure) shouldn't because of the overhyped invasion of Iraq. So, according to the Dean of Washington Pundits. Lying about some semen on a blue dress? A crime against the constitution. Lying to the American people about a military threat? Eh, not so bad. SHEESH

Incompetence makes my brain hurt

In scanning the news today, I happened upon two items which leave one to assume that the Bush administration is beyond stupid. Stupid to the point that we may need to come up with a new word to adequately capture just how inept they are.

First there is this from the Washington Post:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What they needed to be was a member of the Republican Party.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Then there is this from Talking Points Memo:

Some officials at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department said they're concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles, including a discredited arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, who played a role in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.

One of the common threads running through the news when Bush was first "elected" was that the adults were back in charge. Now, I am not exactly sure what they mean by adults, but if they mean short-sighted ignorant corrupt craven political opportunists then indeed the adults are in charge.

For the love of disc

Great disc = Great school

Here's a new spin on university rankings: Apparently, the best schools are the ones with champion ultimate-frisbee teams.

That's because the quality of a school's ultimate-frisbee team may be an accurate predictor of its academic success, according to a report released this month by University of Washington psychiatrist Michael Norden.

How much is a picture worth?

In this case...

Probably more than a thousand words

Trying to Remember

I was wondering what I was going to say today and I kept coming to post and decided against it. I guess I really just want to remember what this day means. I have no trouble remembering just what exactly transpired that day 5 years ago (I remember seeing the buildings smoke, calling my family, wondering what was coming next) but as far as what it means I am beyond confused.

I have spent most of my day angry. I am angry becuase when I watch the coverage or read about it, all I encounter is the President. For whatever godforsaken reason, he has taken today to remind us he is President and that the War in Iraq is worth it. I am angry because he has taken a day that is ours and made it his. It is supposed to be a day of solemn rememberance, instead we get a campaign. I thought the memories of those that died were sacred, apparently I was wrong.

I shouldn't be surprised. On the one year anniversary of the attacks I broke down and cried. The reason was that the President was using the memories of those that died as a justification for a war in Iraq. This administration has done more to abuse the memory of so many innocent people, that I wonder just how much farther they can go.

UPDATE: after writing this I saw another one of Keith Olbermann's commentaries, he perfectly captures what I am thinking. Please watch.

Now it is official...

From the Washington Monthly, we find out that the Bush administration was not planning to stay in Iraq for long. In fact, Rumsfeld had given an order that there was to be NO mention of post-war planning in Iraq. As it stands now, the three reasons for the US going to war in Iraq have been revealed to be fraudulent. Here is the list:

Weapons of Mass Destruction (see below)
Iraq and Al Qaeda or al-Zarqawi
Spreading Democracy throughout the Middle East

Don't believe me? Bush says it here in his press conference from last month:

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

To be honest with you, I don't think such deception merits impeachment. It is not like dragging us into a catastrophic situation in the Middle East at the enormous cost to taxpayers is that serious, I mean it's not as if he lied about receiving sexual favors from an intern...

September is Presidential Failure Month

I have been reading the news regarding Katrina, 9/11, Iraq, the Housing Market & the US Economy and one of the things that I have noticed in the coverage is the way that the Bush Administration has evaded all responsibility. Maybe it is just me, but it seems that we as a nation have forgotten just how badly this administration has done. I would guess that the reason for this is the way the media has played this out.

Bush was lauded as a true hero following the attacks of 9/11, yet if anyone were to simply look at the historical record there is abundant evidence that his administration was asleep at the wheel.

For example:
Condi Rice explaining the Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001
Testimony regarding John Ashcroft's lack of interest in al-Qaeda
The infamous 'My Pet Goat' episode on 9/11

Forget the obfuscation from the Bush apologists, the failure for this incident rests on the shoulders of the administration. And, 4 years later we saw the destruction of a major American city. As much of a failure as 9/11 was, Katrina made that look quaint. Watching the events unfold over the internet, I was shocked that nothing was being done; and once again this was brought about through horrific negligence. Think Progress has a timeline of events and what strikes you upon reading it, is how those entrusted to protect us left the city to die and this negligence continues through today. While officials had informed President Bush that something had to be done, he acted as if he could not be bothered.

It is my hope that someday the historical record will reflect reality, that the talking heads from Fox News will be muted and the people of this country will ignore the spin. But I am not going to hold my breath.

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama

from ThinkProgress.org...

On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action...

Iraqi Tribal Leaders Say Release Saddam

I caught this article in The Seattle Times from today, although it is from the Washington Post. They don't waste any time getting to the scary stuff.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A coalition of 300 Iraqi tribal leaders on Saturday demanded the release of Saddam Hussein so he could reclaim the presidency and also called for armed resistance against U.S.-led coalition forces.

The clan chieftains, who were mostly Sunni Arabs and included the head of the 1.5 million-member al-Obeidi tribe, said they planned to hold rallies in Sunni cities throughout the country to insist that Saddam be freed and that the charges against him and his co-defendants be dropped.

I have wondered if this would ever come to pass, that a push would be made by the Iraqi people to have Saddam return. It reminds me of a story a friend of mine told me about his travels in Chile, when he was speaking to an older woman about the reign of Pinochet. When he asked her how she liked the regime, she responded that he was a monster but at least the trains ran on time. I think we are seeing the same thing here; as horrible as Saddam was, at least the Iraqi people had some type of consistency.

Another detail in the article is that is worth noting is that the cheiftans are "mostly" Sunni. I would expect a lot of support from Sunni leaders, but the fact that there is are non-Sunnis calling for Saddam's return does not bode well.

GOP nationalizing the 2006 election: another take

There is a diary posted at Daily Kos which talks about the likelihood of the GOP nationalizing the election around Rep. Pelosi, and although I believe the author is correct to assume that the GOP is doing its best to have a national theme. I do not believe that they are focusing on Rep. Pelosi.

In just a quick walk through the news one can find what the theme for the GOP elections is going to be "Fascism" (here, here, here and here). And while this seems patently foolish on its face, I fear that if the left does not devise a way to fight against their attempt to set the national agenda the midterm elections will be in jeopardy.

Even with Keith Olbermann's complete thrashing of Donald Rumsfeld last night, we have got to be more aggressive in beating back the idea that fighting terrorism = fighting fascism. If you do a simple Google search of the news, you will find six references to Olbermann and Fascism. Which shows you that as great as his commentary was, it didn't get to the folks that need to hear it the most.

Right now, the GOP is doing its best to engrain in the heads of every voter that GOP = fighting the terrorists = stay the course in Iraq = fighting fascists. They are doing this because they know a.) it will rile up their base b.) it will attract independent voters. As has been noted here before, independent voters do not look for elaborate arguments or issues to justify their votes. Instead, they respond to themes in the election. Whether or not fighting the war in Iraq is actually the same as fighting fascism is of no practical consequence, they are focused on the THEME. The GOP theme for 2006 will be "George Bush and the GOP fights fascism" and the choice for the undecided voter will be "do I support fascism?" The GOP/Karl Rove has done this in each of the last three major elections in 2000 it was "compassionate conservatism", in 2002 it was "terrorism" and in 2004 it was "values". There were no issues, just ridiculous platitudes, but they worked.

How do we fight this? We on the left can offer up a million different reasons why the GOP should not be in charge (with the clearest one being its incompetency) and we can bring up another million issues that the general public agrees with us about, but until we offer a compelling theme to undecided voters, our chances against the GOP are not as great as we would like to think.

Now, it is awful that our democratic system has come to this, but sadly it has. That is not to say that it cannot be fixed, but we will not be able to fix it until we win this election.

Please watch

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown gave a response to Donald Rumsfeld which was really one of the best speeches I have seen in long time. Here is the transcript and the video. Chills down the spine kind of stuff.

Let's make Karl Rove the boogeyman

I have been thinking about this for a while and this article about the ‘re-emergence’ of Karl Rove highlights the need for a strategy to make his influence an issue in the upcoming elections. It is a bit ironic that the man who has been so artful in creating liberal bogeymen (e.g. Michael Moore, Kos, Howard Dean, homosexuals), should become one himself. Yet, Rove is the perfect target for such a project.

Judging from appearances alone, Rove is inherently unlikable. With his flesh colored hair, puffy face and unctuous demeanor, it is almost as if he came out of central casting for the role of George Babbit. To put it simply, the man looks like a weasel. Second, his public persona is another weakness, in media depictions; he comes off as both arrogant and unrepentant. These qualities do not play well with the average American voter, especially for someone who looks the way Karl Rove does. Lastly, his behavior regarding the Plame affair makes for easy pickings, Democrats can frame his involvement (without getting into the minutiae regarding the case) rather simply. He played politics with national security.

Specifically, how might this work? From personal experience, I have seen how the targeting of Mr. Rove can make a politician squirm. Shortly after Rove’s involvement in the Plamegate became known, I wrote to my congressman (Rob Simmons) and asked if he was willing to condemn the actions of Karl Rove. Rep. Simmons had a very difficult time responding to this issue. He neither supported nor criticized Rove’s actions; he essentially just hemmed and hawed about the state of American politics. Within this election, Democrats should focus on this very same issue. Whenever their Republican counterpart refuses to denounce Karl Rove, Democrats should harp on the fact that their opponent puts politics before the safety of the American people.

One potential criticism of such a plan is that Karl Rove is not that well known by the American public. In a recent poll by USA Today/Gallup, nearly 40% of those polled had no opinion of him, while the vast majority of Democrats had an unfavorable opinion and a majority of Republicans had a positive view. Yet, this is precisely why we should make him an issue. There is a great opportunity for Democrats to attach a negative ‘prime’ to Karl Rove in the minds of independent voters. By us controlling and framing the debate regarding Rove, we can then connect him to Republican candidates.

The benefits of such a strategy are potentially enormous. The first is that Democrats can go on the offensive regarding the importance of national security. We can present ourselves as the party that refuses to play politics, while Republicans are all too happy to ignore security problems in the hopes of winning an election. Secondly, it puts Republican candidates in an uncomfortable position. Either they can remain silent on the matter, which highlights the problem with Rove’s power; or, they can criticize. If they come out and criticize Karl Rove, it focuses negative attention on the White House and Republicans in general. Moreover, because President Bush will never get rid of Rove, it will make the Republicans look ineffective in controlling the White House. Lastly, it may very well get Rove off his game. The White House and Republican Party looked completely overmatched over the course of this last year, and I don’t think there is any coincidence that this was the result of the Fitzgerald investigation. With Rove determined to save his own ass, the Republicans experienced political failure after political failure. I do not believe he will do too well when he realizes that he is the albatross around the Republican’s neck.

Conservative Philosophy, Easter Bunnies and Serious Thinking

I love Tom Tomorrow's latest cartoon and it highlights one of the most annoying trends in current American politics, the belief that conservatives are the ones considered serious about world affairs and progressives are wild-eyed idealists. Unfortunately, this is not limited to discussions about current events, it is also indicative of the debate regarding political philosophies. Liberal political philosophies are cast aside as foolish, while the conservative philosophies are regarded as being academically serious. When you examine the underpinnings of the two big ideas within conservative circles, free markets and The Freedom Agenda, their beliefs are similar to any child's belief in the Easter Bunny.

First off, the great conservative belief in free markets. Within most American popular political discourse, the idea that there is an invisible hand which rules the economic landscape is taken as a given. If we just let the economy go on its own, then all things will work out because of its intrinsic rationality. When progressives mention that such systems are prone to corruption and put an undue burden on the poor, we are derided for being silly and unaccustomed to economic policy.

Secondly, the neo-con's universal embrace of the 'The Freedom Agenda". Within the Bush Administration and among their supporters, there is the belief that once we remove the tyrannical elements of foreign governments, freedom will bloom. As made famous by Donald Rumsfeld during the looting of Baghdad, there was no concern for the safety of the Iraqi people because "freedom is messy". We were told not to worry about the insurgency because there were elections and elections will bring security. Just like their faith in free markets, there is an intrinsic rationality associated with the spread of freedom.

In both of these ideologies, their vacuousness is never tested. Like the child who sees no need to question just how the Easter basket got into their home, conservatives (and the popular press) just shrug their shoulders and bask in their seriousness. And just like the parent that ends up cleaning the vomit after the child ate three pounds of candy, it is the job of the unserious to make things o.k.

This is refreshing

I came across this blog posting (via Media Matters) by a reporter for the Pilly Inquirer and was really glad to see that at least one journalist has not gone crazy (unlike this guy). For far too long it seems that journalism has become the practice of just writing down what somebody says and leaving it at that. This practice, for whatever reason is called 'being objective' and while it is in a broad sense objective it leads to stories which take the following form (x said p, y said ~p) and the reporter evades any responsibility for the veracity of p.

However, the job of the reporter is to uncover the truth. That means, determining the truth value of p (x said p, p is true/false) and that gets us to some real sense of objectivity. Take, for instance, one of the issues that drove me crazy during the build-up to the Iraq war-- the aluminum tubes. The U.S. press faithfully reported the Bush administration's assertion that these were used for enriching uranium and left it at that (with the obligitory reference from the Iraqi government stating they were not used for that purpose). Yet, if you were lucky enough to listen to the reporting from the BBC at that time, it was possible to hear nuclear experts explain that the tubes could not have been used for that purpose.

I now fear that the exact same thing will happen with Iran. Right now the intelligence regarding Iran is sketchy at best, and this will allow for some Bush official to say something about the impending apocalypse. The press will be too lazy to figure out if the assertion is true and we will meander ignorantly towards another military fiasco (on the bright side, the stocks I own on Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood will go through the roof).

Great Video of the Adams Apple

You'd think he would handle this like a man, but Ann 'Adams Apple' Coulter is a little baby. He was on Hannity and Colmes and got it handed to him by the guest host. In fact, he ends up walking off of the show. It is a great video from Crooks and Liars.

And please, if there is a God, please give Kirsten Powers (the guest host) a show. I have been waiting for years for a liberal to start pushing these punks around (kind of the anti-Paul Begala) and she was wonderful.

We've got work to do

Forbes just did a rundown of the U.S.'s drunkest city. Sadly, Philly ranked 9th. Looks like we got some work to do. Interestingly, Boston was 4th and I think I know why it did so well.

What is intesting about Philly are the laws regarding alchohol and I am still trying to understand them. But here is what I've got so far:

• You can only get six-packs of beer from restaurants or bars, you cannot by it at a store and it is extremely expensive ($9 for mediocre beer).
• If you want more than a six-pack you can only get a case of beer and you can only get that at a beer distributor. These distributors function on normal business hours (open until 6 to 7). However, beer is a steal here; you can get a case of Sierra Nevada for $20, which is not a bad price.
  
• Hard alcohol and wine can only be bought at Spirit and Wine shops (where beers is strictly verbotten).
  

Yeah, what he said

There is so much talk about independent/swing voters being an easily definable group of folks. You often hear the pundit class say "who will capture swing voters this election"? As if this is really a bloc of people that have a consistent way of looking at the world. This post by Digby is spot on, swing voters are essentially part of faceless irrational mob who are more apt to respond to media primes then consistent policy messages. It is the job of those engaged in politics to 'spread the love'.

Hours and Hours of Fun

If anyone is looking to burn a few hours listening to some great live music, check out All Songs Considered. They have been webcasting incredible concerts by indie bands for about a year now and the shows are an absolute joy to listen to.

There really isn't a downside to this plan

From the administration that gave you 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, enormous deficits and environmental degredation; we now see the build up for a conflict in Iran. I wouldn't trust anyone in this administration to successfully make me a PB&J much less invade another country.

I suggest we get everyone at the White House some crayons and coloring books and ask them to master coloring in the lines; this is a good plan because 1. it is cognitively appropriate for this crew and 2. would easily keep them occupied until January of 2009.

I feel dirty

Ok, so earlier today the 24 hour news networks were all a buzz over the story about this guy. Ostensibly, he was just a normal guy that wanted to tell the President how much he loved him (funny how easy it is to spend some time with the Fart Afficianado when you come to praise him, Cindy Sheehan should take this guys advice).

Well...as is the way this administration works, things aren't as they seem. Mr. Vaccarella is probably a shill.

Medical Malpractice Scare Tactics aka The Sky is Falling!!!

In a all-to-common attempt by Republican hacks to shill for the ultra-rich and corporations, we have Exhibit A: that malpractice suits drive up medical care. The facts? “Portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.”

The Center for Justice and Democracy points out the following facts from this article:

• Most injuries that result in claims are caused by medical error.
• Claims typically involve injuries that are severe.
• Even though the large majority of claims (63 percent) involve error, those that do not involve error are not “frivolous.”
  
• The vast majority of resources go toward resolving and paying claims that involve errors.
• Most instances of medical malpractice do not result in a lawsuit.
  
• Few claims result in court trial and with regard to those that do, juries are conservative.
  

Reminds me of the scary-titled 'Death Tax,' that is supposedly putting family farms on the auction block, without actual evidence that this is happening. Gotta love it.

Really not much else to say

A diarist at Daily Kos posted this the other day. It really is required viewing/reading.

I don't get it. What happened to JonBenet Ramsey/Natalie Holloway/Chandra Levy is beyond horrible, but it is not national news. It is a movie of the week. I pray for the day when the 24 hour news networks see things the same way.

We're out of irony, but we have plenty of crazy today

Ok, I am trying to figure out just what a conservative pundit would have to say or do in order for them to vanish from our television screens. Ann "Adams Apple" Coulter calls for the murder of reporters from the NY Times and calls the 9/11 widows "grief pimps" yet is still a fixture on the Today show. Pat Robertson calls for the bombing of the US State Department and is still a major player . So where is the line?

I mean outside of the obvious (the Fox News rule), if any conservative pundit were to either criticize the President or the network's fairness he/she would be banned for good and their first born child would be sold into slavery.

I think we really need an over/under on the crazy and I propose that if any conservative commentator were to say the following they would not be asked back:

To ensure that my thinking is sharp, every morning I bathe in the blood of freshly squeezed kittens that I steal from orphanages.

Any takers on that?

Silly Partisanship

You know what I like about Sen. Crybaby (Joe Lieberman)? He is an independent, he will go onto any right wing nutcase's radio show and simply agree with just about anything he says.

There is civility and then there is the type of civility some people get at rest areas along the Jersey Turnpike. The Democratic voters got rid of this punk because his version of civility is the latter. Do us all a favor, drop out Joe.

check out this video from Think Progress...

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11

Here's a quiz for the kids. This video is:
1-an inspriring display of leadership virility
2-a manifest argument for staying the course, not 'cutting and running'
3-a scary reminder that being the 'leader of the free world' does not mean as much as it once did.

If you answered '3', thank you, nice work. 1 or 2? Pull your head out of your nether region and stop digesting Fox News wholesale as the 'New New Testament.'

Beyond the Call of Duty

Did you write that whole blog entry yourself?? You are a big boy! You have already demonstrated that you are more thoughtful than the Decider.

Bloggerating is Hard

Maybe not as hard as Presidenterating. But sweet jesus, my first post took me nearly 20 minutes to figure out.

Special on Irony Today- only $1.99

It is amazing what spills out of some folk's mouths when they get angry. This telling quote (courtesy of Sadly, No) is from an essay by pointless conservative Michael Barone:

We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.

While I think it is funny to laugh at the unintended meaning here (i.e. military whereabouts and now hawkish stands of Dick Cheney, George Bush, Denny Hastert, Bill Frist) this is a position that really burns me. It certainly seems that in today's debate on military engagement we are led by people who refused to step up when it was their time to serve. I don't think it is a simple case of hypocracy in their case, it is a simple case of cowardice and the American people should really think about what it means to elect these type of people.

That is not to suggest that anyone who has not served in the military is a coward. If, for example, I found out that Rush Limbaugh got arrested in 1968 for protesting the Vietnam war, I would give some mad props to ol' Tubby McGee. These people now espouse a position that is brutally militaristic, yet they were afraid to put their asses on the line when my father (by choice) and father-in-law (not by choice) were "in the shit". That is cowardice, and what that means for this country is that we have a lot of leaders who lack integrity.

What a Moronic Presidential Press Conference!

By Fred Kaplan, Slate.com

"This, after all, is the president who invaded Iraq without the slightest understanding of the country's ethnic composition or of the volcanic tensions that toppling its dictator might unleash. Complexity has no place in his schemes. Choices are never cloudy. The world is divided into the forces of terror and the forces of freedom: The one's defeat means the other's victory."

From Think Progress...

Straight Talkin’ McCain Takes Both Sides of Gay Marriage Amendment Debate

In 2004, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage:

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary — and un-Republican. “The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans,” McCain said.

But yesterday, ABC reported that McCain confided to Jerry Falwell that he would support such an amendment:

McCain “reconfirmed” to Falwell that he would support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman if a federal court were to strike down state constitutional bans on gay marriage.

Since aligning himself with Falwell and far right conservatives, gay marriage isn’t the only issue on which the “straight talk express” has backtracked. In 2000, McCain called Falwell one of America’s “agents of intolerance;” now he has agreed to give the commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University on May 13.

UPDATE: Carpetbagger has more.

How I felt after watching the Rummy speaking to Congress

Rumsfeld pulls a Lieberman

by Daily Kos

Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 11:16:55 AM PDT

Send a Hiroshima Day E-Card

"In honor of Hiroshima Day, we'd like to take a minute to reflect on just how absurd it is for America to maintain 10,000 nuclear bombs. Defense experts say that many simply aren't needed, and by reducing the nuclear arsenal our country could save $14 billion dollars -- more than enough to save the lives of six million kids who die of starvation in impoverished nations each year."