Yesterday, I went to see a movie and a play. The film was this summer’s mega blockbuster The “Dark Knight", and the play, a one woman performance put on by my friend and writing collaborator, Laura Zam.

One had a budget of about 18 billion dollars, the other’s probably capped out at $140 (that’s $140, not $140 million or billion). One could have been great but got mired down in its own contrivances and the other, sublime.

Laura Zam’s “HOW I GOT RICH IN A YEAR, USING THAT SECRET: A PLAY FOR BELIEVERS, SKEPTICS AND SLOBS” is an amazing, witty, sardonic, and uplifting deconstruction of modern life, new age enlightenment, self help manifestos, the scurrilous purveyors of both hope and despair amidst the inevitable outrageous slings and arrows of existence.

I’ve know Laura for many years, and she is co-writing a screenplay with me about New York City in the early 1980s. I was flattered when she boasted of our collaboration at an MPAA screening of my film, “The First Basket". After seeing her solo tour-de-force, I was both giddy that I had chosen such a profound writer, and nervous that she will soon become too busy becoming a famous author to bother with the likes of my little NY story. Laura has just been signed by a top NY literary agency to write a book based on the play, and “HOW I GOT RICH..” is certainly the stuff of the great American post modern novel.

As we set out writing our little movie (tentatively titled A Million in Prizes), Laura made me read Robert McKee’s “Story", on film narrative structure. I had sought Laura out exactly because I knew her to be dramaturge, and I wanted the screenplay to be structurally sound. McKee is the screen writing seminar guru in the film “Adaption” (hilariously portrayed by Brian Cox), and his book emphasizes very serious structural theoretics in order to express the great universal truths inherent in one’s story.

Well Laura has done McKee proud. “HOW I GOT RICH…” is overflowing with great universal truths about the human condition. It’s also captivating, entertaining, and Laura’s no holds barred personal revelations are variously incredibly moving and funnier than Gilda Radner on nitrous. In the show she labels herself a performance artist, which she later rejects in favor of “writer and performer". She is also a superb comedic and dramatic actress, whose stage presence is only topped by her incredible writing. “HOW I GOT RICH…” is everything that theater (including performance art) should be and a much welcome alternative to even the best of this summer’s billion dollar blockbusters.

From techcrunch:

Should the Internet be owned and maintained by the government, just like the highways? Vint Cerf, the “father of the Internet” and Google’s Internet evangelist, made this radical suggestion.

His comment was in the context of a bigger discussion about the threat to Net neutrality posed by the cable and phone companies, who are making moves to control the amount and types of bits that can go through their pipes.

Net neutrality and preventing broadband carriers from controlling Internet traffic or content is something that Google has a definite stake in. The Google page on the subject even links to grassroots groups the Open Internet Coalition, and SaveTheInternet. But the question should be whether Google’s dominance of Internet navigation, as well as advertising poses a greater threat to the future of a free Internet.

Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

George Carlin, hero and inspiration to millions.

On religion and Joe Pesci.

Patrick Cockburn reports in today’s Independent that the Bush Administration is holding $50 bn in Iraqi reserves hostage in order to force the Iraqi government into signing a long term military agreement with the US:

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.
…

The fact that Iraq’’s financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank.

Another troubling element in this story is that the Iraqi government wanted to diversify some of their foreign holdings (kept by the US Treasury) to euros from dollars. This was vetoed by the United States, costing the Iraqis some $5bn due to depreciation of the dollar.

Interesting Op-Ed in today’s NYT, but who is he referring to today?

While everyone else was holding their breath last night to see if it was really going to happen, I thought I’d share my thoughts on a minor story that gave me a bit of a jolt while scanning WaPo on Monday (I wrote this last night but Polianna was down).

The headline read:

Cheney Rejects Federal Gas Tax Suspension.

I did a bit of a Jon Stewart face turning ‘’whaaaa???!!!'’. That’s not that evil. I went on to read the first paragraph. His Darkness said that it would only provide minimal relief and not address the real issue. I paused. Not only is this not all that evil, it’s actually true. So here’s Dick Cheney possibly saying something that’s both true and not evil? What gives?

So I keep reading and there it was:

And what it does is it avoids addressing the issue, which is, markets work; the law of supply and demand works. If you want to limit production of energy resources in the United States, that’s fine, you can do that, if in fact, that’s where national policy goes and that’s what the policy process produces…

But if I were to argue how it ought to affect the election, I think it ought to have negative consequences for those folks over the years who’ve worked so hard to limit U.S. production of energy resources. That’s my view of the world. Not everybody agrees with that, obviously, but we don’t drill off the East Coast, we don’t drill off the West Coast, we don’t drill off Florida, we don’t drill in important parts of Alaska. And that means we have less domestic production than would otherwise be the case. And the old law of supply and demand works, and when demand gets tight, those prices go up. And so today we’ve got $4 gasoline….

One way to change that is to increase our domestic production of energy resources, which we can do environmentally in a sound fashion. I would hope that would be one of the issues in this campaign. It should be a lively debate. I would expect that certainly my party will bring it up. I don’t know about the other party.

The Dick is against the gas tax because it would further deter Halliburton from cashing in off of drilling off the coast of Alaska. And on the seeming flawless market principles of Supply and Demand.

Two problems with the Veep’s econ. The first is viable alternatives - the economic concept related to price elasticity, where if the price of something goes up, viable alternatives become comparably less expensive. Like if the price of fossil fuels increases rapidly, the price of alternatives, like alternative energy sources for example, will become relatively less expensive. This would be amenable with a simplistic invisible hand of the market view would it not for the second point. And that is external costs, or externalities. I.e. costs external of something, usually borne out by others. Like the polar ice caps melting, or increased skin cancer from pollution. External costs are not factored into the market price, but are no less real. And in these situations you need government to protect society from bearing those costs while the greedy fat cats cash in. This is very important if you are considering energy markets from a rational point of view. So on top of endless war and debt, and crumbling infrastructure, consider the external costs incurred by the whole world from the mixed up minds of W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

With Jim Webb’s name floating high as a possible Obama running mate, there has been a left wing ecstasy reminiscent of Michael Moore’s dreamy eyed endorsement of Wesley Clark in 04. Wow, we finally have actual General to throw at them, so now who’s really tougher?

Like Clark, Webb isn’t all guns and roses. Much concern has be expressed about his fitness and potential vulnerabilities. Kathy G stated the case against Webb well yesterday on the Yglesias blog. It’s not just his brashness on the campaign trail, or that taking him out of a Red State Senate seat would be strategically stupid, but it’s also his “wingnutty” Republican recent past.

The Senate coalition argument strikes me as the strongest. However brash he may be, veeps and running mates play the roll of attach dog (think Cheney and Agnew) in the modern presidential beauty contest, and Webb does this very well. And in a related matter, he gets major points for standing up for our troops while sticking it to McCain, Bush and Co. on the GI Bill.

From today’s Jerusalem Post:

Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who concluded a trip to Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.
…
The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack.

Bush, the official reportedly said, considered Hizbullah’s show of strength to constitute evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s growing influence. In Bush’s view, the official said, “the disease must be treated - not its symptoms.”

Is Paul Maslin talking about electoral votes or bowling?
Because I think Obama could get to 270 electoral votes, but there’s no way he could bowl it.

Jamie Rubin writes in today’s Washington Post on the hypocrisy of McCain’s harsh criticism of Obama. It seems Ol’ Straight Talk advocated negotiating with Hamas after their electoral victory two years ago.

The Edwards endorsement does seem like the beginning of the end for Hillary. Here’s how it will probably play out:

Obama will get the nomination by the end of this month, but Hillary will not give up in anyway. It will become apparent that she is in fact a Terminator sent from the future. She will brutally kill John Edwards and Ted Kennedy with an electromagnetic health care policy pulse wave, which sucks the air and blood out of its victims causing a slow and cinematic asphyxiation.

Suddenly, as she’s about to terminate the one candidate who would have eventually saved the future by restoring hope, Arnold Schwarzenegger crashes through a wall. It turns out that he really is a terminator from the future sent back not to save Kalyfornia, but to stop HT 4 (Hillary Terminator) from destroying the future of hope.

In the ensuing fight, they crash through walls, overturn trucks on highways and destroy highway ramps and airplanes. Just as it looks like HT 4 is about to terminate the Gubernator by retroactively revoking his citizenship (through a wireless interface with Teledyne Cybernetic Systems), Barack Obama appears and saves him by hacking into the democratic donor database and terminating her funding. She immediately shuts down and Judgment Day is forestalled, but not permanently prevented. We know she will be back.

Bush’s not so veiled attack on Obama yesterday serves as good reminder of the divisive and heinous essence of his tenure. Obama has repeatedly said that he would negotiate with our enemies. He has not said he would appease terrorists. He has also said that he would go into Pakistan ("Pokistan") and get Bin Laden.

So after a disastrous foreign policy driven by ideology, incompetence, distortion, and secrecy, the great divider yesterday did what he does - distorted and attacked. As McCain tries to distances himself from Bush, keep in mind that:

Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages with terrorists;

The blundering of the Iraq War is the biggest foreign policy disaster since Viet Nam. This statement doesn’t even need any backup; and

Bush’s corrosive foreign policy, which has shunned negotiation, international institutions (like the United Nations and the Geneva Convention) has done great damage to America’s credibility, influence and prestige in the world.

Ipods are cool and sleek. A timeline of the history of design in the store Design Within Reach has the pod as the pinnacle of the evolution of design. And they sure are popular. But I’ve felt for a while that ipod’s market dominance is more a result of marketing than quality. In fact, in concert with itunes online music distribution, Apple has approached monopolistic dominance in the emerging digital music market. There’s got to be better value for the money.

One of the big problems I have with the mighty pod is directly related to its market dominance. And it bugs me is that almost no one talks about this. A given ipod can only be used with a certain number (3 maybe) of registered computers (that is without some kind of funky and unauthorized software), and even more striking is that music files can’t be transfered from an ipod to a computer. Music can only go from computer to ipod. Once again, that’s unless unauthorized software is used. This is certainly purposefully designed to maintain Apple’s hegemony on digital music distribution which approaches vertical integration. Functionally, this is a major limitation and I’m amazed that there hasn’t been more open criticism. Maybe Microsoft should re-edit the Hillaried re-edit of the famous Orwellian Apple commercial - placing Ipod in the screen where Hillary was.

So I’ve pulled the trigger and ordered the Zune. Both the 80 gig Zune and 80 gig Ipod cost around $249. The Zune gets slightly better average user and reviewer ratings on cnet than the pod. I’m pretty sure that Zune doesn’t have a closed file transfer system like ipod. My major concern is how difficult it may prove to be to import my itunes catalogue into the zune software. I will keep you posted.

Zune also has two cool features that ipod doesn’t: FM radio, and wireless synching and sharing (which probably can be used with any computer).

So to paraphrase a political maxim, when the revolution becomes the orthodoxy, even Microsoft can become the rebel. I wonder how Chuck Berry feels about this…

It’s widely accepted that the media pigeon-holes stories and people into simple narratives with a strict limit of one to two sound bytes. This campaign cycle is interesting, not merely because so much of the conventional wisdom now seems quaint, but because it presents an opportunity to observe the re-renderings as they happen.

Hillary’s bytes have changed the least. While always seen by oxycontin right as the ambitious embodiment of 60’s liberal evil, she has also been tagged “divisive” yet intelligent and diligent, and her persistence makes her seem like terminator 4 in a blue pantsuit. The narrative of her campaign has progressed from the unstoppable Clinton machine, to a mismanaged Machiavellian leviathan which is now entering its terminal phase. So the blue collar, shots at the bar act didn’t fly, but we respect and admire her steely endurance.

Barack Obama’s media id badge may be the most interesting because it is the most dynamic. Obama materialized on the 2004 convention stage, a ready made democratic messiah, almost a direct cross between Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy. However, all pundits knew how naive this hope stuff can be. Sure the speeches were nice, but is soaring rhetoric weapon enough in the blood sport that is presidential politics? Danger was near as Mo D lucidly explained that:

The lioness of Chappaqua is hot on the trail of the Chicago gazelle, eager to gnaw him to pieces, like a harrowing scene out of a George Stubbs painting.

And if she didn’t shred him, certainly the dread republican attack machine would. Surely enough, a “bitter” remark, an angry preacher, a weather undergrounder, and an “undercaffeinated” debate performance against the machine that is Hillary turned the once unflappable messiah into Dukakis and/or McGovern. Had our man been crucified at the alter of Jeremiah?

Hold the Press. Last week’s blow out in North Carolina and overtime showing in Indiana have forced a new narrative, still in progress. Could the “Chicago gazelle” now be battle tested?

Even George Will (who has showed signs of Obama cool aid ingestion in the past) wrote that:

Obama is the Democrats’ Reagan. Obama’s rhetorical cotton candy lacks Reagan’s ideological nourishment, but he is Reaganesque in two important senses: People like listening to him, and his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness – the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.

So even George Will admits there maybe steel behind the cotton candy.

But what about John McCain? The straight talking maverick with temper problems? Bill Clinton has done a good job of mitigating media bytes concerning McCain’s temper. (Perhaps there’s an Associate Press guideline that only allows per one label per person per news cycle, unless it’s Republicans claiming the Reagan mantel, which ironically enough, has been claimed by Obama.)

And reality itself should be sufficient to force a re-write of the straight talk, maverick thing. By reality, I mean Maverick’s blatant genuflection to Brothers Robertson and Falwell and his windsurfing flip on the Bush Tax Cuts.

The renegade who in 2000 referred to the religious right as “agents of intolerance,” who have “turned good causes into businesses,” and “shame our faith, our party and our country", was in 2007 in full pander mode at Liberty University. And this very same maverick could not in “good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief” has in 2008 made making these cuts permanent the center piece of his economic platform. Never mind the deficit, our grandchildren, and principle, better to shore up the Rove permanent majority before we unleash the swiftboats.

So as the democratic nomination soap opera enters its 22nd inning, I wonder - will Obama re-emerge fired up and ready to go, leading a realignment ending the Reagan era? Or will he turn into George McGovern as McCain’s Roves flood the airwaves with the “bitter” and “liberal” gospels of Jeremiah?

Today’s controversy over poaching delegates
is just another in a long series of unappealing Clinton statements. It’s hard to understand how these unsavory missteps could come from the savviest political couple around. Especially the ones from Bill Clinton.

Here’s my theory, and I say this only half-jokingly. Bill Clinton secretly wants Obama to win. Maybe he likes traveling around the world as a celebrity raising millions of dollars for AIDS medicines for Africa. We certainly know that he enjoys the attention. What if a Hillary presidency kills all of that, at least his mind? And what if she’s got the goods on him and will spill some serious Bill beans unless he totally plays ball and campaigns his heart out for her? And maybe he like Obama, and sees a little bit of himself in this charismatic young man.

So Bill hits the trail and intentionally says and does all of these things to piss off democratic voters. It’s almost too obvious. Think about it. He’s the slickest politician of our era right? He knows better, right?

What’s the dirtiest word in American politics? Lobbyist? Pretty bad but no cigar. Philanderer? Not even close. Washington insider? Pretty bad as well, but there’s worse.

The dirtiest word in American politics is “Liberal". You show me a viable candidate running as a liberal and I’ll show you a fresh 3 dollar bill.

In fact, during Monday night’s CNN/Youtube debate, when asked if she was a liberal, the savvy progressive democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton dodged the politically poisonous label, instead proclaiming to be, well progressive. Even the liberal standard bearer, Dennis Kucinich avoids the “L"word.

As a liberal, I this resent this. I look back in anger to the 1988 presidential debate when George Bush Sr. blasted Michael Dukakis as a liberal, even charging him with being a card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Where was Michael Douglas’ American President Andrew Shepherd? Would it were that Dukakis had replied forcefully, with something like, “Damn it George, if caring about the well being of hard working Americans makes me a liberal, then damn it, I’m a liberal and proud of it.”

To me the “L” word always meant something quite good. Liberalism is a progressive outlook that stands for economic opportunity and civil and human rights for all. At its core, it is a paradigm that is open to new ideas and new thinking to solve problems, and sees the government as having a role not only in helping out those who are less fortunate, but in providing the social and economic infrastructure that is absolutely essential to our economic vitality. Liberalism does not shrink from defending our nation, but does not rush to war as a first resort. It is strong, yet flexible and not bellicose.

In 1960, JFK accepted the nomination of The New York Liberal Party, an honor that I doubt even Dennis Kucinich would accept today, and proclaimed this liberal vision:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

So how did this noble and enlightened perspective championed by FDR, Truman, and JFK come to be defined as a naïve believe in a bureaucratic nanny state that strangles free enterprise and smothers individual freedom, while coddling dictators abroad?

And how did the word conservative assume the weight of a sacred mantra among so much of the American polity?

I see the modern conservative movement as tragic farce. The combination of bad economics (reductionist to say the least) and religious fundamentalism is no basis for governing.

The conservative economic philosophy, while very amenable to political sound bytes, is short on substance, and resilient to evidence. The Laffer curve was a simple bell curve written on a cocktail napkin. Its failure as a tax revenue prediction tool has been made painfully evident by the Reagan and Bush budget deficits. Even the Adam Smith’s vaunted quote about the invisible hand of the free market is continually taken out its intended context. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith posits strong laws and regulations are necessary to sustain a market environment, where the invisible hand can flourish.

Do you think that the FDA should continue to inspect our meat? And the SEC should monitor the filings of publicly traded companies? Of course they should. Proper regulatory oversight creates confidence in markets. Moving beyond that, do you think that the government should play a role in providing resources for education? And how about health care? Has the free market done a good job of allocating health care resources efficiently?

The magnitude of both the corporate scandals of the Enron era and the disastrous consequences of the Bush presidency at home and abroad should put this baby to rest. Enron, Halliburton, and corporate welfare for oil companies making record windfall profits clearly illustrates how free market idolatry is all too easily hyped as a cynical shill, providing a philosophical cover for massive corruption.

Yet the “L'’ word is still radioactive. Why?

In days of Adam Smith, the word “liberal” actually referred to the free market, laissez-faires economics that today’s conservatives claim to worship. It was during the 20th century when liberalism came to embody the political ideology that we know today, and the idea that government could solve people’s problems reached it’s heyday from FDR to LBJ.

The paradoxical transformation began roughly 43 years ago, when the Conservative standard bearer, Barry Goldwater, took a royal thrashing at the polls from Lyndon Johnson, a liberal icon. Johnson crushed the conservative ideologue taking 486 out of 583 electoral votes and 42 states.

In the decades that followed, hundreds of millions of dollars were provided by the likes of wealthy conservatives such as Richard Mellon Scaife and the Coors family, to built up a vast network of right wing think tanks and media outlets. A few years ago a Democratic activist named Rob Stein put together a legendary powerpoint presentation chronicling the evolution of the conservative machine. In a must read New York Times magazine article , Matt Bai wrote a few years ago:

The presentation itself, a collection of about 40 slides titled ‘’The Conservative Message Machine’s Money Matrix,'’ essentially makes the case that a handful of families – Scaife, Bradley, Olin, Coors and others – laid the foundation for a $300 million network of policy centers, advocacy groups and media outlets that now wield great influence over the national agenda. The network, as Stein diagrams it, includes scores of powerful organizations – most of them with bland names like the State Policy Network and the Leadership Institute – that he says train young leaders and lawmakers and promote policy ideas on the national and local level. These groups are, in turn, linked to a massive message apparatus, into which Stein lumps everything from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page to Pat Robertson’s ‘’700 Club.'’ And all of this, he contends, is underwritten by some 200 ‘’anchor donors.'’ ‘’This is perhaps the most potent, independent institutionalized apparatus ever assembled in a democracy to promote one belief system,'’ he said.

Thus, 40 years after JFK proudly pronounced a Liberal New Frontier, the word has been systematically demonized by a massive conservative chorus culminating in the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Rielly and Ann Coulter.

But why has it been so effective? Firstly, liberal programs of the new deal and great society did become too bloated and bureaucratic. Great society anti-poverty programs got bogged down in pork barrel pet projects. The national malaise of the 1970s gave rise to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

On top of that, the conservative outlook lends itself very well to politics in the age of television and talk radio. It is a very succinct and simple argument. Let’s say you’re debating a conservative over education, and you favor reducing class sizes, buying new school books, and paying teachers over $40 k/year. You propose all of these things, and your republican opponent lashes back by labeling you a “Tax and Spend liberal". How do you beat that?

Amplify that by $300 million dollars worth of think tanks, talk radio and Fox news over 30 years and you end up with a political culture where Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter can prevail.

This intentional and systematic conservative program has been highly effective in defining the direction of American political discourse for the last 30 years.

Even the collapse of the conservative governing coalition amidst the disastrous ineptitude of the Bush presidency and shamelessness of the Delay Republican congress have not given progressives the courage to reclaim the “L” word.

It seems sad to me that Hillary Clinton, a rather fearless political warrior, herself having been the subject of a sustained smear campaign by the same conservative elements that have tarred the “L” word, would back away from the real fight.

For an old adage goes that who ever defines the issues will win the debate, and the election. I suggest that progressives reclaim the helm of American political discourse. For when we allow a word that represents our best ideals to be denigrated, we allow those ideals to be denigrated.

In that light, what John Kennedy said about the 1960 election holds true for 2008:

Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Let us never again back down ever from the war of ideas. We can only win this war when we reclaim the meaning of liberalism, as a bold, progressive political agenda that will raise all boats, revitalize our infrastructure, and make America both the envy of all nations, and a beacon of hope for the world. Let us expose the conservatism as an ossified ideology that shuns critical thinking and has too often been employed as a cover and rationalization for corruption.

It looks like some Senate Republicans forgot to eat their Lucky Charms before going on the Sunday talk shows this morning, because there were a slew of unlucky, unfortunate and even flat-out wrong statements made. From Sen. Hatch completely contradicting a key vote he cast on detainee abuse just last month to Sen. Coburn suggesting that his medical degree gives him some special insight into Judge Alito’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, this morning’s GOP statements fell into the loopy category!

1) ON TORTURE: DOUBLE-TALKIN HATCH TALKS OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH: When he was asked about the dispute between Cheney and McCain on the Senate amendment barring abuse of detainees, which passed the Senate 90-9. Hatch was asked, simply, “Are you on the Vice President’s side on this or are you on John McCain’s side?” Hatch replied, “Well, I’m on the Vice President’s side.” But on October 5, Hatch voted for McCain’s amendment to the Fiscal 2006 Defense Appropriations bill that would “prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.” [Vote #249, 10/5/05, Face the Nation, 11/6/05]

2) PHASE II IRAQ INTELLIGENCE PROBE: ROBERTS’ CLAIM TO HAVE HAD INTEL HEARINGS PLANNED ON PHASE II PROBE WHITE HOUSE USE OF INTELLIGENCE RINGS FALSE: Pat Roberts said: “We had it scheduled for this week. There was no need for the Senate to all of a sudden pop into an executive session or a closed session and then demand action when we were going to do it anyway.” (Note: The last scheduling notice from the Intelligence Committee that went out prior to the most recent one was on October 21 and made no mention of the Phase II investigation. It was only after Senate Democrats forced the Republicans to deal with the issue that Roberts hastily added three days worth of meetings on the Phase II probe twice a day and released a new schedule that suddenly had Phase II on it. [Face the Nation, 11/6/05, Senate Intelligence Committee Hearings Notices]

3) SCOTUS:

COBURN’S MAGIC POWERS: When asked if “as a physician you can tell whether a candidate for the Supreme Court is telling the truth?” Coburn said: “I think you can certainly tell when they’re ill at ease with a subject and sometimes telling the truth or not. […] Yeah, I think you can.” When asked if has used those skills to make judgments like that? Coburn said “Mm-hm, I certainly have.” [Meet the Press, 11/6/05]

COBURN SAYS ALITO LEGISLATED FROM THE BENCH? When Meet the Press’ asked Coburn if he thought Judge Alito was right to argue in a dissent that Congress had no role in regulating the sale of machine guns, Coburn said: “No, I think we [Congress] probably have the right to do it. But I don’t think a judge has the right to make that decision. […]Those aren’t decisions judges should be making. Those are decisions that legislators should be making.” When Russert asked if Alito’s dissent was wrong and whether he was legislating from the bench, Coburn said “sure.” [Meet the Press, 11/6/05]

4) CIA LEAK, BUSH CREDIBILITY PROBLEMS

HAGEL SAYS BUSH NEEDS TO STOP STONEWALLING: In response to what Bush needs to do to regain his credibility, Chuck Hagel said: “I think he gets it back by governing, putting a focus on competent, honest government. …Open it up; don’t stonewall.” [ABC This Week, 11/6/05]

HAGEL SAYS BUSH NEEDS TO BRING NEW BLOOD INTO THE WHITE HOUSE: When asked how Bush should deal with the CIA leak case, Hagel said, “…if I was the president, I think I’d want to enlarge and widen that group, and start making some serious review and inventory of what has happened in the last five years that’s gotten him into so much trouble.” [ABC This Week, 11/6/05]

MCCAIN SAYS ROVE SHOULD KEEP HIS SECURITY CLEARANCE EVEN IF HE SPREAD INFO ABOUT CIA AGENTS: When asked if “it should turn out that there is any evidence that Karl Rove spoke to reporters about a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, should he lose his top secret security clearance,” McCain said: “I don’t think so. I don’t know if that’s a reason to do so…” [Fox News Sunday, 11/6/06]

5) REPUBLICANS WARN THAT 2006 ISN’T LOOKING GOOD FOR GOP:

When asked about new poll results showing generic 2006 Republicans losing to Democrats in congressional races, Newt Gingrich said “I’ve been trying to tell everybody I can find on Capitol Hill and in the White House, if they don’t have substantial change by the State of the Union, and if they don’t convince the country that they’ve gotten the message, I think they’re in big trouble…” [ABC’s This Week, 11/6/05]

When asked about Bush’s low approval ratings, John McCain said, “…Congress’ approval ratings are lower than they’ve been in at least ten years as well, so the disapproval is spread pretty widely.” [Fox News Sunday, 11/6/05] (NOTE: Republicans control Congress)

“Honest Leadership” at its best in Virginia

In a move combining the sleaziest elements from the Rove and DeLay dirty trick playbooks, Northern Virginia voters are receiving automated calls they believe are from the Kaine campaign. These fake phonies use spliced audio and distorted facts to deceive voters. As it turns out, the calls are coming from a group called “Honest Leadership for Virginia".

It turns out that the aptly Orwellian monikered “Honest Leadership for Virginia” is a PAC housed at the Republican Governor’s Association who laundered $2.8 MILLION to the Kilgore campaign.

Also, using dirty trics Texas-style are the Virginians for Jerry Kilgore. They sent out a bogus “2005 Official Democratic and Progressive Voter Guide” that lists former Republican, now independent candidate, Russ Potts as the TRUE democrat and progressive in the Virginia race. Golly gee. Camp Kilgore is clearly worried about the moderate Republicans staying home, or worse, voting for Kaine. They must realize their hardcore rightwing dog won’t hunt in VA any more. Could this race be a harbinger for 2006?

With the polls saying the race is in a virtual dead heat, it really makes you wonder what other sleaze Kilgore campaign has up its sleeve for today and tomorrow.

Keith Olberman of MSNBC has chronicled something obvious yet interesting:

President Bush’s speech about the war on terror had come earlier the same day, as had the breaking news of the possible indictment of Karl Rove in the CIA leak investigation.

I suggested that in the last three years there had been about 13 similar coincidences - a political downturn for the administration, followed by a “terror event"- a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning.

The entire list is required reading.

Right after Katrina, in one of our articles about the need for a real, rational energy policy, one of our brave team members fastidiously pointed out that the spike in energy prices were caused by economics, that no evidence was yet available that shows profiteering by the oil giants, even though it seemed intuitive.

Well now we know. I wonder how much of this is directly tied to Bush Administration corruption?

Meet the 2000 men and women have died in the Iraq War face to face, courtesy of the New York Times. Click on “Date of Death” to move month by month from March of 2003 to October 2005.

From The Washington Note

October 25, 2005
Indictments Coming Tomorrow; Targets Received Letters Today

An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN (since confirmed by another independent source):

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.

2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.

3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and “filed” tomorrow.

4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

The shoe is dropping.

More soon.

– Steve Clemons

Could the dark lord be going down?

From today’s Daily News:

Cheney may be target of probe

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK, THOMAS M. DeFRANK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - A special prosecutor’s intensifying focus into who outed a CIA spy has raised questions whether Vice President Cheney himself is involved, knowledgeable sources confirmed yesterday.

At least one source and one reporter who have testified in the probe said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is pursuing Cheney’s role in the Valerie Plame affair.

In addition, at least six current and former Cheney staffers - most members of the White House Iraq Group - have testified before the grand jury, including the vice president’s top honcho, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, and two top Cheney national security lieutenants.

Cheney’s name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

“They have got a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving them all of that,” a source who has been questioned in the leak probe told the Daily News yesterday.

Today on Meet the Press, former FBI Director, stallwart Republican, and born again Clinton detractor Louis Freeh slipped this bit into is anti-Clinton book promo schpiel:

The New Yorker magazine article, which was in the spring of 2001, actually corroborates the one part of the story which is that the president didn’t seriously or vigorously persecute the request, the request being to get FBI agents into the prison in Saudi Arabia to talk to detainees who would ultimately tell us that the Iranian government was responsible for this attack. …

three of the detainees who had actually performed the bombing–these are members of the Saudi Hezbollah, which is an agent of the Iranian government. …

When I finally came back to Sandy Berger and told him we now had evidence that the Iranian government had murdered 19 Americans–killed, wounded over 300, his first reaction was, “Who knows about this?” And his second reaction was “Well, that’s hearsay.” This was an administration that was not interested in finding out that the Iranian government had blowed up–had blown up Khobar Towers.

Don’t worry about it. Tim raked him over the coals. The thing that jumps out at me is this. Is anyone going to take notice of this accusation in light of the Iraq War??!! A former FBI Director, and Rebublican hack is shifting attention away from the shinking ship of state with the age old NeoCon strategy - blame Clinton. In so doing, he’s claiming proof that Iran was involved with Khobar!!!! Freeh stayed on under Bush. Did he bring this up on September 12th, when planning for Iraq was already under way?

From Time:

Sunday, Sep. 25, 2005
How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There?
A TIME inquiry finds that at top positions in some vital government agencies, the Bush Administration is putting connections before experience
By MARK THOMPSON, KAREN TUMULTY, MIKE ALLEN / WASHINGTON

In presidential politics, the victor always gets the spoils, and chief among them is the vast warren of offices that make up the federal bureaucracy. Historically, the U.S. public has never paid much attention to the people the President chooses to sit behind those thousands of desks. A benign cronyism is more or less presumed, with old friends and big donors getting comfortable positions and impressive titles, and with few real consequences for the nation.

But then came Michael Brown. When President Bush’s former point man on disasters was discovered to have more expertise about the rules of Arabian horse competition than about the management of a catastrophe, it was a reminder that the competence of government officials who are not household names can have a life or death impact. The Brown debacle has raised pointed questions about whether political connections, not qualifications, have helped an unusually high number of Bush appointees land vitally important jobs in the Federal Government.

The Bush Administration didn’t invent cronyism; John F. Kennedy turned the Justice Department over to his brother, while Bill Clinton gave his most ambitious domestic policy initiative to his wife. Jimmy Carter made his old friend Bert Lance his budget director, only to see him hauled in front of the Senate to answer questions on his past banking practices in Georgia, and George H.W. Bush deposited so many friends at the Commerce Department that the agency was known internally as “Bush Gardens.” The difference is that this Bush Administration had a plan from day one for remaking the bureaucracy, and has done so with greater success.

As far back as the Florida recount, soon-to-be Vice President Dick Cheney was poring over organizational charts of the government with an eye toward stocking it with people sympathetic to the incoming Administration. Clay Johnson III, Bush’s former Yale roommate and the Administration’s chief architect of personnel, recalls preparing for the inner circle’s first trip from Austin, Texas, to Washington: “We were standing there getting ready to get on a plane, looking at each other like: Can you believe what we’re getting ready to do?”

The Office of Personnel Management’s Plum Book, published at the start of each presidential Administration, shows that there are more than 3,000 positions a President can fill without consideration for civil service rules. And Bush has gone further than most Presidents to put political stalwarts in some of the most important government jobs you’ve never heard of, and to give them genuine power over the bureaucracy. “These folks are really good at using the instruments of government to promote the President’s political agenda,” says Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University and a well-known expert on the machinery of government. “And I think that takes you well into the gray zone where few Presidents have dared to go in the past. It’s the coordination and centralization that’s important here.”

Read more

From Bloomberg.com:

Frist’s Political Future Darkens Over Questions on Stock Sales

By Laura Litvan and Otis Bilodeau

Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) – At the start of this year, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was looking at a bright political future. He led his party to an expanded majority in the Senate in November and emerged as a leading Republican hopeful for the 2008 presidential race.

Less than nine months later, that picture appears darker. Frist, 53, now faces inquiries into his stock sales by the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission that threaten to undermine him politically and provide Democrats fresh ammunition with which to question their opponents’ ethics.

“If there is really any evidence of insider trading, then he’s in very serious trouble, and so is his party,'’ said Gary Jacobson, professor of political science at the University of California in San Diego.

“It adds another brick to Democrats’ argument that Republicans are corrupt.'’

Frist through his spokesmen has denied any wrongdoing in the sale of shares of HCA Inc. held in a blind trust earlier this year, one month before a weak earnings report sparked a drop in the company’s stock. Nashville, Tennessee-based HCA, the biggest U.S. hospital chain, was founded by Frist’s father and brother. …

The probes add to the ethical questions hanging over congressional Republicans. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, was admonished three times by the House ethics committee last year and soon faces a new probe into his overseas trips funded by Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Last week, the White House’s former top procurement official, David Safavian, was arrested on charges of obstructing justice in a criminal probe of Abramoff.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Sept. 24 that her watchdog group will file a complaint with the Senate ethics committee as early as today seeking an examination of the timing of Frist’s stock sale.

There’s one good thing these verbal barbarisms can do for you, though, and that is to bring home the point of a quote from the late George Burns, the comedian, who said, “Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair.” Read ‘em all, progressive readers, and then consider running for office, please.

1) “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.” -President
Bush, on “Good Morning America,” Sept. 1, 2005, six days after repeated
warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Hurricane
Katrina (Source: Media Matters)

2) “What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in
Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the
people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this
(chuckle) - this is working very well for them.” -Former First Lady Barbara
Bush, on the Hurricane flood evacuees in the Houston Astrodome, Sept. 5,
2005 (Source: Editor and Publisher)

3) “It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that’s
seven feet under sea level….It looks like a lot of that place could be
bulldozed.” -House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Aug. 31, 2005 (Source: Sun-Times)

4) “We’ve got a lot of rebuilding to do … The good news is - and it’s hard
for some to see it now - that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic
Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott’s house -
he’s lost his entire house - there’s going to be a fantastic house. And I’m
looking forward to sitting on the porch.” (Laughter) -President Bush,
touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005 (Source: Huffington)

5) “Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans,
virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well.”
-FEMA Director Michael Brown, Sept. 1, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2005%2FWEATHER%2F09%2F01%2Fkatrina.fema.brown%2F>
)

6) “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” -President Bush, to FEMA
director Michael Brown, while touring Hurricane-ravaged Mississippi, Sept.
2, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Feandp%2Fcolumns%2Fpressingissues_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content_id%3D1001054581>
)

7) “I have not heard a report of thousands of people in the convention
center who don’t have food and water.” -Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff, on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Sept. 1, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2005%2F09%2F01%2Fchertoff-reality%2F>
)

8) “Well, I think if you look at what actually happened, I remember on
Tuesday morning picking up newspapers and I saw headlines, ‘New Orleans
Dodged the Bullet.’ Because if you recall, the storm moved to the east and
then continued on and appeared to pass with considerable damage but nothing
worse.” -Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, blaming media
coverage < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wonkette.com%2Fpolitics%2Fmichael-chertoff%2Findex.php%23chertoffs-reading-habits-123841>
for his failings, “Meet the Press,” Sept. 4, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F9179790%2F>
)

9) “I mean, you have people who don’t heed those warnings and then put
people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a
need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and
understand that there are consequences to not leaving.” -Sen. Rick Santorum
(R-PA), Sept. 6, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesleader.com%2Fmld%2Ftimesleader%2Fnews%2Fbreaking_news%2F12574597.htm>
)

10) “You simply get chills every time you see these poor individuals…many
of these people, almost all of them that we see are so poor and they are so
black, and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are
watching this story unfold.” -CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, on New Orleans’ hurricane
evacuees, Sept. 1, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wonkette.com%2F%23someones-been-reading-jack-shafer-123532>
)
11) “What didn’t go right?’” -President Bush, as quoted by House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), after she urged him to fire FEMA Director
Michael Brown “because of all that went wrong, of all that didn’t go right”
in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort (Source < http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-07-congress-bush-katrina_x.htm>
)

12) “Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?” -House Majority
Leader Tom Delay (R-TX), to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans
at the Astrodome in Houston (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wonkette.com%2Fpolitics%2F%2Fi-dont-know-mr-majority-leader-why-dont-you-sleep-in-a-sporting-facility-after-enduring-days-of-diminished-food-water-plumbing-and-public-safety-and->
)

13) “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it,
but God did.” -Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA) to lobbyists, as quoted in the Wall
Street Journal (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.dccc.org%2Fmt%2Farchives%2F003475.html>
)

14) “Louisiana is a city that is largely under water.” -Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff, news conference, Sept. 3, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fatrios.blogspot.com%2F2005_09_04_atrios_archive.html%23112597122217543452>
)

15) “I also want to encourage anybody who was affected by Hurricane Corina
to make sure their children are in school.” -First Lady Laura Bush, twice
referring to a “Hurricane Corina” while speaking to children and parents in
South Haven, Mississippi, Sept. 8, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crooksandliars.com%2F2005%2F09%2F09.html%23a4875>
)

16) “It’s totally wiped out. … It’s devastating, it’s got to be doubly
devastating on the ground.” -President Bush, turning to his aides while
surveying Hurricane Katrina flood damage from Air Force One, Aug. 31, 2005
(Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2005%2FPOLITICS%2F08%2F31%2Fbush.katrina.ap%2F>
)

17) “I believe the town where I used to come - from Houston, Texas, to enjoy
myself, occasionally too much - will be that very same town, that it will be
a better place to come to.” -President Bush, on the tarmac at the New
Orleans airport, Sept. 2, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2005%2F09%2F02%2Fnational%2Fnationalspecial%2F02BUSH-NOTEXT.html>
)

18) “Last night, we showed you the full force of a superpower government
going to the rescue.” -MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Sept. 1, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyhowler.com%2Fdh090205.shtml>
)

19) “You know I talked to Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi
yesterday because some people were saying, ‘Well, if you hadn’t sent your
National Guard to Iraq, we here in Mississippi would be better off.’ He told
me ‘I’ve been out in the field every single day, hour, for four days and no
one, not one single mention of the word Iraq.’ Now where does that come
from? Where does that story come from if the governor is not picking up one
word about it? I don’t know. I can use my imagination.” -Former President
George Bush, who can give his imagination a rest < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2005%2F08%2F30%2FAR2005083002162.html>
, interview with CNN’s Larry King, Sept. 5, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorandpublisher.com%2Feandp%2Fnews%2Farticle_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content_id%3D1001054805>
)

20) “We just learned of the convention center - we being the federal
government - today.” -FEMA Director Michael Brown, to ABC’s Ted Koppel,
Sept. 1, 2005, to which Koppel responded ” Don’t you guys watch television?
Don’t you guys listen to the radio? Our reporters have been reporting on it
for more than just today.” (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Famericablog.blogspot.com%2F2005%2F09%2Fted-koppel-rips-rips-rips-michael.html>
)
21) “I don’t want to alarm everybody that, you know, New Orleans is filling
up like a bowl. That’s just not happening.” -Bill Lokey, FEMA’s New Orleans
coordinator, in a press briefing from Baton Rouge, Aug. 30, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nola.com%2Fnewslogs%2Fbreakingtp%2Findex.ssf%3F%2Fmtlogs%2Fnola_Times-Picayune%2Farchives%2F2005_09.html%23077935>
)

22) “FEMA is not going to hesitate at all in this storm. We are not going to
sit back and make this a bureaucratic process. We are going to move fast, we
are going to move quick, and we are going to do whatever it takes to help
disaster victims.” –FEMA Director Michael Brown, Aug. 28, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crooksandliars.com%2F2005%2F09%2F07.html%23a4845>
)

23) “I don’t make judgments about why people chose not to leave but, you
know, there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans.” -FEMA Director
Michael Brown, arguing that the victims bear some responsibility, CNN
interview, Sept. 1, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2005%2FWEATHER%2F09%2F01%2Fkatrina.fema.brown%2F>
)

24) “I understand there are 10,000 people dead. It’s terrible. It’s tragic.
But in a democracy of 300 million people, over years and years and years,
these things happen.” –GOP strategist Jack Burkman, on MSNBC’s “Connected,”
Sept. 7, 2005 (Source < http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crooksandliars.com%2F2005%2F09%2F06.html%23a4820>
)

25) “Thank President Clinton and former President Bush for their strong
statements of support and comfort today. I thank all the leaders that are
coming to Louisiana, and Mississippi and Alabama to our help and rescue. We
are grateful for the military assets that are being brought to bear. I want
to thank Senator Frist and Senator Reid for their extraordinary efforts.
Anderson, tonight, I don’t know if you’ve heard - maybe you all have
announced it – but Congress is going to an unprecedented session to pass a
$10 billion supplemental bill tonight to keep FEMA and the Red Cross up and
operating.” -Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Aug. 31,
2005, to which Cooper responded:

“I haven’t heard that, because, for the last four days, I’ve been seeing
dead bodies in the streets here in Mississippi. And to listen to politicians
thanking each other and complimenting each other, you know, I got to tell
you, there are a lot of people here who are very upset, and very angry, and
very frustrated. And when they hear politicians slap - you know, thanking
one another, it just, you know, it kind of cuts them the wrong way right
now, because literally there was a body on the streets of this town
yesterday being eaten by rats because this woman had been laying in the
street for 48 hours. And there’s not enough facilities to take her up. Do
you get the anger that is out here?” Source

The last line of this says it all…

NEWS SUMMARY
As Howard Fineman, Adam Nagourney, Rick Berke, Jeff Greenfield, Elizabeth Wilner, Ron Brownstein, Matt Cooper, Mike Abramowitz, and Ken Mehlman would say, “How is the situation President Bush faces tonight different than on all other nights since 9/11?":

He has never seen his poll numbers take this kind of hit among Republicans before.

He has never seen his poll numbers on “strong leader” and “can handle a crisis” take such a hit before.

He has never seen his efforts to build the Republican Party among African-Americans be so thoroughly undermined before.

He has never been rolled by Nancy Pelosi before.

He has never been without Dr. Rice or Ambassador Hughes down the hall during a crisis before.

He has never had two open-ended spending commitments of tens of billions of dollars before.

He has never had to take “responsibility” for such death-infused tragedy before.

He has never had to rethink whether he has put fully qualified people in critical jobs before.

He has never had so many well-meaning Republican strategists and Administration aides whole-heartedly agreeing that the White House was too slow off the mark in dealing with a crisis before. He has never had to dial back on his view that “it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life” — at least in public — before.

He has never had to be dependent on an inexperienced Democratic governor of a poor state for his own political health before.

He has never faced the possibility of long-term blame for something (the rebuilding of New Orleans and other devastated areas) that is to a large extent beyond his control — and which he will say tonight should be left largely to the choices of local people — before.

He has never had to be so deeply self-conscious about tossing off sarcastic remarks, half-baked cracks, and casual comments before.

He has never been so denied the cushion of his nonchalant confidence and relaxed superiority before.

He has never been perceived as such a potential liability by others in his party looking to hold their seats before.

He has never lacked The Other — an enemy to demonize and to contrast with himself and his policies in the eyes of the media and the public before.

American Red Cross

http://arc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main

MoveOn.org - Civic Action, Hurricane aid resources

http://www.hurricanehousing.org/

We missed this juicy titbit from our friend Pat Robertson in our fringe bytes section. All you blue state hedonists may want to beware…

Bring it on: End of times

Some Bible students theorize that when Revelation describes “the mystery of Babylon, mother of harlots, who made the nations of the world drunk with the wine of her fornication,” it may be alluding to New York or Hollywood, or other powerful cities in the United States that have exported our immorality to the world.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
http://www.venganza.org/

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

Hail, Hail Rock and Roll!!!

THE ROLLING STONES accuse US President GEORGE W BUSH of being “full of sh*t” on their new album.

The track ‘Sweet Neo Con’, one of the tracks on the forthcoming ‘A Bigger Bang’, was already known to be fiercely anti-Bush.

However, frontman Mick Jagger’s disdain for the American leader has now been confirmed, with Rolling Stones singer revealing some of the lyrics in an interview with Newsweek.

But the singer has revealed that guitarist Keith Richards, who lives in the US, is a bit worried about the direct nature of the words.

An extract from ‘Sweet Neo Con’ features the following lines: “You call yourself a Christian, I call you u a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you’re full of sh*t.”

Jagger said of the track: “It is direct. Keith said: ‘It’s not really metaphorical.’

“I think he’s a bit worried because he lives in the US. But I don’t.”

As a resident of Florida and political Progressive, I am of course frequently embarrassed by what goes on in this “Land of 1000 Election Crimes.” This week, however, the Florida Dems exhibit at least some of the gumption they have so famously lacked, albeit with nothing other than a sidebar. At their site they’ve got a collection of direct quotes from Repugs who, remember, just hated Clinton’s commitment of troops to NATO’s peacekeeping attempts in Bosnia. Geez, at least he and his buddies weren’t making money off that campaign. Nope, just trying to stop a genocide.

Below is the full catalogue of juicy, damning quotes. Notice what a busy boy Tom Delay was, trying to steer a Bandwagon of Restraint and Concern. (This same bandwagon, by the way, was driven into a ditch in Sugarland, Texas, and left there to rot, early in the morning of January 20, 2001.)

“You can support the troops but not the president.” -
Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“[The] president is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” -
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” -
Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” -
Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.” -
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.” -
Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The president began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the president started this thing, and there still is no plan today.” -
Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life.” -
Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” -
Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” -
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.” -
Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

How does a rumor get started? These days, it’s the Internet. From the Christian Coalition blog:

Liberals threaten to filibuster Roberts
As expected, liberal members of the US Senate are threatening to filibuster Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court - especially if they don’t get the answers they want on issues such as abortion. (h/t Confirm Them) Aren’t these the same folks who said there shouldn’t be a “litmus” test for judges?? Just curious.

Follow that link to “Confirm Them,” “a project of RedState.org,” and you find this gem:

Senators Boxer and Cantwell say that Judge Roberts must not only disclose how he would have voted in the 5-4 Casey decision in 1992 (modifying but not overturning Roe v. Wade), but additionally Roberts must also support that decision in order to get their votes.

Previously, Boxer threatened a filibuster if Roberts refuses to oblige regarding this issue. Likewise, Senator Durbin also threatened a filibuster if Judge Roberts disagrees with Durbin about another case.

Follow those links, and you get this:

Associated Press reports:

Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an “extraordinary circumstance.” “It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table,” she said.

That is baloney. First of all […]

and this:

Curry’s MSNBC article also includes this unfortunate quote from Senator Durbin of Illinois:

“If they don’t respect the Griswold decision, as far as I am concerned they should be filibustered,” Durbin said.

So here we go again with the filibusters. […]

What’s the problem? Well, the Boxer quote was from July 5, and the Durbin quote was from June 9 – long before Roberts was even nominated. They weren’t talking about Roberts at all – just some hypothetical raging ideologue. (It remains to be seen whether Roberts really is one.)

I guess they were short on filibuster threats, so they decided to dig some up from the vault. Meanwhile, after Roberts’ nomination approximately no one in the Senate has threatened a filibuster. Several “Gang of 14″ Democrats felt obligated to emphasize their lack of threat.

“This is a credible nominee, and not one that – as far as we know now – has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said Bush had “made a wise choice.” Asked whether a filibuster was likely, Nelson said: “I think it’s fair to say I don’t see anything coming out right now.”

“My sense is so far, so good,” summed up Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. (7/21)

U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd says he feels a kindred spirit in Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, who shares Byrd’s interests in the Constitution, Cicero and John Marshall.

“I was favorably impressed,” Byrd told reporters after meeting Roberts. “I like him.” (8/2)

It’s like the old game “telephone,” where one kid whispers to another, who whispers the message to the next, and so on — until the message is utter nonsense.

Here, the message was apparently that some Democrats are asking questions about Roberts. Not too exciting, but take some pre-nomination positioning, give the links tasty names, and next thing you know you have a headline — “Liberals threaten to filibuster Roberts” — completely opposed to reality.

I wonder where we’ll see it show up next?

I arrived at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court at 9 pm on the night of Tuesday July 19, as President Bush was in mid-speech nominating John G. Roberts to Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Court. I was invited by an organization carrying the deceptively secular name National Pro-Life Action Center. Expecting a press conference, for that is how it was billed, instead I witnessed a prayer meeting.

The group of maybe fifty souls, at least half under the age of twenty-five (evangelicals seem to have large families and take them to rallies en masse), was circled around the sound system, listening intently to the President and then Roberts speak. I was perplexed by a middle-aged man next to me, hunched over and rocking back and forth with his eyes closed–then I realized he was praying. He wasn’t the only one. The crowd seemed to be experiencing this political event as a deeply spiritual moment.

The press conference was barely differentiated from the kneeling prayer vigil beforehand or the candlelight vigil afterwards. There was a podium, but it was treated as a pulpit. All of the seven speakers, three of them clergymen, invoked God. All were certain that He had intervened in Bush’s thought process on behalf of the unborn.

They had dodged a narrow bullet. The second speaker, Rev. Rob Schenck, President of the National Clergy Council, opened by declaring

President Bush has shown extraordinary moral courage in bringing forth John G. Roberts as his nominee for appointment to the United States Supreme Court. I would like to say that we had no moments of doubt, but that would not be true.

This was a startling admission, it seemed to me, because the later speakers were almost unanimous in asserting that Roberts’ nomination was evidence that God had heard their prayers. What if Bush had nominated the soft-on-abortion Alberto Gonzales? Would they have doubted their faith in God? I suspect that when Bush pleases them they see an affirmation of their faith in God, but when Bush disappoints them they only question their faith in Bush.

Later, I questioned Rev. Schenck’s fresh-faced assistant, on the Clergy Council. What about a woman who would die carrying a fetus to term? “We would hope that it would be the best outcome in God’s sight.” In other words, if she dies it’s God’s will and who are we mere mortals to intervene? God’s will was invoked many times that evening and all the speakers presumed to know what it is. But it left me wondering, if it’s in God’s power to end abortion, why hasn’t he done it yet? Does God have to wait for a vacancy on the Supreme Court for his will to be done?

A young woman, sporting blond pigtails and fingering a Bible, and hailing from a nebulous organization called simply The Cause spoke after Rev. Schenck. She opened with a psalm, and she concluded her speech saying:

Our government is in a transitional moment where we have shifting going on but we believe it’s because of the prayers of the saints. We believe that God answers the cries of the righteous and he is quick to act justly on their behalf. So begin to cry out to god. For righteousness and justice to roll down from our government for righteousness and justice to roll down from this seat that John Roberts has now been placed in. Cry out for justice and righteousness in the Senate that the committees would confirm him quickly and that they would do justly in the sight of the Lord.

She listed justice and righteousness as if they were inseparable. This told me a lot about the thinking of the Christian Right. A secular jurist, whatever his position on Roe v. Wade, makes a distinction between justice and righteousness. The former is a legal consideration, the latter a religious one. The two are logically separable, and that is all the more so in the cases under the Supreme Court’s purview, which determine the constitutionality of a law, not its justness (much less its righteousness). But to this group the federal government’s fealty ought not to be to the constitution, but rather to God. Their mission is not to do what the constitution says, but to “do justly in the sight of the Lord.” To me a judiciary that makes its decisions on its own interpretation of God’s will sounds like an activist judiciary–but apparently not to another speaker, Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition. He declared “It is our hope and our prayer that judicial activism will come to an end. And that judges will not legislate from the bench.”

“There’s a 22 word prayer that we pray every day in front of this court five times a day at least. said a young man, named Brian Kim, who has also been holding vigil at the Court since thirty days before the 2004 election. And as he began the whole crowd joined in: “Jesus we plead your blood over my sins and the sins of my nation. God end abortion and send revival to America.” This left me more confused. They stand before the court to ask God for a favor. Isn’t that what a church is for? Wouldn’t one stand before the Court when asking them for a favor? Never before had I realized the degree to which the religious right seeks to bring religious power to bear on civil institutions.

Tuesday was an object lesson in what the left is up against. No one I know hold’s his or her commitment to secular liberal values with the fervor and intensity that this crowd held their commitment to Christian values. NARAL instantly denounced John Roberts, but where were their activists? In addition to the rally there was an unrelated band of youngsters from Progress for America, the conservative 501c4, holding up placards urging swift confirmation for the benefit of the television cameras shooting generic footage of the Court. Off to the side stood one lonely crank with a homemade drawing of a coat-hanger.