Shakesville

Get a Load of this Guy

The NY Times reports that prominent Republican consultant Arthur J. Finkelstein just took advantage of the beautiful blue in Massachusetts—to marry his male partner.

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

"I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners," he said.

…after spending a lifetime helping foster the political careers of people like Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Don Nickels (R-OK), both of whom were such virulent homobigots that they even voted against bills proposed to protect the LGBT community against discrimination.

One of Mr. Finkelstein's associates, who declined to speak on the record, citing Mr. Finkelstein's desire for privacy, said Mr. Finkelstein did not view his marriage as a political statement and had specifically decided to have a civil ceremony rather than a religious one. This associate argued that over the past 20 years, Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government, distancing himself from social conservatives as they have gained political muscle and dominance in the party.

[…]

Mr. Finkelstein has frequently come under criticism by gay rights groups for representing politicians who have been ardent foes of gay rights. He helped create the template for a line of attack he repeatedly invoked against Democrats, including Mario M. Cuomo of New York, describing them as liberal.

And yet, he was perfectly willing to reap the benefits of liberal policies, marrying his longtime partner, and, what the NY Times article doesn’t mention but this article does, adopting two children.

Finkelstein has made millions demonizing liberals and liberal policies, running attack campaigns against Mario Cuomo, Jack Reed, and Paul Wellstone, yet depends on the spirit of full equality championed by liberals, who have fought for the rights of the gay community to have equal marriage and parenting rights, to create the family he wanted, the family his clients would never allow.

I’m glad Mr. Finkelstein and his husband have that family. I wish he and other disingenuous pricks like him wouldn’t make their names and fortunes trying to prevent others from having the same.

Quote of the Day

Courtesy of The Lion and the Donkey:

When Sean Hannity’s guest accuses Alan Colmes of being too tough on white supremacists, something is seriously, seriously wrong in this country.

Indeed.

Blog Notes

I’ve reworked the menus so that they’re collapsible, making the page a little bit cleaner and giving blogScream the prominence it deserves. I’ve also divided up the links list into two categories—Blogroll and Media—and added some new posts to the Greatest Hits list.

Same old junk; different layout.

Evil Herbivore Blogging: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Edition

Eddie Izzard on why transvestites should be allowed in the military, too:

I was going to be in the army when I was a kid. Yes. And I say that and people go, ohhhyuhyuhyuh, no I was, I was going to be in the army when I was a kid. Because if you’re a transvestite, you’re actually a male tomboy…

I didn’t join the army, as you might have noticed… Because there’s not much makeup in the army, is there? No? They only have that nighttime look, and that’s a bit slapdash, isn’t it? And they look a mess. And so you can’t join, even though the American armed forces have a distinct policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” towards the alternative sexualities. If you’re a bloke wearing a lot of makeup, you know, I don’t think they need to ask, really. And so you can’t join. They go, “No, no, you can’t. It’s – wrong shade of lipstick for the army, I’m afraid…”

And they’re missing a huge opportunity here because we all know one of the main elements of attack is the element of surprise. So what could be more surprising than the 1st Battalion Transvestite Brigade—airborne wing. The airborne wing parachuting into dangerous areas with fantastic makeup! And a fantastic gun. And the opposing forces going, “Fucking hell, look at these guys… Hey, they’ve got guns! Ahhhh! They’ve got guns! Oh bugger. I was so surprised. Were you surprised? I was surprised. ”

Eddie, get your gun.

Help Needed

Does anyone know anything about the veracity of this?

The conditions of the program are simple. A young man who is at least 14 years old and has a parent's permission can enlist in the U.S. military, but will not report to duty until he reaches the legal age. The future soldier agrees to remain "physically and mentally fit" and to undergo annual physical examinations at the Military Entrance and Processing Station (MEPS). In exchange, the government provides him a $10,000 sign-on bonus that is paid in yearly installments of $2,500 until the age of 18, at which time any remaining balance is given to the recruit....

Dr. P has a link to the original article in his post; anything I found in my research led back to same article. If you know or can find out anything about whether this is true, will you please let me know?

Question of the Day: Hate is Learned Edition

Not too long ago, Pam and I had an interesting conversation in which we recalled becoming aware of race (and racism) for the first time. Both of us were surprisingly old, but the longevity of our naïveté was not because we were insulated; both of us lived in diverse communities (she more so than I) and had friends of other races. It was, perhaps, because of that, that the first time we heard someone singled out as being somehow “different” because of his or her race, it seemed almost shocking. For me, it was a friend telling me her mother would never let her date the boy I was going out with. When I asked why, she replied, “Because he’s a spic.” So matter-of-fact. It was the moment I became aware of racism as a practice, rather than just an abstract concept about which I'd heard, and really, the first time I ever thought about what “race” really meant. Until that point, it was if “blonde” and “black” had approximately the same connotation to me—neutral descriptors about what someone looked like.

And I remember hearing the definition of “gay” for the first time as a child and having no reaction other than, “Okay,” to it—never did I experience any visceral fear or discomfort with it. It was only later, when a neighbor boy got mad at me and called me gay, that I had my first inkling there were people who didn’t think gay was okay, and that if they called you gay, it was supposed to be bad, to make you feel bad. That’s when I first became aware of homophobia.

I also recall my dad, a great athlete and a multi-sport high school coach, being asked if he was disappointed that he’d had two daughters. For a moment, I didn’t even understand what was meant by the question. As the realization sunk in, I remember my cheeks flushing; I felt mad and ashamed. My parents were disgusted by the question, which made me feel better, but that first experience with sexism has stayed with me to this day.

I was raised by parents who never used slurs, never discriminated against anyone, and took me to a church where racism, intolerance of other religions, homophobia, and the like were never preached. Yet, by the time I reached adulthood, I had become aware of every stereotype in the book. I had learned them, unwittingly, at school, in the neighborhood, outside my home. I chose not to believe what racists, homophobes, and sexists believed, but I could not avoid their reach.

So, I'm interested to see how we all individually learn about these things. Do you remember the first time you first became aware of one kind of bigotry or another? Raised in a prejudiced family? Experienced prejudice yourself...?

British Election Watch: Part 1

Prime Minister Blair has announced that a general election will be held on May 5th, and asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament. This year's election will be one of the most important in recent history, since there are many issues of a momentous nature facing the British electorate, and the choices the country makes in the next few years will be very difficult to reverse. The outcome will also have serious repercussions for Bush & Co., since the last few years have seen Mr. Blair turn the United Kingdom into the Neocons’ lap dog, to the great displeasure of members of even his own party, not to mention the great embarrassment of the British public, which is for the most part dismayed at the country’s involvement in the war. Should the election not go Mr. Blair’s way then the Bush administration may not only lose the contribution Britain has made to the war effort, but more importantly, the diplomatic support and the veneer of a genuine international coalition that British involvement has created. Of course, other allies do exist, but none possess a seat on the Security Council, nor have any of them supplied troops in sufficient numbers to make anything more than symbolic gesture.

However, the bad news is that both of Britain’s major political parties– The Conservative Party, led by Michael Howard, and The Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, support the Iraq war; the only major contention between them being over whether or not Tony Blair lied about WMD, an issue that the Conservatives are trying to push in order to undermine trust in the Blair government. Fortunately, however, Britain does possess a 3rd sizable political party – The Liberal Democrats, led by Charles Kennedy, which has in recent times positioned itself at the center of Britain’s political spectrum. However, as The Labour Party has drifted right under the Thatcher-Lite leadership of Mr. Blair, the Lib Dems, have moved to fill the political void that has opened up on the left. This has proved to be a great boon to them, as they have taken their base in the center with them, and picked up many votes from Labour supporters disaffected with Mr. Blair’s behavior over the Iraq war. As a party they are defined by their vehement opposition to the war and a strong pro European stance; in other words, they personify a Bush nightmare.

Now, while there is no chance that the Lib Dems could actually win this thing outright, as they are currently polling at around the 20% mark (Labour and The Conservatives are tied up at 36%), if they can bleed off enough of Labour’s support, they may create a situation where the Conservatives are forced to form a coalition government with them. I won’t bore you with the mechanics of how this would all work (the British electoral system is possibly even more convoluted than the American one), but the upshot would be a Government that stands a good chance of putting an end to British support of the Iraq war. The Conservatives are far more likely to compromise on this issue than they are over Europe, and it would be the smartest political move for them, since most Britons dislike the Iraq war and have traditionally been suspicious of what those pesky Krauts and Frogs get up to in Brussels.

As recently as a few months ago, a scenario such as the one outlined above seemed impossible; Blair was riding high in the polls, and the Conservatives were failing to capitalize on the catastrophe in Iraq. Recent revelations that Blair may have withheld important caveats from the intelligence he presented to his cabinet prior to the Iraq war has changed the playing field considerably, however, and the Labour Party, already deeply divided over the war, is starting to tear itself apart. Only the prospect of a general election around the corner is holding the malcontents in check, and if the squabbling worsens, a Conservative victory, with or without The Lib Dems, will be the likely outcome.

All right – That'll get us started. Over the next month I’ll be keeping an eye on events, and will do my best to keep all you Shakers up on the latest developments. In the meantime I’d appreciate some feedback on just how much interest this topic holds for you lot. Should I go into more detail about the individual parties and their historical role in British politics? Should I take the time to outline all the major issues at stake, even those that do not have ramifications for Bush? Or alternatively, should I keep my Limey mouth shut!?

Let me know.

National Press Club Panel on Gannon Wrap-Up

AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis had ongoing coverage and is now culling responses, some of which is here, here, and here. The Agonist’s Sean-Paul Kelley has his wrap-up here. Matt Yglesias comments here. Editor and Publisher comments here. Wonkette comments here and here.

Crooks and Liars has an edited video here.

Apparently, it may be repeated tonight at 8:00 EST on C-SPAN (maybe C-SPAN 2; I’m not sure).

And finally, my favorite piece of coverage of this thing so far comes from John A., who also reported:

Question SCREAMED across the room in the closing seconds of the panel, from Mike Rogers of blogACTIVE.com:

"Did you ever sleep with anyone on the White House staff prior to getting your daily pass?"

"He's a pig."

"What about Ken Mehlman?"

Snort.

Mother Duck

I love animals. Creatures in every shape and size—fuzzy, slimy, scaly, drooly, clever, dopey, four-legged, six-legged, eight-legged, winged, crawly, hoppy, stinky, noisy, tame, wild—I love ‘em all. I’m one who bring home strays, and who’s liked by pets whose owners swear never like anyone.

Nonetheless, I still think the media has better things to report, the Secret Service has better things to do, and John Snow needs to get back to work. Link:

The Secret Service, which has the job of guarding the president and other dignitaries, now has a new temporary duty - protecting a mother duck and her nine eggs.

The duck, a brown mallard with white markings, has had several names suggested by Treasury Department people, including "Quacks Reform," "T-Bill," and "Duck Cheney." It has built a nest in a mulch pile right at the main entrance to the Treasury Department on Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Secret Service's uniformed division, which provides protection for the White House and Treasury building, has set up metal guard rails to protect the nest, which has attracted the notice of tourists on their way to see the White House.

The duck has been provided with a water bowl and seems oblivious to all the attention, sitting calmly on its nest on top of the mulch pile that surrounds one of the new trees planted along Pennsylvania Avenue as part of a renovation project.

Treasury Secretary John Snow stopped to pay his respects this week on the way back from a congressional hearing, Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols said Friday.

"He had been briefed on the duck and he stopped to pay a visit," said Nichols.

The eggs are expected to hatch the last week of April at which time the duck will be relocated nearer water. But until then, the duck will occupy some of Washington's prime real estate.

"Foreign leaders, members of Congress, everybody who visits Treasury has to pass by the duck," Nichols said.

Briefed on the duck? Oy.

Moscow on the State of Our Union

Recently I highlighted some of the incredible investigative work Brad at BradBlog has done regarding possible election fraud and related ongoing irregularities, including the suspicious death of an investigator from the Florida Inspector General's office. (If you haven’t read the original post, I highly recommend doing so—and if you happen to have a blog of your own, make some noise about it.)

Now, Brad reports:

[T]oday, it's The Moscow Times who joins the World's America Hating Party in a damning article suggesting the game is over and the forces of Democracy in the previously-Free World have lost.

So just what did this Moscow Times article have to say? Well, in addition to some fine reporting on Brad’s Clint Curtis coverage (summarized in my aforementioned earlier post), it said exactly what the American press has avoided saying, much to the detriment of our democratic process.

The re-election of President George W. Bush last November was a deliberately shambolic process that saw massive lockouts of opposition voters; unverifiable returns compiled by easily hackable machines operated by avowed corporate partisans of the ruling party; and vast discrepancies between exit polls and final results – gaps much larger than those that led elections in Ukraine and Georgia to be condemned as manipulated frauds. Indeed, a panel of statisticians said last week that the odds of such a discrepancy occurring naturally were 959,000 to 1, the Akron Beacon-Journal reported.

The copious documentation of the Bush fraud keeps growing. Last month, experts using actual machines and returns from the 2004 election showed Congress how a lone hacker could skew a precinct's results by 100,000 votes without leaving a trace.

So Congress was shown how the election could have been stolen, and not only do we hear nothing about it from Congress, but we have to go to Moscow to find out about it from the press. The article also notes that no significant moves have been made to rectify

the highly profitable degradation of the American electoral process -- beyond the appointment of yet another "blue-ribbon panel" of Establishment worthies to oversee "election reform." The seriousness of this endeavor can be seen in the man appointed to co-chair the effort: James Baker, the notorious Bush family fixer (and Saudi bagman) who spearheaded the sabotage of the 2000 vote in Florida. Baker's presence on the panel ensures that nothing will be done to lessen the ruling clique's chokehold on power.

Good night. (See Velvet Revolution’s press release calling for Baker’s resignation here.)

The last three paragraphs of the article are perhaps the most chilling, in no small part because they would never, ever, be found in an American newspaper—another reminder of the media’s complicity in the slow, downward spiral of the once-great American democracy.

So let's have no illusions about where we are. Gangsters are in charge, and nothing and no one will be allowed to challenge their dominion. They are waging aggressive war to cement their position and that of their allies: the energy barons, the arms merchants, the construction and services cartels, the investment bankers. These power blocs now command monstrous resources and unfathomable profits; they can buy out, buy off or bury any force that opposes them. Meanwhile, they use the loot of the stolen Republic -- its blood and treasure -- as fuel for their ever-expanding war machine: Bush now has a "secret watch-list" of 25 more countries ripe for military intervention, the Financial Times reported.

With more war crimes afoot, last month Bush issued an official "National Defense Strategy" that openly declares "judicial processes" as one of the enemies confronting the United States, actually equating them with terrorism, The Associated Press reported. Law is "a strategy of the weak," says the Bush Doctrine, in a chilling echo of Hitlerian machtpolitik: Might makes right. The judicial process must not be allowed to "constrain or shape" American behavior in any way, the gangsters declared.

Think of it: Law is now the enemy. Democracy, as we've seen above, is the enemy. This, the demented code of criminals and tyrants, has become the ruling doctrine of the United States -- replacing the Constitution, replacing the noble struggle for liberty and enlightenment with the howl of the beast, with a freak show of avarice and death.

Fuck.

Friday Blogrollin’

Every one of these additions today are loooooong overdue—my apologies.

SimianBrain. All good, all the time. And she gets letters from the preznit!

Pharyngula, who’s definitely on my wavelength with Satan is a Reptoid.

Bradford Plumer. Smart and wonky and writes for Mother Jones, and also posts stuff like this—gotta dig it.

Avedon Carol, who always catches good stuff.

Angry Bear. Three writers, lots of info, tons to like.

Agitprop. Even though I’m still not on the blogroll over there—pout.

BuzzFlash has also been added.

Also, it seems like the Blogwhorin’ Open Thread was a success; it certainly was from my vantage point, because, as I’ve said, I am an information junkie, and having good stuff brought to my doorstep is the ultimate fix. If everyone else liked it, from here on out, I’ll make it a regular feature. What do you think—weekly? daily?

Soulful Soldier

Pam has another excellent post at the Blend (and Big Brass Blog) about an Iraq war veteran with a Purple Heart, Army Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, who wants to continue his military career, but the military isn’t sure they want him. As you may recall, the Army is having problems meeting its recruitment goals, the National Guard is relaxing educational standards and age requirements, and every segment of the military has upped their advertising and are fighting to keep recruiters on college campuses. So why on earth would the military even consider turning away a heroic Army Sergeant who has courageously served his country in war?

Because he’s gay.

Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.

"I know a ton of gay men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open," Stout said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But if we have to stay here and hide our lives all the time, it's just not worth it."

Stout, of Utica, Ohio, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent pieces of shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was operating a machine gun on an armored Humvee last May.

Quite a soldier. Brave on the battlefield; just as brave off the battlefield. And he couldn’t have chosen a better time to address this particular issue. Support for allowing gays to serve openly in the military has been steadily increasing, and while enlistments are decreasing, it’s getting ever more difficult to justify a policy that turns away good soldiers for no good reason.

"We can't keep hiding the fact that there's gay people in the military and they aren't causing any harm," said Stout, who says he is openly gay among most of his 26-member platoon, which is part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Schweinfurt, Germany.

Stout, who served in Iraq for more than a year as a combat engineer, said by acknowledging he is gay, he could be jailed and probably will be discharged before his scheduled release date of May 31.

"The old armchair thought that gay people destroy unit camaraderie and cohesion is just wrong," Stout said. "They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military."

Before the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, enacted in 1993 under the Clinton administration, the Pentagon had explicitly barred gays from military service. At least 24 countries, including Great Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and Israel, allow gays to serve openly.

[…]

"The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, when it first came out, was a good stepping stone, but it's outlived its usefulness," [Stout] said. "We've progressed past it both as a military and as a society."

Right on. This guy is seriously my new hero.

We really ought to be ashamed of ourselves at how far behind the curve we are on this one. At least twenty-four other countries allow gays to serve openly, but we’re ready to kick a hero out of the service because he wants to be able to be honest about his sexuality? Ridiculous. Bigoted. Foolish.

And costly:

A recent congressional study on the impact of "don't ask, don't tell" said that hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the rule, at a cost of nearly $200 million, mostly for recruiting and training replacements for 9,500 troops discharged between 1994 and 2003.

The cost of homophobia: $200 million. The cost of tolerance: free.

Friday Limerick

The President’s numbers are dropping,
Though the media has yet to quit propping
Him up as a saint;
But a good man he ain’t.
Still, the kudos don’t seem to be stopping.

(I am having all kinds of trouble even signing in to Blogger. I can’t get Friday Blogrollin’ done, and nothing else wants to post, either. So consider this an open thread for anything about which you want to natter. Hopefully, I’ll be able to post something at some point.)

Mitch “the Blade” Daniels is Still a Stinky, Cretinous, Disgusting Lout (Part in an Ongoing Series)

Indiana, my home, and home to cultural cavemen who want to protect children from naked statues and super-duper protect hetero marriage by legislating a gay marriage ban even though we’ve already got one on the books, could probably stand to improve its educational system, since the Enlightenment clearly has yet to reach significant parts of our state.

Our state legislature, however, has decided what we need is less education—or less funding for education, anyway—and the #1 wart on this ugly toad of state leadership, former Bush budget guru and current Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, agrees.

Indiana doesn't have a public education advocate in Gov. Mitch Daniels and too few lawmakers are interested in adequately funding the state's 1,909 public schools.

[…]

Lawmakers are struggling to craft a new two-year spending plan. Funding for Indiana's 293 public school districts takes up nearly 40 percent of the state's $24.2 billion two-year budget.

Senate Republicans have shaped a K-12 funding plan that provides 1.2 percent more in 2006 and 1.3 percent more in 2007. Schools are used to increases of at least 2 percent a year.

Even though the plan would provide overall increases in education spending, 129 public school districts would receive less in 2006 than they now receive.

The cuts that are being proposed could result in losing as many as 6,000 teachers statewide.

You’d think that Daniels, who nine years ago referred to Indiana public schools as an "abysmal and atrocious failure," would be interested in changing that reputation. In true GOP social Darwinist fashion, however, Daniels has decided to ignore the public schools in favor of voucher proposals.

Jackson Schlemmer, 12, came to the rally with his 8-year-old brother, Lincoln, and his parents, who are both teachers. The Crawfordsville boy carried a sign that he had hoped would catch the eye of Daniels and lawmakers:

"We are not budget cuts. We are the future."

My parents were both teachers who spent their entire working lives teaching in the Indiana public school system. I was educated in the Indiana public school system. My parents had a good, secure life as teachers, and consequently provided a good, secure life for my sister and me—and we both had damn fine educations. It’s a shame that the Schlemmers, parents and children alike, may not be as lucky.

Freeze, Will Robinson!

Japanese town gets a real Robocop (via Raw Story)

The safety of a Japanese neighbourhood was on Wednesday put in the hands -- briefly -- of a robot, which became police chief for the day in a campaign to promote safe driving.

T63 Artemis, named after the Greek moon goddess Artemis, helped its subordinate human officers distribute fliers on traffic safety at the train station after its appointment as head of Hakata station and surrounding neighbourhood in the southern city of Fukuoka.

The 157-centimeter (five-foot, two-inch) tall Artemis, which has two arms and weighs 100 kilograms, can go on patrol with the help of a battery, police said.

That’s pretty cool and all, but do the Japanese really expect us to be impressed with a robot police chief?! Come on. Talk to us when your nation’s got a robot second-in-command.

C.H.E.N.E.Y.
Cybernetic Humanoid Engineered for Neocon Extremism and Yelling
(By the way, you can find a picture of Cheney's "battery pack" here.)

Question of the Day

Which will we have first:

A. a female president of any ethnicity?
B. a minority male president?
C. a gay president?
D. an atheist president?
E. a non-Christian religious president?
F. a foreign-born president (after requisite changes to the Constitution)?

Regarding your answer, are you choosing it based on a specific person (Hillary, Condi, Obama) that you expect to achieve the presidency?

Memo to Conservative Bloggers: Better Luck Next Time

Ahh, the sweet taste of eat it, suckers!

Remember the GOP talking points memo, about what a political boon the Schiavo case was for the GOP, that the wingnuts were convinced, just totally sure, was a fake created by the Dems?

Well, it turns out that it was written by an aide to Senator Mel Martinez (R-Florida). (AMERICAblog’s got a copy of the memo here.)

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.

Brian H. Darling, 39, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said.

[…]

The unsigned memo -- which initially misspells Schiavo's first name and gives the wrong number for the pending bill -- includes eight talking points in support of the legislation and calls the controversy "a great political issue."

"This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy," the memo concludes.

It asserts that the case would appeal to the party's core supporters, saying: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue."

To be completely honest, I don’t find the memo itself that outrageous, because all it really did was put on paper that which was already obvious about the Republicans in their current incarnation—they are inveterate political opportunists who seek to exploit and pander to their religious conservative base at every opportunity, in pursuit of ever greater amounts of political capital to spend on behalf of their corporatist base. That the talking points were put into writing doesn’t really matter one way or another to me.

What I found more outrageous was the insistence that it was a creation of the Democrats.

The mystery of the memo's origin had roiled the Capitol, with Republicans accusing Democrats of concocting the document as a dirty trick, and Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to duck responsibility for exploiting the dying days of an incapacitated woman.

Conservative Web logs have challenged the authenticity of the memo, in some cases likening it to the discredited documents about Bush's National Guard service that CBS News reported last fall.

It wasn’t just blogs who challenged the memo’s authenticity, however. Sure, Powerline blog, Michelle Malkin, La Shawn Barber, In the Agora, Newsmax, Accuracy in Media (an Orwellian name if ever there was one), and the other usual suspects chimed in with their charges of forgeries, but professional bloviator Rush Limbaugh, The Washington Times (twice), and bow-tied shill Tucker Carlson, appearing on the Chris Matthews' Show, were also positively certain that it was a Democratic dirty trick. Right, Tucker?

Last week a memo surfaced, reportedly written by the Republican members of Congress explaining how to make hay with the Terri Schiavo case, the Talking Points Memo, Ah, I think within a week or two it will become clear that that memo was a forgery, possibly written by Democrats on the hill in an effort to discredit Republicans.

Oops.

Nowadays, the Dems hardly need to resort to forged memos to discredit the Republicans; they’re doing such a fine job of discrediting themselves.

Secrets

Skippy shares the link to an incredibly cool site, PostSecret, which the Skipster aptly describes thusly:

a weird art project in which the blogger asks people to send him post cards stating their inner most secret. the blogger then posts the cards on this blog. scary, sad, bizarre, all too human.

Viewing the submissions on the site is like wandering through a hall of mirrors which reflect, instead of your own image, a memory of every emotion you have ever experienced—amused, uplifted, heartbroken… It’s totally fascinating. (Make sure to read the comments about PostSecret and how to submit your own secret, should you be so inclined.) Here are some that particularly grabbed my attention for one reason or another:

Should you be so bold, feel free to share one of your secrets in comments—anonymously or otherwise.

Attack on the Judiciary: Others Will Reap What You Sow Edition

Avowed white supremacist Matthew Hale was sentenced to 40 years in prison Wednesday for trying to have a federal judge killed.

Hale, 33, the self-described Pontifex Maximus of a group that preaches racial holy war, showed no emotion and sat staring at the defense table as the sentence was handed down. He earlier delivered a rambling statement in which he insisted that no crime had been committed.

Dear Senators Cornyn, Santorum, Rep. DeLay, and Friends:

We’ll be seeing a lot more of that kind of crap if you don’t shut your fucking mouths.

Love,
Shakespeare’s Sister

LOL

World Bank Warns U.S. to Cut Deficits

Irony Zone: Wolfowitz, one of the primary architects of the Iraq War, which is one of the primary causes of soaring US deficits, has (of course) just been appointed as president of the World Bank. The head spins.