You're Dethpicable

Well, I'm sure today, like me, you'll be combing the blogs and news sites to read about President Quackers' speech. Judging by the silence, it would appear that most of us lefty bloggers are either still:
1. Blinking the sleep from our eyes and hoping our coffee will wake us up, or

2. Didn't watch the damn thing and are looking at other blogs.

I'm thinking that #2 is the most common. Not a lot of us can stand listening to all that quacking. (How does a duck sneer, anyway?) But you might want to head over to Tom Tomorrow's place to get the short & sweet, and Ezra did a little number crunching, and has some links.

It looks like people are finally, finally starting to call Bush on his Iraq = 9/11 comments.

Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.

Urging patience on an American public showing doubts about his Iraq policy, Bush mentioned the deadly 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington five times during a 28-minute address Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, N.C.

Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq — a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.

Seriously, why is he still beating this dead horse? Is there anyone out there that still believes Iraq had a hand in 9/11? I mean, actually believes this, and isn't just clinging to it because they can't bear the thought of admitting they were wrong about this?

Anyway, there are two articles you may want to check out. David Corn weighs in on the speech (bold mine):

With the polls registering what might be deepening skepticism about the war, this may be the most powerful political argument Bush has: Americans don't quit. His allies in Congress and the commentariat have been repeating a street-level variant of this message: America does not turn tail. It's the ultimate fall-back position for the pro-war crowd. It is not a policy argument; it's pushing a psychological button. And as the public mood appears to sour on the war, Bush-backers are also starting to accuse critics at home of undermining the war effort and--worse of all--demoralizing the troops in Iraq. Bush stayed clear of this scoundrel maneuver. But soon after his speech was done, Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the armed services committee, was on Fox News Channel warning unnamed persons of making "statements back home....that are troubling the troops." He added, "We here at home have to show a strong bipartisan support for our troops." This is the ultimate escape hatch for supporters of a war that is not going well: the critics are to blame. Bush ended his speech by thanking and praising the members of the US military and their families. He said nothing about the recently disclosed $1 billion shortfall in funding for veterans' health care.

[Spit take]

What's that?

Yes... that's the other article. Troops, Shmoops.

Senate Republicans have repeatedly voted down funding increases for vets to keep pace with inflation and meet rising needs.

The Bush Administration tried to add an enrollment fee and double the prescription co-payment for VA health care.

And now the VA admits it is $1 billion short on health care funding for this year alone.

After months of dodging Congressional questioning, VA undersecretary for health Jonathan Perlin finally gave the House VA Committee an unexpectedly honest answer last week. It turns out the $1.6 billion spending increase promised last year has been a matter of accounting trickery, achieved by shifting money from one account to another, and cutting almost $1 billion for medical administration, facilities and prosthetic research.

Yes, once again, the Bush team is screwing over the soldiers they put in harm's way for their little game of Risk.

Come on wingnuts, explain to me how Bush "supports the troops." No body armor, no vehicle armor, a pathetic paycheck, cuts in services (they pay for their own laundry, for chrissakes), and now they're losing funding for the one thing that could help them when they come home completely fucked up thanks to Bush's adventure.

Seriously, how do these bastards sleep at night?

(By the way, what's this I hear about Bush getting all weepy at the end of his speech?)

UPDATE: Crooks & Liars has tons 'o links.

(There is always something there to cross-post me...)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Red State Bumpers

In addition to the profusion of BC’04 stickers, American flags, NASCAR emblems, Calvins pissing on various international enemies, Jesus fish, ribbon-shaped magnets, and strange hybrids of the last two (my favorite being a yellow Support the Troops ribbon shaped like a Jesus fish, with the fish’s tail parts turning into American flags), there are lots of interesting bumper stickers out here in red state land.

Mannion recently wrote a post about a truly annoying bumper sticker he’d seen, to which I responded that my all-time most detested bumper sticker is:

WARNING: In case of Rapture, this car will be unmanned.

Every time I see it, it makes me believe in God, just long enough to pray, "Please take them. Please take them all as soon as possible." I’m willing to navigate a few careening, driverless cars for a chance at life on earth without the Rapture Gang.

This morning, I saw one which ranks right up there with the worst, though:

1 cross + 3 nails = 4GVN

“What the fook’s a GVN?” Mr. Shakes asked. He’s a heathen, you know.

“One cross plus three nails equals forgiven,” I explained.

“Wanker,” he muttered, then launched into his usual Yosemite Scot routine (fookin wankin jibbety flibbet haggis and tatties!) when we saw that all four doors of the car were emblazoned with giant American flag stickers.

It’s not that he hates America; he loves it. In fact, he’s prepared to die for it—one of the requisites of immigrating to America is signing your name to an acknowledgement that if there’s a draft, you know you’ll be first in line. But he also comes from an ex-empire, where the dangers, the foolhardiness, of blind nationalism and viewing your country as infallible, haven't been forgotten. And the whole intertwining of church and state didn’t always work out so well for them, either. (Just ask Lady Jane.)

You don't have to be from Britain to know these things, of course—only a student of history, and not a particularly fervent one, at that. But even history is political these days; not a half hour after seeing my new favorite bumper sticker, I heard a Republican State Senator on some rightwing radio morning chat show talking about how he switched his major from history to accounting at university because he realized that East Coast history professors wouldn’t make room for the views of a Midwestern boy. I wondered what that meant, exactly. I wondered if perhaps he had views like one of my high school history teachers, who was, if you can believe it, a slavery apologist. (We loathed him thoroughly.) Maybe the GOP-er on the radio wasn’t that bad…or maybe he was worse. He didn’t say. He just explained that the liberal view of history was what turned him away from the field.

The thing about red state bumpers is that they remind me how many people either have a skewed view of history or are willing to reject its lessons, and recklessly drive headlong into making the same mistakes others have made. I try to stay away from these bumpers as much as possible, lest I inadvertently follow them down the same perilous road…or just in case the Rapture comes during rush hour.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Hands of Shakespeare’s Sister

This morning, I read a funny post at Mike’s Well Hidden Genius, which I believe may well be the first ever blog fugue. (Mike’s an innovator.) It reminded me to check in on The Piano Man, to see if there was any news.

For those who haven’t heard of him, I’ll introduce you. The Piano Man, as he’s known, is an unidentified man who was found wandering the streets of Sheerness, Kent in England in April of this year. Wearing a soaking wet suit and tie, he appears to be suffering from some kind of dissociative disorder, perhaps amnesia, and he doesn’t speak. When offered a pen and paper by the staff of the hospital to which he was taken, he sketched a grand piano.


To date, he hasn’t been identified (although he was at different times thought to be a French street musician and a Czechoslovakian drummer, theories which were decidedly hampered by both men having turned up in the media to say, “Not me, I’m afraid.”), and he hasn’t spoken a word, choosing instead to express himself by playing the piano—everything from The Beatles to Tchaikovsky.

I suppose there are many people attracted to the mystery, and although that’s part of my interest in The Piano Man, it’s more than that. I’m also drawn by memory.

I took piano lessons when I was young, and was told I’d never be a virtuoso because I have small hands. It was a correct assessment; I’m not very good at all at the classics, as it turns out. I struggle to reach an octave chord, and though I would love to play Rachmaninov, it will never be; he had a hand span that would be the envy of any NBA player. For many years, I didn’t play much at all.

At university, navigating year three of the bad years, and running low on excuses to offer concerned professors who wondered why I regularly showed up to class with cuts and bruises, I wandered down to the basement of the student union one night and found, shoved in a closet behind a cobwebbed ping-pong table, an old and dilapidated upright piano. I dragged it out into the room, and sat down in front of it, running my hands over its chipped keys. After a moment, I started to play. It wasn’t Rachmaninov; it wasn’t even Billy Joel. I closed my eyes and listened to the music as if someone else were playing it, letting my hands do whatever they wanted to do. It was a glorious sound, and the size of my hands didn’t matter.

I spent a lot of time alone with that piano that year. Perhaps a bit like The Piano Man, I found it the only conduit for expressing that which lingered inside me and refused to come out any other way. It’s not a unique story at all; anyone who’s seen Shine or The Piano or watched Tori Amos writhing on her piano bench knows that. But there’s a reason there aren’t stories about tambourines or oboes the way there are about pianos; they are soulful in a way that makes them a perfect partner for a lost soul.

I play songs in my sleep even now, tapping out chords on the headboard or across Mr. Shakes’ back. And my small hands, a hindrance to my playing others’ compositions, were a gift in the end; they help me write my own music, still with my eyes closed, letting my hands do whatever they want to do.

I’ve realized I have to do the same thing with blogging. I’ve had a few moments lately where I’ve doubted whether all the blogging in the world of a smalltime, amateur blogger, or even a sizable group of smalltime, amateur bloggers (and a few big guns), can make much of a difference. It began with fleeting thoughts, easily dismissed, but then they started to linger, and by last weekend, the doubt hung on me like a rain-soaked cloak. A day off, a visit with friends, a reconnection with someone who was once a very good friend and, as it turns out, still is, helped rejuvenate me a bit and set my mind back to the task at hand. It didn’t eradicate the doubt, but it gave me the energy to work through it.

It’s difficult to be passionate about something over which one has no control, no matter the particular passion or the circumstances that inform the feelings of powerless. Such difficulty is universal; I imagine no one escapes this life without having suffered the pain of futility at one time or another, except perhaps for the most deliberately apathetic, or the very stupid, who cannot discern a specific ineffectuality from the rest of their frustrating existence.

I am overwhelmed sometimes by the things that need to change, and overcome with the sense that I am helpless to make a difference, in spite of my desire to do so. But I’ve found that when that creeping sense comes calling, I can shoo it away in much the same way I have before, substituting one keyboard for another. So you must forgive me if sometimes I close my eyes and let my hands search out the keys on my desktop as they will. They may tap out an unusual piece like this now and then, but they’ve served me well before, finding a way to tug out of me that which ties me in knots, and I need to let them do it again.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Damn

Democrats.com isn’t pulling any punches:

Democrats.com Urges Bush to Apologize, Exit Iraq - and Resign or Face Impeachment

As George Bush prepares to speak to the nation about Iraq, Democrats.com urged him to apologize to the nation for lying about Iraq, to start pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by Thanksgiving - and to resign from office by New Year's Day or face the largest grassroots impeachment campaign in the nation's history.

"Thanks to the Downing Street Memos, we now know that George Bush deliberately and systematically lied about his reasons for invading Iraq. Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD's and no ties to Al Qaeda, and George Bush knew it. Bush even lied about the start of the war, which began with bombing 'spikes' in June 2002," said Bob Fertik, President of Democrats.com.

"George Bush lied about Iraq to Congress, the American people, and the world. He lied before the war, he lied when he claimed victory on the U.S.S. Lincoln in May 2003, and he's lying today when he claims Iraqi insurgents will be defeated soon," Fertik said.

Yowza. I don’t know that I agree with the idea of bringing the troops home immediately, although I don’t know that I disagree with it, either. I didn’t support the war, but now that we’re there, I feel like we have a responsibility to see it through—although I don’t know if that’s even possible. Like I said, I just don’t know. I’m no expert, and I won’t even pretend to be. In any case, it’s crazy cool to see someone call Bush a liar point-blank like that. Bask in the balls as you read the rest.

And speaking of Bush being an idiot, which I know is a rare occurrence around here, CapitolBuzz posts excerpts of Bush’s speech tonight, and in the 300 words that are posted, 9/11 is invoked twice. Recall, this is meant to be a speech about Iraq. Yeesh.

In other tangentially related news, the Wall Street Journal has finally decided to get in on the Downing Street Memo act with an article crediting progressive bloggers with keeping the story alive (even though the Big Brass Alliance is brutally ignored, once again).

And, finally, BradBlog reports:

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and a number of other Congressional Members will announce their intention to hold open Town Hall Meetings across the country on July 23rd to discuss the "Downing Street Documents" with constituents.

The meetings, to be held on the same day around the country in the members' various Congressional Districts, will mark the third year anniversary of the creation of the original Downing Street Minutes document.

Visit AfterDowningStreet here to find out more about what’s being called DSM Day.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Wanted: More Republicans like Chaney

He's had it. He's speaking the truth. And it's beautiful to read.

Just a delicious sample:

As of today, after 25 years, I am no longer a Republican.

I take this step with deep regret, and with a deep sense of betrayal.

I still believe in the vast power of markets to inspire ideas, motivate solutions and eliminate waste. I still believe in international vigilance and a strong defense, because this world will always be home to people who will avidly seek to take or destroy what we have built as a nation. I still believe in the protection of individuals and businesses from the influence and expense of an over-involved government. I still believe in the hand-in-hand concepts of separation of church and state and absolute freedom to worship, in the rights of the states to govern themselves without undo federal interference, and in the host of other things that defined me as a Republican.

My problem is this: I believe in principles and ideals which my party has systematically discarded in the last 10 years.

[Snip]

I could go on and on - about how we have compromised our international integrity by sanctioning torture, about how we are systematically dismantling the civil liberties that it took us two centuries to define and preserve, and about how we have substituted bullying, brinksmanship and "staying on message" for real political discourse - but those three issues are enough.

We're poisoning our planet through gluttony and ignorance.

We're teetering on the brink of self-inflicted insolvency.

We're selfishly and needlessly sacrificing the best of a generation.

And we're lying about it.

Go and read the whole thing.

(Tip 'o the energy dome to Crooks and Liars. Cross-post river... wider than a mile...)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

Sorry for the quiet...I'm incredibly busy, but will have something for you later this evening.

In the meantime, are you going to watch/listen to the president's speech tonight? Why or why not?

I haven't decided yet. Probably not. I can only listen to the same record so many times.

Unless it's Morrissey.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Pushing our buttons

Another goddamn smug Republican. (bolds mine)

WASHINGTON - A White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism.

"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said, contending the comments weren't aimed at all Democrats. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."

I'm just simply flabbergasted!

Jesus, what a dick.

Notice the mocking language they're using. "Somewhat puzzling." "I'm not sure why." My god, what children.

Make no mistake; this is another tactic to piss us off. This "My Goodness!" attitude is all an act. They are openly mocking us, trying to make us angry again, and hoping we'll start trumpeting for more apologies.

Don't fall for it.

What Rove said is over and done with. Yes, it was incredibly offensive. But as they've shown time and again, the Radical Republicans will NEVER apologize for anything. Ever. It was futile for us to even suggest it. As has been stated on other blogs, we should have used his comments against him, and we should have openly mocked him. But... no use crying over spilled milk.

However, we cannot allow these ridiculous attempts to provoke us to... well, provoke us. They are trying to divert our attention elsewhere so we take our eyes off the brass ring.

Hmmm... what in the world could possibly be coming up that they'd want us looking the other way?

President Bush is using the first anniversary of Iraq's sovereignty to try to ease Americans' doubts about the mission and outline a winning strategy for a violent conflict that has cost the lives of more than 1,740 U.S. troops and has no end in sight.

In a prime-time address from Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division, Bush was to argue that there is no need to change course in Iraq despite the upsetting images produced by daily insurgent attacks.

He could do this from the White House, of course, but it will be so much more convincing if he uses cannon fodder American soldiers as his backdrop. Might even wear a new costume, I tell you what.

Iraq is in shambles, more proof about the Bush Administration's lies continues to appear, and they are running scared. The last thing they want is a strong Democratic party watching every move they make.

Let it go. We don't need apologies from the likes of them.


Update: I like Paperwight's ideas.


(The cross-post is blue, and there's nothing I can do.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

A01

Well, guess what’s on the front page of the Washington Post today, my pets?

From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War

As the headline suggests, the article focuses primarily on British issues, so don’t expect to read it and reward it with thunderous applause, but it does a decent job of explaining the Memos, and what the controversy in America is all about:

Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve.

Supporters of the administration contend, by contrast, that the memos add little or nothing to what is already publicly known about the run-up to the war and even help show that the British officials genuinely believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They say that opponents of Bush and Blair are distorting the documents' meaning in order to attack both men politically.

It’s a start, anyway (nearly two full months after the starting pistol went off).

I’ll take it.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Huh

Following up on yesterday’s post about the general who confirmed in a 2003 briefing the secret air war, known as the “spikes of activity” which preceded Congressional authorization for the Iraq War, we come to find out, care of Spoof News editor JJ, that the same general, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, was nominated by Bush on May 16 as chief of staff of the Air Force to succeed Gen. John P. Jumper who has served in the position since September 2001.

Call me crazy (I know you will), but I think Wednesday's confirmation hearing would be the perfect place to question Gen, Moseley, who served as the Combined Forces Air Component Commander for operations Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, about the “spikes of activity” that were alleged in the Downing Street Memos to have been designed to provoke Saddam.

Bush and Cheney and Rove and McClellan may be able to dodge questions about the DSMs posed by a still rather complacent media, and Sensenbrenner and the other GOP jackholes might be able to relegate Congressman Conyers to a basement, and perhaps the Dems will never be able to secure the formal inquiry based on the Memos that they warrant, but surely, surely, Gen, Moseley cannot be appointed to serve as chief of staff of the Air Force while there are unanswered questions about the legality of a military action which was executed under his command.

Wouldn’t it be swell if some enterprising reporter asked the president about all this?

Sigh.

On a related note, check out Raw Story’s coverage of the Unofficial War here, and take a look at their graphic tracking the air bombings of Iraq from Jan. 01 to Mar. 03 here. Spikes of activity indeed.

[UPDATE—Action Item: Contact the members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee members (click on their names for contact information) to politely request that tomorrow's hearing not pass without questions about the alleged attempts to provoke Saddam into war, even as the administration was telling us they still considered war a last resort. Thanks to Misty of Expostulation for the link.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I’ve Been Tagged…

...by Yelladog. Here goes:

1. What were three of the stupidest things you have done in your life?

A. Start smoking.
B. Delete a novel I’d written in a fit of pique.
C. Marry the wrong person (not Mr. Shakes; someone else long ago).

2. At the current moment, who has the most influence in your life?

The same people who have had for many years. Those roles rarely change, unless it's adding someone new who has touched me in some way.

3. If you were given a time machine that functioned, and you were allowed to only pick up to five people to dine with, who would you pick?

A. My maternal grandfather
B. William Shakespeare
C. Aristophanes
D. Shirley Chisholm
E. Oscar Wilde

4. If you had three wishes that were not supernatural, what would they be?

A. Bush and his entire band of neo-con, false Christian, anti-patriots out of office and politics forever.
B. A viable and competitive progressive party.
C. A true melting pot.

5. Someone is visiting your hometown/place where you live a the moment. Name two things you regret your city not having, and two things people should avoid.

Regret not having:

1. Class
2. Style

Avoid:

1. Coming in the first place.
2. Talking to any of the locals.

6. Name one event that has changed your life.

Bailing on work with my friend and former coworker Miller one day in 1999, to hang out at my place and watch an Eddie Izzard video. She loved him immediately, and joined an Eddie Izzard eGroup for fans, where she met a Londoner called Andy. When she went to Britain later that year, she met him in person and decided he and I would be great friends, and virtually introduced us upon her return. She was right about the two of us, and he became one of my best friends, not to mention my first friendship that originated online. If I hadn’t had that relationship with him already, I doubt I ever would have given much credence to the possibility that people could forge a bond over the internet—which probably means Mr. Shakes and I wouldn’t be together today. It was also on one of my trips to London to hang out with Andy that I met Mr. Shakes for the first time in person. All because of an Eddie Izzard video.

7. Tag 5 people.

As always, Pam, followed by Kathy Flake, The Green Knight, The Heretik, and Lance Mannion.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Read My Lips...

Go read The Dark Wraith on tax reform. Good stuff.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

I keep trying to write something either vaguely intelligent or sufficiently snarky about Santorum’s latest douchebaggery, but I’m feeling uninspired, so instead, I’ll just steal from the always clever John at Blogenlust:

CapitolBuzz points out that Rick Santorum, in a recent op ed for Catholic Online, suggests that the Catholic Church's priest sex scandal can be blamed on the city of Boston.

Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Wow.

To those keeping score at home, please add this to the list of things that are liberals' fault:

1) This Administration's failure to plan for post war Iraq
2) The Iraqi Insurgency
3) 9/11
4) Hundreds of priests not being able to keep their dicks in their pants.

We shouldn’t forget the complete collapse of the family, either, because of our belief in women’s equality, reproductive choice, and gay rights. You know what they say: Moral decay begins with tolerance!

For what else are liberals to blame that ought to be added to the list?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Downing Street Minutes to Hit House Floor

From AfterDowningStreet.org (not blockquoted due to length):

Congressman John Conyers, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee are asking their colleagues in the House of Representatives to join them on the evening of June 28 to discuss the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of the House.

They need our help. Please contact your Congress Member right away and ask them to contact the Judiciary Committee staff and commit to taking part.
Phone: 1-877-762-8762
Email: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/39

Below is a letter that has been circulated to Congress members:

Join the 'Out of Iraq' Caucus
On June 28, 2005 for an Hour of Special Order on the Downing Street Minutes

June 24, 2005
Dear Democratic Colleague:

Please join the 'Out of Iraq' Caucus this Tuesday, June 28th for a Special Order hour on the Downing Street Minutes. The Democratic hour for these remarks is scheduled for the second hour of the Special Orders, which will commence immediately after votes for the day have ended.

Over the past month, 128 Members of Congress, along with some 560,000 citizens have sent letters to the President demanding a response to reports of a pre-war deal between Great Britain and the United States and to evidence that pre-war intelligence was intentionally manipulated. All of these letters have gone unanswered.

Given the importance of these matters, we believe it is incumbent upon Congress to discuss these issues in a public and forthright manner. We hope you will join us in this hour of Special Orders.

To reserve time during the Special Order, please contact Stacey Dansky or Adam Cohen of the Judiciary Committee staff at 225-6906. Thank you.

Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary

Maxine Waters
Member, Committee on the Judiciary

Barbara Lee
Member, Committee on International Relations

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Sympathizing with the Troops

Patrick at Yelladog posts today about a military man he trusts implicitly who has, since voting for the Bush administration in November, completely changed his mind about them. Patrick surmises his tipping point may have been the Downing Street Memos.

It’s an interesting and sad post. I imagine the only thing worse than reading the DSMs and having them confirm all your worst fears would be reading them and having them undermine everything you believed in. My heart really goes out to the military people who trusted this administration and no longer do; it must be very hard to realize their trust was so callously betrayed.

And speaking of soldiers who have a right to be angry, check out this website, which is dedicated to letting soldiers (and their loved ones) air their grievances with Karl Rove’s assertion that liberals weren’t interested in defending this country from terrorism. My first thought when I first read his comments was I wonder what liberals currently serving in Iraq think of that. You’ll find out…not to mention what liberals who have served in other wars and during peacetime think of his trash, too.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Does This Make You Nervous?

It makes me nervous:

The United States plans to produce highly radioactive plutonium 238 for the first time since the Cold War, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The newspaper quoted project managers as saying most, if not all, of the new plutonium was intended for secret missions. The officials would not disclose details, but the newspaper said the plutonium in the past powered espionage devices.

The Times said Timothy Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the U.S. Energy Department, vigorously denied in a recent interview any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.

"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Frazier was quoted as saying.

Staring production of 330 pounds of plutonium 238 (which is hundreds of times more radioactive than plutonium 239, the version used in nuclear arms) at a cost which could reach at least $1.5 billion and generate over 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste, is for national security, but it’s not for arms, satellites, or weapons in space. Okay…

Federal and private experts not connected to the project were quoted as saying the new plutonium would likely power devices for espionage under the sea and on land.

Why am I starting to picture a submarine in the shape of Karl Rove, a la Dr. Evil?

Oh, and good news for Idahoans: this will all be done at the Idaho National Laboratory—but don’t worry, it’s not that dangerous. As long as you can avoid every last speck of it.

Medical experts say inhaling even a speck posed a serious risk of lung cancer, the Times said.

Classic.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Don't Touch Me; I'm Dirty All Over

Rolling Stone’s got an interesting story on the abstinence movement afoot in America, which totally confirms what one tends to think about people who abstain from sex—they are utter sex fiends. They think about sex exponentially more than anyone I ever met who clumsily, lustily, disappointingly, or fabulously lost his or her cherry sans any lifetime commitment.

Power holds up his right hand. Wrapped around his wrist, in a figure eight, is a black plastic bracelet. "This," he says, "is a 'masturband.' " One of their friends at college -- Pepperdine University -- came up with the idea. As long as you stay pure -- resist jerking off -- you can wear your masturband. Give in, and off it goes, a scarlet letter in reverse. No masturband? No one wants to shake your hand. "It started with just four of us," says Dunbar. "Then there were, like, twenty guys wearing them. And girls too. The more people that wore them, the more people knew, the more reason you had to refrain." Dunbar even told his mother. He lasted the longest. "Eight and a half months," he says. I notice he's not wearing one now. He's not embarrassed. Sexuality, he believes, is not a private matter.

(Insert your own “Master of Your Domain” joke here.)

No masturband? No one wants to shake your hand. Even as a joke, it fails, because it reveals an ugly truth that the abstinence crowd holds dear—that sexuality is dirty, unless it is between two people bound by God, and, more disturbingly, the people who practice an unsanctified sexuality are dirty, too. To withhold touch from “a sinner” is a decidedly strange interpretation of Christian doctrine, in which its central figure, Jesus Christ, shocked his disciples by touching the sinful and the sick, and letting them touch him, too. Message lost, I think it’s safe to say.

I could spend all day deconstructing this article, or, rather, the movement on which it reports. Zany stuff. Check it out, if you’re in the mood for another exposé on how completely nutzoid this country is really getting.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Spikes of Activity

Ron Brynaert of Why Are We Back in Iraq? has written a great comprehensive piece on what Michael Smith, the Times of London reporter who broke the Downing Street Memo story, rightfully referred to in an LA Times editorial as the “arguably more important” component of the memos than the issue of facts being fixed around the policy—that of the escalated air strikes which were used to try to provoke Saddam, months before Congressional authority was given for military action against Iraq.

Go read Ron’s piece to get up to speed on why this is important and what it means. He’s done a good job putting this information all together.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Selective "Activist Judges"

So the Supreme Court has ruled that The Ten Commandments don't belong in courthouses.

Well, I have to say, I'm pretty shocked by this. Good for them, first of all. It was a close vote... and they did leave themselves a "don't shoot us" clause:

The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

I can live with that.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Damn right.

So, here's the prediction by Swami Spud:

News coverage on this will far outweigh the coverage on another recent Supreme Court ruling.This will be treated more seriously, and there will be more activism over the ten commandments than Wal-Mart taking away someone's home. The judges will be labeled "activist judges" for this, and not the eminent domain story.

I'm feeling pretty confident on this one.

(Bow down before the one you cross-post, you're gonna get what you deserve)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Calling Bullshit

Great editorial by Philip Gailey in the St. Petersburg Times:

If only George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld hated war as much as they hate admitting a mistake. To hear them tell it, Iraq is a success story and the Guantanamo prison is a tropical paradise.

[…]

Army Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, provided a sober reality check on the Iraqi insurgency. "I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago," he told the committee, adding that insurgency's "overall strength" is about the same. "There's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency."

Was the general off-message? Only last month Dick Cheney assured us that the insurgency was in its "last throes." Asked if he was contradicting the vice president, Abizaid sidestepped the question, saying, "I gave you my opinion."

[…]

Meanwhile, Cheney shrugged off charges from domestic and foreign critics that Islamic detainees have been abused at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "They're living in the tropics," he said in a CNN interview. "They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want."

Except due process, perhaps.

Read the whole thing. It’s good.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

General Admits to Secret Air War

The “spikes of activity” intended to provoke Saddam Hussein into war, referenced in the Downing Street Memos, were seemingly confirmed in a 2003 briefing:

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.

The nine months of allied raids “laid the foundations” for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.

Moseley’s remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times that showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as “spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime”.

Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17, 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.

The more information we receive, the more pertinent the question asked in a recent column by Robert Steinback becomes: Do you want to know?

Finding out whether we were lied to by our government shouldn’t be a partisan issue. So how about it, conservatives? Do you want to know? I do.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!