Shakesville

White House Issues Report on Katrina

And finds itself without blame. Except for not “cutting through bureaucratic red tape and quickly settling disputes among response agencies.” But, you know, how could the White House possibly have been expected to cut through all that government red tape, or settle disputes among such a bunch of incompetents? Who hired those people, anyway? Sheesh.

I love this:

[The 228-page report] does not look at ways to improve state and local preparedness and response missions.

Of course it doesn’t. Because when federal agencies fail in the future, there’s still got to be someone to blame.

Electoral College Reform?

This is interesting, although I honestly have no idea how likely or unlikely success is:

"A coalition of former congressmen is launching a campaign to change how Americans select their president by reforming the Electoral College system, saying campaigns for the White House should be reliant on the nationwide popular vote rather than simply the outcome in a handful of swing states," the Chicago Tribune reports.

"The bipartisan group plans to announce its proposal Thursday and begin a state-by-state effort to amend the Electoral College so the winner reflects the view of the country instead of an individual state or two with a close vote on Election Day. The plan would seek to eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election, as happened to former Vice President Al Gore in 2000."

Says former Sen. Birch Bayh (D-IN): "The time is long past to not play Electoral College roulette every four years. It is a throwback to 1887."

Truths

Responding to Digby’s post here, Ezra (who admits he’s “about as anxious to enter the abortion debate as Tom Cruise's agent is to talk about Thetans”—ha) suggests:

[I]t seems to me that the whole method we use to understand the conflict is flawed. Efforts to conceptualize the conflicting positions tend to push supporters onto a binary choice: either you do believe the fetus is a life (0), or you don't (1). From there, Digby's point makes perfect sense. Murder is wrong, even when the life is caused by rape or incest, so if you profess to be a 0 but support exceptions for assault or familial relations, you're probably a liar, and your real agenda is probably rather ugly. True that.

But my guess is that most folks fall midway on that scale -- .2's, .4's, .6's and so forth…

I agree that a black and white scale of measurement on the issue is flawed, but I believe it has less to do with any sense of "quasihumannness" and more to do with truths that no one likes to talk about. Truths like women who don't want to be pregnant will do just about anything to get un-pregnant. Truths like weighing the "life" of an unwanted fetus against one's own life is not some abstract theoretical to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy; it pits a potential life against an existing one, which may be forever changed. and that doesn't make for much of a contest.

The whole argument, in some way, reminds me of how we regard soldiers and their wartime actions. We don’t consider them murderers when they kill an enemy combatant—we recognize that the decision was rational and calculated, made out of self-preservation, and to, in some cases, protect us as well. And when we hear about how they are trained to dehumanize the enemy to make killing easier, we nod sagely; we don’t judge, because we can’t truly imagine what it’s like to be in that situation.

Faced with the decision to terminate a potential life, or sacrifice her life as she knows it, a woman with an unwanted pregnancy may make a similarly calculated and rational decision in the interest of self-preservation. For women who have other children to care for, or an elderly parent, or anyone who depends on her income and/or availability (including herself), she, too, may be protecting others as well. Part of that decision may be dependent on dehumanizing the potential life inside her, and yet, in this case, we find that somehow repellent.

And it’s in no small part because we expect “more” of women; we expect women to be the givers and sanctifiers of life. We rely on their long-heralded nurturing natures to counterbalance the men who take life, the soldiers. The two situations are, in a very real way, mirror images of one another*, indicative of how we expect men and women to behave. Men are the rational actors; when women assume the same stance, they betray our expectations, even to this day.

Humans put into a situation where they must choose between one life and their own will regularly choose their own—on a battlefield, during a home invasion…in desperate circumstances, adults have thrown children out of lifeboats to save themselves. All of these are existing lives ended in the pursuit of self-preservation, not a potential life whose prospects are snuffed out. But a woman who terminates a pregnancy is viewed as delivering the ultimate betrayal—ending the life of her own child. Sacrificing oneself for one’s child is one of the few circumstances in which humans can be expected to act against the interest of self-preservation, so it seems inconceivable. But such disbelief is predicated on the assumption that a women carrying an unwanted fetus still views it as her child, and the fact that she simply may not, perhaps out of necessity to do what needs to be done rather than callousness, is yet another truth about which we don’t like to talk.

Some soldiers who kill on the battlefield later feel regret, even if they know it was the only way to protect themselves. Some don’t. We don’t expect them to; pragmatism is a response we understand from soldiers. We don’t understand, or accept, pragmatic women, women who have abortions and stand by their decision, rather than collapsing into a fit of unshakable grief. Worst yet are those who dare to respond to the outraged, “It was a life you ended!” with an acknowledgement that it is the truth. “Yes, I did. But I did it to save my own.”

-------------------------------

* The argument is made that the life terminated via abortion is an “innocent life.” And for those who believe that enemies in war have a personal interest in killing another soldier, they will never be swayed by the comparative argument. Surely this is true in guerrilla wars; in traditional warfare, however, soldiers are a tool of governments who use men to fight their battles, and conscripted men in an enemy army may have no love of their government’s policies and fight instead because they must. Guilt by association, perhaps, but in the sense he would never pick up a gun to kill a man of his own volition, a soldier is not without his innocence, even when a designated enemy. This is all very All Quiet on the Western Front, I know, but true nonetheless.

Oh, the tangled web we weave…

Sit down, Shakers. This news may shock you.

The White House had a secret agreement with Dubai Ports World.

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

“Other, routine restrictions” like keeping copies of business records on US soil, hence the agreement to cooperate on demand. But what, you might ask, is the point of requiring a company to secretly agree to reveal records on demand, instead of just requiring them, as is usually required, to keep their business records on US soil?

Because if the records are on US soil, they would be subject to court orders. Without records on US soil, a court can’t demand the turnover of records. So what does this mean? Does it mean that Dubai Ports World would only have to relinquish records at the administration’s request? We don’t know, because the agreement is secret.

It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

The administration did specify, however, that Dubai Ports World would have to designate “an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.” I can’t help thinking that somewhere between the lines is “someone handpicked by the administration.”

"We're disappointed," [Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey] told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

A solid friend to the administration, no doubt. A solid friend to the American people is not so clear.

South Dakota Abortion Bill Passes State Senate

Passed on by Shaker Ann:

A contentious abortion bill passed the South Dakota Senate late this afternoon. The vote was 23 to 12…

It now goes back to the House, which passed an earlier version and must now decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate.

The bill would then go to Gov. Mike Rounds…

Rounds, as noted earlier, is a Republican who opposes abortion.

The SD State Senate is pretty chuffed with themselves. There’s more celebrating about how the time is right to criminalize abortion throughout the state—and confer rights and protections to fetuses while taking away rights and protections from women.

Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke said the time is right for the ban on abortion.

“In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she said during the Senate's debate. “There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children.”

Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.

“To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota,” he said.

Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown objected.

Rape should be punished severely, he said, but the amendment is unfair to “some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves.”

The Senate also defeated a proposed amendment to insert an exception to allow an abortion to protect the health of a pregnant woman. That was offered by Republican Sen. David Knudson. It failed on a 13-22 vote.

Superb.

I don’t know if I can accurately convey my feelings about being an adult women, with a good mind and a purpose and a family and a home (all of which is one way of saying I have a life that’s important to me), who stands to have fewer rights and less value under the law than an unwanted fetus. That if I am raped, or my health is under threat, my soundness of mind and body are worth less than an unwanted fetus. That there are people who do not feel my uterus should be under my own control.

It’s insulting. It’s belittling. It’s unfair. It’s infuriating. And none of that matters to the people who would seek to protect a life that doesn’t exist at the expense of mine, which does.

This issue is not just about women who may, at some point, want or need abortions. It's about all women—and our standing in society, our autonomy. Control over my own body, of which legalized abortion is a significant part, is part of how I define and understand myself and my role in our culture. Taking that away from me is taking away a part of myself, and make no mistake, that's what this fight is really about.

Just when you think…

…that you couldn’t eke out even a sliver more contempt for the foolish, arrogant, self-righteous, condescending drip of dogwank that is our president, along comes something that makes you so angry that you realize, frighteningly, you may not even have yet begun to scratch the surface of your scorn. What a bastard.

(Hat tip to our beloved Heretik.)

Poor, Persecuted Christians

So persecuted, so marginalized, that the only way they can get a break is by wholly undermining our system of checks and balances. Evan at AlterNet PEEK:

Constitution Schmonstitution. Since Indiana Republican Mike Sodrel didn't like the federal court's decision to prohibit explicit mentions of Jesus in state house prayers, he decided to introduce legislation to kick the federal court's ass.

Okay, it's not really about kicking ass so much as it's about stripping the court's jurisdiction with respect to the state house.

Sarah Posner puts this absurdity into context:

"Here's the M.O.: federal court issues decision Republicans disagree with. Republicans cry, "judicial activism!" and assert that the system of checks and balances requires that Congress regulate the activities of the federal courts. Thus, strip them of jurisdiction over hot button issues like gay marriage, prayer in public venues, or abortion. That way, the argument goes, Congress is providing a balance against the out-of-control federal courts."

Posner also notes:

[T]he Republican argument has it backwards. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the courts provide a check against political corruption, cronyism, and power plays. One need look no further than Sodrel's own biggest campaign contributors to see why the country's founders designed checks and balances so that the courts provide a check on Congress and not the other way around: the PACs of Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, and Roy Blunt.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…and if Caesar doesn’t give you what you want, render him unconscious.

I think that’s from the book of St. Whinybaby in his epistle to the Persecutioncomplexions.

Curious George on his Whirlwind Energy Tour

This series of photos from Bush’s tour of the National Renewable Laboratory in Golden, Colorado yesterday is totally cracking my shit up. And I know that when you’re the most photographed person in the world, there are inevitably going to be some unflattering pictures of you, but tell me if he doesn’t look like the dimmest doofus in every last one of these shots.

“I like big things. You got any big things around here?”

“Yeah, that’s pretty big. Got anything bigger?”

“This is big all right, but boy, it’s hot! Maybe I shouldn’t touch the steam pipes, huh?”

“Cool. Heh heh. Whatcha got there, gringo?”

“Can you smoke this stuff?”

“I hate sciencifying.”
And here he is at Johnson Controls Battery Technology Center in Glendale, Wisconsin the day before.

“These thingies are weird. What are they?”

“These crazy little things is batteries! Can you believe it?”

“Wait—that’s a battery too? I just saw batteries. This place is full of ‘em. Oh, right—Battery Technology Center. I gitcha. Heh heh.”
And in Tampa, Florida on the 17th.

“And I was like, ‘Who does a preznit have to fuck to see some goldarn batteries?’ So we’re going to the Battery Technomology Center in a few days...”

“And I’m totally going to do the robot dance at that battery place. Those battery dudes will think it’s funny.”
Sigh. And for some extra smarty Bush fun, here’s one more recent picture followed by its actual caption.

President Bush reaches down to pick up a copper cable used to protect a tree in the South Lawn of the White House from lighting strikes, during his return to the Oval Office, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2006, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Various Tidbits

Moms' Genetics Might Help Produce Gay Sons. I always feel a bit dubious about the genetics surrounding homosexuality, because I know two sets of identical male twins in which one is gay and the other not. (And it’s not like the straight twin is some kind of raging homophobe who’s just in the closet or something.) Plus, it doesn’t seem to account for a spectrum of sexuality, which includes active bisexuals, or people who identify as gay through choice, even though they are attracted to people of the opposite sex, too. I know there’s a hope held by some people that if homosexuality is definitively proven to have a genetic impetus, then perhaps the homobigots will be less antagonistic toward the LGBT community, but considering that they tend to be the same folks who have a reserve of contempt for science that seemingly knows no depths, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

DNA 'could predict your surname'. Passed on by Mr. Shakes. Hmm, I feel a little torn on this one. It strikes me as creepy on its face, but then again, the researchers suggest the method could help produce 10 suspects in the 25-65 no-suspect murders and 60 suspects in the 300-400 no-suspect rapes in Britain every year, particularly when used in combination with other evidence. Hmm.

Terror fears, stoked by Bush, now bite him. “In the ass” would be the three words left out of that particular headline.

Christian movement moving in. More on the absurd “Christian Exodus” movement. I love this quote from the ding-dong who started this movement (or one of the ding-dongs who’s part of it; it’s not quite clear to whom the quote is attributed):

"We're not an extremist group," he said. "What we are doing is reacting to the extreme marginalization of Christianity in America."

The extreme marginalization of Christianity in America, he says. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! That’s the best joke I’ve heard in ages. Yeah, Christianity is so marginalized in America that we’ve got a Christian president with an almost exclusively Christian cabinet whose biggest supporters are conservative Christians to whom he panders relentlessly, including appointing two openly Christian justices to the Supreme Court, an almost entirely Christian Congress, who starts each day’s session with a prayer, guaranteed freedom of religion, money that says “In God We Trust,” a pledge of allegiance that describes us as “one nation under God,” television networks who will accept advertising from conservative religious groups but not liberal political groups, schools who are incorporating a religious belief into science classes, gays being denied marriage in order to protect its “sanctity,” women denied access to emergency birth control for no legitimate health reasons but because some religious people have a problem with it, Catholic communities being built in Florida, Museums of Creationism springing up, laws still on the books that respect Christians’ holy day (like in Indiana, where you still can’t shop for a car or buy booze on a Sunday), churches not required to pay taxes, and that’s just me getting warmed up, bub.

Pharmacists not being allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions because of their Christian beliefs, or teachers not being allowed to refuse to hang posters because of their Christian beliefs, doesn’t add up to the marginalization of Christianity in America. That’s called doing your fucking job. The only marginalized Christians I see are the ones who don't use their religion as a justification for hate-mongering or oppression of people with whom they don't agree.

Honestly. Once upon a time, martyrs actually had to die for their title. Those were the days, huh?

News from Shakes Manor: All the World’s a Stage

Because the rest of the news is depressing the hell out of me…

Last night, Mr. Shakes told me the following story, which he had dubbed My Strange Bathroom Story, and has consented to be retold for everyone’s collective amusement.

“Dooring my loonch hoor, I went oover to Boorder’s to broose for books, and soodenly I had to take a shite oot oof fooking noohere. Soo I asked if they had a bathroom and they did oon the secoond floor, soo I went oop there and foond two cubicles—oone was a noormal-sized cubicle, and oone was a huge oone for disabled people. I went to the smaller oone, boot it was coovered in vomit, soo I had noo choice boot to use the big oone or else I’d shite my breeks.

“Soo I goo in, and it’s ridiculoos! The bog is facing a giant bay windoo ooverlooking State Street! I can’t ooverstate how huge this windoo was—it went froom aboot a foot ooff the groond to the toop oof the wall, and it was proobably six feet wide or moore! And noothing to coover it—noot blinds or anything, and noo brackets as if they were joost missing! What the fook?!

“Noo I have to take a shite in froont oof the whoole bloody woorld! Acrooss the rood, there was constrooction gooing oon, and I coold make oot the woorkmen’s faces. And I coold see into all the windoos oof the oopposite building—and I’m thinking, ‘If the people aboove me happen to look doon, they’re gooing to see my meat and two veg!’ Helloo, you doodgy soods, get a good gander at my bits, didja? Quite a shoo, aye? Look at the fooking ploonker taking a doomp in froont oof a windoo!

“Had to wipe my arse and everything in froont oof the biggest windoo knoon to man. Fooking wankers!”

I said, “On the plus side, you probably used the cleanest toilet in all of Chicago.”

“Ooh, it was fooking pristine,” he said. “Good thing, too. Taking a shite in plain view is really quite embarrassing if your toilet isn’t in good nick.”

Well, what’s not to love?

Gwyneth Paltrow loves Paul and me.

Gwyneth Paltrow has revealed she loves The Two Ronnies.

We’re so flattered, Gwyneth!

She first saw the show when the BBC ran repeats of Ronnie Corbett and Ronnie Barker's best sketches last year.

According to The Sun she said: "If you'd have told me five years ago that I'd love watching re-runs of The Two Ronnies, I'd have said you were clinically insane."

Oh, those Two Ronnies. Nevermind.

Yeesh

Political Wire:

A Political Wire reader notes that someone has finally come out with a 100% bipartisan political bumper sticker: "RUN HILLARY RUN"

Democrats put it on the rear bumper. Republicans put it on the front bumper.

Frankly, I’d rather see Lola or Forrest run instead of Hillary.

Another Claimed Bush Accomplishment Bites the Dust

One of the key planks of Bush’s “Compassionate Conservative” agenda in 2000 and his “Ownership Society” agenda in 2004 was closing the gap between white and minority home ownership. And minority home ownership has risen, for which he’s taken credit, pointing to his tax cuts as the impetus for the closing gap. Not only is that bullshit, but minorities are now experiencing a significant rise in foreclosures.

President Bush cites rising minority ownership as a milestone achievement under his "ownership society" programs.

But hidden behind such success stories lies a disturbing trend: in the last several years, neighborhoods with large poor and minority populations in places like Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia and Atlanta have experienced a sharp rise in foreclosures, in some cases more than a doubling, according to an analysis of court filings and other housing data by The New York Times and academic researchers.

The black home ownership rate even dipped slightly last year, according to the Census Bureau.

The increase in foreclosures could be the first of a wave of financial distress for many minority homeowners, experts say, because they are twice as likely as whites to have taken out expensive subprime mortgages, most of which will jump to higher interest rates in the next two years, according to an analysis of data that lenders disclose under the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act…

Some housing experts worry that the minority foreclosure rate could worsen if the economy or the housing market, nationally or regionally, hits a rough patch as it has in industrial Midwestern states like Ohio…

Over the years, Ms. Roberts's monthly expenses rose because of repairs to a dilapidated porch and the birth of two grandchildren, but the $880 a month she takes home after taxes from her job as a home health aide did not.

Wage stagnation is a big problem for homeowners, especially those who have bought used homes, and the necessity of repairs and replacements of big items like furnaces and roofs start kicking in after a few years. Another problem, not mentioned in the article, throughout the Midwest is the rising cost of property taxes to make up for state and local budget deficits. Even homeowners with fixed mortgages can succumb to these issues.

The result is foreclosures, which leads to vacant homes, which leads to neighborhood blight, which leads to decreased property values, which leads to more vacancies and more blight, which leads to crime.

Wage stagnation and rising property taxes are directly attributable to Bush’s dire handling of the economy, specifically his belief that tax cuts are a panacea for any and every economic woe. And that’s not even to mention his resistance to addressing predatory lending practices or his signing of the ridiculous Bankruptcy Bill. So much for compassionate conservatism, eh?

George W. Bush: Worst President Ever.

South Dakotan Anti-Choicers Gearing up for Roe Challenge

Fasten your seatbelts. We’re in for quite a ride, I fear.

Lawmakers here are preparing to vote on a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions in South Dakota, a measure that could become the most sweeping ban approved by any state in more than a decade, those on both sides of the abortion debate say.

If the bill passes a narrowly divided Senate in a vote expected on Wednesday, and is signed by Gov. Michael Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion, advocates of abortion rights have pledged to challenge it in court immediately — and that is precisely what the bill's supporters have in mind.

Optimistic about the recent changes on the United States Supreme Court, some abortion opponents say they have new hope that a court fight over a ban here could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal around the country.

"I'm convinced that the timing is right for this," said State Representative Roger Hunt, a Republican who has sponsored the bill, noting the appointments of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the court.

…[Referencing] conjecture that Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, might soon retire, [Mr. Hunt added], "I think it will all culminate at the right time."

Bravo, Mr. Hunt. What an impressive victory this could mean for you, being the man who stopped safe and legal abortions in America.

But make no mistake, sir—even if you succeed, you won’t be stopping abortion. Even if your own state, where people just like you have managed to intimidate every last doctor in the state into not performing the procedure, it hasn’t stopped women who want control over their own bodies and lives from getting abortions.

In this state of some 770,000 people, about 800 abortions are performed each year, nearly all at one clinic in Sioux Falls. Several years ago, the political atmosphere in South Dakota became such that no local doctors felt comfortable performing abortions…so doctors are now flown in from Minnesota.

Banning safe and legal abortions and criminalizing doctors who perform them won’t stop abortions. Women with unwanted pregnancies will go to underground clinics, seedy hotel rooms, the proverbial back alleys—because of the truth that anti-choicers cannot bring themselves to face.

When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it.

There are women who would give anything to be pregnant. These women we understand. They go through tests and take hormones and subject themselves to round after round of costly fertility treatments, all in the pursuit of pregnancy and babies of their own. We have compassion for them. We sympathize when their hopes are dashed, and celebrate when their goal is achieved. They are, after all, seeking to fully realize their womanhood, and that is to be applauded.

But what of the women who would give anything not to be pregnant? These women have neither our understanding nor our compassion. They have instead our judgment. Why did you have sex if you didn’t want a child? Why can’t you just carry the pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption? We speak of women who seek abortions as a caricature that makes disdaining abortions justifiable—a callous, irresponsible slut, who could have that baby if she really wanted to, but her jet-setting career and martinis are just more important to her. Not 14-year-olds, or victims of rape or incest, or women whose birth control failed, or mothers who simply can’t afford one more mouth to feed, or women who have just been left by the men who impregnated them, or women whose lives are in danger, or women who made a mistake and don’t want to pay for it with the rest of their lives. No, we don’t think of them, because it wouldn’t be quite as easy to think of women who seek abortions as heartless, selfless wenches who reject their womanly destiny to mother, who deserve our disdain.

What is there to celebrate, really, in banning abortion? Will it stop ill-formed 14-year-olds from having unprotected sex? Will it stop rape? Will it stop birth control from failing? Will it stop married couples who don’t want any more children from having sex? Will it stop mistakes? No, not in this imperfect world. It will mean more crime, more unnecessary injuries and deaths, more women left sterile, more unwanted children.

"The strong possibility of a third appointee sometime soon makes this all very real and very viable," Mr. Hunt added.

Let their blood be on your hands if you’re right, sir.

I am making...

...the Peter Brady voice-cracking performance of “It’s time to change; it’s time to rearrange!” the official song of the Bush administration. (Hopefully the third time will be the charm, and this post will stick around this time.)

Now the White House is claiming that Bush didn’t know about the port deal until after it had been approved.

President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday…

"The president wants this deal to go forward because it was followed by the book and he wants Congress to understand that," [White House counselor Dan Bartlett] said on CBS' "The Early Show." He told Fox News Channel that Bush felt strongly that "we need to be adding strategic partners" in the Mideast…

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

How the hell does the president know, without a doubt, that the vetting process and other aspects of the deal were followed “by the book,” that the issue was looked at “carefully,” if he wasn’t even aware of it until after it had been approved?

Totally missing from this article: Any explanation whatsoever on how or why the deal was approved without the president’s knowledge.

This guy is a total puppet. They—whomever “they” consists of; some combination of Cheney, Rove, Andy Card, and who knows who else—tell him what’s what and assure him it was all done through the proper channels, and then he goes out and defends it, without bothering to do any fact-checking of his own. If They say it’s what’s best for the country, then he agrees. And if They say it was done right, he trusts them. And if They say that it’s worth using his first-ever veto on, then, by god, he’ll use that veto. He has no fucking clue what’s going on.

And goddammit, these people work for us. I want to know who’s really running this show. Who in the administration is approving deals like this without the president’s knowledge? This is ridiculous.

Question of the Day

What would you most like to see asked as a future QotD?

Keystone Cops

Rumsfeld claimed in a press briefing today that he hadn’t even heard about the decision to sell oversight of 6 American ports to Dubai Ports World until this past weekend.

If that’s true, then I knew about a fairly significant national security issue almost a week before the Secretary of Defense, on the day the deal was approved, February 13.

Maybe Rummy should try reading the paper. Or some blogs.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace says the same thing—didn’t know until this weekend. And check this out:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed the Defense Department was part of “a rigorous review…for national security concerns.” If so, why were two of the Department’s top officials not even informed, much less consulted?

…Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13. How could do that when he didn’t even find out about the sale until last weekend?

Ridiculous. Incompetent liars, every last one of them.

Meanwhile, Bush says the deal will go through come hell or high water, though even regular Bush ball handlers like Frist and Hastert are balking, and has threatened to veto any Congressional attempts to stop it.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.'"

Wake up, dummy. Dubai Ports World isn’t just “a Middle Eastern company.” It’s a state-owned company. That state, the United Arab Emirates, was used by some of the perpetrators of 9/11 as “an operational and financial base.” No matter how many times you say it, they aren’t “an ally on the war on terror”—at least not our ally. Jesus.

I John Waters

There are many reasons I love John Waters. His films, for a start—and not the vaguely mainstream ones like Crybaby and Hairspray and Serial Mom (although I love those, too), but particularly the flat-out nutfests: Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble, and Desperate Living. Anyone who writes lines like “Kill everyone now! Condone first degree murder! Advocate cannibalism! Eat shit! Filth is my politics! Filth is my life!” or “Well, hip hip hooray for your cheap climax! What about me, fuck face?” is just tops in my book.

I also love his collection of essays, Crackpot: The Obsessions of John Waters, in which he admits his greatest guilty pleasure is art films.

Being a Catholic, guilt comes naturally. Except mine is reversed. I blab on ad nauseam about how much I love films like Dr. Butcher, M.D. or My Friends Need Killing, but what really shames me is that I’m also secretly a fan of what is unfortunately known as the “art film.” Before writing this sentence, I’ve tried to never utter the word “art” unless referring to Mr. Linkletter. But underneath all my posing as a trash film enthusiast, a little-known fact is that I actually sneak off in disguise (and hope to God I’m not recognized) to arty films in the same way business men rush in to see Pussy Talk on their lunch hour. I’m really embarrassed.

William S. Burroughs, whose Naked Lunch confirmed to me at age 16 or so that I was, indeed, an inveterate lover of freaks (and quite probably was one myself), called Waters the “Pope of Trash.” What a compliment.

So I sort of freaked out when My Londoner Andy told me he was going to be backstage with John Waters on a telly shoot. “Please get a picture of him for me if you can,” I begged. “And tell him I worship the filth he walks on!”

He seemed dubious.

“He’s really friendly!” I assured him. “He’ll be very kind.”

Harrumph grumble grumble, but he promised to try.

Well, he didn’t have the opportunity to take a picture, but he did introduce himself, and told him that I worship the filth he walks on. To which Mr. Waters replied, “Oh, that’s very kind.”

Which is another reason I love him.

What don’t you lousy motherfuckers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?

The Holy Rollers are really on a tear lately. Aside from trying to make sure women don’t have access to life-saving medical procedures, not to mention birth control and emergency birth control, getting busy with the state initiatives to slowly chip away at abortion rights, revving up to bring the Marriage Protection Amendment to another vote, cutting funding for international family planning, increasing funding for domestic abstinence-only sex education programs, and about eight million other things we grouse about on a daily basis, now they’re embarking on a crusade to ban gay adoption in at least 16 states.

"Now that we've defined what marriage is, we need to take that further and say children deserve to be in that relationship," says Greg Quinlan of Ohio's Pro-Family Network, a conservative Christian group.

The unmitigated temerity of calling themselves the “Pro-Family” Network while they try to undermine gay families is just about enough to send me permanently around the bend. And what’s this bullshit about children deserving to be “in that relationship”? If you’re so bloody passionate about making sure kids have a mom and a dad, then surely you’re spending at least as much time and effort on deadbeat parents and trying to criminalize divorce for couples with children, right? No? Pretty much just focused on preventing gays from giving homes to unwanted children? What a fucking surprise.

Oh, and I see on your shitbag website that “Hate Crimes Bills” are one of your priorities. What does that have to do with families? Or did you get that bug up your ass, Greg, when you went through your “conversion” and got out of the “gay lifestyle” you lived for the first half of your life? Just because you were “miserable” as a gay man and were “ashamed of being gay,” doesn’t give you the right to try to ungay-by-law all the other people who don’t feel ashamed of themselves, you useless, self-loathing turd.

Social conservatives view family makeup as the next battleground after passing marriage amendments in 11 states in 2004…

Republican pollster Whit Ayres is skeptical. Adoption, he says, "doesn't have the emotional power of the gay marriage issue because there is no such thing as the phrase 'the sanctity of adoption.'"

Aww, what a disappointment that this year’s hate-mongering doesn’t have a catchy phrase that will play to the Bible-bashing pseudo-Christians. That’s a damn shame.

Seriously, these wankers need to fuck off. Have a look at the thousands of American kids who need good homes, but had the audacity to become orphans after they weren’t cute wee babies anymore, or the impudence to have physical or psychological disabilities, or the scandalous impertinence to be not white. Older children, children of color, and/or children with special needs are more likely to be adopted by gays and lesbians. Not straight married couples. Not even straight singles. No matter how devout or how pro-life or how pro-family. Gays and lesbians adopt these kids in higher numbers than anyone else.

All these kids want is a place to call home—someone to adopt them and love them and reassure them that they’re wanted. Do you think they give a rat’s ass whether they get a mom or a dad or two moms or two dads, or is it more likely that having two people to wrap loving arms around them and make them feel safe and adored would just be about the best thing they could ever imagine?

Pro-family my ass. If the allegedly pro-family crowd gave a shit about the kids who are in need of adoptive parents, they wouldn’t be trying to ban the people most likely to adopt the most unadoptable kids from doing so.

Dick Cheney: Just a Big Bowl of Bad