Love and marriage, love and marriage…

…go together like a Molotov cocktail and the front room curtains.

A Mexican couple were recovering separately after a marital spat got out of control and saw them firing guns, throwing knives and hurling homemade bombs, Mexican daily Milenio said on Monday…

Juan Espinosa and Irma Contreras fought until their house blew up in a homemade gasoline bomb explosion, Milenio said.

…Contreras was taken to hospital with third-degree burns.

…Espinosa told reporters he was glad his wife had suffered burns, while Contreras said she was only sorry she had not "hacked off his manhood" during the fight.
I think once your bickering crosses over the line into something being ignited, it’s time to put down the weapons and call a divorce attorney.

Mr. Shakes and I don’t have this problem. Luckily, there’s a joodge on hand to arbitrate any complaints at all times.

Open Wide...

Mmm…cookies.

The Heretik points to a New York Times article about the strange side effects of the popular sleep aid, Ambien, including unconscious nighttime food forays.

The sleeping pill Ambien seems to unlock a primitive desire to eat in some patients, according to emerging medical case studies that describe how the drug's users sometimes sleepwalk into their kitchens, claw through their refrigerators like animals and consume calories ranging into the thousands.

The next morning, the night eaters remember nothing about their foraging. But they wake up to find telltale clues: mouthfuls of peanut butter, Tostitos in their beds, kitchen counters overflowing with flour, missing food, and even lighted ovens and stoves. Some are so embarrassed, they delay telling anyone, even as they gain weight.
Totally bizarre. And obviously worrisome, considering the health hazards—not the least of which has to be choking. Sleeping with a mouthful of peanut butter doesn't sound especially safe to me. And with 26 million prescriptions made out for Ambien in America last year alone, the strange reactions among some users, which also include sleep-driving and hallucinations, are worth noting.

In his usual cheeky way, The Heretik also asks, "What else are we sleeping through?"

I think the answer to that is all too clear.

(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)

Open Wide...

No, no, and more no.

As if you needed one more reason to fear a McCain presidency.

I read my e-mails, but I don't write any. I'm a Neanderthal -- I don't even type. I do have the rudimentary capability of calling up some Web sites, like the New York Times online, that sort of stuff. No laptop. No PalmPilot. I prefer my schedule on notecards, which I keep in my jacket pocket.

But my wife has enormous capability. Whenever I want something I ask her to do it. She's just a wizard. She even does my boarding passes -- people can do that now. When we go to the movies, she gets the tickets ahead of time. It's incredible.
Seriously, if this guy thinks that pre-ordering movie tickets online is incredible, I can’t imagine the string of irritating techno-president stories through which we’d have to suffer during his administration. Like it isn’t bad enough having to read that Bush listens to “Dan McLean” on his iPod. I seriously cannot face at least four years of “McCain learns to use a TV remote!” stories.

The hat tip goes to Taegan Goddard at Political Wire, who excerpts another bit of the article for his Quote of the Day:

You lose battles in politics. I do get good and angry. Really angry! By God, I'm not going to let them beat me again. I don't like to lose. After the 2000 race for the presidential nomination, I spent at least ten days -- and in many ways it was the most wonderful experience of my life -- wallowing in self-pity... Then I just woke up and said it was time to get over this. The people you represent don't want you this way. You're still their Senator. And besides, America doesn't like sore losers. I also don't hold grudges. It's a waste of time. What's the point? Frankly, the sweetest revenge is success.
Blech, etc.

Open Wide...

Right to Life Lie Crusade

Shaker MH, with his mother’s permission, forwarded this email he received from her after she had an interesting run-in with a group calling itself the Right to Life Crusade. Shaker Mom VH lives in Indiana, like me, where an abortion ban is likely to come up for a vote in the Indiana General Assembly next year.

A couple of hours ago the phone rang and I picked it up. This recorded voice asked me if I would take part in a survey on abortion. The recorded voice asked me to punch 1 for pro-life and 9 for pro-choice. I punched 9, and the recorded voice thanked me for choosing pro-life and to punch 3 if I was interested in joining the "Right to Life Crusade." I was so flippin' mad. I found a number (long distance to Tulsa, Okla., called it.... a man answered by saying "hello" ... I asked him if this was the number for "Right to Life Crusade" and he said yes. So I told him that I basically was against abortion but I was for pro-choice, and what happened in the so-called survey. So he said he was going to check on it and call me back.
That was Sunday. Needless to say, he has not called back.

Shaker Mom VH continues:

You know, if people would get as enthusiastic about contraception as they do about abortion, we just wouldn't have the problem. And Lord knows, we don't need the stupid, and I mean stupid, government butting in. They are making a mess out everything they touch!
No need to wonder why Bush’s approval rating has hit another all-time low. Iraq is just one of many reasons.

Open Wide...

Difficult to keep up

Jesus. Just a moment ago, the headline of the CNN.com lead story read "Bloody Baghdad: 70 bodies found in 30 hours." I left for a drink of water, then sat down again to find the headline had changed to "86 bodies found."

God knows what the headline will be at the end of the day.

In the meantime: our wartime president is publicly setting benchmarks for pulling American troops out of areas of Iraq (roughly half the country) by a specific date, the end of 2006 - the kind of announcement that he had declared all but treasonous, an aid to insurgents, when his critics had called for such a benchmark.

Hypocrisy and political expediency. Who says George Bush can't multi-task?

(Standing at the cross-post...)

Open Wide...

Science is cool. Period.

Lauren at Feministe points to quite an interesting article about Japanese researchers who have found a way to harvest stem cells from human menstrual blood.

These stem cells could potentially be a source of specialized heart cells, which might be used to treat failing or damaged hearts…

At the meeting of the American College of Cardiology here, Dr. Shunichiro Miyoshi reported that he and his colleagues at Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, collected menstrual blood from six women and harvested stem cells that originated in the lining of the uterus, the endometrium.

They were able to obtain about thirty times more stem cells from menstrual blood than from bone marrow, Miyoshi told Reuters Health.
The stem cells must be harvested from younger patients, because they have a longer lifespan. How young, I'm not sure. Although, like Lauren, I could certainly use the extra income. Plus, being the deliberately childless heathen that I am, it would sure make me less crabby about my otherwise useless periods if I made some dough. Oh, and helped fix broken hearts. Sigh.

All snark aside, that's really, truly cool.

(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)

Open Wide...

Why is Big Brother sniffing me?

Two rather alarming, if unsurprising, stories by way of Blogenfreude at Agitprop. First up, the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority is considering:

in their never-ending quest to protect New Yorkers from the fallout from the Dear Leader's War on Terror™, [the installation of] fingertip-sniffing card scanners and card vending machines on our subways. At Agitprop, we feel safer already!

Expect police shootings of firecracker-wielding schoolchildren, smokers, and magicians.
Oy.

Next up, the feds have begun issuing passports that contain biometric information stored on remotely readable microchips, in spite of lingering security and privacy concerns.

The passport chips contain all the personal information printed inside the passport, as well as a digitised photograph of the passport holder. At ports of entry, scanners will access these data and compare them with a national database for identity verification.

The new "E-Passports" have so far been issued only to US diplomats, as part of a pilot programme conducted in collaboration with Singapore, New Zealand and Australia. They will be introduced nationwide by October.
Awesome. I can't wait!

You'll be totally unsurprised to hear that "civil liberties and privacy groups" have some issue with the new passports.

Whatever. Don't they know that everything changed after 9/11? What are they—traitors?!

(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)

Open Wide...

Bible-Quoting Haters

Below is the text from a well-written opinion piece on homophobic Bible quoters from the Miami Herald. Speaks for itself:

Quoting Bible to attack gays is hypocritical
By Leonard Pitts Jr.

An open letter to Donna Reddick:

I'm writing this for Desiree. She's a student at Miami Sunset Senior High, where you teach business technology. A few days ago, she sent me an e-mail recounting an incident that happened on campus last week.

It seems that on three successive days, the morning announcements, which are televised throughout the school, featured student-produced segments on the subject of gay rights.

On the first day came comments from students who took the pro position. On the second day came remarks from a counselor who spoke of the need for students to respect one another. On the third day came you.

You and a few students, actually. One told classmates homosexuality was ''unacceptable in the eyesight of God.'' Another said gays were "unrighteous.''

The coup de grace, though, was you invoking Sodom and Gomorrah and telling students homosexuality was ''wrong according to the Bible'' because God ordered humanity to multiply, which gay couples cannot do.

Desiree was, to put it mildly, upset. In the e-mail, she accused you of bigotry and wondered how a gay student could feel assured ever again of fair treatment in your class. I tend to agree. She also suggested that you crossed the line between church and state, an accusation about which I'm more conflicted.

It seems to me there's a difference between proselytizing for a religion and explaining how one's faith has influenced one's opinion.

You're entitled to think what you think, no matter how stupid it might be.

INTELLECTUAL CONSTIPATION

But I'll leave those questions for others to parse. My biggest frustration lies elsewhere. Put simply, I've had it up to here with the moral hypocrisy and intellectual constipation of Bible literalists.

By which I mean people like you, who dress their homophobia up in Scripture, insisting with sanctimonious sincerity that it's not homophobia at all, but just a pious determination to live according to what the Bible says.

And never mind that the Bible also says it is ''disgraceful'' for a woman to speak out in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and that if she has any questions, she should wait till she gets home and ask her husband. Never mind that the Bible says the penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death. Never mind that the Bible says the man who rapes a virgin should buy her from her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and marry her.

I'm going to speculate that you don't observe or support those commands. Which says to me that yours is a literalism of convenience, a literalism that is literal only so long as it allows you to condemn what you'd be condemning anyway and takes no skin off your personal backside.

As such, your claim that God sanctions your homophobia is the moral equivalent of Flip Wilson's old claim that the devil made him do it.

You resemble many of your and my co-religionists, whose faith so often expresses itself in an obsessive focus on one or two hot-button issues -- and seemingly nowhere else.

They're so panicked at the thought that somebody accidentally might treat gay people like people. They run around Chicken Little-like, screaming, 'Th' homosex'shals is comin'! Th' homosex'shals is comin'!'' Meantime, people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass-murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that?

GOOD CAUSES

Just once, I'd like to read a headline that said a Christian group was boycotting to feed the hungry. Or marching to house the homeless. Or pushing Congress to provide the poor with healthcare worthy of the name.

Instead, they fixate on keeping the gay in their place. Which makes me question their priorities. And their compassion. And their faith.

If you love me, feed my sheep.

For the record, Ms. Reddick, the Bible says that, too.

Open Wide...

Lunatic Alert!

Pat Robertson is at it again:

Television evangelist Pat Robertson said Monday on his live news-and-talk program "The 700 Club" that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that radical Muslims are "satanic."

Robertson's comments came after he watched a news story on his Christian Broadcasting Network about Muslim protests in Europe over the cartoon drawings of the Prophet Muhammad.

He remarked that the outpouring of rage elicited by cartoons "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with."

Robertson also said that "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination."
He then commanded his audience to watch him put out the fires of Satan by pouring gasoline on an open flame. There were no fatalities in the ensuing stampede.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Feingold's resolution to censure Bush was tanked and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's unlikely to ever come up for a full vote, even though one was requested by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The GOP was chomping at the bit to get a full vote, because they suspected, correctly, that Feingold's Democratic brethren would run away from it like it was Frankenstein's Monster with an axe to grind.

But let's pretend for a moment that it will, eventually, come up for a full vote. What do you think about a resolution to censure? Good idea? Bad politics? Not enough? A waste of time?

Open Wide...

Moussaoui Trial FUBAR

I’ve been trying to figure out what, exactly, to make of this, but honestly, I don’t think there’s anything to be made. Someone screwed up, big time. And not in an accidental sorta way.

The federal judge in the Zacarias Moussaoui case said Monday she may dismiss the death-penalty prosecution of the al-Qaida conspirator after a federal lawyer apparently coached witnesses on upcoming testimony.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said it was "very difficult for this case to go forward" after prosecutors revealed that a lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration had violated her order barring witnesses from any exposure to trial testimony.

Brinkema sent the jury home until Wednesday while she considers her options. She will hold a hearing Tuesday to determine the scope of the problem. The TSA lawyer, Carla Martin, and most of the seven witnesses — past or present employees of the Federal Aviation Administration who received e-mails from Martin — are expected to testify.

Brinkema said she had "never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses," and prosecutor David Novak agreed that Martin's actions were "horrendously wrong."
Awesome.

Couple of other interesting tidbits about Carla Martin…

She was one of the counsels brought in by the Department of Justice to litigate discovery requests made by the plaintiff’s attorneys in Mariani vs. United Airlines (UAL) et. al. When Mariani’s attorneys subpoenaed evidence from airlines regarding the 9/11 UAL crash, in which her husband died, the Transportation Security Administration, represented by the Department of Justice, stepped in and asserted that the subpoenaed documents might contain Sensitive Security Information, and should therefore be submitted to TSA for review prior to any disclosure, basically using security claims to block the potential discovery of negligence or incompetence.

I also found this old case, in which, pre-9/11, an Iranian passenger sued Lufthansa Airlines for discriminatory practices after he was refused a boarding pass for not allowing his baggage to be subjected to a search that was not required of other passengers. When his attorney requested a copy of the security directive, Carla Martin, described as an FAA department head, “told him that, in similar circumstances, the FAA had consented to the disclosure of a security directive to counsel for a party in litigation. Consent to disclose the security directive to Kalantar or to his attorney would be withheld in this case, however.”

The reason given by Martin was that Kalantar and his attorney were “involved in advocacy groups for Iranians fighting discrimination” and that, in the other cases when security directives had been disclosed, the attorney “[did] not appear to be emotionally or otherwise involved in the issue. And she felt that in those cases there wouldn't be a threat to the information being disseminated.”

Hmm. Sure seems like old Carla Martin likes to pop up just in time to shit all over someone’s legal rights.

Open Wide...

Wrong.

Steve Waldman.

I was thinking about the readers who suggested that I had been unfair in claiming a liberal hostility to evangelical Christianity. Fair point, I thought. I probably should have said "many liberals" rather than caricaturing liberalism per se…

The fact is that most Democrats are religious. But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach.
Every candidate for whom this secular liberal has ever cast a vote has been religious. Clinton—religious. Gore—religious. Lieberman—religious. Kerry—religious. Edwards—religious. Durbin—religious. Daley—religious. Bayh—religious. Right down to the mayor of my current small town of residence in Indiana—all of them openly religious. Some of them are even evangelical Christians, even if not the conservative brand.

And if Kerry had not won the nomination in 2004, and instead it had been any of the other Democratic contenders, I would have been casting a vote for a religious candidate, too.

I’ve voted for evangelical Democrats, Catholic Democrats, Protestant Democrats, Jewish Democrats.

I have not, however, voted for any atheist Democrats—not because I wouldn’t, but because there aren’t any to vote for.

Give me a break with the liberals don’t support religious candidates swill. If that were true, none of us would ever vote. And give me an even bigger break with the alleged impact we supposedly have on the party’s image and approach. If that were true, we wouldn’t be looking at a field of all religious candidates in every bloody election.

The only people to whom Democrats don’t seem religious enough are people who want to continue to push the ridiculous meme that there’s only one brand of religion in this country. Try asking someone who isn’t religious. I can assure you none of them will see a shortage of religiosity on any Democratic ticket.

Open Wide...

The Science of Sexual Orientation

Shaker DD passed on this article about a CBS special on the science of sexual orientation. It’s quite an interesting article, and I’m really just passing on the link so you can go read the whole thing and then discuss in comments.

One thing I actually found rather amusing (and terrifying) is something scientists call “the older brother effect”:

[F]or every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there's no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there.
That means that families who have lots of children are most likely to end up with a gay son. And who has the most kids? Religious conservatives.

That’s right—I’m talking to you, Duggars.

Open Wide...

The Ownership Society

Jeffrey Hart argues in the LA Times that Bush is not a conservative, but a right-wing ideologue. Pointing to the foolishness of Bush’s Iraq endeavor, his extremist beliefs in the free market and privatization, and his contempt for science and choice, Hart makes a pretty good case. But as I’m beginning to see more and more of these apologias on behalf of conservatism, as conservatives try to rescue their political philosophy away from its association with Bush, all I can think is, “Bullshit.” Conservatives love to talk about The Ownership Society, but they refuse to own its spokesman.

Bush is undoubtedly a right-wing ideologue, but it’s because he’s a conservative—a conservative with no checks and balances, left to pursue every conservative wet dream with abandon. The certain destination for the wanton and unfettered quest for a conservative utopia was always going to be the revelation of the ugly ideology underwriting it all.

And now that the hideous underbelly of conservatism is exposed in a grotesque mosaic of avarice, antipathy, and corruption, the movement conservatives, who happily regarded Bush as the water-carrier for their movement during this hog wild run toward heaven on earth, now want to distance themselves from him as if the revolting montage of carnage is the singular result of his dogmatic incompetence, instead of the culmination of a mob-directed feeding frenzy that it actually is. Well, fuck you and the president you rode in on.

Bush was your Golden Boy—a corporate shill with the demeanor of a country bumpkin, who could hold together the unholy alliance between Big Money and Big Religion, standing at the altar and giving the blessing to the crackpot marriage between the business interests who sought to get rich off the stupid sods who marched in lockstep if only someone would protect the children from radical feminists and kissing boys. He didn’t just give good speech on Neocon dreams and working class nightmares; he believed that shit. And with a GOP-led Congress and a neverending stream of media mouthpieces willing to demonize anyone who dared to dissent, he tumbled headfirst into fulfilling every last one of your wishes, like a demented genie pulled out of a bottle in oil-soaked Texas.

He wrapped himself in the flag and told America to follow him down the Yellow Brick Road. He went to war, and he made you rich. And you cheered him all the way, over every last golden cobblestone. Then America got to Oz, and started getting itchy—and now you want to pretend you never knew what was there. Why, we had no idea there was just some shriveled old man behind the curtain! Please.

Let’s get real for a moment. Conservatives believe the free market and privatization is the solution to all our problems. Conservatives believe in social Darwinism. Conservatives believe in defense, defense, and more defense. And maybe, once upon a time, conservatives believed in privacy rights, but once you invited social retards into your Big Tent to give your corporate agenda the momentum it needed in the voting booths and supported the notion of a unitary executive, you relinquished your claim to that forever and ever, amen. You can’t now try to distance yourself from Bush by retreating to some retro definition of conservatism and accusing him of not meeting it. You championed that redefinition when it suited you, and now you’re stuck with it. You can’t have it both ways.

There are now twice as many billionaires in America as there were four years ago, and in the time of their making, we have seen soldiers die, felt our rights be stripped away, watched an entire American city drown—saw those for whom conservatives have the greatest contempt turn to their government for help in a time of crisis and quite literally be left stranded by the callousness of conservative philosophy. And all the while you wailed about how hard you’ve got it, and now you want to wail some more that your principles have been betrayed by Bush.

But Bush didn’t part ways with conservatism; Bush realized its destiny. And in the great tradition of so many martyrs who have gone on before you, that’s your cross to bear.

So bear it. It’s what you’ve always wanted.

Open Wide...

New campaign slogan: "Blago: Awake and aware!"

A few weeks ago, I called Rod Blagojevich "dumb as a stump" over his Daily Show appearance gaffe. I was kidding then. Kinda. Sorta. But amazingly enough, the Illinois governor has outdone himself in cluelessness with the recent anti-discrimination panel imbroglio. It is simply astonishing that Blagojevich and his staff could be unaware that appointee Claudette Marie Muhammad was a member of the Nation of Islam and as such was unlikely to disavow anti-Semitic statements made by the leader of the NOI, Louis Farrakhan. Even that lapse in consideration, however, is preferable to the notion that the governor and his people were fully aware of the inherent problem and simply dismissed it.

So I guess Blagojevich and his staff get points for not being willfully dense.

Other commission members have abandoned the panel in droves while the Nation of Islam declares that they would have considered legal action had the governor withdrawn support for the problematic appointee. It's fair to say that this has been a textbook example of how not to establish an state panel intended to promote diversity and harmony.

What happens next is anyone's guess. Blagojevich has recently announced plans for a kind of meta-discussion - led by himself - on divisive issues:

Blagojevich, who for days has remained mum as members have stepped down, said
the flap over Muhammad's appointment highlights deeper divisions within the
Jewish, black and gay communities and said he personally would oversee a
"meaningful dialogue" with leaders to "bring all of these communities together."


Strangely, no one seems to have heard of this plan outside of what they've heard from media. Well. Perhaps invites are in the mail.

(Let us meditate upon the stations of the cross-post...)

Open Wide...

Time to eat it too!

Repubs got their cake in the form of the crazy ass evangelical bigot/anti-abortion vote in the past couple elections. With abortion on the political front burner again thanks to South Dakota, it seems that they're mysteriously losing their appetite. Per Newsweek:

[T]he abortion issue has been good to the Republican Party. It has energized Roman Catholic and evangelical grass-roots activists and allowed the GOP to paint pro-choice Democrats as cultural extremists, out of step with Main Street and the heartland. But a recent flurry of activity on abortion is making Republican politicians nervous. [...]


Why are they nervous? For one, they don't want to lose half their bait for the crazy ass wingnut vote. Listen to what Clarke Reed (the GOP architect in MS) had to say on it:

"I'm pro-life, but you can't wear the thing out."


"But you can't weat the thing out". It's all a game. A fucking game--not just with the deeply held religious beliefs of the wingnut set--but with the very lives of women. These people are beyond twisted.

The article highlights another way the Dems are slow on the uptake:

"Republicans are going to be the ones who look like extremists," says former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his seat in 2004 after being beaten up on the abortion issue for years. That does not mean, however, that Democrats are rushing to call attention to the Republicans' dilemma. In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats don't plan to spend a dime on ads highlighting the abortion issue, according to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the savvy Chicago pol who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.


The reason? They're used to getting harrassed on the issue, so they just won't deal with it. What the hell kind of pissant excuse is that? The article notes that an overwhelming majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal (albeit, many agree on added restrictions). How does it not make sense to Dems that if the majority wants to keep it legal, wouldn't it be oh, obvious, to capitalize on the extremism going on?


Repubs are worried that it may "backfire" (as Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana stated) on them. Even Kenny-boy Mehlman is refusing to talk about it. They know they've toe'd a very politically dangerous line--because, you know, you can't "wear it out". Yet, the Dems don't plan to do anything about it. Nothing. Which, to me, shows that they care as much about women and the beliefs/principles of their supposed base as the Repubs.

Open Wide...

A Tale of Two Headlines

Study Finds More News Media Outlets, Covering Less News

As part of the review, a special study looked at how a variety of outlets, including newspapers, television, radio and the Internet, covered a single day's worth of news and concluded that there was enormous repetition and amplification of just two dozen stories. Moreover, it said, "the incremental and even ephemeral nature of what the media define as news is striking."
The one bright spot seemed to be newspapers, which “covered the most topics, provided the most extensive sourcing and provided the most angles on particular events.” Which probably means this is not good news…

McClatchy Buys Knight Ridder, But Will Sell 12 Papers, Including San Jose and Two in Philadelphia

After the purchase of Knight Ridder and the sale of the 12 papers, McClatchy will be left with 32 daily newspapers and roughly 50 non-dailies.
The last thing we need, in an era of repetition and amplification of too few news stories, is more media consolidation—especially in the only medium which was managing to still do a halfway decent job.

Open Wide...

The Liberal One Speaks

George Clooney is a liberal, and he makes no apologies for it. Hell, he’s proud of it. And he has something to say about letting oneself be paralyzed by the fear of being tagged a liberal, by the fear of being criticized:

Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits.

I am a liberal. Fire away.
Amen, brother.

Open Wide...

Dumb Dems

That’s about as bluntly as I can put it. The Democrats are just being flat out dumb about the blogosphere.

Pam takes a look at a great post by Glenn Greenwald, and I’ll excerpt a little of each, but both posts are worth a read in their entirety.

Glenn:

Within the last two weeks, I had some extensive communications with a high-ranking staff member in a Democratic Senators' office (whose identity I promised not to reveal before the discussions began) in which I argued that systems should be created to enable Democratic Senators to work cooperatively with the blogosphere in order to prevent the Bush Administration from continuing to suppress investigations into its wrongdoing, including as part of the NSA scandal and other scandals.

I explained that there is a bursting and eager energy among the literally millions of people who write and read blogs to take meaningful action against the Bush Administration. The people in the blogosphere are highly motivated, informed, and politically engaged…

This was the response I ultimately received:

I think there is an opportunity for us to figure out a better way to work together. But, you have to understand, my ultimate goal is to help [the] Senator [] achieve his objective of real oversight on national security matters by the Intelligence Committee.

Even with the best of intentions, I’m not convinced that bloggers can help us meet that goal. In fact, I worry about it hurting our efforts given the increasingly partisan environment.
…It's as though they think they need to remain above and separated from the poorly behaved, embarrassing masses…

Bush followers, along with their media allies, recognize the lurking power of the anti-Bush component of the blogosphere and -- for that very reason -- have been expending considerable efforts recently to demonize it as nothing but fringe, extremist lunatics who are political poison. Rather than combat that demonization, national Democrats -- as usual -- have meekly acquiesced to it -- even internalized it -- and are now intimidated to go anywhere near one of the very few vibrant, living and breathing instruments of political activism available to them.

Based on this condescending, frightened behavior, one would think that Democrats are enjoying one success after the next and don't want to do anything to jeopardize the great political machine they have built -- especially not do anything as risky and bizarre as work with the lowly throngs of people who are activated, interested, energized and eager to wage the battles against the Bush Administration. Despite their glaring need for new strategies, so many of these national Democrats are completely closed off to new ways of working because, it seems to me, so many of them are, at bottom, personally satisfied with their chronically defeated, minority status. They prefer to protect the safety of their own individual political positions than to try to find ways to end the string of victories by the Bush Administration.
I guess there’s no need to be worried about standing on the bow of a sinking ship as long as you know you’re guaranteed a lifeboat. Not especially reassuring, however, to those of us in stowage trying to halt the breaching ocean with our buckets.

Pam takes particular issue with the Dems’ determination to keep progressive activists at arm’s length with one hand, while holding out the other for contributions:

Those of us who represent the rich, uncouth cousin known as the blogosphere will just expect to continue to get solicitations to help pay for the party that we won't get invited to.

…[T]he dance of continually asking the uncouth cousin to remain silent yet foot the bill for their party of friends is over. There's no going back, unless the dolts in both parties want to try to ignore, or if scared enough of blogs, attempt again to legislatively crush or regulate the netroots. And don't think it couldn't happen, given the established political culture in Washington that has everything to lose when speech is free.
I once wrote that while conservatives who vote against their own best interests don’t seem to understand their leadership, that we on the Left seem to suffer from the opposite problem—our leadership doesn’t understand its base. Glenn’s post seems to cast that assessment of the Democratic Party in stark relief. Not only do they not understand us, subscribing so mindlessly as they do to the Right’s attempts to marginalize us as weirdos; they have allowed that fundamental misunderstanding to metasticize into contempt.

And from such a defensive posture, it’s easy for them to find alleged evidence of the extremism that they suspiciously expect among their blogospheric base. The void of rigorous opposition left by their inaction, by what Glenn describes as their willingness to feel secure in defeat, has radicalized us by comparison. “A mere few years ago, I was hardly considered a radical lefty. I’m a social liberal and an economic conservative (though, admittedly, my hardline on balanced budgets has a liberal bent; less on pork and weapons development to fully fund necessary social and intelligence programs). My most ‘radical’ position was support of gay marriage, which never seemed all that radical to me, even when over half of voters didn’t support, at minimum, civil unions. Now they do, making my ‘radical’ position that much less radical—but nearly the entire Democratic Party is to the right of me on most issues, even though my positions haven’t changed. That’s a pretty significant shift in a couple of years.” The party that created a vacuum now resents those who have risen to fill it.

So we find that our choice is between a party we loathe and a party who loathes us, a party who exploits the fears and prejudices of its base for votes or a party who exploits the passionate desire for change of its base for cash. Quite a choice indeed.

And sure there are bright spots—as I write, I have received an email from Russ Feingold* about his introduction of a resolution to censure Bush for his wiretapping program. But it ends with the usual solicitation of donations, and all I can think about is Chris Rock: “Men braggin' about shit they s’posed to do anyway. 'I take care of my kids.' Whatcha want, a cookie?!?” The Democrats have been so thoroughly, scandalously lackluster at doing their fucking jobs that now every time they lift a finger, it’s turned into a fundraising opportunity. And that offends me. I’m a voter and a taxpayer. We pay their salaries. They’re supposed to work for us, though they have clearly forgotten. We didn't send them to D.C. to be enablers, but defenders and advocates of what we hold dear.

The Dems, in their inimitable way, are great at giving lipservice to the blogosphere as “an untapped resource,” but it’s becoming increasingly, unavoidably evident that their sights are on our pockets, not our passion. That’s their decision to make. My decision is whether I will use either to support them. If and when that answer is finally no, I will withhold the only other thing I have, the thing they have taken for granted, as have I, for 14 years—my vote.

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

* Feingold being one of the very best at doing what he was elected to do and one of the most conscientious about campaign financing, I hate to single him out for this, but there you go.

Open Wide...

Ho-ho: Reporters Yuk It Up with Bush at the Gridiron Club Dinner

Spectacular humor from the Gridiron Club’s annual dinner. The invitation-only club is “Washington's oldest and most prestigious journalistic organization. Its 65 active members represent major newspapers, news services, news magazines and broadcast networks,” and exists specifically to have this “press roast” every year.

President Bush headlined the annual Gridiron Club political press roast Saturday night, but Vice President Dick Cheney was the main target of the humor.

Cheney's well-publicized Texas hunting accident last month, drew ridicule from the press corps and all the speakers, including the president.

Bush pointed out that the vice president's full name is Richard B. Cheney.

"B. stands for bulls eye," Bush said to laughter from the hundreds of reporters and officials from the administration and Congress. The press, Bush joked, blew the matter way out of proportion: "Good Lord, you'd thought he shot somebody or something."

…Bush said that while pundits speculate about whether Cheney or White House political adviser Karl Rove run the government, it's another person who actually pulls the strings. Cheney, Bush said, tells him what to do but Cheney's wife, Lynne, tells the vice president what to do.

"Lynne, I think you're doing a heck of a job. Although I have to say you dropped the ball big time on that Dubai deal," he said, in a joke about the controversial ports deal.
But Bush wasn’t the only one with some good humor up his sleeve. The reporters themselves chimed in with some funny songs, too—about the Democrats.

"What do we stand for? We don't know. What's our platform? We ain't sure. All we know is Dubya's got it wrong," reporters sang, using a nickname for Bush.

The travails of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California also came in for a ribbing.

"This job is a zoo, I don't have a clue," a reporter sang. But then "Dubya messed up with the ports. I don't know why, but thank you, Dubai."
They also “dressed as sick chickens for a bird flu skit, as the Incredible Hulk to poke fun at Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who likes to wear a Hulk tie while waging fights in the Senate, and as Cheney hidden behind a Darth Vader mask.”

Oh, that wacky press.

Open Wide...