Here We Go

USAToday:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

…"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
The only provider approached who declined to participate because of concerns about the legality was Qwest. The article gives some insight into just how tough a decision this was for the company, who was harassed by the NSA because of their refusal to go along with this scheme.

My local phone provider is Verizon, which is such a pile of shit that we don’t have a landline. We’ve got one Sprint cell phone, and that’s it—which doesn’t protect us if we’re calling someone who’s got AT&T, Verizon, or BellSouth, but is at least a start. I would suggest that in addition to making efforts to hold the government accountable for this unprecedented intrusion into our private communications, we make every effort possible to punish AT&T (SBC), Verizon, and BellSouth for their participation in this enterprise. If you don’t have an alternative local provider like Qwest, ditch the landline and get a cell phone. Or sign up for Skype online, which you can use to make phone calls. The three big telecoms who engaged in this criminal enterprise don’t deserve another penny of our money.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

With all the various discussions of angry liberals going on lately, and the well-discussed phenomenon of wanting to put one’s fist through the television every time Bush’s face is on it, to which most of the Shakers seem to relate, this seems a rather appropriate question: What, aside from politics (or related cultural issues, like prejudice), has the capacity to make you so angry that you’re absolutely sure there’s steam coming out of your ears?

I have a pretty stunning (and typically Taurean) temper, but I also have a very long fuse. The only thing that will send me “off on one” immediately is being treated like I’m an idiot. Trying to scam me with an obvious lie, speaking to me as though I’m a child, telling me grass is pink and acting like I’m a moron for believing it’s green, responding to a question to which I couldn’t possibly know the answer with contemptuous sarcasm…any of these will cause me to unsheathe my wrath in approximately a nanosecond.

I also used to go apeshit when I couldn’t find something, but not so much anymore, now that I’m married to a man who doesn’t believe that anything has a logical place, just puts shit wherever, and never remembers where he puts it. Sometimes you’ve just got to learn to laugh, or you’ll put yourself in an early grave.

Open Wide...

Round-Up

There have been a ton of excellent posts here today, so I thought I’d do a quick round-up so no one misses anything—not least of which for the great conversations going on in all the associated comments threads.

Spudsy: Lovin’ on Keith Olbermann

Shakes: White House staff schedule found in the trash

Spudsy: More FEMA emails reveal the scope of the fuckupitude

Shakes: The Year of the Black Republican and homophobia in the black community

Shamanic: Intra-Blogger Memo

Shakers: Shaker Quotes of the Day

Shakes: Woe is the GOP

Waveflux: Local newspapers and blogging

Shakes: On Anger and the Failure of Imagination

Shakes: Jeb for pres? Barf.

Spudsy: Mary Cheney goes hypocritically haywire

Waveflux: Katherine Harris Schadenfreude

Shakes: More sophisticated thinking about moral values

And, forgive the hat-holding-out, but as a reminder, if you enjoy Shakespeare’s Sister and have some cash to spare for a good progressive cause, your donations are always most welcome.

(Especially by your still-unemployed blogmistress, whose bank account currently has negative $30 in it. Sorry, Agi—but I swear, I’m trying to get a job!)

Donate through PayPal here and through Amazon here.

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo


Expensive gas; expansive gasbag.

Open Wide...

Signs of Intelligent Life

Last night, Mr. Shakes went on a (rather amusing) mad-haired rant, impelled by his deep loathing of the term “family values,” and the emptiness so often hiding behind it.

“Ooh, congratulatoons! You’ve goot a wife and kids, and you’ve goot a great joob with a fat paycheck, and you goo to choorch every Soonday, soo that means you’ve goot family fooking values. Soo bloody what?! Hoo do you treat your wife? Hoo do you treat your kids? Doos your joob contribute anything to the community? Doo you actually practice what you hear preached at your choorch? It’s goot to be moore than woords! FOOK!”

Well, maybe there’s hope that Mr. Shakes’ head won’t eventually just explode after all.

Via The Green Knight, I find the latest NYT poll, which reveals, among other things, that 50% of respondents say that the Dems come closer to sharing their “moral values” than do the GOP. Only 37% of respondents gave Republicans the moral values thumbs-up. The Knight suggests, “[M]aybe people have begun to think about what their values are in a more sophisticated way than they used to -- as Jim Wallis and others have been asking for a few years now, are ‘moral values’ really only about private sexual behavior? What about poverty, honesty, war, the environment?”

If more voters are beginning to think about their values in a more sophisticated way—and I really hope that this poll is the first sign that they are—we’ve surely got the GOP to thank for it. Their determination to inextricably associate themselves with the term “moral values,” in spite of their patent unwillingness to practice any, may finally have worn thin, even with the most disengaged Americans. The party that rode in on the “moral values” ticket is now also linked with a disastrous war of choice, the drowning of an American city, illegally spying on Americans, craven cronyism, and wanton corruption. Yeah, okay, they still hate boys kissing each other, but somehow “protecting the sanctity of marriage” doesn’t offer quite the same bite when you’re being hauled off in handcuffs to the courthouse for breaking federal law.

Open Wide...

O frabjous day! Bense out, Harris still in, Florida GOP screwed

'Tis a joyous noise:

Citing both family and business considerations, House Speaker Allan Bense announced Wednesday that he will not challenge U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.

Bense's decision leaves the Republican Party with no alternative to Harris, who trails far behind Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in polls. The deadline for candidates to qualify for the Senate seat is noon Friday. [...]

Bense's announcement is sure to be a major letdown to Gov. Jeb Bush and other leading Republicans, who have aggressively been searching for an alternative to Harris.

The Sarasota Congresswoman's Senate candidacy has been hobbled by a series of missteps and staff turnover, and she is far behind Nelson in fund-raising even after putting $3-million of her own money into her campaign.

The Florida Republican Party is taking the news rather stoically, eh?

"If she's the Republican candidate, the best we can hope for is that she doesn't bring down the rest of the ticket," said Brian Ballard, a lobbyist and fund-raiser for Attorney General Charlie Crist, a candidate for governor.

Oh, let's hope for that anyway.

Open Wide...

What a Class Act

Did you hear? Mary Cheney has a book out. Apparently, it's all about being the daughter of Dick Cheney, Grand Poobah of the biggest homo-hatin' party on the planet, while happening to be a great big lesbian.

Ho Fucking Hum.

WASHINGTON - Throughout the last U.S. presidential election, Mary Cheney was known to American voters simply as Vice-President Dick Cheney's quiet gay daughter.

No more.
Dum-dum-DUMMMMMMMMM!! Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride! Oh, I do hope my heart will be able to take this! After all, Mary has been such a vocal, in-your-face personality in the past!
In a memoir published Tuesday, the 37-year-old lesbian describes a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as a "gross affront'' to gay Americans and reveals she almost quit the Republican campaign after President George W. Bush's endorsement of the legislation two years ago.
Yeah, great. You know something, Mary? "Almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I guess a big fat Republican paycheck your loyalty to your father must really be strong.

I love how she's referred to as "the 37-year-old lesbian." Did you hear? Mary Cheney is a lesbian! Lesbian lesbian lesbian. Shout it from the rooftops! Unless you're John Kerry or John Edwards, of course. Then you're a big pile of poo.
But Cheney saves her harshest words for Bush's 2004 opponents, calling Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry a "son of a bitch'' and his running mate, John Edwards, a "total slime'' for discussing her sexual orientation during nationally televised debates during the campaign.
Yeah! Because it's nobody's business but her own! At least until she gets a sweet book deal out of it!

Jesus, are we still beating this ridiculous drum? The comment about Mary Cheney may have been a little low, but this wasn't news; if you ask me, it gave Darth Cheney a chance to look almost human during the VP debate. The only reason they all got their knickers in a twist was because it may have made them look bad to the base.
The 239-page autobiography has vaulted the publicity-shy political operative back into the Washington spotlight she's already appeared in a prime-time interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer and provoked mixed reviews from gay rights activists who are bracing for a Senate vote next month on the Republican-sponsored gay-marriage ban.
Publicity shy. Until the book deal came through. Until she didn't have to worry about Daddy getting back into office. This coy "publicity shy" bullshit completely avoids how her election-friendly silence harmed gays and lesbians during the 2004 election. Pam:
The more I read, the less regard I have for Ms. Cheney. I had little to begin with, but she has not impressed me at all as someone who has any empathy for those who risk losing their jobs, custody of children, even their safety, simply because they are gay. Now that it's "her turn" to talk, she's digging the hole deeper.

If Mary's stance is truly 'Can we talk about something else already?' that really does say it all. I hope she understands that, as a resident of Virginia, she is about to watch her state vote this fall on passage of a heinous marriage amendment which would legally attack her relationship with Heather Poe. Would she rather talk about kayaking down the river with Poe, or might she step up to the plate as a resident of the Commonwealth and say that this amendment is wrong, no matter which party you belong to? If she did so, then I might revisit my opinion of her. I doubt she'll do anything of the sort.

She really is clueless (and uncaring) about the impact her silence in 2004 had on gays and lesbians who lived day to day, watching those red states pass marriage amendments, then made moves to stop gay adoption, all as she lived and worked in the safety and financial comfort that her father's status provided. It was easier not to say a word, not to give a damn, than to challenge the right wing nutcases as they demonized gays and lesbians to stir up The Base.
Pam also points out how AOL (her employer) is about to lay off 9% of it's workforce, but Mary has nothing to worry about. Just another reminder: if your last name is "Bush" or "Cheney," you're set for life.
Cheney became a flashpoint for both sides in America's culture wars during the 2004 campaign after Bush endorsed the constitutional ban to shore up political support on the religious right.

Cheney, who served as director of her father's re-election campaign, stayed silent when Aravosis launched a controversial Internet campaign DearMary.com pleading with her to denounce Bush.

She stayed silent when Kerry, during a debate with Bush, responded to a question on whether homosexuality was a choice by telling the nation Dick Cheney had a daughter "who is a lesbian.''

And she bit her tongue when a Republican Senate candidate, Alan Keyes, accused her of ``selfish hedonism'' for living a homosexual lifestyle.

But in her book, Cheney reveals she refused to attend Bush's 2004 State of the Union address after reading a draft copy of the speech that spoke of the need to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Gee. How brave of you. Protest Bush's disgusting actions against LGBTs... against you, by slipping even further into the shadows. You did nothing. Bravo.
When Bush later endorsed a constitutional amendment to expressly forbid gay marriage, Cheney "seriously considered packing up my office and heading home'' to the house she shared in Colorado with her longtime partner, Heather Poe.

It "gave me a knot in the pit of my stomach to think of my candidate for president endorsing the federal marriage amendment,'' she writes.

The gay marriage ban "would write discrimination into the constitution, our nation's most important and influential document,'' Cheney says in the book. "It is fundamentally wrong and a gross affront to gays and lesbians everywhere.''
And yet you did nothing. Again, bravo.
Cheney is less generous to Kerry and Edwards, who she accuses of "sleazy'' politics for mentioning she was gay during debates with Bush and her father.

"John Kerry didn't 'out me', nor did he offend or attack me by calling me a lesbian. It wasn't a secret that I was gay, and I certainly couldn't be offended by the truth,'' she writes. ``What was offensive E was that he was obviously trying to use me and my sexual orientation for his own political gain.''
Much like your father and his boss were ignoring and/or hiding it for their own political gain? Much like your father and his boss were using Kerry's words and your homosexuality against him after he made the comment for their own political gain?

Oh, sorry Mary, I forgot that IOKIYAR.
Sitting in the studio audience when Edwards mentioned her sexual orientation, Cheney said she looked at the vice-presidential candidate and mouthed the words"Go F*** Yourself'' a phrase her father had earlier employed against Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy.
Ahhh. How sweet. Like father, like daughter. Doesn't that just warm your heart?
Cheney's book is being released in advance of a planned June 5 Senate vote on the gay-marriage ban.

The measure is being opposed by several Republicans notably Senator John McCain, a potential 2008 presidential candidate but could help bolster the party's right-wing base before this year's mid-term elections.

A group of gay Republican activists, the Log Cabin Republicans, said Cheney's outspoken opposition could help defeat the proposed ban.
What outspoken opposition? This years too-late book? Don't make me laugh.
"Cheney's voice as the daughter of the vice-president is especially welcome as members (of Congress) debate a constitutional amendment aimed at marginalizing all gay and lesbian families,'' said Patrick Guerriero, president of the group.

"Mary Cheney's conservative voice can help remind loyal Republicans this proposal violates basic conservative principles.''
So, what, now Mary Fucking Cheney is the hero of the Gay Marriage Rights movement? No, sorry, that dog won't hunt, monsignor. This is going to do nothing to change the minds of "loyal Republicans." It's the "loyal Republicans" that want this proposal in the first place, you Log-Headed morons. The Republican party has worked systematically to build up a "base" of lockstep-marching, frothing homophobics that don't give a good goddamn if LGBTs are maginalized. An Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment IS a "basic conservative principle." This is exactly why no one understands you, Log Cabiners: your loyalty lies with a group of people that venomously hate you.

This book is written for and speaks to exactly one person: Mary Cheney.
Other long-time gay rights activists were less enthused about Cheney's entry into the debate.

"So she is a lesbian who came out against the federal marriage amendment big deal. Am I supposed to be grateful?'' asked Robin Tyler, executive director of Equality Campaign. "She can't be cast as a gay saviour. She could have had the principle to withdraw from her father's campaign two years ago. Frankly, Mary Cheney still embarrasses me.''
Bingo.

More at Pam's Place. Bolds mine. Weird editing errors in the original story theirs.

(Sunshine came softly through my cross-post today...)

Open Wide...

Seriously, barf.

I’d rather live in a shit hut on Mars than spend a moment in an America run by a third President Bush.

Open Wide...

On Anger and the Failure of Imagination

In response to the rather amazing collection of Shaker Quotes, Waveflux said:

What I like best about the political quotes here is the obvious passion, a quality that would be derided by some blighters as mere anger. Those folks don't understand—or work hard to not understand—what Atrios put so well a while ago:

One thing I've observed is that what really drives the elite chatterers crazy is the notion that people actually give a damn about anything. Sure, some of that giving a damn gets channeled into anger, but I often find simply "giving a damn" recast as "anger" when it isn't deserved.

The posters here give a damn.
He’s totally right. I was struck with precisely the same thought as I compiled the quotes; the passion, the giving a damn, was overwhelming. And yet some of it is indeed angry—an inevitability when the things about which one does give a damn are continuously, ruthlessly, under attack. I nearly chose as my own quote for the compilation an expression of my own anger that also happens to explain its impetus:

[The things I love about America] are precisely the things the Bush Brigade endeavors to crush, turning America into a nation where everyone who is not blandly, mindlessly like its self-appointed True Patriots are de facto threatening, where the natural and philsophical resources are raped and destroyed in the acquisition of more wealth, where philanthropy and empathy are relegated to little more than cute, clichéd memories, where the barrel-chested barons of a new Gilded Age stand astride the bodies of those who have been condemned to less fortunate fates, singing the praises of social Darwinism and bellowing about the superfluity of a social safety net. “The government never gave me anything!” they declare, as they deposit their million-dollar checks from their latest no-bid Defense Department contract then head off to Tiffany’s to get The Little Woman a bauble with their fat tax return.

They’re a truly disgusting lot. And the next time one of them has the temerity to accuse me of hating America, I’m going to tell them flat out, “No, I don’t hate America. I hate you.”
It’s this—the source of our anger—that the elite chatterers miss, too, even when they manage to correctly cast anger for what it is. They naïvely look at us, wide-eyed, from the pages of newspapers, perplexed as to why we’re so angry, or grimly knit their brows as they report on the slew of angry emails they’ve received in response to something they’ve written, positing the only explanations they find in their Handy Desktop Book of Conventional Wisdom: Liberals are crazy. Or: This must be about the war, because these angry Lefties remind me of those hippies during Vietnam. Never do they seem to stumble upon anything approaching the real source of our anger; never do they offer a glimpse of appreciating the depth of the betrayal we feel.

We seem to have on our hands a failure of imagination.

“A failure of imagination” is what the 9/11 Commission concluded was the essential failing of top administration officials leading up to that fateful day—and their failure of imagination persists yet, nearly five years later. They couldn’t predict the Iraq war wouldn’t be a walk in the park. They couldn’t predict that a hurricane could drown an entire city. They can’t understand why so many people are so angry. And the press scratches their heads right along with them.

Why the anger?

William Rivers Pitt, in An Open Letter to Richard Cohen, spectacularly addresses the excuseless befuddlement of Cohen (and, by extension, the rest of his clueless cohorts):

Why the anger? It can be summed up in one run-on sentence: We have lost two towers in New York, a part of the Pentagon, an important American city called New Orleans, our economic solvency, our global reputation, our moral authority, our children's future, we have lost tens of thousands of American soldiers to death and grievous injury, we must endure the Abramoffs and the Cunninghams and the Libbys and the whores and the bribes and the utter corruption, we must contemplate the staggering depth of the hole we have been hurled down into, and we expect little to no help from the mainstream DC press, whose lazy go-along-to-get-along cocktail-circuit mentality allowed so much of this to happen because they failed comprehensively to do their job.

George W. Bush and his pals used September 11th against the American people, used perhaps the most horrific day in our collective history, deliberately and with intent, to foster a war of choice that has killed untold tens of thousands of human beings and basically bankrupted our country. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq. They destroyed the career of a CIA agent who was tasked to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear ambitions, and did so to exact petty political revenge against a critic. They tortured people, and spied on American civilians.

You cannot fathom anger arising from this?
The answer, sadly, frustratingly, appears to be no. The question then is: Why? And the answer to that can be found in the way that the administration and press have allowed their failure of imagination to diminish the importance of another group’s anger, which will inescapably result in a greater catastrophe for us all than the anger of liberals ever will, no matter how voraciously we are cast as traitors.

At the end of his trial, Zacarias Moussaoui made the statement, “You wasted an opportunity to learn why people like me, like Mohamed Atta, have so much hatred of you. ... If you don't want to hear, you will feel [pain].” The guy was evil, and quite possibly nuts, but he spoke the truth there. The conventional wisdom, constructed and propagated by the administration, dutifully disseminated by their vigilant ally, the press, is that the terrorists hate us “for our freedom.” But that isn’t why they hate us, why they’re angry. They’re angry because of our support of Israel; they’re angry because of permanent US military bases in the Middle East; they’re angry because we reduce their anger to irrational reactions to “our freedom.” We might disagree with the positions they hold, and their reasons for holding them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t real.

Yet, doggedly, we resist understanding the real source of the anger. It’s just so much easier to try to wish it out of existence by repeating the blithe sound bite they hate us for our freedom. It’s just so bloody convenient to chalk it up to something neat and tidy, rather than distract ourselves with the tedious burden of confounding details. We’re far too lazy to engage in thinking.

And we’re far too arrogant to admit that maybe we’ve done something to justify that anger.

We avoid understanding this anger, and facing up to the accountability it would require, at our own peril. We liberals-who-give-a-damn know this. When we blanch every time we hear the president, one of his administration minions, or one of their media shills gravely murmur that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, it’s not just because it’s stupid. It’s because it’s dangerous. No wonder it makes us angry.

And it is here that we are then called traitors and terrorist-sympathizers, here in the great ironic intersection of our being angry about the administration’s and the press’ failure to flush out and examine the real impetus of our enemy’s anger. Here the anger of all the people they hate is reduced to irrational rabidity, by way of an immutable reliance on the conventional wisdom that fuels their lazy and contemptible failure of imagination.

Terrorists hate us for our freedom. Liberals are crazy.

Except liberals-who-give-a-damn don’t have the time to go crazy. The laundry list of grievances offered by Pitt is just the Cliffs Notes version—and aside from keeping up on everything going so horribly, horribly wrong, liberals-who-give-a-damn are also drawn by the vast, interconnecting web of all the things that make us angry. It isn’t just that the administration ignores the real issues underlying terrorism, or lies, or goes to war based on cherry-picked intelligence, or attacks women and gays, or gives corporate hand-outs to their cronies. It’s that they court the financial support of corporations to gain and keep power, and attack women and gays to court voters to put them in power, and then use that power to lie and cheat and launch preemptive wars for which they glean support by turning terrorists into cardboard cut-outs who hate our freedom. It’s all part of the same ugly mess—and so when you give a damn about any of it, you give a damn about all of it.

And sometimes, dammit, that can make a person angry.

Imagine that.

Open Wide...

Serendipity, sort of: Blogs and the Post-Dispatch

A couple of weeks ago - and in the wake of a ranking of top blogging newspapers by NYC prof Jay Rosen and his grad students - I wrote my own quick critique of the blogging efforts of my town's own daily, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I also posted a link to the critique at the P-D site, which was graciously published.

One point I raised toward the end of the piece was the absence of a relationship between the paper and the outside blogging community - that is, bloggers who aren't P-D staffers. This is far removed from the lively example of the Oklahoman, which highlights the work of several "community bloggers" from the Oklahoma City area.

I did single out the seeming sole online exception at the P-D, the very funny and pointed work of Dana Loesch, a real live area blogger...except that her work was presented at the P-D site as a column (called, like her actual blog, Mamalogues) rather than a more interactive blog. Didn't make sense...especially for a paper trying to make a name for itself, blog-wise...but there it was.

But as I said, that was a couple of weeks ago, and things have changed. About three days after I said my piece here, Loesch became a full-fledged P-D blogger in addition to being a columnist at the paper. The new effort is called Pop Mama, and it's a welcome addition to the stable of bloggers there.

Of course, it would be the height of immodesty to suggest any connection between my critique and the addition of Loesch as a blogger at the newspaper. And I'm scared of heights.

Anyway: that's one outside blogger at the P-D, which is one more than they had. It's a start. I had promised to return to the topic of newspapers and outside blogers, and I will in earnest whenever time allows.

Questions for the Shakers: What's your local paper like, blog-wise? Does it host internal weblogs? Does it reach out at all to bloggers in the community?

(Cross-posted for your reading convenience...)

Open Wide...

Woe is the GOP

Oddjob pointed to this article in the Boston Globe, which reports—get the fainting couch ready!—that the GOP isn’t interested in doing anything substantial in the near future, preferring instead to futilely focus on initiatives that have no chance of passing (like flag burning and gay marriage ban amendments), just to rally the wingnut voters.

Dick Durbin (D-IL) sums it up thusly: “''Republican leadership has given up on doing anything that is substantial and necessary. All they're dealing with now are bumper-sticker issues.”

But the award for Best Quote goes to crabby-ass Republican Trent Lott, who moans about the GOP’s putrefying stagnation, “We haven't done anything worth a toot in three months.”

Yep, that about sums it up. Or, would, if you substituted “five years” for “three months.”

Open Wide...

Quotes of the Day: Shakers Edition

This was a very enjoyable post to put together. Thanks to everyone who submitted their favorite quotes. I hope you have as much fun reading through all of them as I did. Let me know in comments if you think this is worth doing again.

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

Melissa McEwan, Shakespeare’s Sister: [Bush’s service record] is a thorn in his side that refuses to yield no matter how he tugs on it, which is, in the end, a small price to pay compared to his cohorts who returned from the war he avoided with devastating injuries, of both the physical and psychological sorts, or never returned at all. And having launched a war that with each day draws more comparisons to the war from which he hid, the specter of his cowardly, privileged history haunts him, drawing ever nearer. Now a mother of one of the sons who died in his war darkens his very doorstep. As his limo passes by protesters holding pictures of Casey Sheehan, is he really thinking about how fortunate he is not to be Cindy, or instead about the bitter irony of escaping a fate like Casey’s only to condemn another generation? Or does he just see the trickles of sweat running down their brows from standing in the hot Texas sun, and ask his driver to turn up the air conditioning, as he turns away and closes his eyes?

Tom Hilton, If I Ran the Zoo: And this completes Henninger's absolute inversion of morality. Lynching is justice, due process is injustice. Hysterical hatred is laudable, rational consideration is lamentable. Succumbing to bloodlust is civilized, restraint is barbaric….It's the whole post-9/11 mentality in a nutshell. People like Henninger so loved the rush of being under attack that they have done everything possible to prolong it; they turned off their critical faculties at the time and it felt so good they never bothered to turn them on again. That's why they find it so threatening to see rationality return to America.

Sizemore, The Brutal Truth: I'm left with no other alternative but to continue to believe that Blitzer's prescription on his eyeglasses indeed ran out somewhere around 1992, and he's been wandering the CNN newsroom blind as a bearded, persistently vegetative, fruitbat ever since.

The Disgruntled Chemist: Ever since man first stepped out of the African plains, he has been fascinated by the act of blowing shit up.

Iain McEwan, Shakespeare’s Sister: This is what happens when you indulge in empty brinksmanship and sabre rattling against a totalitarian regime: you hand the insane despot in question a perfect excuse for arming himself to the teeth.

Creature, State of the Day: It's always about the images with these guys. Think Jessica Lynch. Think terror alerts. When things are going wrong and questions are being asked the Bush Administration puts on a show. They are good at the show. Whether it's a mission accomplished party on an aircraft carrier (codpiece included) or it's a mean old statue being torn down, it's always image over substance. The problem is they govern the same exact way. The entire leadership of this country are b-list actors who punch the clock when Karl Rove yells cut.

Steven, Thoughts from an Empty Head: Shut. Up.

Adam, Gustav’s Groupie: I haven't really written a political post on this blog. I wouldn't say it's my forte. But today I was provoked (or as Sara would say, I got riled up). I was munching on my lunch, contemplating a five letter plural word for "bell ringers" which I ended up putting down as "monks" but that isn't the point. The point is that my crossword reverie was interrupted by some imbecilic rant emanating from three coworkers arranged around the table so that my cozy corner of word-puzzling rapture was encircled with lunacy. "I hate jury duty." Fair enough, I don't. "I always try to get out of it." Well, aren't you a model citizen? (Background info: two of the people in this discussion have sons in law enforcement.) "I mean, if the cops arrested them, then they must be guilty." This is said with sincerity and is the reason I'm sure one of them has not served any of the "eight times [he's] been called in the last ten years." It is here that we depart from this story and I ruminate.

Flerdle: There’s a country called Iraq, north-west from here. It used to be a nice enough place, even if the leader was pretty nasty and did some terrible things. Most people got by ok. There were hospitals, and electricity, and schools and universities. It became a very very not nice place a few years ago, so a lot of people left. Perhaps they were the lucky ones; at least they haven’t been blown up by their nice foreign “friends". But now they wander the world trying to make a living, trying to raise their kids, trying not to get too sad about what they had to leave behind and how bad things have become there now. They end up having to put up with a lot, wherever they find themselves, because they can’t go back, and they don’t have many more options. One day they hope to go back, to whatever is left of it by then. Meanwhile, time passes on. They try not to cry too much. Other times, they can let themselves hope, a little. Thursday, at the border on the way to Dubai: “Your nationality?” “Iraqi.” “You are going to vote?” “Yes.”

Linkmeister (responding to a report that Bush had tied his father’s lowest approval rating): Just a little more of a drop, Dubya, and you'll have managed one more thing your Daddy didn't do!

Tata, Poor Impulse Control:

Dear Senator Feingold,
Regarding censure of President Bush: rock on.
That is all,
Princess Tata

...Only, you know, I signed my real name. This morning, the Internal Editor recast it as a Howard Cosell interview of the late sixties:

Cosell: Princess, are you sure that Senator Feingold has the rock in him and does in fact rock?
Tata: Well, Howard, I have to say that Senator Feingold is completely hot, and does
in fact rock.
Cosell: Interesting choice of words, Princess, but as you know, many times the young senators rock all night long but cease rocking as time and ambition thwart the rocking out.
Tata: If I may say so, Howard, Senator Feingold shows great promise as a person who may not just rock but may rock on, perhaps even roll.
Cosell: Rock of Ages?
Tata: Still rolling!
Cosell: There you have it. Tough words from a smart broad.
Tata: Oh Howard! I'm blushing.
Cosell: Back to you, Jim...

Quixote, Acid Test: I've had it with being bullied by bigots hiding behind cutouts of gods made in their own image. Enough already. Burn witches for God. Kill heathens for God. Let people die of Aids for God. And so on and on and on and on… God is no excuse for killing people. Anyone who pretends so, is not religious. God is no excuse for destroying women. Or for throwing acid in their faces, or for pretending they're half-human. God is no excuse for letting children starve, while forcing women to produce starving children. God is no excuse for ANY suffering inflicted by one human being on another… The irony is that hiding bigotry under a flag full of God is idolatry, in the real meaning of the word. That would be funny, if it didn't cause oceans of suffering. People talk of culture wars and clashes of civilizations. Damn right there's a clash. It's between people of good faith, with or without a religion, and theocrats dictating how others should live.

Crabbi, A Curmudgeonly Crab: For a nonreligious person, I think about God a lot - I call myself a hopeful agnostic. I may not be 100% sure, but I do know one thing. Those dour, ass-clenching fundies are engaged in an unholy crusade against reason, civil liberties and joy. And I haven't seen one yet with a decent sense of humor. Mention that Jesus might not be pleased with their mean-spiritedness and they freak out and get all proprietary. "He's MY Jesus. Hands off, you harlot. My Jesus can totally kick your Jesus' ass." Well, I've never actually heard anyone say that, but I know that's what they're thinking. To which I say, "You talk to Jesus with that mouth?"

Deborah Lipp, Property of a Lady: I’m totally bugged by how surprised so many straight people are that some people turn out to be gay, and how much evidence they seem to need before they get it. I mean, surprised at stereotypically, flamboyantly, fabulously gay people being gay. I could offer a zillion examples. Liberace. Liber-flippin’-ace! People didn’t know he was gay. People wondered if he’d get married. But hey, it was the fifties. So how about, say…Ricky Martin. People were shocked! Shocked I tell you! At rumors of his gayly gayness. Because otherwise he was…what? … In some ways, the cluelessness, the inability to simply be aware, is worse, is more hopeless, than the homophobia. (Okay, not really. This is hyperbole. Homophobia is worse.) Because it bespeaks a life lived, a worldview, in which homosexuality does not exist, and is a surprise each and every time. If you looked at the world with the knowledge that some people in the world are gay, just as a matter of course, you could not possibly be surprised by its most obvious instances. So just wake the hell up.

Litbrit, The Last Duchess: I daresay we shouldn't be surprised that when asked by a German news weekly to name "his best moment in office", the Great Decider replied that it was when he caught a 7.5 pound perch in his lake… Of course. A fish. A bloody (groan) fish. Shot in the barrel that is the President's well-stocked lake. Many of us out here would suggest that the main achievement of BushCo et. al. has been something that might have looked good to some of the flock, but wound up stinking to high Heaven, as it were. And oh, yes, Great Decider's defining moment was nothing if not cold-blooded. Scales? Surely not the ones of justice. The Constitution? Looks like they consider it little more than something with which to wrap that hapless perch. And if you'll permit me one more pun, I'd like to offer this: We, the People, look forward to the day that the crime family is removed from power and we can smile at one another as the credits roll, bursting into applause when we see the word: Fin.

Bran, Raising Other People’s Children, and Other Outtakes: As most of you already know, today is President' Day. My charming group of preschoolers were instructed by our curriculum to draw a picture for the president, then dictate a letter for one of the teachers in the room, myself, Ms. H or Ms. J, to copy down in their exact words…

Dear Mr. President:
Stick. Horse. Blue. Kite.

Dear Mr. President:
I hope you are having fun. I am in Texas. It is fun here. I would like to meet you, but I am in Texas and you are not.

Dear Mr. President:
I writing to you from (school's name, but completely mixed up). I don't know you.

Upon showing these to Ms. J, she commented the President would think we taught some seriously challenged kids. "This won't do! He won't be impressed with our program!"

After commenting the Pres would most likely never see the damn things to begin with, I added, "But if he did, at least most of them would be on his reading level." She didn't find it funny, and chose not to speak to me for the rest of the afternoon.

Cygirl: Which brings me to my main point. I called one of my brothers to share the story, and he happened to be at dinner with my bloomin' sister and her eunuch of a husband. (I think that's correct usage of that word; it means neutered, right)? Usually, the conversation would have lasted a really long time, consisting of various statements such as, "Remember when he almost set his pants on fire and had to call the fire department from the pond?" (FYI- Dad just retired from the fire department after 30 years, 15 of which he served as assistant chief. In my experience, firemen are the worst at letting things get out of hand, flame-wise. Or maybe it's just him. Apple not far from the tree and all that.) The fact remains that somewhere in the conversation, the following sentence would have been uttered: "It's just like the time he brought Goose Goose home."

Gideon S: If you're not troubled by the thought of an Air Force general assuming control of a civilian intelligence organization like the CIA, allow me to put your mind at unease.

Lance Mannion: I had a very small role in the play, and that was all right with me. I was a rising star in the drama club but because I was smallish and skinny and had a talent for taking a prat fall I was specializing in playing comic servants. I had played a comic servant the previous spring and we were scheduled to do The Taming of the Shrew in the spring upcoming. The Taming of the Shrew is a goldmine for actors who play comic servants. Kate can't throw a potted plant without beaning a comic servant---and picking off another with the ricochet.

The Orange Magritte, Viscous Lidocaine: You don't judge a schizophrenic by their appearances. You don't diagnose bipolar disorder on hair dos. You can't fathom how fucked up a mind can get despite having a matching bag to your boots. OMFG. Pretty=sane. Who has that in the dsm-iv?

Blogenfreude, Agitprop: Sick and tired of all the death and mayhem caused by the various religions? Convinced that the Dear Leaker will call his faithful to action and your ass might be next? Never fear! Click here to learn exactly where the fundies are concentrated. If you're not yet ready to leave for Italy or France or New Zealand, maybe you can find a quiet corner of the U.S. in which to hide when the bullets start flying in the culture wars! (brought to you by Bu$hCo).

Daniel, Thought Theater: I’ve always found it fascinating to listen when William F. Buckley speaks. Much of what he says, for me, walks the fine line between intellectual genius and laugh out loud temerity. Given the breadth of his intellect, I’ve often wondered how often he’s made comments simply for the sporting value they might afford. Regardless, this category will attempt to mimic his expansive use of language to satirize current news and events. This entry is intended to satirize the President’s difficulties surrounding the handling of the war in Iraq. The question: What would Bill Buckley say about the apparent inability of President Bush to acknowledge mistakes made in the execution of the war in Iraq and his unwillingness to move forward with evaluating alternative plans? The answer: The President, while seemingly embrangled in a sempiternal belligerency, appears to be ensnared by the conflation of narcissistic ideation and a religiose neocolonialist predisposition.

Shelley, But Wait, There’s More!: I missed my chance. Paula Vogel is a Pulitzer prize-winning playwright who teaches at Brown University. She was there when I was there. And she's that rare combination... a genius who really grooves on teaching. But despite the fact that I fell in love with theater at Brown, stage-managing more shows than anyone else on campus, I never took a class with Paula Vogel. Why?

Sara, F-Words: I think many of us would agree that the birth control pill is the greatest recreational drug of all time.

Pam, Pam’s House Blend: Peter LaBarbara in a letter to me: Dare I say that you, too, would be highly offended at some of the activities that are "tolerated" there [at International Mr. Leather] –such as a booth for the "Waterboys"-men who urinate on and in one another for sexual pleasure? My response: Quite frankly, I don't think much about this stuff unless I read it on bible-beating moralist news sites, why do you? While I personally don't find the idea of this particular practice appealing, I don't have to partake in it, nor do you or your fellow good Christians. This is about adult, consensual behavior (despite your attempt to pre-empt the use of this as a counter-argument). Why is this not a persuasive argument? Are you saying you would like to criminalize golden showers? How, exactly, would that be enforced? Hetero or homo participants or both? ...When you make multiple trips to "uncover" deviant acts by "going undercover" to gay pride events (or International Mr. Leather), this kind of effort doesn't tell your audience anything about the entire gay community, any more than heading to hetero swingers clubs, a frat house or the local meet-market bar tells me about straight sexual culture. Sexual subcultures exist along the entire orientation spectrum. Why are you so fixated on the sex? Is it because it is non-procreative? Explain this need to place yourself in these situations.

Waveflux: There is a classic episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry explores the many ways in which his friend George has fallen short over the years. "You've been the bad employee," he says cheerfully, "the bad son, the bad friend, the bad fiance, the bad dinner guest," and goes on and on, "the bad credit risk, the bad date, the bad sport, the bad citizen...the bad tipper!" While I empathize with George's protest against the endless recitation ("All right...the point is made"), I also empathize with his situation, because I've been all of those things over time and occasionally several of them at once. (Except, perhaps, for the bad tipper.) There is something I haven't been, however, and that's the bad husband. Everything I do that's at all useful or decent is either done in furtherance of being a good husband, or as a result of being a good husband. Some people might say that this assigns too much emphasis or definition of self to marriage. I say you gotta start somewhere.

Paul the Spud, The Adventures of the Smart Patrol: Stop this bullshit right now and get back to work. Say it with me: There is no War on Christmas. … You're worried you might feel bad because you say "Merry Christmas?" Tough fucking titty. Boo-hoo. There are other holidays (holy days, you dingbat) celebrated at this time of the year, and just because someone says "Happy Holidays" doesn't mean they're trying to stop you from celebrating Christmas. You get upset when retail stores use generic holiday statements? Tough shit. It's business, and if you don't like it, sit at home in your Grinch footie pajamas and shop online. Good luck finding an online store that doens't use the dreaded "Happy Holidays" line, though. So put up your fucking tree, drink your fucking eggnogg, sing about Good King Wenceslas, open your fucking presents, wear your goddamn ass-ugly Christmas sweater, celebrate the Christ in Christmas to your heart's content, and do please SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Shamanic, SimianBrain: It is true that the state and local agencies failed to save the day. This absolves the federal government not one bit. It is insufficient for the President's proxies to imply that because one of the poorest states in the nation didn't respond appropriately that the federal government has no reason to step in to prevent the widespread death that occurred in New Orleans. Americans were dying and President George Bush would have you believe that this is not something that the federal government has a duty to get involved in. Shame on him. This is conservatism in a nut shell. This is the crusade of the small government warriors who want maximum freedom because they are already wealthy. …In the Ownership Society, only those who suffer are accountable for their choices. Look at how Michael Brown blamed those who couldn't or wouldn't leave during the evacuation. Poor people have personal responsibility in the Ownership Society, but the rich, like Brown, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of the purported men in charge, are not even responsible for doing their jobs.

Lava Lady, This is Really the Last Time: It's just that "tolerance" and full-blown acceptance are very very very different things. Instead of being proud of straight men for going to see this movie, how about really talking about what it means to love, to be a family? I talk to my kids about this stuff a lot. It's one of the few things I make a concerted effort to share with them (boys and girls are equal, people of different colours are no different, all kinds of families are cool (divorced, married, one dad, two moms, etc), it's no different for two women to be girlfriends than for me to have a boyfriend - it's about love). It seems overly simplistic, but I think it's important to say out loud.

Zack, The Duck Speaks: And that’s the real horror of Annie: she takes whatever she likes, she lays waste to all you believed sacrosanct, and you cannot reason with her. It is impossible to be safe when you’re in the control of a person who is utterly mad- banal and clichéd as that may sound, it’s a horror that not many novels of this ilk are truly willing to exploit. To bring it back to my interminable opening digression, Misery is one of the only stories I’ve read or seen that manages to bring me back to that sickly awful feeling I’d get every time I walked in Aunt Cathy’s front door, the way I became overly conscious of my heartbeat- too fast? too loud?- as I took off my shoes and set them neatly under the coat rack, always facing in, always with the laces under the tongue.

Michael, The Grind: Why is it so difficult for our opponents to see the value in (supporting) same-sex couples who desire to be married? Instead they try to cast gays and lesbians as selfish and destructive--as though we are villains trying to steal a precious commodity that only straight couples should possess, and that must be protected at all costs. They are wrong, because remember, marriage is about love. Love is not a limited resource. Love should be used to bring people together and strengthen communities. Love has power that is greater than fear, greater than contempt, greater than anger. Love is the cornerstone of our families and the mortar that binds us together. Love is universal, and love transcends the limits that others would try to place on it. Love is essential to marriage. …Others might work long hours and spend millions of dollars to keep me from inflicting some imagined damage upon the institution of marriage. They will fail. They will fail because the fight they have chosen is one that is not being fought against limited, man-made resources. They are fighting against love. And in the end, love always wins.

Comandante Agi, Pime Forest Collective: Normally I don't get involved in internecine blogger warfare. I rather focus my time on real political squabbles and scandals (or kick ass videos) as opposed to keyboard battles between blogging foes. However, something has erupted in the blogosphere which is rather interesting. Self-proclaimed "classical liberal" and ego-maniac Jeff Goldstein is in a financial bind. His landlord is selling his property and Jeff and his family will be forced to move. My first thought was, umm, Jeff Goldstein is a renter? How come he's not a member of the Bush ownership society? Only limp-wristed effete liberals refuse to join the ownership society… So Goldstein is asking his readers for financial help. There's nothing wrong with that. It proves that he's willing to sacrifice a smidgen of his pride and become a beggar in his very own Like a Rolling Stone moment. But whatever happened to uber-conservative "do it yourself" idols like Horatio Alger and Ayn Rand? Shouldn't Jeff pick himself up by his bootstraps, go get a job and quit spending his entire day on his blog? That would be the practical thing to do. But he abandons his rugged individualism at the drop of a hat. Apparently the camembert du gouvernement tastes rather good right now. Maybe we should chip in and send him a bottle of Bordeaux to wash it down.

Griftdrift, Drifting through the Grift: Ken Jautz' goal is to revamp CNN's Headline News. Apparently re-vamping is defined in the CNN lexicon as wasting every minute of prime time on bloviaters spewing an unending stream of feces into our living rooms.

Misty, Expostulation: What was it that Jesus said again? "Blessed are the rich and the poor can suck my balls" I'm sure that's it.

DBK, Blanton’s and Ashton’s: I remember all the trouble the Clinton presidency had over the president's pet, which he let off the leash a few too many times.

Fritz, On the Fritz: Horowitz is reported to have delivered his usual McCarthy Era-style paranoid rant about how liberals have taken over our colleges and universities. … What I found most amusing was how Horowitz explained to the audience that the word “liberal” is misused when applied to political debate on campus. He believes the terms that should be used are “leftist, communist, and totalitarian.” … I would like to point out that a similar denunciation can be made about many of those who currently disguise their class-conscious values and attitudes with the word “conservative.” Horowitz and those who share his often shockingly racist beliefs and cynicism can best be described as illiberal — narrow-minded and intolerant of progressive ideas and alternative viewpoints. … If you read his biography, you’ll find that Horowitz benefited from a liberal arts education when he attended Columbia and Berkeley, where he received degrees in English literature. The fact that he has become an agent for intolerance and would now deny that same benefit to today’s students is shameful, deceitful, and obviously motivated by personal greed and ambition.

Maria, 2 Political Junkies: Bush told a German magazine that this was his best moment as President: “The best moment was -- you know, I've had a lot of great moments. I don't know, it's hard to characterize the great moments. They've all been busy moments, by the way. I would say the best moment was when I caught a seven-and-a-half pound large mouth bass on my lake.” We would add that it was also his finest achievement!

Open Wide...

Gotta Touch the Third Rail

The WaPo takes a look at three high-profile races which the GOP are using to target a black constituency in an article called The Year of the Black Republican—which really says everything you need to know about the GOP and race: three black candidates getting tons of support, and it’s suddenly the “year” of the black Republican.

Looking at the article, Oliver Willis notes that he finds it interesting how artificial the “black Republican media creation” is, as the GOP simply “looked at places where a white Republican would have a hard time and just grabbed a black guy, hoping to make inroads among black voters without actually addressing the policy questions that keep black voters away from the GOP.” And then he follows that with something even more important: Even though the GOP shows “no sign of understanding that the party of Katrina can’t just put on a happy face,” the Democrats “need to learn not to take the black vote for granted - those week before the election visits to black churches are tired.”

Not only are they tired, but the Dems’ reluctance to construct a comprehensive and productive outreach to the black community is allowing the GOP to make in-roads using their favorite wedge issue—gay rights. As long as the Dems rely on appearances at black churches to get out the vote, it’s going to become increasingly difficult to effectively counter the GOP’s efforts to exploit homophobia. If neither party is willing to sincerely address and rigorously respond to the issues of black voters, the GOP is perfectly content to let it come down to a “moral values” vote, because homophobia in the black community is a big issue.

And that brings me two great posts. First, Keith Boykin, responding to Bishop Alfred E. Owens’ exhortation, “It takes a real man to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. I'm not talking about no faggot or no sissy… Let all the real men come on down here and take a bow… All the real men—I'm talking about the straight men… Come on down here and walk around and praise God that you are straight. Thank him that you're straight. All the straight men that's proud to be a Christian, that's proud to be a man of God.”

Another Sunday passes and another minister is caught on tape with his homophobic foot in his mouth. Sadly, that's no longer news…

Black gay men are under attack, not only in our churches, but in our families, at our jobs, on the radio stations we listen to, in the songs we dance to at our night clubs, and in the dark spaces of the parks where we often dwell. I am not a confrontational person, but I believe you have a right and a duty to defend yourself when you're attacked. Sometimes you fight back. Sometimes you simply seek to prevent injury to yourself and others. And other times you vow to avoid those situations in the future. Either way, you do something to defend yourself.
Boykin’s whole post is excellent—and I recommend reading the comments thread as well. Although he receives lots of supportive responses, the comments confirm how pervasive the problem really is.

And then there’s Pam, who does her usual excellent job on this issue. A snippet:

This is clearly not a black-only issue, but a slice of the pie of closeted pathology that has infected one community in a way that is only beginning to be addressed; you can draw a connection between the vitriol from the pulpit and the level of denial and deception that feeds the problem.

What many in the political venue choose to ignore is that the black vote will remain a strong part of the Democratic base, but that the unaddressed homophobia within will allow for those same party-line voters to vote for anti-gay measures. Will Democrats (of all colors) stand up and call out homophobia in all circles where it exists in its party? I haven't seen much activity to suggest it will be. Dems have taken blacks for granted for decades. Who will call them out?

…As I said in an earlier post, many white Dems are terrified of the race card being tossed out there by defensive, homophobic blacks who don't want this issue openly discussed. It all has to be discussed, by all of us. It goes without saying that other groups of color, such gay Latinos, face much the same uphill battle in those faith communities.

This doesn't preclude hard discussions within the black community, with the admission of the issues here, as well as an open and honest look at the relevance of homophobia in the black community to the larger role of this sickness in the dominant culture, also fostered in that religious community.
This is a subject both Pam and I have written about before, and we always end up grousing about the lack of comments posts on the topic inevitably receive. Progressives are willing to talk about religious intolerance toward the LGBT community, and the GOP’s exploitation of gay rights as a wedge issue, and the frustrating intermingling of religion and politics—but as soon as race gets thrown into the mix, it’s a no-commenter. The truth is, the entrenched homophobia in many black churches, confirmed repeatedly by Boykin’s commenters, is an important political issue and and an important cultural issue. If the inevitable result of the GOP stealing voters based on such a despicable tactic isn’t enough to get us talking about this, the forcible, faith-based marginalization of LGBT people of color surely ought to be.

The Dems need to be told, loudly and repeatedly, that all of us expect more than lipservice in response to the ugly face of endemic poverty and racism that Katrina unavoidably exposed—and that they must boldly support gay equality. The GOP needs to be called out on using gay rights as a wedge issue. And the religious leaders—of any color—who facilitate a hostile environment toward gays need to hear our disapproval, lest their hatemongering continue to contribute to the cultural and political disasters that homophobia allows. Boykin has contact information for the homobigot Bishop at the link.

Open Wide...

Just When You Thought It Was Safe...


...Katrina raises her head out of the murky, poisonous water of New Orleans and takes another meaty chunk out of Heckuva Job. (bolds mine)

WASHINGTON - Hours after Hurricane Katrina hit, former FEMA director Michael Brown dismissed reports that floodwaters had breached New Orleans' levees, and he obsessed over media coverage of his agency, according to newly released e-mails.

The 928 pages of documents, obtained by the Center for Public Integrity watchdog group and released Tuesday, paint a picture of a Federal Emergency Management Agency keenly sensitive to public image following the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.
All of that "I was just a scapegoat" finger pointing that he did earlier this year isn't really going to distract from this, I'm afraid.
The 928 pages of documents, which were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Washington-based government watchdog group, encompass all of Brown's e-mails over a 14-day period before and after Katrina hit.

Many of the e-mails obtained by the Center for Public Integrity were previously released by congressional panels investigating the government's response to the Katrina disaster. But several documents offered fresh details of missteps by the beleaguered agency, which the Senate Homeland Security Committee has recently recommended be disbanded.

"These e-mails are part of the record of our investigation that led us to conclude that Michael Brown failed to lead FEMA to respond effectively to Hurricane Katrina and at the same time kept the Department of Homeland Security in the dark," said Jen Burita, spokeswoman for Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who chairs the panel.

Brown's own schedule was booked with media interviews in the days immediately before and after the storm. At 6:21 a.m. the day Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, Brown was prepping for an interview and e-mailing with his then-deputy, Patrick Rhode.

"Yea, sitting in the chair, putting mousse in my hair," Brown e-mailed Rhode.

"Me too!" Rhode replied.
Well, at least while people were fighting for their lives and losing, while New Orleans was being wiped off the map, his hair was nice and fluffy soft. Brown and Rhode should have gotten together... they could have had a slumber party! Put their hair up in curlers, paint each other's toes, call up boys and hang up when they answer, pore over Tiger Beat... Oh, it would have been the ginchiest!
Brown was also juggling a meeting request from a lawmaker-turned-lobbyist, former Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark., the day Katrina hit.

"I am certain your (sic) are overwhelmed by the situation regarding Hurricane Katrina," Hutchinson wrote Brown on an e-mail received at 1:48 p.m. on Aug. 29. "I apologize for bothering you at this critical time and for going directly to you about this. ... I would yery (sic) much appreciate being able to bring the President of Blu-Med Response Systems, Gerritt Boyle, in to meet with you as soon as your schedule permits."

The documents do not indicate that Brown responded to Hutchinson's request. But at another point, Brown showed special attention to the Mississippi area when a powerful political figure called.

"Bill, sorry to ping you, but can you give me some ground info on trailers, etc. in MS? Have what you need? Are they getting them to you? Just a status report. Need to call (Mississippi Sen.) Trent Lott back and want some good Intel before doing so," Brown wrote in a Sept. 7 e-mail to one of his staff.

Nine minutes later, Brown received the update.
I guess they really needed to know Lott's porch status.
Other e-mails show Brown expressing frustration as he and FEMA came under public attack purportedly for not doing enough to help black New Orleans residents and neglecting abandoned pets.

"I am tired, no, angered by charges of racism. You know that neither me nor anyone associated with me is a racist. Grrrr," Brown wrote in a Sept. 7 e-mail to Worthy, before adding lightheartedly, "How was that Sonic burger?"

You know something? I bet it was deeee-licious. And filling. And, you know, not filled with swamp water or anything.

That'll fit right in with other Bush Adminstration statements showing complete disregard for other human beings. Someone really needs to start a database.

"How was that Sonic burger?"
"You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie."
"I don't think anyone could have anticipated the breach of the levees."
"Go fuck yourself."
"I think about Iraq every day. Every. Day."
"Nope, no weapons here!"

And the hits just keep on coming....

Grrrr, indeed.
(My cross-post wants to kill your mama...")

Open Wide...

WTF?

The incompetence is truly staggering:

How much do you think Osama bin Laden would pay to know exactly when and where the President was traveling, and who was with him? Turns out, he wouldn't have had to pay a dime. All he had to do was go through the trash early Tuesday morning.

It appears to be a White House staff schedule for the President's trip to Florida Tuesday. And a sanitation worker was alarmed to find in the trash long hours before Mr. Bush left for his trip…

The documents details the exact arrival and departure time for Air Force One, Marine One and the back up choppers, Nighthawk 2 and Three.

It lists every passenger on board each aircraft, from the President to military attaché with nuclear football. It offers the order of vehicles in the President's motorcade.

We faxed a copy to the Secret Service, which as usual rule declined to say much, other than insisting that it was a White House staff document, not a Secret Service document.

…The Secret Service referred us to a White House spokeswoman, who declined to comment on the record.
Totally unbelievable. You can watch a video of the news report at the link.

(Via Memeoradum.)

Open Wide...

Okay, Fine, You Got Me...

... I'm jumping on the bandwagon, and announcing that I am in lurve with Keith Olbermann.

Why? Well, anyone that calls Michelle Malkin a "Nitwit" on national television is definitely sponge-worthy.

I'm sure this now makes him even more "unhinged" in Malkin's eyes. Wev.

Open Wide...

Get Your Quotes In!

You've still got a couple of hours to submit your quotes. Girls, the boys are outnumbering you big time! Don't make me ask where all the female bloggers are! Okay, it's more even now. Keep 'em coming!

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

If you could meet any one current political figure, who would it be and why? (Elected officials, pundits, activists, bloggers, anything goes.)

I'm torn between Al Gore, so I could just speak to him endlessly about interesting things, and George Bush, so I could tell him how much I dislike him. I think I'll go with Gore. I always fancy a good conversation.

Open Wide...

Wednesday’s Quotes of the Day

Shakespeare’s Sister, what are you talking about? It’s Tuesday.

I know. I haven’t officially lost it (yet). But tomorrow, I’d like to feature the best quotes from Shakers’ blogs, as chosen by the authors. Think of it as your chance to blogwhore your very best.

Pull out something insightful, funny, eloquent, snarky, or otherwise makes you proud to have written it, and email it to me. It can be on any topic*, 100 200 words or less. And make sure you include the link to the post from which it came. Don’t be shy—no blogger is too big or too small to participate!

Around noon tomorrow (or so), I’ll compile and post them. I imagine it will make for some very excellent reading.

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

* With the usual exceptions. Nothing sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. will be posted.

Open Wide...

What, No Fainting Couch?


I don't really have any commentary to go along with this article; my friend Grendel pointed it out, expressing great amusement from the final part of the story. I got such a kick out of it, I had to share it with you Shakers. Go take a look... it's your typical "I support the Prezint, and that's it" asshole story that makes you fear for the future of the human race:

Once the color barrier has been broken, minority contractors seeking government work may need to overcome the Bush barrier.

That's the message U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson seemed to send during an April 28 talk in Dallas.

[...]

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said canceling a government contract due to political views "is not a door you want to open."

"Whether or not it's legal, it certainly draws your judgment and the judgment of your office into question," Jillson said. "It's just not the tone you want to set."
Gee, ya think?

Anyway, here's the money quote:
Told of Jackson's comments, Mary Scott Nabers, a government-contracting consultant in Austin, had a briefer initial reaction. "Oh, my goodness gracious," she said.
Someone get smelling salts to her office, stat!

Open Wide...