In case you weren’t totally convinced already that McCain was a feckless, cynical, pandering, spineless, opportunistic, disingenuous, hacktastical lump of Arizona sun-dried shit, try this on for size: “Prior to the [1994 agreement with North Korea], every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something, not to kick out the IAE inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor, they did it, and they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.” (C&L has the video at the link.)
Blame Clinton! Screeeeeeeeeeeech! Clenis! Clenis! CLENIS!!!
You know what? I’m going to go ahead and go with McCain on this one. I’m going to agree 1000% with old Johnny-boy, which is so much agreement it’s not even mathematically possible! That’s how much I’m agreeing. Clinton’s North Korea policy was a total fucking flop, bitchez!
But there’s something Monsieur Maverique doesn’t seem to have noticed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Clinton’s been out of office for six years, no?
My, how time flies. In fact, it flies almost as fast as the bullshit that streams out of McCain’s fucking mouth.
McCain the Maverick Strikes Again!
Caption This Photo
"Let me tell ya something, heh heh. Schools should be,
uh, safe, uh, you should feel safified in yer school.
I've been safified in a school before, and, uh,
every Amurkan children should be feels safified in
school, too."
(Actual Caption: U.S. President George W. Bush talks while participating at the Conference on School Safety in Chevy Chase, Maryland, October 10, 2006. REUTERS/Larry Downing)
Denny “Pot O’ Crap” Hastert Takes Full No Responsibility
The Tyrannosaurus of Turpitude:
I understood what my staff told me, and I think from that response, they’ve handled it as well as they should. However, in 20/20 hindsight, probably you could do everything a little bit better. If there is a problem, if there was a cover up, then we should find that out through the investigation process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out. If they did cover something up, they should not continue to have their jobs. But I — but I didn’t think anybody at any time in my office did anything wrong. I found out about these revelations last Friday. That was the first information I had about it.It’s always fun to work for a boss who blames you when his ass is in the hot seat. Especially when he’s a corrupt bumblefuck who would have long ago been the victim of his own incompetence, avarice, and dishonor if it weren’t for your having covered his giant, stinking butt for the entirety of your employ.
“I’da been right in there with Foley if it
weren’t for these damn small arms.”
You Mean They Were Lying About the "Big Tent?"
Gay Republicans Find Chill Climate in Washington After Scandal
You're kidding me!!
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Gay Republicans say the scandal involving lurid emails sent to minors by a gay Republican lawmaker has hurt their efforts for greater acceptance within their own party.In other news: A nice mug of cocoa in front of the fire is a pleasant way to spend a chilly winter evening.
The controversy over lewd computer messages sent to underage congressional workers by disgraced ex-representative Mark Foley has exposed a serious rift between party progressives and Christian conservatives, and increased internal fears that a fractured Republican party faces a greater chance of being defeated in next month's national elections.
The culture war pits liberal party members, who say tolerance and outreach are key to ensuring sufficient recruitment for the future, against Christian conservatives who form the party's base.
Patrick Sammon, head of the national gay Republican group Log Cabin Republicans said recently that the situation has left some homosexuals in his party "feeling under siege, both as gay and lesbian people and as Republicans."
"If Foley broke the law, he should be prosecuted. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to this story," he said.
"Predictably, anti-gay groups have used this awful situation to push their divisive agenda," Sammon said. "They are using this scandal to try and score political points."
Since the Foley scandal broke, conservatives have been more vocal than ever about their wish to exclude homosexuals from their ranks.
The conservative Family Research Council said the scandal showed that the party's efforts at inclusiveness had gone too far.
"The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative interest group shortly after the scandal broke.
(I'm a big cross-post and I need a big cereal!)
Huh
You know how “pro-family” crusaders are always going on about gay pride parades and gay-themes books in schools and so forth, many of whom will even go so far as to say, “I don’t care what these people do in the privacy of their own homes,” right before they launch into a discourse on how they’re just not ready to talk to their kids about homosexuality yet? And how the same people will say approximately the same thing about comprehensive sex education programs? As if exposure to the mere existence of homosexuality, or condoms, or abortion will turn their kids into rabid, gay, pregnant revolutionaries?
As always, take this for what it’s worth, since I’ve got no kids of my own, but I believe I’d be a lot more irritated by having to explain to an 8-year-old why there’s a plane flying overhead trailing a picture of a carved up fetus than I would explaining what a rainbow flag means or where babies come from.
new time-suck anyone?
A friend of mine pointed me to an online game called: NationStates. I know it's not brand new but it may be new/of interest to some here. It was invented by a guy to promote his book, Jennifer Government but seems to have taken on a life of its own. You create a nation (pick name, motto, flag, currency, etc...) and answer a few questions (game will categorize your nation--mine is a "Scandinavian Liberal Paradise" currently) and you are given an issue to decide. For example:
Should Democracy Be Compulsory?
The Issue
In response to a slow news week, certain highbrow newspapers have stirred up the debate over voluntary vs compulsory voting.
The Debate
1. "Compulsory voting makes about as much as sense as having the death penalty for attempted suicide," says civil rights activist Tobias Washington. "You can't force people to be free! You can only give them the choice. Besides, if all those derelicts who can't be bothered to get off their ass once every few years voted, who would they elect? I shudder to think."
2. "It's not contradictory at all," argues political commentator Charles Thiesen. "The fact is, if not everyone votes, the outcome isn't truly representative. Some groups--like elderly gun nuts--vote more often than others. That's why always we always end up with such terrible politicians."
3. "This raises an interesting issue," says Buffy Rifkin, your brother. "And that is: why do we need elections, anyway? Seems to me it would be much simpler if you just decided what was right, and did it. Wouldn't that save everyone a lot of time?"
You can agree with one of those statements above to show the government opinion or you can dismiss (ignore) it until/hope it goes away. You can create regions as well and, I admit, I chuckled at bit at the thought of a Shaker region that took over the world.
"It's Hard Work," the 2006 Remix
Looks like Bush has found himself a new catch phrase.
Q Mr. President, if I could follow up, you say diplomacy takes time –
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it does.
Q — but it was four years ago that you labeled North Korea a member of the "axis of evil." And since then it’s increased its nuclear arsenal, it’s abandoned six-party talks and now these missile launches –
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a question. It’s increased it’s — that’s an interesting statement: "North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal." Can you verify that?
Q Well, intelligence sources say — if you can — if you’d like to dispute that, that’s fine.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I’m not going to dispute, I’m just curious.
Q Our intelligence sources say that it’s increased the number — its nuclear capability
THE PRESIDENT: — dangerous — it has potential danger.
Q It’s increased is nuclear capabilities. It’s abandoned six-party talks, and it’s launched these missiles.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Why shouldn’t Americans see the U.S. policy regarding North Korea as a failed one?
THE PRESIDENT: Because it takes time to get things done.
"It takes time to get things done." Your Bush All-Purpose excuse for 2006. (Additional transcript at the link.)
Also, it's very comforting how "North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal." is an "interesting statement" to Bush, and he's asking for further "verification," isn't it? Ye gods.
(Sorry about my long absence; I was in NYC for a wedding and didn't realize how little computer access I would have. I wanna have some cross-posts, move my body all night long...)
Bad ideas from bad governors
Missouri's agony continues: In the wake of the shooting incident in Joplin, Governor Matt Blunt suggests that the solution to the problem of school safety is to arm the teachers.
Gov. Matt Blunt, who was in Joplin on Monday for a meeting, said that because of the recent spate of school violence, it would be worth considering proposals from lawmakers to allow teachers to carry firearms in schools. "It's an interesting idea worth discussing," Blunt said.
Yes, interesting...in much the same way that already-overburdened instructors, insurance nightmares, and potential lawsuits are "interesting." As usual, Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson hastened to clarify Blunt's shoot-from-the-hip proposal:
Later, the governor's spokesman, Spence Jackson, said Blunt knows of no specific proposal to arm teachers in Missouri. The governor considers it an idea worth exploring, "but it ought to be restricted to a qualified person, such as an ex-military officer or an ex-police officer," Jackson said.Blunt "wasn't in any way suggesting that we should arm all teachers," Jackson added.
Really? Sure sounded that way on TV last night. Anyway, thanks for the clarification, Spence.
Ex-Army Rangers and Green Berets with degrees in primary education are encouraged to contact the governor's office to submit their applications for employment.
In the meantime, the Educator-in-Chief has convened a summit on school violence and safety. Just don't expect any actual policies to come out of the meeting. Here's an "interesting" note from the WaPo piece, though:
The Bush administration has recommended cutting $347 million in school-safety grants for states this year, calling the programs ineffective.
Have a good day at school, Johnny.
(Cross-fire...er, cross-posted.)
Security, Bitchez!
House and Senate Republican leaders stripped $4.5 billion in funds for mass transit security from homeland security legislation, then forced a quick vote on the streamlined bill last month -- leading angry Democrats to accuse Congress of reneging on a promise to protect the nation's commuters from terrorist attacks.This at a time when Americans should be encouraged to use mass transit systems as much as possible to reduce emissions and our dependency on foreign oil. Our environment and our foreign policy would benefit from more mass transit throughout the country, but that’s a hard sell to commuters when the government has no interest in keeping them safe.
…President Bush was expected to sign the bill into law.
As a result, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and other mass transit systems across the country will not get security upgrades such as new surveillance cameras, more canine patrols, and subway tunnel protection systems, as well as millions in overtime pay for transit police. The appropriation also would have paid for emergency response drills, tunnel evacuation system improvements, transit security research grants, and public awareness campaigns.
(Hat tip to Oddjob.)
Confessions of a Cool Chick
Great post by Jill today: Confessions of a Fun Feminist. I’m not even going to excerpt it, because you need to read the whole thing.
I’m not a Fun Feminist. I don’t wear make-up, or girly clothes, or get waxes. I’m a “cool chick” (to be defined momentarily) so this line in Jill’s piece particularly resonated with me: “If I like to watch football (which I don’t at all, but let’s pretend), then I’m a ‘guy’s girl’ and that’s, like, totally hot.” Or, as I’ve been called throughout my life by guys who appreciated that I could talk baseball, kick their asses at Tekken, or win at Star Wars Trivial Pursuit, it’s, like, totally cool. And that makes me a “pretty cool chick.” (To the more resolutely sexist, “pretty cool for a chick.”)
As I’ve noted previously, the Cool Chick phenomenon is, in itself, a strange little twist of sexism indicating preference for a boyish personality in women, of which I’ve been a knowing beneficiary plenty of times. It’s certainly been to my advantage in the workplace, where I was easily regarded as “one of the boys” by upper management (and thusly got me in a position to call attention to the work of other women and non-Alpha men), and has also worked in my favor in terms of educating men on sexist behavior. That I didn’t blanch at a garden-variety dirty joke, and, being a fan of them myself, could even be counted on to provide one occasionally, made my male coworkers sit up and pay attention when I called them out on sexist (or homophobic) behavior. If the Cool Chick thinks it’s over the line, shit, it must be.
But although many of the traits associated with being a Cool Chick are intrinsic to my nature, I’m still conforming to a recognizable archetype, which engages its associated attributes as a survival skill just as firmly as the Fun Feminist, or other female archetypes. I’m never shy about speaking my mind (shocking, I know), but I don’t particularly like conflict, especially as it surrounds issues of equality in the workplace, which inevitably provokes charges of hysteria and hypersensitivity. Being a Cool Chick is a useful strategy to avoid a lot of that shit, as it confers upon me a de facto assumption of mellowness and temperance. I’d be lying if I said that male coworkers and bosses haven’t been more receptive to my saying, in my usual gravel-voiced monotone, “Dude, that’s seriously uncool. You can’t treat women [/gays] that way,” than they were to women [/gays] who took the “That’s offensive and here’s why” tack. I’m not saying it’s fair that it works that way, but I certainly take advantage of knowing that it does.
That is a trapping, a survival skill. It’s not empowering, though not particularly its opposite, either. It just is. I use the trappings that are the most comfortable for me to wear, that are the best fit. And so I shall, until we've made the world perfect. Or close to it.
And, by the way, I like Sex and the City, too, for reasons not the list of which is that without Big’s Big Red Wall, I never would have convinced Mr. Shakes that our Big Red Wall would be awesome. Which it is.
I 
David Rakoff
I kept meaning to post this and kept forgetting. Anyway, here it is, for those who haven't seen it: the brilliant David Rakoff on The Daily Show last week.
What it means to be a liberal
This piece in the Chicago Tribune by Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is so good that I’m posting it in full:
For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.
In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.
Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.
2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)
3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."
4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)
5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.
6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."
7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.
8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)
9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.
10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."
Not that I ever had any trouble singing our praises, but it's nice to read something written by a proud liberal in which other liberals can take some damn deserved pride.
What do you think of Stone's list?
October Surprise
The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on Oct. 2, as I had predicted in a piece in The Nation magazine a few weeks back.This is insane; even BushCo isn’t batshit crazy enough to do this now. That’s what one part of my brain keeps saying when I read stuff like this. The other part says: Wake up, you dosey maroon. BushCo is batshit crazier than you can possibly begin to imagine.
The Eisenhower strike force, according to my sources, is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships.
This build-up of naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military sources, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target not just Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military command and control system.
…I hope I am wrong about all this, but the sailing of the Eisenhower, which had been pushed forward recently by about a month by the Pentagon for clearly political reasons, makes me think I'm right.
(Via NMMNB.)
Coming Soon to a Drugstore Near You?
Male birth control. Y’know, aside from condoms.
I’ve been hearing about “the male pill” for as long as I can remember, so we’ll see if this time it’s really on the way, or just another tease.
Btw, I love this from the article to which Samhita links:
“It is time for men to have some control. I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans,” says Brown. “Some women are out there to use men to get pregnant. This could deter women from doing this. An athlete or a singer is someone who could be a target and they could put a stop to that.”You know what else would be awesome? If it deterred men from ever again invoking this argument.
More Scandal for Macaca Man
The problems just keep piling up for Mr. Macaca. He uses racist epithets, he's a Jew, he shoves severed deer heads in black people's mailboxes...and he's a big stinking liar.
When news of undisclosed stock options broke yesterday, Sen. George Allen (R-VA) told the AP, "I got paid in stock options which were worthless."Oops. What else could go wrong for the long-suffering Virginian?!
However, according to SEC documents reviewed by Bloomberg, the stock options Allen "described as worthless were worth as much as $1.1 million at one point."
Meanwhile, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports the national Democratic party is placing nearly $1 million in television advertising for challenger Jim Webb (D), opening with a commercial spotlighting Allen's "macaca moment."D'oh!
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
Evangelicals: The GOP's useful idiots
Used, abused, and starting to figure it out:
TUCKER CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in...Surely the conservative evangelical leaders like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, who dutifully lead their flocks to the GOP over and over in every election, know—and have known for quite some time—exactly what the game is. They serve as conduit for the "values" message and talk up the GOP, who then reward them with legislation that continues to make religion once of the best businesses in America. As The New York Times reported Sunday, since 1989 "more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislation, covering topics ranging from pensions to immigration to land use. New breaks have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch." Evangelical leaders aren't hurting for a return on their investment; it's the voters, the people who genuinely expect a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, who are waking up to the reality that they've been suckered.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
The question is: When will they realize that it's their leaders who delivered them for the suckering?
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
Fox Mislabeling (Again)
This time, it's on their show "The Beltway Boys." Have these boys ever actually been in the Beltway? Perhaps if they had, they'd know that Senator Chafee is a Republican. (Via Crooks and Liars.)
Recommended Viewing
Bill Hader as Peter O'Toole on how Mel Gibson and Mark Foley have sullied the good name of alcoholics everywhere.
Mr. Shakes and I were ending ourselves when we watched this Saturday night. It's a very clever commentary on the old "the booze made me do it" chestnut.
Question of the Day
Do you fall on the "conservative" side of any major issues?
I've known very few people who were 100% liberal, or 100% conservative, by modern definitions. I've known people who were otherwise quite liberal, but were staunch defenders of the death penalty, and people who were otherwise quite conservative, but were staunch defenders of legal gay marriage. (In a historical sense, that would be a conservative position re: privacy rights, but in a modern sense, not so much re: social conservatism.)
I'm rather conservative when it comes to the national budget; I absolutely don't believe in carrying debt and firmly support a balanced budget amendment, but, by the same token, the way I would achieve this goal is decidedly progressive, in that I would significantly reduce defense spending (and redirect any leftover to social programs, starting with universal healthcare). I also don't particularly feel any sadness regarding the death penalty for war criminals, although I wouldn't petition for it and wouldn't care if it were banned. I'm not totally anti-porn, which undermines my feminist credentials in some circles.
I'm sure there are other things, although those are the first few that came to mind. How about you? What's your hidden conservatism?
(Or, if you're generally a conservative, what's your hidden liberalism?)
