Dobson gets it wrong...again

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? ... Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"

                                                                     -Barack Obama

This is one of the reasons I was behind Obama early.  He's able to speak about religion, clearly, openly and directly, to people like me as well as to Christians and people of all other faiths, without dragging us down the rabbit-hole of choosing sides and deciding what God wants "us" to do or not do.  But James Dobson has a problem with this (and specifically, with this two-year old speech).

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — passages like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

Aside from MSNBC pussing out by saying "Obama said" Leviticus suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination (because, um, A: Obama didn't just say it, he quoted it, and B: the bible doesn't suggest it, it confirms it.  This "Obama said" thing is intended to keep MSNBC out of the debate and make it sound as though they're just reporting on Obama's "interpretation".  Thanks, pussies!), I can't wait to see what James has to say!

Dobson ... accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.

"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

As Obama said, is this traditional understanding of the Bible Dobson's understanding, or Sharpton's understanding? Because they ain't the same thing.  James, you're not the arbiter of tradition, as much as you'd like to think you are.  But hey, thanks for making Obama's point for him!  There are many thousands of biblical literalists whose traditional understanding of the Bible does call for them to avoid shellfish and avoid touching anything a menstruating woman touches (read more about them in this great book).  Anyone who's spent any time with Christians understands that they're, um, human.  And being human, they are complex, and within even one congregation you will find many different "traditional" understandings of the Bible.  So Obama's point stands.  Which would the government choose to teach in schools?

Continuing in his twisting of Obama's speech (likely) or inability to comprehend it (also likely), Jimmy D says this:

Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

What is Dobson referring to here?

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Those are the words Obama spoke, and some of which Dobson will presumably replay in his 18 minute radio screed.  But Dobson is (probably knowingly) very wrong in his interpretation of these words.  Obama doesn't say Dobson's followers "have no right to fight for what we believe"...quite the opposite.  He's saying they have to fight for what they believe through the democratic process - by convincing non-believers that the evangelist's values and policies are right and good.  Is this not evangelism defined?  Is this not what Jesus himself calls on his followers to do?

And far from being a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution, this is in fact a brilliant reading of it, and is a roadmap for Christians who seek wider political acceptance of their views.  And lest we think Obama's just a big ol' anti-religion, 'keep God out of the public square' liberal, let's look at one more quote from that speech.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

I wonder, does Dobson think this is a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution?  Perhaps he would do well not to argue the Constitution with a professor of Constitutional law...

Grandpa McCain wants to help the poor

...with tax cuts for the, um, not poor. 

Grandpa visited a shuttered factory in Ohio yesterday on his "I care, really I do" tour (not sure if his $100 million wife was there), and talked about free trade vs. protectionism, encouraging the out-of-work folks there to consider going to community college and learning how to work a computer.  You know, be part of the "knowledge economy". 

According to this article, his big plan to help these folks is...wait for it...see if you can guess (hint - he's a Republican)...yup, tax credits.  

Sen. McCain, who is a father of seven, proposed doubling the tax credit for children. In Youngstown, nearly half of single-working-mother families live in poverty. Sen. McCain said the current tax credit isn't adjusted for inflation and the increased credit would allow adults to "invest more in their own families."

Listen, let's assume that the half of single-working-mother families living in poverty include two children, for the sake of this exercise.  According to the most recent HHS poverty guidelines (pdf), a family of three has to make less than $17,170 to be considered "in poverty". 

Um, Grandpa?  How much do people making less than $17,000 pay in taxes? 

I don't have a problem (for the most part) with a higher tax credit for kids.  Childcare is expensive, and it's the kind of thing where the government can help you out in this way.  But let's face it.  This is McCain picking low-hanging fruit; he doesn't know how to help these folks without abandoning his ideology, so he appeals to "I'm helping your kids!".  It's the opposite of a third rail.  And the reality is, this will help middle-class families and have little to no impact on folks in poverty - while it's great to help middle-class families, and there should be a lot more of that than there is here, we've got a rapidly expanding bottom tier economically, and keeping the conservative blinders on isn't going to make things better for them.

Grandpa McCain's tax policy is immoral.  Telling families in poverty that you'll help them by giving tax credits to middle-class families is like telling the failing neighborhood store that you'll help them by shopping at Wal-Mart.  It's not just immoral, it's stupid, and more typical Republican magical thinking.

Tough questions? Not so much...

So Hillary's embrace of right-wing talking points is leading even the righty National Review is starting to swoon for her. After the ABC debate debacle, much has been made about the, um, paucity of quality questions. Much of the media agrees that ABC should be embarrassed by the quality of the questions, and Obama has enjoyed mocking them for wasting the first hour of the debate before asking about a real issue.

But today, Hillary had this to say:

Hillary: Well, we were both asked some pretty tough questions, and you know, that's part of what happens in a debate and in a campaign. And I know he spent all of yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked. But you know, being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressure you face inside the White House. And in fact, you know, when the going gets tough, you just can't walk away. Because we're going to have some very tough decisions that we have to make. And I think that we need a president who can take whatever comes your way. You have to stand strong. You have to fight for the American people. Because it will not be easy to stand up against the special interests. {Switzernote - that's rich}

Anchor: So you were fine with the debate? You didn't see any problem with them?

Hillary: Well, can I say I've been through, what, 23 of these debates? And if you'll recall, I was asked some pretty tough questions in nearly every one of them. That goes with the territory. Having been inside the White House, I know the pressures inside the White House, I know how hard it is every single day. When the going gets tough, you can't run away. It's going to be tough going dealing with these hard problems... The special interests are going to be a lot tougher than 90 minutes of questions from two journalists.

Yeah, Hillary's really gonna stand up to those special interests. Heh.

But here's what gets me about this. The only people calling the wasted first hour of the show "tough questions" are ABC, conservative douchebags, and...Hillary. Not one complaint I've seen at Kos, from any progressive, and least of all from Obama has been about "tough questions". No, the complaints I've seen have been that those questions were a waste of time. ABC's time, the viewer's time...everyone's time.

The National Review has this to say:

...And every once in a while, when she demonstrates she has the guts to 'go there' in front of a Democratic audience that want their debates to be criticism-free lovefests, I’m tempted to say, 'I like the cut of your jib, Senator.'"

...

Hey, is anybody else getting this weird tingle up the leg when Hillary speaks lately?

You know, Hillary likes to talk about who Obama's known or worked with in his life...perhaps the company you keep works both ways! When right-wingers start to like the 'cut of your jib', you're on the wrong path.

But here's what really concerned me when I heard the audio clip of Hillary making her statement above: They weren't tough questions. They were stupid questions. And it concerns me that Hillary can't tell the difference anymore.

Glenn Beck: Puts the 'douche' in 'bag'

In this "commentary" from Glenn Beck, he complains that when he went in for some elective surgery (we should all be so lucky as to be insured enough to have surgery when we wish), things went badly and he felt he was treated without compassion.  To be specific, he felt the staff (not the doctors, because they gave him an unbelievable amount of painkillers) was uncompassionate.  You know, nurses...the 'help'.

It frankly sounds to me like we've found yet another Republican who is, to be crude, a pussy. 

That combination took me to an incredibly dark place. I began having trouble breathing, and I started to hallucinate. Every time I closed my eyes it was like I entered my very own movie theater running the movie "Saw" on a loop. I would see horrific, unimaginable images of death and after two and a half days, the combination of pain and hallucinations drove me to a point where I was literally suicidal. It felt like there was no hope and, quite honestly, if I could have ended it all right at that moment I probably would have (Sorry to disappoint some of you).

Listen, pain sucks.  We all know this.  Pain from surgery can be debilitating, but what he's describing is no worse than what thousands of people go through every day - some folks have pain like this as a daily component of their lives.  But, who am I to judge?  It wasn't my pain, maybe it really was uniquely horrible and one for the ages.  What's up next, Glenn?

At the hospital I was often treated more like a number than a patient. At times, staff members literally turned their back on my cries of pain and pleas for help. In one case a nurse even stood by tapping his fingers as if he was bored while my tiny wife struggled to lift me off a waiting room couch.

Um, no.  First of all, it sounds like you were demanding a lot of attention with your cries of pain and pleas for help.  Hospitals are busy, overloaded places facing staff shortages just like everyone else, and they don't have time to baby the Glenn Beck's of the world through their difficult times.  It's tough, but they're really there to make you healthy, not sympathize with your plight.  Bedside manner is nice, but not really job one.  Further, the last sentence there has a bit too many flourishes to be believable - the nurse "tapping his fingers" while his "tiny wife struggled" to lift him?  Please. 

That's why I don't want to hear anymore about universal health care or HMOs or the evils of insurance companies until each and every hospital in this country can look me in the eye and tell me that they their staff is full of truly compassionate people who treat their visitors like patients, not products. Hire and train the right people, and then and only then come talk to me about everything else you need.

Really?  You want compassion first, care second?  That's the Beck solution to the healthcare problem?  The big, tough Republican answer to healthcare is that nurses should be nicer to you?  Again, please. 

The secret is "care." After all, at the lowest of my lows, it didn't matter to me whether the hospital had marble in its bathrooms or plasma televisions on all its walls. The only thing I cared about was finding someone who actually cared about me.

You wanted someone to bring you your Wubby and tuck you in, you baby.  Honestly, compassionate care is nice, but the priority here is to make you well.  Do you think someone who has no insurance and has to wait until they're actually in a crisis cares if the folks at the hospital are compassionate, or will they consider relief of their suffering compassion enough? 

Finally, "it didn't matter to me whether the hospital had marble in its bathrooms or plasma televisions on all its walls"?  I think your straw man fell on your head and did some damage, there, Glenn...unless you can point to which Democrats' healthcare plan calls for plasma TVs and marble restrooms, you just wrote a stupid thing. 

See, this is a circular argument.  Assuming we actually get some form of "universal" healthcare, Glenn will complain A) about the cost and B) about the lack of compassion he got for his butt surgery.  Should Democrats listen and require some form of compassion training or rigorous niceness standard, Glenn will rail in outrage at the waste of taxpayers' money - you're there to get well, not get massaged!  (they won't do this, btw, but at some point I assure you Glenn Beck will accuse them of spending money on precisely this kind of thing)

The reality is this:  It's too goddamn expensive for poor folks to get even basic preventive care in this country, much less elective butt surgeries, and REALLY much less compassionate care.  Democrats, unlike Republicans and Glenn Beck, just want people to get the basic care that any American should be able to expect - and if compassion comes in the mix, then so much the better.

The magical thinking of Republicans

<Switzernote:  This was written, apparently, in August, and never published.  I decided to go ahead and post it because...well, why not.  So, it isn't new or anything, just old thoughts.  Please make a note of it.>

Well, frick.  No sooner do I write about Bush's gas-tax blah blah blah (see post below), Devilstower at  Kos goes and does a better job of it.  Read my version if you want, but you must read DT's version.

This brain dump is about something I've been pondering for a while - the magical thinking of modern Republicans.  I keep listening for some sort of logic or proof point in their policies and public statements, but I just keep hearing the same bizarre belief that if you just don't do anything, good stuff magically happens.  They live in an evidence-free world, where the poor are happily getting rich off the government, the rich are poor, and teenagers wouldn't have sex without Democratic insistence.

• Infrastructure - no new taxes.  As long as we "prioritize", the trillions needed for our overall infrastructure will magically materialize
• The poor - no government help.  No proof of this, no study has ever shown it to be true, but they've convinced themselves that government assistance for people who can't afford food somehow forces those folks into dependence.  If you just let them starve, they'll magically find jobs and money for food.
• Healthcare - get the government out of it.  If you help folks who can't afford healthcare, they won't magically get better! 
• Sex - if we prevent kids from gaining any knowledge of how sex works, they won't have any until they're married.  Hormones are magically blocked!
• Evolution - the evidence is all wrong!  Humans were magically created from clay.  Everything else was magically created from nothing (this is the root of the Republican problem).

I can go on and on, but you see the problem.  Their solution to all problems is to either do nothing or do less.  Looking out for number one is magically seen as helping the community.  In the case of our infrastructure, Bush seriously seems to believe that it's worse to ask for a few hundred bucks from Americans than it is to see them die in repeated tragedies as bridges collapse, blackouts increase and sewers give way. 

Bush's Gas-tax Economic Impact (Bush is a pussy)

So yesterday, Bush announced that we "won't raise" the gasoline tax $.05 (I put it in quotes, because the Transportation Appropriations committee will make that decision, not him).  He feels that, instead of raising a tax, the Senate should "prioritize".  In other words, since the transportation budget that he agreed not to veto isn't quite enough money to simply maintain our roads at the status quo, he believes they should magically use that money to improve our roads. 

Here's the deal.  The US uses 137 billion gallons of gas annually, which translates to just under $7 billion in taxes raised if we raise the gas tax by a nickel.  To put that in "you" terms, that's about $5 a week.  (assuming 2 weekly fillups for 2 cars at roughly 13 gallons per fillup, and doubling the tax to a dime so the oil company can weather the incredible strain of taking in an extra nickel.  IOW, this is an aggressive estimate).  (Oh, and let's say you drive a big duallie pickup with a 40 gallon tank and fill up twice a week.  That comes to about $8 and a heaping helping of personal responsibility - you chose the big truck, you can pay the bills) $5 a week is about $270 for a 2 car household.  George Bush believes this $270 will "affect economic growth", and thus opposes it. 

Never mind, of course, that the imploding credit situation in this country is guaranteed to have a negative impact on economic growth - he's not concerned about already strapped folks losing their homes and having their credit destroyed, he's concerned about folks paying a tax.  And losing one viente latte a week.  That's the deal, folks.  We can pay the $5 a week and share the responsibility for restoring our infrastructure to the finest and safest in the world (and get home safely), or we can keep our latte and continue our slide into life-threatening third-world irrelevancy. 

Seriously, does anyone think $5 a week is going to "affect economic growth"?  That's just bullshit from a President who's afraid to anger his anti-tax zealot bosses in the Party.  The cost of saving actual lives, not to mention preventing the economic impact of a broken infrastructure that can prevent the movement of goods, is around $200 billion.  That's just to fix our roads, and doesn't take into account our failing steam pipes, sewer systems, eroding electrical grid, etc.  $200 billion dollars is 17 months in Iraq.  You want to talk about priorities?  Get our military spending out of the stratosphere, put our kids in responsible, strategic locations (i.e., not Iraq) with efficiently made weapons and raise a small gas tax, and you've got a safer country with a rebuilt infrastructure.  Just like that.  But this giant pussy is afraid to ask Americans for an extra 5 cents. 

You think collapsing bridges don't impact economic growth?  Did you know that more than 500 bridges failed in the U.S. during the 90's?  Wanna guess if the loss of those access points affects the ability to move commerce?  Luckily, most of those bridges, like most things, gave warning before they failed - you know, warnings like the Alaskan Way Viaduct is giving that we'll ignore until it collapses on some nice tourists from Illinois.  But the time is coming when what happened in Minnesota will be more and more frequent.  Our system can only age so much before it fails.

So that you see where Bush is coming from in his no new taxes stance (and in case you're wondering if the GOP is already circling the wagons to protect their ideology from any fact), the Investor's Business Daily led the way with an editorial blaming this on state legislature's spending priorities.  You see, in their world, we're enjoying a "Bush boom" and surging tax revenues.  Well, we are certainly enjoying a boom in service sector jobs.  But those tax revenues?  They're not up because of the economy (which is failing AGAIN, btw, thanks to the economic ideas the IBD has promoted, like, ahem, subprime lending and the bankruptcy bill).  No, they're coming from the increased sales taxes, service fees and property taxes that states and municipalities have had to levy thanks to the GOP's massive cuts in state funding.  You want to talk priorities, IBD?  How about deciding to cut taxes on wealth while raising taxes on work, and depriving local governments of the money they need to repair this infrastructure.  Check this out:

But cities, towns, counties and states aren't spending on unsexy projects like bridge and highway infrastructure, which benefit everyone. No, they're focusing their efforts on entitlements, opting for easy votes over public safety. When the time comes for infrastructure spending, funds get diverted instead to day care centers, "affordable housing" and other pork — not bridges, ports and roads.

...

Nevertheless, something failed that will probably require more spending for infrastructure. The latter is not as sexy as day care centers, bilingual education or global warming boondoggles. But it's far more badly needed.

The fucking gall.  Guess why we need that affordable housing?  Because of the increased number of people living in poverty thanks to this administration's economic policies - you know, the IBD's "Bush boom".  Yay, I've got a job at Wendy's!  Now I can live in a shit apartment and drop my kids off at the 10% subsidized day care where I hope they won't be molested, while my boss writes off his capital gains.  Thanks, George Bush!  To call affordable housing and day care for the millions of people Bush's policies keep in poverty "pork" shows an appalling disregard for traditional American principles. 

Well, all the bilingual education, global warming investment and affordable housing spending in this country combined falls far short of the money needed to fix our infrastructure - and I think anyone who understands our system of government, common human decency, and simple responsibility to our own nation can see that one need not be sacrificed for the other.  Unfortunately, George Bush and the anti-tax zealots just don't see it that way.  Get used to collapsing bridges.

Bush aides = dum

One of the most enlightening things about all the subpoenaed aides from the Bush administration (because frankly, the politicizing of science and "above-the-law" chicanery is unsurprising) has been how...well, dumb these aides are.
On some level, you sorta knew they weren't bringing in the best and the brightest, and with the revelations about Regents University serving as a pipeline for Bush appointees it became clear what sort of qualifications were needed, but you still sort of expected (or at least I did) that some professionalism and intelligence was needed to survive working in the highest levels of government. I mean, agree with them or not, aides from previous administrations, R and D, have been intelligent, professional people, even if they were unqualified for the specific job or were evil. Not so with this bunch.

First we had Monica Goodling, the Gonzales aide who testified that she broke the law by crossing the line, but she "didn't mean to". (btw, that last linked article sees Goodline as wicked smart - I disagree. I think we saw her as she is, and she's exactly what the administration wanted: a patsy who's ballsy until she's actually confronted.) I mean, really. A grown woman saying that she broke the law, but "didn't mean to"...as if that's a defense to be taken seriously by anyone over the age of 8? For those who think she's smart and/or mature - this is a woman who worked at an executive level in the Justice Department and carried a Hello Kitty purse. I'm just sayin'...

Today, though, we get this nugget from former White House aide Sara Taylor:

"I don't believe there was any wrongdoing by anybody," Taylor said. "I don't believe anybody in the White House did any wrongdoing."

Just for the record, CNN refers to this as a "stiff defense" of her coworkers. Seriously, read the last sentence of her statement again. "I don't believe anybody in the White House did any wrongdoing." This is not something a person would say if they had anything going on upstairs. Let's take a look at what she said in defense of herself:

Loyal to Bush even outside the White House, Taylor said she was trying not to answer questions that might violate the president's claim of executive privilege. At one point she told the committee that as a commissioned officer, "I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously."

Seeing a chance to weaken Taylor's observance of Bush's executive privilege claim, Leahy corrected her: She took an oath to uphold the Constitution, he said.

"Your oath is not to uphold the president," Leahy lectured her.

She also earlier added:

"I'm trying to be consistent and perhaps have not done a great job of that," Taylor said. "I have tried."

Sound familiar? It's "I stepped over the line, but I didn't mean to" all over again.

Sadly, it's now becoming clear that this administration has surrounded itself not just with yes men, not just with ideological partisans, not just with fundamentalist toadies, not just with boot-licking sycophants, but with immature, slow-witted children in adult bodies who had the good sense or good fortune to be associated with the right colleges and were willing to do the right work on behalf of Republicans.

By the way, correcting her interpretation of her oath wasn't a chance to "weaken [her] observance of Bush's executive privilege claim", but was entirely accurate and showed that her ignorance of her responsibilities not to Goerge Bush but to the nation hadn't gone unnoticed.

It pains me to see people like this in positions of authority in this administration, but sadly, I think it's the norm. I just hope we haven't seen too much damage already done.

On the Trial of Scooter Libby

[Note: This was written by the switzermom and switzerdad, who sent it my way. I apologize that I do not possess their writing skill. Back to inflicting my nonsense shortly.]

---

Scapegoat. Fall guy.

Scooter Libby is George Bush's Lt. William Calley.

In January, 1968, Charlie Company killed some 500 old men, women, children and babies in the so-called My Lai massacre. Despite an attempted cover-up, the army eventually indicted 26 officers and soldiers for their roles in the massacre. In the end, Lt. Calley was the only one convicted. Calley was given life in prison for killing 22 civilians, but his sentence was later reduced to 20 years and then 10 years. He actually served about 3 1/2 years of house arrest at Ft. Benning, GA. This seemed to satisfy our national need to hold someone accountable.

In July, 2003, Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert CIA operative was revealed as the result of information leaked from the highest levels of the White House. Evidence suggests this may have been a deliberate attempt to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, and that both George Bush and Dick Cheney may have been involved, as well as Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and others.
As more and more Americans became aware of the leaking of Plame's identity to a White House friendly pundit, the outrage grew. It became obvious, even to this arrogant administration, that someone would have to be "held accountable". Enter Patrick Fitzgerald, an apparent darling of the mainstream media, repeatedly lauded as a hard-nosed prosecutor and a man of unquestioned integrity. Despite the praise heaped upon his head, imagine our surprise and disappointment when the best he could do was indict a staffer, Scooter Libby, for lying to the grand jury.

My expectation is that Libby will be convicted of perjury, the conviction will be appealed for years to come and he will ultimately serve no jail time at all. But the conviction will satisfy our national need to hold someone accountable.

When we have a White House that has little, if any, regard for the Constitution, it is a shocking betrayal of the American people that the real traitors will remain scot-free and in control of our government. It is obvious to all who care about this nation that this administration is still in the process of taking over the judiciary and will continue to manipulate any "trial" which involves a crony.

"...and justice for all." Right!

GOP Idiocy: Denver snow = Katrina

I received a forwarded email from a Republican friend of mine - we tend to get along and see eye to eye on lots of things, but he occassionally runs off the rails. This forwarded email, which I'll reproduce in its entirety, draws a parallel between the snowstorms in Colorado and Hurricane Katrina. (I may provide helpful links in-line, but otherwise, no editing) Check this:

Up here, in the " Mile-Hi City ", we just recovered from a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.

FYI:

George Bush did not come.

FEMA did nothing.

No one howled for the government.

No one blamed the government.

No one even uttered an expletive on TV.

Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.

Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.

Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.

CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.

No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.

No one looted.

Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.

Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.

No Larry King, No Shepard Smith, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.

Sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.

The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.

Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families.

Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.

We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.

We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die".

We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a

mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.

Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.

"In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the world's social problems evaporate."

It does seem that way, at least to me.

I hope this gets passed on.

Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does Not owe you a living.

I'll take this pretty much in order. I grew up in Colorado. I've been through four storms that were this severe - it's a big, hairy deal (although we never missed a day of school), but easily survivable. This is evidenced by the death toll of...zero. I live in Washington now. We have windstorms like this every year; it's part of our landscape. I and a million of my closest friends spent from 3 to 14 days without power last month after a particularly brutal one (8 days in my case).

The difference between windstorms, snowstorms and hurricane Katrina? In the first two, stores reopen. Basic amenities of life still function. No one is under 9 feet of water. With few exceptions, houses don't fall apart, and entire communities aren't destroyed. Tens of millions in costs, versus hundreds of millions. Quite the opposite with hurricane Katrina.

George Bush didn't come because Colorado didn't vote for him. But he has been asked for help.

FEMA is paying the govenrment's cost for police and fire overtime, repairs, and snow removal. This means that my federal taxes are paying for Colorado's recovery from a storm that they are always prepared for - their state taxes will not bear the burden. So it's either stupidity, ignorance or lying to say FEMA did nothing.

And wait, what's this...? Seems them tough ol' ranchers do want some FEMA aid, after all! What a surprise!

President Bush has declared two emergencies in Colorado after two blizzards beat up counties up and down Colorado’s Front Range.

The declarations came Sunday, two days after local officials expressed frustration with the delay by the federal government in recognizing the severity of the impact of the storms on ranchers in southeast Colorado, but do not include aid to those who have lost thousands of head of cattle stranded without food or water by drifting snow last week.

The federal government is yet to act on a request for low-interest loans for those ranchers.

No one howled for the government because...wait for it...they were doing their jobs (I'll get to this later)

The mayor of Denver didn't blame Bush because FEMA is helping him. Same for the Governor.

Please see inline links above to dispute the moron's claim that the major networks didn't cover this storm. Seriously, to claim nobody covered it? Please.

Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards because no one was evacuated thousands of miles away from their bank accounts, which were destroyed along with their banks. Unlike Katrina, where people were left with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs - no ID, no money, no nothing - people in Denver were snug in their homes, and their bank kept on workin'.

No one needed a FEMA Trailer because no one found themselves suffering the indignity of homelessness, as hundreds of thousands did in Louisiana and Mississippi. No one looted, again, why? Because people had access to their own money, stores, water, and homes.

As for expecting the government to do anything...I suppose people drove the snowplows themselves? I suppose avalanche control (which failed at Berthoud Pass) was handled by the hardy locals at their own cost? I suppose the fire and police and national guard that were called out to help aren't part of the government? The airlifted food for cattle came from...where? Folks' living rooms?

I will admit, no one from Hollywood seems to have jetted off to Denver to try and alleviate all the...people not suffering.

Now we get to the part about melting snow for water. Apparently, this email was written by Grizzly Adams rather than someone who lives in Denver, because this is just fucking nonsense. It's a major metropolitan area, and the water still worked. Those on ranches have wells. If you're going to spread right-wing anti-government puke, at least don't make up outright stupid things.

As for people pitching in to help each other - apparently this moron missed the constant coverage of truck drivers helping people, teenagers commandeering school buses to get people to safety, restaurants opening, millions upon millions of dollars in donations, clothes, food, shelter all being donated during Katrina. Nope, only them rootin', tootin', toughest-on-the-plains Denver ranchers help each other.

I especially like the connection between putting on layers of clothing (don't normal people learn to do this when they're 5?) and "Work or Die". HA! Yeah, Denver's got a real do-it-yourself wild west cowboy work ethic. Sweet.

As for the rest of this drivel, seriously - I'd love a follow-up email to tell me how an "affirmative action" government's "welfare program" caused New Orleans to be under water for a month. Amazing how government did nothing to save this self-sufficient, brave person in their suburban hell of snow, and no one blamed the government for their predicament, but somehow government DID cause New Orleans to flood....odd, ain't it?

John Boehner's belated wisdom

"If there is one lesson that stands out from our party's time in the majority, it is this: A congressional majority is simply a means to an end. The value of a majority lies not in the chance to wield great power, but in the chance to do great things."

That's John Boehner, former Speaker of the House, speaking shortly before handing over the gavel to Nancy Pelosi (which he did in a gracious manner, and to bipartisan applause in recognition of the historic import of the event). 

Notwithstanding my continued lack of interest in any advice a Republican might choose to share with my fellow Democrats, I find it funny that he realized the "value of a majority" only after having it beaten into his head by the electorate.

Would that the GOP had understood that sage bit of wisdom when they took power in '94, we might really be facing that permanent majority they promised us all.

Unfortunately for America, they didn't understand it, and we've suffered through six years of rubberstamp governance, illogical and at times harmful legislation, an historic and unprecedented stifling of the minority, and now we're saddled with a war, financial and constitutional crisis of the GOP's making, which could take years if not decades to unravel. 

Boehner's observation about the value of a majority is worthy of notice, however, because (in a GOP rarity) he's exactly right.  Being in the majority is a chance to do great things, but not only a chance - it's an obligation.  The Dems got off to a good start yesterday by passing a beefed up ethics measure shortly after formally electing the first femal Speaker and highest-ranking woman in our government's history.  Here's hoping they get their 100-hour agenda accomplished and then get down to business in a bipartisan manner (within limits, given the GOP's stated plan to disrupt Congressional business).

And lastly, a toast to my former boss, Senator Patty Murray.  Congratulations, Senator, on becoming the highest-ranking woman in the Senate, fourth-ranking Dem, and hiring a strong new chief of staff!

Hey, what a f*#kin' surprise!

Seems highway projects in the region will cost more than expected.  Wow, whoda thunk it?

Here's the thing:  COST OF MATERIALS GOES UP WITH TIME.  I don't understand, and frankly am baffled by, the shock and horror people feel when the cost of transportation projects proves to be more than expected.  If we can grok that milk, gas, and bread will cost more from year to year, how can we completely fail to understand that the cost of steel, cement and labor also rises? 

It strikes me as self-evident that if you're going to release budget numbers, you'd do well to be conservative and release numbers that assume higher-than-expected inflation, and a cushion for spikes in the cost of materials.  Then, you'd be dealing with an informed (oops, I think we just identified the problem) constituency, have room for those inevitable cost problems, and give yourself a scratching chance at actually getting done under budget.  Instead, if inflation is built into these projections at all (I honestly don't know, but I assume so), it's built in at a friendly, consistently unrealistic rate. 

How do I know it's consistently unrealistic?  Because I've never seen a major infrastructure project, ever, anywhere, that made budget.  They all go over budget, and they all cry about the totally unexpected rise in cost of materials! 

This is, of course, made worse in Washington state, where any transportation project must first be discussed and voted on ad nauseum for 5 to 25 years before any actual work begins, during which time the cost...*gasp*...goes up.  This incredible, mind-boggling delay in actual work in the misguided effort to provide an appearance of consensus itself causes the rise in costs, as more and more studies are commissioned and commissions are studied and COSTS OF MATERIALS FUCKING GOES UP WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME.  And we just keep ramming our thumbs further up our collective asses, then going all Eyman with outrage when we learn that the as-yet-unstarted massive $12 billion transportation project, voted on and approved and planned several years ago but still being discussed and voted on again, suddenly will cost $16 billion.

Ironically, the only infrastructure project I've seen that gave a realistic cost estimate was voted into extinction within two months of release of that unfortunate, honest budget:  the Seattle monorail.  They made the mistake of releasing the actual, total cost of the project with financing and interest, and people went freaking apeshit over it.  Granted, the financing scheme they'd come up with was crap, but that can be corrected.  In the final analysis, the numbers they were released weren't that far off from what was realistically possible, but even the better honest numbers would have doomed the monorail to death.  Why?  Because in the first vote, people were given a cost estimate that was patently (and to me, obviously) well short of what the actual, total cost would have been. 

In other words, while we are slaves to the total cost of ownership (TCO) model when we buy computers or cars for ourselves, for some reason we make no such demand that our public servants share with us the TCO for infrastructure projects, and when they do share it, we respond with righteous outrage. 

Happy Halloweeny, Mr. Reichert

HA! My favorite parts are when he gets the giggles and when he checks his notes...

Reichert and McMorris: Worst in the state at supporting the troops

First, 'cause the Google-bombs gots to be done:
WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
WA-08: Dave Reichert

Now onto the amazing information revealed today. IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) released today their rankings of support for veterans' issues by members of Congress. IAVA is a non-partisan group made up of veterans, as the name suggests, of the contemporary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their interest is in gaining support for their wounded and traumatized brothers and sisters when they come home; no more, no less.

Their ranking of Congressional support is based on specific votes which pertain to body armor, health care (i.e. VA funding), research into brain trauma and other urgent care both in theater and at home, etc. What's interesting about the results? This:

Name	Party	Grade
Rep. Brian Baird	Dem	B
Sen. Maria Cantwell	Dem	A-
Rep. Norm Dicks	Dem	A-
Rep. Doc Hastings	Rep	C
Rep. Jay Inslee	Dem	B+
Rep. Rick Larsen	Dem	A
Rep. Jim McDermott	Dem	C-
Rep. Cathy McMorris	Rep	D
Sen. Patty Murray	Dem	A-
Rep. Dave Reichert	Rep	D+
Rep. Adam Smith	Dem	A-

What's this I see? 11 total members of Congress, nine Democrats and three Republicans. Among the Democrats, five "A's", two "B's", and one "C" (Jim, what up?). Among the supposedly troop supportin' Republicans: one "C" and two "D's". Now, I will give Dave Reichert this much: He got a D+, so he definitely is doing better than Cathy McMorris.

But what the hell is he doing voting against veterans in a district FILLED with veterans? How do these people live with themselves? I know what's coming to mind for me, having seen this - there's really only one vote to truly support the troops and the veterans: vote for Peter Goldmark and Darcy Burner, because the numbers don't lie. Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris simply do not support our veterans.

And just for fun, I like to remind people that our Senators are the best in the country for veteran's benefits and rights, and now we have proof! Bob Geiger made a neat graph of the Senate rankings from the IAVA grades, and who's at the very tippy-top? Why, our very own Maria Cantwell! Joined with Patty Murray (with any luck, soon to be the second-ranking member of the majority on the VA Committee and soon after the first woman to chair that committee...), every single Democrat scored higher than the highest-scoring Republican. Wow - who supports our troops, now? Simply amazing...

Party of Personal Responsibility

From Postman:

Q: Is the President responsible for the fact people think it's stay the course since he's, in fact, described it that way himself?

MR. SNOW: No.

I can scarcely find words.

But I'll keep going anyway.

In the 47th, someone who lacks the balls to take responsibility for their action has created a website attacking him for past family difficulties and posted yard signs pointing people to it. Thoughts:

* If you're going to slander people, at least have the balls to put your name on it. This lying, cowardly moron went to great lengths to hide themselves. Whois points you to an unmonitored mailbox and a phone number that belongs to a hosting company.
* Mr. Simpson's family difficulties are resolved and in the past. Oh, and nobody's fucking business.
* Family difficulties: Ugly. Doesn't matter who you are, when they come, they're not pretty.

To the person who created the website: I won't link to it because I'm not going to do your work, and know this - you are the worst kind of coward. Show yourself, you pussy, and let's see what's in your closet.

Next, the King County Republicans and their trial-lawyer Chair, the untalented she-beast Diane Tebelius, at least had the cojones to leave their contact information on a misleading attack website (and commensurate yard signs) going after Deb Eddy. Again, I won't link to this shit because A) both these sites are horribly done and amateurish, and B) I won't do their work for them.

Hey, Diane Tebelius, is your Eddy attack site as poorly researched as the shitty work Lori Sotelo did last year? (You know, that you did such a horrible job defending? Because you're a sad excuse for an attorney...)

Seriously, I've seen Republicans dip into the sleaze pool in desperation, but they've completely abandoned any sense of ethics, decency, morality, or, well...anything else that is good in the human condition. They will abandon everything for the sake of winning elections. This is something we've said for a long time, but this year we're going to see how horribly true it is.

*sigh* That is all. They just make me sad.

Dori Monson: Idiot

And I'm not the only one that thinks so. In my ongoing installments of "who finds me on Google", today I see that some blessed soul found me listed third if you Google "DORI MONSON IS AN IDIOT". Yes. Yes, he is, indeed, and I'm glad to be third on the list when you google that phrase.

It turns out when you google "is an idiot" (which I'd decided was the trigger bringing people to me - no such luck), you get the greatest fucking one-page site ever, Kip Hawley Is An Idiot. dot com. For those who don't know and didn't follow the link, Kip Hawley is the TSA director who decided we couldn't carry water on a plane because some native English Palestinians had hatched some lame-brain scheme to build a plane on a bomb using Gatorade, which wouldn't work. So we don't check luggage point-to-point, but for six weeks we were all in mortal fear of lipstick. Kip Hawley, like Dori Monson and myself, is definitely an idiot.

Reliving our Puritanism with the modern Republican

I'm reading a book written in 1917 called "The American Family in the Colonial Period" - mostly because I'm curious about the claims by Christian and other conservatives that the contemporary version of marriage has been successful and unchanged for thousands of years. It's an interesting book, although it was written at the height of a "simplified English" movement, meaning some of the words are tough to decipher. In an early chapter on Old World origins, the author breaks down some background behind the colonial family makeup, He discusses the rise of Puritanism in the early seventeenth century, and provides this snippet:

...In Germany, says Bebel,

The merry, life-loving townsman of the middle ages became a bigoted, austere, sombre Philistine...The honorable citizen with his stiff cravat, his narrow intellectual horizon, his severe but hypocritical morality, became the prototype of society. Legitimate wives who had not favored the sensuality tolerated by the Catholicism of the middle ages, were generally better pleased by the Puritan spirit of Protestantism.

The Puritan emphasis on sexual restraint was of a piece with the general gospel of frugality so appropriate among a class of people trying to accumulate capital in an age of deficit.

Is it just me, or is this a completely contemporary description of today's prototypical Republican? Accumulating capital in an age of deficit, narrow intellectual horizon, severe but hypocritical morality - this entire passage could have been written three weeks ago about any loyal Bush Republican.

It strikes me that the current crop of Christian evangelicals do bear strong resemblance to the Puritans (but definitely not the Calvinists) of our past. Their single-minded focus on issues of sexuality and resultant proclivity for sexual misbehavior, their pursuit of capital side-by-side with their faith, and their increasing desire to segregate and/or eliminate believers of other faiths (or no faith!) draw close comparison to 17th-century Puritanism. Hell, their pursuit of Harry Potter as a witch is practically a straight-line descendant of Puritan belief!

Foley, Republicans and burqas oh my!

While kicking a man while he's down is probably bad form, I've decided to revel in it a bit. While the Foley scandal festers and inch by inch destroys what remains of the myth of Republican morality, little things here and there keep popping up that show just how out-of-touch Republicans and the MSM really are.

MSNBC has a poll up asking "Should the congressional page program for high-schoolers be abolished?". (right hand column, towards the bottom)

As of this writing, with 13,000+ responses, 31% think that yes, the page program should be abolished. In other words, yes, the page program is responsible for this problem. This comes on the heels of Hastert's efforts last week to investigate and "reform" the page program - again, let's not investigate and reform Congressional leaders' management of the program nor Members' behavior towards the pages - no, let's investigate the kids.

Funny thing about that 31%. It's roughly the approval numbers for Bush and the Republican Congress in general. Hey, turns out it's also roughly the percentage of the population that self-identifies as Republican! Interesting to see the Republican mindset so exposed, isn't it?

So here's what bothers me, and what I wish surprised me: the view of this situation by 31% of our population and seemingly an entire Party so obviously resembles the views of the Islamofascists they so want to defeat in the Iraq meatgrinder. Not clear how that works? Let me lay it out:

Example 1 (Republican): Teenage pages have been treated to inappropriate and possibly illegal sexually explicit conversation, at a minimum, by at least one Member of Congress, and Congressional leaders covered it up. Solution? Ban the pages.

Example 2 (Taliban): 26 year old woman is gang-raped and beaten. She was not wearing a Burqa. Solution? Ban women not wearing burqas.

Note who does not have any responsibility in both these scenarios.

I'm just sayin'.

PS: Mrs. Switzer pointed all this out to me, so I'm honor bound to give her credit. There ya go, Mrs. S!

More obviousness for my Republican friends

Note to youse guys: If you want to blame Democrats, try using evidence.

You see, pointing to a Drudge Report post isn't "evidence". It's been long acknowledged that he posts whatever he's given without doing normal journalistic work like sourcing and confirmation - if it looks bad for a liberal, he assumes it's true (this is true of you also, my Republican friends, and is a crippling liability at the moment). "Evidence" is what ABC News has - you know, the actual IM's and e-mails which they've sourced and confirmed by getting them from either the actual pages or people involved in the case from the beginning.

Sourcing works this way: you get people who actually were involved to tell you what they did. Like, for example, the Majority Leader confirming that he personally told Denny Hastert about the Foley issue a year ago. Writing on a blog that you're "sure" Democrats knew about it and sat on it until it was politically expedient provides neither evidence nor sourcing.

Here's an interesting concept, too: Conservatives are now saying that the St. Petersburg Times and ABC News had the information and didn't release it immediately, so they must be responsible because their actions are hurting Republican election chances (because that's really the only important issue here). Has anyone in R-land considered that maybe ABC and the SP Times didn't run it immediately because it's so obviously damaging? That perhaps it was MORE responsible to sit on it until they could source and confirm what had happened - especially considering that if true, the story would certainly end careers?

NAAHHHHH, gotta be a liberal conspiracy!

Just a reminder, my Republican friends:

NO MATTER WHO LEAKED OR WHAT THE TIMING IS, MARK FOLEY INSTIGATED SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONVERSATIONS WITH TEENAGE BOYS IN THE DIRECT CARE OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, REPUBLICAN LEADERS - WHO ARE IN CHARGE - KNEW AND FAILED TO STOP HIM.

Morality takes a Republican vacation

I've been off the blog path for a little while now (sorry, busy and frustrated and just got other things to do), but the Foley debacle has me kinda lathered up. Heh. Sorry to touch on something so un-local, but the right wing spin machine is in fantastic form on this, and I thought it worthy of mention. As a warning, those who don't like lewd details should go read something else.

By now, everyone knows the landscape: Foley turns out to be a well-known lecherous scoundrel who cyber-stalks young boys for sexual release (in violation of the law he co-wrote). At a minimum, Republican leadership failed to do enough follow-up on the situation. Democrats responded with predictable and justified outrage, as have the American people. Republicans responded with initial confusion - this is their nightmare "can't happen to us" scenario. Kinda like being a poor black woman in New Orleans at the end of last August.

Now we're a week into it, it's exploded as details of Republican failures and their frankly shockingly callous dismissal of the issue have grown. Desiring to stop the bleeding, they've started to cast about for anything AT ALL to cram in the open wound of their party. Being Republicans, the only thing they know to do is blame Democrats (for the record, there are other options here: Take the blame for their own actions, admit they don't know who did what or what to do now, or...DO SOME GOVERNING AND MAKE DECISIONS TO PROTECT PEOPLE BESIDES REPUBLICANS), and they've finally started to get their "it's Clinton's fault" feet back under them.

Now, from Drudge complaining on the radio that it's these "16 and 17 year old beasts" egging him on (if you just got off the plane from freaking Mars, yes, he really said that), to O'Reilly both labeling Foley a Democrat and claiming Soros is funding this whole thing, we're beginning to hear their unified voice again. It's the Democrats' fault. In classic 5-year old child, oops, I mean Republican form, they are furious NOT that one of their own did this horrifying thing, nor that members of their party knew about it and didn't stop it, but that they got caught. And they want Americans to join them in their outrage that someone would intentionally tell on them.

While it seems that they can't get their shit together, it's actually a brilliant shifting of the conversation - away from "why didn't you stop it" to "who knew, and why did they tell us now". I'd just like to politely offer a reminder to my friends in the media of what the issue actually is:
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO TOLD OR WHY. MARK FOLEY IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR AND HE WAS ENABLED BY REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP.

Let's use the GOP talking points to examine this thing...

If one accepts Republican claims that:
1. George Soros is somehow financing a smear campaign to time the release of the "reams" (heh) of Foley documents

2. The Democratic Party is helping him

3. The Democratic Congressional leadership had the documents months ago

4. Long ago and far away, Democrats had sex with pages once, too

5. The whole thing was a prank by a page gone awry

6. The pages are 16-17 year old "beasts"

You can't change these facts:
1. George Soros did not ask a teenage boy via IM to measure his penis. Mark Foley, R-FL, did.

2. The Democratic Party did not ask a teenage boy how he masturbates. Mark Foley, R-FL, did.

3. The Democratic Congressional leadership learned about the documents (if they did) AFTER Republican Congressional leadership, and
3(a): The Democratic Congressional leadership does not run House discipline, Republican Party discipline, nor the Page program. Republican Party Congressional leadership is responsible for these things.

4. And now they don't. Also, see "if they jumped off a cliff, would you?" parental logic. Prior bad acts by an opponent do not justify current bad acts by you.

5. No prank justifies a grown, adult man in a position of responsibility engaging in sexual banter with teenage boys - or girls. Mark Foley, R-FL, did engage in sexual conversation with teenage boys, and Rep ublican Congressional leadership covered it up for him.

6. No matter how beastly and helplessly attractive to their adult same-sex paramours, pages are teenage boys and girls, and a grown, adult man in a position of responsibility should never, under any circumstances, engage in sexual conversation with them. Period. This is a basic tenet of human morality. Mark Foley, R-FL, did engage in sexual conversation with teenage boys, and Republican Congressional leadership covered it up for him.

Again, here is what we know:

* Mark Foley, R-FL, violated the law by pursuing minors online for sexual gratification.

* Republican leadership learned about this a minimum of one year ago.

* Republican leadership did not stop him.

Here is what we hear:

* Mark Foley was molested as a child and is a drunk. This, of course, is an insult to every molested child and alcoholic who manage their life without ruining someone else's.

* According to rumors, spread only by Republicans such as Sean Hannity, the embattled Dennis Hastert and Bill O'Reilly, some combination of Democratic Party leaders, shadow organizations and George Soros knew about Foley's email/IMs and held onto it until it could do the most political damage. They have provided no evidence of any of this, whereas Republican Congressmen and staffers all confirm that they personally informed Republican Congressional leadership of this problem as long ago as 1998.

* Democrats did not stop him. This, of course, ignores the fact that it wasn't their job, there's no evidence they even knew about the problem, and completely ignores the reality that this is classic avoidance by the actual responsible parties.

* It was a prank, and/or pages are just too smokin' hot to ignore. Plus, they were egging him on. They wanted him to ask them to measure their penis, drink with him and have sex with him. A finer "blame the victim" game I've never seen.

Driving the scandal: facts. Driving Republican response: rumor and lies.

Best case scenario: Teenage boys played a prank on a sexual predator and he took the bait, engaging in criminally negligent online behavior with them. Republicans and Democrats knew and failed to act until a Democratic operative used the information to spring a politically motivated attack on the Republican leadership.

Worst case scenario: A sitting Congressman has been stalking and molesting teenage boys in the care of the United States House of Representatives. Republicans knew about this for years, yet did nothing to protect a seat in Florida and that Congressman's fundraising ability. Occasionally, this Congressman was aided in contacting these teenagers by other Republicans.

Most likely scenario from available evidence: A sitting Congressman has engaged in criminally negligent online sexual conversation with teenage boys who were in the care of the United States House of Representatives. He may have had sexual interactions with one or more of these teenagers. At least one member of the Republican leadership enabled him by preventing further action against him. When he tried to leave Congress, a member of the Republican leadership with knowledge of this issue convinced him to stay and run for re-election, thus ensuring at least two more classes of pages would be endangered.

Now, Hastert wants to investigate and "reform" the page program, rather than the page board, ethics panel and procedures for dealing with sexual misbehavior by members of Congress.

Hastert, who will still stay on as leader of House Republicans, according to a House GOP official, had wanted former FBI director Louis Freeh to examine the page system and make recommendations on how to improve the program.
...

"All I know is what I hear and what I see," he said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune on the eve of the ethics meeting. "I saw Bill Clinton's adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along, If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then."

In fact, Morris, who has advised both parties, offered no independent knowledge of Democrats being aware of the Foley communications before they came out. He said on Fox News that an unidentified reporter told him a Democratic leader had known about the matter.

Hastert said "people funded by George Soros," a liberal billionaire who has plowed millions into this and other election campaigns, want to see the scandal blow up. And he warned that when the GOP "base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy."

Hastert alternately says he will and he won't resign now. I don't really care about that - if he goes, it is as it should be, if he doesn't, we win 35 seats instead of 20. No, what bothers me is that he doesn't care about the immorality of what's happened, and is completely focused on Republican's re-election opportunities. Indeed, the campaigns are the only consideration for Republicans, rather than any right or wrong.

Hastert had told the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday night that he had no thoughts of resigning. He blamed ABC News, which broke the Foley e-mail story, and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal.

"I think that (resignation) is exactly what our opponents would like to have happen -- that I'd fold my tent and others would fold our tent and they would sweep the House," Hastert told the newspaper.

The smear is having an effect. Some of the robots have bought the conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker, and more will of course follow. Republicans seem to have a proclivity for accepting that Democrats gaining politically, for whatever reason, is worse than sexual molestation by a Republican.

"My guess is that some liberal conspired with the liberal media to sit on the evidence for an extended period of time to wait until the revelation would have the most political impact," a reader posting as jbdjbd wrote on MSNBC.com's message board.

Similarly, a reader posting as Code3blog implied a conspiracy, criticizing "individuals, mostly smear teams in the employ of Democratic Party interests, [who] held criminally-acquired private communications that also, if their stated belief is true, were in violation of child protection laws."

Again, IF liberals conspired "with the media" to sit on the evidence (a rumor that, contrary to everything else we've seen, there is no evidence), they certainly did so for less time than the Republican leadership did.
And they didn't engage in sexual conversation with teenage boys from positions of responsibility. Mark Foley did.

Again again, IF individuals "in the employ of Democratic Party interests" (wtf does that mean?) held "criminally-acquired private communications", they DID SO FOR LESS TIME THAN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP DID.

BUT FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, THEY DIDN'T ENGAGE IN SEXUAL CONVERSATION WITH TEENAGE BOYS FROM A POSITION OF POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY - MARK FUCKING FOLEY DID. AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CONTINUES TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT THEY KNEW AND WHAT THEY FAILED TO DO ABOUT IT.

Mike!'s Very Bad Judgement

So I wrote the last entry, and while putting it together, the things that REALLY bother me were just sorta percolating.

First, there's this:  Mike! said he knew as soon as he saw the police lights that he shouldn't be driving. 

Wouldn't an adult know he shouldn't be driving before he finished his first drink? 

The fact that his line of logic still makes sense to him, at the age of 48, scares the shit out of me.  It tells me that, like a 5 year old (or any old adult Republican), he doesn't view something as wrong until you get caught.  Well, I wonder what that portends for his time in the Senate? 

Will he, perhaps, take illegal contributions in exchange for votes?  Will he accept sweetheart real estate deals in exchange for sweetheart defense appropriations?  Will he screw the American people to ensure power and money for himself?

I knew as soon as the FBI was searching my office that I shouldn't have taken that money.  And I regret it.  I knew when I saw the police pull their weapons that I shouldn't have killed that hooker.  And I regret it.

My daughter isn't old enough to drink (much less drive) by a long shot, but she knows full good and damn well that you don't drink and drive.  She knows this because A: her parents have drummed it into her skull, B: her parents have set that example and expectation, and C: her parents have drummed into her skull the concept of responsibility without oversight - the idea that wrong is wrong, no matter who sees you do it.  In other words, she will know she shouldn't be driving before she takes her first drink. 

Will she drink and drive?  I kind of assume so - she's a teenager, and some trouble is to be expected.  I hope she doesn't, and I think we've done (and continue to do) everything possible to prevent it.  But kids sometimes do really stupid things - but they stop doing them before they're 35.  Apparently, Mike! didn't have the advantage of understanding responsibility without oversight.  Apparently, he learns right from wrong only through punishment; the foresight of consequence seems to escape him.  That scares me a little.

Here's the other thing.  Mike! went on Dori Monson's Right-wing Pro-War Masturbatory Theater on 710-KIRO this afternoon, and talked abou the lies he's been caught in surrounding his DUI.  Here are the pertinent quotes that show how deeply flawed his character really is:

Monson asked McGavick if he still drinks. "I enjoy a drink. Drink too much and drive? No. No, I will not," McGavick said.

But Monson pressed him on that, asking if he drives after drinking at all.

"Social drinking is a part of my life," McGavick said.

But why not have a zero tolerance policy about drinking and driving?

"Because I don't have any risk that I won't follow what I know is right. So, I don't feel the need to do that. The law takes all this into account, Dori."

Two things: 

One:  When asked if he drives after drinking, he said "Social drinking is a part of my life."  He avoided the answer, which was "Yes."  Meaning he learned NOT ONE FUCKING THING from that event 13 years ago that was purportedly embarrassing to him and which he purports to regret.

Two:  He said he doesn't have a zero tolerance policy because he doesn't "have any risk that I won't follow what I know is right."  As I wrote above, he apparently didn't know it was wrong to drink and drive until after he'd been caught, so why would he think he doesn't have any risk of repeating the incident?  Clearly, what he "knows" is right encompasses any behavior, as long as he doesn't get caught.  So this is meaningless.  It also means he drives drunk. 

A bonus third:  "The law takes all this into account, Dori."  Translation:  I can drink and drive up to a .08 BAC.  I'm a miracle-man, who knows my own BAC.  As long as I "know" it's right, I won't get caught, because the law wouldn't punish a guy who knows what's right...right?

This is a man who has no accountability, at all, in his personal behavior.  He takes no responsibility for himself, and indeed, seems to see himself as above accountability, despite his fake Regrets!.  He isn't just a bad Senator waiting to happen (although as long as he keeps talking, he'll never be Senator), he's a danger to himself and those around him.

Finally, just because this guy has me so disgusted and I had missed this tidbit, I quote Goldy:

There was one other McGavick quote that really stuck in my craw, when he reiterated his regret that he “didn’t get to participate on a regular basis” in his son’s life.

I dunno, maybe I put too much weight in, you know, words… but “didn’t get to” doesn’t sound to me like an admission of responsibility. It wasn’t that McGavick “didn’t get to” participate in his son’s life. He chose not to.

Mike!:  Learn to take some responsibility for your behavior.  Lip service simply won't do - you have to truly be responsible for yourself.

Mike!'s Very Bad Week

Mike! seems to have got himself in some hot water last week.  He set things in motion Friday before last, when he launched his "Regrets!" tour, letting the world know his character was being moidalized and he was ashamed A) that he was a divorced non-custodial parent, and B) he was once 'cited' for DUI after running a yellow light and blowing a 0.17.

Oooops.

Let's put A aside first.  Nobody cares.  Nobody was going to care.  He knew that; he just needed something to add to his list of Regrets! to maintain the veneer of honesty and civility he's trying to foster.  There are literally tens of millions of divorced non-custodial parents in this country.  Only a retarded monkey candidate would bring this up as part of a "character attack", and Mike! knew it. 

But B.  Oh boy, B gives people something to work with.  Now, I advocated leaving B alone, because, like the divorce, nobody gives a shit, and attacking him for it just vindicates his wounded bleating about non-existent character attacks.  Nobody listened, natch, because...well, switzer's an idiot.  I also advocated focusing our energy on highlighting his misleading bullshit attack ad that he released the same day as his Regrets! tour began, which was clearly what he was trying to draw attention away from.

Luckily, people listened to me this time.  I'm sure all this was in the works anyway, but nothing came out until after I'd mentioned this to a Cantwell staffer, so I'll just tell myself it was my genius that led to their efforts (even if they put out their press release a day before my conversation with them), and you can just go to hell if you think I'm wrong.  A man's gotta convince himself of his worth sometimes. 

So the Cantwell campaign, Dems and MSM all put pressure on him to pull the bullshit attack ad, which he of course refused to do (Republicans, unlike Democrats, never admit mistakes or apologize - Mike!'s Regrets! tour not excepted {because it were a fake apology/admission}).  This provided several days of bad PR as he took beatings from all directions.  He's running another attack ad starting today, btw.  Just fyi. 

But then, lo and behold, exactly seven days after the Regret! was mentioned publicly, a reporter finally got their hands on the actual DUI arrest report.  That's right, Mike! wasn't cited, he was arrested.  Put in cuffs, taken to the hoosegow.  Turns out he was totally shitfaced (of course, .17 is a clue), failed not one, not two, but three field sobriety tests.  He also fell asleep during processing.  And he blew the .17 90 minutes after the initial arrest!  Oh, and there's the little matter that when asked how much he'd had to drink, he told the officer "Two, maybe three beers"...hic!. 

Now he admits he doesn't remember what happened after getting arrested - hoo boy!  It just keeps getting worse!

So, the issue here isn't that he was cataclysmically hammered.  It isn't his incredibly bad judgement.  It's that he lied about this when he was supposedly bearing all and being honest!  (Oh, there's the trifling matter that he knew he shouldn't be driving, not before he got in the car, not all the time but screwed up this time, but didn't realize he shouldn't be driving until he saw the police car's lights.  Classic Republican logic - it isn't that he shouldn't be doing it because it's wrong...it's that he shouldn't be doing it because he got caught.)

Now we hear that the race is listed as leaning Democratic retention, based on piss-poor fundraising, incredibly poor message management, bad poll numbers, and revelations that he's in cahoots with bad oil men from Alaska.  It's just one thing after another for the poor guy, a Very Bad Week indeed!

...the humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself

‘nuff said.

Delay out? OH. MAH. GAWD.

Wowie! Unlike what a big, strong Texas man would do, Tommy-boy looked at the poll numbers and then this little piggie went "Wee wee wee!" all the way to his condo in Alexandria, VA, where he's changing his legal address so he can become a lobbyist one year from his early retirement date in June.

That's right, this schmuck realized he was going to lose and basically told his district to screw themselves. And yet conservatives are climbing over each other to fawn over his 'integrity' and 'strong leadership'. Delay himself claims it's all the liberals' fault (because what with being out of power in every branch of the government, those liberals are always beating down the poor, downtrodden Republican majority leadership and their hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions. Poor Tom.), and that he's never broken a law, nor even violated House ethics rules (this, of course, despite his indictment and multiple...citations? by the House Ethics Committee back when it used to meet). Aawwwwwwwww.

Anyhoo, this is an exciting day; hoist your frosty malted beverage of choice to the sky and say "One down, 14 to go!", and enjoy yourself before the next Republican atrocity hits the newswires.

Maybe Tommy needs to order himself a Green Prosperity Handkerchief...

Abramoff goes down!

Just a short note of celebration – Abramoff is sentenced to five years! The down side, of course, is that all this was coordinated and timed so that this story will die out long before the November elections. Republicans, unlike Democrats, will gladly manipulate even their own shame, guilt and jail time so as to better benefit their Party at election time. Democrats will go down fighting when they’re busted being corrupt asses, no matter how it affects the Party. Buncha schmucks, all of ‘em.