FBIHOP

Other International News- Africa

2006-12-18T13:07:00.000-07:00

Terrorism is difficult. Its especially difficult when you its being waged halfway across the world, and multiple actors make any progress near impossible at best.
This is the case in Somalia. The U.S. supposedly wants a peacekeeping force in the region, but others think it will do nothing but inflame the tensions if it is not agreed upon by both parties.
Why do I bother to bring this up? Two reasons: first, the fact that all news around the world is important, and two, that this particular topic shows the worlds unwillingness to cross us when it comes to terrorism.

One EU official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said some member states shared Brussels’ misgivings but Security Council permanent members Britain and France were reluctant to oppose Washington openly because of the “terrorism issue”.

I must emphasis that the article does make clear that the US officials interviewed denyed wanting to mount an independent peacekeeping force. So a lot of this is hearsay at best.

But its still important to sit back and see how other countries handle the US when it comes to terrorism worldwide. I would argue that the Iraq war has crippled America's ability to work with other countries on fighting terrorism (don't get me started on the methods used to fight terrorism) .
Hopefully the American people can see what is happening, and demand that America no longer tries to go it alone on terrorism, and instead collaborate with others to complete our common goal.

Conservatives Attack Keith Ellison's Religion

2006-12-01T09:40:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are all about religion. Unless it's a different religion than Christianity; then they attack you.

Far-right Jewish talk show host Dennis Prager attacked Keith Ellison for using the Koran in his swearing in process. Prager says by doing so, Ellison will, "undermine[] American civilization." As if this isn't offensive enough, Prager goes on to denigrate the Koran itself. "America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is," the blowhard writes, as if the Koran is some Sci-Fi novel that Ellison happens to like.

Of course, there are some problems with Prager's baseless attacks. From TPM Cafe:

The fact is that Members of Congress do not hold any book when they are sworn in. They simply gather in the House chamber and are sworn in en masse. Prager is referring to the private non-official swearing in ceremonies some Members stage essentially as a photo op.

Oh, but there is so much more from Prager, who obviously does not understand the seperation of church and state.

In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

So wait -- Prager is saying you are free to practice your religion as long as you keep it away from everyone else. But for official events, you must use the tome of Christianity. Has Prager ever read the Constitution -- the real writing that members of Congress should be concerned with?

Mark Daniels, a Christian, Ohio State University graduate with a Master's Degree in divinity, writes this on his blog:

irst, there's a little thing we Christians call "the Golden Rule." It was enunciated by Jesus, Who we believe is God as well as human, meaning that His word carries more than a little weight with us.

Jesus said, "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you..." (Matthew 7:12) As a Christian, I would be deeply resentful if I were forced to use a Koran when I swore an oath of office. Constitutional issues aside for a moment, no person should be forced to use the religious symbols or texts of any faith against their wills.

Christianity insists that no one can come to faith in Christ or be under the authority of God's Word by anything other than voluntary means. For Christians, faith in God is about having a trusting relationship with Christ, not adhering to some values system.

This is the Christian argument against forcing someone to use a Bible even if they do not believe that it is the Word of God. But there is also the Constitutional argument. Again, from Mr. Daniels:

[T]he Constitution clearly states, in Article 6, that there can be no religious test for holding office.

Prager ignores that pesky Constitution, saying basically the opposite of what the Constitution says:

If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

That sounds like a religious test for holding office to me...

I could go on all day with Prager's baseless, horrible attacks on Ellison and Islam in general. I mean, the man compared the Koran to "Mein Kampf"!

Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?

Why does Town Hall let this joker continue to write for them?

John F Kennedy (May 29, 1917–November 22, 1963)

2006-11-22T09:51:00.000-07:00

Forty-three years ago today, John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. This is one of those moments that everyone remembers exactly where they were, exactly what they were doing when they heard the horrible news.

I was not alive then; I was still twenty years away from coming into this world. But it is still one of those events I have seen a thousand times on video, via the infamous Zapruder film.

I was looking around at different stories, and found this:

When a president is struck down by violent means, a blow is struck at the vital organs, at the nationhood, of the United States. The tragedy of the Kennedy family is a tragedy in all American homes.

The loss of the individual means as much as the blow that has been struck at the nation. John F. Kennedy studied the history and institutions of his nation throughout his life, seeking always to add to his knowledge and, most important, to apply this knowledge to public service. His speeches often echoed the words of former presidents, not out of feeble imitation as some charged, but out of deep respect for the men who preceded him in molding the office of president into the most important job in the world.

Who knows what would have happened with the rest of the Kennedy presidency? What we do know is that 43 years ago today was a horrible day in American history.

FOX Shows its Pro-Business Colors

2006-11-17T11:30:00.000-07:00

I find it odd to find an article with such a sypathetic headline: "The Playstation 3 is Expensive for Sony, Too."
But of course since it was from Fox News, its not all that odd. I just found it was an odd tack to take when talking about the new video game system.
It could be dismissed as just a new angle on the story, but i find it odd that FOX is the one essentially telling the corporate side. Awesome.

Steny Hoyer New Majority Leader

2006-11-16T11:06:00.000-07:00

In the end, it wasn't really all that close. From Talking Points Memo:

Hoyer prevails, 149-86 . . .

It's done.

Steny Hoyer (D-MD) will be the new House majority leader, holding off an upset bid by John Murtha (D-PA), who had the backing of Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi.

The final tally was not far off from predictions. Hoyer had long been the favorite. Until Pelosi's active involvement on behalf of Murtha this week, there wasn't much doubt about the outcome. But Pelosi's last-minute aggressive advocacy for Murtha did throw the race into turmoil.

Meanwhile, AmericaBlog throws in their two cents.

These intra-caucus battles are the worst kinds of elections. They get very intense and very personal. But, it's over now. The Democrats have to move on to the real agenda now. There's a lot of work to do. And, the Republicans are sharpening their knives. It's going to get ugly, so we'll need unity.

Remember, we won. This was an election for Majority Leader. Our side is in power. Nancy Pelosi is going to be the Speaker. They've got their leadership team in place. Now, they have to produce.

Meanwhile, Republicans, eager to find anything wrong with the Democrats, have gleefully said that this is a testament to soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's inability to lead.

Besides the fact that many Republicans saying this use the veiled assertion that it is Pelosi's gender that shows she cannot lead, this is ludicrous. Pelosi's backing of Murtha was more of a show of loyalty than anything that would truly change the vote.

The detestable Bob Novack writes about Jack Murtha.

Never before during his 32 low-profile years in the House could anyone have imagined Murtha seeking any leadership role. He has been a backroom distributor of federal pork who disdained public exposure, and he was in the headlines only as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 Abscam scandal.

The only reason people believed that Murtha had any real shot is that the media decided to make it out like the race would be close. Steny Hoyer might even be able to take out Nancy Pelosi in a secret-ballot session.

He was the right choice, and the Democrats made the right decision.

Meanwhile, the Republicans resuscitate[d] racist Lott for a leadership position. Way to give up on getting the black vote, Republicans.

Just About Sums It Up

2006-11-15T10:54:00.000-07:00

Olbermann Ratings Up, O'Reilly's Down Since Election Day

2006-11-13T15:30:00.000-07:00

Countdown with Keith Olbermann is receiving significantly higher ratings since election day, and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's are down since the same day.

Media Matters has the transcript from the November 10 edition of Countdown.

OLBERMANN: Its masterminds would argue just how connected or how intentional, but even they would agree the fates of Fox News Channel and the Republican Party are inextricably intertwined. So, guess who else is having a crappy week? Not counting Tuesday's election coverage, Bill Orally's ratings are down another five percent just from last week. Countdown's, coincidentally, are up another 32 percent. A look at that clichéd but coveted 25-to-54-year-old audience from last night: The O'Really Factor, 405,000; Countdown, 321,000; CNN, 210,000; Nancy "I Know What You Did Last Summer" Grace, 200,000. That's right -- we were doing 79 percent of Bill O's business. And it was worse the hour before at 7 o'clock. Wolf Blitzer, 327,000; Chris Matthews, 302,000; Shepard Smith on Fox, 262,000. Fox, third place. He will be punished severely!

I think the most telling point is "the fates of Fox News Channel and the Republican Party are inextricably intertwined." Fox News has been an important ally and megaphone of Republican talking points. If Fox News' ratings go down, the Republican party will suffer. After the Republican party went down in flames Tuesday night, Fox News suffered.

Maybe people are finally growing tired of the 'news' from Fox News' perspective.

And speaking of Olbermann, there is an arrest in the white powder case. Don't remember this? Read my post here.

Olbermann wasn't the only public figure targeted.

According to a federal search warrant, among those who received threatening letters were Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show;" talk show host David Letterman; Keith Olbermann of MSNBC; Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who is set to become Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, both Democrats.

Ed Bradley

2006-11-09T13:14:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard already, Ed Bradley, one of the stellar reporters on CBS's 60 Minutes, has passed away today at the age of 65, from Leukemia.

It brought a bit of a tear to my eye to hear that such a great journalist is no longer with us. No matter what you think about 60 Minutes, you cannot argue that Bradley was a great interviewer.

Showing my age (or lack of it), I didn't know until it was brought up today on NPR's Day to Day program that he helped shake racial barriers in the news world.
In an interview with former 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt, Hewitt described how he introduced Bradley to a crowd:

"I said to the crowd: 'I hired Ed Bradley because he's a member of a minority,'" Hewitt says. And after a pause, hearing some in the crowd gasp in surprise, Hewitt went on: "He's a great gentleman and a great reporter. And if that ain't a minority, I don't know one."

Over on Bradley's network, CBS has done a good job of putting some of his videos up, creating a very good overview of his career, and paying tribute to a truly great journalist whose great (albeit cut short) career who gives hope to all of us who still hope to make it big into the area of journalism. And he gives hope to us all that are hardworking and willing to learn:

I think what I learned about journalism I learned in the school of hard knocks. In my first job, I learned how to do this. I never had a course in journalism, so I had to learn it by doing it. And sometimes I think that's the best way to do it.

Pat Tillman Death Inquiry Surprises

2006-11-09T12:01:00.000-07:00

We all know the story of Pat Tillman by now. The former Arizona Cardinals star joined the elite Army Rangers to fight the war on terror. He served two terms, and was killed in Afghanistan.

The President and the Republicans used his death as a way to boost their approval ratings -- we all fell for it. Initially. Then word came out that it wasn't enemy combatants that killed Tillman -- instead, it was friendly fire.

And an investigation into the matter? Shunted. But things are starting to leak from the investigation now.

From the AP:

They walked the landscape with surviving witnesses. They found a rock stained with the blood of the victim. They re-enacted the killings - here the U.S. Army Rangers swept through the canyon in their Humvee, blasting away; here the doomed man waved his arms, pleading for recognition as a friend, not an enemy.
"Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" he shouted, again and again.
The latest inquiry into Tillman's death by friendly fire should end next month; authorities have said they intend to release to the public only a synopsis of their report. But The Associated Press has combed through the results of 2 1/4 years of investigations - reviewed thousands of pages of internal Army documents, interviewed dozens of people familiar with the case - and uncovered some startling findings.

More startling than the fact that Tillman was screaming at them "I'm Pat (expletive) Tillman!" while being shot to death by his own troops?

Yes.

One of the four shooters, Staff Sgt. Trevor Alders, had recently had PRK laser eye surgery. Although he could see two sets of hands "straight up," his vision was "hazy," he said. In the absence of "friendly identifying signals," he assumed Tillman and an allied Afghan who also was killed were enemy.
Another, Spc. Steve Elliott, said he was "excited" by the sight of rifles, muzzle flashes and "shapes." A third, Spc. Stephen Ashpole, said he saw two figures, and just aimed where everyone else was shooting.
Squad leader Sgt. Greg Baker had 20-20 eyesight, but claimed he had "tunnel vision." Amid the chaos and pumping adrenaline, Baker said he hammered what he thought was the enemy but was actually the allied Afghan fighter next to Tillman who was trying to give the Americans cover: "I zoned in on him because I could see the AK-47. I focused only on him."
All four failed to identify their targets before firing, a direct violation of the fire discipline techniques drilled into every soldier.

Remember, this is an elite force, the Army Rangers.

They didn't have enough food or water to stay alert, according to the AP.

Tillman's platoon had nearly run out of vital supplies, according to one of the shooters. They were down to the water in their Camelbak drinking pouches, and were forced to buy a goat from a local vendor. Delayed supply flights contributed to the hunger, fatigue and possibly misjudgments by platoon members.

I'm not sure if they were down because they were out for so long or because this was messed up from higher up.

I recommend reading the entire article, it is a very good one.

Any comments on this?

Update ABC News poses some questions in the killing

Are the Rangers who fired at Tillman and their other fellow soldiers guilty of criminal wrongdoing? Why did the Army glorify Tillman's actions on the battlefield during the firefight in which he was killed? Did the Army purposely conceal that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire? If so, why? And did the Army consciously puff up the Tillman story by awarding the dead soldier a Silver Star, its third-highest distinction for combat valor, to go along with his Purple Heart and a posthumous promotion from specialist to corporal?

Not particularly relevant, but I find it odd that many of the "key documents" obtained by ABC News were actually given to ESPN.com. Not exactly your first choice for hard news.

CBS' Ed Bradley Dies at 65

2006-11-09T11:31:00.000-07:00

Ed Bradley, a veteran 60 Minutes reporter, passed away from complications from leukemia earlier today. He was 65.

CBS News:

Bradley joined the staff of the venerable news magazine 26 years ago. His consummate skills as a broadcast journalist and his distinctive body of work were recognized with numerous awards, including 19 Emmys, the latest for a segment that reported the reopening of the 50-year-old racial murder case of Emmett Till.

I have to admit that I did not know Bradley was ill; in his interview with Tiger Woods a couple weeks back, I didn't notice him looking ill.

Bradley is considered one of the greatest broadcast journalists of his, and, indeed, any era. I have yet to find anyone with anything to say bad about Bradley. He will be missed.

A Look Back at 2004 Elections

2006-11-08T22:56:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd take a look back at my liveblogging from two years ago on my old, now defunct blog. I spent pretty much all my time talking about the Presidential election, I didn't even care about Congressional stuff.

But I'm going to give you some of my choice quotes (since my old blog is now defunct). All times are Mountain.

8:26
BBC has 196-112. Nerves going crazy, stomach getting butterflies. NBC says 193-112, and Obama is speaking his acceptance speech on MSNBC. Kerry hasn't taken a state in a while. I know that it's all going to plan as of yet, but I'm still nervous. Bush is ahead in the polls in Florida and Ohio. Looks like Kerry will take Pennsylvania--but is it too little too late?

I was starting to sense it slipping through our fingers... my jokes from earlier in the night were turning to desperation. And a few minutes later, I pretty much gave up.

8:33
Bush is going to take Florida. I'm gonna call it here even if none of the networks will: Bush ahead by 5% with 85% of the precincts reporting and the big Democratic counties are in. One of the MSNBC analysts says its the Jewish vote going to Bush from Kerry. Damn. It's over.

Assuming Bush takes Florida and Kerry takes Pennsylvania, Kerry needs Ohio AND Wisconsin or Iowa and New Mexico.

I was going for Kerry hitting a 70-footer at the buzzer, off the glass to win, to use a basketball analogy.

8:59
It looks like it's all up to Ohio. It looks like Bush has Wisconsin. That's not good, more outs for Kerry gone.

From a basketball to a poker analogy! "More outs," heh. At least I can look back at this with some sort of humor. Though Bush is still our President...

The next morning...because somehow, I lost the 10pm-midnight posts. Oh well.

10:13 am
11 states banned gay marriage. Welcome to America, the land of the free! Mississippi shot it down with a SIX TO ONE margin. Damn. More bad news on election day. At this point, it seems like Obama in Illinois is the only good news for Democrats.

I can't remember anything else good from that night except for Obama. If he runs in '08 for Pres, I can't think of anyone I'd support over him right now. He would have a very good chance at winning.

12:04
Last week, I thought that seeing the interview with the losing manager in the World Series was the saddest thing I'd see all year on TV. Instead, it is Kerry giving his concession speech.

Still one of the angriest/most depressing moments of my life.

On to the night...

9:28
No tanks in the streets yet...that's a good sign I guess. We haven't invaded a foreign country yet...that is also good.

And the next day...

6:55
Bush said that there will be some changes on his cabinet and that he will work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents for domestic and foreign issues. I trust him on the cabinet thing, but I don't know about working with everyone on his domestic and foreign issues; he hasn't exactly proven himself to be a "uniter" and not a "divider" in the past four years.

Yeah, that whole cabinet shakeup was a sham. And as for uniting the country? The only thing we are united in is our low opinion of Bush.

6:55
Bush said that there will be some changes on his cabinet and that he will work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents for domestic and foreign issues. I trust him on the cabinet thing, but I don't know about working with everyone on his domestic and foreign issues; he hasn't exactly proven himself to be a "uniter" and not a "divider" in the past four years.

Ah, to be young and think a mixtape can fix things...

November 5
6:39
So what do all the other countries think about the election?

What a difference two years make, huh?

What were your impressions on that most unholy of days?

Why Did Rumsfeld Resign Now?

2006-11-08T21:52:00.000-07:00

By now, we all know that Donald Rumsfeld resigned.

So the question now becomes why. OK, not so much why he resigned, but at the timing of the *wink* resignation. Because it's hard to fathom why the immensely unpopular Secretary of Defense would resign the day after the Republicans lost both Houses and six governorships.

One thing this election proved is that Karl Rove is no evil genius. He is, perhaps, a one-trick pony. While his tactics saved a few seats, they also laid the groundwork for the epic Democratic wave.

One huge tactical mistake was leaving Rumsfeld in his Sec of Defense position throughout the election season. Rumsfeld was a lightning rod for anti-Iraq criticism. So, again, why now?

Perhaps they felt that if Rumsfeld stepped down in the leadup to the elections, it would look like a desperate ploy. I can see them debating whether to leave Rumsfeld in charge until after the elections or not -- then the proximity to the elections made the decision for them. A Rumsfeld election any time in the last week would be seen for what it would be -- a desperate ploy.

That is one possible reason. The others are more concerned with Bush himself than the GOP as a whole.

Perhaps Bush realized he would be a lame duck President with a hostile (yes, hostile -- Dems aren't happy with the way he's run campaigns or the country lately) and needed something to appease the new Democratic majority.

He can't get rid of his boy wonder, the aforementioned Rove, so he got rid of someone who had been facing increasing pressure to leave.

Another even more cynical reason is Bush wanted to show that he is independent. Rumsfeld is part of the old guard, one of Bush's longest advisers; this could be the first "resignation" in a series of many among his inner circle.

Perhaps Bush is worried about his legacy. Bill Clinton certainly was worried about his legacy in his final years. So Bush wanted to do something to boost his approval ratings. And what better than to have one of the more controversial figures in the administration step down (well, winning the elections would have helped more, but you catch my drift).

Or maybe Rummy was always on the way out and he had to do it now so his new nominee could get in. The new nominee, former CIA chief Robert Gate, was close with Papa Bush. Read it in a Daily Kos recommended article from earlier today.

Are any of these right? Probably not. But I -- and many around the country -- still wonder: why now?

Post Election Republican Spin

2006-11-08T17:27:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the GOP received a Tyler-Brayton-like knee in the groin from the Democrats. OK, that's a bad analogy - the victory was more like a punch in the face than a cheap shot - but I felt like putting that video up.

But the GOP were on the receiving end of a historic ass kicking, the type of which we haven't seen in a decade. They lost the House and very probably lost the Senate. There is nothing they can do today (besides recounts or legal challenges in certain races), so what do they do? Spin the victory.

It began, actually, before the election. Super-right-wing-racist super-pundit Ann Coulter tried to convince the sheep that anything less than a 60 seat gain in the House and a twelve seat gain in the Senate would be considered failure. This is, of course, ludicrous.

The Democrats held 258 seats in 1994 -- there was much more dead weight to be lost. Even with the 54-seat swing in the House, the Republicans still had 230 seats. Compare this with a current 29-seat gain, where Democrats have 229 seats. And remember, there are still 10 undecided seats - three will probably go for Dems for 232 Democratic House seats. In other words, a similar outcome to 1994.

If there was more Republican dead weight for the Republicans, the gains by Dems would have been worse, but the final numbers similar.

Of course, some pre-election spin proved to be ... wrong. Very wrong.

Another meme that began before the election but has survived, and, indeed, flourished in the post-election spin is that the Democrats lucked into the victory. From Robert Novak's newsletter the Evans-Novak Political Report (link only good for a week):

Democrats capitalized on a mood that was not so much pro-Democrat as anti-Republican.

This is, to put it in a Penn and Teller sort of talk, bullshit.

Republicans will not give the Democrats any sort of credit at all. Yes, a strong anti-Republican sentiment fueled races -- but even the biggest anti-Republican sentiment in the world would not have helped had Democrats not had viable candidates to challenge Republicans. In other words, Dean's 50-state strategy ripened much before many believed it would.

So what did the 50-state strategy do? It forced Republicans to spread their money thin. Instead of defending certain key seats, the national GOP was forced to spread money thin to races that were tier 3 or worse earlier in the year.

They give Republicans sole credit for the 1994 Red-washing of Congress, ignoring other factors that contributed. Of course, they ignore everything but the other factors in 2006.

Another piece of spin emanating from Republicans is that this is actually good for Republicans. That they had to "throw them" out. After all, these guys aren't true conservatives!

Of course, they aren't -- Glenn Greenwald had an excellent post on this in February.

Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one's personal loyalty to George Bush.

Many of us knew this before Greenwald wrote this post. There is nothing fiscally conservative about increasing governmental spending or making bureaucracy an art form (one art form that they approve of funding). Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.

But back to the "good for Republicans" talking point. This is not good for Republicans. It is only giving the Democrats a chance to prove themselves. It's like the bad guy in a James Bond movie giving Bond a chance to escape -- it always comes back to haunt the evil genius. (I like to think of the Bond in this analogy as Sean Connery)

Perhaps my favorite thing I have heard today is the idea that Republicans saw this coming months, nay, years ago. Sean Hannity said that he saw this coming a year and a half ago on his show today!

A quick aside -- normally, I can't stand listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity on the radio. But it was very fun to do so today. And, as many of you have read, I'm not alone.

I don't know about you, but even I, a proud Democrat and progressive, did not see a 30-seat swing in the House and slight control of the Senate coming a year and a half ago. This is why I think 2008 projections are only slightly more useful than ranking 12 year old basketball players.

If we've learned one thing from this election, we've learned that things can change very quickly.

I know these aren't all the justifications and obfuscations of the election results. What are some of your favorite Republican talking points after getting their asses handed to them?

Thanks to Everyone Who Helped

2006-11-08T14:27:00.000-07:00

I'd just like to thank everyone who helped out last night with my liveblogging, both here and at New Mexico FBIHOP.

First of all, thanks to Danny in Socorro for keeping me updated on every House and Senate update all the way through 9:00 pm. I also blame Danny for any mistakes in the results.

Also, to everyone who text messaged me, IMed me or e-mailed, thank you, I couldn't have done it without you.

Any time I need to liveblog, I'll know I'm in good hands with my readers.

RUMSFELD RESIGNS

2006-11-08T11:06:00.000-07:00

Can it get any worse for the GOP? Now the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is resigning.

After the election, it seemed as if it were only a question of when, not if. Last night, in my liveblogging at NM FBIHOP, I wrote this:

Richardson is on KUNM now. He was asked what Bush should do about Donald Rumsfeld. "He should fire Rumsfeld."

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.

Word came a day after the Democratic gains in the election, in which Rumsfeld was a focus of much of the criticism of the Iraq war. Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.

I have text messages coming in fast and furious from my contacts.

Looks like former CIA director Robert Gates may replace Rummy. And yes, Wikipedia beat me to it. Damn them!

Montana to Tester!

2006-11-08T10:55:00.000-07:00

The AP has called Montana for Tester.

Democrats erased the Republican Senate majority Wednesday with a cliffhanger victory in Montana, hours after taking control of the House in an election that delivered a rebuke of GOP scandal, the Iraq war and the course of a nation.

Now all we need is Webb for this near-perfect election to become even more near-perfect.

Full List of Pickups From Election Day

2006-11-08T10:32:00.000-07:00

From Daily Kos:

Arizona's 5th: Harry Mitchell (D) 51 percent, J.D. Hayworth (R) 46 percent

California's 11th: Jerry McNerney (D) 53 percent, Richard Pombo (R) 47 percent

Connecticut's 5th: Chris Murphy (D) 56 percent, Nancy Johnson (R) 44 percent

Florida's 22nd: Ron Klein (D) 51 percent, Clay Shaw (R) 47 percent

Indiana's 2nd: Joe Donnelly (D) 54 percent, Chris Chocola (R) 46 percent

Indiana's 8th: Brad Ellsworth (D) 61 percent, John Hostettler (R) 39 percent

Indiana's 9th: Baron Hill (D) 49 percent, Mike Sodrel (R) 46 percent

Iowa's 2nd: Dave Loebsack (D) 51 percent, Jim Leach (R) 49 percent

Kansas' 2nd: Nancy Boyda (D) 51 percent, Jim Ryun (R) 47 percent

Kentucky's 3rd: John Yarmuth (D) 51 percent, Anne Northup (R) 48 percent

Minnesota's 1st: Tim Walz (D) 53 percent, Gil Gutknecht (R) 47 percent

New Hampshire's 1st: Carol Shea-Porter (D) 51 percent, Jeb Bradley (R) 49 percent

New Hampshire's 2nd: Paul Hodes (D) 53 percent, Charles Bass (R) 45 percent

New York's 19th: John Hall (D) 51 percent, Sue Kelly (R) 49 percent

New York's 20th: Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 53 percent, John Sweeney (R) 47 percent

North Carolina's 11th: Heath Shuler (D) 54 percent, Charles Taylor (R) 46 percent

Pennsylvania's 4th: Jason Altmire (D) 52 percent, Melissa Hart (R) 48 percent

Pennsylvania's 7th: Joe Sestak (D) 56 percent, Curt Weldon (R) 44 percent

Pennsylvania's 10th: Chris Carney (D) 53 percent, Don Sherwood (R) 47 percent

GOP open seats lost:

Arizona's 8th: Gabrielle Giffords (D) 54 percent, Randy Graf (R) 42 percent

Florida's 16th: Tim Mahoney (D) 49 percent, Mark Foley/Joe Negron (R) 48 percent

Colorado's 7th: Ed Perlmutter (D) 55 percent, Rick O'Donnell (R) 42 percent

Iowa's 1st: Bruce Braley (D) 55 percent, Mike Whalen (R) 43 percent

New York's 24th: Michael Arcuri (D) 54 percent, Ray Meier (R) 45 percent

Ohio's 18th: Zack Space (D) 62 percent, Joy Padgett (R) 38 percent

Texas' 22nd: Nick Lampson (D) 52 percent, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R) 42 percent

Wisconsin's 8th: Steve Kagen (D) 51 percent, John Gard (R) 49 percent

Note: I think one race is missing, I count 27, and there are 28 seats.

Republican pickups:

Amazing Victory by Dems

2006-11-08T09:02:00.000-07:00

I just had another post eaten by the internets.

Quick update:

28 House pickups by Dems, three more possible pickups, expect two of those to go for the Dems for a 30-seat pickup in a tidal wave.

In the Senate, it's four pickups, with two seats still counting ballots. Montana looks good for Democrats and Tester, while Webb leads by less than 10,000 votes in Virginia, where over 2.2 million ballots were cast. Expect a recount.

More analysis later.

Live Blogging: 11pm

2006-11-07T23:07:00.000-07:00

11:03
Powering into the 11:00 hour.

McCaskill powers into the lead, with 80% reporting, holding a 14,000 vote lead.

No word on Webb/Allen.

It's looking good for Tester in Montana -- up 8 points with 38% reporting.

11:09
24 House seats for Dems now. Still a couple more that can swing our way. My prediction is shot, but I couldn't be happier. So much for those (few) Republicans who predicted a Republican victory.

11:58
Yes, I'm still here.

26 seats in the House for Dems.

Webb is ahead by 6000 votes
McCaskill is ahead by 20,000+
Tester has been ahead all night, and now leads by 10,000 votes

12:09
NBC calls McCaskill!

That's the word. Will the Dems take BOTH houses?

12:10
CNN calls McCaskill.

Liveblogging: 10pm MST, 12am EST

2006-11-07T22:14:00.000-07:00

Last hour's post

10:07
I was listening to Richardson speak. The crowd is energized, waving signs, cheering on our Governor.

Now it's 21 seats for the Dems in the House. The 30 seat prediction that Udall had earlier is now looking more and more like reality.

10:29
Another set of Hot House Race Results from Daily Kos.

Arizona 05: Mitchell (pickup)
Arizona 08: Giffords (pickup)
Connecticut 05: Murphy (pickup)
Florida 16: Mahone (pickup)
Florida 22: Klein (pickup)
Illinois 08: Bean (hold)
Indiana 02: Donnelly (pickup)
Indiana 08: Ellsworth (pickup)
Indiana 09: Hill (pickup)
Iowa 01: Braley (pickup)
Iowa 03: Boswell (hold)
Kansas 02: Boyda (pickup)
Kentucky 03: Yarmuth (pickup)
New Hampshire 01: Shea-Porter (pickup)
New Hampshire 02: Hodes (pickup)
New York 20: Gillibrand (pickup)
New York 24: Arcuri (pickup)
North Carolina 11: Shuler (pickup)
Ohio 18: Space (pickup)
Pennsylvania 04: Altmire (pickup)
Pennsylvania 07: Sestak (pickup)
Pennsylvania 10: Carney (pickup)
Vermont AL: Welch (hold)

10:57
Did I say the Allen race was over?

Apparently not. Fox News has Webb ahead with 100% reporting. CNN has Webb 51-49 with 99% reporting, and NY Times has the same as CNN.

Liveblogging: 9pm MST, 11pm EST

2006-11-07T21:12:00.000-07:00

9:05
More results from Danny in Socorro, NM.

Connecticut to Murphy
Florida to Mahoney
Florida to Klein
Ellsworth took an indiana seat
Hill took an indiana seat
Yarmuth in Kentucky
Hodes in New Hampshire
Gillibrand in NY
Shuter in NC
Wilson in Ohio
Sestak in Pennsylvania
Carney in Penn

9:16
We just won the House, and the Richardson party is going insane. There is a lot of cheering going on.

From now on, it's just gravy. I think they are playing "We Are Family". I imagine much dancing.

9:22
Daily Kos called House races.

Connecticut 05: Murphy (pickup)
Florida 16: Mahone (pickup)
Florida 22: Klein (pickup)
Indiana 02: Donnelly (pickup)
Indiana 08: Ellsworth (pickup)
Indiana 09: Hill (pickup)
Kentucky 03: Yarmuth (pickup)
New Hampshire 01: Shea-Porter (pickup)
New Hampshire 02: Hodes (pickup)
New York 10: Gillibrand (pickup)
New York 24: Arcuri (pickup)
North Carolina 11: Shuler (pickup)
Ohio 18: Space (pickup)
Pennsylvania 07: Sestak (pickup)
Pennsylvania 10: Carney (pickup)
Vermont AL: Welch (hold)

I love seeing all those pickups. And I'm not talking about Toyotas.

9:38
It looks like the House is well in hand, and I stand by my prediction that Dems will not pick up the Senate -- barely.

I'm concentrating on the NM-01 race between Heather Wilson and Patricia Madrid over at New Mexico FBIHOP. Join me there for all the latest.

9:40
CNN just called it for Allen in Virginia. Somehow, he survived the Macaca slur.

9:44
According to CNN, here are the numbers so far.

Repubs lost three seats, Dems gained three in Senate

Repubs lost 18 in the House, Dems have gained 19. And it's just getting worse.

Repubs lost 6 governors, Dems have gained 6.

Is the tidal wave growing?

Liveblogging: 8:15 pm

2006-11-07T20:19:00.000-07:00

Last hour's post

8:15
CNN has exit polls int he Webb Allen going to Allen 55-45. But these are exit polls, and are not accurate. So I'm just posting this so we can see how well this comes out tomorrow.

8:14
Yes, I went back in time. My block on my computer is off. Sue me.

Dems have swept the competitive Indiana races. The only downer for the Dems so far is the Lieberman victory.

Liveblogging: 7pm MST, 9pm EST

2006-11-07T19:42:00.000-07:00

7:48
Oh yeah, and Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Republican fell to Sheldon Whitehouse because of the war in Iraq. 72% of those who were not satisfied with Iraq voted for Whitehouse. Congrats, Whitehouse.

More from Danny:

Kentucky - Young (Dem) takes house seat
Indianna- Donnelly (dem) picks up house seat
Indiana - Ellsworth (dem) picks up house seat

7:46
OK, I'm back. I'm now at the Hotel Albuquerque Downtown in the press room. I feel a bit honored, but I'm also one of the first ones here, kind of intimidated.

Here is everything that my correspondent Danny from Socorro, NM sent me (any typos his, not mine) 7:06 pm

ABC news calls, PA to the Democrats, Casey, pick up senate seat

7:10 pm

Lieberman beat Lamont

That's a bad one. I was really hoping that enough Dems would go away from Lieberman to give it to Lamont, but it wasn't even close. Called before 10 ET.

And he told me about Cardin defeating Steele in Maryland. That's another Dem pickup; three down, three to go. But from the numbers I've seen on CNN, it's not looking good for Howard Ford.

7:54
Here are the "called hot races" according to Kos.

Connecticut: Joe Lieberman
Maryland: Ben Cardin (hold)
Michigan: Debbie Stabenow (hold)
Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar (hold)
New Jersey: Bob Menendez (hold)
Ohio: Sherrod Brown (pickup)
Pennsylvania: Bob Casey (pickup)
Rhode Island: Whitehouse (pickup)

Kos has been a lot more conservative in calling the races than the networks. Perhaps they haven't learned their lesson from 2000.

Called hot House races, again Kos.

Indiana 02: Donnelly (pickup)
Indiana 08: Ellsworth (pickup)
Kentucky 03: Yarmuth (pickup)
Vermont AL: Welch (hold)

8:01
In governor's news, NBC and CNN have both called it for Rick Perry. The siphoning off of votes by Friedman was just too much for Bell to overcome.

I'm keeping this post up til 8:30

8:02
108-88 in the House for the Dems so far. Not a single Democratic incumbent House member has been defeated. Repubs are bleeding seats.

8:09
Everything looks like it might come down to Webb and Allen, and according to Danny, they're battling it out: 50-49 Allen. 88% of precincts reporting. This may go deep into the night.

On to the next post.

Liveblogging: 6pm MST, 8pm EST

2006-11-07T18:09:00.000-07:00

Welcome to hour #2. For hour number one, go here.

6:03

Two new calls in the Senate: Ted Kennedy (D) in Massachusetts (yes, I know how to spell it without spell check) and Sherrod Brown in Ohio (a Dem pickup!)

Welcome to the Senate, Mr. Brown.

In Maine, Olympia Snowe has taken it. And Nelson took it in Florida.

6:05
Wow, things are coming in fast, a little too fast for my dial up connection, but I want to thank my pal Danny from Socorro for keeping me updated.

And Nelson in Florida is, of course, Bill Nelson and the opponent of Katharine Harris. Polls are now closed in 25 states.

John Lynch kept the governorship in New Hampshire.

Robert Casey in Pennsylvania is expected to win easily.

From Danny:

connecticut, Rell - republican
Massachusetts - Patrick - dem - governor
rendell - Pennsylvania - dem - gov
rendell - Pennsylvania - dem - gov

"They're calling them faster than they can type!"

6:10
That last one was supposed to say:
Bredesen - governor - dem - TN

6:13
In, Illinois, Rod Blagojevich (D) holds his position as governor.

6:15
It should be noted that while things have been coming in fast and furious like Vin Diesel, there haven't been any surprises. And there haven't been any of the 'toss-up' races called yet.

These either just closed, or there is still voting going on. So everything I'm telling you right now -- it's not anything super important.

6:19
So far what we have in the Senate:

VT - Bernie Sanders (D)
MA - Kennedy (D)
FL - Nelson (D)
WV - Byrd (D)
IA - Lugar (R)

6:24
Last one before I am off for 45 minutes (to travel to another blogging location):

These are the two that Kos has officially called so far. NPR or the NY Times have called all the others.

Ellsworth (D) IN-08 (pickup)
Welch (D) VT-AL (hold)

Kos also says Yarmuth in Kentucky is close.

Liveblogging: 5pm MST, 7pm EST

2006-11-07T17:22:00.000-07:00

NOTE: All times Mountain Standard Time (5pm MST = 7pm EST).

5:14
The first races have been called already -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Richard Luger of Indiana. Not exactly first tier races, but we already have two House races in the "done" column.

5:20
OK, there are now six seats that have been called, four for the Democrats, two for the Republicans. Woohoo! We're winning.

Yes, that was a joke. It is ridiculously early, and close races won't be called for a few more hours at least.

5:35
In Ohio, Ted Strickland took down Blackwell for the Governorship.

Also, Bernie Sanders and Richard Luger were both Senatorial candidates.

5:45
I'm listening to national NPR right now, and it is interesting to hear the response to Ted Strickland taking out Blackwell in Ohio so early. "The economy really did trump Iraq," one NPR analyst said. And also near or above Iraq was the Ohio corruption.

That's one Democratic pickup in the governorships.

5:56
14% of precincts reporting, it's Webb ahead 50.73% to 48% for Allen. Just heard it on the radio. This is still ridiculously early. But I had to write something.

Oh, and Robert Byrd (D) of WV, the longest serving Congressman ever, is projected to win again. No surprise.

First Exit Polls Coming In?

2006-11-07T16:25:00.000-07:00

The polls in Kentucky and Indiana are closed now, as of 6pm EST (4pm MST).

There are reports of a very preliminary exit poll coming in from Kentucky show Ken Lucas (D) down 75% to 23% to Geoff Davis (R) with (get this), zero percent reporting. There are about 200 votes reported, and these are apparently absentees from a heavy GOP stronghold.

Think Progress has some early exit polls, which are "unreliable", so don't jump to any conclusions form these.

VIRGINIA

D: 52
R: 47

RHODE ISLAND

D: 53
R: 46

PENNSYLVANIA

D: 57
R: 42

OHIO

D: 57
R: 43

NEW JERSEY

D: 52
R: 45

MONTANA

D: 53
R: 46

MISSOURI

D: 50
R: 48

MARYLAND

D: 53
R: 46

TENNESSEE

D: 48
R: 51

ARIZONA

D: 46
R: 50

Basically this post is to tell you this: it's starting. I'm gonna grab something to eat, and I'll be back, probably liveblogging for the rest of the night.

What I'll do is do is write in a post for an hour, then start a new post. So from 6pm-7pm MST will be one post, 7pm-8pm. As it gets more busy, this may turn to half-hours, and as it is less busy to more than an hour.

And remember -- e-mails and IMs are always welcome. E-mail me at fbihop [at] gmail [dot] com (replace the [at] and [dot]) or IM me at FBIHOPLP on AOL Instant Messenger.

I'll be back in a little for more.

It's starting, strap on your seatbelts and enjoy the ride.

13 Years Ago Today: Magic Johnson Shocks the World

2006-11-07T14:41:00.000-07:00

Expect this to be the last non-politics post of the day. Tonight, I'll be liveblogging, and while I'll be concentrating on New Mexico, expect updates here as well.

But on November 7, 1991, Magic Johnson shocked the world. One of the greatest basketball players of all time, Johnson told the world that he was HIV positive.

On the Dan Patrick Show, Charles Barkley said that he cried when he heard the announcement. But, few really knew about HIV back then. "We thought he'd be dead in three or four years," Barkley said.

I'm a bit biased here -- Magic Johnson is my favorite basketball player of all time. I used to love the Lakers, in the pre-Shaq and Kobe era (Shaq is my least favorite basketball player, and Kobe isn't far behind). I used to have a VHS tape of Magic Johnson highlights, that I watched (approximately) a million times.

Since that announcement, Johnson has done much for those with HIV and AIDS with his Magic Johnson Foundation. Through the entire ordeal, through these thirteen years, much has changed. People have realized you can lead a normal life with HIV. The NBA has changed. Johnson has gained some weight.

But one thing will never change -- that bright, white Magic smile.

Indy Journalist Killed in Mexico

2006-10-31T01:19:00.000-07:00

I find anger overcomes me every time I have to read about another journalist killed, no matter the location or the story being covered. It may be because I am trained as a journalist, and I know that there are risks you take in doing your job.

Indy video journalist and documentary filmmaker Brad Will was killed while covering the now 5 month plus demonstrations in Oaxaca, with his camera still rolling. The last footage Will took is available to see at Salon Chingon. There is also a photo of him on the ground from the gunshots over at NYC Indy Media. (Warning: you can see some blood, and you hear the shot that hits him. Not for the faint of heart or the squeamish, for both the video and the picture.)

There seems to be little to no doubt that those who killed Will had ties to the government. Democracy Now reports:

The suspected gunmen have been identified as two members of the local city hall, two police officers and the former justice of the peace of a nearby town.

From Chron.com,:

Protesters said he and those wounded Friday were shot by gunmen loyal to the governor and his political allies.

I find it so maddening when people are killing journalists, when they can tell they are journalists.

"He had a camera in his hand. It was obvious he was doing the work of journalism," said Al Giordano, publisher of Narco News, an alternative Internet news site focused on Mexico and Latin America, who said he had known Will for a decade. "It could have been you or me."

This horrible crime does highlight one positive of the indy-media: there ability to quickly organize and try to get to the bottom of things. While most of the protests happened on Monday, it is impressive to see the support for independent media across the country.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has also come out to condemn the killing, and demanding for a full investigation. Reporters Without Borders for Press Freedom also came out against the killing, saying that they are calling "for the governor to be summoned by the prosecutor dealing with press freedom."

Its sad that journalist killings are happening so often now. Its a loss not only for the independent media, but also for all who value information. Each time a journalist gets killed, or injured and sent home, its another victory for those that information is not in their best interest.

Grrrr . . . anger building. . .

Brad Will Oaxaca Indy Media

October Surprise? Could it Be Reviving the Gay Marrige Issue?

2006-10-27T11:12:00.000-06:00

Its difficult to tell what Karl Rove engineered, whether that be the gas prices continuing to trend downward, or getting Saddam's verdict pushed back until two days before the midterm elections.
But my money is on him using the New Jersey verdict to his full advantage and turning it from a single decision handed down from a states supreme court to a rallying cry for Conservatives all over that know what gets fellow Conservatives blood boiling- gays marrying.
I don't think Rove is doing anything more than using what was handed to them. (from NY Times)

Even so, the threat that gay marriage could become legal energized conservatives at a time when Republican strategists say that turning out the base could make the difference between winning and losing on Nov. 7.

Though the article does not give Rove credit with the sudden shift in strategy, it does have a friend of Rove's saying it could help sway the vote in a couple key elections:

“It’s a game of margins,” said Charles Black, a Republican strategist who consults frequently with Karl Rove, the chief White House political strategist. “You’ve got about 20 House races and probably half a dozen Senate races that are either dead even or very, very close. So if it motivates voters in one or two to go vote, it could make a difference.”

But you know that someone of Rove's calculating craziness would make sure that President Bush inserted this into his speech Thursday in Iowa:

"Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,"

Activist judge is of course code for "judge that doesn't rule like we want them to."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the G.O.P. do not need this to energize there push for state wide gay marrige bans.

Bans are expected to pass Nov. 7 in Idaho, Virginia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee. The races still appear close in Colorado, Arizona and Wisconsin.

So what do they need to energize? Their base. For some reason gay marriage brings people out of the woodwork that would otherwise not show their face- its a single issue that really gets people moving towards the polls. Of all the issues, its the gay people they fear the most. Hmm. Not even taxes scare them enough to go out to the polls, but get some gay people trying to marry, and they will jump in their Hummers as soon as the polls open.

Its going to be a long fight for equality for gay people, and it may even happen with loses at first:

Most basically, civil rights movements rarely win early votes. After all, if it were as simple as a minority turning to the majority and saying, “Please stop discriminating against us,” we wouldn't need constitutions or courts.

So keep your head up, even if this insane issue helps people at first. Soon, the tide will turn.

gay marriage midterm elections

Medias Handling of the Limbaugh/Fox thing

2006-10-27T01:24:00.000-06:00

I have no idea what to call Limbaugh's insane attacks on Michael J Fox, (he eluded to the attacks in a speech except for stupid and desperate. But though his comments were made an eternity ago in the news cycle (nearly a week ago now), the fallout continues.
What gets me the most though is how the traditional/mainstream/whatever-you-call-it media has tried to handle this.
Instead of asking rational questions about it like I heard Keith Olbermann ask on the Dan Patrick Show on Monday (like what does not taking your Parkinson's medication actually do?), they go and get people that are just as crazy as Rush Limbaugh- namely Laura Ingraham and Sean "Big Scary Conservative" Hannity.

Its important to realize that these are both shown on morning shows- shows that get millions and millions of viewers who rely on morning shows for information- even when it is misinforming and biased.
If it was Al Franken that said something that made people mad/angry/disappointed, would The Today Show think that booking fellow liberal talk show host Ed Schultz be an unbiased person to talk to? I sure hope not. Get some doctors on there to discuss whether Limbaugh's charges can be true- like the WaPo actually did:

"Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease," said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-wrote "Parkinson's Disease and the Family." "Any other interpretation is misinformed."

Ask the tough questions there MSM, and let us judge for ourselves whether Limbaugh has a leg to stand on with his accusations. Its sad that the only one I know of to ask the tough questions is Olbermann, and that was on a sports talk radio show.

Rush Limbaugh Michael J. Fox Sean Hannity

Diebold Code, Among Worries for Voters in Upcoming Election

2006-10-25T01:17:00.000-06:00

I wanted to talk about voting in general, but then, being the loser I am, I realized I am the last person to know about the Diebold Source Code Appearing on a former Maryland politicians desk- and am astonished that I have not heard of this before.
People say analysis of the code shows use of outdated encryption, though once again Diebold really knows how to play it off (from Bradblog):

Radke said the company was not averse to disclosing its code if the law were changed to require it. But he said disclosure would dampen innovation in the field.

Brad rightly slams Diebold for continually lying about what is really going on.

I really wonder how people can sit on the sidelines and think elections are anywhere near fair when the machines are made by private companies? Until it is made by a government agency charged with being flawless in their record of correct voting, I think there is really no hope of having completely fair elections.

Diebold voting

Michael J. Fox

2006-10-23T23:18:00.000-06:00

If you haven't seen this yet, you need to watch it. This is the Michael J Fox campaign ad for Claire McCaskill in Missouri.

It's sad to see how far Fox's illness has gone, and how much it has affected him.

As for the whole Rush Limbaugh saying that Fox was acting or off his meds, C&L has a pretty good take on it here and here. I wonder why people still listen to Limbaugh's rants.

But the video is powerful one, very probably the best campaign commercial I have ever seen.

Brother of Pat Tillman Calls Iraq Invasion "Illegal"

2006-10-23T16:32:00.000-06:00

Pat Tillman was a hero. Even before he died in Afghanistan, he was still someone to be admired; he gave up a profitable career in the NFL to join the Army Rangers and fight terrorism.

When he died, it came as a shock to many. What many still don't realize is that Pat Tillman had a brother, Kevin Tillman, who was also an Army Ranger. On Truthdig, Kevin Tillman spoke out about the invasion of Iraq.

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

It is a powerful piece, something from someone who was on the inside, someone who lost a family member, but was forced to keep silent while still in the military.

I write this on the same day that 65 active-duty soldiers ask Congress to send Americans home.

Kevin Tillman asks the same thing. He asks that we do the right thing, and give his brother, Pat a birthday President. You see, Pat Tillman was born on November 6.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat's birthday.

Do your part, give money to your local Dem or, if you don't want to give to your local Democrat for any reason, give to one of the Democrats embroiled in a close race.

But most of all, vote on November 7.

Emergence of a New Progressive Radio Network

2006-10-21T13:26:00.000-06:00

I listen to a lot of talk radio- its the only alternative to crappy commercial radio (i wish KEXP was avaliable everywhere on the radio) but I do get a lot of my news from said shows.
While listening to Mike Melloy sub for Jerry Springer, Melloy mentioned him again being on national radio with his own show- this time on a new network, Nova M Radio.
Now doing a bit investigating, it seems that this network is in the beginning stages, with right now only two affliates listed, Phoenix, AZ and Little Rock, AK. The creators are actually the orginal creaters of Air America- Anita and Sheldon Drobny and Mike Newcomb. They recruited Joe Trippi, the man credited with helping Howard Deans 2004 presidential campaign, as well as John Zogby (yes of that Zogby).

The shows that Nova M is offering at this time is sparse; Mike Malloy, a fellow named Peter B. Collins and John Zogby hosting a show called "Pulse of the Nation".

Lets hope that Nova M radio learns from all of the mistakes of fellow progressive network Air America.

I find it mind boggling that Air America thinks that a typical corportation type structure would work for a liberal network. Most people that would be potential listeners want a change from the typical commericial radio model, well at least I am.
I do not want any progressive network to seem like their aim is to make money. I want their aim to be to inform and to empower. If you accomplish that, then making money (at least enough to keep on the air) will keep on the air.
Another intergal component missing from Air America was a local link- they do have a couple local shows on here during the weekends, but nothing that makes me think that Air America cares about me here.
Hopefully Nova M is able to help bring us together, both with their national programming, but also giving local programming a chance as well, with the focus to inform. If they do, they will be around for a long time.

Nova M Radio Air America Radio Mike Melloy

Republicans In Trouble

2006-10-19T12:19:00.000-06:00

I know, not exactly breaking news -- but it turns out the Republicans are in very real danger of losing the House. From the Wall Street Journal:

Support for the Republican-led Congress has eroded to its lowest point since the party's watershed 1994 victory that brought it House and Senate majorities.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll illustrates the political toll Republicans are paying for rising discontent over the Iraq war, as well as a spate of scandals including the disclosure that Republican House leaders knew of inappropriate emails to House pages from Florida Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned late last month. Voters' approval of Congress has fallen to 16% from 20% since early September, while their disapproval has risen to 75% from 65%.

75 percent! Yes, a full three-quarters of Americans disapprove, while only 16 percent approve of the job they are doing. That 16 percent is the lowest this particular poll has ever shown. This is a historically bad Congress.

And don't believe the sure-to-come talking point from the GOP that the Dems are obstructing anything getting done. The Republicans control the House and Senate. They control the agenda, they control what bills come up for votes and when. They are in control -- so don't fall for any of the BS they will spout about how it is Pelosi's fault.

Whose fault is it? The GOP and their leadership. Let's kick 'em out.

Questions of Voting Now Getting Out

2006-10-19T11:03:00.000-06:00

Its about that time in the election cycle for more and more media attention on the item of voting and how accurate it really is. It happens more and more now since the 2000 election insanity and everyone has realized the importance of accurate voting. Too bad there is no real questioning of our election system until so close to the actual election, that nothing can be done about it. All the noise about voting is actually about the prospect of how bad it could be, not about how we know how bad it can be but we know how to fix it.

The first of these articles that I have noticed is one from the New York Times that I actually was directed to by Brad Blog, who is continuing the fight for fair elections. (Him and Mark Crispin Miller both come to mind when it comes to election matters)

The NY Times article is significant in that it calls out a number of states that are likely "to experience difficulties, according to voting experts who have been tracking the technology and other election changes." These states include: Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The NY Times interviewed a member of the Century Foundation, who said

“We’ve got new laws, new technology, heightened partisanship and a growing involvement of lawyers in the voting process,” said Tova Wang, who studies elections for the Century Foundation, a nonpartisan research group. “We also have the greatest potential for problems in more places next month than in any voting season before.”

To see an in-depth look at what the Century Foundation thinks is wrong with voting, and how they think it can be fixed, check out the Executive Summary of their report, "Voting in 2006: Have We Solved the Problems of 2004?" The summary comes up with some findings that have not really been reported by the (i hate to say it) mainstream media.

These include:

Voter registration rules posing barriers to voting.
States should get credit for poll worker recuitment.
new voter ID laws present "major new barriers to voting."
States not doing anything to curb misleading fliers and phone calls.
Most states have not taken measures to stop practice of "partisan pre-election and election day challenges", which the CF calls a "deplorable practice"
Most states "continue to employ vague and decentralized standards for voting machine distribution." This leads to "unacceptable and disenfranchising long lines threaten to be a problem again in 2006"

Their Recommendations include:

Remove barriers to registration
"Limit ID requirements to those mandated by HAVA"
States and local gov. must enforce laws "and be more active in prosecuting illegal activities intended to intimidate voters or disrupt voter turnout."

To see the rest of their recommendations (the rest would be me quoting them word-for-word), visit there website and see for yourself.

election 2006 voting problems

Problems for the GOP Continue with FBI Raid

2006-10-17T13:39:00.000-06:00

With the midterm elections exactly three weeks away, the GOP were delt another hit when one of their incumbent represenatives locked in a battle for his seat was raided by the FBI.

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn, was being investigated for allegelly using his influence to steer business to his daughter's firm.

The Chicago Tribune puts the GOP's situation in perspective:

The raids are a setback for the Republican Party as it struggles to maintain control of Congress. Weldon, who represents a suburban Philadelphia district, is in a close campaign race with a retired Navy vice admiral.

It seems the closer it gets to election day, the more difficulties that pop up for Republicans. For them, the elections can't come soon enough.

GOP FBI raid

Category 5 Storm Heads for House GOP

2006-10-13T21:19:00.000-06:00

Hat tip to fellow NM blogger New Mexico Matters for the catch.

Over at the Cook Political Report, Charlie Cook had one of his oh-so rare National Overviews (this was the first since May 6). In it, he said what most people already know -- the GOP is on the ropes.

[T]his is without question the worst political situation for the GOP since the Watergate disaster in 1974. I think a 30-seat gain today for Democrats is more likely to occur than a 15-seat gain, the minimum that would tip the majority. The chances of that number going higher are also strong, unless something occurs that fundamentally changes the dynamic of this election. This is what Republican strategists' nightmares look like.

Whether one looks at national or district-level polling data, or a survey like the new Democracy Corps survey that covered the 49 most vulnerable GOP districts, the conclusion remains the same: it is very ugly for Republicans.

Yes, he says that it is more likely that Democrats will get 30 seats than 15. According to Cook, it isn't just likely that Democrats will be in power in the House after these elections, but that they will have a sizable lead.

Then he gets into the money stuff.

On a conference call today, James Carville suggested that the Democratic Party should expand beyond just the top targeted races. He believes the party should help fund previously ignored Democratic challengers in second- and third-tier districts--the next 30 to 50 Republican-held seats--to fully capitalize on this environment and help those candidates maximize their chances of winning. Carville went as far as to suggest Democrats go to the bank and borrow $5 million. If I were them, I'd make it $10 million and put $500,000 each of these 20 districts.

For Republicans, it is a time to defend every seat, no matter how secure those seats appear. If things don't change, GOP incumbents, who never even contemplated having a difficult race, may well lose this year. And if I were a Republican, I'd start praying that something happens to take the spotlight away from Iraq and scandals, because this current issue mix is lethal.

For every seat the Democrats put money into, the GOP will have to put even more money into -- because of "the worst political situation for the GOP since the Watergate disaster in 1974."

People will need a compelling reason to vote for the GOP this year -- only those who are most unquestioning of the GOP policies are sure votes. Those with any doubts about Republicans will be very unwilling to vote Republican -- not necessarily vote Democratic, but maybe sit this election out.

But remember, we have a long way to go. While money donated back in July is more useful than money donated now, if you donate today, it won't go to waste (I say donate to Patricia Madrid here in New Mexico, but that's just me). Even better, go to your local Dem's website and see what you can do to volunteer.

A storm may be headed for the House GOP, but we can't let this storm sputter out before November.

Slain Russian Journalist's last Article Published

2006-10-13T00:57:00.000-06:00

I was surprised to see that Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian investigative reporter who was murdered last week, had her last article printed today in Russia.
The unfinished article leveled new allegations of torture against the Russian government in their war with Chechnya, as well as being published with video (I am imagining stills from the video) of the alleged torture taking place.

Lest we forget, the killing of Politkovskaya is still getting international press. International layer Robert Amsterdam, has put out a press release saying the Russian Prosecutor cannot be trusted in this case based on their past failings:

"The office of the Russian General Prosecutor has demonstrated a systemic inability to investigate crime, especially in cases involving journalists or others who are critical of the political bosses of the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, in recent years Russian prosecutors have been more involved in the fabrication of evidence and staging of show trials than they have been in the preparation of fair and unbiased investigations."

It looks like when it comes to international law and taking on nations, Amsterdam knows his stuff, and maybe with him getting involved the Russian government will show the world that they can in fact get to the bottom of murder cases.

Anna Politkovskaya Russia Robert Amsterdam

Plane Crashes into NYC Highrise

2006-10-11T15:12:00.000-06:00

Corey Lidle, a pitcher for the New York Yankees, was killed today when a plane crashed into a residential high-rise building on New York City’s Upper East Side, igniting several apartments before pieces of the aircraft crashed to the ground, a high ranking city official confirmed late this afternoon.

Police said two bodies were found on the ground shortly after the crash, one of them that of Mr. Lidle, who was a licensed pilot. The Associated Press said the plane was registered to Mr. Lidle.

The aircraft struck at about the 40th or 41st floors of the the building, at 524 E. 72nd St., near York Avenue, known as the Belaire. That building and one next door were evacuated, police said. Flames shot out of the building and smoke streamed up into the sky, visible for miles. By 4 p.m., fire officials said the fire was brought under control.

New York Times

I think we can rule out any possibility of a terrorist attack. But it is heartening to hear how the federal authorities reacted quickly and effictiently to the plane crash.

Cory Lidle (that's how it's really spelled) was an eight-year veteran, playing most recently with the New York Yankees.

The Washington Post says that four people have died.

It reminds me of a plane crash I once read about, on July 28, 1945, a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building.

Only 14 people would perish in this incident and another 25 would suffer severe wounds.

There was this famous photo:

I'll have more as it happens. There is still a lot of news coming in quickly on this, and even websites can't seem to keep up.

More Mark Foley Fallout News

2006-10-11T11:21:00.000-06:00

Dennis Hastert is almost certainly gone. Every time he appears anywhere, it will be a stark reminder of the Mark Foley scandal and the Republican coverup of Foley's actions.

TPM Muckraker has been keeping a list of those calling for Hastert to step down.

And every day, people have more and more reason to call for Hastert's political head. Today came another report of Foley attempting to get into page dorms, this time in 2000. From ABC.

A staff supervisor at the dorm for congressional pages intervened when former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) tried to pay the teens a nighttime visit in the summer of 2000, ABC News has learned.

The pages were having an informal "mixer" party in their dorm at the Tip O'Neil building behind the Capitol, according to a former page who was 17 at the time.

ABC News: The Blotter

Every day more and more news of Foley's actions come out. This makes Hastert's claim to not have known less and less credible.

Another thing with less and less credibility every day is the Republican talking point that Democrats released the information for political gain.

Two of the news media's sources of Mark Foley's sexually explicit instant messages to former House pages said this week that they came forward to expose the Florida congressman's actions, not to help the Democrats in the midterm elections.
[...]
The timing of the e-mails' release appears to be more of a coincidence than an "October surprise," designed to affect the outcome of the elections. It took more than a year for the e-mails to be published because one publication after another decided not to print them.

The one media outlet that did, ABC News, took them public in late September only because the lead reporter, Brian Ross, had put the story on hold for more than a month as he pursued stories commemorating the anniversaries of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

Washington Post

Harper's magazine says they were told of the e-mails five months ago, but didn't publish them. They came from a Democratic operative, and so Harper's didn't quite believe the e-mails.

And as for the thought that Brian Ross waited for maximum political impact, imagine what would happen if he had detonated this bombshell a week or two ahead of the elections. Instead, Brian Ross was concentrating on Hurricane Katrina and September 11 coverage. And, as we know, September 11 gave President Bush his very brief bounce in the polls.

And Democrats with the e-mails were attempting to get them published months ago. Though one can only imagine what would have happened if the Republicans had disclosed the information when they received it; all this argument would be academic, and the Republicans would have had time to regroup.

Mark Foley Dennis Hastert

Russian Journalist Murdered, Many Skeptical of Investigation

2006-10-10T23:17:00.000-06:00

The recent killing of one of Russia's premier investigative reporters got in the U.S has gotten little real coverage in the United States, despite the very importance of the situation.

In case you are not totally following me, the killing I am referring to is of Anna Politkovskaya, one of Russia's best investigative reporters. She was shot twice in the head on Sat, Oct 8th. According to the NY Times, there seems to be no doubts that her reporting had something to do with it:

"We are certain that this is the horrible outcome of her journalistic activity," he said. "No other versions are assumed."

The NY Times article also says:

A Makarov 9-millimeter pistol had been dropped at her side, the signature of a contract killing, Vitaly Yaroshevsky, the deputy editor of Novaya Gazeta, said in a telephone interview.

Scary stuff for reporters in Russia.

Many are calling for a investigation, including Russian President Vladimar Putin. (Actually he said, "law enforcement bodies will take all necessary measures for an objective investigation into the tragic death.") More importantly than the calling for investigations is to make sure there is an actual investigation that yields the culprit(s).

Its looking bleak though for a real investigation:

Russia has become a deadly place for journalists who run afoul of government officials or their business and political partners, The Associated Press wrote Sunday. Those behind the killings, though, are rarely brought to justice, reinforcing a sense of impunity that may have encouraged the killers of Anna Politkovskaya, a fierce critic of the war in Chechnya.

It is beyond important for the Russian government to actually do what they promise. It is not acceptable for them to say the right things but not back them up when it comes to protecting a whole occupation. The importance of a free press equipped and able to do their job is vital in a true democracy- the more the Russian's drag their feet in investigating why Russia is so dangerous for reporters, the more Russia is looking less like a democracy.

Hopefully Angela Merkel pressed the Russian president about the journalists murder during their meeting today like she said she would:

"The chancellor will discuss the murder of the journalist...with Mr Putin"

President Bush made a generic statement about her, and said at the end of the statement, "we urge the Russian Government to conduct a vigorous and thorough investigation to bring to justice those responsible for her murder." More than just putting it out there that he wants the government to do the right thing, he should know that they have not done this in the past, and he should have talks with the President about this serious matter of human rights.

Anna Politkovskaya Russia Reporter

Hastert: Will Fire Anyone Involved in Coverup

2006-10-10T10:28:00.000-06:00

Can the Mark Foley case get any worse for Dennis Hastert?

An AP story quotes Speaker of the House (for now) Dennis Hastert saying, "If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs." The 'they' refers to anyone on his staff.

That sounds like bad news for Dennis Hastert's Chief of Staff, Scott Palmer. From TPM Muckraker:

Finally, in 2003, Trandahl and Fordham agreed that they should go to Speaker Hastert's office about the problem. Newsweek reports that this intervention was prompted by Foley's drunken visit to the House page dormitory.

According to Fordham's lawyer, Fordham will tell the ethics committee that he went to Hastert's chief of staff Scott Palmer with the problem and that a meeting between Foley and Palmer ensued. Palmer has vaguely denied Fordham's account, saying only that "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen." However, a second congressional staffer, speaking to The Wasington Post, ABC News, and The New York Times, has corroborated Fordham's account that Palmer met with Foley.

So Scott Palmer, Hastert's Chief of Staff, knew in 2003. And Hastert wants us to believe that he didn't know until 2005? Was Palmer hiding the fact that Foley was preying on children from his boss?

Meanwhile, Dennis Hastert is even drawing the ire of fellow GOPers. In Maine, GOP candidate Darlene Curley called for Hastert's resignation. Of course, many GOPers are staying out of it. Loyalty is a wonderful thing, but loyalty to a man who hid a predator from the public?

And one final bit of Hastert news: It looks like he is staying radioactive. There is yet another cancellation of an appearance by the Speaker of the House. It reminds me of a couple months back when I talked about the reluctance by GOPers to be seen with President Bush.

I asked, "Isn't it sad when Republicans are afraid to be seen with a President of their own party?" Just change 'President' to 'Speaker of the House'.

Mark Foley Dennis Hastert

Foley Scandal all a Prank? Yeah Right.

2006-10-10T08:23:00.000-06:00

It all started with Matt Drudge reporting that the IMs between Mark Foley and one of the House pages were "a prank".

For some reason, Republicans thought this excused Mark Foley. After all, the wiley Congressional page tricked Mark Foley into IMing sexually explicit messages to them. He had no choice! The page was just too smart for Foley.

Then it came out that there were more similar IMs -- to other pages. Some right-wing voices ran with it, not thinking about the fact that this in no way excused what Foley did.

Another Republican talking point going around? The pages were old enough to know what they wanted. Seriously, I've seen many say this. The people perpetrating this myth note that 16 is the age of consent in Washington DC. They fail to point out that soliticiting sex from a minor (uner 18) over the internet is illegal. Not to mention very creepy.

Finally, some say that the original page was over 18, so it didn't matter! But they ignore the reports of other pages coming forward, talking about being IMed and e-mailed by Foley.

And I'm not even going to get into the hypocrisy of many writers on the right who lambasted Bill Clinton (rightly) for his indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky -- then search for reasons to defend Foley. And just a note, Lewinsky was 22.

Rove Aide Resigns Because of Abramoff Ties

2006-10-06T17:33:00.000-06:00

Friday evening, the best time for Republicans to hide their dirty laundry. But this caught my eye; a Karl Rove aide resigned because of her ties to Abramoff.

Ralston was Abramoff's personal assistant until she moved over to Rove's office in 2001. Abramoff reportedly bragged to others that Ralston was his "implant" at the White House.

It seems that Abramoff may have been tied to the White House more closely than they would care to admit.

Think Progress has more.

Radioactive Hastert News

2006-10-06T16:53:00.000-06:00

Besides Rep. Mark Foley, two other members of Congress were directly affected by the Foleygate scandal. One is House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert. Hastert's role in the coverup of Foley's sick internet communication with underage pages has rendered him radioactive. And, unlike Spiderman, the only powers he has gained is the amazing ability to be reviled by nearly everyone around the country.

A SurveyUSA poll with a margin of error of 3.2 percent shows that 43 percent of Americans believe Hastert should resign his role as Speaker. An additional 20 percent believe that Hastert should resign from the House entirely. Only 27 percent believe he should stay as the Speaker of the House.

And there are more tangible examples of Hastert's radioactivity; at TPM Cafe they highlight an AP story of Indiana GOP Rep. Mike Sodrel cancelling a campaign event with the Speaker.

Meanwhile, even Republicans are tired of the Matt-Drudge-pushed conspiracy theories that Hastert is trying to push; TPM Muckraker says national GOPers are telling Hastert to stop with that nonsense. But while Republicans aren't happy with it, it seems the media is running with the unbased stories.

But there are a couple of politicians who are willing to come out and speak in support of Hastert; George W Bush and the ~~Democrat~~ ~~Republican~~ Independent Joe Lieberman.

From Salon.com:

The White House says Bush called Hastert Thursday to thank him for how he's handling Foleygate. "The president thanked him for going out and making a clear public statement that said the House leadership takes responsibility and is accountable," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino tells the Associated Press. Of course, that's not what Hastert did, exactly. While the speaker did utter the words "We take responsibility," he made it clear that he thinks the media, the Democrats, his staff and other members' staffs are actually to blame.

Salon.com

It smacks of "Heckuva job, Brownie!"

As for Lieberman, he spouted some nonsense. Then denied that he said it.

What's Joe Lieberman's excuse? We don't have an answer for that one. As the Hartford Courant reports, Lieberman is pushing back against calls for Hastert's resignation and warning both parties not to make Foleygate a partisan issue. "I know some people are calling for Hastert to resign, but the truth is that unless he knows what he saw and he saw something he should have acted on, he deserves to have essentially a fact-finder to come in," Lieberman said earlier this week. "If anyone thinks they can make this into another partisan flap, it's not. It's very real and human. The House Republican leaders and, frankly, the Democratic leadership should not make it partisan."

Salon.com

If you want to see Lieberman trying to spin the issue, go to Daily Kos, who has a video of Lieberman ~~lying~~ spinning.

Mark Foley Dennis Hastert

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Lying

2006-10-05T20:55:00.000-06:00

I've said it before, but I'll say it again -- Keith Olbermann is the man. From the time he was on SportsCenter, teamed up with Dan Patrick, I thought that Olbermann was just a cool guy.

Then, he disappeared from ESPN, popping up on Fox, getting fired, and following the pattern for a couple of years. Apparently, he was just waiting to find another spot where he could fit in. Of all places, MSNBC.

This baseball historian (if you hear him talk on baseball, you know that he has a supernatural ability to remember all the minutaie of random baseball facts) is apparently one of the best news show hosts out there.

And tonight, he did another great Special Comment section, which I will put the transcript out for those, like me, who labor under the restrictions of dial up.

But don't worry, folks. For those of you who are actually in the 21st century, here's a link to the Crooks and Liars video.

And when it's up on YouTube, I'll put the video up here also. It may be a bit of a long read, but it is most defintely worth it.

While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool ...

While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover ...

The president of the United States — unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.

Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, “177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don’t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.’”

The hell they did.

One hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the president’s seizure of another part of the Constitution.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn’t be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

President Bush hears what he wants.

Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said, “Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we’re attacked again before we respond.”

Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.

And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind reader.

“If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party,” the president said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, “it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we’re attacked again.”

The president doesn’t just hear what he wants.

He hears things that only he can hear.

It defies belief that this president and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.

Yet they do.

It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any president of this nation.

Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders, Democrats, the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies of treason.

But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.

Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, “We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.”

Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.

If your commitment to “put aside differences and work together” is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they’ve said, then the questions your critics need to be asking are no longer about your policies.

They are, instead, solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.

No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to “wait until we’re attacked again.”

No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday ... nor whatever is next.

You have dishonored your party, sir; you have dishonored your supporters; you have dishonored yourself.

But tonight the stark question we must face is — why?

Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?

Why have you chosen to go down in history as the president who made things up?

In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.

If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetoric of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.

We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size and party. We will have to suffer it, for as long as the Republic stands.

But the premise of a president who comes across as a compulsive liar is nothing less than terrifying.

A president who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening — and thanks to Bob Woodward’s most recent account — evidently has never listened.

A president who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy.

A president who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack — attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both — it is now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy is.

But if we know one thing for certain about Mr. Bush, it is this: This president — in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month — has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies are, they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak called the Constitution of the United States of America.

How often do we find priceless truth in the unlikeliest of places?

I tonight quote not Jefferson nor Voltaire, but Cigar Aficionado Magazine.

On Sept. 11th, 2003, the editor of that publication interviewed General Tommy Franks, at that point, just retired from his post as commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command — of Cent-Com.

And amid his quaint defenses of the then-nagging absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the continuing freedom of Osama bin Laden, General Franks said some of the most profound words of this generation.

He spoke of “the worst thing that can happen” to this country:

First, quoting, a “massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western World — it may be in the United States of America.”

Then, the general continued, “the Western World, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years, in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

It was this super-patriotic warrior’s fear that we would lose that most cherished liberty, because of another attack, one — again quoting General Franks — “that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.”

And here we are, the fabric of our Constitution being unraveled, anyway.

Habeus corpus neutered; the rights of self-defense now as malleable and impermanent as clay; a president stifling all critics by every means available and, when he runs out of those, by simply lying about what they said or felt.

And all this, even without the dreaded attack.

General Franks, like all of us, loves this country, and believes not just in its values, but in its continuity.

He has been trained to look for threats to that continuity from without.

He has, perhaps been as naïve as the rest of us, in failing to keep close enough vigil on the threats to that continuity from within.

Secretary of State Rice first cannot remember urgent cautionary meetings with counterterrorism officials before 9/11. Then within hours of this lie, her spokesman confirms the meetings in question. Then she dismisses those meetings as nothing new — yet insists she wanted the same cautions expressed to Secretaries Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

Mr. Rumsfeld, meantime, has been unable to accept the most logical and simple influence of the most noble and neutral of advisers. He and his employer insist they rely on the “generals in the field.” But dozens of those generals have now come forward to say how their words, their experiences, have been ignored.

And, of course, inherent in the Pentagon’s war-making functions is the regulation of presidential war lust.

Enacting that regulation should include everything up to symbolically wrestling the Chief Executive to the floor.

Yet—and it is Pentagon transcripts that now tell us this—evidently Mr. Rumsfeld’s strongest check on Mr. Bush’s ambitions, was to get somebody to excise the phrase “Mission Accomplished” out of the infamous Air Force Carrier speech of May 1st, 2003, even while the same empty words hung on a banner over the President’s shoulder.

And the vice president is a chilling figure, still unable, it seems, to accept the conclusions of his own party’s leaders in the Senate, that the foundations of his public position, are made out of sand.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But he still says so.

There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida.

But he still says so.

And thus, gripping firmly these figments of his own imagination, Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance, and spreads—around him and before him—darkness, like some contagion of fear.

They are never wrong, and they never regret -- admirable in a French torch singer, cataclysmic in an American leader.

Thus, the sickening attempt to blame the Foley scandal on the negligence of others or “the Clinton era”—even though the Foley scandal began before the Lewinsky scandal.

Thus, last month’s enraged attacks on this administration’s predecessors, about Osama bin Laden—a projection of their own negligence in the immediate months before 9/11.

Thus, the terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom—the Constitution—a triumph for al Qaida, for which the terrorists could not hope to achieve with a hundred 9/11’s.

And thus, worst of all perhaps, these newest lies by President Bush about Democrats choosing to await another attack and not listen to the conversations of terrorists.

It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you redirect at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel.

It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, Sir.

It is your own—before 9/11 - and (and you alone know this), perhaps afterwards.

Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.

It is not our freedom, nor our country—your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.

You want to preserve a political party’s power. And obviously you’ll sell this country out, to do it.

These are lies about the Democrats -- piled atop lies about Iraq -- which were piled atop lies about your preparations for al Qaida.

To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries -- as crushing, as immovable.

They are not.

If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.

But if you stop -- if you stop fabricating quotes, and building straw-men, and inspiring those around you to do the same -- you may yet liberate yourself and this nation.

Please, sir, do not throw this country’s principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics.

Amen.

Keith Olbermann Transcript Video

Daily Show has Real News?

2006-10-05T15:59:00.000-06:00

Who knew? Well probably not those who have come to expect a different twist on the normal broadcast and cable television shows. (That does not include Robert Novak) But to those who still watch those news shows, a recent study shows that you are getting just as much real news from The Daily Show than from Katie Couric, Wolf Blitzer, et. al.

A study from the Indiana University has found that the 'substantive' news occurs as much as other shows, but its important to point out that Julia R. Fox, an assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University, and the person who compiled the study warns about what this all means:

All in all, Fox concludes that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive."

Its nice to know that the Daily Show, is offering us some information we could use, but its also a sad commentary on the state of the quality of news being shown to us. Hopefully America is going to the internet and getting some info there, though we should always look for more and dig deeper, to get to the next layer of truth. (If I was Steven Colbert I would call it the 'nutmeat')

The Daily Show

Turn $1 into $3

2006-10-05T14:55:00.000-06:00

Have you ever wanted to magically triple your money? Here's a chance. If you donate to the NM Democratic Party through the link below (click on the image), Governor Richardson will automatically triple your donation.

This will help Dems statewide, and go towards helping get Dems out to vote and help elect Democrats to state offices.

As of my posting here, there is just over $21,000 donated, which Governor Richardson turned into over $63,000 for the state Democratic Party.

Do your part, turn your $1 into $3, or $5 into $15, or whatever you are willing to give.

Read more at Bill Richardson's blog.

[Quick Update:] This offer is only good until midnight tonight, so get your contributions in now!

(Crossposted at New Mexico FBIHOP)

Foley Whistleblower a Republican and Other Foley Stories

2006-10-05T09:57:00.000-06:00

So much for the GOP talking point that the Foley scandal was leaked by Democrats for political gain. The whistleblower"has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote."

The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.

But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.

The Hill

Meanwhile, the characterizations of the e-mails by Republicans just aren't true, according to experts. Republicans have said that they shouldn't have known about the abuse becuase the e-mails were just "overly friendly".

But the e-mails were classic examples of the tactics predatory adults use to approach young people and called for close and immediate examination, psychiatrists and other clinical experts on sexual misconduct said Wednesday.

LA Times

And even worse is the Congressional response to Foley; a slap on the hand and then hide it from the media.

The experts said that congressional leaders' response to the problem — talking to Foley and telling him to stop — seldom work in such cases.

"Just saying 'don't do that' isn't really enough," said Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein, a Baltimore psychiatrist and former president of the American Psychiatric Assn. "You can't just turn your back on it — you have to open up that can of worms. There may be something there or there may not be, but you have to open it up."

LA Times

How should people feel about the House GOP turning their back on a problem of sexually predatory e-mails?

And TPM Muckraker looks at the response to the last page scandal - an independent, massive investigation.

TPM Muckraker also reports that Hastert is hiding out in his house, and asks the question, "If he comes out, and he sees his shadow, does that mean that he'll resign?"

And the Republicans, realizing they have no leg to stand on in the issue, are blaming ... wait, take a guess. Seriously, take a wild guess. Yes, the right-wing are blaming Bill Clinton for Foleygate. Not the man who actually did the horrendous deed, but a former President who hasn't been in office for six years.

But Clinton isn't the only one being blamed by Republicans, no, you can also look at the media, liberals, gays in Congress and even the pages themselves! Media Matters has the story.

I can understand the reflexive "blame Clinton" and "blame the media" crowds in the GOP. It makes almost no sense, but I can almost fathom where they are coming from. But the most sickening defense has been employed by Matt Drudge and Michael Savage --two personalities not known for their honesty or fact checking.

In defense of Foley's alleged actions, several conservative media figures have attempted to shift the blame to the underage pages who communicated electronically with the former congressman. On the October 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Internet gossip Matt Drudge stated that Foley's sexually explicit alleged communication with a minor through an instant-messenger program "wasn't coerced." Drudge went on to say that "the kid was having fun with this" because the alleged conversation included "[t]hese LOLs throughout the entire conversation, these 'laugh out louds.' " Drudge even went so far as to accuse the underage former pages -- whom he twice referred to as "beasts" -- of "egging the Congressman on" during their alleged conversations, claiming that "[t]hese kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth," as Media Matters for America noted.

On the October 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage echoed Drudge's theory, accusing the former page of "gay baiting" and claiming that "the kid was leading him on." Savage called the page a "sleaze ball" and further stated: "He went to Washington to get ahead. So he's a greedy, aggressive child" who "knew how to play a congressman who was gay." Savage also questioned the validity of the allegations, stating, "I don't know whether the boy exists" and claiming, "Maybe he's a Democrat."

Media Matters

And finally, you can compare the timeline in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to that of Think Progress.

Notice Anything Wrong?

2006-10-04T08:03:00.000-06:00

This was on Bill O'Reilly's show.

And, in case you didn't know, Foley is Republican, not a Democrat. Will O'Reilly apologize and correct? Doubtful. Will Olbermann comment on this? You know it.

Mark Foley

The Mark Foley Saga

2006-10-02T11:09:00.000-06:00

By now, we've all heard about the Mark Foley sexual e-mails and IMs sent by Florida Rep Mark Foley to underage Congressional Pages.

But lately, it has turned from a disgusting Representative to a disgusting coverup by the GOP leadership. Many knew of Foley's advances and hid the news from both the public and the authorities. I'm no lawyer, but I think this may make them an accessory.

First of all, Glenn Greenwald looks at a "bizarre" contradiction in the law as it pertains to this case.

[I]n-person, actual sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page would be perfectly legal in D.C. and in most places in the U.S.[...], but it seems that it is a criminal act for Foley to discuss or solicit sexual acts with the same page over the Internet. Despite all the irritatingly righteous (and overheated) "pedophile" language being tossed around, in the overwhelming majority of states, and in Washington DC, the legal age of consent for sex is 16 years old. That means that actual, in-person sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page in D.C. would not be criminal at all (though it likely could have other legal implications).

Glenn Greenwald

Greenwald goes on in an update to the same post.

just this year, Republicans drew the line of age of consent at 18 when, with overwhelming support, they enacted the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006," which the President signed into law (with Mark Foley standing behind him). By definition, then, they consider the acts in which Foley apparently engaged to be criminal. They even enhanced the penalties for this conduct. For those purposes, it doesn't really matter what states have designated as the age of consent because House Republicans have declared it to be a federal crime to solicit or discuss sexual acts with someone under the age of 18.

Glenn Greenwald

ABC News seems to be following this story more closely than other news outlets. Via Crooks and Liars comes the news that certain key GOP leaders knew about Foley's problem since 2001. And covered it up! So much for family values and morals.

A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page. Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office. Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.

ABC

John Aravosis highlights a story that makes the story even worse. Even worse than covering up the problem was the GOP actually enabling Foley's sickness. John Shimkus gave Foley lots of time with pages. This is after the GOP knew of Foley's problem.

I would give a quote here of some particularly sickening and shocking part of the story -- but the whole thing is sickening and shocking. Go read it.

This morning, the Washington Post acknowledged that the FBI is looking into Foley's e-mails. It says that Dennis Hastert called for an independent investigation, but georgia10 at Daily Kos looks at the reality of Hastert's calls for an investigation.

Foley is taking refuge in rehab. Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo:

Ahhh, once again, the last refuge of the disgraced House Republican: rehab.

If Drudge is to be believed, a local station in Florida is reporting that Foley is checking into rehab: "I strongly believe I am an alcoholic. On Saturday... I made arrangements to enter a renowned in-patient facility." There seems to be some question whether the faxed message allegedly from Foley was a hoax. But presumably we'll find out soon enough.

Talking Points Memo

Talking Points Memo has been covering the Foley resignation and the following revelations closely. But possibly Marshall's best post (and maybe the best post in the blogosphere) about the impact this will have is here.

The simple fact is that to the extant campaigning determines the outcomes of elections, the race goes to the side that can remain on the offensive most consistently and define the national debate on its own terms. Foleygate has made it very hard for the leaders of the House GOP to go on the offensive on anything relevant to the election. For political purposes they're basically out of commission. And they've given Democratic challengers in every district around the country a slew of questions with which to pummel GOP incumbents or any Republican, for that matter, who puts his head up on television. This is in the context of an election that was already going very badly for House Republicans. Foleygate has now made them all but politically defenseless in the final stretch of the campaign. And that is a very big deal.

Talking Points Memo

Stay tuned to Talking Points Memo and TPM Muckraker for all the latest news and some of the best analysis. This issue isn't dead yet; expect this to keep going for days, maybe weeks.

And if you want to know all the shocking details of the Foley affair, look no further than the Think Progress timeline of the event.

Personally, I think anyone involved in a cover-up should resign. There are few things more sickening than preying on 16 year olds -- but I think covering up the crime is close.

Quick Update: Kos has a good look at a possible (I'd say probable) explanation why the GOP decided to cover this up.

Update 2: Think Progress shows Tony Snow characterizing Foley's indiscretions as "naughty e-mails".

O'BRIEN: I would assume everybody would want to know, including the president. I mean, we’re not talking about any old person. We're talking about the leadership of the Republicans in Congress.

Why would he not hear something that’s disturbing, or his office — over-friendly — when I see that word as a parent — and I think any parent would say, Whoa, over-friendly? Any communication between a 16-year-old and a congressman, why doesn't that raise red flags — major, massive red flags?

SNOW: Yes, look, I hate to tell you, but it's not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill. And there have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails.

You know, look, again, I reiterate my point. I think it's important to protect these kids and make sure that they have a good experience. And look, like you (inaudible) want to find out what happened. But before we prosecute, let's figure out what all the facts are. That's probably the most important thing to do is to be fair to all parties.

Mark Foley Dennis Hastert

Olbermann Responds to NY Post

2006-09-28T10:38:00.000-06:00

I wrote yesterday about the Keith Olbermann anthrax scare and the subsequent bashing by the NY Post. Given the condescending tone by the New York Post Page Six staff and the fact that no other media outlet reported directly on the event, I thought that maybe Page Six was making things up.

Well, there was another option -- the NY Post was the only media outlet not to heed the FBI's request to not to report on the event. In other words, the NY Post impeded a federal investigation. From Crooks and Liars:

The FBI asked that the media keep this story quiet and they abided by that, with the exception of the NY Post. The fact that the NY Post may have interfered with a federal investigation is not the most disturbing part. Even worse is the tone in which they reported it. The headline alone, "POWDER PUFF SPOOKS KEITH" could very well have caused more damage then the actual reporting. Not only did that headline alert the person who sent the letter that it did reach Keith, but it also makes it sound like the tactic was very effective. This now gives the person fuel to do more of these letters just for the "shock" value.

Crooks and Liars

They also have a video of Olbermann's response to the New York Post. He notes that the Rupert-Murdoch-owned New York Post chose "the side of domestic terrorism rather than [...] the side of the FBI."

Olbermann regularly co-hosts an hour of the Dan Patrick Show with his former SportsCenter co-anchor, and did not mention the event at all. Instead, they spent the hour talking about Terrell Owens and his suicide scare.

Incidently, Owens denies it was a suicide attempt, and, as someone on the Dan Patrick Show (I can't quite remember who, it may have been Phil the Showkiller) noted, Owen's status went, in a matter of hours, from suicidal to questionable to play.

Patrick and Olbermann are friends and have been for years. Undoubtedly, Patrick, like every other news outlet in the country, went with the FBI's request and did not disclose any details of the event in fear of putting the investigation in jeopardy. It is truly unfortunate that the New York Post would choose to divulge information that may let this terrorist walk free.

I think that Rob Kall over at OpEdNews.com is going a bit far with this:

We know the corrupt Bush appointees routinely use the power of their offices to take care of their own. It is not far fetched to speculate that Olbermann is being subjected to a horrendous abuse of power. The idea that he could be abused and placed in hospital detention for 10 hours, then told to keep quiet about it, for purposes of national security, possibly by the FBI, is outrageous and frightening.

OpEdNews.com

However, I do agree with him on other points.

Note that Olbermann did not complain about his treatment by the system. He complained about the NY Post reporting it.

OpEdNews.com

Olbermann even apologizes if he was to brusque in his insistence to be let out of the hospital. It is understandable for someone to not be at their best after being in a hospital for ten hours and after an anthrax scare. Right-wingers, don't use the talking point that Olbermann was being an ass to the police or government.

Overall, this is something that should have been kept quiet until an arrest is made or the FBI determines it is safe for the information to be released. Unfortunately, the New York Post took it upon themselves to defy the FBI and instead embolden this domestic terrorist.

Keith Olbermann anthrax New York Post

Keith Olbermann Anthrax Scare

2006-09-27T14:57:00.000-06:00

I don't know who originally wrote about it, but it's been the buzz of the blogosphere for today. The political blogosphere anyways.

Here's the recap: Keith Olbermann opened a letter -- at home -- and white powder fell out. At least that's what the New York Post reported. Only, they reported it in a condescending, insulting way. Here's the text:

Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who's a frequent critic of President Bush's policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post's Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann's pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke's Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment.

NY Post

Olbermann made no mention of the event while on his regular appearance on The Dan Patrick Show. When Patrick asked Olbermann if there was anything special on tonight's episode of Countdown, Olbermann responded that it would just be a "normal" show.

And the only other article that comes up on a Google News search of 'Keith Olbermann powder' is an Editor & Publisher critique of the NY Post coverage.

Several leading news organizations in recent years have summonded "HazMat" teams and sent employees to the hospital after receiving letters with white powder at their offices. The Post itself received a so-called "anthrax letter" in the fall of 2001, affecting three staffers, who all recovered.

Editor and Publisher

All this leads me to believe that this may not have happened.

If something like this happened, would it appear in a paper with so little journalistic integrity as the New York Post? On Page 6 of all places? There isn't even an Associated Press article mentioning the alleged attack.

But let's assume that this actually did happen for a second. The New York Post and Paula Froelich, the writer, are despicable for making light of such a heinous hoax. It wasn't all that long ago that actual anthrax-laced letters were sent out to journalists -- the Post should remember since they were affected by the attacks personally.

No matter the excuse, the horrible piece of writing by the New York Post.

Keith Olbermann anthrax

The War in Iraq: Not Going So Well

2006-09-25T11:41:00.000-06:00

First of all, let's look at a New York Times article from yesterday:

An American intelligence assessment that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, worsening the terror threat, set off a sharp debate today among lawmakers and other political figures over credit and blame for the war and the broader fight against terrorism.

New York Times

And how are some members of the Senate taking the news? From the same NY Times article:

But the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, used language that echoed that of President Bush, saying that "either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country."

Frist fails to see that "increasing Islamic radicalism" and "worsening the terror threat" actually make it more likely that an attack would happen here. In other words, Bush's misguided War in Iraq has made America, and the world at large, less safe.

From the Washington Post:

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

Washington Post

The White House pointed out that Osama bin Laden says that Iraq is Al Qaeda's number one priority at the moment. As such, it serves as a very good recruiting tool for the terrorist group.

As if that wasn't enough, the LA Times reported today that, despite pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the military every year, the Army is coming up billions of dollars short.

The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

Los Angeles Times

The war in Iraq not only has cost us thousands of precious lives, it also is bankrupting our Army. Conservatives complain that the 'liberal press' is only obsessed with the failings in Iraq; they have failed to consider that perhaps this is because the negatives in Iraq are so much more substantial than the positives.

A Post on Bill O'Reilly

2006-09-25T11:20:00.000-06:00

I was reading Media Matters' review of Bill O'Reilly's new book, when I got a text message. It was from my brother, who said he heard that Bill O'Reilly mentioned our blog on the air; it's still confused onto whether O'Reilly actually mentioned our humble little blog or not.

At this point as far as I can tell, it looks like I was the original source of the information -- but I don't ever remember saying that O'Reilly mentioned our blog.

But back to the Media Matters review of O'Reilly's book.

I will surely not be reading the book, based on the fact that O'Reilly's TV show is filled with misinformation and lies; I'm not looking to waste my time reading more right-wing misinformation and lies.

But seeing O'Reilly's distorted view of the world via the Media Matters article makes it even more apparent that I won't be reading, let alone purchasing, his book.

But O'Reilly puts a few individuals and organizations at the center of the conspiracy. At the top is financier George Soros, whom O'Reilly describes as "public enemy number one." (The FBI's collection of terrorists, drug dealers, and cop-killers apparently has nothing on someone who donates money to liberal organizations. Sorry, Osama.)

Media Matters

O'Reilly and other conservatives constantly spout off about the "vast left-wing conspiracy" and other such nonsense. They do so with such hyperbole and bile as to make it cartoonish.

They actually believe that their way of life is threatened -- this despite the fact that they control the three branches of government, and their ridiculous positions are those in line to be written into law.

But not only is he delusional, he is also hypocritical.

Of his "joke" endorsing an Al Qaeda attack on San Francisco, he writes, "Actually, this is standard talk-radio stuff, intentionally using hyperbole to make a point" (Page 166). Regarding his penchant for personal attacks, he gives himself a pass: "Sometimes I make a mistake, but I know it's a mistake" (Page 182).

Media Matters

I can only imagine what would happen if Al Franken invited Al Qaeda to attack a solidly conservative city -- say, Salt Lake City. O'Reilly would have a field day, he would have on "experts" saying that Franken is a danger to American security. O'Reilly would foam at the mouth, he would snarl, he would verbally attack Franken. But the same standard isn't given to himself or other conservatives who make such 'hyperbole'.

Other of O'Reilly's positions remind me of the famous Mark Twain quote:

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

To O'Reilly, patriotism is agreeing with what O'Reilly and the Fox News people say, and to be unpatriotic is to criticize the government.

In the book, he accuses secular progressives of not believing in "America's nobility, and so the battle rages on," without providing any examples. He writes that there are "fanatics who genuinely believe America is a wicked country that must be reformed in any way possible short of violence" and that this is "what the Soros crowd believes" (Page 191), offering no evidence. As he has displayed on his show, anyone who differs with his vision of America is in danger of being labeled unpatriotic or an America-hater -- a tradition he continues in the book, which even features a chapter titled "Hating America."

Media Matters

Bill O'Reilly will never be compared with Mark Twain; Mark Twain is an American icon, one of the greatest writers our country has produced. Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing nutjob, who holds ridiculous grudges for years, at times being so petty as to not even mention the other person's name.

I could go on and on, or you can just read the Media Matters review; go ahead, save yourself $26.

Voting, Machines, Etc.

2006-09-20T13:40:00.000-06:00

It really is a shame that only when election season heats up do we really start paying attention to the actual act of voting.
This is a shame, because by this time its too late to act for the upcoming election. By the time the election is over, no one really cares, because there is no election to cast a vote in.
Which is why people should read this article on Mother Jones' Website, and get angry. It profiles the top eleven places that are the worst places to cast a vote, because of the potential for a vote not counting.
The article does get to the heart of the matter though:

As it turns out, except for a rudimentary federal framework (which determines the voting age, channels money to states and counties, and enforces protections for minorities and the disabled), U.S. elections are shaped by a dizzying mÃ©lange of inconsistently enforced laws, conflicting court rulings, local traditions, various technology choices, and partisan trickery.

That is something that people really don't realize, that Federal laws governing a little bit more of the basics of elections would go a long way. It would make it a bit more even of a playing field across the country, and not make each contest completely unique because of the election laws differing state to state, and in each state, sometimes county to county, and city to city.

In some places voters still fill in paper ballots or pull the levers of vintage machines; elsewhere, they touch screens or tap keys, with or without paper trails. Some states encourage voter registration; others go out of their way to limit it. Some allow prisoners to vote; others permanently bar ex-felons, no matter how long they've stayed clean.

Though this midterm election there is no Presidential election, people are still thinking to 2008. The National Popular Vote Plan is trying to get all states on board with changing to a popular vote system and getting rid of the outdated electoral college. Fairvote is also getting on board, as well as working on other election reforms.

Voting is something that people should be very concerned about. Getting everyone's vote to count should be an ideal across political lines. Each time any party or interest goes to court to fight extending polling hours because of lack of facilities (Ohio), or wants everyone to show an ID that some may not be able to afford, it is attacking democracy as a whole. Without free and fair elections, the representatives are not of the people, though that is what this country's political system is based upon.

* * * * *
If this does in fact get you mad, you would probably get a bit madder (0k more mad) and maybe more likely to call your local politican if you picked up Mark Crispin Miller's book, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One (Unless We Stop Them), hes all about elections, if elections really get you going, you better bookmark his website.

voting reform Mother Jones

Thailand Coup

2006-09-19T14:38:00.000-06:00

I am not an expert on the nations in the far east. This of course still didn't make it any less surprising to me that Thailand is now in an apparent coup. But this guy said he saw it coming.

Details are sketchy. What CNN and NY Times are reporting is that the millitary took over the government while the Prime Minister is in New York to give a speech to the United Nations.
Both sources also say there have been no reports of violence, though the headline from the London Times proclaims "Thailand in Turmoil".

The NY Times story goes on to list a couple reasons for the coup:
1)Populist policies that typically benifit the poor, rural, making the rich, urban mad.
2)Charges of corruption
3)Anger at the Prime Ministers tax-free sale of nearly a 2 billion dollar stake in a telecommunications company has angered the elite in Bangkok.
(all from the NY Times article)
The London Times,in an editoral, also posits another reason for the unrest in the country:

. . . the Muslim rebellion in the three southernmost provinces that has turned a separatist movement into a full military confrontation, with bloody clashes and the threat of Islamist terrorism.

CNN also states in its brief story on its website that there were rumors from the recent weeks of a coup being planned.

Think this doesn't affect you? When searching Google News for information, most of the stories are on how the coup is affecting the economy, both in Thailand and abroad.

Thailand coup

Bush Bounce? Not Exactly.

2006-09-19T11:32:00.000-06:00

I was reading about a supposed Bush bounce today, and did some quick research. Among the Powerline and NewsBusters claims that Bush is suddenly popular (despite the evidence that his highest approval rating is still shockingly low), was a story from Media Matters.

It is a column called, "Buyer's remorse: The Bush story the press won't tell".

What prompted this quick internet research this morning, was an AP article with this quote:

At home, Bush's approval rating, while experiencing a recent uptick, stands at just 40 percent. Americans are growing weary of the war. The White House is in a showdown with Senate Republicans over the interrogation and trying of terror suspects. And elections that will determine which party controls Congress are seven weeks away.

Associated Press

A USA Today/Gallup poll puts the President's approval rating at 44 percent -- a couple percentage points higher than other polls. Take a look at TPM Cafe's list of approval ratings.

The only other polls that show Bush above 43 percent at any time in the past few months are Rasmussen polls -- which in each case, were outliers. In recent days, the Rasmussen polls have came back to the pack, and yesterday, Rasmussen pegged his approval rating at 41 percent.

It should be noticed that the Harris poll that pegs Bushs' approval rating as 24 percent is a mistake. The 24 percent approval rating is for Republicans in Congress, not Bush.

Though Bush's approval rating has jumped up a little -- he's finally above the 40 percent mark -- it should also be noted that those who disapprove of his job performance still make up more than half of all Americans.

Meanwhile, conservative news outlets are crowing about the "Bush Bounce". While it has indeed come up, it is much less than they believe (not the 5 percent jump they claim) -- and still, even the most optimistic poll shows that more Americans disapprove of Bush than approve.

More on the FCC

2006-09-16T12:16:00.000-06:00

It looks like the FCC posted a letter from Chairman Martin to Sen. Boxer, as well as the working paper that is at the center of the controversy.
In the letter, Martin seems to think that since those who were at the commission are no longer there (I find that hard to believe that no one is there from two years ago), its going to be really hard to get to the bottom of this:

It is unclear why this report was never released to the public. I am attempting to
determine why, but the senior management of the Media Bureau and the Chairman of the Commission at the time are no longer at the Commission.

Lets hope this is the beginning of a different way of running the FCC- one that is accountable and for the best interests of the consumer.

FCC Kevin Martin Senator Boxer

FCC Study Hushed

2006-09-16T00:02:00.000-06:00

This is a story that I heard about on NPR, but isn't getting much play in the major media; the blogosphere is starting to buzz about the subject, but it hasn't reached, say, "Path to 9/11" proportions.

It recently came out that the FCC ordered a study that showed concentration of media is bad for local markets. From the LA Times:

A former Federal Communications Commission attorney said the agency, in its push to let media companies own more television stations, killed a 2004 study that showed that locally owned TV outlets broadcast more local news because the outcome conflicted with its own agenda.

"The initial results were very compelling, and it was just stopped in its tracks because it was not the way the agency wanted to go," said Adam Candeub, an assistant law professor at Michigan State University. "The order did come down from somewhere in the senior management of the media bureau that this study had to end … and they wanted all the copies collected."
[...]
The 23-page study -- based on a 1998 database of 4,078 news stories from 60 stations over a five-day period -- found that locally owned TV stations broadcast nearly 5 1/2 minutes more of local news than stations not locally owned. Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication, said the findings were similar to those he presented in 2003 but would have been significant coming from the FCC's staff.

LA Times

Hmm...seems like some huge corporations got their way with the destruction of the study. It also proved once again that hte FCC is a broken, flawed entity.

I was listening to Fresh Air on NPR one day on the way to school. Terry Gross was interviewing Jonathon Adelstein of the FCC. He painted a picture of a group that makes decisions arbitrarily and cares more about perceived obscenity than violence.

But this new story shows that the FCC is also corrupt. How else can you explain the FCC destroying a piece of work that goes against corporate interests?

The FCC claims to be "an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress." But they are clearly not independent. We already knew they were beholden to the radical right (how else to explain the huge flap over "Nipplegate"?), but now we know they are in the pocket of big business.

The only reason the existence, and subsequent destruction, of this report came out is because a whistleblower handed it over to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

"Here they are overseeing the media and supposed to be protecting free speech in the media and destroying every piece of a document they didn't like," Boxer said Thursday.

W. Kenneth Ferree, who headed the media bureau in 2004 and has since left the FCC, said Thursday that he had no recollection of the study "or anything to do with it." Former FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell, who headed the commission at the time, did not return a call seeking comment.

LA Times

This just goes to show that under this administration, every government entity has become corrupt and in the pocket of lobbyists and big business.

Sunday is Global Day of Action for Darfur

2006-09-15T12:58:00.000-06:00

After some web browsing, I have discovered that Sunday is the Global Day of Action for Darfur. There are many events going on throughout the country to try to raise awareness about this terrible genocide that has gone on far too long.

To find an event, go here. I found no local event on Sunday in my area, but many areas are getting involved throughout the world:

Activities will be held in a large number of locations around the world, ranging from Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana and Jordan to Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Korea, Mongolia, the US and the UK.

So if there is something going on in your area, get out there and show your support for something to be done for those in Sudan.

Darfur

Keith Olbermann's 9/11 Address

2006-09-12T10:41:00.000-06:00

In stark contrast to George Bush's "I Hope This Saves My Presidency" speech on 9/11, Keith Olbermann used his show, once again, as a place to air his grievances -- and in doing so, trumpet what millions of Americans think.

You can watch the video over at Crooks and Liars or, if you are like me on a dial-up internet connection, read the transcript here.

And lastly tonight a Special Comment on why we are here. Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space.

And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

And all the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and — as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul — two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me... this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft", or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here — is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante — and at worst, an idiot — whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However. Of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast — of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds... none of us could have predicted... this.

Five years later this space... is still empty.

Five years later there is no Memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years… later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later... this is still... just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial — barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said "we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck-pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing — instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush... we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir — on these 16 empty acres, the terrorists… are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation.

There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it... was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.

It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President — and those around him — did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken... a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11, is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase, is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death... after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections... how dare you or those around you... ever "spin" 9/11.

Just as the terrorists have succeeded — are still succeeding — as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero...

So too have they succeeded, and are still succeeding — as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm.

Suddenly his car — and only his car — starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on.

As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced.

An "alien" is shot — but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help.

The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials areseen, manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight.

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...

When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Powerful, powerful stuff. I'm sure that conservative commenters are already calling Olbermann un-American, a communist, etc. etc. But the plain truth is tht he is saying what millions of us, Americans, think.

Deciphering W's 9/11 Speech

2006-09-12T09:16:00.000-06:00

This is from good friend (in a blogger sense), Edward Copeland. He sat through (or at least read the transcript of) Dubya's speech last night, and added his feelings on what Bush was saying.

BUSH: Good evening.

Five years ago, this date -- September the 11th -- was seared into America's memory. Nineteen men attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history. They murdered people of all colors, creeds and nationalities, and made war upon the entire free world.

Since that day, America and her allies (read Tony Blair) have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before. (Mainly because we basically cut and run from the war we were fighting to pursue a folly based on vengeance sought by a few old men who never fought a war themselves).

Today we are safer, but we are not yet safe. (See how I reassure you and then scare you in the same sentence? Heh heh.)

On this solemn night, I have asked for some of your time to discuss the nature of the threat still before us, what we are doing to protect our nation, and the building of a more hopeful Middle East that holds the key to peace for America and the world. (A more hopeful Middle East that includes an Iraq where al-Qaida holds an entire province, its elected leader is a Shiite who is visiting Iran, criticizing Israel and backing Hezbollah, where Iran, watching the cues you gave North Korea realizes that you'll leave them alone if you have nukes, where the burgeoning democracy in Lebanon was hijacked by religious terrorists, where Egypt faces a similar growing threat.)

On 9/11, our nation saw the face of evil. (We saw several faces of evil: Osama bin Laden, the men who flew those airplane passengers to their deaths and destroyed multiple buildings and the face of political calculation by a moron who does what his handlers tell him to do.)

Yet, on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion and responding with extraordinary acts of courage. (True -- and you had nothing to do with that, except for figuring out ways to destroy that national unity).

Edward Copeland

That's not even half of W's speech. You can read the entire speech and Copeland's response over at the Copeland Institute for Lower Learning.

Path to 9/11, a Distraction?

2006-09-11T23:39:00.000-06:00

I'm sure that everyone knows about the ABC docudrama called "The Path to 9/11". Especially if you are a blog-reader from the left side of the aisle. If you read Daily Kos, it seems as if every single diary was about the "docudrama".

I felt this was a bit of overkill, and over at KidOakland's blog, he puts it into words better than I could.

If you measure this weekend simply by the yardstick of whether the netroots pushed the name recognition of vulnerable GOP incumbents: this weekend is a huge loss. Most of the GOP incumbents we are trying to defeat this fall...incumbents like Anne Northup, Jon Porter, Deborah Pryce, Thelma Drake, Cathy McMorris, Mike Ferguson, Nancy Johnson...are hardly known quantities in the national blogosphere. I would add that while each of these GOP incumbents have ample reasons we should oppose them: not a single one of those reasons has much of anything to do with the ABC/Disney movie.

Why does the netroots go for these distractions every time? Well, the internet is an "eyeball environment." No diarist at dKos likes to watch a diary sink like a stone. Every blogger likes to feel like they've got a hot scoop. The GOP Congress is a stale story. While no reader likes to have the name of some vulnerable GOP incumbent shoved in their face, here's a companion truth: a hell of a lot of people spent a hell of a lot of energy talking and learning about Disney and ABC this weekend. Could some of that time have been better spent talking about J.D. Hayworth (GOP, AZ-05) and Charlie Bass (GOP, NH-02)? In my view, yes.

This post-Labor day weekend should have been a time to reinforce key themes and push some races to the forefront. At the end of the day, it wasn't.

Kid Oakland

I couldn't agree more. I have had many a Kos diary sink to the bottom, without recommends. But I tend to write about what I care about -- and if it is something that dozens of others have already written about, I try to do it from a different perspective.

I also agree with KidOakland's purpose in doing what he does. Here is my take on why I think what KO does is important (from an e-mail I sent to a fellow progressive blogger, I tried to clean up the grammar and spelling).

[T]his is something that should have been done years ago, but sites like Daily Kos and MyDD took off instead. While those blogs are great at what they do, they tend to play to national topics.

Kos and the other community-oriented blogs just hold too large a percentage of the power in the progressive blogosphere. I know that the odds of this (Kid Oakland's blog) taking off and becoming a juggernaut are small; but it is an idea that I think is past due.

I don't mean to say that what Kos and MyDD do are unnecessary or bad -- no, instead, I think they are great, and I read both every day. I just think that at times it seems as if the entire blogosphere is centered around Kos.

When everything is centered around a national blog, and that blog takes off on a topic ... many other bloggers take up that common topic. This can be a great asset. But sometimes it grows out of control.

"The Path to 9/11" is something that needed to be pointed out, and needed to be kept up with. But I'm not sure hundreds of Kos diarists yelling the same things about it was the most constructive use of space (bandwidth would be more accurate in this case, I guess). Most of the "Path to 9/11" reactionary diaries were not very substantive, and could easily have been summed up in a comment.

I think that while we should keep an eye on the right-wing misinformation and with corporate ass-kissing to the Republicans, we should also keep our eye on the ball: November.

9/11 Links

2006-09-11T10:54:00.000-06:00

I know I'll read a million things about 9/11 today. Some good, some bad. I'll try to post the good ones here. If you have any to add, put 'em in the comments and I'll post them as I see them. Expect this to update five or six times today.

At ESPN Page 2, Kieran Darcy talks about his father -- who was in the North Tower on 9/11.

The past four September 11ths have been days I've wanted to end as quickly as possible. But this one … this one feels different. Maybe it's because of that number: "5." It just looks and sounds a little more "concrete." Maybe it's simply because there was a Giants game last night, just like five years ago. All I know is, I feel compelled to pause and reflect. And to share, with whomever might be interested.

ESPN Page 2

Peggy Noonan from the Wall Street Journal has a great op-ed piece.

I think too about the sounds that came from within the buildings and within the planes--the phone calls and messages left on answering machines, all the last things said to whoever was home and picked up the phone. They awe me, those messages.

Something terrible had happened. Life was reduced to its essentials. Time was short. People said what counted, what mattered. It has been noted that there is no record of anyone calling to say, "I never liked you," or, "You hurt my feelings." No one negotiated past grievances or said, "Vote for Smith." Amazingly --or not--there is no record of anyone damning the terrorists or saying "I hate them."

No one said anything unneeded, extraneous or small. Crisis is a great editor. When you read the transcripts that have been released over the years it's all so clear.

Wall Street Journal

Also, check out Greg Mitchell's recollection of 9/11 in NYC.

[Update 1]:
The New York Times' look at Ground Zero at Dawn.

John Aravosis' (AMERICAblog) Lessons Learned from September 11th.

NPR profiles six people's lives affected by 9/11.

Think Progress has their 9/11 timeline.

[Update 2]
I found some more sports-oriented stories over at ESPN.com.

Check out the stories of MLS players, a now-25 year old college linebacker, 9/11's impact on golf, the story of a former NHL player who was on Flight 175, the effect on boxing, even on a bout held a year later, the security changes at NASCAR events and a profile of Joe Andruzzi, an NFL offensive lineman who has three brothers in the NYC Fire Department.

Oh, and Gene Wojciechowski's remembrances about the day.

It just goes to show that Sept 11, 2001 affected every part of our lives, even the most frivolous. Sports are an escape, but they were definitely affected in many ways, big and small -- just like the rest of our lives.

Fifth Anniversary of 9/11

2006-09-11T10:27:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure if I can say anything that has already not been said about 9/11.

Five years after 9/11, I can still remember exactly what happened that day. I can still remember hearing my classmates come into class, saying, "A plane just crashed into a building in New York!" I remember watching the TV, seeing a second plane fly into the other building of the World Trade Center.

I remember watching fire engines and police cars race to the scene. I remember watching the buildings collapse, watching thousands of people run away from the towers, covered in ash and debris. I remember how numb I felt for the rest of the day.

I couldn't even work up the energy to be angry that day. The whole day was sort of tuned out -- as if the volume knob of reality was turned down. Nothing seemed real. I remember we were supposed to have a soccer game that day ... but no one really felt like playing. It was cancelled. No one cared.

In the following days and weeks, we'd see the anger, the frustration, the sense of "How could they DO this?" But on that day, there was only ... numbness. Quiet. A sense that this couldn't be real.

Some people have said that 9/11 was the day that Americans joined the real world. If that's so, how come it felt so ... fake? What could be more fake than serious news coverage on ESPN? What could be more fake than MTV's normal programming being pre-empted by CBS News?

The only thing that could be more ludicrous is a couple of commercial jets flying into buildings in New York. The only thing more unbelievable would be terrorists trying to take out the Pentagon, or maybe a brave plane full of people crashing a jet in Pennsylvania before it could kill even more innocent people.

I will always remember Septemeber 11, 2001 as the day America changed. I think it is one day I will remember exactly what happened fifty years from now. As we should all. We should never forget.

Something to think about

2006-09-11T10:14:00.000-06:00

Here's something that I found in my inbox this morning, and I thought I'd forward it. I'm not sure at the exact accuracy of it, but it looks pretty dead on to me.

April 25, 1996: New Anti-terrorism Law Passed

President Clinton signs the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which the New York Times calls "broad legislation that provides new tools and penalties for Federal law-enforcement officials to use in fighting terrorism..." Many Republicans opposed the bill, and forced a compromise that removed increased wiretap authority and lower standards for lawsuits against sellers of guns used in crimes. CNN called the version that finally passed the Republican-controlled Congress a "watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate’s anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers.

Mid-August 1998: Clinton Authorizes Assassination of bin Laden

President Clinton signs a Memorandum of Notification, which authorizes the CIA to plan the capture of bin Laden using force. The CIA draws up detailed profiles of bin Laden’s daily routines, where he sleeps, and his travel arrangements. The assassination never happens, supposedly because of inadequate intelligence. However, as one officer later says, "you can keep setting the bar higher and higher, so that nothing ever gets done." An officer who helped draw up the plans says, "We were ready to move" but "we were not allowed to do it because of this stubborn policy of risk avoidance... It is a disgrace." [Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/16/2001] Additional memoranda quickly follow that authorize the assassination of up to ten other al-Qaeda leaders, and authorize the shooting down of private aircraft containing bin Laden. [Washington Post, 12/19/2001] However, "These directives [lead] to nothing." [New Yorker, 7/28/2003]

April 2, 2000: Some Complain Clinton Administration Focusing Too Much on Terrorism

The Washington Post writes, "With little fanfare, [President Clinton] has begun to articulate a new national security doctrine in which terrorists and other 'enemies of the nation-state' are coming to occupy the position once filled by a monolithic communist superpower." In his January 2000 State of the Union address, President Clinton predicts that terrorists and organized criminals will pose "the major security threat" to the US in coming decades. However, some claim that a "preoccupation with bin Laden has caused errors in judgment." National Security Adviser Sandy Berger counters that the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks on US soil is "a reality, not a perception. ... We would be irresponsible if we did not take this seriously." Counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke predicts that the US's new enemies "will come after our weakness, our Achilles heel, which is largely here in the United States." [Washington Post, 4/2/2000]

January 21, 2001: Bush Administration Takes Over; Many Have Oil Industry Connections

George W. Bush is inaugurated as the 43rd US President, replacing Bill Clinton. The only Cabinet-level figure to remain permanently in office is CIA Director Tenet, appointed in 1997 and reputedly a long-time friend of George H. W. Bush. FBI Director Louis Freeh stays on until June 2001. Numerous figures in Bush's administration have been directly employed in the oil industry, including Bush, Vice President Cheney, and National Security Adviser Rice. Rice had been on Chevron's Board of Directors since 1991, and even had a Chevron oil tanker named after her. [Salon, 11/19/2001] It is later revealed that Cheney is still being paid up to $1 million a year in "deferred payments" from Halliburton, the oil company he headed. [Guardian, 3/12/2003] Enron's ties also reach deep into the administration. [Washington Post, 1/18/2002]

What do you think?

Anti-Horse Slaughtering Bill Passes House

2006-09-07T20:11:00.000-06:00

You may have noticed a headline today about the House passing a ban on slaughtering horses for consumption. It was the only bill on the docket the House Republicans decided was worthy of being voted on all week.

Time has a snarky title: Horse Slaughtering: The New Terrorism?

At first, everyone would seem to agree with the fact that slaughtering horses is a bad idea. Or maybe that's just my take because I recently re-read "No, Not Again!" from The Best American Sports Writing 2004. It is a story about the slaughtering of former racing thoroughbreds who failed at breeding. And, of course, there is the fact tha tour culture does not eat horsemeat.

In a culture where the consumption of horsemeat is generally considered taboo, Americans by and large support measures to ban the slaughter of horses for food. For many Americans, horses are iconic, representing cowboys and the Wild West, and this sentimentality has helped keep horsemeat off Americans' dinner tables.

Chicago Tribune

There are arguments against the proposal. As highlighted from Time.

But organizations fighting the ban number in the hundreds as well. State cattlemen's associations, pork and poultry producers, and farm bureaus oppose the measure, fearing it would give an opening for animal rights organizations to block the slaughter of other animals for food. The Agriculture Department also doesn't want the measure. When the bill's proponents passed an amendment in the House and Senate last year blocking funding for USDA inspectors at the three slaughterhouses, the department allowed the plants to pay for the inspectors themselves to keep operating.

More importantly, the American Veterinary Medical Association has come out against the ban, fearing rescue shelters would be swamped with hundreds of thousands of unwanted horses while others would be sold to unregulated slaughterhouses overseas and brutalized even more. The U.S. ban "does not solve problems, it creates problems," complains Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, which is almost unanimously opposed to the measure.

Time

And the Chicago Tribune article:

"What are you going to do with 90,000 unwanted horses? Who's going to provide for their care?" asked Stenholm, who was the top-ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee until 2004. "It's not in the best interest of the horses. There is nothing in the bill that provides for the humane treatments of horses."

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns echoed those concerns Wednesday in a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). In the letter Johanns said passage would likely lead to "a reduction in the humane treatment of horses."

Chicago Tribune

This is all well and good -- but the best quote comes from the Time article, at the beginning.

With all the other problems piling up — soaring energy costs, the war in Iraq, tens of millions of Americans with no health-care insurance, skyrocketing federal debt — Republicans were bound to get a kick in the rear when the only bill they considered this week on the House floor was one to look out for the welfare of horses.

Time

This is a bill that many in the House believe in. But this might not be the best time for it -- we have so many more pressing issues, it is a shame that they waste some of their precious time on a bill like this instead of working to fix one of our country's major problems.

ABC Mockudrama

2006-09-07T11:15:00.000-06:00

Just doing a quick look around the internet shows all the problems with the ABC Docudrama "The Path to 9/11". Let's review.

First, the film is undoubtedly right-wing. It is written by one Cyrus Nowrasteh. Who is Nowrasteh? He is a conservative activist. This alone does not make the docudrama automatically a piece of right-wing propaganda -- but it certainly helps.

But the producers also decided to only allow the film to be pre-screened by those on the right side of the aisle. I highlighted the Firedoglake post in my post earlier this week. A quick recap:

Several weeks prior to the broadcast, publicists sent out advance DVDs of the film to conservative bloggers, and screenings have been held for conservative pundits like U.S. News & World Report writer Michael Barone. Even relatively obscure right-wing blogs such as Patterico’s Pontifications, written by Los Angeles County attorney Justin Levine, have been favored with advance screenings. Levine reciprocated by declaring that the film is "free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling" and "one of the best made-for-televison movies seen in decades. ... The Clinton administration will likely go ballistic over this film." In its politically-spin-free way, Patterico pontificates, the film also "lays out viscerally powerful arguments in favor of the Patriot Act and airport profiling."

When challenged to explain why the right-wing blogosphere is abuzz with praise for the film, director David Cunningham responded that "we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush" — a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence. I searched Technorati for mentions of the film and found 260 references, mostly from conservative websites, every single one of which had nothing but praise for the film. And although I found numerous examples of conservative pundits and bloggers who reported seeing pre-broadcast screenings, no leftist pundits or bloggers had been given a chance to see it (unless you count Salon.com's roundup of several 9/11-themed movies).

Firedoglake

And not only are they keeping it away from any sort of progressive blogs -- but they also are withholding it from President Clinton. He has sent out a letter that calls for ABC to "pull the drama" if it is not fixed of its gross inaccuracies.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said

NY Post

Which neatly leads us into the second complaint -- it is filled with, for lack of a better term, fiction. Meanwhile, it is being branded as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report". This is as much based on the 9/11 Commission Report as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was based on real events.

Meanwhile, even those who worked on the project are saying it is inaccurate. One FBI agent working as a consultant even quit because "they were making things up".

And a scene where former national security advisor Sandy Berger abruptly hangs up on a CIA agent was completely improvised -- in other words made up.

Mr. Berger’s character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military operation. In an interview yesterday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the mini-series' screenwriter and one of its producers, said that moment had been improvised.

"Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone," Mr. Nowrasteh said. "That is not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you're making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It's the job of the filmmaker to say, 'You know, maybe we can use that.' "

New York Times

Read the rest of the NY Times article to see the scenes that Madelaine Albright calls "false and defamatory".

This docudrama is nothing more than a puff-piece to whitewash President Bush and his buddies from all blame of what happened on 9/11. I have not seen the film (obviously I'm not part of the rabid-right-wing 38% who still believe President Bush knows what he is doing), but I am willing to bet that it glosses over or omits the parts that are damaging to Bush's image.

And the fact that it comes just two months before elections? Well, it will save the Republicans some money on campaign commercials.

Bush Admits Secret Prisons, Transfers Al Qaeda Members

2006-09-06T23:35:00.000-06:00

President Bush today announced the move of 14 terrorists from secret prisons to Guantanamo Bay. In doing so, he confirmed the existence of the secret prisons.

President Bush said Wednesday that 14 high-profile terror suspects held secretly until now by the Central Intelligence Agency — including the man accused of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks — had been transferred to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to face military tribunals if Congress approves.

The suspects include Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, thought to be the Sept. 11 mastermind, and other close associates of Osama bin Laden. Mr. Bush said he had decided to "bring them into the open" after years in which the C.I.A. held them without charges in undisclosed sites abroad, in a program the White House had not previously acknowledged.

New York Times

Hmm...the timing on this couldn't be politically motivated, right? Directly after the traditional start to the campaign season (Labor Day) and when the approval ratings of the President and Congress continue to be stagnant at sub-40%? What exactly could the political possibly implications be?

Bush wants his courts to try these terrorists. Courts that operate in a very un-American way. While I agree these men should be held to justice (not held indefinitely without charges while tortured -- Americans are better people than to do things like that), I don't think his way is the way it should be. So how does Bush want the courts to run?

President Bush asked Congress Wednesday to approve a new system of military-style justice for terrorism suspects that would, for the first time, permit convictions in American courts based on the use of coerced evidence.

The Bush administration proposal also would permit war crimes convictions based on evidence that was never made available to the accused.

LA Times

I know that these 14 are very, very bad people. But does that mean that we have to sacrifice everything that our judicial system stands for on behalf of them? Are we really going to do their job by chipping away at what makes America America?

It seems so. And it is all for the sake of political posturing.

It now seems clear to just about everyone that the other shoe has now dropped. We know the president's final strategy to keep the subpoenas at bay in 2007 and 2008. Put the worst al Qaida bad guys at Gitmo and force a rushed debate over legislation over how they will be tried. An up or down vote, either the president's kangaroo courts or nothing.
Dare Democrats to vote for nothing. If they do, mutilate them with 30 seconds. If they don't, sow dissension among the opposition.

It's hardly a surprise. This whole White House is the fruit of the poison tree. Their national security policy has always been essentially political. Nothing has changed. It's what all of us have always predicted.

But here's where it gets interesting. Three Republican senators say they won't play ball: Warner, McCain and Graham.

Talking Points Memo

Kudos to those three who actually have the guts to stand up for what is right. Who have the guts to stand up for American values. While I don't agree with everything that Senators Warner, McCain and Graham stand for, I can at least applaud them on this front.

One last quick tidbit. In his speech today, President Bush says, "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values."

Maybe the CIA or Army isn't torturing now, but they must have been in the past to need to ban some interrogation techniques used in the past.

What About that Economy?

2006-09-05T12:48:00.000-06:00

President Bush and the Republicans look at the economy as a source of pride. Under him, they say, this number or that has grown. But one number that is near and dear to our hearts has dropped over the last six years.

It is, of course, the median household income. This is a number that is tangible to all of us. This shows that under Bush, while corporate interests may have been served, those of the common people -- of whom Bush pretends he is one -- are being screwed.

While Michigan is worst off, it is still a snapshot for the country. Read the article from the Detroit Free Press.

Hat tip to New Mexiken for the catch. And, he has the best tagline for any blog out there, bar-none: "Half Wisdom · Half Whimsy · Half Wit".

NY Times: Conflicting Reports

2006-09-04T14:04:00.000-06:00

I was going through the New York Times' website today, when I saw two stories next to each other that just didn't seem right.

One was titled "Troops Cut Death, but Not Fear, in Baghdad Zone". The other, "40 Bodies Found in Baghdad on Violent Day".

The cutting death article talked about one neighborhood in Baghdad.

Three weeks after American and Iraqi troops began searching, fortifying and patrolling Dora, one of Baghdad’s bloodiest neighborhoods, the odor of death on the streets has eased. After 126 bodies surfaced in Dora in July, only 18 turned up in August, according to United States military figures. Killings, most often Sunni against Shiite or vice versa in this mixed neighborhood, dropped as well: 14 were reported last month, down from 73 in July.

Source: NY Times

That seems good; the killings have dropped from around 125 to under 20. But this is just one neighborhood, as a passage shows two paragraphs later.

[I]n Baghdad as a whole, the toll has been high, with the city’s morgue reporting more than 334 people killed or found dead from Aug. 24 to the end of the month.

Source: NY Times

Yes, you read that correctly -- 334 people killed or found dead in a week. And those are just the ones who are found. Maybe Dora is doing better, but the city as a whole is not. Which brings us to the second article.

The bodies of 40 people, including 25 who were found blindfolded and shot at close range, were found in Baghdad today, an Interior Ministry official said, and a mass grave containing 18 bodies of people who appeared to have been executed in the 1980's was discovered in the northern city of Kirkuk.
[...]
Of the 40 bodies discovered in the capital, 25 were found throughout the western half of the city, apparently shot after having been tortured, the Interior Ministry official said. The other 15 bodies, found in different areas across the city, were probably victims of random drive-by shootings, the official said.

Source: NY Times

This shows that Baghdad as a whole isn't safe -- though calling a neighborhood where "only" 18 people were found dead "safe" is a bit of a stretch.

And it paints a picture of a city that is wildly out of control; completely lawless. Fifteen bodies victims of "random drive-by shootings"?

I'm not sure what can be done to make the violence stop -- or if anything can be done at this point. But it is clear that the violence is not slowing or stopping any time soon.

ABC to Air 6-Hour Political Ad for GOP

2006-09-04T11:04:00.000-06:00

By now, if you watch any ABC, you have seen the ads for "The Path to 9/11", a six-hour, two-part "docu-drama"about 9/11. Prominently displayed in the ad is the claim that it is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report."

But it looks like it is more based on the revisionist dreams of Republicans up for office this fall.

The show’s political slant is evident from the fact that Rush Limbaugh is talking up the movie, noting that its screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a personal friend. Several weeks prior to the broadcast, publicists sent out advance DVDs of the film to conservative bloggers, and screenings have been held for conservative pundits like U.S. News & World Report writer Michael Barone. Even relatively obscure right-wing blogs such as Patterico’s Pontifications, written by Los Angeles County attorney Justin Levine, have been favored with advance screenings. Levine reciprocated by declaring that the film is "free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling" and "one of the best made-for-televison movies seen in decades. … The Clinton administration will likely go ballistic over this film." In its politically-spin-free way, Patterico pontificates, the film also "lays out viscerally powerful arguments in favor of the Patriot Act and airport profiling."
When challenged to explain why the right-wing blogosphere is abuzz with praise for the film, director David Cunningham responded that "we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush" — a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence. I searched Technorati for mentions of the film and found 260 references, mostly from conservative websites, every single one of which had nothing but praise for the film. And although I found numerous examples of conservative pundits and bloggers who reported seeing pre-broadcast screenings, no leftist pundits or bloggers had been given a chance to see it (unless you count Salon.com’s roundup of several 9/11-themed movies).

Source: Firedoglake

This is a blatant play by ABC for ratings. We know that, that is their job to get ratings. But they could at least do it based on reality, not based on a fantasy of the right-wing of America.

Read the rest of the Firedoglake post for the sordid details.

The Path to 9/11 ABC

RIP, Steve Irwin

2006-09-04T01:44:00.000-06:00

I hope you'll forgive me for straying from hard news and politics for a post.

Normally, when a celebrity dies, I feel a bit sad at their passing, think about what they meant to me (usually not much), then forget about it. But once in a while, a celebrity that triggers a lot of memories dies, and ... well, it seems almost as if a member of the family died.

Not an immediate member of the family, but maybe a cousin that you never see. One that everyone in your family has a story about. The untimely death of Steve Irwin earlier was just one such moment.

I heard about it while eating at IHOP with my friends; my brother text messaged me and said, "Did you now that steve irwin the croc hunter died?" I opened up my phone's browser, checked Google News and saw the news was true (rumors of Irwin's death usually come around every couple of months, so you're never really sure).

Irwin, 44, died this morning after being fatally injured while filming a nature documentary off Queensland.
[...]
Irwin was being given CPR at Low Isles, off Port Douglas, as the helicopter arrived less than one hour after the incident, but Dr O'Loughlin said nothing could be done to save him.

"It became clear fairly soon that he had non-survivable injuries," Dr O'Loughlin said.

"He had a penetrating injury to the left front of his chest.

"He had lost his pulse and wasn't breathing."

Source: NEWS.com.au

He was, perhaps unsurprisingly, killed by a dangerous animal. With his job and his crazy habits of picking up dangerous spiders, scorpions and snakes, it was perhaps inevitable that one of nature's creatures (in this case, a stingray) would strike him down.

One friend at the table in IHOP said, "You'll always remember where you were when you heard the news that Steve Irwin died." I know that it was an ironic joke about people who remember when JFK or Martin Luther King were assassinated -- but in some ways it's true.

As a kid, I was always interested in animals. I had every copy of Zoo Books, and I'd watch the Discovery Channel (pre-Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs days) when I got home from school; they always had an animal documentary on. Or maybe Steve Irwin.

He was a hero to every kid. A man who wrestled alligators (really crocodiles) and tamed snakes. The man who wasn't afraid of anything. The mythic, Zeus-like creature, impervious to whatever a cobra or crocodile threw at him. He spoke passionately about the beauty of these strange and dangerous creatures -- he truly loved them and the work that he did. He gained thousands of converts to his love of animals and conservation with his passion.

It was something that you couldn't fake.

Irwin's love of animals was his life -- he ran Australia Zoo. He also had a wife, Terry Raines, and two kids.

I think that everyone has a fond spot in their hearts for Irwin. Though I've used the word many times in this post, my small tribute to the conservationist, his passion was something that could sweep anyone away. The Australian Prime Minister even mentioned it in his tribute to Irwin:

He was a larrikin, yes, but he was a really warm-hearted bloke as well and he cared passionately about Australia and he cared passionately about the Australian environment.

Source: The Australian

For those of you wondering (like I was) what 'a larrikin' is, look at the Wikipedia entry.

RIP, Steve Irwin. You were a unique man who will be missed by conservationists and animal lovers everywhere.

P.S.
In memory of Irwin, look at Wildlife Warriors Worldwide and International Crocodile Rescue.

Photo from News.com.au

Steve Irwin

Al Qaeda Number Two Capured in Iraq

2006-09-03T17:56:00.000-06:00

The Iraqi National Security Advisor announced the number two man in Al Qaeda was captured in Iraq. This led me to ask, "Again?"

Wasn't it just a few months ago when we were told that Al Qaeda's operations in Iraq were crippled when al Zarqawi was killed? Why then did the Pentagon report that violence in Iraq has grown worse?

Speaking of al Zarqawi, let's hope that this time we don't accidently release another al Qaeda leader, in this case Hamed Juma Faris al-Suaidi.

Catching the number two in Iraq is definitly a good thing. I'm all for taking out al Qaeda leadership and anyone down the line, even to the copy guy. But let's not pretend that this will be a major turning point in the war.

Court Victory for Whistleblower

2006-09-02T15:57:00.000-06:00

The Associated Press reported today that a whistleblower in Nevada won an important court victory.

The federal judge on Friday ordered the agency to pay Earle Dixon two years worth of back pay and benefits totaling more than $120,000, saying it was clear that "Dixon was fired for his whistle-blowing activities" at the former Anaconda copper mine in Yerington, about 60 miles southeast of Reno.

Dixon, whose annual salary was about $58,000, said he was fired in retaliation for publicizing the increasing health and safety hazards being unearthed at the abandoned mine owned by Atlantic Richfield Co., including unsafe levels of uranium that he claims state regulators knew about but covered up since 1984.

Source: Associated Press

We all know that whistleblowers in government have been unduly fired or just plain blocked from revealing information that should be known to the public (look at Russell Tice). Corporate whistleblowers have routinely been fired for serving the public interest.

This case is a partial victory for Dixon and corporate whistleblowers everywhere.

Breaking: War in Iraq Going Badly

2006-09-02T00:56:00.000-06:00

I'm going to have to break some news to some of you. Specifically, around forty percent of you. The War in Iraq? It's going badly. You just have to look at the front page of tommorow's New York Times for evidence.

Iraqi casualties soared by more than 50 percent in recent months, the product of spiraling sectarian clashes and a Sunni-based insurgency that remains “potent and viable,” the Pentagon said in its latest comprehensive assessment of security in Iraq.

Source: New York Times

Wait -- you're one of those who think that the NY Times is just out to get W and the rest of the current administration? Well, beyond the fact that the source is a Pentagon report, you can take a look at the Washington Post.

Executions, kidnappings and other sectarian attacks targeting Iraqi civilians have soared over the past three months, contributing to a 51 percent rise in casualties among the population and Iraqi security forces, the report said. More than 3,000 Iraqis are killed or wounded each month, and by July, 2,000 of the casualties were the result of sectarian incidents, it showed.

The Pentagon report, though consistent with what news media have reported for months, is significant because it represents an official acknowledgment of trends that are widely believed to be driving the country toward full-scale civil war.

Source: Washington Post

Iraq is at best on the path to civil war. At worst, it's already deep into a civil war -- one that our troops are smack-dab in the middle of.

And Americans are increasingly aware of this. Just take a look at the Christian Science Monitor's "Terrorism and Security Daily Update".

A new Associated Press/Ipsos poll that surveyed the country, and more specifically residents of Washington and New York, shows that many feel the cost in blood and money in Iraq may already be too high and that Osama bin Laden will never be found. The poll also showed that 60 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has increased the chances of a terrorist attack in the US.

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Increasingly, Americans want our troops back safe and at home. Increasingly, we agree with Gen. Wesley Clark, who wrote in a Wall Street Journal Op-ed:

Iraq isn’t Vietnam. America can’t just walk away without horrendous consequences. But “stay the course” isn’t a strategy. And the longer the bleeding goes on there, the harder the electorate will dig for answers—and the tougher they’ll be on those who got us in, and aided, abetted and apologized for them.

Source: Wall Street Journal (via WesPac)

How does the White House respond to such criticism? They say, "Hey, we never said 'stay the course!'"

Many Democrats accuse the president of advocating "stay the course" in Iraq, but the White House rejects the phrase and regularly emphasizes that it is adapting tactics to changing circumstances, such as moving more U.S. troops into Baghdad recently after a previous security strategy appeared to fail.

Source: Washington Post

This denial is oddly reminiscent of their denial of linking 9/11 to Sadaam and Iraq -- and just as easily proven to be a bald-faced lie.

Look at the quotes that Think Progress found of Bush or his mouthpiece (Tony Snow) uttering the exact phrase "Stay the course":

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

SNOW: The second thing you do is you stay the course. [7/10/06]

SNOW: But on the other hand, you also cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you’ve got to stay the course. [8/17/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

SNOW: People are going to want more of it, and that’s why the President is determined to stay the course. April. [8/16/06]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

Source: Think Progress

There's also a video available at that same link.

Maybe they forgot the talking points.

The war in Iraq is going badly. The Bush administration has no plan or strategy to win the war or to even get our troops out of harm's way. The Republican Congress has enabled this President and the administration in their horribly planned and run war. So let's get these jokers out of Washington and bring in a government who has our best interests in mind.

Yes, Byrd Also Held Porkbuster Bill Up

2006-08-31T16:29:00.000-06:00

Frankly, this is starting to get ridiculous. Right after I post about Robert Byrd possibly holding up the Porkbuster bill (ten minutes later, in fact), TPM Muckraker goes ahead and posted Byrd's statement on his hold.

There was an effort to pass a bill (S. 2590) on an important subject without debate just before the Senate recess. Senators have an obligation to their constituents to know what they are voting on before signing off on any proposal. The American people ought to demand that bills receive scrutiny by Senators before those bills are approved. We have seen the consequences of rushing legislation through the Senate without any time for review or understanding.
On August 2, the last day before a month-long Senate recess, a Senate committee gave its approval to a brand new piece of legislation, cosponsored by Senator Obama and Senator Coburn. That same day, there was an effort to rush the legislation through the Senate without any Senator having the chance to ask questions.

Senator Byrd wanted time to read the legislation, understand its implications, and see whether the proposal could be improved. Now that there has been time to better understand the legislation, Senator Byrd has released his hold. Senator Byrd believes that the bill should be debated and opened for amendment, and not pushed through without discussion.

Source: TPM Muckraker

His excuse is, quite frankly, pathetic. No one in committee had objections to this bill -- only those who don't want their pork-barrel politics revealed have anything to lose with this bill.

At least he's released his hold. Hopefully this is the end of this story, the bill passes unanimously (well, there's always Stevens and Byrd, so maybe 98-2) and we can all get back to discussing how crazy Tom Cruise is.

Dem Also Holding Up Porkbuster Bill?

2006-08-31T13:49:00.000-06:00

In a twist, it looks like Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may not be the only Senator with a hold on the 'porkbuster' bill of Tom Coburn and Barrack Obama. I wrote yesterday about the porkbuster bill (actually I had to write a whole new post when TPM Muckraker broke the story that it was Stevens with the hold). So of course, the story still has legs.

Now, TPM Muckraker (who has had the best coverage on the story) has come up with the theory that Senator Robert Byrd also has a hold on the bill.

That's right: Byrd, whose penchant for pork would probably win him the Pork Crown if he weren't saddled with minority status, has for days declined to answer constituents and others who have asked if he put a hold on the spending database proposal, S. 2590.
We have called and emailed his office and press secretary at least a half-dozen times over two days. Yesterday, we were promised a statement by the end of the day; none came. This morning, spokesman Tom Gavin continued to blame Byrd's travel schedule for the lack of response.

Source: TPM Muckraker

Hmm, travel, eh? It seems that out of all the Senators on Summer Vacation, only two were too busy to comment on it -- and when Ted Stevens *cough* finished traveling *cough*, he admitted that he, the King of Pork himself, was behind the (or should I say a) hold.

I guess wherever Byrd is traveling, they don't have cell phones.

Ohio Ballots Not to Be Destroyed

2006-08-31T12:03:00.000-06:00

I find this interesting, since lots of people think the whole Ohio-ballot-thing is something for those with conspiracy theories, and little else. Well, it looks like the crazies won out- at least a stay from the destruction of the ballots.

And this is a good way to frame the debate:

"This is not about Kerry or Bush or who should be president," said Bill Goodman, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York group that is part of the lawsuit. "This is about figuring out what is not working in our election system and ensuring that every cast vote counts."

Yep- because Bush is President, even if its found out something was fishy, its highly unlikely that people will say he is not the president. Sad but true.

Its a nice gesture to delay the destruction- but what are they going to go with the ballots between now and when they actually are destroyed. Are they just stalling, hoping for people to forget and then get rid of them when there is much less public outcry? I wouldn't doubt it. But hopefully something will be done with them, and the Crys of voter fraud, etc can finally be put to the test, and a final outcome acceptable to all.

Keep an eye out for this for the next couple months. Maybe something will be done with them, and we can learn from the mistakes, and have much more fair elections in the future as a result.

Ohio voting 2004 Election

Did we forget Darfur- Again?

2006-08-31T09:35:00.000-06:00

I have been thinking a lot lately about how the big news organizations decide which stories of war get into their newcasts. We had around the clock coverage of Israel v. Lebanon, but what about the assorted civil wars being waged in Africa? From Uganda and the Congo, war has gripped Africa, but mainstream news has chosen to leave it on the margins.

Now that movie stars- tired of the lack of coverage over Darfur- have started speaking out, more coverage has gone to covering about how the stars feel about the conflict instead of about the conflict itself.

Oh yeah, there is still a genocide going on. Though the US government is very, very reluctant to actually utter the g word.

Samantha Powers exposed this story earlier in her brilliant "Problem From Hell", a harrowing account of genocides and America;s (non) response to them throughout the 20th century. In a sub-chapter titled "The G-Word", she talks about the US State Department's "dance" around the word genocide. State Department officials knew that if they characterized the atrocities in Rwanda as genocide, they would be mandated, as signatories to the UN Genocide Convention, to intervene. And since they weren't going to intervene in a potentially bloody conflict in a part of the world where the US had no strategic interest they didn't use the word.

Its nice to see that the Bush Administration (I can't believe I just said nice and 'bush administration' in the same sentence!) has not been afraid to use the genocide word.

Speaking of Republicans, in a pretty good development, even those over at RedState are asking for Republicans to step up to the plate, (even though their introduction a bit off base) and they do highlight the fact that a couple Republicans did get A+ scorecards from DarfurScores.org. (Though those high scoring Republicans are in the minority, they are generally getting pretty bad grades) And if you get a chance, check out the great graphic illustrating how each states congresspeople rank. My home state, NM, gets a C, which is sadly not too bad.

I recommend the Genocide Intervention Network for their updates on what is happening on the ground, as well as wainvolved involoved, including writing your Congressman/woman, and even sending a free fax to Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer.
In the same Ethan Zuckerman piece linked above, he does bring up the point that public opinion has a lot to do with this. The more pressure put on the administration to do something, the more they will think about it.

One of the points Powers makes in her book is that the US government has avoided intervening to prevent genocides because it received insufficient pressure from the general public - if citizens didn't care about genocides taking place, why put American troops at risk?

So lets put some pressure on them, and at least get them to start something with teeth at the UN level.

Darfur

Katrina Victims Punished in La. Football

2006-08-30T15:43:00.000-06:00

I first heard about the story yesterday on the Dan Patrick Show (one of my favorite sports talk radio shows ... I'm a sucker for sports talk radio, don't ask me why). It made me sad and a little angry (and could the timing have come at a worst time?).

Bastrop High School in Lafayette, La won their first football state championship since 1927. That is a great feat in itself, doing something the school had not done in nearly 80 years. The story was made better when two of the players were Hurricane Katrina evacuees. Right?

Wrong.

A ruling came down yesterday from the LHSAA -- on the one-year anniversary of Katrina, no less -- that Bastrop High School would be stripped of its title for illegally recruiting players. And the players -- hurricane evacuees Randall Mackey and Jamal Recasner who transferred from Port Sulphur High School -- were to be stripped of eligibility for the upcoming year. The two students were, in effect, punished twice.

There have been allegations of an "open season" on Katrina evacuees. Kevin Foote says there is a tremendous "gray area" -- then goes on to only talk about the side who wants to uphold the LHSAA's ruling.

But this wasn't a case of recruiting football players for the gain of Bastrop High School. As Bill Plaschke of the LA Times points out:

The folks at Bastrop say their case is different. They say it wasn't conniving, it was charity. There were 47 evacuees admitted to the school. The football players were simply part of that group.

Source: LA Times

And I haven't even delved into the two players losing their eligibility. The Bastrop High School coach said the right things at a town meeting after the ruling came down.

"In my opinion, we're victims of our own success," said Ross Downs of Bastrop, who organized the town meeting. "It's absolutely ridiculous. If the (LHSAA) wants to take away a state championship, do that. But they're not messing with our two kids."

Source: Monroe (La.) News-Star

Bravo. He immediately thought about the kids who are going to lose an entire year of high school football -- a mere 12 months after losing their houses, their entire home city -- instead of his state championship.

I agree with Dan Patrick when answering the criticism that the school was three hours away. Yes, but wouldn't you want to get as far away from the destruction of New Orleans as possible if you were these kids?

And what about the kids who wre sent to Houston, to San Antonio -- hell, to Albuquerque? I'm sure that a percentage of these kids went on to play high school sports.

You can tell what side of the fence I come down on this. Give them their state championship, give them their eligibility; haven't they suffered enough?

Ted Stevens Is the Bill Blocker

2006-08-30T14:51:00.000-06:00

I had a feeling that we would learn the identity of the bill-blocker this morning when I wrote my post titled Who Is Behind The Secret Hold?.

I wrote that at 10:55 am Mountain; that's 12:55 pm Eastern for those of you unused to hearing about the Mountain Time Zone. An hour later -- 1:59 Eastern -- TPM Muckraker broke the news that Senator Ted Stevens was, indeed, the blocker of the bill.

A spokesman for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) just confirmed his boss was the man behind the secret hold on the Coburn/Obama spending database bill, which has captivated a segment of the political blogging community in recent days.

"Sen. Stevens does have a hold on the bill," said the spokesman, who would only speak on the condition he not be named. He added that Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) office was notified of the hold after it was placed. So Coburn's comments two weeks ago may have been duly informed.

Source: TPM Muckraker

Meanwhile, CNN just jumped on board at 4:38 EDT. And they let Sen. Stevens' spokesman Aaron Saunders (I almost said Al Saunders, the current Redskins and former Kansas City Chiefs Offensive Coordinator) spin the hold without any dissenting voices.

"This wasn't in anyway secretive," Saunders said. "We're baffled as to why it's been called a secret hold."

"He prefers to handle things at the member to member level or at the staff level," Saunders said. "That's the way Sen. Stevens has always operated."

"Sen. Stevens has a series of concerns and questions about the bill. He wants a cost benefit analysis to make sure it doesn't create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and not meet its purpose," Saunders said.

Source: CNN

If he didn't care that people knew it was him, how come it took weeks of phone calls to Senators to narrow it down to Stevens? If he was so proud of his hold, how come he never told anyone in the public -- the people he was elected to serve -- that it was him doing the blocking?

Sen. Tom Coburn's spokesman, John Hart, comes up wiht another hole in the Stevens spin.

Hart said that Stevens, who's on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, failed to attend any hearings on the bill, an assertion backed up by vote tallies. "If he had concerns, he should have addressed them in regular order rather than blocking something that will benefit millions of taxpayers," Hart said. He added that after Stevens' office raised the concerns, Coburn's office requested a meeting, but never got one.

Source: TPM Muckraker

And Stevens protesting on the grounds of it possibly wasting money is priceless. This is the same man who is known as the King of Pork.

And why didn't Stevens' office confirm that he was indeed the holder? According to an update from TPM Muckraker, everyone was on vacation. Right.

Who Is Behind the Secret Hold?

2006-08-30T10:55:00.000-06:00

One thing that both Democrats and Republicans agree on is that pork is bad. (No, not this pork).

Pork Barrel politics has become rampant in recent years. To combat this, Senators Tom Coburn and Barrack Obama put forth a bill that "require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds."

This seems like a reasonable bill; making sure that the government we elect are putting tax money to use in a way that would be acceptable to us. To know that they aren't wasting our money.

So, of course, a Senator put the bill on a "secret hold".

Now the bill is in political limbo. Under Senate rules, unless the senator who placed the hold decides to lift it, the bill will not be brought up for a vote.

"It really is outrageous to do this in the dead of night as Congress is recessing," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a budget watchdog group based in Washington. "The public has a right to know how the government spends money."

Source: Houston Chronicle

The attention has turned to the question of who would put this secret hold on the bill.

Many websites began campaigns to have their readers call their senators and ask if they would deny being hte secret holder. You can see TPM Muckraker's and the list at Porkbusters.

According to TPM Muckraker, only the following Senators have refused to deny being the secret holder.

Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV)
Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT) - a staffer denied, but not unequivocally

Source: TPM Muckraker

Porkbusters, on the other hand, has this list of non-deniers:

Ted Stevens R-Alaska
Mike Crapo R-Idaho
Judd Gregg R-New Hampshire
Orrin Hatch R-Utah
Robert Bennett R-Utah

Source: Porkbusters

Sen. Crapo is the latest name on TPM Muckraker's list, so it looks like Porkbusters just hasn't got around to updating their list. TPM does not have any short comments about the denials. Porkbusters says of Senator Byrd "Porkbusters reader Angie reports: 'Senator Robert Byrd's office confirms that he is not the senator who placed the secret hold.'"

So that leaves just four suspects -- Ted Stevens, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett -- all Republicans.

The odds-on favorite is Coburn nemesis and pork-hall-of-fame member Sen Ted Stevens. Stevens, champion of the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, was accused of being the "the only senator blocking" the bill by Sen Coburn.

Let's go to Justin Rood over at TPM Muckraker, the guy who plucked the Fort Smith Times Record article out of obscurity (it was published on Aug 18, but wasn't noticed in the blogosphere until recently) about whether Stevens is the blocker or not:

But did he really do it? Well, he had a motive: As the paper and others have noted, Stevens and Coburn have clashed before -- in particular over Stevens' now-legendary "bridge to nowhere." Coburn attempted (and failed) to block the $233 million boondoggle. And revenge certainly fits the senior Alaskan's m.o. "Stevens can play rough," the Seattle Times noted in June. "Despite denials from his staff, he retaliates - and doesn't mind waiting years to do so."

Source: TPM Muckraker

When it finally comes out who placed the secret hold (and it will come out), that person's opponents will have a huge arrow in their quiver come election time.

Ted Stevens Congress

Repubs Attack Progressives

2006-08-29T16:51:00.000-06:00

Apparently, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, those against the war in Iraq (like Ned Lamont) are Nazi-appeasers. But according to the Waterbury Republican-American, Lamont is a communist.

So, according to Republicans, the Connecticut Democratic candidate (and his supporters) are Communist Nazi-appeasers.

Crooks and Liars has the video of Rumsfeld suffering from some sort of brain fever that causes him to spout nonsense. Perhaps it is the same sort of disease that President Bush has. Only Rumsfeld's is a much more advanced case.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces ``a new type of fascism'' and likened critics of the Bush administration's war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis in the 1930s.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from ``moral or intellectual confusion'' about what threatens the nation's security. His remarks amounted to one of his most pointed defenses of President Bush' war policies and was among his toughest attacks on Bush's critics.

Source: AP

The Waterbury Republican-American, on the other hand, decided to go with another horrible dictator from that era: Joseph Stalin.

Red Ned may label himself a progressive, but when he espouses goals shared by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al., he gives away his true color.

Source: Waterbury American-Republican

In a post called "McCarthyism: From 1946 to 2006", John Nichols says this about the horribly inaccurate and slandorous editorial:

While the Republican-American may be guilty of lax journalism, the real shame belongs to Lieberman's independent campaign, which has spread the Waterbury paper's fantastic claims. The senator's communications director even quoted the editorial in a widely circulated statement on the race.

With the help of the Waterbury Republican-American, Joe Lieberman is keeping alive the politics of another Joe: the one named McCarthy. And in so doing, Lieberman's proving that the shock waves from a primary election in the summer of 1946 are still being felt in this summer of another primary election that has dislodged another senior senator.

Source: The Nation

It's horrible that the paper would print this garbage in the first place (though one commenter on The Nation, John B, has this to say, "The irony of Lamont's capitalist success will never make it into the mix."), but it is worse that Lieberman would take this up.

TX Governor Orders Special Election for DeLay Seat

2006-08-29T14:59:00.000-06:00

Were you thinking, "Hey, the election for DeLay's vacated seat isn't controversial or confusing enough?" Well, things just got more confusing.

As if the race for Tom DeLay's old seat weren't confusing enough already, what with a hyphenated Republican write-in candidate, now voters will also have the opportunity to elect a temporary representative to fill the empty seat from November through January. The elections (general and special) will take place the same day.

Source: TPM Muckraker

There are some interesting possibilities with this. The write-in candidate (Shelly Sekula-Gibbs, just the kind of name you want for a write-in candidate) could win the special election, then lose the general election.

Imagine, Sekula-Gibbs is a member of Congress for two months, then Nick Lampson takes over.

Or one could win both. Whoever wins the election would automatically become a member of Congress, jumping that little bit ahead on seniority.

As if the world of Texas politics couldn't get any kookier.

One-Year Anniversary of Katrina

2006-08-29T08:09:00.000-06:00

It was a year ago today that one of the biggest natural disasters to ever hit the United States plowed into the Gulf Coast. It was immediately followed by one of the biggest governmental mess-ups in United States history.

Over at Think Progress, they have an excellent the real state of New Orleans, one year later.

Katrina was the event that made me want to start blogging. WhenI saw the images of people wandering aimlessly in the brown, murkly floodwaters, when I saw people stuck on their roofs for days, when I heard the people in New Orleans begging for help, I felt like I had to write about my frustrations.

My first post, crossposted at my old, now defunct blog, begged people to donate to Katrina relief. For the next couple of weeks, it was pretty much all Katrina, all the time on FBIHOP. From the failures of Michael Brown and Michael Chertoff to a video of someone in Mississippi telling Cheney, to f--k himself, to
the effect the NFL could have on morale.

And it was all a year ago today that it began.

I remember seeing the news in the days running up to the event. I remember we were at my brother's girlfriend's house for some sort of party (her graduation party? Kind of late for it, in September...). I remember Max Mayfield of NOAA (who is to retire in January) warning everyone to leave on the The Weather Channel. I remember Kanye West.

But most of all, I remember the haunting images of people in need, people whose government (local, state and federal) failed them.

Let's remember what happened for the next few days -- and make sure that something like this never happens again.

Rumsfeld: "I'd love to be Santa Claus. I'm not."

2006-08-28T07:49:00.000-06:00

On Saturday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld extended the tour of one Army brigade in Iraq for an additional four months. According to the Associated Press Rumsfeld, "saw no reason for the soldiers or their families to be angry at him." Rumsfeld continued to spout naivete:

"These people are all volunteers. They all signed up. They all are there doing what they're doing because they want to do it. They're proud of what they do. They do it very, very well."

Source: AP

Jennifer Davis, whose husband is in the 172nd Stryker Brigade based at For Wainwright, Alaska, explained to Rumsfeld.

"I am totally frustrated, disappointed and heartbroken," she said in the statement. "Just when I thought we were going to be able to resume a 'normal' life and when I thought the nightmare was over, the nightmare was extended."

Source: AP

It is still shocking to me that Rumsfeld can show an attitude that is so anti-troop and anti-troop's family -- or at least not able to understand the families' or troops' shock and anger at being forced to stay in Iraq for another four months.

FDA Approves Plan B

2006-08-26T23:30:00.000-06:00

In what is a partial victory for people with common sense, the FDA has approved the morning after pill (a.k.a. emergency contraception and Plan B) to be distributed without a prescription. If you're over 18.

Anti-abortion groups are against the pill because ... well, they believe we should live in a world where sex should only be used to procreate. Nevermind that this world does not and never did exist, they still believe and hope (and pray) for this to happen.

And never mind that it is not abortion, and can only serve to make abortions happen less frequently.

Oh, and that pesky age restriction.

The age restriction remains controversial even inside FDA, agency drugs chief Dr. Steven Galson told The Associated Press Thursday. Galson has acknowledged overruling his staff scientists' opinion in 2004 that nonprescription sales would be safe for all ages.

"Let me be frank, there still are disagreements," Galson said in an interview. "There were disagreements from the first second this application came in the house."

Source: AP

Hopefully, when it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it is safe for teenagers, the FDA will reverse this ridiculous age restriction.

And I don't think the age restriction will work very well; will they serve penalties for 18+ women buying pills for younger females in need of Plan B? Somehow I doubt it.

All in all, a big plus for people who have common sense.

Rush Limbaugh Goes Racist

2006-08-24T00:26:00.000-06:00

Apparently Rush Limbaugh thinks that as long as you add the disclaimer, "It is not a racial or racist comment at all", it means that you are allowed to say whatever you want.

It's like when callers to talk radio shows (like Limbaugh, Hannity, even Jim Rome) and preface their call with, "I'm not racist, but..."

This time, Limbaugh handicapped the new season of Survivor (a show that I cannot stand) where the tribes will be split into their tribes based on ethnicity. Limbaugh went onto say something that may have been funny if it came from a stand-up comedian (David Cross, anyone?), but isn't so funny when it comes from a man who thinks of himself as a journalist.

Among the stereotypes -- which are by no means racial or racist -- that Limbaugh perpetuates is that black people cannot swim.

In support of his assertion that his comments were "not ... racist," Limbaugh cited a March 2 HealthDay article reporting that "young blacks -- especially males -- are much more likely to drown in pools than whites." But the study on which the HealthDay article was based did not address the swimming abilities of African-Americans in general. HealthDay reported that "[r]esearchers don't know why black kids are at higher risk of drowning," that "[m]ost of the black [drowning] victims ... drowned in public pools," and that "[t]he study didn't examine whether the victims had taken swimming lessons or whether the pools were supervised by lifeguards." Additionally, the article noted that according to the study, "people from poorer families were more likely to drown" -- "regardless of race," and that one author of the study suggested "[f]uture research" will be done to "examine whether swimming instruction reduces the risk of drowning."

Source: Media Matters

Of course, you might want to tell Martiz Correia that she can't swim.

He went on to stereotype Asians and Native Americans.

The Asian -- the Asian-American tribe probably will outsmart everybody, but will that help them in the ultimate survival contest? Intelligence is one thing, but raw, native understanding of the land and so forth -- this is probably why the Native Americans were excluded, because they were at one with the land here, and they probably would have an unfair advantage.

Hispanics

And you know, if they start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves, that could lead to problems. But our early money is on them anyway, because these people have shown a remarkable ability, ladies and gentlemen, to cross borders, boundaries -- they get anywhere they want to go. They can do it without water for a long time. They don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do. So, our money, early money, is on the Hispanics.

And of course, white people.

He added that "the white tribe," "if it behaves as it historically has," will "bring along vials of diseases" and "will wind up oppressing" the other tribes by "deny[ing] them benefits" and "property," but will later "try to put [the other tribes] on some kind of benefit program." He further asserted that if CBS "allows ... cheating" and "oppression," "then of course the white tribe is going to win."

Limbaugh will claim that he is doing this tongue-in-cheek -- but you'd think that after being on the radio for so long, he'd know that all people can't just go and say things like this. Stand-up comedians? Yeah, they can do it.

Nationally syndicated radio hosts who think of themselves as journalists, or important? Sorry, when your job is ostensibly to talk about the news, you can't go off on racial or racist things. If he wants to make jokes about this, he should take up stand up comedy.

Iwo Jima Photographer Dies

2006-08-22T13:47:00.000-06:00

We've all seen the photo. A picture that defines World War II for many -- six brave young men (five Marines, one Navy corpsman) raising a flag on Iwo Jima.

The man who took the famous picture, Joe Rosenthal, died Sunday at the age of 94.

The image holds special significance for me. My grandfather, who passed away a month ago, was at the Battle of Iwo Jima. Not only was he at the battle, but he also saw the famous raising of the flag.

On hearing of Rosenthal's death, I immediately thought of the iconic image (something that every one of us in this country can see in our mind's eye) and the battle itself. It is an image that shows teh bravery of our young men in battle.

Rosenthal himself spoke of the symbolism of the photo.

"The sky was overcast, but just enough sunlight fell from almost directly overhead, because it happened to be about noon, to give the figures a sculptural depth," he wrote in Collier's magazine on the 10th anniversary of the flag-raising.

"The 20-foot pipe was heavy, which meant the men had to strain to get it up, imparting that feeling of action," he wrote. "The wind just whipped the flag out over the heads of the group, and at their feet the disrupted terrain and the broken stalks of the shrubbery exemplified the turbulence of war."

"The characters create an ascending motion, but they're frozen in time in a brilliantly precise way," Alan Trachtenberg, the author of "Reading American Photographs: Images as History, Mathew Brady to Walker Evans," said in a 1997 interview with The New York Times. "And it's more than just raising a flag. It's a sense of culmination, of triumph, not just over an enemy but over the challenge of war itself. It's become an iconic image, like Uncle Sam."

Source: New York Times

RIP, Joe Rosenthal.

The Water is Rising

2006-08-22T12:43:00.000-06:00

Josh Marshall does his usual excellent job in a (for him) long post about the state of incumbents in the upcoming elections. He speaks of how many seats that are seemingly safe (e.g., Lieberman) are suddenly in play and competitive.

I keep seeing polls showing swing district Republicans either neck and neck or behind their Democratic challengers. Lots of them are polls sponsored by Dems -- which makes sense, since they're the side that wants to preview the level of competitiveness in the race. But in most of the cases I've seen, those numbers have been substantially confirmed by subsequent independent polls.

And if you watch closely, the water just keeps rising.

Source: Talking Points Memo
The water is rising indeed.

Over at Daily Kos, Kos has a post highlighting about a dozen races from around the country. And in those dozen races, Dems are competitive in every single one. This includes Sen. ~~Macaca~~ Allen (R-VA) against Jim Webb.

It looks like the tide is turning -- let's keep this momentum going all the way to election day.

Too Much Media Attention on JonBenet Ramsey Killer?

2006-08-19T23:27:00.000-06:00

I was reading the newspaper this morning, when I came across yet another story on the man who confessed to the Jon Beney Ramsey killing. I wondered if all the people who accused the parents of killing their daughter all those years ago would apologize.

Then I went onto Google News, and saw there were 4843 articles about the confessor. Nearly 5,000 articles in just a few days. To be sure, many are repeat articles (AP or other wire service articles reprinted in different papers ... one of the faults with Google News), but that is still a huge amount of articles.

As of this writing, "JonBenet" is the #13 search on Technorati.

But I also came across another article in this morning's newspaper -- an arrest in the infamous Juarez killings. I first became aware of the Ciudad Juarez killings after watching the At The Drive In video for "Invalid Litter Dept."

Amnesty International said last year of the killings:

The reality is that since 1993 more than 370 young women and girls have been murdered in the cities of Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua - at least a third suffering sexual violence - without the authorities taking proper measures to investigate and address the problem.

Source: Amnesty International

There have been multiple arrests in these infamous killings, yet it barely makes a dent in the news. A search for "Juarez" in Google News only comes up with 186 stories relate to the arrest; less than 200.

There have been multiple arrests in a series of murders (The man arrested has been charged with only eight of the hundreds of murders), yet it doesn't garner the attention of one girl killed. I understand that the JonBenet Ramsey case intrigues people to this day -- but should it dominate the news like it has been?

Bush Fulfills Few Katrina Promises

2006-08-19T18:25:00.000-06:00

The Associated Press wrote a story about how few promises the government has kept after Hurricane Katrina.

The job of clearing debris left by the storm remains unfinished, and has been plagued by accusations of fraud and price gouging. Tens of thousands of families still live in trailers or mobile homes, with no indication of when or how they will be able to obtain permanent housing. Important decisions about rebuilding and improving flood defenses have been delayed. And little if anything has been done to ensure the welfare of the poor in a rebuilt New Orleans.

Source: Associated Press

It gets worse. Read the rest of the story to read how, nearly a year later, New Orleans is still waiting on those promises that Bush made to them. I have a feeling they might be waiting a long, long time.

All the money that could be spent helping Katrina? Well, remember, we're spending billions in Iraq.

George Allen and the Racist Slur

2006-08-17T00:29:00.000-06:00

I tried to ignore it. Well, not ignore it, but not write about it. Every other blogger out there, liberal or conservative, had their take on it, but I decided that I wouldn't say anything.

But now I feel I have to talk about Senator George Allen's (R-VA) racist slur.

In case you've been living under a rock, or this is the only blog you ever read, George Allen referred to an Indian-American as a "macaca". Of course there is video on You Tube. Macaca is a racial slur for dark-skinned North Africans.

Josh over at Talking Points Memo links to another blogger who did some quick Google research onto what exactly "macaca" is. And it isn't pretty. Warning. The actual post has a lot of objectionable material, so if you don't want to see a lot of racial epithets ... you might want to not click on the link.

'Macaca' or 'macaque' is a nasty racial epithet alright. It is often used by American white supremacists to describe black people. In Belgium, it is a racial slur for 'dirty arab.' Could this be George Allen's Mel Gibson moment?

Source: Frameshop

OK, we've established that "macaca" is a racial slur, used by white supremacists in America. So what did Allen do about it afterwards?

"I'm concerned that my comments at Breaks Interstate Park on August 11th have been greatly misunderstood by members of the media.

"In singling out the Webb campaign's cameraman, I was trying to make the point that Jim Webb had never been to that part of Virginia – and I encouraged him to bring the tape back to Jim and welcome him to the real world of Virginia and America, outside the Beltway, where he has rarely visited. I also made up a nickname for the cameraman, which was in no way intended to be racially derogatory. Any insinuations to the contrary are completely false.

"Yesterday, I apologized to anyone who may have offended by the misinterpretation of my remarks. That was certainly not my intent. On every stop on my Listening Tour – I have talked about one of my missions for this country – to make it a land of opportunity for all. I have worked very hard in the Senate to reach out to all Americans - regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity or gender. And I look forward to continuing to advocate this important mission for America's future.

"I never want to embarrass or demean anyone and I apologize if my comments offended this young man. Even though he has signed onto my opponent's campaign, I look forward to seeing him on the trail ahead."

Source: Hotline

Ah, the infamous non-apology apology rears its ugly head. "I apologized to anyone who may have been offended by the misinterpretation of my remarks" and "I apologize if my comments offended this young man."

Don't apologize for the action -- instead apologize that the other people actually understood your racial slur.

Meanwhile, over at Riehl World View, he manages to post about the incident without mentioning the slur. I kid you not. It gets worse.

Allen's campaign, taking a page from digraced Tour de France rider Floyd Landis, decided to just start throwing stuff out there, hoping it sticks. Here's an explanation from the campaign.

ccording to two Republicans who heard the word used, "macaca" was a mash-up of "Mohawk," referring to Sidarth's distinctive hair, and "caca," Spanish slang for excrement, or "shit."

Said one Republican close to the campaign: "In other words, he was a shit-head, an annoyance." Allen, according to Republicans, heard members of his traveling entourage and Virginia Republicans use the phrase and picked it up.
It was the first word that came to his mind when he spied Sidarth at the weekend's event, according to Republicans who have been briefed on Allen's version of the event.

Source: Hotline

Oh, Allen isn't racist, he just calls his opponents shit-heads -- and the nickname by his staffers just happens to exactly match a racial slur.

Doesn't that make it sound like Allen's campaign has not-so closeted racists in it?

Webb's campaign counters that Sidartha (the young man) had a mullet. Of course, a quick photo of him shows that it is indeed a mohawk. Maybe a Mull-hawk, it does have a longer backside than I have seen on most mohawks (not that I have seen many mohawks). So that's just silly by the Webb campaign.

And there is the argument that, "Hey, Joe Biden said something racially insensitive!" Umm... just because someone of the opposing party makes the same mistakes doesn't make it right. Things don't work that way, sorry.

And there is the argument that Allen was just trying to say that Webb didn't know Virginia. Or West Virginia. Despite the fact that, unlike California-raised Allen, Webb grew up in Virginia and in his book talks about West Virginia. Oops. Is that strike three? Maybe four?

And when Allen was in SoCal (until his 20s), he flew the Confederate flag. I'm not sure if a Californian in the 60s can claim the ridiculous "heritege" argument that many Confederate-flag waving people use.

I could go on and on (Allen was once suspended from high school for painting a racist slur on a wall...), but I'll stop there. Any other arguments against Allen being, if not racist, someone who spouts things that sound suspiciously racist? Put 'em in the comments.

Scared of Presence, But Not of Money

2006-08-16T13:16:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, scary-guy and Vice President Dick Cheney came to New Mexico and Heather Wilson, vulnerable Republican House candidate, skipped the event.

She's scared to be seen with Cheney, but not scared to take the money raised from the event.

It's more than just New Mexico -- Republicans everywhere are scared to be photographed or seen with the President of VP.

A news release from the DNC takes alook at this recent phenomenon (hat-tip to DFNM).

New Mexico Republicans are joining the growing list of candidates willing to take the special interest cash that President Bush and Vice President Cheney can raise, but unwilling to be seen in public with them. Today, the Vice President will attend a closed press special interest fundraiser in Roswell, NM for the New Mexico Republican Party's get out the vote effort.

Vice President Cheney is raising money for New Mexico's Republican candidates despite the fact that the Bush Administration and Bush Republicans in Congress have refused to stand up for New Mexico's working families. President Bush's budget cuts have meant that 31,569 children in New Mexico will go without promised help in reading and math, while programs to help children with disabilities in New Mexico have been shortchanged by $50.2 million. (Senate Appropriations Committee, Democratic Staff, 2/06)

Source: DNC Press Release

Similar numbers can be seen across the country, especially if you go to BushBudget.com. It is these type of numbers that make Republicans afraid of being with Republican leaders in public -- but this fear doesn't translate into cash.

Isn't it sad when Republicans are afraid to be seen with a President of their own party?

Colbert & Stewart vs Rivera & O'Reilly

2006-08-16T00:23:00.000-06:00

In case you haven't seen the clip, you need to see the video of Stephen Colbert back on the set of The Daily Show to ask, nay, demand that Jon Stewart apologize to Geraldo Rivera.

You may know that Rivera, along with fellow blowhard Bill O'Reilly on O'Reilly's program, accused Stewart and Colbert of "mak[ing] a living putting on video of old ladies slipping on ice." My brother even wrote about it.

In fact, you can see it over on You Tube. Or you can just click below.

What are you implying, Jon, that O'Reilly and Geraldo are narcissists enthralled with their own overblown egos, projecting their own petty insecurities onto the world around them, inventing false enemies for the sole purpose of bolstering their sense of self-importance -- itty-bitty Nixons minus the relevance or a hint of vision? How dare you?

Source: Stephen Colbert

Monday night, Stewart went on the Colbert Report to apologize to Rivera. And to make sure that he isn't put on notice by Colbert. Instead, Colbert called him out. And John Stewart responded. Another clip that makes Rivera and O'Reilly look like the buffoons that they are.

Nothing like Colbert and Stewart reuniting for one (or two) jabs at the two blowhards. I love all the subtle digs that Colbert gives to Geraldo like referring to the infamous empty vault. Stewart, on the other hand, is direct, referring to Rivera's infamous troop diagram.

Good times.

Voter Suppression in November?

2006-08-15T12:54:00.000-06:00

Salon takes a look at six possible cases of voter suppression that could happen in November. With all the talk of what happened of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, voter suppression is very possible in '06.

I suggest you read the article, especially if you live in Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, California, Florida or Missouri. Whiile you may dismiss these as wild conspiracy theories, isn't it best to err on the side of caution when speaking of one of the most important duties of a citzen of the United States?

Among the tactics are using fear-mongering of illegal immigrants voting to produce laws that make it nearly impossible for some citzens to vote, needing driver's licenses or passports to vote and other such tactics.

Take a look at the article -- especially if you're in one of the Shameful Six States.

FBIHOP

Other International News- Africa

More Ellison Posting

Conservatives Attack Keith Ellison's Religion

John F Kennedy (May 29, 1917–November 22, 1963)

FOX Shows its Pro-Business Colors

Steny Hoyer New Majority Leader

Just About Sums It Up

Olbermann Ratings Up, O'Reilly's Down Since Election Day

Ed Bradley

Pat Tillman Death Inquiry Surprises

CBS' Ed Bradley Dies at 65

A Look Back at 2004 Elections

Why Did Rumsfeld Resign Now?

Post Election Republican Spin

Thanks to Everyone Who Helped

RUMSFELD RESIGNS

Montana to Tester!

Full List of Pickups From Election Day

Amazing Victory by Dems

Live Blogging: 11pm

Liveblogging: 10pm MST, 12am EST

Liveblogging: 9pm MST, 11pm EST

Liveblogging: 8:15 pm

Liveblogging: 7pm MST, 9pm EST

Liveblogging: 6pm MST, 8pm EST

Liveblogging: 5pm MST, 7pm EST

First Exit Polls Coming In?

13 Years Ago Today: Magic Johnson Shocks the World

Indy Journalist Killed in Mexico

October Surprise? Could it Be Reviving the Gay Marrige Issue?

Medias Handling of the Limbaugh/Fox thing

Diebold Code, Among Worries for Voters in Upcoming Election

Michael J. Fox

Brother of Pat Tillman Calls Iraq Invasion "Illegal"

Emergence of a New Progressive Radio Network

Republicans In Trouble

Questions of Voting Now Getting Out

Problems for the GOP Continue with FBI Raid

Category 5 Storm Heads for House GOP

Slain Russian Journalist's last Article Published

Plane Crashes into NYC Highrise

More Mark Foley Fallout News

Russian Journalist Murdered, Many Skeptical of Investigation

Hastert: Will Fire Anyone Involved in Coverup

Foley Scandal all a Prank? Yeah Right.

Rove Aide Resigns Because of Abramoff Ties

Radioactive Hastert News

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Lying

Daily Show has Real News?

Turn $1 into $3

Foley Whistleblower a Republican and Other Foley Stories

Notice Anything Wrong?

The Mark Foley Saga

Olbermann Responds to NY Post

Keith Olbermann Anthrax Scare

The War in Iraq: Not Going So Well

A Post on Bill O'Reilly

Voting, Machines, Etc.

Thailand Coup

Bush Bounce? Not Exactly.

More on the FCC

FCC Study Hushed

Sunday is Global Day of Action for Darfur

Keith Olbermann's 9/11 Address

Deciphering W's 9/11 Speech

Path to 9/11, a Distraction?

9/11 Links

Fifth Anniversary of 9/11

Something to think about

Anti-Horse Slaughtering Bill Passes House

ABC Mockudrama

Bush Admits Secret Prisons, Transfers Al Qaeda Members

What About that Economy?

NY Times: Conflicting Reports

ABC to Air 6-Hour Political Ad for GOP

RIP, Steve Irwin

Al Qaeda Number Two Capured in Iraq

Court Victory for Whistleblower

Breaking: War in Iraq Going Badly