Selfish Hedonist

Threat to privacy?

2008-12-01T12:55:00.001-06:00

okay, final day prediction

2008-11-03T13:45:00.002-06:00

Here you go, based on the polls I've been obsessively tracking for the past few weeks. My prediction for tomorrow.

(Sorry, I can't figure out how to embed this!)

The bottom line is that it's just really hard for me to see McCain winning in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Iowa, or New Mexico. So forget the toss-ups - the election *should* be a done deal. The toss-ups will determine the extent of the victory.

Of the 10 toss-up states, I'm decently confident of an Obama victory in two: Nevada and Virginia. But both will be tight. But I just don't see them mattering. And finally, I find it hard to believe that with leads in OH, FL, and NC, that Obama won't win *one* of those states.

But I'm still nervous! GO VOTE, PEOPLE, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY!!

You're ALL Joe the Plumber!

2008-10-31T09:52:00.003-05:00

So ALL of you, stand up!

It's Friday morning, and good news just about across the board, polling-wise. Today is the last day of October, and Halloween, and a Friday - in other words, probably the WORST POSSIBLE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES for an "October Surprise."

Not to mention the fact that a whole slew of people have already voted in the key swing states of Colorado, New Mexico, Florida and North Carolina, among others. If you've got something truly nasty to throw at your opponent, it seems foolish to do so at the last minute in this day of early voting.

Four days from now will be pretty great, I'm thinking, but there's still lots of work to do. The Democrats will have have achieved political power across the map, but the canard remains true - with great power does come great responsibility. Ethics and values must continue to drive our politics. A healthy respect for the (happily disgraced) opposition and the (sadly disgraced) Fourth Estate must pervade. What Obama has talked about - how no party holds a monopoly on good ideas - it's true.

And the Constitution must be restored to its place of honor in our nation. In particular, the Bill of Rights must be honored. Liberals and Democrats can not ignore the principles of the First Amendment when it suits them, in our quest for vengeance. The Second Amendment, too, is not to be run roughshod over (although I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me whether "arms" includes nuclear arms and, if not, why not). And then there's the torture stuff.

It may seem like I'm putting the cart before the horse, but really, those rules should apply even if the unthinkable happens and McCain pulls this out. Which he won't.

Because even Joe the Plumber stood him up yesterday.

How accurate are polls? In 2004, VERY

2008-10-21T19:18:00.003-05:00

Obama (for whom I voted a few days ago - WOO!) is, as of today, in the lead in every national poll - although by remarkably divergent amounts.

He also is far enough in the lead in various state polls that Real Clear Politics considers him "safe" in states that would give him 259 electoral votes - and "leaning" in another 3 states equaling 27 electoral votes. So before you even look at the "toss-up" states (an additional 6 states with 89 electoral votes), he's up by enough to win the election. And he's leading in 5 of those 6 toss-up states!

So when I saw this excellent video today from Ohio, I got a bit concerned. Was it really true, what they said in their admonition for us not to get complacent (and to give money), that Kerry was up in the polls in 2004?

Well, not really. I mean, yes, he did lead at some point. But as Oliver Willis points out, once the GOP convention happened, Bush never *really* looked back. Yes, the race *did* tighten once October rolled around, and Kerry was ahead in a few polls (and it was a two-point game at the end), the Democrat was always playing catch up.

Check it out:

In all October polls prior to the final polls from each pollster, Bush led in 25, Kerry led in 3, and 8 were ties.
In the final polls, Bush led in 10, Kerry led in 2 and 2 were ties.
Bush's biggest October lead in any poll was +8. Kerry's biggest lead in any October poll was +2.
Bush's final margin of victory was very, very close to what the combined polls said they'd be.

Now look at this month's polls:

Of all October polls, Obama has led in 34, McCain has led in 0, and 0 have been ties.
Obama's biggest October lead in any poll is +14. His smallest lead is +1.

But here's the main point of this post - as 2000 reminds us, the national popular vote means ZERO when deciding who's gonna be the head banana. It's the states that count.

And looking at RCP's state tallies from 2004, some remarkable data comes to light.

In 2004, RCP identified 17 states as "battleground" states. (I'm leaving out Hawaii, which was never really in doubt.) With the exception of Wisconsin, the winner in each state matched the projected winner according to the polls! And Wisconsin, of course, ended up breaking for the Democrat.

Not only that, but state by state, the election results tracked very closely to the polls. In Ohio, they got the margin of 2.1% exactly right. In 9 other states, they got it right to within 1%. And in two others, they were within 2%. The states pollsters were "right" in included OH, PA, WI, IA, MN, MI, NH, ME, and NJ - aka "Northern" states - plus OR, NM and CO (good ol' Western states).

Now, what states did the pollsters get wrong (i.e. 3% or worse difference)? Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, and Arkansas - all of which broke hard for Bush - plus Nevada (a Western state), which went from a 6.3% Bush poll victory to a 2.6% Bush electoral victory. And still *none* of the states broke more than 5% from the polls.

What this suggests to me is that Bush's vaunted "ground game" in 2004 was really only effective in the South - aka his base.

Assuming polls stay more or less stable, and are anywhere close to as accurate as they were in 2004, Obama wins this election comfortably. Even if there's a significant shift of 5% nationally towards McCain in the final two weeks, Obama'll win this. And what if there's a significant shift of 5% nationally - in every state - AND an additional 3% movement in EVERY "battleground" state toward McCain (thanks to a church-based stealth ground game, a la 2004)? This would give McCain FL, OH, MO, NV, CO, IN, and NC. Well, then it would be Obama 264, McCain 261, and a virtual tie in Virginia. And I gotta say, given Warner at the top of the ticket, Webb helping out in his way, and improving demographics for the Dems over the past decade, I like those chances! Oh, plus Nancy Pfotenhauer's "real Virginia" gaffe:

the big three

2008-10-17T12:13:00.003-05:00

Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado

You know what, I'm thrilled that John McCain is spending his time and money in North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida. That West Virginia, North Dakota, and Georgia are making unexpected appearances on the scene. That the U.S. Supreme Court just overturned the attempt to undermine Ohio's vote, and that the excitement levels in Indiana are as high as they are.

But to me, this election comes down to three states: Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Because if Barack Obama can win the Kerry States (HI, CA, WA, OR, MN, WI, IL, MI, PA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH and ME) - plus those three, then the election is in the bag. Obama can with this election without Florida OR Ohio OR Virginia OR Nevada.

The 21 electoral votes in those three states would put him over the top. (Note: If somehow McCain is able to sneak New Hampshire into his column, then it would be a 269-269 tie and boy oh boy would some craziness go down!) And I've got some good news:

In Iowa, Obama is *rocking* - with leads between 8%-13%, not going below 50% while McCain is just hovering over 40%. This state is considered 100% safe based on fivethirtyeight.com's model based on current polling.

In New Mexico, McCain has yet to poll above 45%, while Obama is consistently above 50%. 538 gives him the state 91% of the time, based on their model.

And in Colorado, pretty much the same story, with a couple more positive results for McCain but never EVER one showing McCain at 50% (and 10 polls since the convention showing Obama at 50% or above). 538 has Colorado at 90% for Obama.

So using my rusty math skills, based on current polls, Obama has an 81.9% chance of winning this election (1.00 x .90 x .91) - even if he loses Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina and Missouri - if he wins the Kerry states. And assuming he wins the Kerry states and Iowa, then he just needs *either* CO/NM or MO or OH or VA or FL or NC (or GA or NV+NM or IN). And he's polling even or ahead in each of those states.

We still have 2+ weeks to go. And who knows what the heck is going to happen in that time. But even as national tracking polls tighten - or not - the big three are looking very, very good. As much as I'd like a landslide, how great would it be for the Centennial state to be the one that puts Obama into the White House, and then the convention would be pointed to for years to come as a brilliant move!

little known fact

2008-10-10T14:28:00.002-05:00

Alan Keyes is running for president.

And the father of a Columbine victim is his VP nominee.

Is Keyes going for a record of most number of times losing to Barack Obama? Best of luck to him!

four more weeks

2008-10-08T18:08:00.002-05:00

Oh man, this is going to be the longest 27 days in the long, long history of the world.

Here's some TV news bloopers to keep us distracted:

HAW HAW HAW! LOLZERZZ at the last one!!!!

Palin '12

2008-10-05T10:07:00.009-05:00

You know, I *just* realized yesterday that Palin is going to almost certainly be running for president in four years. Frank Rich's column today put that thought into my head for the first time.

Walter Mondale lost the VP in 1980, and four years later ran for prez. Dan Quayle lost the VP in 1992 and four years later ran for prez. Joe Lieberman: 2000 lost the race, ran for prez in 2004. John Edwards.

Now, it's true that only one of them got as far as securing the nomination, and that guy didn't do so hot. But none of them had anywhere near the q-rating that Sarah Palin has.

Is it possible that she'll get the nomination? She'll be spending the next two years being mavericky in Alaska, raising money by the fistful, and then begin her campaign at what will likely be the nadir of Obama's presidency. "We tried the smart black guy, let's go with the (still presumably) cute, if not brilliant white lady!" Plus, she's just about the only one on the Republican bench. Who else do they have - Mitt Romney?? Hee. (I guess there's Bobby Jindal, too.)

Wow, it's kind of amazing to contemplate, but almost assuredly will happen - Obama v. Palin in 2012.

Oh and look - lots of other people thought about this well before I did:

Chris Cizilla
The New York Observer
Tote bag (above)

This woman is far too ambitious to settle for VP (just like Obama is). (Note: 2016 is another possibility, in which case I guess it would be Huckabee or Jindal in '12.)

deep thought

2008-10-05T09:21:00.002-05:00

You don't see a lot of "Barack Obama should........" diaries on Daily Kos these days.

Even though he never actually *did* do what all the diarists said he *should* do.

foreboding

2008-10-04T18:43:00.002-05:00

Why do I get the sense that the GOP is more than happy to let Obama win this election, just so he will inherit the increasingly unbelievable mess that is our economy, international standing, environment, infrastructure, and moral well-being? As American empire disintegrates, how nice to blame the fall on the Democrats (particularly one who is America-hating and black and all).

They're just not putting up that much of a real *fight*, from Sean Quinn's account at 538.com. They're not raising that much money, their ads aren't particularly creative, their Senate candidates are sad (see Schaffer, Bob; Gilmore, Jim). Meanwhile, there's the Rude Pundit's overview of the racist defacing of Obama signs (not to mention the middle school teacher in Florida with his unique take on "CHANGE" as an acronym).

And then, of course, there's Sarah Palin. I guess the word that best describes her to me is indefatigable. Shameless. And it's kind of impossible to tell if she's in on the joke (not that it matters either way -- as Chris Rock would say, she don't give a fuck, in her case what you think about her).

I mean, the Republicans, god love 'em. It's not just that they foisted Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush on us. This is also the party of Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle. And Mitt Romney!!!

Wait, so anyway, I lost focus. Where was I? Oh yeah - they're throwing this damn election because they know the worst is yet to come. I have a bad feeling that President Obama's approval ratings are going to be in the toilet in two years. But I hope his supporters don't give up on what is sure to be a rocky first terms. I have faith that the guy will be able to get things back on the right track by early 2012, and will end his second term with the country in even better shape than it was in 2000. Then, of course, we'll see if America is smart enough to let another Democrat take the reigns, rather than Senator Palin, or Gov. (Jenna) Bush, or (hee hee) Mitt Romney) or whomever...

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHITE SOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!

2008-09-30T21:51:00.003-05:00

The Cell was the place to be the past three days. After two dreadful losses against the Indians - which themselves followed a gut-wrenching sweep at the hands of the hated Twins - the Sox were put in a position where they needed to win three successive games against three different divisional rivals.

With three pitchers each of whom was pitching on three days' rest.

And they did it in the first-ever 1-0 "extra game" in MLB history. And their first 1-0 victory all year.

And during a BLACKOUT.

No, this wasn't *quite* as amazing as what the Rockies were able to accomplish at the end of the 2007 regular season (although if they beat the Rays and somehow win the ALCS, it could be). But given the team dysfunction (Vazquez stinking up the joint against the Indians, Cabrera saying his team didn't care and then not really doing anything to show he did, Swisher dissatisfied with his new role on the bench), how great for Ozzie, Kenny, and (love him or hate him) Jerry, and especially Konerko, Dye, Buehrle, Pierzynski, Uribe, and Jenks. Our holdovers from 2005 gutted out a really, really tough season, and in the end, showed their Sox pride. (Oh, Crede too - wish you had a different agent and better back, brother... Oh, and Contreras!) Thanks to the newcomers Quentin (get well immediately), Ramirez, Cabrera (yes, you), and Floyd, who made this year possible. Congrats to Thome and Griffey, who still have that chance at that elusive ring. Awesome job, Denks, pitching the game of your life at the most crucial time. Swish, Wise, THORNTON, the rest of the shaggy bullpen. It's time to turn it around, and make the next few weeks memorable.

Great job, Sox!

Finally, as much as I've grown to dislike the Cubs, I have to say, it's pretty amazing that both Chicago teams are in the playoffs (for the first time in 102 years, so they say) - while NEITHER New York team is there. (Note: both LA teams are in as well. For what it's worth.) It would be pretty neat to meet in the Series. So long as we win.

GO OBAMA! GO SOX!!!!!

please stop him before he hurts himself

2008-09-26T10:25:00.003-05:00

I'm a fool.

Remember way back a couple of weeks ago, when I said that Ruben Navarette of cnn.com had written "the most humiliatingly awful article"? About his wish that he could vote for an Obama/Palin ticket?

Well, I guess I should have added the words "to this point," because beyond all reasonable expectation, he has just written an article even MORE humiliatingly awful. This time about McCain's decision to "suspend" his campaign to focus on the bailout bill.

Some key quotes:

Some in the Obama-friendly media were quick to dismiss McCain's move as a political stunt. I don't know. It's not like launching one's candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, in the hopes of conjuring up comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, or moving one's convention speech to a football stadium to accommodate a larger crowd.

First of all, is he saying the media is "Obama-friendly" or is he saying that it was those in that section of the media that is friendly to Obama were the ones calling this a stunt? It's absolutely unclear (though really irrelevant). Call an editor, stat.

Second, can he really compare Obama's decisions about locations for holding speeches that every presidential candidate/nominee always gives to McCain's decision to unilaterally cancel a debate - or did he? - in order to inject himself into a situation in which nobody asked for him, and to which he apparently has little if nothing of substance to offer (let alone leadership or expertise)?

Especially given the fact that McCain has obviously NOT suspended campaigning, despite his protestations to the contrary.

Especially especially given the fact that McCain just a week ago seemed to believe beyond all evidence to the contrary that "the fundamentals" of the economy were strong and that despite the fact that this crisis has been looming for months upon months, McCain had yet to offer any sort of leadership on this issue until now. Wasn't he like *the* most absent senator over the past two years?

Obama's "stunts" were about injecting themes and an image into his campaign. It's what every politician around the world does, some more successfully than others. McCain's insane-o scheme is about ... well, who knows what it's about, other than drawing attention to himself. Frankly, I think that's what the Palin pick was about, too. John McCain is desperate for attention, and he can't stand the fact that Obama commands more of it.

There's a word for what McCain's doing: grandstanding. And it is by far the least effective way to actually solve a crisis.

More Ruben:

After all the doom and gloom, pundits were then surprised when McCain decided to temporarily suspend his presidential campaign

(while still running ads, keeping all his campaign offices humming, accepting donations, meeting with Lady de Rothschild, giving interview after interview after interview after interview, and giving his stump speech to the Clinton Global Initiatives crowd)

and return to his day job in Congress, where he tried to work out a bailout deal with his colleagues.

Well gosh, THAT went well.

Unfortunately, [Obama] also looks like someone who is so focused on what he hopes will be his next job that he has lost interest in his current one.

You have got to be kidding me. And you still haven't explained why McCain didn't return Obama's phone call about issuing a joint statement, why he didn't simply ask for the debate to be shifted to economic issues, and why his campaign thought it would be a good idea to also postpone the Vice Presidential debate.

So, to summarize: McCain (1) pretends to suspend his campaign, (2) doesn't, (3) is completely useless in the negotiations over the bailout bill, (4) tries desperately to get the press to believe he's somehow putting the needs of his country over his campaign, (5) gets a total of ONE dummy to actually believe that (our Ruben), and (6) then agrees to debate after all.

Ruben - you've been had. Why on earth does cnn.com continue to promote your insane ramblings? Oh wait, this is the same website that promotes t-shirts that say "Pig holds woman prisoner in her house." Nevermind.

the single funniest thing I have read in a looooong time

2008-09-24T17:20:00.003-05:00

After reading what the progressive blogs had to say about McCain's ridiculous decision to suspend his campaign in light of the current financial crisis, I decided I had to check out The Corner, just to see if there was anything they could possibly saying other than "this is the stupidest political gambit of all time, other than naming Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate."

And what do you know, here's Newt Gingrich:

This is the day the McCain-reform Republican Party began to truly emerge as a movement which puts country first, solutions first, and big change first.

as if it weren't also the day that, instead of meeting with economic advisers all day, McCain was actually meeting with Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild.

Newtie then goes on to bash Obama:

It is surprisingly irresponsible and politically dangerous for the Obama campaign to try and insist on a debate Friday night.

as if Obama hadn't been completely blindsided by what is so obviously a gimmick that cnn.com had a poll up within minutes asking people if they thought it was a gimmick. (The vast majority say yes. Obviously.)

But then there's Jonah Goldberg, who reprints an email from a reader, and then goes on to suggest that this gimmick might in fact be brilliant strategy. He even gives it a name -- "The Grant Gambit":

Jonah;

I think McCain should show up for the debate looking reluctant and disheveled. He could apologize for this condition, saying he had to rush back from doing the nation’s business. He could be like Grant having to apologize to the impeccably dressed Lee at Appomattox for showing up all muddy and in an old private’s coat. There was, after all, a war that needed winning.

Reading this suggestion made me cry. Not out of sorrow at the state of our political discourse, but rather because I was laughing so hard that my tear ducts responded by releasing actual tears of laughter.

So thank you, Jonah, for your part in brightening my day; and thank you, John McCain, for effectively ending the 2008 presidential campaign.

(Note: Perhaps McCain can ask his makeup artist Tifanie White to create this "reluctant and disheveled" look? Would she do it as part of the $5,583 he's already paid her for her services, or would it cost more?)

Barack the Sox!!!

2008-09-16T22:37:00.004-05:00

Bah, the Obama/Sox logo doesn't work any more. Oh well, here's a photo:

and a shirt:

Is the bloom coming off the rose?

2008-09-13T12:28:00.002-05:00

Kos' poll released today indicates that the "Palin bump," if it ever existed, is receding, and that her favorables are below 50%. There's only so much "tightly controlled" Palin you can do in the next two months to mitigate against the inevitable national realization that she's a gimmick, another incurious empty suit, a bad choice for VP. To me, she's no dumber than Bush, but she's a FAR more problematic candidate in that:

* She has ZERO national spotlight experience compared to GWB, who at least had a full primary campaign, a family steeped in politics, time spent as his daddy's henchman, the whole "owner" of the Rangers business, and a full term plus reelection as governor of a huge state with plenty of Democrats and lots and lots and lots of media. So this bears repeating - Palin makes Bush look smart and experienced! Her "In what respect, Charlie?" quote in the ABC interview was a harbinger of worse things to come.

* She's not running for president, but could overshadow the actual candidate. One reason Barack didn't really consider running with Clinton is that it would have taken the focus off the candidate, which would have been interpreted as weakness. McCain has been hiding behind "Palinmania" for a couple of weeks and in doing so, lost control of his message (whatever the hell that was) and his campaign. Bad idea. But of course, he was in danger of getting blown out anyway, so I can't say it was a bad move.

There are dummies like Ruben Navarette at cnn.com, who wrote the most humiliatingly awful article saying he wanted an Obama/Palin "dream" ticket and was as yet undecided. Well, you can't have it (thank the Lord). You can have Obama - who has been in the spotlight four years and who is extremely well educated and who has written memoirs and who withstood the rigors of the most highly publicized primary in history; OR you can have Palin, who will have been in the spotlight for two months; who is currently under investigation in her remote, small state; whose term as mayor of a small town looks increasingly spotty (loyalty tests to the librarian?!), and whose own campaign is afraid to let her do a PRESS CONFERENCE.

The worst part about the Palin pick is that it was clearly a reactionary move by McCain. It was a move made of desperation, not one of inspiration. Yes, it's driven a lot of liberals/Democrats crazy, which as Atrios has pointed out is the only thing that gives conservatives/Republicans pleasure these days. My guess is that given the state of the country, in the next two months we'll see that the country realizes that it was an ill-considered pick and that, though the election will still be close, thanks to McCain's continuing gutter campaign, the enthusiasm of the GOP base, Obama's steady drama-free campaign causing conniptions on the left, and the country's uncertainty about pulling the lever for a black politician (particularly one so new to the scene, although not as new as Palin!). But in the end, I see Obama winning out in both the popular vote and the electoral college.

So thanks, John McCain and Sarah Palin, for making this stretch run far more interesting than it otherwise would have been. Best of luck in your future endeavors. I just don't think it's gonna happen this time around.

Robocalling WVWV lied to NC officials

2008-05-05T11:01:00.007-05:00

Women's Voices Women Vote, the non-profit at the center of the North Carolina robocall scandal, lied about sending a letter to the North Carolina Board of Elections. They also lied to the entire blogosphere about a press release they claimed to have sent out to North Carolina media explaining their voter registration form mailing.

Why?

WVWV has been engaging in a cover up campaign to hide the fact that it never informed anyone in North Carolina about the mailings it's sending to residents in the state. (They are pointing to these mailings--which they send out regularly around the country--to demonstrate that there was nothing nefarious about their robocalls. They're just trying to increase the return rate of their mailings, they claim.) You can see my Daily Kos diaries here and here to get more details.

The Board of Elections letter

As part of that cover up, on Wednesday, April 30, Page Gardner circulated a statement/apology to a number of bloggers (also posted on Huffington Post) to which, as "proof" that WVWV had been upfront about its actions with the North Carolina media, she attached a letter to the NC Board of Elections and a suspiciously undated press release. This statement and the attachments, along with statements of support from various progressives, seem to have gone far in tamping down the controversy.

Specifically, she wrote:

In advance of the mail, a letter was sent to Gary Bartlett in the North Carolina Board of Elections Office. A copy of the letter and a press release sent to North Carolina media announcing the registration effort is attached. [Emphasis mine.]

As "proof" that they had sent this letter to the Board of Elections, they provided a .pdf copy of a fax with a timestamp of Monday, April 28. (Note: TPM Muckraker posted a copy of that fax; they've since replaced the fax version with an easier-to-read pdf version of the letter, with the WVWV logo in color.)

That letter to the Board of Elections was dated Thursday, April 24 (the date the robocalls started) explaining that WVWV's registration was for the *general* election, not the upcoming primary. It claimed that WVWV was entirely aware of the confusion that might result from the fact that the primary mail-in registration deadline had passed. It also said that the mailing "will arrive in homes during the week of May 1st." (Which is bizarre, since May 1 was a Thursday. Why not say "the week of April 28"?)

This letter has been used by, among others, Salon.com's Alex Koppelman to demonstrate WVWV's pre-controversy competence and understanding of NC's unique registration situation. (The Board of Elections has acknowledged receiving the fax.)

It turns out, based on a conversation I had this morning with Gary Bartlett, the NC Board of Elections director, that they lied about mailing that letter.

On Thursday, May 1, NC Board of Elections attorney emailed local voter activist Joyce McCray to say that they had not yet received the mailed letter (they acknowledged having received the faxed version.) This morning, I called Gary Bartlett to see if it had arrived yet, and he said he had the letter on his desk - it arrived on Friday, May 2. I asked if he'd checked the postmark on the letter, and he hadn't, but he did so just then.

The letter was postmarked on Wednesday, April 30.

So they lied to an official state agency, after an investigation by the state Attorney General had commenced. They created a letter on April 28, back dated it to April 24, in order to allay suspicion that they were behaving incompetently or nefariously. This is something close to obstruction of justice.

[Note: WVWV put up Page Gardner's statement on their website and, after a couple of days, realized that there was no link to the letter or press release, even though the statement said both were "attached." So they repeated that sentence at the end of the page and provided links to the letter and press release. Oddly, the link to the letter is broken.]

The press release

Then there's the press release they attached to Gardner's statement, which answered many of the concerns that people had about the timing of the North Carolina voter registration form mailing - including the fact that the primary mail-in registration deadline had passed, and which stressed that people could still register in person during early voting, which ended just this past Saturday, May 3. Oddly, no NC media outlet had picked up on this release, even after the controversy had begun to explode!

The reason I was most suspicious about the timing of the press release is that it was UNDATED. This, simply, is NEVER done. Moreover, the press release had too much conveniently exculpatory information from a group that had clearly botched their NC efforts all the way around. Were they really that on the ball? No.

It was obvious to me that this press release was intentionally left undated to cause confusion as to when it might have been sent out. Calling it "a press release sent to North Carolina media announcing the registration effort" suggests that they'd been ahead of the game, right? Like they'd sent it sometime around April 24, like the letter. Right?

Wrong.

In fact, since Friday, WVWV has finally dated their press release. The date they used? Monday, April 28 - AFTER the robocalls had started, AFTER the Board of Elections started their investigation into the calls, and THE SAME DATE the press started asking questions about the provenance of those calls.

I posted many comments on various blogs about the suspicious nature of the press release. The fact that it was undated and the fact that it wasn't posted on their website's list of press releases was all the proof I needed that it was an after-the-fact FAKE press release.

Then, last night, when writing my Kos diary about the NC press release and a bizarre planted article in the Craig, Colorado newspaper, I noticed that their press release website had changed. They added the press release this weekend, put a date on it, and put it in chronological order below their statement of support by William McNary, in order to make it look like it had been been there all along.

Fortunately, I have as proof a screen capture of their Press Release page as of Friday, May 2.

And here's the press release page as of Monday, May 5.

As you can see, as part of their cover up, they are creating a "paper trail" to make it seem that they'd been ahead of the game in NC when, in fact, they weren't even close. But they left tracks.

Why?

The question is - why? Why put all this energy into their cover up if they don't have anything to hide?

Even if they're merely hiding their massive incompetence, it's proof of the adage that the cover up is worse than the crime. Their Board of Directors must take immediate action to demonstrate that they take this deceitful and incompetent behavior seriously. There is sufficient evidence now of the lies and cover up, not to mention their appalling behavior in state after state. This is a group that gets more attention for its fuck ups than for its good works. The board must act. It's just too bad they refused to take remedial action for their confusing robocalls before early voting in NC was over.

In sum, by including details about NC registration dates that they had shown complete disregard for in their actual mailings and in the robocalls, WVWV's letter and press release were tailor made for those who doubted WVWV's good word.

We were right to doubt.

Oh, and one last note. As has been pointed out numerous times, neither the press release nor the Board of Elections letter include any information about the robocalls, which is what everyone was concerned about when they created them. They still haven't been able to explain away that major omission.

What Clinton is doing

2008-03-13T07:57:00.004-05:00

It's called "framing."

The point is, Clinton desperately wants us to believe, black people vote for Barack Obama, and white people vote for Hillary Clinton.

That's the entire point of all of this. From Bill Clinton's comments in South Carolina to the Ferraro misery.

Repeat after me: black people vote for Barack Obama. White people vote for Hillary Clinton.

Easy as pie! And it has worked: Time gets it! "Obama Win Defined by Race" The article, naturally, makes no mention of Wyoming.

Way to go, Hillary (and Bill)!

You must be so proud.

Update: Geraldine Ferraro in 2006:

“I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”

But I thought she was shocked SHOCKED that anyone would accuse her of pandering to racists.

Bill Clinton says: Vote for Obama!

2008-03-07T17:26:00.002-06:00

So does 3 a.m. girl...

PLEASE shut up about the "national popular vote"

2008-03-07T16:56:00.001-06:00

(Note: This is cross-posted as a DailyKos diary.)

I've become deeply concerned about folks like Kos, Jonathan Alter, and others who are talking about Obama's lead in the so-called "National popular vote."

This is a FALSE METRIC that has nothing to do with anything. It compares apples and oranges. It severely undercounts Obama's support in key states. And it needs to stop.

There was a diary on this issue yesterday by bbrown8370, and on her/his advice, I'm elaborating on it below the break.
Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

I've become deeply concerned about folks like Kos, Jonathan Alter, and others who are talking about Obama's lead in the so-called "National popular vote." This is a FALSE METRIC that has nothing to do with anything. It compares apples and oranges. It severely undercounts Obama's support in key states. And it needs to stop. There was a diary on this issue yesterday by bbrown8370, and on her/his advice, I'm elaborating on it below the break.

Based on sites such as the "US Election Atlas" and Real Clear Politics, reporters are looking at the raw numbers and saying that Obama has a lead of approximately 600,000 votes, not counting Florida or Michigan. But of course, this conflates many different things: primaries with caucuses, open primaries with closed primaries, states where multiple candidates were in the race vs. states with just two candidates. This is so arbitrary as to be at best laughable and at worst, dangerous. It's a meme that needs to be stopped.

If for no other reason, people should stop using this term because it is yet another example of moving the goalposts to benefit Clinton's campaign. Why? Because the so-called "national popular vote" vastly undercounts Obama's support, specifically from those states with caucuses.

How did Kos come up with this 600,000 "vote" lead by Obama in this "national primary vote"? If you go by the numbers at uselectionatlas.org, among the primary states (not counting Michigan, where Obama garnered 0 votes and where Clinton herself said the vote didn't count), Obama has a thin lead of less than 100,000 votes. Take out Florida, and his lead blossoms to closer to 400,000 votes. Then add in the caucus states, and there's the other 200,000. But of course, by their nature, caucuses involve a far smaller percentage of voters than do primaries.

Let's look at the numbers.

The 11 caucus states (AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, ND, IA, NV, NE, WA, ME) have been won by Obama by an average of 67%-31%, and have netted him a grand total of a 200,000 "vote" advantage according to these aggregate calculators. These 11 states have over 30,000,000 people according to the latest census figures.

Meanwhile, take Ohio (OH). Clinton won 54%-44%, and it has a population of 11.5 million, or about 40% of the 11 caucus states. Yet her victory there netted her 230,000 "votes." So Clinton's win, by a considerably smaller margin among a significantly smaller populace, nets her a 30,000 vote lead!

By my rough estimate, caucus states are underrepresented in these so-called "national primary vote" figures by between 2-1 to 3-1 -- or something in the order of 300,000 votes.

Using this metric, his ACTUAL "national popular vote" lead is nearly 1,000,000 votes! That's something close to a mandate, and impossible to make up in the remaining states (even if you include Florida and Michigan). Just like in the pledged delegate count (you remember that, right? The system we developed to help gauge support for candidates?), Clinton can't make up the difference.

But of course, these figures are themselves inappropriate to use, because the campaigns haven't been working toward anything other than garnering delegates from day one. I can guarantee that Obama's campaign, and Clinton's, would have done things differently if it were a race for this mythical "primary vote."

And this diary doesn't even get to the apples vs. oranges question of open primaries vs. closed primaries (why do you count some states' independents and republicans, but not others) or early states (with Edwards in the race) vs. late states (with just these two).

The point is - I can't repeat this enough - there is no such thing as a "national popular vote"! Using the term is counterproductive and yet one more example of moving the goalposts ... changing the rules mid-game ... Calvinball.

Please, Kos and everyone, stop using this metric. NOW!

Where we go from here, Obama fans

2008-03-05T21:37:00.003-06:00

(Note: I originally posted this at Facebook, so this is a cross-post.)

As disappointing as last night was to those of us who were hoping that Obama's miraculous ride would continue unmolested for the next 8 years+, let us remember that there's no such thing as a free ride. Obama - and we - will have to earn what we want to see.

For those urging Barack to go negative on Hillary Clinton, I say that he HAS and will CONTINUE to go negative - in attacking her RECORD. That is not only "politics" - it's making sure people have all the information they need to make a rational, informed choice. What he cannot do is get sucked into the dirty tricks, fear mongering, or politics of personal destruction. The NAFTA memo was an attempt at "gotcha" politics that was WEAK, at best. The "I'll take him at his word that he's not a Muslim" was pathetic. That's the best she's got? I'm good with that.

But we do need to start thinking more strategically, Obama fans, and use those tools we have at our disposal to make sure yesterday was the beginning of the end for the Clinton campaign. Here are my recommendations:

1) STAY POSITIVE. Yes, politics is emotional and we're allowed moments of disappointment. But one of the great things about Obama is that he's a rational person, and level-headed, and cool. We need to be that, too. Even if this election goes to the convention, we will win *if* we are more disciplined, more strategic, and more positive. And if we remained disciplined, strategic, and positive, I have little doubt we will win in November.

2) Get more involved. I personally have taken a long time to do much of anything. I was frankly burned out. But today I'm going to commit to being a DONOR and a VOLUNTEER for the Obama campaign. I urge you to do the same.

3) Wyoming Saturday. Mississippi Tuesday. Pennsylvania in April. Indiana and North Carolina May 6. Plus there's West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico. Then there are possible re-votes in Florida and Michigan. Obama needs good showings in most of these states - at least six (preferably eight) wins, and close to tied delegates in any loss. DO NOT WRITE PENNSYLVANIA OFF AS A CLINTON WIN YET!!!

What can you do to make this happen? Assuming this goes to Indiana, I pledge to make a trip there to help out in April. Anyone want to come with?

4) Superdelegates. Barack's website has a tool allowing you to tell your story" to a superdelegate". I suggest going one better. Make personal contact with a superdelegate that you have a connection to - whether committed or not. I will be contacting Carol Ronen (my former state senator, currently listed as uncommitted). I will explain to her why I think that Obama is the best candidate for this state, party and nation. I will not make threats or be negative. I will THANK her for taking her responsibility seriously and for supporting this party that I belong to and trust. I will urge her to declare for her home-state Senator, Barack Obama. 2008 Democratic Convention Watch has a list of pledged and unpledged delegates. Time to lobby, friends.

Okay, that's it. I am hoping for the best and preparing to work to help achieve it. I hope you'll join me!

Jonathan

The Final Countdown

2008-03-03T20:36:00.003-06:00

I'm for Obama.

On Tuesday, March 4, he's got four primary contests - Texas, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Vermont. I'm hoping he wins all four of them, basically putting to rest questions about whether his nomination is certain or merely almost certain. I find it hard to blame Clinton for wanting to continue, even with a 20% chance (randomly picked number) of winning. After all, she's been working towards this for a decade - why give up when you're so close? I don't even really blame her from being so darn negative. Unlike some Obama supporters, I don't believe Clinton's attacks hurt the party, or the candidate, all that much. I think Obama is remarkably resilient, and assuming he does get the nod, I don't doubt that Clinton's backers will jump on the bandwagon. I also trust Clinton not to try to improperly seat delagates from vanity elections in Florida or Michigan, which would tear the party apart. Oh, I also think the country is ready to united behind a leader with true vision, charisma, and smarts - i.e., a landslide in November.

Since you were wondering, here are my top 10 reasons for supporting the guy in the primary, besides the whole Chicago thing:

10. Obama is solid - and in tune with the rest of the country - on most issues. He can articulate these without being boring or sounding condescending. And, of course, his stance on the war has been correct from the beginning.

9. He's a Democrat through and through, but is not averse to working with political opponents, even those who have previously vilified him - I mean, he doesn't really make enemies over the long-haul, even those who are jealous of him (see Bobby Rush). When he says that Democrats don't have a monopoly on being right - well, frankly , that's flat-out true. And a good sign for someone who's willing to work across the aisle.

8. I met him in a completely unguarded moment and had the "audacity" to introduce myself, when he was in anti-politician mode, and he was cool. (I was a dork.)

7. His campaign *has* been positive. Being positive doesn't mean not attacking other candidates. You can point out your good votes and contrast them with their bad votes. In fact, you must. But you shouldn't stoop to tearing them down as people. Barack hasn't doen that. I feel like Hillary has been on the verge of doing that.

6. On the rare occasion that things haven't gone well for him, he hasn't whined. Ever. As a whiner at heart, I find that refreshing.

5. I think he's mean so much more for down-ticket races than Clinton possibly could. The first Clinton helped make possible the worst of the GOP Congresses. I think a lot of senatorial and gubenatorial candidates, particularly in red states, would *love* to run with Obama - not so much Clinton.

4. Bush/Clinton/Bush was bad enough. I don't want the history books to read /Clinton after that. This ain't Dynasty.

3. He's a rational thinker. We need that right now.

2. He's an excellent campaigner. He has come from behind to be the favorite. If he wins, it will be one of the most significant upsets in modern political history, but right now he's thought of as the "front runner." And whether in the lead or behind, he just doesn't have major hiccups. His organization is tight and well run. He has an excellent ground game. He believes in the 50-state strategy. And he's done little to alienate his fellow Dems, unlike his primary opponent. Like I said before, he's the only possibility of winning in November with anything resembling a true mandate, which is what the Dems could use right now.

1. If not for him, this blog wouldn't have a name.

Noes Country 4 tha old Mens WINS! WOO!!!

2008-02-25T23:22:00.004-06:00

I really liked No Country for Old Men and I think it's the best job Oscar has done naming a Best Picture in a decade or more, at least since Schindler's List in '93. Since then, they've picked Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan, American Beauty over every movie that didn't suck that year (sorry American Beauty fans, but ugh), Fucking Gladiator over Crouching Tiger, and of course, Crash over Brokeback Mountain AND Munich. Paul Haggis has played America for fools.

I actually liked last year's winner, The Departed, as well, but it didn't leave as indelible an impression on me as the Coen Brothers did. Frankly, I'd forgotten about it. I always get this sense that the Coen Brothers are really one step ahead of us all. No Country is relentless, unlike some critics' favorite There Will Be Blood, which I liked better when it was called Scarface. I haven't seen Michael Clayton yet, so I won't make a catagorical judgment either way. Juno was good.

The reason I liked No Country the most is that the narrative subverted my expectations, without ever losing me. That doesn't happen too much in film, so it's nice when it does.

I prefer the Diana Ross album version...

2007-09-24T23:10:00.000-05:00

But this has its own charms:

Roberta Flack & Michael Jackson performing "When We Grow Up" from the film version of Free to Be You & Me.

One of the lowlights of my life -- and a glimmer of hope!

2007-08-07T22:23:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I will remember for many years the weekend of August 3-5, 2007, when I was in Chicago, took days off work, while Lollapalooza was going on with, among others, Polyphonic Spree, and all my friends said it ruled, and while YearlyKos was happening just south of there, with most of my favorite bloggers & political figures, and I was sitting up north like a sucker, and playing some tennis. And throwing out my back.

Lame!

The only thing that would make me feel better would be if this were true:

"Supporters of Alan Keyes plan to attend the Iowa Straw Poll Aug. 11, to get Keyes' name before the public as a possible Republican presidential candidate," according to Keyes’ grassroots supporters. Most recently known for his recent Illinois Senate race against now-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama (gathering just 27% of the vote in the process), Keyes has stayed out of the public spotlight recently.

Commenting on this effort, Keyes said, "I've told my supporters -- who, by the way, are undertaking this effort on their own -- that if they can demonstrate sufficient grassroots support for me to run, I will do so."

The Kos diarist goes on the mention Keyes' awesome coining of the phrase "selfish hedonist." Alan, we will always love you here for that! 4EVAH!

One of the highlights of my life

2007-08-02T02:49:00.000-05:00

I know it sounds strange, but I was really, really proud that I had the gumption tonight, thanks to whatever pale ale I was drinking, to meet my blogger idol tonight, Atrios.

Woah.

Note: also stood near Kos & Georgia10

Read!

2007-07-30T18:39:00.000-05:00

You can't see it too well, but the book is The Adventures of Super Diaper Baby, by Dav Pilkey.

Updated to add: YIKES! Do NOT click the photo, or you will be able to see a little TOO well...

Jet Boo!

2007-07-24T15:05:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm sure all of you are DYING to know what I think about the whole Jet Blue/YearlyKos/Bill O'Reilly craziness, so take a gander at the letter I sent them yesterday:

Dear Jet Blue:

I am writing to express my disappointment in your company for demanding the removal of your logo indicating sponsorship of the 2007 Yearly Kos convention in Chicago. As a Chicagoan and frequent traveller (and someone who had heard great things about Jet Blue), I will now very likely not be flying your airline in the foreseeable future.

I'm particularly distressed because it appears that your decision was based not on facts but on misinformation and fear. As a consumer of both traditional and new media, I have to say that I have not seen anything on dailykos.com (which, by the way, is only tangentially associated with Yearly Kos) that is nearly as offensive as comments I've heard repeatedly on Fox News. As a gay man, progressive, and person of color, I find much on Fox News to be galling. From mocking the movie "Brokeback Mountain" on Fox & Friends to Sean Hannity smearing the pastor of Barack Obama's church as a "black separatist," to their laugh-out-loud slogan "fair and balanced," I find it incredible that you have no problems continuing advertising with this de facto branch of the right wing of the Republican Party, but are afraid to have your corporate name identified with an organization and event as generally positive as Yearly Kos.

I know controversy is anathema to the modern-day corporation. But ultimately, it is a test of corporate values. I'm afraid to say that, in this instance, Jet Blue seems to have failed its test.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kelley
Chicago, IL

Anyway, so hopefully next Friday I will be volunteering my time for the YK07 convention, although it's more money than I can afford to actually *attend* the thing!

SiCKO is BoFFO!

2007-07-09T22:37:00.000-05:00

I saw Michael Moore's latest masterpiece "SiCKO" tonight. It was, to me, his finest production since Roger and Me. Where I felt let down (or was it slightly embarrassed) by the maudlin focus on one family's loss in Fahrenheit 911, here I felt he did little to nothing wrong. Could he have given screen time to the insurance industry to rebut his arguments? I suppose, but it's not like they give the dead, dying, and at-risk an opportunity to give their say when they get their expensive PR campaigns in full gear. Turnabout being fair play and all, Moore lays it out there, and we're welcome to investigate further on our own. Which means that Moore will win out, because the more you investigate the tragedy of health care in this country, the more you'll see that only obfuscation and apathy have been able to allow this system to limp along as it has for the last 50 years.

I was reading some of the discussion in Digby's comment thread on the movie, and was struck by a couple of things. One, someone pointing out that Cuba ranked below the U.S. on the WHO ranking of nations. While we need to keep in mind that the ranking is pretty arbitrary, I will point out that Cuba far outperforms other poor nations, while the U.S. far underperforms (while spending a higher proportion of our GDP) other wealthy nations. We should be far, far higher than Cuba but instead barely manage to squeak ahead. And the most important part is that the cracks in the system in the U.S. are such that if you have an underlying problem (too fat, too thin, former yeast infection) or if you lose the fight to be recognized as a lucky 9/11 worker, it can actually mean that you get treated unequally in this system. It's catch as catch can here, and that borders on the criminal. And yet we put up with it. Thanks to obfuscation and apathy.

I remember 15 years ago, watching the nightly news on the eve of the 1992 presidential election, and seeing something on one of the networks that made me think: this could actually happen -- the health care crisis in America has actually gotten to the point where the corporate media is ready to bring people on board with a system of universal health care. We're on the precipice of a new day! I was shocked but also so hopeful, particularly after Clinton's election victory. And then, it all went to pot. Thanks to Bob Dole and a cast of many others (primarily Republicans) along with Bill Clinton's inability to truly lead on this issue, here we are 15 years later, and it's only gotten worse. Although there is some progress that's been made in some states, such as Illinois. But this should not be a state-by-state issue in my opinion. People in Massachusetts should not get far better health care than people in Alabama just because of their geographic location.

The second thing in Digby's comment section that struck me was that someone recalled seeing that 50% of bankruptcies were due to medical bills/catastrophic health problems. It's interesting that when the bankruptcy bill was debated a couple of years ago, that statistic was used as a reason to stop passage, but it passed anyway. It's a very frustrating world we live in when we are made aware of such facts and come away with something that makes it harder for people to declare bankruptcy AND does nothing to help with those medical bills. I know a lot of Democrats helped get that passed (paging Joe Biden) but ultimately, it was the Republicans. Which is yet another reason why it's hard for me to feel anything but bitterness when I meet a Republican in this day and age. I like to think of myself as broad-minded, but that bill was really beyond the pale.

A third thing I was struck by were comments regarding how to counter the argument that the capitalism aspect to American healthcare is what has helped to make ours one of the most technologically advanced systems in the world, if not the most. I would like to point out that just as private schools & colleges have not gone away, nor have taxi cabs/cars, nor UPS, nor private security systems, nor many other private enterprises in areas where there are large government programs, it will be the same for healthcare. Just because we'll be providing a larger amount of free service for the majority of us doesn't mean that there won't be a parallel system for the wealthy. They'll be able to pay for their private clinics, their private doctors, even an insurance system to supplement national care. The rich always are able to figure out a way to live that much better than the rest of us. It's their nature. Their extreme wealth should be plenty to spur development. Also, much of the research that has led to our medical advancement has been thanks to places like NIH and the many (often public) research universities out there.

Finally, I am desperately hopeful that Michael Moore will keep it up. To say he's an imperfect messenger is to miss the point - we all are. What he is, though, is the single best messenger I've ever seen for changing the terms of the debate, whether it's about unions & corporations, the war in Iraq, and healthcare. I'll be fascinated to see where he goes next. I hope it's the media or, even better, the secretive, massive PR industry. I got my first hint of the demons associated PR thanks to Tom Tomorrow, who did the cover for the exposé Toxic Sludge Is Good for You. Definitely read it if you ever get a chance.

Bush Is Said to Have Memorized Encyclopedia Brittanica

2007-07-05T21:46:00.000-05:00

It's been nearly a half year since I last posted, and quite honestly, nothing has really riled me to the point of having to write it all down and publish my thoughts to the entire world. I've become inured, as so many of us have, to the craziness of the world, of the Bushies, and the rest of it. It looks like impeachment isn't going to happen - although even if it happened on the last day of Bush's administration it would still be the right thing to do because of the message it would send to the rest of the world, and to remind ourselves of the importance of laws and justice and the American Way. So I've just been biding my time, working, playing tennis, and travelling an awful lot.

Saw Barcelona. Will try to get a photo or two posted.

Anyway, you ask, what would rile me SO MUCH that it would actually get me off my ass and back to this blog? It was an article. Specifically, this New York Times article. Please read it, then come back here. It's not that long. Go ahead. Read it.

Actually, you don't have to read it, because the article made me so mad, I'm gonna go ahead and Fisk it right here. So settle in, this may take awhile.

Bush Is Said to Have Held Long Debate on Decision

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JIM RUTENBERG

Okay, this should have been enough to have scared the "Even the Liberal" New York Times from running this article. But the Times long ago lost sight of any sense of what actual journalism might look like, so they just dove right in.

WASHINGTON, July 3 — Before commuting the prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr., President Bush and a small circle of advisers delved deeply into the evidence in the case, debating Mr. Libby’s guilt or innocence and whether he had in fact lied to investigators, people familiar with the deliberations said.

Well, Jesus! "People familiar with the deliberations" WOULD say that, wouldn't they? Since the only people involved in the deliberations are Bush's inner circle (possibly including Rove and/or Cheney - our inside, anonymous sources won't tell us - more on that later). They have a vested interest in saying that. Now, why President Bush and his inner circle would be able to judge his guilt or innocence better than an empaneled jury, our article won't say.

Our article won't say a lot of things, actually. Like the fact that the person whose testimony most clearly led to Libby's conviction was that of the Times' very own Judith Miller, who had lunch with Libby a few days before Novak leaked Valerie Plame's identity, at which lunch she said she was informed for the first time about Plame's being with the CIA. Our article also won't remind us of the fact that by commuting Libby's prison sentence, but maintaining the fine and probation (i.e., not pardoning him), he allowed Libby to take the 5th in any congressional inquiry into the matter. Which, our article also doesn't mention, could spare the president, who himself has been suspected of involvement in the Plame outing, along with Rove and Cheney. Naturally, the article doesn't refer to the president's past lies about this matter, including his pledge to fire the leaker(s), one of whom (Rove) still works for him and has the highest security clearence. Bush and Rove have never told all they know about this matter, the article forgets to inform us, always saying they refuse to comment on an ongoing criminal matter. Which, since Libby still has the fine and probation, he can continue to appeal, and Bush & Rove can continue to refuse to comment on it.

But anyway, onward.

That process, in weeks of closely held White House discussions, led to the decision to spare Mr. Libby from a 30-month sentence rather than grant a pardon. But Mr. Bush, defending the move Tuesday, left the door open to a pardon in the future.

“I weighed this decision carefully,” the president told reporters after visiting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. “I thought that the jury verdict should stand. I felt the punishment was severe, so I made a decision that would commute his sentence but leave in place a serious fine and probation. As to the future, I rule nothing in or nothing out.”

Okay, the truth is that the punishment was actually significantly lower than the average federal conviction for obstruction of justice. And he was convicted of THREE OTHER COUNTS! But the thing that truly makes this quote among the most fatuous of Bush's career is that he removed the ENTIRE jail term. Apparently, even one day behind bars is too much for our Scooter. But of course, our article, in the "Even the Liberal" New York Times, does not feature anyone pointing out this bit of inanity.

The decision brought a storm of criticism, as well as a new investigation on Capitol Hill. Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Tuesday that he would hold a hearing next week to examine “the use and misuse of presidential clemency power” for executive branch officials.

That's pretty mcuh it for the criticism. John Conyers. But not to worry, we are told by anonymous sources, because Bush Is Said to Have Held Long Debate on Decision. Based, we are told, not on the political ramifications, or any possible quid pro quo, or the fact that Bush, Rove, and Cheney are all scalp-deep in the whole Plame matter. But rather, based purely on the merits of the case.

The White House deliberations in the case of Mr. Libby, a key architect of the war in Iraq who served as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, were scattered throughout Mr. Bush’s regular business over the past several weeks, an administration official said.

That description, along with the accounts of two Republican allies of the White House, illuminated a process that was almost clinical, with a detailed focus on the facts of the case, which stemmed from an investigation into the leak of a C.I.A. operative’s identity. Mr. Libby was accused of lying to investigators and was convicted on four felony counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

"Almost clinical"!!! Bush the almost clinician. (Note: this is not a quote, or even an indirect quote, which serves to lead the reader to believe it is a statement of fact.)

The description of the process is truly remarkably free of any detail, even as the anonymous source claims it was highly detailed. We are told of no facts that weighed on the president's decision, no suggestion of which parts of the testimony were discussed, or even which precedents the president might have relied on in thinking the punishment was excessive. We don't even know whether the process was described in any detail -- even on background -- to the reporter! We are just told it was done in detail, and expected to take that as a statement which needs no support, no matter how remarkable, unprecedented, or unlikely.

And we are told this came from an anonymous source, plus two people who were not actually involved in these supposed deliberations but had to be told about them by somebody - specifically, at least one of the people who was involved - very possibly the same GOSH DARN SOURCE #1 who so desperately needed to remain anonymous.

The reporters know they are being spun. They've been handed an evidence-free line of spin and have dutifully typed it up. They clearly are fine with being spun. To them, the importance of the story is that the paper of record, the "Even the Liberal" New York Times, is able to publish an unvarnished look into what the Administration wants us to think happened. We know the Administration has lied to the public about many things, and has sent its minions out to misdirect the American public about this case countless times. So rationally, one would think that the actual STORY here is not WHAT the Administration is trying to get us to believe, but WHY it's trying that. Why in God's name, for instance, is it necessary to have the primary spinner be anonymous?

Because the deliberations were so closely held, those who spoke about them agreed to do so only anonymously. But by several different accounts, Mr. Bush spent weeks thinking about the case against Mr. Libby and consulting closely with senior officials, including Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff; Fred F. Fielding, the White House counsel; and Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush’s departing counselor.

“They were digging deeply into the substance of the charges against him, and the defense for him,” one of the Republicans close to the White House said.

The second Republican said the overarching question was “did he lie?”

Now, reading this article, we simply have no idea how many people the reporters talked to. They say here "several" but they only actually quote three anonymous sources (possibly four including the former administrative official quoted below). Later they also quote Vin Weber (who the day before got similar star treatment in the Washington Post) and Tony Snow. But honestly, the excuses they have for letting people spin anonymously these days is downright embarrassing: "Because the deliberations were so closely held" my ass! The ACTUAL reason is "Because the White House media strategy involves distracting us from the actual and obvious reasons Bush just spared jail time for his crony who is a convicted felon..." It's reading crap like that that makes me nearly certain that the "Even the Liberal" New York Times has a vested interest in deceiving the American public.

Mr. Bush has not publicly offered his conclusion to that question, nor have his aides. In his statements about the commutation, the president has said only that he respects the jury’s verdict and that his interest was in reducing what he regarded as an overly severe sentence.

“I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand,” Mr. Bush told reporters Tuesday. “But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe, made a judgment, a considered judgment, that I believe is the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it.”

RIGHT HERE would be the time to point out that it was NOT severe at all, based on other similar convictions. AND/OR to have asked whether, say, a six-month term might have been less "severe." Because right now, we have Bush saying that spending even one day in jail is too much for a person convicted of four felonies. A person who, oh by the way, is one of his closest political allies.

In issuing his commutation order on Monday, Mr. Bush left intact Mr. Libby’s conviction, a $250,000 fine and the two years of postprison supervised release that were ordered by Judge Reggie B. Walton of Federal District Court.

But the details of the president’s order raised procedural questions in court.

Judge Walton said Tuesday that the law did not allow for imposing a period of supervised release on an individual who had not first completed a jail sentence. He asked the lawyers for both sides to submit briefs next week on whether Mr. Libby should have to submit to supervision by the probation office.

That part is interesting, and we can only imagine that Bush will jump on any issues regarding this to get rid of the probation, too.

Mr. Bush has issued 113 pardons and commuted four sentences, including Mr. Libby’s, during his presidency, but no act of clemency has been as controversial as the Libby decision. The C.I.A. leak case raised impassioned questions about the administration’s flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, and whether officials at the highest reaches of the White House, including Mr. Cheney, ordered the leak of the identity of the operative, Valerie Wilson, to discredit her husband, a war critic.

Both critics of the administration and supporters of Mr. Libby viewed him as a fall guy in the case, and Mr. Bush had been under intense pressure from conservatives to issue a pardon, which constitutes an official act of forgiveness.

Pardons are typically reviewed by the Justice Department and sent to the president for a final determination. But a former administration official said that in this case the White House had sent a message of “we’re not going through the usual pardon scrub, we’re going through this one ourselves.”

Do you know what they mean by "scrub" here, because I actually don't. But by using the quote, the reporters conveniently whitewash the remarkable avoidance of the process that had been put in place, whereby trained professionals might be able to actually review the actual evidence and make an actual informed decision, and instead allow for a nakedly self-serving and dangerously unaccountable action. Who does the job of making it look like this move was a matter of doing it the right way (as opposed to the "usual" way)? A "former administration official." Why is this former administrative official -- who presumably was not part of the deliberation process -- kept anonymous? We are not told. We are simply left with the impression that there was a good reason to avoid the process in place (the "usual pardon scrub") -- and it's NOT I REPEAT NOT because the Justice Department never would have made that recommendation.

The process was delicate.

Again, not a quote, not an indirect quote, but an implied statement of fact.

Karl Rove, the chief White House strategist and one of Mr. Bush’s closest and longest-serving aides, had been implicated in the leak investigation, and it was unclear how extensive a role he played in the deliberations.

The special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, ultimately decided not to pursue charges against Mr. Rove. Some Republicans said they believed that Mr. Rove steered clear of the pardon discussions, perhaps because his participation would have been awkward.

“I talk to Karl a lot, and I just never got any sense that he was involved in that at all,” said Vin Weber, a Republican former congressman who said he believed that Mr. Libby should be pardoned.

Ah. Karl Rove. Hello Prince of Darkness, my old friend. It's "unclear" the extent to which he was involved in these deliberations. "Some Republicans" "believed" he wasn't involved, but our anonymous source with actual knowledge stays mum. Vin Weber, meanwhile, a member of the Off the Record Club, "never got any sense" that he was involved. But why couldn't the anonymous source have been at least asked about this incredibly important question, given that Rove was at the center of the investigation and was only spared prosecution because he went back and changed his story before the Grand Jury (which testimony he refuses to release to the public)? Or, assuming he was asked, why couldn't we be told that he refused to answer or was vague on the question. I mean, to be clear, any halfway-decent journalist would have made the possibility that Rove--a central figure in this travesty, a man who by Bush's own words should have been fired for his involvement in leaking Plame's CIA connection but who sits still unharmed--was involved in delibrations into the LEDE of the article. But we don't have a halfway-decent journalist. We just have two people who are so gullible (by which I mean "in on it") that they are willing to suggest Rove wasn't involved in deliberations for fear of them being "awkward."

You start to see now why I was compelled to jot some thoughts down. And why I accuse the Times of collusion.

Mr. Weber also said he was concerned about Mr. Bush’s statement Tuesday, in which the president said he believed that the jury verdict should stand. “It disturbs me,” he said, “because the president has set himself up for more criticism if indeed he does issue a full pardon, which I think he should.”

Oh no, Vin! Not "more criticism!" Heaven forfend! But never you fret. We all know the president does what he does based on what's RIGHT, not on what's POPULAR. Ergo his 27-30% approval rating. (Just in case you're keeping track, this is the point in the story where Bush is crticized from the right, so we know that if both sides have a problem with the decision, it's probably a case of splitting the difference and hell, not such a big deal!!!!!)

Another question that remained open Tuesday is to what extent Mr. Cheney participated.

Well, at least they mentioned him. Oh sweet Isis, this is a painful article.

Aides to the vice president have said he regarded Mr. Libby’s conviction as a tragedy, but people close to Mr. Cheney said they did not know what conversations, if any, the vice president had with the president about the commutation decision.

Yeah, pretty much what I said about Rove applies here. TIMES 100,000,000,000!

The White House was besieged by criticism over the decision Tuesday. Before Mr. Bush spoke at Walter Reed, his press secretary, Tony Snow, fended off an unruly press corps, whose members demanded to know why Mr. Libby had received special treatment. Mr. Snow insisted that he had not, saying the case had been handled in a “routine manner.”

Which absolutely contradicts what the former administration official said just a few paragraphs above, but who's counting? (Hey, look at me not commenting on the use of the word "unruly" instead of the more obvious "doing their job"!)

“The president does not look upon this as granting a favor to anyone,” Mr. Snow said, “and to do that is to misconstrue the nature of the deliberations.”

Blah blah fucking blah, Tony Snow.

Our final clue that the entire article was a big ol' ball of crap is here. If you need 3-5+ people to speak anonymously in order to just confirm what Tony Snow just stood up and said, and in doing so help fend off criticism of the president, you have undermined for the bazillionth time the entire point of granting anonymity to sources. These sources have not told us one thing beyond what Tony Snow JUST SAID!

So there you go. If you got this far, bless you. I had to get it off my chest. Yes I'm mad at Bush for this action, but it's the nature of what a despot will do when he feels he can. I reserve my greatest fury for the coopted media. Should anyone, ever, feel the need to defend the "Even the Liberal" New York Times, alls you have to do is send them here to let them know what side the "paper of record" is really on. Hint: it's not our side.

[FYI: Media Matters has a nice overview of the article, but their style is so damn unaffected and straightforward that, I hate to say it, but it leaves me a little cold.]

Froomkin, the LA Times, and Iran

2007-02-05T23:25:00.000-06:00

Glenn Greenwald linked to this impressive (although spookily obvious) piece by Washington Post writer Dan Froomkin about basic journalistic precepts to take into consideration when reporting on war-related issues and this administration (well, any administration). Read them. Then read this LA Times article. Then weep.

How the press can prevent another Iraq

Lessons we thought had been learned from Vietnam were forgotten in the rush to invade Iraq. And now, as we cover President Bush’s ratcheting up of the rhetoric against Iran, it’s looking like the lessons we should have learned from Iraq may not have been learned at all. So at the risk of stating the obvious, here are some thoughts about what those lessons were.

...

Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.

Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.

War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.

Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.

Historically, the real motives for wars have often not been the public motives. Try to report on the motivations of the key advocates for war.

There are several more. Each of which, pretty much, was broken in the February 1 article I linked to above:

U.S. delays report on Iranian role in Iraq

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials promised last week to provide evidence of Iranian activities that led President Bush to announce Jan. 10 that U.S. forces would begin taking the offensive against Iranian agents who threatened Americans.

But some officials in Washington are concerned that some of the material may be inconclusive and that other data cannot be released without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods. They want to avoid repeating the embarrassment that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that information the administration cited to justify the war was incorrect, said the officials, who described the internal discussions on condition of anonymity.

"We don't want a repeat of the situation we had when [then-Secretary of State] Colin L. Powell went before the United Nations," said one U.S. official, referring to Powell's 2003 presentation on then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons program that relied on evidence later found to be false. "People are going to be skeptical."

Now I'll admit that on the surface, this seems like a perfectly cromulent piece. It in fact seems to avoid the journalistic pitfalls that marked the runup to the Iraq war. However, looking closer, it in fact goes over the top in rationalizing the official lies that went into the current war in an effort to soft-sell the upcoming one. They want us to believe that we've "learned our lessons" from Iraq, and so they're just going to dot their i's and cross their t's to make sure that THIS time their case is air-tight. Sure, they intone, "people are going to be skeptical" but not because they LIIED, but because their prior evidence "later" was "found to be false." No mention of the fact that AT THE TIME the administration knew that much of what they inserted into Powell's speech was qualified at best and hog nuts at worse (particularly the bit about the al Qaeda training center in northern Iraq that they knew all about but couldn't seem to just TAKE OUT, even though we controlled the air space over said center).

It's truly an infuriating article. And it violates most of the tenets of journalism that Froomkin warns us about. They provide cover for several past & present administration officials; refuse to examine or explain any ulterior motives they (or others advocating for the war, including in their own paper); might have; don't speculate about WHY officials might be trying to "build a case with a variety of evidence;" and worst of all, ignore any and all critics of the administration (other than giving lip service to unnamed forces in the state department, and an official denial from Tehran). Seriously, they couldn't find ANYONE to interview who might be willing to say: "How stupid do they take us to be? Fool me once, and all that! How dare you give anonymity to these warmongers? They had their chance. We KNOW there are elements among them who would LOVE to go to war with Iran. Too bad. This time we know better."

Not one person? Perhaps, say, someone who was RIGHT the first time, who knew their links to al Qaeda and WMD scares and "he gassed his own people!!!!!" rhetoric was empty bullshit, and said so at the time? Shouldn't at least one such person be part of this discussion now? Just for, you know, balance?

Ugh.

Anyway, the article is infuriating. The fact that Media Matters holds it up as an important piece debunking the crazy assertions being made by administration officials doesn't make it any less worrisome - if this is the best our mainstream papers can do in debunking Iran propaganda, we're in deep freaking trouble.

My Turn

2006-12-12T22:50:00.000-06:00

Okay, the ISG gave us their plan for fixing Iraq. The neocons hated it, Don Rumsfeld hasn't read it, the progressive blogs think it's a joke or a kabuki or something, and George W. Bush asked zero questions when it was presented to him and hasn't indicated that he'll actually do anything that's recommended in it, even though the only thing that saved the GOP from a complete electoral meltdown last month was the prospect that we were going to change course in Iraq once the ISG report came out.

So now it's my turn.

I have had a few discussions recently with friends and family where I have urged a withdrawal from Iraq, and the comeback has been: how can you run the risk of the pure anarchy (and possible regional war), not to mention the increased possibility of unrestrained terror plotting in an American-less Iraq? And it's true, I think, that as bad as the situation is there (and it's probably among the worst over an extended period of time for civilians that I can think of, but my history isn't as good as it should be; still, it's one three-year-plus-long period of terror) it could conceivably get even bloodier for the Iraqis.

The problem is, it is still a mess over there. And all reason, to me, points to the idea that our presence is actually making things worse there. Notwithstanding all our high-flown rhetoric of freedom and democracy, we are plainly at this point an occupying power (some claim reluctantly so), and as such, we would have to be fools not to follow the age-old truism that in order to rule a foreign land, you must divide. Divide and rule. We would be stupid, in some sense, NOT to encourage discord among the various sects in Iraq, because I'm pretty sure that in a purely peaceful Iraq, none of them would want us to build permanent bases, which we have built. And it wasn't so long ago that the Shiite al Sadr was making overtures toward the Sunni insurgency, and that doesn't seem to be as much of a priority these days. We should consider ourselves lucky that Americans get only 3-4 military deaths a day, while Iraqis get hundreds. Imagine if they aimed all their energies toward killing us (not that our overall casualty figures are that low - 22,000 wounded, not counting illnesses).

All this is to say that it's obvious to me that Bush wouldn't get out even if the gettin' we good. Permanent bases being the key here. Ergo, in order to "fix" Iraq, our number one order of business MUST be at the top. Not waiting 25 more months for 2000 more Americans to die and another hundred thousand Iraqis. As soon as possible. George Bush and Dick Cheney must resign. If they fail to do so, they must be impeached. Anyone who doesn't think it's feasible to convict doesn't have much faith in Americans. I can promise you that the more people realize that Bush isn't shifting directions despite a 21% approval rating of his policy, the more impeachment will seem like a viable option. And once that gets started, it only takes some Democratic political bravery and a whole lot of Republicans fighting for their political lives. I say this should happen by March.

Then President Pelosi must take her Armani suits directly to the Hague for an international conference on Iraq. She should state up front that the Americans will withdraw from Iraq on a quick and specific time table, for that country's and that region's benefit. If there truly is concern that foreign fighters are destabilizing Iraq, she should call for an international force to seal off the borders. Finally, she must insist on the dismantling of the death squads by NATO, the UN, or whoever takes over in Iraq. If countries seem hesitent to do this, she should threaten them with the reinstatement of George W. Bush. Also, we will pay for any associated costs.

She should follow this up by a renewed effort to resolve the Israel/Palestinian question; a reevaluation of our relations with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan; and an international call for Islam to fix Islam - specifically, those forces within Islam that encourage terrorist violence.

She should apologize for the death to civilians and others caused by this unjust war.

She should call for Saddam Hussein's retrial (and certain conviction) at the Hague, to be followed by Rumsfeld's. As for Bush and Cheney, while I can't see any argument against their indictment for war crimes, I still can't seem to get my mind around the idea of them in prison. Perhaps because they have such powerful allies. I am perfectly fine seeing them wither away and be known finally as the two worst leaders in American history.

Then, I believe, we might start seeing things in Iraq improve.

Iraq Study Group Report: 160 pages, but wide margins

2006-12-06T21:50:00.000-06:00

Well, the Iraq Study Group released its report today. Things have changed a LOT about the panel since I blogged about it. No longer does the group carry the burden of being seen as past-their-prime insiders who were chosen for their names and media profiles instead of their expertise and willingess to stand up to the powers that be! No!! Check it out: they got rid of that fogey politicos Robert Gates (confirmed today as Secretary of Defense) and replaced them with ... hmmm, let me see here...

Ah yes! Lawrence Eagleburger! A spry 76, Eagleburger seems the be the guy who stood at the post to watch Yugoslavia devolve into the worst hot war Europe had seen in a half century. However, he at least was someone (widely suspected at the behest of George I) who was willing to call out the Bush administration during their rush to war in 2002. Anyway, he was put there after Rumsfeld resigned, i.e. after the election, i.e. after the ISG had already come to their basic conclusions, i.e. he's a meaningless figurehead.

Oh, and he named all three of his sons Lawrence. Freaky!

So all this is to say that my efforts to contextualize the ISG report, which I admittedly only skimmed, took me to one place I really generally loathe going: Slate. Why do I hate Slate? Well, here's what I said many moons ago:

As if Christopher Hitchens' blatherings weren't bad enough, the folks at Slate also seem to have created a niche for themselves as the ultimate in wacky "what if" scenarios and their mind-numbingly dull "explainer" articles. "What if Howard Dean were debating George Bush tonight?" is their thought exercise for today.... I just find the whole thing to be irrelavent, unfunny, and desperately wanna-be in its hipness and water-cooler-topicness.

(As if to prove my point, today some of their featured articles are "Why Litvinenko Lost His Hair but Not His Eyebrows" and "My Quest for the World's Perfect Bag." Oh, and "Why Do Cruise Ship Passengers Always Get Diarrhea?")

Anyway, imagine my surprise to find that they were leading with the only writer in their damn organization worth a darn, Fred Kaplan, and his cutting, plain-spoken gem of a scary article, "The Iraq Study Group Chickens Out". His points:

> Whereas everybody seems to want the ISG to use the word "should," the report instead uses the word "could."
> They not only don't advocate a timetable for withdrawal, they give themselves enough wiggle room so that more troops are just as viable an option as fewer.
> They have not given us one reason why Iran would possibly be interested in helping us out.

However, none of Fred's analysis is nearly as convincing to me as the article I read earlier -- forgive me, I forget where -- that points out that by not mentioning the permanent bases -- the massive, extremely intentional permanent bases -- that are already in place, the ISG is not dealing with the FACT of our occupation and our actual strategic goals (whatever they are, because god knows the administration won't tell us) and therefore is nothing more than a meaningless exercise in empty rhetoric and political cover for any politician who would like to use it.

So expect more carnage. More sectarian violence (that is likely saving American lives because we'd be a truly inept occupying power if we were NOT secretly encouraging division among the populace, "divide and rule" being the only proven precept among colonizers). More evasion from Tony Snow and the like. And a couple of more years of nobody having the balls to demand George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's resignations, which to me is the only rational first step in any Iraq strategy.

50 State Strategy

2006-11-10T17:51:00.000-06:00

It's a good thing.

There's been some speculation about whether or not Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy is indeed the best way to go about leading the DNC into the political future. The more I think about it, the more I realize that there's no question in my mind: it is definitely the way to go about things.

Imbiciles (with unclear and unholy agendas) like James Carville can bray all they want about what gains could have been made had Howard Dean targetted DNC funds to high-impact races, thus potentially increasing Dems' lead in the House of Representatives.

I would ask Carville: even if that were the case (which I don't believe it to be), what's the point? We took the House -- in the short term, that's all that matters. The size of the majority is far less relavent than the majority itself. But more to the point, how does that help the Democrats rebuild our party infrastructure, with 5 more or 10 more House seats? We won governorships. We won state legislative houses. THAT'S the sort of thing that helps Democrats over the long term. THAT is what will help us avoid the "short bench" phenomenon that's hurt us in so many places. THAT is what will make the word "Democrat" (and even "liberal") less frightening to people in places like the West or in rural areas or in certain suburbs, or even the South.

Digby asks whether we should let the Republicans have the South as we consolidate political power elsewhere (actually, he suggests we stop kowtowing to Southern sentiment and running away from progressive principles in a quixotic but conventional-wisdom-friendly effort to win the South). My answer is that, while it's tempting to let the Southern Strategy play itself out so extremely that we have a permanent 2/3 majority for time immemorial, the truth is that there's far too much potential in the South - and soon. Large black populations, populist traditions, greater cultural change (including more visible gay populations), terrific colleges, increasing latino populations, northerners moving south, and the massive house of cards that is 21st Century Christian fundamentalism mean that Democrats continue to be viable there, and will continue to be, particularly if the GOP decides to tack to the right.

In the 2004 senatorial elections, we had close calls all over the South: Mel Martinez, Jim Bunning, David Vitter, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and Richard Burr each won their elections with less than 55% of the vote. Now it's true that five of them were going after open (D) seats, but for a region that's supposedly out of our reach, we just can't forget it.

Similarly, in 2002, the open-seat victories of John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, Lindsay Graham, and Elizabeth Dole, plus the upset win of Saxby Chambilss over Max Cleland, all happened with 55% or less of the vote. In the most oppressive political environment I've ever seen.

Plus, Bush has low approval ratings in 47 states (he's above 50% only in Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah). And also plus, Democrats have the governorships of Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia (not to mention Kansas and Wyoming).

Finally, it's about being the change we want to see. Respect everyone - give them all a chance to succeed. Because the Democratic party will continue to exist everywhere, even if it's just in the hearts and minds of a few gay kids who wake up one day and say "fuck this shit, I deserve better!" And make their own change. Don't you want to be there to see it?

To summarize: the 50 State Strategy is where it's at. We need to keep mobilizing in the South, without selling out to the conservative mentality. Dean is God. And Illinois could use some help, too, Mr. Dean. Don't forget us.

Top 10 Reasons to Help Fire Hastert

2006-10-16T19:28:00.000-05:00

Please donate $10.00 to John Laesch for Congress through my Act Blue page!

Here are ten reasons to support Laesch and help fire Denny Hastert (the quotes come from this article from today's Washington Post):

10) "Even Hastert's defenders acknowledge that his top priority as speaker has been protecting the GOP majority, not investigating the president or his own caucus."

9) "[H]e has often been dismissed as a frontman for [disgraced] former majority leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the conservative firebrand who anointed him."

8) "He eviscerated the House ethics committee after it admonished DeLay, and tried to change the House ethics rules to help DeLay stay in power."

7) "Hastert's team has shut House Democrats out of the governing process, refusing to allow their bills on the floor, limiting debate, calling midnight votes on complex bills that few have read. The Hastert Rule decrees that the House will consider only bills approved by the GOP caucus — "a majority of the majority" — and the speaker has enforced it with few exceptions."

I mean, whatever Republicans' complaints about the Congressional Democrats before 1994, their partisanship never reached the extent of the Hastert/DeLay House. It's correctly called "hyperpartisanship" and it started with Gingrich as minority whip, then continued with DeLay, Rove, and now Hastert. The GOP consolidation of power for its own sake--never to help solve America's problems. I acknowledge that Democrats can be and have been just as corrupt, mean, negative, etc. as Republicans. But this current manifestation of the GOP is truly unique in that regard when it comes to national politics, and at such a critical time in our nation's political history. And Hastert is hyperpartisanship's greatest force remaining in Congress. Want to start making a change in the polarization of politics in this country? Start right here.

6) The Foley Affair, and his complete refusal to take any responsibility for the crap that happened while he was supposedly in charge. He blames everyone but himself -- including possibly scapegoating his own staff.

5) The national debt has exploded under his watch, at the same time that pork-barrell spending has increased substantially - mostly for Republicans. "Republicans say Hastert wins by appealing to party loyalty and taking care of members with earmarks, campaign cash and other goodies. Conservatives aren't happy that earmarks have quadrupled under the GOP Congress, but they recognize that the House has passed almost everything Bush has requested, including his efforts to expand executive power." Waste and borrowing from "small government" hypocrites.

4) The War in Iraq is a complete mess, and Hastert is absolutely silent about it. Nothing on his Website about it. He certainly won't think about using his power to force a change in policy or an investigation of the runup to or conduct of the war. And this man is two heartbeats away from the presidency?

3) Check out the comments in the Northwest Herald's hollow endorsement of Hastert.

He's losing his hold.

2) Apparently Hastert was THE SINGLE BIGGEST House recipient of donations from Jack Abramoff and his clients. That's some dirty water he swims in.

1) Hastert is Congress' main booster of "extraordinary rendition." If you don't know what that is, please look it up.

Foley

2006-09-29T20:46:00.000-05:00

The most depressing thing about the whole Mark Foley (R-Maf54) fiasco isn't that it shows how narcissistic politicians and some gays can be. Nor the creepiness factor. Nor the unending hypocrisy of the ruling Republican Party. Nor the fact that the Democrats will likely be unable to capitalize on yet another scandal. Nor the fact that we as Americans are far more concerned about sexual morality than we are about FREAKING TORTURE now being official US policy, plus the added benefit of the suspension of habeus corpus and the further legitimization of the practice of warrantless spying on domestic political opponents.

The most depressing thing is realizing that I'm old enough to be the FATHER of that page that the erstwhile Republican Congressman was getting to talk about his masturbatory practices.

That Iraq Study Group

2006-09-20T19:01:00.000-05:00

Just want to point out that the Iraq Study Group has exactly ONE member under the age of 65:

Robert M. Gates, former director of the CIA, current president of Texas A&M University.

Born September 25, 1943 -- he'll turn 63 in 5 days.

7 of the 10 are 70+.

Rudy Giuliani was on it (why exactly?), and he is a spry 62, so I guess that's something.

Nothing against the 65+ among my readership, whom I love dearly, but come on! This was never meant to be a serious commission. What the hell are Ed Meese, Vernon Jordan, Sandy O'Connor, and Lee "the most impotent man alive" Hamilton going to tell us about the situation in Iraq?

You know how I know the whole thing is a big, macabre joke? The first sentence of the ISG's description on it's website:

In light of the importance of Iraq to United States interests and the future of the region, there is urgent need for a bipartisan, forward-looking assessment of the situation in Iraq.

So Alan Simpson and William Perry are now considerend "forward-looking"? I think we all know what it is they're looking forward to, and it's not peace in the Middle East.

Don't impeach!

2006-09-18T17:37:00.000-05:00

(my idea for an ad campaign for the Dems for this fall)

Look, we know Bush has broken the law on a number of occasions.

We know he lied to you and to Congress and got us into an unneccessary and bloody war and he still hasn't done what he said he'd do with regard to Osama bin Laden.

His inaction exacerbated the Katrina mess to a degree unthought of before it happened.

He wants America to legalize torture, and a lot of his cronies in Congress seem willing to do just that.

His malfeasance and deriliction of duty is unsurpassed, and more than negligible borders on criminal. The Constition shows us the way to deal with such a situation: impeachment.

HOWEVER!

We don't believe an impeachment would be practical, we don't believe it would be good for the country, and we definitely don't want President Cheney. So we need your help: We can start holding George Bush accountable for his misdeeds through another way - the ballot box. Vote Democratic in November. Start to turn this country around.

DON'T IMPEACH -- VOTE!

SoaP

2006-08-18T09:44:00.000-05:00

Okay, Snakes on a Plane.

Allegory for a post-9/11 (and, now, post no-gel-bras-in-flight) America?

Or pre-election propaganda to ratchet up fear (on the heels of the British terror scare) in time for the midterm elections, thus ensuring 2 more years of tax cuts for rich Hollywood producers?

Discuss in comments.

from Eschaton comments section

2006-08-17T23:51:00.000-05:00

You know conspiracy theory paranoia is running high when some dude in Atrios' comments section has the same basic theory about the JonBenet nattering that I do:

NBC Nightly News tonite devoted
30 seconds to the court that ruled
Chimpy's warrantless wiretaps were
unconstituional, and four minutes
to the Mystery of Jon Benet.

My friend's thought is that the dude who confessed just wanted to get the heck out of Thailand, if only for awhile (flown over on Nancy Grace's private jet, natch ... suddenly Ms. Grace rockets back to prominance!).

Hey, so, did they ever figure out what happened to Lieberman's Web site on Election Day and Election Day Eve?

Speaking of Lieberman, John Gibson is a douche:

I called [those who supported Ned Lamont] the Pol Pots of the far left, the Khmer Rouge. I said they wanted a mountain of skulls. People said I was being excessive.

Perhaps, but no more excessive that the braying lefties screeching at any war supporters, I thought.

You know how Lieberman keeps trashing the Democrats and excessive partisanship, but never (still) seems to have the strength to go after the Republicans? And how he always seems to end up having jocular conversations with the likes of Don Imus and Sean Hannity? Just remember the above quote from Gibson, seethe, and do whatever you can to get some Democrats elected.

I just learned that the word "gullible" isn't in the Microsoft dictionary

2006-08-11T12:52:00.000-05:00

Okay, I'm gonna link to him.

Is Sully really this gullible?

Here's testimony from a Lebanese Christian that is worth remembering today:

"I was raised in Lebanon, where I was taught that the Jews were evil, Israel was the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.

"When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975, they started massacring the Christians, city after city. I ended up living in a bomb shelter underground from age 10 to 17, without electricity, eating grass to live, and crawling under sniper bullets to a spring to get water.

"It was Israel who came to help the Christians in Lebanon....

"I knew for fact that, if I was a Jew standing in an Arab hospital, I would be lynched and thrown over to the grounds, as shouts of joy of Allah Akbar, God is great, would echo through the hospital and the surrounding streets."

This is some serious lying flat-out racist tripe this woman is spewing. Flat-out horrifically racist. And clearly full of shit. How do we know she's full of shit? Go to her Web site and one of the first things you read is:

I am a victim of the Lebanese civil war, which was the first front in the worldwide Jihad of militant Islam against the only Christian country in the Middle East.

I may not know much about the intricacies of the Lebanese Civil War, but I do know that my BS detector went haywire when she had the nerve to call Lebanon "the only Christian country in the Middle East." Umm, no. It's a country with the highest percentage of Christians, but that percentage is below 50%, as it was back in 1975. It was RULED by Christians back then, but that's not the same thing.

And also, she said she was taught in Lebanon that all Jews were bad and Israel must be driven to the sea. But who in the world "taught" her this? The Christian government she grew up with? Her Christian parents? Someone in the bomb shelter she lived in for 7 years? Some government official in charge of a failed state in the middle of a civil war?

Finally, the idea that a Jew would automatically be hanged just for setting foot in an Arab hospital is another lie. It's definitely not a pretty situation for Jews in Muslim lands, and hasn't been for some time. Anti-Semitism is a serious business. But a few Jews do live in Arab lands and obviously are able to receive medical care (as could a tourist, diplomat, or journalist).

Andy, however, prefers not to question any of the motivations of our young heroine. Instead, he uses it as a platform to spew some halfwitted tripe about how Israel is "in a different category of morality" from her enemies. The most amazing, completely unironic part, is when he says:

[O]ur values are what will win in the long run — because they reflect a deeper truth about human dignity than the poisonous doctrines of distorted religious certitude and bigotry. That's why we must never — never — tolerate torture of prisoners; that's why we should never sacrifice the rule of law; that's why we should never give civilian politicians a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for war crimes. And that's why we should support Israel now, more than ever.

Umm, Andy? Your Lebanese Christian is a bigot. The entire GOP has a distorted religious certitude. Israel has given war criminals free passes. And George Bush is still president, proving that when it comes to tolerating the torture of prisoners, we're right up there with the best of them.

Overblown moral rectitude is easily the stupidest way to proceed in this war of ideas. "Look, could you guys please stop blowing us up? Don't you realize that we're BETTER than you?"

in the meantime...

2006-08-10T16:54:00.000-05:00

No desire to link to either of them, but Andy Sullivan posted today strongly agreeing with the National Review's Stanley Kurtz that basically says we're completely screwed w/r/t the Middle East until (1) we preemptively go to war against Iran or (2) we fight it out with Iran ... NUCLEAR style.

The only difference between Kurtz & Sullivan is that Kurtz thinks Muslims are absolutely implacable:

Compromise and settlement have been ruled out from the start by a pervasive ideology, an ideology that is a product of the underlying inability to reconcile Islam with modernity.

while Sully thinks Muslims are only really, really, really implacable but possibly can save themselves, but until they wake up and smell the coffee, a whole lot of them are gonna, sniff, die:

Until the Arab Muslim world lets go of its refusal to embrace modernity and its rigid, honor-bound defense of the most extreme version of Islam, we will have to fight a long grueling war, in which I fear some nuclear or WMD exchange is inevitable.

In other words, this is gonna hurt you more than it's gonna hurt me.

[Actually, there is one other difference, and that is that Sullivan talks about the "Arab Muslim" world, while Kurtz talks about the entire Muslim world. Of course, Iran is primarily non-Arab but hell, why quibble when the POINT is that they are backward and have no legitimate claims, and we are forward and care about human life, so let's [sniff] get back to warrin'.]

partisanship

2006-08-07T17:54:00.000-05:00

Memorandum

To: Pro-Lieberman Pundits
From: Jonathan Kelley
Date: August 7, 2006
Re: Blaming Ned Lamont & his supporters for the death of bipartisanship & comity in politics

Have any one of you hacks ever had a word to say about the complete lack of a hint of a peep of dissatisfaction from ANY Republican on the K Street Project, the exclusion of Democrats from conference committees, middle-of-the-night votes, right-wing Bush appointees, or basically the entire Gingrich/DeLay style of governing?

Ever?

Like, once?

A Big Conn Job

2006-07-31T12:26:00.000-05:00

I haven't discussed (with anyone) the major political story of the summer: Joe Lieberman's primary race against Ned Lamont. Perhaps it's just because I have such a problem with getting enthusiastic about anyone named Ned. Perhaps because it seemed like something of a sideshow compared to actual pick-up opportunities in the House and Senate. It's not because I don't have a rooting interest -- I've been mad at Lieberman ever since his "what the hell?!?" debate with Dick Cheney in 2000, and certainly his words and actions with regard to the war, Schiavo, bankruptcy, the judiciary and far, far more qualify him for ouster at the hands of a still-breathing Democratic grassroots.

But now I'm pissed. This article did me in:

Letter From Washington: Democrats fear backlash as Lieberman stumbles
Albert R. Hunt Bloomberg News

Published: July 30, 2006
WASHINGTON Many of the top U.S. Democrats, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid and Representative Rahm Emanuel, are fixated on the number 51. That's the percentage of the vote they hope Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut gets in his Aug. 8 Democratic primary election.

Lieberman, the party's vice presidential candidate just six years ago, is struggling for one reason: the Iraq war, which he strongly supports and most Connecticut Democrats just as strongly oppose.

Although Democrats will likely hold the Senate seat whether he wins or not, party figures worry about the political fallout.

"A Lieberman loss is very bad for Democrats; it says we are one dimension on Iraq," says Peter Hart, a top Democratic polltaker. "Politically, Iraq should be a debate about the Bush administration. A Lieberman defeat detracts from that."

More than a few Democrats think Hart is right. This contest is intense, irrationally so, with Lieberman's opponent, a heretofore obscure wealthy aristocrat named Ned Lamont.

Joe Lieberman is a thoroughly decent, intelligent, compassionate public figure with a solid three-term record of supporting mostly liberal positions on the environment, civil rights and social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

...

Lieberman, who has always enjoyed support among Republicans and independents, would be favored in a three- way race against Lamont and the current, scandal-tarred Republican standard-bearer, Alan Schlesinger, whom party leaders would like to dump.

First of all, Peter Hart is a lunatic and clearly does not care about this country or the Democratic party. He cares about maintaining his inner-circle Democratic connections, and thus his paycheck, and apparently figures that spouting gibberish will help that cause. It's notable that among his clients are Chuck Schumer and the DSCC.

[Seems like I'm not the only one who found that Hart quote to be inscrutable.]

Second of all, what really got my dander up, and will make me root with all my might next Tuesday for a Lieberman loss, is that his shills are everywhere planting bullcrap stories like this one, which completely minimize the authenticity of popular opposition to Lieberman. Fact -- this election is far more than single-issue. It's about how Democrats should and should not act in the face of the current GOP onslaught and during the reign of the worst president of our lifetimes. It's not hard to understand, and it's disingenuous to pretend not to.

(And for what it's worth, Lieberman is anti-gay marriage; Lamont, meanwhile, is "hopeful that [Connecticut] will be one of the first [states] to enact full marriage equality. Unlike Senator Lieberman, I would have opposed the Federal ‘Defense of Marriage Act’.")

And then there's this:

In 1998, after the president acknowledged an affair with an intern, Lieberman expressed shock at his "immoral" behavior.

Lieberman was probably the only person to know Clinton for three decades and still be shocked by these revelations. Yet, as Clinton understood, the senator did the president a favor by distracting focus from the Republican plan to impeach him.

In other words, Joe is a big-ass liar. A pretender. Civility, smarts, building bridges ... they're all just code for "just another lying-ass politician". The fawning "respect" laded on him by elite insider Dems and media bigwigs is only part of the game.

Mark me down as someone who hates the game ... AND the playas.

What Would Jesus Do - Bunt or Swing Away?

2006-07-29T11:33:00.000-05:00

At Thursday's Braves game, bring a glove - and a Bible?

By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

ATLANTA – After the final at-bat of Thursday's game between the Atlanta Braves and Florida Marlins, the stadium seats will turn into pews.

That's because it's "Faith Day" at Atlanta's Turner Field. No, the hot-dog vendors won't preach John 3:16. But churchgoing fans - with, promoters hope, their non-Christian friends in tow - will assemble after the game to hear Braves star pitcher John Smoltz share how his life changed by believing in Christ.
...
Part evangelism, part marketing, all baseball, the Faith Day movement began in baseball's minor leagues after 9/11, capturing the mood of a country that began singing "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch. "Faith does coalesce with sports in a more substantial way today than [in the past]," says Andy Overman, a former athlete and minister who teaches classics at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn.
...
Atlanta may be a natural candidate. Half the team professes Christian faith. It's the buckle of the Bible Belt. And Christian promotions here go back to 1983, when the Atlanta Hawks held "God and Country Night."

I honestly have very little problem with this. I mean, there's already gay nights, "Latin music" nights, Boy Scout nights, what have you. Disney does the same sort of thing. Saying it's "part" marketing is a little disingenuous, since it's clearly ALL marketing, but the right-wing evangelical community seems to have long had a very friendly relationship with every conceivable expression of capitalism, so even that's not any sort of surprise.

Honestly, my only problem is the absolute nerve the Braves, the marketers, and even the otherwise smart Christian Science Monitor have in agreeing to call something "Faith Night" when it is really "Evangelical Protestant Night." This is not a place for a majority of People of Faith. It's not for Jews, it's not for Muslims (can you imagine?), it's not for Hindus, and it's most certainly not for progressive Christians, Unitarians, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, or (for the most part) Catholics. Or, for that matter, Christian Scientists.

The brand(R) of Christians who have taken control of the meaning of terms "Christian" and "Faith" include the nondenominational but quite conservative suburban megachurch crowd, the Tim LaHaye apocalyptics, the Southern Baptists and other fundamentalist powerbrokers. Conservative Catholics (and Mormons) have made their own Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with these folks, but they're not really part of them. They seem to get to decide, as far as mainstream discourse, that only born-agains, only those who have spoken "the words," are true Christians.

And, sickeningly, the media is more than happy to use the terms "Christian" and "Faith" as shorthand to talk about this very high-profile group. (And when people call out this encroaching rhetorical and political hegemony of the conservatives, they are accused of being "anti-Christian.") I have yet to see any media discussion of this hijacking of terms.

Anyway, as far as the Braves go, it's interesting that their first "Faith" night coincides with what will surely be their first season out of the playoffs in a bazillion years. Perhaps they would have been better off having "Faith" night be an evening of just George Michael songs? I know I'd be a lot more likely to show up.

Gold!

2006-07-28T09:12:00.000-05:00

What I learned from "Hardball"

2006-07-01T21:04:00.000-05:00

I read over the transcript of Friday's Hardball and came away with a few lessons:

1) There is no doubt in my mind that the latest New York Times revelation about the "secret bank program" was nothing more than a piece of black ops -- someone in this administration used the Times to get this relatively tame piece published so that they could go on a week+ long binge about how the media, the Times in particular, was an enemy of freedom and that this administration was doing everything it could to protect America and fight the terrorists and we'd be doing a hell of a lot better job if the elite media would just back of A LITTLE and let us do our jobs, damnit!!!! And while we don't agree necessarily with those who say the media should be LOCKED UP and perhaps EXECUTED for treason, because we can't imagine they're actually friends of the terrorists, you have to admit it's interesting to note that they must have TALKED to the terrorists and how they got the phone number for the terrorists, well, hmmm! It's just interesting.

2) The fact that the Times fell for it, and not for the first time, is remarkable. They are not smart or they are so in league with the administration that they don't mind getting punked. You only have to look at the full-court press by the right on this, and the way Matthews framed his questions to Nicolle Wallace, to know that this entire anti Times campaign is being fully orchestrated by the powers that be inside the White House. But they keep getting away with it and our institutional memory is apparently zero so we never connect the dots on how they do it. And Chris Matthews' little wink wink bizzarro converation with Ms. Wallace (who loves her job as a professional liar and says things like "Oh, Chris, we‘re well beyond tricks, and certainly, you know...") is so insidery gross that I can't believe he has one actual viewer. He's gross.

2a) When Nicolle Wallace says "This should be a very seriously and calm and orderly discussion about a free press." what she really means is "Suckers! Now we never have to talk again about how the administration has violated laws, is eroding civil liberties, or anything else again because the conversation is about one thing and one thing only! Whether the New York Times hates America or not. Heh heh." And Chris Matthews thinks that's peachy, except maybe a little Antisemitic.

3) Apparently liberal pundits are dumb, because they never mention the fact that the prisoners in question in the recent Hamdan decision are just that, prisoners, and to call them "terrorists" even though hundreds have been released from Guantanemo because they obviously were NOT "terrorists" is a mockery of what this country is supposed to stand for. We had to wait for the JAG at the end to explain that one to us.

4) Apparently liberal pundits are dumb, because to this day they fail to realize that on shows like these, everything that comes out of the mouths of a Kate O'Beirne or Michael Smerconish is in service of the right wing machine, and that Chris Matthews' only job is to facilitate their ability to service said machine, and that they can either point that out at every opportunity or make sure that every one of the words that comes out of their mouths must be in service to a liberal machine, but that their hedging on issues, agreeing on formulations, and playing nice with someone who would say that the US Supreme Court was trying to create a god damned "treaty" with god damned al Qaeda is just not effective.

5) To Chris Matthews, everything is a joke, because everything is really just about how people are trying to position themselves in terms of the next election or the election after that. He represents the height of cynicism and does not have an ounce of integrity in his body. The idiots going after Jon Stewart for making people cynical about politics only need to watch one half minute of Hardball to realize what's really going on.

6) I think the transcriber is a cool person, because of this:
REP. LOUISE SLAUGHTER (D), NEW YORK vs.
REP. MICHAEL OXLEY ®, OHIO

7) Republicans are going to use the Hamdan decision, which few of them really care about, to try to win the election. Democrats are NOT going to use the Hamdan decision, which many of us do really care about, to try to win the election.

8) There are actually people out there who say things like this:
"SMERCONISH: I think most people look at these issues and say keep your nose clean and you really don‘t have to be concerned with this."

9) Seriously, this person has no interest in engaging in discussion, learning about issues, informing other people about what's at stake with these issues. And yet he gets a seat at the table.

10) Chris Matthews has started referring to the segment featuring his panel of pundits as "Hardbrawl." It really is all a joke to him.

Happy Fourth of July weekend to all! READ THIS and light a sparkler or two...

Come watch me, Ozzie!

2006-07-01T12:48:00.000-05:00

When Ozzie comes to Chicago for the Gay Games in between stints in the Bronx and Detroit - two of our most important series of the first half, if not the year - I hope he takes the opportunity to watch me play, assuming I'm still alive in singles and/or doubles. Supposed to play in Evanston, I guess. Ozzie, here's the deal: you come watch me play, and stick around to discuss why you shouldn't be calling Jay Mariotti a fag in front of reporters, and I will buy a Guillen jersey and wear it at Market Days with pride. Fair enough?

Oh, and make sure you beat the pants off the Tigers when you're done with the Games.

Nice company takin' over Marshall Fields!

2006-06-07T11:47:00.000-05:00

I officially hate Macy's and am depressed and only a Kim Cattrall/Andrew McCarthy movie will make me happy.

Macy's Removes Gay Mannequins

Macy's Downtown Crossing Department Store in Boston caved to conservative group MassResistance (formerly Article 8 Alliance) and removed two mannequins from a Gay Pride display after complaints from the group that the display was offensive. The display was designed by Macy's with approval of the Boston Pride Committee.

Said MassResistance President Brian Camenker: "They were male mannequins with enlarged breasts, and one was wearing a skirt. It was really disgusting."

Huh. I just assumed all male mannequins were gay.

test photo

2006-06-04T11:55:00.000-05:00

from the wilds of the Orinoco jungle

2006-05-10T18:42:00.001-05:00

Hello all you statesiders (and anyone else). Writing now from a cage at a lodge on the banks of one of the rivers that makes up the huge Orinoco Delta. Arrived in Maturin yesterday from Caracas (had to awaken at 4:00 a.m. to take an alternate route to the airport because a mudslide closed down the main road (or something, my Spanish is really limited)) and immediately was in a boat fast-laning it to the lodge here. I don't know if I'll be able to get used to cars quickly after this. Amazing to just ride, looking at kilometers upon kilometers of trees and endless river, broken up by Warao huts/villages, some cool wildlife (river dolphis, toucans, ibis, red howler monkeys, among others). Sunsets are especially cool. Our guide on the boat is a young guy from Argentina who speaks decent English, and the boat is driven by a local Warao. We stopped at a couple of indian villages today to shop for local crafts and say howdy. They were ready for our arrival, immediately and somewhat prosaically setting out their wares, and giving us the prices in their limited Spanish. Got some cool stuff. At one of the villages, there was a local kid running along the planks, wearing a 2005 White Sox World Champions t-shirt with a photo of Ozzie Guillen. Didn't have time to snap a photo, but have plenty of photos of other stuff. Also met a random Canadian who was squatting in one of the huts. His name? Jonathan! Young guy who is trying to see all of South America. He doesn't communicate with the locals, just sort of sits there and watches them. He's been there 5 days and plans to stay another two. I'm not sure they realize what's going on. Quite unusual. Francisco, our guide, wasn't too impressed.

I caught a pirhana yesterday but had to throw it back. Too small.

Tomorrow we're out to Isla Margarita, playpen of the European traveller, where we'll mostly bask, and perhaps snorkle a bit.

I just realized I'm not much of a travel writer. Sorry about that.

Hasta luego!!

Oh, here's info on the lodge, if you're interested.

from the wilds of the Orinoco jungle

2006-05-10T18:42:00.000-05:00

Caracas is damn large

2006-05-08T19:39:00.000-05:00

Okay, I have 9 minutes and 23 seconds to post, and I'm not sure what I want to post about. Well, frankly, I would like to show photos from my ongoing trip to Venezuela but that would require, like, emailing them to myself and it all seems like too much of a hassle.

Mi padre and I arrived late late late Friday -- actually early Saturday -- into the Caracas airport, due to a 4 hour plane delay caused by the incoming plane not making it out of Belize for a long time. No matter, we hadn't planned to do much Friday anyway. We had a driver there with my name on a card, and he zipped us to the Hotel Tamanaco Intercontinental. We've been here 3 nights now, and tomorrow morning will be off on a flight to Maturin, where another driver will pick us up for a 2-hour drive to Boca de Urucao or something like that, where we'll stay at the Orinoco Delta Lodge. That should be quite exciting.

So far we've done some walking, some shopping, took a cable car (teleferico) to the top of Mt. Avila where it was raining but we could still see the city, and on the way down we met Louis, of Venezueland descent but American from Miami, who was the first American we've seen so far.

Eaten some decent food, took a tennis lesson from Rainer, a German-Venezuelan pro, swam in the luxurious pool, eaten more, had a bout of my stomach not getting along with something, saw the house where El Libertador (bolivar) was born and some squares and museums & stuff. Managed to avoid any kidnapping so far. But the night is young.

Actually, it's early to bed tonight I think - our flight is at like 7:40 a.m. Again, wish I could post pictures. It's very cool here. Huge city. Damn large. Dangerous, apparently, but full of life and cool people.

Sta Luego!

Maybe they should consider renaming it "Sexas" for marketing purposes?

2006-04-24T22:33:00.000-05:00

Flying into George H. W. Bush International Airport (damn, I should have chosen Hobby) and settling into the Houston Americas Hilton in advance of my 3 night stay here for the Texas Library Association annual conference has me thinking about my troubled feelings about this great state. On the one hand, it seems easy to dispise, particularly politically. A former slave state, the land of Tom DeLay and George the Lesser and George the Lesserer, and perhaps the most horrific state Republican party platform I ever did lay my eyes on, it's also humid to the point where a fax I was trying to send earlier today jammed because the paper had turned moist on me. In an air-conditioned building. And yes, I know, there are relatively progressive cities like Austin and remarkable citizens like Molly Ivins and some apparently beautiful countryside (the Hill Country, they say, haven't been there). But ugh, the arrogance and the country-sized largeness and the extremely prolific use of the death penalty!

Still, all in all, I find it tough to dislike a PLACE, given that it impugns everyone living in said place. Coolness is to be had everywhere, particularly in the least cool places (as Ghostworld so brilliantly demonstrated). Moreover, I have to admire the "Don't Mess With Texas!!!!!!" attitude, which to me mirrors the petit-nationalism of neighborhoods and cities that can be so profound and yet ultimately is so silly. The more I travel, the more chains I see around, the more I realize that every place is just like every other place, and the difference makers are the accidents of history and coincidences of topography that make up the narrative of each place. Certainly Texas has plenty of both, and learning about the early German settlers and the new Ethiopian ones; and viewing the dusty topography of a good Western or walking on the beach of the Gulf with the oil derrick islands on the horizon ... well, it's not "Texas'" fault that it was a slave state. It's just a collection of atoms that came together to form an abitrary land mass with political and natural divisions that someone mapped out and a bunch of people inhabit and now we call it "Texas."

Plus, there really are some very cool, and some very hot, people in this darn "state." I'm not tryin' to get metaphysical or anything, I'm just trying to explain that there's beauty in everything.

Even in this godforsaken backwards-ass netherworld...

(Just kidding, Texas readers, I really do love you all!)

P.S. I don't know if I addressed this before ever or not, but one of my favorite games, besides Euchre, is "Best movie set in or about a place." So here goes - What's the best Texas movie of all time? I myself am very partial to Slacker. Post your vote in "Comments"!

Stonewall Dems heart Christine

2006-03-02T10:27:00.000-06:00

So I went to my first Illinois Stonewall Democrats meeting last night. Seems like a good group of committed folks. Could have used some cookies at the three-hour affair, but hey! Nobody's perfect.

Last night was the candidate's forum at which a number of Democrats running for a number of positions stopped by to give five-minute speeches about who they were and why they sought Stonewall's endorsements. Among the attendees were the two candidates for State Treasurer, a couple of Water Reclamation people, a Cook County Sheriff candidate, and Forrest Claypool and Ruben Zamora. Christine Cegelis was scheduled to appear but a last-minute in-district obligation required her to make a tough choice.

After the forum was the endorsement section. Claypool and Debra Shore got ringing endorsements (Shore, by the way, is out (a Stonewall member), endorsed by the Sierra Club, and has a great grasp of the issues. Very, very impressive!). More stuff happened. Then came time to discuss IL-06.

Christine's positives were universally recognized -- her integrity, her passion, her articulateness, and the grassroots nature of her campaign. The most Duckworth got in her favor was "very impressive person" and "has lots of people willing to raise a lot of money" but she got hammered on the negatives of not knowing the district, being a "manufactured candidate," and her lack of clarity on a number of issues.

In the end, the attendees overwhelmingly voted to rate Christine Cegelis "highly qualified." They decided not rate the other candidates.

Most importantly, the tenor of the room was strongly pro-Cegelis. It was gratifying to see how many people were paying attention to this race ... and that this group of Democrats, at least, know a good candidate -- a real Democrat -- when they see one.

Less than three weeks to go, folks! Phone-banking, canvassing, donating, and a rally on Saturday ... do what you can!

Last day to give for the FEC report

2006-02-28T21:21:00.000-06:00

Hey hey!

Long time no blog. If you've stumbled upon here and are so motivated, why not send a few bucks over to Christine Cegelis for Congress? If you give $35.00 or more, drop me a note and you can consider that your ticket to the GO GREEN FOR CHRISTINE event in a couple of weeks!

When Christine goes to the polls for the March 21 Democratic primary, she'll have the luxury of voting for a great candidate for Congress: herself! Unfortunately, one of her opponents will not be able to do the same...

In other news, the Chicago Tribune once again made a fool of itself in its endorsement process. Fresh off it's bizarro endorsement of GWB, the Trib goes for Duckworth in the IL-06 primary! Here's their impeccable logic:

Christine Cegelis, a software engineer, picked up 44 percent of the vote against Hyde in 2004. She's running again. But Democrats have a better candidate in Tammy Duckworth, a veteran of the Iraq war who has fresh and pragmatic views on trade, health care, taxes and other issues. Duckworth was an Army National Guard major when she was grievously injured in Iraq, losing both of her legs. She has some well-considered views on how the U.S. and Iraqis can finish the job there and bring American soldiers home. Duckworth is endorsed over Cegelis and Wheaton College professor Lindy Scott.

Are they sure they didn't mean "funky fresh views"? Hoo boy, I guess "pragmatic" to the Trib means "depends on the audience."

Full disclosure. I brought this lame-ass endorsement on personally. It was published on Monday. Two days earlier, on my way out to the burbs to canvas door-to-door in support of a viable, thoughtful, grassroots candidate, I gave in.

I bought a Chicago Tribune.

It was something I promised myself I would never, ever do after their endorsement of the Worst President Ever. But I was desparate for something to read. Apparently, the gods were watching. And they directed the Editorial Board of the Tribune to write a vacuous, lame, corporatist paragraph that ignores the actual dynamics of the most high-profile race in the state, not to mention actual issues of actual interest to actual voters in the actual district in question. You know, the folks who contributed all of 3% of Duckworth's itemized donations last year.

Sorry, everyone!

For more on the endorsement, check out So-Called Austin Mayor over at Illinoize.

Think about it

2006-01-05T00:31:00.000-06:00

I plan to send a version of this letter to Jan Schakowsky (who, by the way, has an awesome post on Congress's War on the War on Christmas). Stolen shamelessly in its entirety from the Loop Supporters of Democracy for America Web site:

The Honorable _____________
U.S. House of Representatives
_____________ Building
Washington, DC _____

Dear Congressman/woman ___________:

As a member of your House District Number __ of , I am writing to request that you provide your full support for House Resolution 635, calling for a Congressional investigation into the misdeeds of the Bush Administration.

For years, I have been deeply troubled by this Administration’s habit of acting with complete disregard for the law, the truth and world opinion. Many of its actions, including lying to Congress to lead us into war, initiating a war in violation of the Constitution and international law, condoning the torture of prisoners or their indefinite incarceration without charges, and wiretapping our citizens without Court authorization, clearly seem to be impeachable offenses. Yet up to now, the Administration has not been held accountable for its crimes by Congress, the media or the people.

That is why I am asking you to support House Resolution 635, which will meet the longstanding need for a Congressional investigation with full subpoena power of Administration misconduct. The need for such an investigation is underscored by the fact that the Administration has brazenly refused to acknowledge, amend or apologize for its past mistakes, declaring its intent, for instance, to proceed indefinitely with illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Worse yet, there are allegations in the mainstream media that the Administration is on the verge of attacking the sovereign state of Iran, again without Constitutionally-required Congressional authority.

As a member of the House of Representatives, you have the opportunity and duty to re-establish Congressional oversight in accordance with the Constitutional principle of the separation of powers. If investigation of the Administration should uncover evidence confirming that it has engaged in illegal acts of any sort, you have the further obligation under your oath office to use that evidence as grounds for impeaching the President, Vice-President and all of their co-conspirators.

I hope that you will abide by your obligations in this time of Constitutional crisis and understand that I, like many other Americans, will not vote for any candidate in the 2006 elections who does not support House Resolution 635.

Sincerely,

__________________

Yes, regaining Congress will be the single most important thing we can do this year to Stop The Madness. But making as much noise as possible NOW about impeachment is #2.

Not used to writing letters? Actual paper & stamp letters to elected officials? Well, think about it.

ten in ten

2006-01-02T22:16:00.000-06:00

For those keeping track, and those mildly curious, your intrepid blogger, having just returned from the Mitten State, has now celebrated 10 consecutive New Years in 10 different states. In order:

1996! Somewheresville, West Virginia
1997! Los Angeles, California
1998! Denver, Colorado
1999! Chicago, Illinois
2000! New Orleans, Louisiana
2001! Nashville, Tennessee
2002! New York, New York
2003! Key West, Florida
2004! Taos, New Mexico
2005! Cannon Beach, Oregon
2006! Saugatuck, Michigan

Ah, only 40 to go. So far they've all been quite memorable in their own ways (for better or worse). When it comes to North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Kansas it may take some serious creativity. Drop any ideas into comments (both for next year and for those "tough to enjoy" states...). Thanks to Don for making this past weekend very special!

CNN.com: Now with 50% more fluff!!

2005-12-29T00:16:00.000-06:00

You have got to be gosh-darn kidding me.

I clicked on cnn.com today and read what I'd hope would be a somewhat illuminating, although probably just distressing, article on what a faboo job Chief Justice John Roberts has been doing. The article was long, but it took more time than it should have for me to get through it, as I had to stop several times to clean up the vomit that I had projected onto my computer keyboard and screen.

Chief Justice Roberts wins early praise

Lighter tone, camaraderie at U.S. Supreme Court

By Bill Mears
CNN

Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Posted: 11:49 a.m. EST (16:49 GMT)

Chief Justice John Roberts is proving to be a thoughtful justice and strong, self-effacing leader, analysts say.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Court watchers looking for an anecdote that illustrates how John Roberts is doing in his new role as chief justice point to the "Halloween incident."

It was late October, less than a month into Roberts' new job, and the case before the justices was fairly benign: a discussion of state immunity to debt claims in bankruptcy proceedings.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was addressing a lawyer when a light bulb 44 feet above her head exploded, raining down a tiny spray of glass and causing police officers to scramble amid the momentary confusion.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor quickly figured out what had happened, telling the audience, "A light bulb exploded. A light bulb exploded."

Quick with quip

Then Roberts spoke up. "It's a trick they play on new chief justices all the time," he said, bringing huge laughter. "We're even more in the dark now than before," he added.

Maybe, but the new guy had lightened the mood with some quick-thinking, self-effacing humor. The arguments went on.

And so it has gone this term, where an atmosphere of practically buoyant camaraderie has drifted through an institution that prides itself on continuity and certainty.

And, other than a photo of a very thoughtful Roberts with fist tucked under chin and a few fluffy quotes from three people (one of whch was a former clerk for Rehnquist ("he looks really good ... breath of fresh air!!!!!"), one of whose job it is to impress the justices (his sole legal practice is before the SCOTUS, not that it means he won't give his honest opinion), and then this little winner:

"The change has been amazing, the justices are a happy bunch again," said one court official, who asked not to be identified. "They joke in arguments, they joke among themselves privately. The chief was just the type of man this place needed."

), the rest is out-and-out Hollywood fanzine crap:

By tradition, the chief justice speaks first in the conference, followed -- in order of seniority -- by the other justices. He addressed them formally, "Justice Stevens," "Justice O'Connor."

Then came "Justice Scalia." As Thomas related, the ebullient Antonin Scalia then spoke up. "I will always call you 'Chief,'" he said, "But for you, I'm 'Nino' and this is 'Sandra,' and this is 'John.'"

Those who heard Thomas' comments said the incident set the tone.

WHAT?!? Literally SECONDS of my life were wasted reading that. And then this:

"And he has become an attraction on the Washington social scene. At Vice President Cheney's recent holiday reception, the chief justice was surrounded by a large group of admirers, according to some who attended."

Oh, and at the very end of the piece, there's something about him only having written one decision so far, a completely innocuous one, and ... something about some extremely controvesial cases coming before the Court ... and oh yeah some guy named Alito or whatevs is tryin' to get confirmed...

You know, after careful consideration, I need to apologize to those of you among the masses who read this blog. Why, oh why did I subject you to such drivel? Such inanity? We all would have been much better off with another day off and then some good old-fashioned Friday Semen Blogging.

In case anyone's confused

2005-12-28T00:02:00.000-06:00

The NSA domestic spying issue is somewhat complicated, dealing as it does with the intricacies of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and roving wiretaps and what constitutes a foreign power and all that. But as far as I can tell, it really boils down to one extremely significant point:

Without oversight, we must assume that the Executive Branch, and by extension the party that controls it, are using their self-appointed surveillance authority to spy on political opponents in order to consolidate power.

It may not be a charitable assumption, but it's the one that our founding documents - and, hell, our common sense - demand that we have. So it doesn't matter WHO the Bush Administration is actually spying on, or WHY they are actually doing it. We set up a system of checks and balances because we know without such a system, the temptation to move toward authoritarianism is too tempting (everybody thinks their authoritarian motives are for the best). THAT is what makes domestic spying with no oversight so gosh darn wrong; THAT is why it is almost uncertainly unconstitutional; THAT is why it must be stopped immediately, hearings held as early as next week, and probably impeachment should follow. It's not that I don't trust George Bush, per se, or any other president. It's that within the system of our democracy, I am effectively prohibited from trusting them. Otherwise, I am negligent, a poor citizen, and most of all a damn fool.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't trust George Bush. I frankly will be shocked should it turn out that no wiretappings have been ordered against Democrats, anti-war activists, judges, gay rights organizations, professors, students, bloggers, or anyone else on the unpublished-but-inevitable "enemies list."

I second that Welcome

2005-12-17T16:23:00.000-06:00

UPDATE: Unless Ebert and/or Roeper are going to interview her, it looks like Christine isn't on ABC this morning after all...

A hearty round of applause for Christine Cegelis in welcoming Tammy Duckworth to the race (posted on her blog, dailykos, and MyDD). It's a tough pill to swallow, knowing that the machinations of Rahm Emanuel are working to oppose one of the most impressive grassroots races in the country. But Rahm has his reasons, and that's great.

There's no point in being mad at Emanuel and the DCCC, or the media for their inane coverage (so far), or certainly Duckworth herself. There's only a renewed energy in knowing that you can play a part in the hottest Congressional primary in the country, which will lead to one of the hottest general election races in November. And in knowing precisely where you stand with Christine, on the war, on the economy, on the environment, on choice, you name it.

As a testiment to the newly high-profile nature of this race, Christine will be joining Duckworth on This Week with George Stephanopoulos tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. on Channel 7 (ABC). Originally it was supposed to just be the Major, but now Cegelis is there too. Which is awesome.

Anyway, the rap against Christine, said again and again on certain blog comments, is her fundraising. Whether or not it's a fair rap (I don't think it is), the best way to counter it is to give .. GIVE ...GIVE!!! I have a page up on Act Blue in support of that effort, and if you haven't done so yet, or even if you have, think about supporting the campaign by donating today!

Thanks everyone!

Friday semen blogging

2005-12-02T17:35:00.000-06:00

A keeper from Philly.com's "trend" columnist:

HAVE YOU ever suspected your man of cheating but not been able to prove it?

If so, there's a kit that's just been introduced that claims to help suspicious spouses gather "scientific" evidence of whether their mate has been sexually active. It's called the Tru-test Home Evidence Collection Kit and retails for $79.95.

It comes with an ultraviolet light that allows you to detect invisible bodily fluid samples on bedsheets or clothing. You can either conduct the analysis yourself or mail what you've gathered back to the company for analysis.

...

John Mayoue, an Atlanta-based divorce attorney who serves as a commentator on high-profile celebrity cases, pointed out that people are better off relying on tried and true methods.

"I'm not discounting [the kits], but I think the old-fashioned way tends to be more effective and that is looking at e-mails, credit- card receipts and cell-phone records," he said. "That tends to be how we catch people traditionally."

Besides, "how often are you going to find semen on your spouse?"

Hold on, isn't this just the same thing as the MTV show where a girl goes through three prospective mates' rooms looking for semen stains and pubic hairs with some sort of kit? Sorry, Jenice, this is not a new trend if it's already been MTV'd like 3 years ago. No worries, though. You're a fine columnist, it seems. I like your spunk!

Sing it, brother!

2005-11-29T17:17:00.000-06:00

Needs almost no comment.

Time for Emanuel to support Cegelis in 6th

November 29, 2005

BY DICK SIMPSON

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) should quit playing games and support Christine Cegelis for Congress. Cegelis is running for the second time for Henry Hyde's seat in the suburban 6th District that includes northeast DuPage County and northwest Cook County.

...

In comparison to Duckworth and Scott, who have never run for office before, Cegelis received 44.2 percent of the vote in 2004 against long-term Republican incumbent Hyde. Her election would revolutionize suburban politics by making elections between Democrats and Republicans competitive.

...

Cegelis' sin in the eyes of Emanuel is that she has raised only $160,000 this year and has only $50,000 in the bank. Washington insiders believe that only campaigns that raise $1 million win. Emanuel previously tried and failed to get some personally wealthy Democrat to jump in the race. Failing that, he is putting up a war veteran in the hope of winning the sympathy and patriotic vote despite the fact that the majority of Americans now want to get out of Iraq.

The national Democratic Party would do better to send money and support to Cegelis. She, her more than 100 campaign volunteers, and the Democrats and Republicans in the 6th District who voted for her last time, have earned the right to run this race.

(Note: I said almost no comment. All this has been evident for months. It's particularly distressing that the D-Trip is running veterans just because they're veterans, particularly when the party as a whole has no clear message on the war in Iraq. And, as others have pointed out, don't think today's GOP will for a second think twice about sliming a disabled vet with all the slime their slimeguns hold, should an election be at stake. But again, no matter. I believe Cegelis's team is strong enough to parry this challenge, who knows? Maybe the whole thing will end up serving as an important learning experience to those powers that be, consultant class, and the money-above-all folks! Ha! Just kidding. They never learn.)

Cegelis gets MORE company

2005-11-28T23:03:00.000-06:00

It is, as they say, on. Or, it appears to be on.

In a nutshell, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC, or D-Trip), led by none other than local-boy-done-good (and Clinton hanger-on) Rahm Emmanuel, has recruited another entrant into the Dem primary for IL-06. Now remember, this is a seat once thought so safe for the GOP that previous Dem primaries used to pit animatronic squirrels against slow-witted paper boys (both usually lost to colorful but derivative oil paintings picked up at garage sales, which then went on to get clobbered by Henry Hyde). Then Christine Cegelis came along and won 44+% of the vote and all of a sudden everyone got nervous: Henry Hyde announced his retirement; the DuPage Republican establishment did everything it could to clear the way for its knight in shining armor, Peter Roskam; and the national GOP brought in Tom DeLay for a fundraiser for Roskam to end all fundraisers (or at least all fundraisers not revolving around the theme of keeping DeLay out of prison).

But apparently none was so scared as Rep. Emmanuel.

Better, I suppose, from his point of view, to find someone who fits the narrative (Dems who are veterans of Iraq and are therefore inherently more able* to speak to the masses about the single defining issue of the 2006 election) that he's trying to create. And Duckworth has one hell of a story to tell. Hell, Newsweek's buying. But it's telling that someone who came to power thanks not to the support of any kind of grassroots but rather thanks to his connections from above is so nervous about an actually viable grassroots candidate (whom he conveniently castigates for not raising enough money, no thanks to him or the rest of the Dem powers that be) that he provides an entire team for his choice. It's almost as if such grassroots-ness was antithetical to how he believes politics should work.

Regardless, it seems as if that's how it's going to be (although Duckworth hasn't announced her candidacy yet or, apparently, any positions on any issues whatsoever). Which is fine - I'm actually a proponent of primaries between candidates with personal integrity. It will certainly raise the profile of the race significantly. It will be a good challenge for Cegelis, whom I continue to support and will continue to rally the troops around. And it will certainly help prepare her for what promises to be a monster of a general election, should she survive this first round. Best of all, it will be a chance for the grassroots to prove ourselves, both with our person-power and our checkbooks, against the formidable structure that is the DCCC.

But just because I welcome the challenge doesn't mean I have to like the way the challenger is brought to the court.

It is, as I said above, on.

*Call me naive but how is it that knowing everything we know today, the apologists for this war and their ever-shifting views (this includes Republicans and Democrats) are still considered part of the mainstream, whereas those of us who called bullshit from the beginning, and now see most of the rest of the country slowly realizing that we were right all along, are somehow considered "fringe"?

Friday semen blogging

2005-11-25T13:47:00.000-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving to all. We've been lax on the semen (and all other) blogging the past month, and it seems like an odd time to semen blog when so many (including your trusty blogger) are taking a work holiday, given that one of the points of Friday semen blogging is to provide a little diversion from the rigors of a long week and provide a fun entree into the weekend, but since we have some free time, here goes!

Last month, Popular Science announced their annual "Top 10 Worst Jobs in Science" and guess what! "Semen Washer" is #7 on the list. Interestingly, following the description of the job, which is basically just a technician in a sperm bank, they tell of this little canard, which I know I've seen before in a sit com:

"The hardest part is explaining it to friends," Schillinger says. "But we do have stories." Like what? "Like the donor who was in the room for the longest time. We had a big discussion about who was going to check on him. Turns out he thought he had to fill up the entire specimen cup."

Seriously, I know I've seen that in a very special Mad About You.

Roskam finally gets some company

2005-11-22T22:43:00.000-06:00

The way Peter Roskam and the DuPage Republic party bosses muscled every possible primary challenger out of the way from day one was pretty interesting. Did I say interesting? I meant gross. I know it happens across political spectrums (see: Cook County Sherriff) and that primaries do have a weird impact on elections with the effect of essentially perpetuating the two-party system to the exclusion of all others, but the way Roskam just sort of took the mantle of "natural successor to Henry Hyde" just reminded me a little too much of how Bush was basically crowned GOP frontrunner in 2000 before any campaigning started. With little more to show than some "winnable" tag and hope for a centrist reputation belied by far-right credentials.

On the other hand, I thought it was a sign that the GOP was nervous as hell about Christine Cegelis that the powers that be's seemed nervous about the implications of a primary fight, particularly one that pushed their candidate to the right in a district that's shifting pretty clearly the other way.

That aspect of my thought was confirmed today after reading this article:

School chief irks GOP with Roskam challenge

By Catherine Edman and Robert Sanchez
Daily Herald Staff Writers
Posted Tuesday, November 22, 2005

A local school board president and political neophyte is gearing up to challenge state Sen. Peter Roskam in the GOP primary for retiring Congressman Henry Hyde’s seat.

Though John Vivoda is swimming upstream financially against Roskam, who collected nearly $700,000 in campaign contributions through Sept. 30, Vivoda says he’s betting on principles rather than dollars to prevail.

What's even more intriguing is that he's going to challenge Roskam from the center rather than the right. And the party bosses are mad as hell about it. Read the article if you want to see exactly how scared they are that Christine Cegelis is for real.

The money quote of the article:

He said he wanted to avoid "this anointing of somebody who is an ultra-conservative."

Yeah. What he said.

and the prize for most obscure movie reference in a costume or group of costumes...

2005-11-02T09:41:00.000-06:00

Compare & contrast:

My friends & I on Saturday

The High Hats

I feel like such a geek. But a geek in a GREAT costume!

Friday semen blogging

2005-10-28T16:40:00.000-05:00

I can't believe I haven't posted on this before, but according to a Google blog search, I sure haven't! Anyway, here's the story:

Judge used 'penis pump' during murder case

Sep 26 2005

icWales

A US judge will go on trial today charged with three counts of indecent exposure after allegedly masturbating using a “penis pump” while presiding over a murder case.

Witnesses claim they could hear the noise of the device coming from beneath the robes of Donald Thompson as he sat on the bench.

The 58-year-old former district judge had served at Creek County Court, Oklahoma, where he was charged, for 22 years.

The sex toy will be presented as evidence during the trial.

...

He is accused of using the pump during two murder trials and a civil case in 2003.

Jurors claim they heard what sounded like a bicycle pump or blood-pressure pump.

One "heard 'a swooshing kind of air, like kind of ch, ch' and saw Thompson making some movement with his upper body and arms," according to documents filed by the state attorney general.

...

According to an affidavit, a court-ordered DNA sample confirms the fluids found in his old courtroom and office were semen.

Judge C Allen McCall has not yet decided whether jurors will get to hear Ms Foster’s audio recording.

So apparently in Wales, semen is considered plural? Or was that just a mistake?

Anyway, the trial is still apparently going on. The defense attorneys are saying the court reporter was a pot smoker and thus ... hears swooshing sounds randomly?

Anyway, there you are. Have a great weekend! Happy Halloween and Fall Backwards day!

1-0

2005-10-27T01:08:00.000-05:00

April 4, 2005

CHICAGO (AP) -- Mark Buehrle was in a hurry on Opening Day.

Working quickly, throwing strikes and letting his fielders get involved, Chicago's lefty was in rare form.

"We have a good defense, so let them put the ball in play," Buehrle said Monday after pitching the White Sox past the Cleveland Indians 1-0.

Buehrle retired the first 12 batters and allowed just two hits in eight innings. The first White Sox season opener at home in 15 years took just one hour and 51 minutes to play.

"Buehrle was as good as I've ever seen him," Cleveland manager Eric Wedge said.
...
Playing its first season opener at home since the final year of old Comiskey Park in 1990, Chicago finally broke the scoreless duel in the seventh, thanks to an error by Indians shortstop Jhonny Peralta.

Paul Konerko doubled down the left-field line, moved to third on Jermaine Dye's fly to right and scored as Peralta misplayed Aaron Rowand's one-out grounder. Peralta was the first player other than Omar Vizquel to start for the Indians at shortstop since 1993.

"If the guy throws the ball, I'm going to be out probably," said Konerko, a slow runner.

"He started to run and I started to go into the ball. I couldn't catch the ball," Peralta said. "It was a little bit tough. It played hard off the field."

Shingo Takatsu pitched a perfect ninth for the save.

How perfect. A magical season, ending the way it started, with a 1-0 triumph. Great (brilliant?) starting pitching, a strong performance out of the bullpen. And a defense so great it'll make ya believe. Yes, we had 200 homeruns and some timely clutch hitting, but the 1-0 score was a sign that this really was how it was meant to be. Grinders. Win or die (Dye) trying. Don't stop believing. Oh wow.

Peter Gammons just named this team one of the 5 best of the last 25 years. (The '98 Yankees were the best, we were named comparable to the '84 Tigers, '99 Yankees, and one other team I forget.) Based on what they accomplished: 11-1 in the playoffs, wire-to-wire leaders in a division that was better than the vaunted AL East, their pitching, a record 37 games to start the season in which they had a lead in a game (WOW!), offensive balance, and their defense.

This is gonna be a long post, so bear with me. A few years ago when I lived a few blocks from the park and worked there for a year and a half, I discovered the cult that is White Sox Nation, and it was a weird, wild, exciting place. I was something of a tourist, but I was there, and thrilled to be there. I only went to one game this year (that was a White Sox loser) but followed every game, even when I was at a Doves concert or canvassing in the suburbs. DR showed a lot of patience throughout the season & I'm thrilled he was able to share it with me. And it was a team impossible not to love. Fun, tight games. And best of all - they did it as a team. So here's to the team:

* Man Soo Lee, the Babe Ruth of Korea, adding that perfect extra aspect to the internationalism of the team as the bullpen catcher.
* Art Kusnyer, the bullpen coach. Obviously did a great job, because our bullpen was amazing pretty much throughout the year.
* Greg Walker, the hitting coach. Nobody hit .300, but nor did anyone have really debilitating droughts, and in the playoffs, when it counted, the patience shown at the plate was the difference in most of the games.
* Harold Baines, the bench coach. The only member of the current team with his number retired, a crucial connection with the teams oft-ignored history.
* Joey Cora, third base coach, who seemed unable to put on a stop sign for almost the entire season.
* Don Cooper, on whom I developed a tremendous crush over the past month.
* Ozzie Guillen, the starter for the American League in the All-Star Game, 2006. More and better things will be written about him than I can do justice him.
* Ken Williams, the architect. Any team with a black general manager, a latino manager, and a white leadoff man/base stealer is okay by me. Ken? You win. Brilliant.
* Jerry Reinsdorf, you earned a lot of fans back tonight. Thanks for trusting Ken & Ozzie.

And the players:
* Shingo Takatsu - I hope he gets a ring. He had 8 saves this year and only one blown save, but he started us off on the right track when it mattered. The only player to start the season with the team not to end it with the team.
* Brian Anderson, Joe Borchard, Ross Gload, Pedro Lopez, Raul Casanova, Jamie Burke, Jeff Bajenaru, Jon Adkins, Kevin Walker, David Sanders - apparently you played at least once for the Sox this season (some more than others, Brian, Ross & Joe). Yay for that!
* Brandon McCarthy - Started rough, showed scintillating stuff toward the end. If not for you, we would have missed the playoffs. If we somehow repeat as champs next year, it will be because of you.
* Timo Perez - Nice to have a lefty off the bench who can play so many positions.

And those with iconic playoff moments:
* Pablo Ozuna - stole 2nd when everyone knew he was going to in the Pierzynski game, and scored the winning run.
* Chris Widger - walked in the insurance run in Game 3 of the World Series & caught a lot of different pitchers into the wee hours of the morning.
* Willie Harris - singles against Lidge & scores the only run in Game 4 of the World Series.
* Geoff Blum - I was down on him, but all is forgiven with his single postseason at-bat. Hope he sticks around!
* Carl Everett - 12 hits in the postseason was nice but being on the top step for most of the playoff was great. Yelling "MOTHERFUCKER" at Roy Oswalt in game 3 after he hit Crede? Priceless.
* Aaron Rowand - my favorite. The ultimate grinder. Not enough clutch hits but he's persevered for years on this team and apparently hangs out in my building (where I work) at Jake Melnick's! And he was born 5 years and a day before my brother, both in Portland, OR, so SHOUT OUT TO BRO BEN! Iconic postseason moment: the infield hit leading to the insurance run in Game 3 of the WS.
* AJ Pierzynski - hee hee. You know that one. He has an entire GAME named after him.
* Juan Uribe - The Catch for the 2nd out with a runner on 2nd in Game 4.
* Tadahito Iguchi - The 3 run home run after Graffanino's error.
* Paul Konerko - Nice Grand Slam, there Paul-eeee. Yarr.
* Jermaine Dye - Not the fabulous single to score the only run in Game 4, not the phantom hit-by-pitch, but his at-bat against Oswalt in the 5th inning of Game 3. THAT won the series for us.
* Scott Podsednik - Nice little trade there, Ken Williams. The MVP of the season to me, the difference maker in the team, the All-Star extra player, and oh yeah, a Game Winning Home Run. Heh.
* Joe Crede - A star is born. Iconic moments - his glove throughout, that double against the Angels, and the homer to start things off in Game 3 of the WS. The people's MVP.
* Luis Viscaino - 0.00 ERA in his one inning of post-season work.
* Cliff Politte - Best batting average on the team (1.000 in his only at-bat) during the regular season. Other than a little bit of a let-down in Game 3, he did his job quite beautifully in the Series.
* Damaso Marte - Shut up me and all the other Sox fans with his work in Game 3.
* Oswaldo Hernandez - Bases loaded, no out, 8th inning in Fenway? Bring in El Duque. El mago.
* Dustin Hermanson - Gutted out a terrific regular season, but less than perfect yesterday. No matter, give that man a ring.
* Neal Cotts - A star-making turn this week on a big stage. ERA? 0.00.
* Freddy Garcia - Closed out the Red Sox. Closed out the Astros. Complete game against the Angels. Road. Warrior.
* Jose Contreras - The ace, from nowhere.
* Jon Garland - 11-3 strikeout to walk ratio in two postseason games. Weeks off in-between starts, and gems.
* Mark Buehrle - Win & a save in two straight games. All Star starter, All Star Winner. Nice little run.

And finally (and oh gee it's late):

* Frank Thomas - He knows he played his part this year. More importantly, the future Hall of Famer and best Sox player in history became part of the team and showed his love of the franchise and the city. You deserve this ring more than anyone.

and

* First-base coach Tim Raines. I loved seeing my favorite player ever's jersey whenever a Sox got on first. Congrats, Rock.

Onion makes me cry

2005-10-25T17:21:00.000-05:00

The most disturbing thing about the below story is not what the White House did, but the cave job by the Onion:

White House Orders Satirical Paper 'The Onion' to Stop Using Presidential Seal

By E&P Staff

Published: October 24, 2005 2:25 PM ET

NEW YORK Despite White House spokesman Trent Duffy's admission to New York Times reporter Katharine Q. Seelye that "more than one Bush staffer reads The Onion and enjoys it thoroughly," the White House is seeking to stop the satirical paper from using the presidential seal on its Web site.

Seelye's seal scoop, printed in Monday's paper, reveals that associate counsel to the president Grant M. Dixton sent a letter to the Onion on Sept. 28 stating that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement."

Given that this post is about fair use, I'm not going to reprint the entire E&P article. But I will tell you that the Onion fired back a response that humorously pointed out the publication's satirical nature. But it also went one step further:

Klaskin also asked that the Onion be considered f[or] an official exception to the rule, which is allowable by law.

No. NO! NO NO NO NO NO!

Gah!

A publication as obviously satirical as the Onion must not ever EVER feel an obligation to get an exemption to use a "copyrighted" American image (which, by the way, is not owned by President Bush or the White House but by the American citizenry as a whole). No public figure/entity that is the target of satire should ever get veto power over that sort of thing, particularly the government itself. To even ask for an exemption gives too much power to the government to control speech.

It's gross, actually. I knew the Onion had lost something recently, but I had no idea they'd ever consider prostrating themselves wholly before the jerkos currently running the show. Bottom line be damned, there are some fights you fight. Damn lawyers.

Speaking truth to power

2005-10-25T00:31:00.000-05:00

Rosa wasn't the first. As the story goes, other young women, who weren't secretary for the local NAACP, one of whom was in fact a soon-to-be unwed mother, had previously refused to give up their damn seats, and had been arrested for it. But due to her exemplary credentials, the still nascent civil rights community chose to take up Rosa Parks' case and use it as a touchstone for a world-changing decade-long campaign, the aftershocks of which we are still coming to terms with.

No matter. Rosa Parks still deserves her place in history. She was willing to be that icon, and that took the strength of thousands of unknowns who supported her as well as deep wells of her own fortitude. She helped create a mythology that continues to resonate, because it's based on a deep truth, as all good myths are. And more to the point, well, she coulda been killed.

We like to think we will be able to speak truth to power when the stakes are high. But it's easier said than done. Too often, really, it's done through comedy -- a powerful weapon, to be sure, but humor rarely has that finishing punch that absolute sincerity has. Even more frequently we see it done with anger aflame. It's risky, in this day, to face the ridicule that comes with seriousness and calm. Dignity. Not dignity devoid of humor or passion, but dignity that subordinates those important aspects of ourselves to a greater goal -- justice, truth, love.

Rosa Parks did an exemplary job of embodying that dignity. In retrospect, it's hard to believe it was possible, what she did and what she represented. I'm not so sure I would be alive today if not for her seizing her moment and holding onto it. So, selfishly, I have to say - thank you, Mrs. Parks.

Hey, No-Shavey! What's with the beard?

2005-10-23T17:32:00.000-05:00

My beard is gettin' itchy. And do you know why??? I have decided not to shave until some indictments are handed down.

I'm not greedy. It doesn't have to be Cheney. It doesn't even have to be Rove. It don't gotta be for outing a CIA agent or leaking classified information. But this has been going on too long, and touches on too many important issues, and there are too many creeps & criminals involved for this to end up with a big zero. And far more importantly, there has been too little accountability over the past 5 years due, in part, to the fact that this administration and its bootlickers in Congress haven't had to deal with anything as solid as a conviction. So the obfuscation, the media complicity, and the BS fake investigations (or non-investigations) have been able to continue with no real actual blowback.

I think an indictment of an administration official, combined with the fact that they'll no longer be able to say "we won't comment on an ongoing investigation" (or, after a conviction, "...on an ongoing criminal case") means we might finally, finally be able to get some satisfaction.

And hopefully that will come this week.

Because my beard really does itch. And I ain't shaving until I get an indictment.

Or the White Sox win the World Series. Whichever comes first.

We need an X-Files for actual conspiracies.

2005-10-10T23:35:00.000-05:00

Okay, this is probably pretty obscure for those of you whose primary source of news is this blog. Which, come to think of it, is nobody. Anyway, here's what's going on:

For the past several months, the Republican party of Ohio has been rocked by a money laundering scandal known as "Coingate" in which a Toledo based operative has apparently been taking money from state pension funds, investing it in some stupid rare coin deal, and giving the proceeds to the effort to win Bush for Ohio last year. He won by less than 120,000, a relative drop in the bucket that ended up proving the difference in the Electoral College.

With me? Good.

Okay, well, Salon on Thursday published a story detailing the possible role of a the Toledo Blade's chief political columnist, Fritz Wenzel, in basically covering up the story back when it could have had a significant impact on the election. Oh, by the way, Wenzel was a Republican operative in Oregon before he came aboard the Blade and worked for Zogby polling during the election (even reporting on Zogby polls without letting Blade readers know he was in the pollster's employ), and then as soon as he left the paper, hooked up with (of all people) Jean Schmidt(!) who just beat Paul Hackett in the special congressional election outside of Cincinnati. Wenzel got a cool 60G for that effort.

Oh, and Wenzel is friends with Tom Noe, who is the guy in the middle of all this.

I strongly encourage you to read the whole Salon story. You have to get a day pass, but it's worth it. Not only because of the corruption, ethical lapses, and lies lies lies, but because of the messy divorce that helped tip this story. It's hot stuff.

There's one thing that was elided a bit in the story that I think is an important thread to keep in mind: The messy divorce in question involved an allegation that Diebold, the electronic voting machine company that has become synonymous with conspiracy-mongering about Republicans and stolen elections, was offering kickbacks to Joe Kidd -- then the Lucas County director of elections. An investigation even opened into the allegation, but it's unclear if it's continuing, given the possibility that Kidd will turn state's evidence against Tom Noe.

But the allegation itself is huge, and needs to be fully investigated if there is even a sliver of truth about it. Because if it happened, Diebold should be barred by every state legislature from participating in any selling of election machines.

This has been blogged about before, I know, months ago by people much more heavily into the whole case than me.

There's a lot more dirty stuff that goes with this. I Googled me some "Joe Kidd" and "Diebold" and came across this little story from 2003 written by, wait for it, FRITZ WENZEL! It reads as a beautiful press release, comparing the machines to being comparable to ATMs without mentioning the company's ethical questions, it's ties to the GOP (and the Dems in some places) or, more importantly, the critical issue of the lack of a paper trail in such machines, which is the basis of most complaints about electronic machines. To wit:

The Significant Other tells you there is no milk in the fridge; so you stop at a neighborhood convenience store late one October evening. You don't have any cash; so you go to the ATM in the corner.

After entering your PIN and making your withdrawal, you complete one more transaction - you cast your vote for mayor.

Though that may seem a little far-fetched today, industry insiders say it is the direction that elections are quickly moving as technology merges with a desire among voting advocates to boost citizen participation.

Diebold Elections Systems of North Canton, Ohio, is already moving down a path toward elections where people could vote almost anytime, anywhere. Joe Kidd, Lucas County elections director, is expected to release a report tomorrow recommending the company get a contract worth millions to supply Lucas County with new electronic voting machines.

The article, it goes without saying, quotes no opponents of the move.

Diebold is developing a track record in the elections business. Last year, the state of Georgia purchased 22,000 Diebold machines to replace all voting equipment statewide. Michael Barnes, a top assistant to Secretary of State Cathy Cox and the manager who directed the purchase and installation of their new system, said they worked well in November's election.

He said that not only were election results more reliable with the new machines, once polls closed they were transmitted from the precincts to the central tabulation center much quicker compared to earlier elections.

Diebold's only weakness, Mr. Barnes said, was in its training program for people who work at the polls on Election Day. But he said his office worked with the company to revamp the program, and that, in the end, it worked well.

Fast forward to two months ago -- allegations from another part of the state of bribery by Diebold employees. With the money quote:

Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, was suspended for 30 days after admitting he accepted a $10,000 check in January 2004 from Pasquale "Pat" Gallina, a Diebold representative who made out the check to the county Republican Party. The donation came the day the county was opening bids for new
voter-registration software. Prosecutor Ron O'Brien and sheriff's detectives are investigating.

And don't forget this gem: "[Diebold] chief executive Walden O'Dell wrote a 2003 Republican fund-raising letter vowing to help "deliver" Ohio for President Bush in 2004."

There is some seriously corrupt shit going on in Ohio. Through last year, it seemed to benefit on person more than any other - George W. Bush. That makes this a national story. I anxiously await the book, miniseries, and feature film about the Ohio Republican Party of the past 2 years. Remember: just because conspiracy theories are completely outlandish and in the fevered brains of confirmed nutjobs doesn't mean they're not actually true.

musings

2005-10-09T18:27:00.000-05:00

All in all, it's been a pretty damn good week. Hate to turn this into a diary, but there seems to be a weird stasis in the world right now, and even though big things seem afoot, this blogger finds himself (I love writing in the third person) without a fulcrum around which to frame a post. Plus I was busy, meaning I missed my first Friday semen blogging in some time.

So in short order, we'll just hand out some game balls:

- To Mark (5:58:54), Peter (3:51:13), Megan (4:57:07), hell even Cody (5:28:46), and the other tens of thousands of people to complete today's Chicago Marathon. Damn. I watched from my old haunt on the south side, and cheered my little lungs out. I don't care if people crawled the whole way, I don't care if they STILL haven't finished, what an impressive display of guts and fortitude. Yay, y'all!

- To the ChiSox, not only winning their first postseason series since WWI (note the single I there), not only defeating the defending world champions, not only doing so in one of the most daunting venues in sport, but in a sweep. Between El Duque, Uribe, AJP, Paulie, Contreras, Iguchi, Jenks, Pod, Guillen, Rowand, and Kenny Williams, it's honestly quite difficult to name a most valuable player of the series. But that's how the team was all year. No one player stood above all others, all were willing to put it all out there all season long. But, however great this is, it means nothing without that next step. Get to the World Series, boys.

- To the singularly brilliant cartoonist who came up with this gem.

- To Christine Cegelis, who knocked out her most significant primary challenger this week. She's got a good organization, a great message, and a good chance to pull off something historic next year. If you haven't done so yet, shake out your pockets and donate. Hell, even if you have already, why not toss an extra few her way for the hell of it. She done good. (And don't forget, Tom DeLay's troubles are Peter Roskam's troubles).

- Finally, and most importantly, to the big guy, for making it through an unusually long hospital stay, losing at least a few pounds between organ removal and no meatloaf in his diet, and recovering strong. Onward, young man, to Brasil!

Friday semen blogging

2005-09-30T16:24:00.000-05:00

Man, I thought I had a good one for this week, and then I came across this:

She lays semen trap for executives
Taiwan triad extorts about $500,000 using seedy scam
October 01, 2005

SHE introduced herself as the owner of a joint-venture company with the authorities from China and said she knew the Taiwanese authorities as well as the triads.

She would turn up at date-club functions, claiming she was the secretary-general of one such club.

High-profile bankers, CEOs, lawyers and even teachers were captivated by this swinging single who wore Chanel outfits and was decked with glittering gems and dazzling diamonds, reported Apple Daily Taiwan.

They were attracted to her even though she is 53 years old.

But Xu Guifang is a fraud.

Her tactics were simple: Befriend the men, seduce them, collect their semen on sanitary pads and extort large sums of money. If they refused to pay, she would put up posters denouncing her victims as sex maniacs and harass them.

She would threaten them with violence as she was backed up by the Niu Pu triad.

Wow. You know, actually, it only works really well with the accompanying photo.

Some would say Xu Guifang has moxie. I'd say she's got spunk.

Rant time! (Desecrated corpse edition)

2005-09-27T22:48:00.000-05:00

Digby has yet another provocative post about the deep meaning of nowthatsfuckedup.com, the Web site that involves, among other things, soldiers trading pictures of mutilated Iraqis for home-grown porn. Rude Pundit discusses it too, and for Billmon it seemed to cause a significant change of heart in how he views the desirablility of us staying in Iraq.

Part of what's so interesting about our horror, or assumed horror, at the photos in question, is that it is palatable -- the fact is that we can handle the images, as grotesque as they are, even if they do serve to warp us a little bit more each time we seek them out. Sure, it's fine to point out the blatant hypocrisy of our culture which feigns horror at Janet Jackson's nipple ornament in direct proportion to the number of times we demand to watch it again; the same culture that pretends to give a shit about Laci Peterson when all we really want is a good psychocourtroom drama.

But it's not like it's a real secret that the reason Bush won in November 2004, the reason that Abu Ghraib didn't lead to impeachment, is because a significant portion of this country wants us to be in the shit, wants to see plenty of blood spilled (both ours and theirs) in our neverending quest for sanctification and revenge and meaning. We want to see Faces of Death, we want to see hardcore porn, we want to see Grand Theft Auto and Saving Private Ryan and John Waters' early films and NASCAR crashes and worst of all competitive eating contests. We try desperately to keep these impulses in check, through censorship and self-censorship and cries about our children. Because we are ashamed of these impulses, and know if they are left unchecked they will lead to complete hedonism (of the selfish variety, natch) which will distract us from our larger goals of building empire and working hard (to buy more stuff) and keeping the hordes (who usually are far better at depriving themselves of that which they inevitably too crave) away from our soil. But let us not kid ourselves. We likes the naughty and inevitably we will gets the naughty.

The point of this pointless musing is that we can go round & round talking about the moral implications of the all-American heroes who are posting fucked up photos with fucked up captions in exchange for fucked up porn, but it should not be a stand-in for what are, in my opinion, the two real moral issues of our time:

1) George W. Bush should not be president of this great nation. While he is president, we need to make it as difficult as possible for him to implement his wrong-headed agenda. In 2006 we need to see a sea change in our politics, hopefully manifested by the election of a Democratic Congress that is both serious about the business of government and that is able to fully investigate the many, many, many indiscretions and failures of this administration.

2) It is absolutely imperative that someone build a god damn flux capacitor and create a time machine so that someone can go back in time and stop the Iraq war before it started, and instead ensure the creation of a comprehensive, rational War On Terror or Worldwide Struggle Against Violent Extremism, or whatever. Failing that, we need to put together a Manhattan Project or somesuch ASAP to figure out how to get the hell out of there while ensuring the descent into civil war is halted.

It's exhausting for me to type on these themes constantly, and exhausting for you, I'm sure, dear reader, to continue to read them, but we can't wait until 2008 and hope we act rationally and that we finally get a decent -- presidential -- president in place. It's now, everyday, that we need to ACT and always to fully explain the why's and wherefore's of the woeful tale that has been the past 5 years, and not rely on random tangents to do the talking for us. The president should not be president because he is a liar, a hypocrite, a cheater, and a bad judge of character. The war is bad because it is based on partisan politics, lies, manipulations, bloodlust, and cannot effectively meet its only real significant goal (a safer America, I think). Eyes on prize, forest/trees, nose/grindstone, I say. And will continue to say until the ink from this blog-well runs dry.

Happy anniversary, happy anniversary, happy anniversary, HAAAAAPY anniversary!

2005-09-26T15:51:00.000-05:00

Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand
Six Hundred Minutes
Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand
Moments So Dear

Oh wait, I hate Rent. Well, I haven't actually seen it, and I will see the movie seeing has how Rosario the Great is starring in it. But I have a feeling I'll hate it.

And the lyrics of that song, meant to say something about how long a year is, or how short it is, or how we should appreciate what we have or some damn thing, are especially eye-rolling. But! We here at Selfish Hedonist needed something to celebrate the twelve months of political rants, vital action alerts, and semen musings that have comprised the blog you know and adore. So we picked that.

Yes, much has changed in the world since that first posting back in the day. (Actually, I'm pretty sure we had at least a few before that, but they seem to have been lost in the ether.) Unlike those halcyon days, we are today living in an Orwellian world in which George W. Bush is president YES PRESIDENT!, a senseless war is raging unchecked in Iraq, and Halliburton is getting no-bid contracts all over the place. Sigh. I miss the olden days.

It's been a rough few weeks for the SelfishHedonists but we're back in force now with three YES THREE! important links. I highly recommend you check out:

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD SWEEPS where you can give the Army National Guard your contact information plus your friends' information and in return you get three YES THREE! free music downloads from iTunes®. That's the equivalent of $2.97! Such a deal. And look how happy the young kids are there, rockin' out to their Trisha Yearwood, not a care in the world. I'm sure those three songs will provide much comfort in the place of a limb, or on their way to the funeral of a new friend. I was listening to NPR this morning (yes I hate them but it's better than those damn morning shows) and they had a story about an Army recruiter in the Chicago suburbs who was doing okay getting people to sign up, because, he said, he didn't lie. He was frustrated at the media's reporting of lies that some recruiters were said to be telling, as that became everyone's opinion of all recruiters, which wasn't fair. He was then overheard telling some high school kids that Iraq was a good place to be, because the traffic in Chicago was really bad and you were taking your life in your hands every time you drove on the Dan Ryan, and they just don't have that problem in Iraq.

Earlier in the segment, they recorded a (latina) high school girl who gave her brother's cell number to the recruiter. She herself wasn't interested. "What you guys do is so brave," she said. "Dying for your country and stuff?"

Number two. I'm kind of hooked on Kanye West's new single, "Gold Digger," feat. Jamie Foxx. If you know the song, or even if you don't, check out this title-says-it-all remix, "George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People."

And then there's this.

Friday semen blogging

2005-09-23T14:15:00.000-05:00

I just thought this was kind of funny (note: subscription needed):

Kenya's test-tube baby still on course

Story by CHARLES NJERU
Publication Date: 9/22/2005

Kenya will in the next few weeks know whether it can celebrate her first test-tube baby.

Ten months since the first test-tube baby clinic was opened in Nairobi the gynaecologist in charge, Dr Joshua Noreh, says the first success case will be confirmed by next month. So far, Dr Noreh says he has treated about 20 women, "but there have been complications, in any case 10 months is too short to determine the efficacy of this technology."

...

One obstacle in IVF treatment in Kenya, says Dr Noreh, is the limitation of facilities. "There is no reliable sperm bank in the country which is a prerequisite for the success of an IVF programme. I only treat couples but not single women and they must produce their own semen for insemination. This is a costly affair since we import all the machinery and even sometimes we have to send the semen abroad for tests before insemination."

Don't ask me why. It's Banned Books Week starting tomorrow and we're all a little crazy.

Friday semen blogging

2005-09-16T15:36:00.000-05:00

From the Department of Jobs that Make It Difficult to Hook Up at Bars:

From Milk Pail to Supper Table

The semen is selected by using an artificial vagina (a rigid tube with an inner rubber sleeve that's been warmed with water and lubricated). The bull is tricked into mounting a "teaser" animal-usually a steer-and an attendant directs the bull's penis into the tube and traps the ejaculate. Sperm is gathered once or twice a week, depending on the weather and the bull's disposition.

Here's what the artificial cow vagina looks like, by the way:

"And what is it that you do?"

"I direct bull penises into artifical cow vaginas in order to trap the ejaculate."

"I see."

"And you?"

"Administrative Assistant."

"I see."

"Yes, well."

"Yes?"

"Well, have a good evening."

"Yes, thank you. You too."

The strange but true tale of the Funky Butt

2005-09-15T01:29:00.000-05:00

During my first trip to New Orleans in the sizzling summer of 1999, my friends & I decided to check out a live-music spot called the Funky Butt. Even if I were a decent writer, I doubt I would be able to give you a sense of how perfect the place was from the perspective of a young outsider looking for an "authentic" New Orleans experience. The place was dark, tattered, dank, next door to a couple of trashy gay bars on the "rough" side of the Quarter, and to top it off, Wynton's youngest brother Jason Marsalis was playing drums with his quartet (or was it a quintet?). It felt just right.

Well, I did a search on the place tonight, to see what it's status was post-Big K, and I came upon this haunting antediluvian article from the Times-Picayune:

Friday, August 19, 2005
Keith Spera
Music writer

Last Friday, the Funky Butt hosted a de facto jazz funeral for itself -- minus the jazz -- as the night's scheduled act, bassist Jim Markway and his band, gathered outside on North Rampart Street to bemoan the once-popular modern jazz venue's decline.

Richard Rochester opened the Funky Butt in 1996, then sold the business to trombonist Sam "Big Sam" Williams and Williams' fiancee, Shanekah Peterson, in the spring of 2004. The club closed for two weeks that June, but the summer of 2005 has been far tougher. Beset by a broken air-conditioning system, a dwindling staff, little advertising and consequently few patrons, the club has frequently been dark.

Sizing up their prospects last weekend -- working in a sweltering, empty room for no money -- Markway and company opted not to perform.

The Funky Butt's future remains uncertain. Williams did not return messages left on his cell phone this week, and the club's phone has been disconnected.

Such timing!

Well, I searched further, and it turns out that Big Sam Williams is not just any trombonist, but is an alum of the Dirty Dozen Brass Band, a favorite of the hipster crowd (that's them performing a short intro on Modest Mouse's most recent album).

And where is he now? Of all places, San Antonio, location of my next conference in January (to be followed, naturally, by New Orleans in June, or maybe not...)

So here's the latest:

Eighteen months after Williams formed the Funky Nation, he left the Dirty Dozen. Peterson ("She's the head boss in charge," Williams said.) and he bought the Funky Butt when the owner opted to sell out and move out of New Orleans.

"I had to follow my dream," he said. "And I appreciate everything the Dozen did for me. Without the Dozen I never would have had the opportunity to do all the things I've done."

Williams and Peterson had been working on plans to move the Funky Butt to Frenchmen Street, a burgeoning entertainment district just outside of the French Quarter. All of the bar fixtures are in storage. The lease on the new building has yet to be signed.

"Right now we're strongly leaning toward having the Funky Butt in San Francisco," he said. "We're saying we're going to stay in San Antonio at least a month, maybe longer. I just don't know. I may get to know so many people that I have a desire to stay here."

Regardless of what path Williams chooses, here's hoping some incarnation of the Butt comes back stronger than ever in New New Orleans.

Vote for Cegelis NOW! And pass it on...

2005-09-14T00:57:00.000-05:00

Please pass this message on to anyone you think might be interested...

Democracy for America is hosting an online vote to determine
which congressional candidate will receive their first national
endorsement of 2006. The vote is open to all challengers and
open seat candidates. The candidate with the most votes at the
end of balloting will receive a DFA-List endorsement and a
national e-mail from DFA's Chair Jim Dean.

Vote for Christine Cegelis at the DFA site.

The first round of voting closes on Saturday at 5:00 pm Eastern
Time. We need to finish in the top 10 to make the final round
next week.

Anyone can vote -- you don't have to be a DFA member or live in
her district or even in Illinois. Taking control of the U.S.
House from the Republicans in 2006 must be a NATIONAL priority,
and IL-06 is one of our few open seats!

I MEAN IT! PASS IT ON!!! This is the sort of thing that could vault Cegelis' candidacy, among activists, donors, voters, and the media significantly higher. Earlier today I saw she sat at #3 in the "standings" but she's already moved up in the few hours since I last checked! So we have to keep the votes coming - this is winnable...

YFI, DFA did great work in helping Paul Hackett almost pull off a miracle in Ohio. This is an easy way to help Cegelis take that next step! (Oh, and leave a comment after you do vote...)

[On a related note, Christine Cegelis was the only political candidate I'm aware of who joined Cindy Sheehan in any of her vigils in Illinois. Christine is a person of conscience and conviction, and I'm proud to help her in whatever way I can. Here's the story.]

Culture of life

2005-09-12T23:31:00.000-05:00

The bf & I were watching the classic -- no, sorry, megaclassic -- groundbreaking, high-larious epic The Poseidon Adventure last night & got to talking about why that film, and it's (possibly superior) legacy, The Towering Inferno, are so successful.

The gay in me was pretty sure it was the irrefutable fact that any film with both Shelley Winters and Stella Stevens (or both Jennifer Jones & Faye Dunaway, as the case may be) is destined to be a classic, period.

The current-events-ite in me appreciates the morality aspect of it: that the vain, the greedy, the incompetent will lead us to ruin if we don't stand up to them (which we, being good & hopeful souls, inevitably don't do obnoxiously enough), and certainly don't know when to listen to a key warning. And then after disaster falls, not only is it in bad taste, but it's seemingly beside the point to say "I told you so!" And yet, the protagonists are the ones who have to save the day, since the venality of the bad guys won't allow them to do something as decent as help figure out IMMEDIATELY how to assist the survivors.

But really, it's more metaphysical than all that. The great disaster films, at best, wallow in our fear of death, and firmly establish the arbitrariness of life. That's what makes them thrilling. They say:

Your great monuments will not protect you. Your illusion of being apart from the natural world cannot shield you. Your civilization is not what you thought it was.

And most importantly: I don't care if you are Pamela Sue Martin herself! All your big-star glory won't save you (or Karen Black, or Geneviève Bujold, or Sofia Loren) when the shit hits the fan. Your face WILL get sweaty and smudged. Your eyeliner may stay in place but you've been marked -- by the gods of Hollywood and by your audience -- as just another person who has been brought down a million pegs, right before my eyes. And to prove how arbitrary our lives are, even if you survive, some major stars will not.

I think it's the disaster film ethic that informs so much of our understanding 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the Iraq War, three instances in which George Bush has overseen an unnecssary loss of life. We know that large-scale deaths are part of the saga we've been cast as extras in. And they happen to the good guys as well as the bad. They take out our Wonders of the World. We may seek out or create heroes in our dramas, but in the end, the heroes don't make any real difference after the fact. A few lives are saved here, a few there, but in the end, they are a pittance, and the enormity of the disaster only can be comprehended through the lens of the disaster film. The movies are prophetic, and have mediated the images we see even before said images have been captured. Whether this softens the blow of the disaster once it's done with, or makes such disasters that much more disturbing because we don't see no Ava Gardner walking around, smudged face and tattered outfit, giving us the piece of mind that none of this is reality, I'm just not sure.

I do wonder if, without these myths, we as a people would be more willing to demand and receive real accountability for the failure to prevent or mitigate the deaths.

I also wonder whether Bush will ever deign to use the phrase "Culture of Life" now that it's been resolutely shown that his presidency will forever be associated with death, death, and more death. What am I talking about, of course he will.

Friday semen blogging

2005-09-09T15:06:00.000-05:00

The great thing about this goat semen site...

...is that you get to SEE the hot studs whose buck-juice you're buying before you invest your dough. It's like an escort site for caprinosexuals.

Let's point fingers!

2005-09-09T00:36:00.000-05:00

Who's up for playing the blame game? (Remember, demanding accountability is a game! Like tiddlywinks or beer pong! Fun fun, a major city is devastated, it's time for charades!!!!!)

Okay, so who to blame for the two snafus (preparedness & response) in Louisiana? FEMA head Michael Brown? Nah, he's an unqualified chump, it would be like appointing me starting point guard for the Nuggets and then blaming me because we didn't make the playoffs (except, you know, with far, far, far more death, destruction, and misery). Obviously he needs to be fired, but it doesn't make what happened his fault. He was set up to fail, and lying about shit afterwards is just par for the course for this administration. No fingers.

Michael Chertoff? Well, yeah, a finger or two. But hell, it's not even clear that the Dept. of Homeland Security has been given enough resources to properly handle it's main anti-terror job, let alone natural disasters that don't occur in swing states in an election year.

State & local officials? No fingers. I am over-the-top-SICK of people saying "well, look what a great job Giuliani did in New York." The situations are completely not analogous. He was pleasing on the teevee to many, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) by the time Rudy started being calm, the actual crisis phase of September 11 was over.

I'm not even going to point fingers at Condi, for whom shoe shopping, Spamalot, and hitting with Monica Seles were more important that coordinating offers of help from around the globe because ... hello! Monica Seles!

No, it's the three-headed dragon of Bush, Cheney, and Rove for whom almost all fingers, toes, and other appendages are reserved. Those three have been in charge from the beginning. Those three made the decision -- the affirmative decision -- to lollygag as long as possible before responding to Katrina. Those three are currently in charge of the propaganda campaign posing as disaster management (and of course, attempting to evade any sense of responsibility by planting lies all over the place about how Gov. Blanco didn't ask for a state of emergency declaration).

And whatever shameful behavior they have engaged in since the disaster struck, it's nothing compared to this article (which Atrios pointed me to but gives short shrift, in my opinion) about the inexplicable gutting of FEMA.

Disaster in the Making

In case Congress hasn't gotten the message, former FEMA director James Lee Witt recently restated it in strong terms. "I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded," he testified at a March 24, 2004, hearing on Capitol Hill. "I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared. In fact one state emergency manager told me, 'It is like a stake has been driven into the heart of emergency management.'"

And then read the followup.

It's all you need to know about this mother loving administration. Read the first article, especially. Your digits will be pointing, too.

Any fingers that remain go to the voters & Congress for enabling the miserable, miserable failures "in charge."

UPDATE: Looks like I'm not the only one who is in favor of the pointing of the fingers...

The weather started getting rough

2005-09-06T20:40:00.000-05:00

It's among my top 5 favorite show of all time. Gilligan's Island had the bright colors (after the first season) to appeal to kids, the sexual undertones to appeal to adolescents, and the sense of whimsy and a nod to the audience to appeal to in-on-the-joke adults. And the anchor of the show, if you will, was the inimitable Bob Denver, whom as you likely know died today at 70.

I loved everything about the show, from the pitch-perfect opening number (it sounded like an old sailor's song, but with enough pep to let us know that nothing bad was really going to happen), to the four - count 'em, FOUR - different episodes that featured doppelgangers of the various castaways, to the games you could play trying to match characters up with the Seven Deadly Sins (Mary Ann = envy, the Professor = Pride?). It had the iconic number of characters, the lucky number seven, the number of dwarves, the number of samurai ... the number of Real World Strangers (I'm pretty damn sure that MTV's show is just a differently edited version of Gilligan's Island ... and Survivor is an ugly stepchild).

One of the more intriguing things to me was that from the reruns, the first episode seemed more like a second episode. Now I know why:

The original pilot was filmed in November on 1963 but never aired until October of 1992. In the original pilot, the characters of the Professor and Ginger were player by a different actor and actress. There was no character of Mary Ann. In the pilot, there was a character called Bunny. Bunny was the buxom blonde and Ginger was a practical brunette. In the pilot, Ginger and Bunny were both secretaries. The music for the original pilot's theme song was written by (a young) John Williams. This music had a Latin sound and the lyrics were sung with a Spanish accent. In the pilot, it was a six-hour trip, not a three-hour tour.

Thank God cooler heads prevailed.

And best of all, of course, was their musical tribute to both opera and Shakespeare, their musical version of Hamlet.

Bob Denver, of course, held it all together. His sense of comic timing was fantastic, and we know it was not a fluke -- Maynard G. Krebs proves that. He was a wonderful actor, a great icon, and the world is a worser place without him.

Thanks, Bob.

Friday semen blogging

2005-09-02T17:17:00.000-05:00

I honestly did not know this:

The band formed in 1990 from the ashes of Mother Love Bone, whose singer Andrew Wood died of a heroin overdose. Guitarist Stone Gossard and bassist Jeff Ament were impressed by the work of a young singer named Eddie Vedder. Long story short: They hit it off, formed a band, scored a deal with Epic Records and changed their name from Mookie Blaylock - to avoid confusion with a basketball player who also happened to be named Mookie Blaylock - to Pearl Jam. Depending on who you believe, the name comes from a hallucinogenic condiment made by Eddie's grandmother; either that or it's a term for semen.

Confirmed here.

Perhaps I should invite Eddie Vedder to guest-blog here one week?

Off-topic: this hurricane is extremely horrific. There is no excuse for the lagtime between recognition of the extent of the tragedy and a coordinated response. It's not too late to minimize some of the damage, and I'm relieved to see that it seems to have started. But the past 48 hours has been a disgrace. There has to be some political fallout from this. More likely, we will all go on with our lives, and let someone else (hopefully) bear the brunt of the failures of this administration. All of us, that is, except the good people of the great city of New Orleans.

Fuck.

Cities starting with "New"

2005-08-31T12:33:00.000-05:00

Greetings dear readers...

It's been slow blogging over the past couple of weeks, due primarily to the impending trip to NYC, and ending today the actual trip to New York. I'm in the concourse of LaGuardia, blogging as the flight is (hopefully slightly) delayed. A little windy here today, no doubt due to Katrina.

I have been away from the news for the most part this trip. This means I haven't really had the time to absorb the full impact on one of my favorite cities by that huge storm. Perhaps because it wasn't as dramatic as 9/11 or as significant in terms of loss of life as the tsunami ... it still feels remote. I've been to New Orleans 3 times and truly love it's vibe, and the people I've met there have been uniformly fun and inviting and up for adventure. It was always a risk building a modern city there but they did it and I love it and now they will do it again and for that I'm glad. I also hope to help out a bit when I'm there again in June 06.

As for the trip to New York: lots of walking. A couple of serindipitous moments that seem inevitable in this city, including stumbling upon free tickets to the revival of the 1971 version of Two Gentlemen of Verona at Shakespeare in the Park, starring Rosario Dawson, my favorite, in her first stage gig. She was very good and the show as a whole was a hoot. Missed opportunity - Friday night, the night we saw the Rude Pundit LIVE, it turns out we missed a Central Park screening of The Muppets Take Manhattan. GRRRR.

Tennis? Saw my favorite woman, Milagros Sequera, lose. Saw my favorite man, Robby Ginepri, on his way to win. Missed Roddick's loss, thank goodness. Became a new fan of Vania King and Italy's Roberta Vinci and Scoville Jenkins and Jamea Jackson. Sat next to James Blake's brother. Loved it.

The bottom line, however, is that there's just too too much to do, and if you're not careful you will feel disappointed that you didn't do something you could have done. Statue of Liberty. Yankees game. Harlem. Still haven't done any of that in all my trips there. Regardless, my advice is to leave at least 2 days for walking around, not even to sightsee, but just to wander into places, stop at a cafe or restaurant, and RELAX. Because otherwise it's go-go-go. And you will collapse from exhaustion. Which is no fun. That is all.

So much for my future career as a travel writer, eh?

Looking forward to coming home, just wish we could be going back tomorrow, so that there would be a new crossword puzzle in the onflight magazine...

Afghanistan

2005-08-22T14:52:00.000-05:00

You know what's interesting?

The Iraq war has so overshadowed the situation in Afghanistan that we don't even get much of a conversation (such as these conversations go) about the success with which Bush and the other members of the coalition are prosecuting it with.

So as a handy service, a recap of the situation in Afghanistan:

Osama bin Laden = on the lam.

US troop deaths in Afghanistan = on the rise EVERY YEAR since the start of the war in 2001.

Iraq clusterfuck = free ride for Bush on topic of the actual 9/11 war.

Friday semen blogging

2005-08-19T16:32:00.000-05:00

Special film review edition.

Now, I rarely go to the cinema these days, what with the cost and the fact that cinema is dead and all, and I certainly had no intention of going to see The 40-Year Old Virgin, until I read this review:

"Virgin" reaches new low in loathsome humor

A perfect double bill, in hell, would be "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" and "The 40 Year-Old-Virgin." Both are relentlessly juvenile, unkind to women, hyper-crude about sex, and perhaps more important for a movie bent on making money, unfunny.

Yet the audience at Monday night's screening was not all silent — both men and women laughed heartily at jokes such as Steve Carell's frustrated virgin spraying himself with his own pent-up semen; a drunken woman vomiting the remains of a margarita into Carell's mouth as she smashes her auto into another vehicle; two adolescents discovering Carell in bed with their mother as he removes a condom from his foot; Paul Rudd exposing his buttocks on widescreen TV in an electronics store and — perhaps most regrettably — a philandering man celebrating the huge penis (he insists) of his unborn son, who is seen in a scan sloshing around the womb, again on widescreen TV at the store.

Ms. Eleanor O'Sullivan seems to think there's something remotely regrattable about seeing Paul Rudd's exposed buttocks.

...

...

...

No, I mean, seriously, has she seen Paul Rudd?

THIS GUY?!?

You know what? Before you start complaining about the amount of semen in a film, maybe you need to take a good hard look at yourself! You got issues, lady.

If the Democrats are going to win in 2006, they cannot forget the issue the GOP handed them this year, flush off the Man Date, and somehow continue to

2005-08-18T09:33:00.000-05:00

flog within an inch of its life. I was out canvassing in the burbs this weekend and my first interview was with an older Republican woman. I asked her what issues were most important to her.

#2 -- WE'VE GOT TO BRING THE BOYS HOME

#1 -- KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY

This should be the single most iconic image of the next 15 months:

The Real World: Abu Ghraib

2005-08-17T22:16:00.000-05:00

I can't believe this is even subject to debate. The government doesn't want to release the videos that show what happened in Abu Ghraib when interrogators stopped being nice - and started getting REAL.

And the apologists are out in force saying that, of course they shouldn't be released, we already know what happened, plus you'll just be inflaming the bad guys who will use it to rile the arab street against us.

Well, too mother-loving bad. SHOULDN'TA DID IT IN THE FIRST GOD! DAMN! PLACE!!!!!

Billmon gets it partly right but he is uncharacteristically circumspect. Here's how the argument goes, and everyone with a conscience should be screaming it from the top of their lungs:

This administration and its defenders escaped accountability, both internationally and domestically, for what happened as a matter of policy in our - and I will say it - very own gulag archipelago. Their desire to stop the videos from being released has everything to do with domestic political considerations, not with the health or lives of our troops. They don't give a shit about our troops - if they did, they wouldn't still be insufficiently armed, and well god damn it they wouldn't have been sent into Iraq in the first place.

The American public needs to see who they voted for. They need to see the actions that they sorta-kinda knew about but refused to hold accountable during the November elections. They didn't want to know what happened in Abu Ghraib, the photos we saw were ultimately dismissed because beyond the initial shock value, they did not convey actual pain, actual torture. It was more performative torture, easily consumed and then forgotten about.

But it's not the whole of what happened. And without the videos, apparently, we will not be able to grasp the enormity. The Congress saw the video, and apparently was so sickened that they thought it better to drop the issue, to effectively hand it over to another non-independent committee named by the criminals in charge. They abdicated their oversight responsibility because, as we know, they have been thoroughly and utterly cowed by this administration - both the Republican and the Democrats. Hell, they confirmed Gonzales to be Secretary of State. So that's one branch down.

The electorate, as I mentioned, also abdicated its responsibility - to educate itself, to demand answers, and ultimately to vote out those responsible. Why? Bloodlust, near as I can figure.

The media? Bought.

So that leaves the judiciary. The judiciary that the right is doing everything in its power to discredit, coopt, undermine, and slander. It, apparently, is the only bastien of hope. Of rationality. Of accountability. Billmon does not envy Judge Hellerstein, but I do. He has a chance to be a hero - perhaps one of two or three in this whole ugly affair.

Judge Hellerstein? Let's roll.

Willie F. Wilson, Will You Please Go NOW?!?

2005-08-16T17:57:00.000-05:00

There's some significant chatter on the left blogo about Rev. Willie Wilson's recent preaching about gays and lesbians in the black community and what it all MEANS in terms of the slicing and dicing of the great Democratic coalition and pitting groups against each other and OH MY GOD!!!

PEOPLE!!! Willie Wilson is an old-fashioned insane lunatic and a liar and most likely a serious pervert. While I firmly believe in the importance of paying attention to the issues of various parts of one's coalition, I believe even more strongly in being able to dismiss a raving nutjob who says raving nutjob things, because otherwise his raving nutjobism is going to highjack the discussion, and get the attention he craves, and trust me, he's just not worth it.

So I'll post once on this topic, and then we will send The Most Reverend Willie F. Wilson to bed.

Here's what he said (bizarrely reminiscent of Sen. Tom "Oklahoma is being taken over by teenage lesbians" Coburn):

"Women falling down on another woman, strapping yourself up with something, it ain't real. That thing ain't got no feeling in it. It ain't natural. Anytime somebody got to slap some grease on your behind and stick something in you, it's something wrong with that. Your butt ain't made for that."

"No wonder your behind is bleeding. You can't make no connection with a screw and another screw. The Bible says God made them male and female."

And then here's what else he said:

"The situation is so grave that it should be declared a national emergency."

"Our girls, some as young as 10 and 11 years of age, are engaging in same sex relations," Wilson writes, citing as evidence an incident in an unnamed "local school" where girls were "asked to report to the gymnasium" so school officials could "decipher how many girls were involved in same sex relations." Those who were, he writes, outnumbered those who had not been "by a 10 to 1 count."

Okay, first of all, this bullshit can only go so far among African Americans, who know how many skeletons we have in our own personal closets (and those of our family members) and how dangerous it is to go talking publicly about what's in other people's if you want to have your own closet closed. It's a lesson Henry Hyde might have could learned.

And, as others have noted, the GOP is still far too connected with the Trent Lotts of the world to be taken seriously as a viable option for the vast majority of blacks. The 1964 Civil Rights Act lost the South for the Democrats for generations? Well the resulting backlash lost blacks for Republicans for just as long.

But forget all that. Perhaps the breakup that the GOP and its henchmen are salivating over is nigh. Fine. Doesn't matter. The only appropriate response to Rev. Willie Wilson is to expose his lies, because that will help destroy his credibility, whatever he actually had on this issue, and then stop listening to him altogether.

Thanks for the Washington City Paper for taking care of that:

"My son in high school last year, trying to go to the prom, he said, 'Dad, I ain't got nobody to take to the prom because all the girls in my class are gay. And ain't but two of them straight and both of them ugly." —the Rev. Willie F. Wilson, July 3

Wilson’s above comments, made during a sermon graphically excoriating gay sex in the black community, have already been criticized as intolerant by gay-rights activists and political figures. Students at D.C.’s School Without Walls (SWW) have another complaint: They go to class with Wilson’s only son currently in high school, and they say the story isn’t true. Not only does SWW’s student body appear to be largely heterosexual, but Hamani Wilson didn’t need a date to prom—he’s been dating a classmate, Janeese Lewis, for the past year.

Read the whole thing, it's excellent.

Final thought: far be it for me to say, but shouldn't The Most Reverend Willie F. Wilson be a little bit more concerned that his ELEVENTH GRADE SON, one who goes to "a magnet school for some of D.C.'s most academically accomplished and progressive students" is using phrases like "I ain't got nobody to take to the prom" and "ain't but two of them straight and both of them ugly"!!!???!!!

Repeat after me: "Both of them ARE ugly"!

Don't he know? You got to wait til you're done with COLLEGE to start talkin' like that in front of your FATHER.

UPDATE! I did not mean to imply above that Rev. Wilson and Armstrong Williams were somehow connected, just that it seems like most right-wingers who denounce others' morals inevitably have something they'd rather not have revealed. In Rev. Wilson's case, I think the fact that the fact that he is a liar (and thus will be going to Hell), is skeleton enough. But one never knows what else might be out there...

a third of the way there!!!

2005-08-16T01:31:00.000-05:00

So how did I celebrate my one-third-of-a-century birthday on Monday?

I learned about RSS!

So very exciting, except I'm not sure exactly what the hell it is that I learned. I know that I'm supposed to love the whole concept of a news aggregator, but I will have to slowly adapt, I think, because between google alerts and just having all my main sites in my cache, I really don't feel like I'm missing out on THAT MUCH right now. But now that I'm in the middle phase of my life (assuming I die on April 15, 2072, which hey could happen) I figure I should accept what people tell me to do when it comes to learning new technologies.

So I just added a link (see the last of the LINKS on the right) and now you too can get hour-by-hour updates on the status of Selfish Hedonist. From what I understand, if you don't already have an aggregator set up, go to Bloglines, set up an account, then click on "My Feeds" then "Add" then enter selfishhedonist in the space after the big B and click on Blogspot user and then click on Subscribe! Bloglines will then troll this site once an hour, and so you can just go to Bloglines every so often, and there will be a number in parentheses after Selfish Hedonist, and that will be the number of posts you've missed! Click on that and you can see what I've posted since you last checked.

Or something like that.

Anyhoo, there's so much I've been wanting to post on recently, but with all the hullaballoo over my big 33 1/3rd birthday extravaganza, there just hasn't been time. But stay tuned, and you just may see some posts about Lynne Cheney, Jack Chick, Margaret Thatcher, and other Happy Things!

In the meantime, go here and sign. Should you so desire. (Hat tip to bambam.)

Friday semen blogging

2005-08-12T16:07:00.000-05:00

This article was posted at the BBC site but I'm linking to the India site because they are the only ones who seem to know the difference between semen and sperm:

Swedish police dog trained to scent semen
GOTHENBURG, Sweden | August 12, 2005 8:12:06 AM IST

Swedish police may have a new assistant in rape investigations -- a dog trained to smell semen.

Captain Lena Thor of the canine unit of Vastra Gotaland County Police, Gothenburg, told the BBC that Xena, a Belgian Malinois, has not yet been tested in active service. She said the canine unit decided to train the dog after receiving a request from the investigation unit.

We have a lot of rapes which are outside, in parks, and sometimes it is hard for the victim to tell us exactly where it happened, she said.

Xena has been cross-trained to sniff out flammable liquids as well.
(UPI)

OH! MY! GOD! Journalism at its worst. The ONLY point in even THINKING about printing something like that is to address the question on EVERYBODY'S mind:

How, exactly, did they conduct the training?

Banana Republicans

2005-08-12T14:37:00.000-05:00

On the front page of today's New York Times.

I saw that today and it messed me up. I'm through with Happy Posts. I'm mad at the J. Crewers at the helm of this farce, and I'm particularly mad at the Times, which continues to perpetrate this farce.

The photo is seemingly unconnected to any story. It's just an ad for the breezy, happy world the Terrible Three inhabit. But there is a story next to it in which Bush says not to believe the hype about pulling troops out any time soon, and in which Cindy Sheehan gets several column inches (after the jump, natch).

What sickened me just as much was the headline: "Bush cites gains but sees no cuts in troops in Iraq". I feel like the Times, like any and every media outlet, needs to stop going back to the well of giving Bush's lies the time of day. The only think newsworthy about his talk yesterday was "...no cuts in troops in Iraq."

I'm not the only one who thinks so. The online version of the article has been changed to: "President Tries to Resolve Mixed Signals After Pentagon Remarks". Better.

Happy post #3

2005-08-12T01:11:00.000-05:00

What does it say about me that it is now taking entire chunks of days for me to come up with ideas for happy posts? Oh, great blog-god in the sky, please start sending more honey-coated goodness like this and less frightening, nauseating, shocking, please-let-it-be-over travesties like this (which leads to this, which features such lovelies as "how should I witness to a Jew" and "The biblical way to witness to a homosexual is not to argue with him about his lifestyle but to use the Law to bring the knowledge of sin. This will show him that he is guilty of breaking God’s holy Law, and he is damned not because of, but despite his sexual preference. The Law was made for homosexuals, as well as other lawbreakers," cause yeah, that's gonna work, and "Learn how to do what Jesus did and circumnavigate the intellect") or this ("three-point turn" my ass ... a man is dead!) (when you're done with the second "this" go look at this. And weep.)

But then I remembered the other thing I did today, which was compile the election numbers of Hyde's opponents since he started running for re-election in 1976. I got to see for myself what a remarkable job Christine Cegelis did last year, and it gave me that much more happiness and good feelings, and it will do the same for you. Rather than post all the numbers, I'll just say that only once had a Democrat running against incumbent Hyde posted more than 40%, and that was the first election following the impeachment debacle and associated revelation's of Hyde's "youthful indescretions" committed when he was well older than me and I'm an old man. Cegelis trounced all previous opponents. And she hit the ground running this time around.

Now, Lynn Sweet's article in Thursday's Sun-Times provides a note of caution in her rundown of what CC has been able to put together in recent months. While Michael in Chicago (cross-posting on the promising local (remember: all politics is local and that should include blog-itics) combined blog SoapBlox) did a good job of pointing out the major problems with Sweet's statement that "Emanuel uses one major yardstick to measure political viability, and that is fund-raising," this in particular had me perk up my ears:

Cegelis' second quarter haul was below the national average raised by Democrats and Republicans competing for open seats, according to research by the DCCC.

Okay, first, my response to people who think the DCCC is onto something with their sole criteria crap -- I'll be more interested in listening when you START POSTING GAINS IN THE HOUSE!!!

Second, with regard to her "haul" -- we already KNOW Cegelis is a viable candidate. She's got the name recognition, the committed volunteer factor, the solid team around her, and the track record of success. If she needs a little help raising money, you would be a fool not to send some of it her way. She is not a self-funder. She doesn't have lots of industry PACs begging to max out on her. She's got a lot of other intangibles, and she did an amazing thing 9 months ago. And like it or not, IL-06 will be a bellweather campaign in the region and probably even nationally. If you can replace Henry Hyde with a Democrat, you do it. Roskam is not invincible.

But most important, what the hecky darn is this about "below the national average raised by Democrats and Republicans competing for open seats"???!!!??? According to this right-wing site there are only FOUR open seats in the country. Roskam's $350K+ (from a small number of donors) obviously raises the "national average". So how far below the average is Cegelis, exactly? And how far below other dems is she? If I didn't know better, I'd think there was a little double-speak and possible subversion going on here.

If so, that makes me very angry. But not angry enough to mess up my happy mood.

Okay, enough Cegelis (go donate!) for right now. It's late. But have no fear: she'll be back.

Update: Right. No more posting after midnight. I was in a rush & misread the Freeper site, and in fact there seem to be more like eleven open House seats for 2006. Still, I'm suspicious of their calculus....

Update AGAIN: And there's this site, which shows 18 open seats. So from now on, I'll keep my fingers shut. BUT I'M STILL SUSPICIOUS!

Happy post #2

2005-08-10T21:40:00.000-05:00

Oh happy day!

You know, I was worried today, after reading about the America Supports You Freedom Walk (on September 11! Sponsored by Lockheed Martin and Subway!! Entertainment by Clint Black!!!) and Focus on the Family's pushing of reparative therapy for four-year-olds homos (featuring square peg treatment!!!!) that my happy blogness would be short lived. I mean, knowing that this stuff is a prominent part of our mainstream body politic, how can there be any hope in the world? And that doesn't even count the remarkable success of the mother loving Dukes of Hazzard movie.

But then I went to the Cegelis for Congress Meetup (hey, go register right this minute) tonight and remembered: I'm actively involved in a campaign that is all about goodness and light, progression and puppy dogs! And overcoming the Republican stranglehold on the aforementioned body politic.

And guess what: there's someone else who knows that this campaign is one to be reckoned with. Yup, that's right! The Honorable Henry Hyde!

Hyde endorses Roskam

Hyde also shed more light on his decision not to run again when his term ends next year. When he defended the seat last fall, challenger Christine Cegelis won 44 percent of the vote against him--the closest any Democrat had come against him since he first won the seat in 1974.

The district includes northeastern DuPage along with parts of Cook County. It has changed demographically over the years, but Hyde, who has been hampered by declining health including a sore back, said he believes that "properly campaigned"--with public appearances and knocking on doors--"this is a Republican district and will continue to be."

"I did none of that last time because I physically couldn't," he said. "I think the vote totals showed that. ... I didn't want to risk the 6th District going to a Democrat."

Oh, Henry! Keep talkin' like that my fiend I MEAN FRIEND! IL-06 is a-changin' and Cegelis has the mojo to take it.

Speaking of Christine, for those of you wondering why I spend so much time & energy volunteering for her campaign, check out this interview with the ePluribus media folks. She's bright, passionate, devoted to good policy and her district ... the complete opposite of the empty suits that populate so much of our political landscape. Seriously, the interview is a must-read. GO NOW!!!

You, like me, will find your happy place.

Happy Post #1

2005-08-09T16:38:00.000-05:00

In keeping with my pledge to give up Bush Porn and the Outrage Fatigue that is its inevitable result, and instead stick with optimistic things about how great things are in the world and stuff, I hereby bring you Happy Post #1:

Group fights funds for Gay Games

By Lorene Yue
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 4, 2005, 10:53 PM CDT

A conservative Christian organization wants the Illinois Bureau of Tourism to keep public funds away from the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago.

The Illinois Family Institute of Glen Ellyn has called on its supporters to persuade the state tourism department to deny a request for a grant from organizers of the sporting event. The Gay Games VII, a quadrennial-sporting event conceived in 1982 to help promote self-esteem in the gay community, will take place in July at various sites in Chicago.

"We're opposed to the use of taxpayer dollars to promote an event that celebrates homosexuality," said Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the institute. "The idea of using sport to promote homosexuality is wrong."

Oh, Illinois Family Institute. Will you ever win??

This is truly great news. Not only is IFI doing everything in their power to give publicity to the Gay Games, which will help boost crowds and participation throughout the region, country, and world, but they're completely discrediting themselves at the same time! It's a twofer!

Hmm, perhaps Peter LaBarbera really secretly wants the Gay Games to succeed beyond anyone's wildest expectations, and thus have thousands upon thousands of in-shape (and often scantily clad) men descend on various venues in Chicagoland. Because, think about it. I mean, knowing that it's illegal in Chicago to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, if the Board of Tourism were to heed IFI's call and deny the gays funding simply because of the gayness factor, it would cost the City a significantly larger amount of money to defend that crap in court. So they'll definitely be getting that grant now, I think.

The other thing that makes me smile about this new IFI/GG06 post is how IFI puts "quotation marks" around certain "words" in their press releases.

ACTION: Tell the Illinois Bureau of Tourism not to spend one dime of your taxpayer money to promote the "Gay Games"--an athletic contest for homosexuals that will be held in Chicago next July. IFI has received word that Gay Games organizers have applied for a state grant to run ads urging homosexuals from across the nation and presumably the world to come to Chicago for these Homosexuality "Games."

They always do stuff like that. Gay "marriage" for instance. It's really "hilarious" and quite "surreal."

So, cheers to the Illinois Family Institute for bringing a little more joy to all of us!

(Honestly, these guys should have been at the Second City Classic this past weekend. There was such debauchery as me drinking a "beer" after the match. Also, at one point I showered without wearing any "clothes." Seriously, though, some of the doubles teams did have matching shirts. That was pretty damn "gay.")

weeeeeeeee are the champions!

2005-08-08T21:44:00.000-05:00

Saturday, August 6, 2005

CHICAGO (SelfishHedonist News)

Randomly paired tennis partners David Carmack (Indiana) and Jonathan Kelley (Chicago) rocked the sports establishment today with two straight-set victories, giving the team a shocking first place finish in this weekend's Second City Tennis Classic. Although nobody seems to have taken photos of the pair, nor will any results be posted on the Internet any time soon (it would seem), trust this reporter that they won the D division.

Both men lost in yesterday's first round of the D Division singles tournament, a savvy move that left them sharp for doubles play. Strangers to each other until the draw party on Thursday, the two faced an early 0-4 deficit in the first round Friday afternoon against a Louiville-area team. Though lesser competitors would have been dejected, wondering whether they should even continue in the sport that seemed to lead to nothing but pain, humiliation, and wasted money, Carmack and Kelley fought back, pulling out the first set with a run of six straight games. Their victory was unfortunately short-lived, though, as the Ohio River team rediscovered their flagging confidence and won the second set handily.

The third set was notable for its unpredictability and significantly higher level of play by both teams. Up an early break, the midwesterners seemed to have the match in hand. Their opponents, however, fought back to even the score at 2-2 and the teams traded entertaining rallies and games to reach 5-all. This reporter doesn't remember the last two games of the match for some reason; suffice it to say, the wrong guys won them both and Carmack and Kelley walked off the court with a combined record of 0-3 on the day. Not the stuff of legends, to be sure.

Or was it?????

Because the D Doubles was the only event in the tournament with a round-robin format, the two men knew they had two more matches to play, both today. They also knew there was an outside chance they could still win the whole shebang (contingent on the performances of the other teams, naturally). First up: another team of previously unpaired midwesterners, featuring the #1 D singles player who soundly trounced Kelley on Friday. Kelley was openly disdainful of their chances, despite the encouragment of having gotten so close the previous afternoon. Carmack was strangely quiet, but focused. Surprisingly, the match was close early on, with neither team able to take advantage of some tortoise-paced second serves. Then, a lucky break: leading 6-5 with their opponents serving, Carmack and Kelley reached set point and won it on a double fault.

The second set progressed quite similarly. With the score tied 5-5, Kelley held serve and then faced the same server they broke to win the first set. They reached match point, and the server missed his first serve. This time, however, instead of double faulting, the second serve was in. Kelley, playing the unusual role of ad-court returner, got himself into position and blasted a forehand winner. He had won his first match in tournament play in his life. And his team was back in the mix.

The team who had beat them very comfortably won their second round match and were now 2-0. Carmack & Kelley and the other midwesterners were both 1-1, but had a better set record at that point (3-2 vs. 2-2). Kelley knew they had to win their next match in two sets (against the winless team of a Floridian and an Alabaman) and have the other midwesterners beat the Louivillians in straight sets as well. Three teams would have the same 2-1 record, but Kelley & Carmack's set record would be better than the other two teams'. The two final matches were played on adjacent courts and Kelley and Carmack were fortunate to have a spirited cheering section supporting them from on high.

Well, the first contingency was met (but not without overcoming some extremely hard serves and body shots from the Alabaman, along with their fourth straight 7-5 set). The eventual champions then looked over to see the last few points of the other match, and found their conquestors overcome by the team they had beaten that morning. In two sets!!! First place was theirs. Carmack began to weep sweet tears of victory. Kelley strutted the strut of a true champion and has yet to shut up about his serve; his return; his footwork; his overheads; and his new hardware (the trophy should arrive Wednesday). Honestly, this reporter had to leave the post-match interview. It was that bad.

Friday semen blogging

2005-08-05T11:35:00.000-05:00

In honor of my blogging hero, Rude Pundit, whose one-pundit show I am thrilled to have tickets for, I give you classic Rudeness -- Cheney style!:

Sean Hannity Loves Dick

After last night, it can no longer be denied: Sean Hannity loves Dick. He can't get enough Dick. He loves Dick so much that he wants Dick right in his face. Hannity stares straight at Dick and tells Dick how amazing Dick is. There's nothing Dick does that Hannity finds objectionable. Dick can thrust itself into places where no Dicks should be thrust, and Hannity would simply smile, happy to know Dick is there. Dick needs no justification for Sean Hannity. Just the fact that Dick exists and does everything that Dick does, well, who is mere Sean Hannity to question the ways of Dick.

Okay, it's a little dated, but the point is, RP (college professor that he is) got in a great couple of turns of phrases in...

The segment ended there and headed back to the studio where Hannity sat with Alan Colmes. Hannity demonstrated that not only does he love Dick, but he's a cocksucker, too. When Colmes tried to insist that perhaps the Vice President hadn't been very nice to Howard Dean, Hannity leapt on the desk and screamed, "Stop it, stop it. Look at my teeth. They are gleaming with semen, Vice Presidential semen, and I love the shine." Colmes sunk a little lower into himself before announcing that they would be back with more on the disappearance of that white girl in Aruba. It was par for the course. The show had demonstrated how newsworthy the interview was by spending the first thirty minutes of the hour on the Michael Jackson verdict.

Does it get any better than that?

Bush porn

2005-08-04T10:19:00.000-05:00

Outrage fatigue is a real phenomenon, in spite of the Onion's article about it last year. Watching this administration, and the Republicans in general, while coming from a point of view that is rational, or humanist, or progressive, you start become inured to it. It's like porn - you have to take a break from it from time to time or you'll stop feeling any genuine reaction to it.

And yet, there are the addicts. Bush porn, like any porn, can trigger a sensor in the brains of those not smart enough to stay away from it, to the point that the LACK of any outrageous statement or action by this administration leads to a sense of incompleteness. Like NFL addicts after the Super Bowl. Fortunately, we never have to go long without our fix.

For me it started in 1999, when it became clear that the money that had been raised for Bush, plus his name recognition, plus the fact that he won two elections for governor of the increasingly scary state of Texas, would give the man an almost insurmountable lead in the GOP primary, and that HE was the man that the entire party, basically, was comfortable rallying around because they so desperately needed a win after the long national nightmare of peace & prosperity under Clinton. The 2000 debates. The stolen election. The "uniter" naming John Ashcroft my attorney general. The unilateral disengagement from international treaties (without any public discussion). The tax cut/deficit shell game. The 2002 elections. Naming Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission. And of course, the rush to war.

Oh, and Abu Ghraib.

And his loyalty to Karl Rove.

And the gay marriage crap.

Point being: when the president gives his endorsement to "intelligent design" I am now like, "ho hum." When the president spouts such inanities as "grim reminder that we are at war" when 14 marines die in one attack, I am merely nauseated. When it becomes increasingly clear that Bush made a fortune off of a steroid-riddled team, and that he was likely aware of the riddled nature of said team, and yet that aspect of the story is ignored ... it's just like watching hour three of a four-hour long wall-to-wall adult film: wake me up when something surprising happens.

So for the foreseeable future, my postings to this blog will be porn-free (except for Friday semen blogging of course). It will be about positive developments in the world, and will ignore the snuff-film-in-the-room that is the Bush administration. Unless something truly, truly, truly outrageous happens, I pledge chastity and positivity.

Wish me luck...