We Won...

The Democrats gain the Senate and the House. Maybe we can actually get some oversight on the Executive Branch now.

November surprise?...

feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/42997163/2006...

Given the fact that we own the Iraqi government, and the fact that we seem to have veto power over the composition of the court, I don't doubt for a moment that our government is behind this. The question is, are the American people dumb enough to fall for it again or have they gained a bit of insight into the actions of the Bush Administration. One thing that makes me hopeful is the fact that a large number of people caught on when gas prices started plummeting and (right or wrong) realized there was a good chance it was a gimmick by the Bushies to influence the elections.

New Jersey Republican Party Newspaper Endorses Kean for Senate...

www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029...

Now seriously, I get that the Courier Post is the right-wing newspaper for South Jersey, but what planet are they living on? The Republicans in New Jersey are just as corrupt as the Democrats, if not more. The only reason they may be a bit less vocal about it is because they've been in the political wilderness for so long in this state. Look at Burlington County, they are in control here and they're even more corrupt than the state Democrats. Give them a little power on the state level and you'll see what happens.

It doesn't really matter though what Kean will do about the supposed state corruption because he's not running for a state office. He's running for the Senate. Right now, the Senate is run by the corrupt Republican Party. The only way to stop that corruption is to give the Democrats control of the Senate so they can start investigations. No matter how much of a "New Jersey Republican" Kean is, the second he joins the Senate he will become a Republican Republican and will start helping the national party cover up its own corruption.

No matter what the New Jersey Republican Party says through its mouthpiece the Courier Post, we need a new direction in this country and the only way we're going to accomplish this is by voting for Democrats across the board. I don't care how much the Courier Post loves Kean, or how different he supposedly is from every other Republican in the world (if he's so different why is Bush campaigning for him?), he's a Republican and he's the last thing we need in this state right now.

www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029...

Ah yes, and here they...uh...endorse a candidate for the 1st District. Sort of... This kind of lukewarm half assed endorsement just goes to prove how beholden the Courier Post is to the state Republican Party. They make it very clear that they're only endorsing him because he's running essentially unopposed. Given an alternative they'd be trumpeting how little baggage he has and how he's so much better than Andrews.

While we certainly endorse U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-Haddon Heights, in his quest to continue representing New Jersey's 1st Congressional District, it's unfortunate for voters in his district that they have no choice in the matter.

Uh oh, they'd better watch out or Andrews might start blushing. What a rousing and passionate endorsement they've given him. "Well, we really wish there was a Republican candidate so we could endorse him, but since there isn't I guess we endorse Andrews." If Sexton wasn't running against the corrupt Jim Saxton, do you think the Courier Post would be bemoaning the lack of a challenger in that race? Or do you think they'd still be issuing the rousing endorsement for Representative Freedom Fries that they're sure to come out with anyway?

Good for New Jersey...

www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061025...

I say good for Corzine. The state doesn't need that money if it forces them to lie to the kids.

requires them to describe sex outside marriage as potentially mentally and physically damaging.

What is it about conservative lies? Why do they always have to claim that things they don't like cause disease? At least it's not cancer this time. This is right up there with "abortion causes breast cancer" and "stem cells cause cancer".

Sex within marriage can be just as damaging physically and mentally. In the end though, if it causes you physical or mental harm you're doing it wrong. And, ultimately, if you're doing it wrong it's the fault of one or both of the participants, not the fault of sex.

Conservatives questioned the decision.

"We should take a step back and try a new approach," said Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life. "What we have now is not working, as reflected by the rates of abortions and high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases."

I'm truly shocked that conservatives support something that is tailored directly to their own prejudices (though it seems they have no problems personally with having pre-marital sex given their own, sometimes very deviant, sexual histories).

October Surprise?...

thinkprogress.org/2006/10/16/nowrasteh-paramount-stone

In theaters...no doubt somewhere around 10/08. October Surprise anyone?

40 Chessboards!?!?!...

feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/37809595/2006_10_15...

Ok, seriously, what freaking planet does Tony Snow live on? He's going to have a hard enough time convincing most Americans that Bush is of average intelligence, why start out trying to convince them he's a damn genius?

And who the hell plays chess at the gym?

Swift boating Sestak...

blog.citizensforethics.org/node/197

So nice for the guy with no military service to despearately try to "swift boat" a veteran. Kinda reminds me of another election...

I'm Rick Santorum and I approve this message...

www.philly.com/mld/philly/15816458.htm

Oh well, when you put it that way, who wouldn't vote for the guy? Forget for a minute that he equated gay sex to men molesting dogs. Forget for a minute that he did say that women shouldn't work if they have kids. Forget for a minute that he's militantly anti-women's rights. None of that matters because he loves his kids and happens to agree with Bono on something. Why don't we just nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize and call him the next Jimmy freaking Carter? Because we all know that Bono is the only voice for liberals and we all must walk in lock step with his every proclamation.

Rather than view his zeal for confronting the most controversial issues of the day as refreshing or even admirable for an elected official, critics see a cheeky ideologue.

Oh yes, so great that he likes to confront controversial issues. So admirable that he considers it his honor to champion government discrimination against gays and workplace and legal discrimination against women. So refreshing that he doesn't feel the need to hide his bigotry and instead wears it as a badge of honor. You know who else had a zeal for confronting controversial issues, Hitler. Maybe the Inquirer could run a piece on him pointing out his love of painting.

This is the stupidest, most useless, piece of fluff campaign press release I've ever seen in a reputable newspaper. We're already starting to see the fruits of the paper falling into the hands of far right-wing Republican operatives.

The fact of the matter is that the "republican revolution" is over. The party has defaulted on the "Contract with America" (or was it the Contract on America?) The "revolution" has been destroyed by greed and corruption. They have become everything they wrongly accused the Democrats of being in 94 and oh so much more. They've consolidated power to an extent never before seen in the modern history of this country.

No mention is ever made that part of the Contract with America was term limits. They promised they'd take two terms (six terms for Representatives) and then leave peacefully, yet it's been 12 years and they're running for re-election.

I wonder if they'll do a similar fluff piece on Casey, somehow I doubt it.

And just for comparision, here is the piece on Casey:
www.philly.com/mld/philly/15822585.htm

He's just there because he's his father's son. He's "bland", boring, unforceful. Unlike Santorum the rockstar.

He's only notable for not being Rick Santorum as if he doesn't have any selling points of his own.

People are only voting for him because he's not Santorum. Somehow he both won an election with the most votes ever in Pennsylvania and simultaneously enjoys the lowest name recognition ever.

A victory also would be a vindication of sorts for Casey's father, who famously was shunned for his antiabortion views, banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention.

Ok seriously, Shut The HELL Up about Casey's father. He was NOT shunned for being anti-abortion. It DID NOT HAPPEN. He was shunned because he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate for President, Bill Clinton. Bottom line. What's next, a mention of Gore claiming to have invented the internet? Clinton having Vince Foster murdered?

Live from an undisclosed location...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cheney

"Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked about his "dark side."

"Yes, the unthinkable, like that stuff I just made up to justify invading Iraq so my company's stock could go through the roof". Cheney then ripped the head off a young kitten and drank its blood "Mmm, the blood of the young really gets the juices flowing."

Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not "in its last throes," as he said in May 2005.

No shit, Sherlock. Most of us figured that out before you said it. There's no medal for getting it right a year and a half late.

"I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said.

Again, most of us realized this was crap long ago, good of Dick to join us albeit several years (and thousands of lives) late. Forgive me if I'm not impressed that he's finally coming to these conclusions when it appears his bungling is going to cost his party the elections.

"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.

Yes, where would we be. Well, several thousand of our young men and women would still be alive, I'm sure their parents are really glad that didn't happen. Many thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, I'm sure their families are cheering the fact that we didn't let their lives get in the way of Halliburton's stock price. We'd have most likely caught Osama if we hadn't taken our eyes off the prize and removed most of our special forces from Afghanistan so they could piss around Iraq and commit war crimes.

And of course let's not forget Saddam. He'd still be an impotent dictator who couldn't even exercise authority in a large portion of his country. Yeah, that was totally worth all the lives and billions of dollars and allowing Osama to remain free.

The vice president said the reports were about as valid "as the ones that said I was in charge of everything."

He then sat George Bush on his lap and drank a glass of water while Bush recited Mary Had a Little Lamb.

"I think we've done a pretty good job of securing the nation against terrorists. You know, we're here on the fifth anniversary (of the 9/11 attacks). And there has not been another attack on the United States. And that's not an accident, because we've done a hell of a job here at home," Cheney said in the broadcast interview. "I don't know how much better you can do than no, no attacks for the past five years."

Unless of course you still remember all those anthrax tainted letters that had everyone scared to open their mailboxes. But of course you don't remember that because the media's done its job of distracting you and making sure you don't remember.

And of course the lovely liberal media once again forgets to remind everyone how Cheney's statement is a bullshit lie.

Cheney disputed that he ever directly said Saddam had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

This would be the perfect gotcha moment for the media. Really stick it to Cheney by pointing out all the times he actually did say that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. But, yet again, the damn liberal media lets it go.

In an hourlong interview, Cheney also:

• Acknowledged the recent rise of violence in Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban, saying the U.S. military would be in the country "for some considerable" time. He said the hunt for bin Laden remains a priority for the administration.

Yes, such a priority that the government abandoned the whole thing to concentrate on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Osama or 9/11.

_Said he still disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision in June that the administration overstepped its authority in holding suspected terrorists without trials or Geneva Conventions protections. He declined to discuss specific treatment of detainees, but said information gleaned from interrogations "helped us prevent attacks against the United States."

Yes, criminals often disagree when the court finds against them.

_Declined to criticize plans by Republicans to spend millions on negative campaign ads against Democrats. "I hope our guys have good hard-hitting advertisements. Certainly, the opposition does," he said. He predicted Republicans would keep control of both House and Senate.

And the captain of the Titanic said the ship was unsinkable. And the Hussein regime was still releasing reports saying the Americans were on the retreat even as we were bombing their asses from one side of Baghdad to another and Saddam was cowering in a hole.

As if we needed another reason...

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060909/pl_nm/bush_...

Remember this story...Bush has said in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans win in November he will once again try to destroy Social Security. And an emboldened Republican Congress, released from the worry of reelection for a couple years, will be all too willing to give him the blank check they've always given him.

This, in and of itself, is reason enough not to vote for Republicans in November. Added to all the other crimes Bush will be able to commit against this country in his final years with a complacent Congress, voting for Republicans is unconscionable.

Path to 9/11...or Path to Republican win in November?...

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/05/true-or-false/#more-4331

I just get angrier and angrier every time I read more about this shit. This is a blatant attempt to influence peoples' voting patterns two months before election day (and on the anniversary of a very emotional event in American history). People will now go around claiming that Clinton was wholly and completely responsible for 9/11 and they'll use this crap as proof.

Imagine for a second, just a second, if NBC put out a documentary (an actual, fact based, documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and written by an actual legitimate historian/journalist). Of course such a documentary would place a good deal of the blame on the Bush Administration. The conservatives would have a freaking fit. They'd be burning down NBC headquarters.

Meanwhile, the supposed pro-Democrat ABC network is giving Bush a big sloppy kiss of an election year gift and the conservatives are acting like it's the bestest thing in the whole entire world. But come tomorrow they'll still label ABC a liberal front group.

And does anyone at ABC (owned by Disney) remember the outright hatred directed at Disney from the right when they dared to treat their employees fairly regardless of sexual orientation? Anybody? It's like the entire media has abused wife syndrome, the more the right beats them the more they think they deserve it and move further to the right. What they don't realize is that the conservatives don't hit them because of anything they do. The conservatives hit them because they like to and because it fits in well with their narrative of the way of the world.

If the conservatives admitted that they control the entire country, the media, and the schools they'd have nothing to bitch about and they'd quickly fall apart. They lack even the beginnings of a coherent agenda for the country so they compensate by bitching about how they can't get their way on anything. They've run this country with an iron fist for 6 years and, with few exceptions, have gotten everything they wanted. And yet they act like somehow the Democrats (who can't even get lobbying jobs on K Street) have any power to stop them.

Not paying attention...

www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/04/hijacking-911

Anybody who believes this movie is an idiot, an absolute idiot.

Seriously, if you buy any of the lies put forth by ABC you've obviously not been paying attention for the past 5 years. And you most definitely did not read the 9/11 report.

Sad...

www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1732439.htm

Stung through the heart by a stingray?!?!...

Racists...

www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060827

No, really? White Supremacits are the ones waving Confederate flags and screaming slurs at women and children? I'd have never guessed it.

Nobody ever doubted that there was a significant outside presence in this. The whackos always come out of the woodwork for shit like this. The problem is that nobody on the side of the ordinance is kicking these people out. If I wanted my movement to be respectful I'd be kicking these Nazi fuckers' asses.

Let's kill the schools to save them...

www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060813...

The answer to failing public schools is not to take away all their funding. I'm not quite sure why the government should be subsidizing the failing Catholic school system anyway. This whole thing seems to boil down to the diocese begging the government to bail them out after years of so-so education and outrageous tuition drove many of their students to public schools.

This is going to create a situation where parents who want their children to be indoctrinated in a religious philosophy will be able to send their children to private school while those who don't want their kids coming home and saying all gays are going to hell will have to leave their children in horrible hell holes stripped of all funding and quickly falling apart. It's going to be the most obvious public sanction of a particular religious philosophy. How many Jewish or Muslim all-day schools are there in this country? A few Jewish ones in New York maybe, perhaps a few Muslim ones in Detroit. To the best of my knowledge most religious Jewish children attend after school Hebrew schools akin to CCD in Catholic Schools. I don't recall even seeing any all-day Jewish schools in this area and there is quite a large Jewish community around here.

This is going to create a situation where the Christian faith will be advanced to the detrement of the rest of the community. It's going to throw the entire idea of public education on its head (public schools were created to be a religion-neutral place where all children regardless of race, income or religion could enjoy a good education free of prejudice or hatred). With vouchers, those kids who are not religious will be forced to attend public schools with ever dwindling student populations (all those who are religious will leave) and will suffer because of the lack of funding. The very idea of public schools will become extinct. We'll end up with a situation where the rich and religious will be able to get the best education money can buy and the poor and secular will be left behind.

And how about this quote:
"I think it's good for the kids in Camden, not so good for the people who worked very hard to buy a house in a good area with a good school system," Cinnaminson's Grace Porrini said.

Yes, how dare those people who don't make enough to live in Cinnaminson expect to have a decent education. It's enough to almost make someone support the vouchers just to shut her stupid, Republican elitist mouth up.

More lies...

www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812/...

First off there's one fact that needs to be stated: the two options for the frozen embryos are getting thrown in the trash or being used to further scientific research and save millions of lives. Those are the only two options. There simply aren't enough people in the world to "adopt" all of them and carry them to term. That doesn't even take into account that most people are perfectly able to conceive on their own and don't need to "adopt" anyone's unwanted embryo.

Let's sort it out. No serious person would deny that a human embryo is nascent human life.

Funny, I thought that was the entire crux of the debate. The whole reason we're having this debate (abortion and stem cells) is because of a difference of opinion on when life actually begins. One side has decades of scientific research and provable evidence, the other doesn't. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which side is which. Because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on he immediately tries to dismiss the opposition as not serious. Nice try.

If we're going to start claiming that an embryo is as good as a human life where does it end? Do we criminalize masturbation because those sperm may some day fertilize an egg? Do we have police officers watching over girls during ovulation making sure they're trying their hardest to get pregnant since the alternative is letting that egg go to waste? If someone murders a woman is he or she guilty of killing every potential child that woman may ever have based on the eggs still inside her? Same question when talking about abortion, if you abort a girl (and it's considered murder) are you guilty of murdering every child she would have otherwise had?

To create human life solely to experiment on it and destroy it for the purpose of enhancing the well being of other human lives is bound to raise moral and ethical concerns for some people.

Nobody's suggesting creating new embryos for use in stem cell therapy, there are plenty ready to be discarded like garbage at in-vitro clinics across the nation.

Had Bush failed to veto the stem-cell bill and allowed federal funding of this morally problematic research, the personal morality of the writer and others sharing his view would have been imposed on those who believe the status quo is morally appropriate and should not be overturned.

Funding research that scientific research agrees could save millions is no more a push of personal morality than funding research on new medical procedures (Christian Scientists don't believe in medicine) or psychological medications (Scientologists don't believe in Psychology).

Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University is the only individual I have seen who both supports the writer's view and has addressed the underlying moral issue. He says, simply, human life has no particular value.

One doesn't have to believe that life has no value to agree with stem cell research. There is an active debate on when life begins and if you don't believe life begins at single-cell mode this has nothing to do with the value, or lack thereof, of human life.



www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812...

Embryonic stem cells are obtained from living human embryos and require the destruction of the embryo.

Which would otherwise end up where? In a trashcan? An incinerator? Certainly they won't end up becoming living, breathing human beings.

A human embryo is the early stage of human life.

That's far from an undisputed fact.

Treatments using embryonic stem cells have not produced any clinical successes. Rather, they tend to create tumors in animal studies. The public should ask why the media do not cover such results.

Is this the new right-wing Christian mantra? Stem cells cause cancer? I must say, that's a new one for me. They just keep coming up with weirder and weirder excuses. I guess this important scientific research must have been conducted by the same doctor who determined that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer. These guys should stop picking on cancer patients and pick another horrid disease to blame on things they don't agree with.

Joe Lieberman...

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/2/14247/70377

This says more about Lieberman than anything else ever could.

Conflicted...

www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-07282006-690092.html

I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, the illegal immigrant situation has become a huge problem in Riverside in the past 10 years. They are causing a great strain on township services and a lot of people are understandably pissed off about it. On the other hand, the supporters of the law don't exactly do themselves any favors by acting like assholes in a public setting.

"This is not Ricki Lake or Jerry Springer," township Solicitor Douglas Heinold told the crowd as the pro-ordinance attendees shouted down anyone who objected to the ordinance.

Resident Steve Edwards led a "Go back, go back" chant as he pointed to several rows of Latino residents who had come to voice their displeasure with the ordinance.

"If you need help rounding them up, I'll be ready tonight. I'll go visit them tonight," Edwards said of the illegal immigrants living in the township.

This kind of activity doesn't make me want to take your side in any argument. That last quote is a threat of violence and the police should seriously considering following him to make sure he doesn't kill somebody. Besides, I doubt he's going to be checking papers so what's to stop him from accidentally rounding up a legal resident...or does he think that anyone hispanic should be deported regardless of their immigration status?

I've found it quite hard to keep up with this thing. So I'm catching up on lost time.

Goddamn liberal media...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060603/ap_on_go_co/democratic_...

Ok, forget for the time being that nobody in the media worried during the 1994 election cycle that all the Republican committee chairs might be hardcore right-wing zealots (which they were, and are). Forget even that there are far more powerful conservative Democrats in Congress than there are liberal Republicans (I don't see a Republican Leadership Council dedicated to destroying everything the Republicans stand for like the DLC is dedicated to turning the Dems against all traditional Democratic values). The very title of this article is a goddamn lie and they admit as much in the article. The title is very clear "Prospective Democratic chairs all liberal"...ALL...every single one...


I think it's pretty clear the message conveyed by that title. It's not vague or confusing. ALL Liberals. And yet if you actually read the article they mention two non-liberals up for chairmanships on some very important committees. Let's look at them, shall we?

Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, who would run the Agriculture Committee, is anti-abortion and as pro-gun as practically anyone in the House.

No, you didn't read that wrong. A bona-fide frothing at the mouth conservative moron up for the chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee (a committee with a considerable budget and the responsibility for a very important area of legislation). I don't know what the AP's definition of "liberal" is, but traditionally being anti-abortion and anti-gun control doesn't make one a liberal. In the reality based world it puts one far to the right of the average American.

Let's meet the other member of the all liberal Democratic chair class...

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri is a longtime hawk in line to lead the Armed Services Committee.

Wow, I hope he doesn't hang a picture of Stalin in the committee chambers...

Of all the committees, I'd think the Dems would want to put a non-hawk on the Armed Services Committee.

And lo and behold the very last paragraph sheds some light on these so strange committee chair choices...

Republicans award chairmanships based on the evaluation of a leadership committee that takes into account leadership fealty, fundraising prowess and other factors. Democrats would award would-be chairmanships strictly by seniority.

Wow, and here I was thinking committee chairs were being chosen based on who had most recently sworn fealty to Hugo Chavez. What a relief. Too bad they buried that at the very end of the story since it proves the entire story to have been one big, festering lie. Turns out the Dems choose their chairs based on who has the most experience and...well...the Republicans make their choices based on who kisses the most ass. Well, I guess the whole story couldn't be surprising.

Sore losers...

atrios.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_atrios_archive.html#114558...

This is the model for conservative behavior now. I'm seriously worried that he'll try to take the government by force.

Everyone pay close attention, if the Republican candidate loses in '08 this is what will happen. The Republicans have gotten quite used to winning and they're not going to give it up without a fight. Sadly they own the military so they might just succeed in destroying the democracy we've worked so hard to build over the past centuries.

Stupid liberal, catholicism is for conservatives...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_re_eu/vatican...

Despite the Vatican's opposition to condoms, a senior cardinal said in comments published Friday that condoms were the "lesser evil" when considering the scourge of AIDS.

How nice of him. It's sad when even the "liberal" alternative is this wishy washy about such an important issue.

In the wide-ranging interview, Martini also suggested that even single women could be implanted with frozen embryos if the alternative is letting the embryos die or be discarded.

Wow, even those useless single women? What a liberal!

He voiced support for in vitro technology using zygotes — fertilized eggs in which the chromosomes of the egg and sperm haven't yet combined — rather than more fully developed embryos.

He said that seemed allowable because in the zygote stage — which occurs 18-24 hours after fertilization — "there are still no signs of singularly definable human life."

Better consult the Vatican talking points, looks like someone's getting dangerously close to a personal visit from the Pope.

However, he acknowledged that in abortion, there were cases when the life of the mother was at risk where abortion might be considered the "lesser evil."

This is the huge problem with "liberal" catholics, especially clergy. They know what is right but they have to bend over backwards to keep the Vatican happy. He should just realize that no matter what he does the church will hate him. They have no use for liberals in the modern church.

"In such cases, it seems that moral theology has always supported the principle of the legitimate defense and the lesser evil, even if it concerns a reality that shows the dramatic fragility of the human condition," he said.

Looks like someone should visit El Salvador so he can see first hand what the catholic church's opinion on abortion is.

In El Salvador a woman has to be rendered infertile (her falopian tube has to burst), or the embryo has to die, before they'll terminate an ectopic pregnancy (for those who don't know, an ectopic pregnancy is where the embryo implants in the falopian tube and begins to grow. The falopian tube is as thick as a pencil so I assume you can all imagine what the chances of that embryo surviving to the point where it can be born are.)
The bishop down there lobbied heavily for the new law. He's the bishop who replaced Romero, the "liberal" bishop who was murdered by the same people who are no doubt allied with the church on this law.

In the top ten worst movie ideas EVER...

ww.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/leisure.startrek.reut...

This is going to bomb so bad Bush'll probably start a war with the production company...

This'll make Star Trek - Nemesis look like Mission Impossible II...

I promise you, this'll be a failure on par with Ben Afleck playing Jack Ryan in that last Tom Clancy movie. You try bringing in new actors to play Kirk and Spock and it's not going to work. And if you try to make Leonard Nemoy and William Shatner play younger versions of themselves it'll just be laughable.

Texas Justice...

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060322/us_nm/bars_dc

Seriously? Arresting people for being drunk in bars? WTF?

What's next? Arresting people for being naked in the shower? Gotta protect the children after all.

And I thought Republicans were all about freedom and the government not intruding unnecessarily into people's lives. I guess that's only true if you're running a religious cult/militia...or bombing abortion clinics.

Idiots...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060317/ap_on_re_us/st_patrick_s_day

Dunleavy set off a firestorm this week when he told the newspaper: "If an Israeli group wants to march in New York, do you allow Neo-Nazis into their parade? If African Americans are marching in Harlem, do they have to let the Ku Klux Klan into their parade?"

Because you know it's totally the same thing. When was the last time the gay Irish-American community attempted to exterminate the Irish from the face of the earth?

To suggest there's any similarity is to discount the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis (and now at the hands of neo-Nazis) and the suffering of African Americans at the hands of the Klan. Both are genocidal organizations, Irish American homosexuals are not a genocidal organization.

Referring to the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization, Dunleavy said, "People have rights. If we let the ILGO in, is it the Irish Prostitute Association next?"

Prostitution is illegal and is an occupation, homosexuality is neither of those things. But maybe if they were engaged in illegal activity that would work in their favor, I'm sure they let Sinn Fein march under their own banner.

It's unfortunate that conservative Irish Catholics, and the Church itself, hold such sway in this. It saddens me that my heritage is being used to discriminate.

Too close for comfort...

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/17/115226/185

This is really too close for comfort. 4 votes away from privatizing Social Security. And the thing that amazes me most is that every Democrat voted against it. Even Lieberman, Bush's man in the Senate, voted against it. Even the other DLC DINOs voted against it. Thankfully there are still 7 Republicans who care about seniors (or see the disadvantage this would put them at come election time). Evidently Santorum didn't get the memo though since he faces a tough race against a very conservative Democrat (too conservative, he's the Casey in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) this year.

Only Bush can damage our relations with the world...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports...

Yeah, because only Bush can damage our relations with the Middle East and the rest of the world.


Bush should just give up, the kool-aid drinkers aren't even buying it this time.

Milosovic...

www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/11/milosovic.obit

He got better than he deserved. He was allowed to live the majority of his life in comfort while perpetrating horrible crimes against humanity. When it seemed justice would finally be served he dies.

The law of unintended consequences...or is it?...

atrios.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_atrios_archive.html#1140715...

That's a hell of a jump to make: Judicial review=abortion rights.

Perhaps he's on the right track though. Why give them democracy at all? In 200 years they might end up electing themselves a Bush and what kind of mess would they be in then? Better to just scrap the whole thing.

Freudian slip...

atrios.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_atrios_archive.html#1140709...

Wow, how true...

Oops...

www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/02/19/bidenIWont...

I didn't know Biden was in such a bad situation...

Wow, Republican hypocrisy, who knew?...

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11283911

Wow, you'd think after awhile all the hypocrisy and lying from the Republicans wouldn't surprise me so much but yet it always does. These are the people who run our country, they control all three branches of government. Starr was, and still is, a huge part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. He wasted years and millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing a personal vendetta against Clinton for the Republicans. And the worst part is that the whole Clinton investigation was supposed to be about perjury and lying. I guess it's only a bad thing if the Democrats are doing it. I hope they nail him to the wall, Clinton lost his license to practice law in his home state and he didn't really do anything wrong other than have an affair with a consenting adult and lie about it to protect his family. If this is proven, the least that should happen is for Starr to lose his license and really that should only be the beginning. If they gain a conviction he should do hard time.

Oh that Ann...

www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/ann-coulter-at-cpac...

Oh that Ann, such a kidder.

Last I checked joking about killing an ex President and five of the nine Supreme Court Justices breaks a few laws. But of course she's a Republican so nothing will come of it. I wonder if they'll be in such a forgiving mood if anybody makes this joke about Bush after he's finally out of office? Or if they'd have been so forgiving if someone had said this of Reagan? I think that person would find themselves in jail (or Guantanamo jailed as an enemy combatant).

Coulter on the Holocaust:

"Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions."

Oh yeah, those NY Timers and Ted Rall. Ann on the other hand only calls for terrorists destroying the NY Times building (and the Supreme Court), and not Israel, so that's ok I guess.

In typical Republican fashion Frist refuses to denounce her comment giving a bullshit reason. They told him what she said, there is no legitimate reason for someone to call Arabs ragheads, it's an easy call. Just as there's no legitimate reason for a white person to call a black person the n word, Frist can't exactly hide against the claim that she could have meant it in a non-insulting way (and besides, this is the woman who called for the entire Arab world to be forcibly converted to Christianity so we all know what she meant (and even Bill with his supposed medical degree should know what she meant).

Huzza what?...

mediamatters.org/items/200602090005

Seriously, this guy thinks Jimmy Carter's a "waste of skin"? What world is he living on? Carter has done more as an ex-President than any in modern history. What was Reagan doing before he died? What has Bush I done other than make millions off his political connections and occasionally help out in a crisis to look good (and I'm sure he'll soon be joined by his son). The closest we have to Carter is Clinton and even his accomplishments pale in comparison to Carter. Not only does he help build houses for Habitat (he even has his own yearly work project that helps build houses across the globe) but he also helps contribute to the cause of peace all around the world. Just because Beck's idea of being a worthwhile human being doesn't involve actually helping anyone who's not a millionaire doesn't mean he can honestly call Carter a useless waste of skin. I disagree with Bush, he's contributed absolutely nothing to the future wellbeing of this world or its people, but I can't honestly say he's never done anything of note.

Call it a long hiatus...

Wow, it's been a long time since I posted last. That Coulter post was the first one since November. Events have conspired to keep me away.

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3637038.html

In recent news I missed mentioning the passing of Coretta Scott King. This nation has truly lost a great American, one of the best we've ever had. She managed to leave a huge mark for good on this country and she will be missed.

Crazy Ann strikes again...

www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/01/04/...

I so enjoy reading Ann Coulter's articles, it gives me a great amount of insight into the thought patterns of the "mainstream" right. It's also fun to watch the rantings of a woman who thinks her own right to vote should be taken away (go ahead Ann, nobody's forcing you to vote).

In pointing out that an insignificant number of Bush Administration warrants were rejected or changed (around 3% of the total, I bet most lawyers would kill for a success rate like that in court) she brings up a good question (I'm sure it's purely accidental), why is the FISA court suddenly rejecting and amending warrants? Was the court suddenly bought out by the ACLU? Did someone slip some LSD into their tea that morning? Or perhaps Bush's requests have been so off the wall, so beyond the pale of reasonable search and seizure, that this court that never rejected a warrant suddenly rejected one.

I think this little fact speaks far more about the criminal nature of the Bush Administration than it does the court.

By the way, she brings up another interesting quandary (again, purely by accident I'm sure). She seems to think it's ok to break the law in violation of an explicit court order if you don't agree with the court's decision. So I guess she'd have been fine with Al Gore taking up residence in the White House, after the famous debacle that was Bush v. Gore in 2000, because he didn't agree with the court's decision (maybe she'd even be willing to take on his case, she is a lawyer after all. One can only imagine what law school granted her a diploma but nevertheless she is still a lawyer).

If the President doesn't have to follow court orders, from a court that sides with him far more than any court has ever sided with a specific plaintiff ever in the history of the world, why should anyone have to follow a court order ever? Why should the Judiciary exist at all as a branch of government, or a check on legislative and executive power, if it can be ignored at will?