Tuesday, May 16, 2006


I wonder if good ol' Jimmie Dobson knows about this.....(hope he chokes on it)

From the Associated Press via Yahoo News:

Judge Strikes Down Ga. Ban on Gay Marriage

By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer

A judge has struck down Georgia's ban on same-sex marriages, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a provision of the state constitution that limits ballot questions to a single subject.

The ruling by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell had been eagerly awaited by gay-rights supporters who filed the court challenge in November 2004, soon after the constitutional ban was approved.

Russell said the state's voters must first decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can be asked to decide whether same-sex marriages should be banned.

"People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place — although not marriage," she wrote. "The single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote."

Russell said "procedural safeguards such as the single-subject rule rarely enjoy public support."

"But ultimately it is those safeguards that preserve our liberties, because they ensure that the actions of government are constrained by the rule of law," the judge wrote.

Jack Senterfitt, who challenged the amendment on behalf of gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said the ruling "protects the right of voters to make independent decisions on each independent issue."

Gov. Sonny Perdue said the decision ran counter to the voice of Georgia voters in defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"The people of Georgia knew exactly what they were doing when an overwhelming 76 percent voted in support of this constitutional amendment," he said. "It is sad that a single judge has chosen to reverse this decision."

Perdue said the state is considering appealing the decision to the Georgia Supreme Court.

Ya know who ya are.
Update on the "project" soon.

Thursday, May 04, 2006


I was an anti-war 17 year old....I'll never forget this 'til my dying day.

From the Boston Globe:

Why Kent State is important today

THIRTY-SIX years ago today, Ohio National Guardsmen shot 13 college students at Kent State University who were protesting US incursions into Cambodia as part of the Vietnam War. Nine victims survived, including one who is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. Four students -- Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, Bill Schroeder, and Sandy Scheuer -- were killed.

The students were unarmed, and the closest was more than 60 feet away from the Guard at the time of the shooting. There was no warning shot; the National Guard never issued an apology; and no one ever spent a day in jail for the killings despite the fact that the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, appointed by President Nixon in 1970, found the shootings to be ''unwarranted and inexcusable."

Yearly, since the tragedy, Kent State students, alumni, and others have met on the anniversary of the shooting to reflect and remember. Alan Canfora, who was shot by the Guard, says, ''The students today act as the conscience of the college, and the country . . . just like the students did in 1970."

This year's memorial will come, as the last three have, in the midst of a war that has become increasingly divisive. While the memory of Kent State and other violent clashes from that time between protesters and authorities did not deter the incumbent president from leading the country into another unpopular war, it is important to honor Kent State's spirit of dissent and what it taught about the bloody consequences of intense division.

Halfway across the country, the lessons of Kent State are taught each semester in debate classes at Emerson College. J. Gregory Payne, associate professor of organizational and political communication and a Kent State historian, has been teaching students about history, advocacy, and rhetoric through the lens of Kent State for decades.

According to Payne, remembering this tragedy is important because ''Kent State is not about the past -- it's about the future."

Consider the similarities: In 1970, just as today, we had an unpopular president carrying out an unpopular war for questionable reasons.

Richard Nixon and George W. Bush embody many of the same divisive characteristics. Bush tells the world: ''You are with us or you are with the terrorists." Nixon's public statement after the shootings blamed the students: ''When dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy."

Again our civil liberties are being threatened. Bush has ordered the wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant and holds detainees indefinitely without trial; Nixon was spying on student activists and what he called ''domestic radicals."

But, perhaps the most telling comparison is the sharp division within the nation, both then and now. Americans are now, as we were then, split to the core on matters of war and peace, life and death, and cultural values. The President's Commission concluded it was ''the most divisive time in American history since the civil war." Bill Schroeder's parents received signed letters after the shooting saying, among other things, that their ''riot-making, communist son" deserved to die.

Today antiwar protesters are unfairly discredited by the administration as they were in 1970. When Cindy Sheehan took antiwar positions after her 24-year-old son, Casey Sheehan, died in Iraq, she was smeared by pundits like Bill O'Reilly, who said she was a pawn of ''far-left elements that are using her" and that Sheehan was ''dumb" enough to let them do it.

Of course, the absence of a draft now and its presence then may explain why the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War had a greater intensity then it does now. Still, as the protests in New York City last week indicate, the longer the war in Iraq drags on, the more vehement the opposition seems to get.

Musicians, once again, are singing songs of dissent. Last Friday Neil Young, who in 1970 wrote ''Ohio" in reaction to the shootings, began streaming a new antiwar album ''Living with War" for free on his website. Days later, Pearl Jam also released an album made up entirely of protest music.

My generation can't ignore the lessons of Kent State. The same mindset and failure in leadership that led National Guardsmen to fire at students of the same age and from the same Ohio hometowns is similar to what led US soldiers to torture detainees in Iraq.

Kent State should remind us of what happens when a grossly misguided war divides a country. If we can speak candidly and openly about our history and our present -- even the worst elements of it -- then we can ensure that the lives lost on May 4, 1970, were not in vain.

Michael Corcoran is a journalism major at Emerson College.


Sunday, April 30, 2006


As you can tell, I haven't been posting much lately. There is a reason for that, which I will get to further down this post....but first an apology.

To those of you who are (or were) regular readers, I apologize for not having posted more frequently, as in the past, and for not putting this post up sooner. For those of you who have just started reading my blog I also wish to apologize.

To those of you whose blogs I visit daily (usually) I apologize for not having visited much lately, if at all. I especially wish to apologize to Fixer, Gordon and AOB at Alternate Brain, Shea at Constantly Amazed and Liberal Thought, and sweet Tina at Fuzzy And Blue....who gets an extra apology because I think I may have offended her with a response to a comment she made to one of my most recent posts. I am sorry if I offended or upset you, kid.

Now to try to give you an explanation as to why I haven't been posting and visiting your blogs without going into all the long boring stuff.

About two months ago Mary's parents offered us one hell of a deal on their house....one we just couldn't pass up. It's an older home that has had several additions since the original house was built in 1841. There is a carriage barn behind the house which is in great condition, and the property is 410 feet deep....a full acre.

Getting the loan was a real pain in the ass, though. The morgage company made us jump through all kinds of hoops. We would get done jumping through one set and they would have another set waiting for us. After alot of scrambling, the loan finally went through.

Mom and dad have moved out, but have moved to a much smaller place....so there's a lot of stuff that they left behind. Some of it will be sold at the rummage sale Mary, her sister, and her mom are going to have later. Some will be split up between Mary and her sister and Mary's two kids. The rest looks like it will end up at Goodwill or in the trash.

Both Mary and I are going to be very busy over the next couple of months with this list (and probably much more) of things:

1) Make room in the carriage barn for things from both the new and old houses.
2) Get the rest of the things left behind by mom and dad from the house to wherever it's supposed to go.
3) Paint the rooms in the our new house before we start moving in. It's been several years since they have been painted...and neither Mary nor I like her mom's color selection.
4) Move all of our things....including Mary's 23 years of "collecting"....into the new house.
5) Do all the things....painting, repairs, etc....that need to be done to the old house in order for us to be able to rent it out or, eventually, sell it.

All of this plus all the regular lawn maintinance on a full acre and another half acre, along with Mary looking for employment.

As you can see we both are going to be very busy over the next couple of months...cause it's gonna take that long, at least. One of the easy parts of this whole thing is that the new house is less than a block away.

I will try to get at least a couple of posts up every week, and I will try to keep you updated on our progress. I will also try real hard to get around to other blogs for visits.

Please accept this apology and thanks for your patients.

Monday, April 24, 2006


From Aljazeera News:

Albright warns of Iraq disaster

Albright (L) says democracy cannot be impose

Madeleine Albright, the former US secretary of state, has warned that the invasion of Iraq may end up as one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy.

In an interview with The New York Times published on Sunday, Albright said she did not think Saddam Hussein had been an imminent threat to the United States.

"You can't go to war with everybody you dislike," she said.

"I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy."

Asked what she would consider the greatest mistake of the Bush administration, she said what troubles her is that democracy is getting a bad name "because it is identified with imposition and occupation".

She said much of what she had worked for during her tenure under Bill Clinton's presidency, has unraveled.

"I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have to choose democracy and it has to come up from below," she said.


Albright's comments come amid a growing chorus of domestic criticism of the Bush administration in the run-up to November's critical mid-term elections.

Kerry criticised Rumsfeld for
failing to capture Bin Laden

Also weighing in on the attack on Sunday was John Kerry, the US senator and 2004 Democratic presidential contender, who hit out at the administration for its failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

His comments came after a new audiotape attributed to the al-Qaeda leader was aired by Al Jazeera on Sunday.

Asked for his reaction, Kerry said: "It underscores the failure of this administration to capture him.

"This is one of the reasons Donald Rumsfeld should resign".

The biggest failure he said was the missed opportunity to capture bin Laden in the caves of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in late 2001.

"The design of the attack on Afghanistan, which had insufficient troops to surround Tora Bora, insufficient effort to commit American troops, was one of the great catastrophes of this entire effort in the war on terror," Kerry said.

"Osama bin Laden is loose today because we allowed him to escape at Tora Bora. It's that simple."

Sunday, April 16, 2006


Stolen from *Armchair Subversive*:


Joe Klein, who claims to be a liberal...as liberal as Dick-head Cheney...is actually a neocon moron. He was on "This Week" with George Stenphanopoulos. Video at the link.

From Crooks And Liars:

Joe Klein: Nukes should be on the table

Joe Klein started off today on "THIS WEEK," sounding fairly reasonable in the discussion about Iran and then veered off into neocon, kool-aid drinking lunacy. George Stephanopoulos was even caught off guard by Klein's statements. Does he seriously believe that including nukes whether we attack, discuss or threaten is not seen as a doomsday scenario? We are talking about nukes Joe, freaking nukes.

Klein: We should not take any option including the use of nuclear, tactical nuclear weapons off the table...

Stephanopoulos: Keep that on the table?-That's insane...

One of the main points of Sy Hersh's article is that the inclusion of nukes in an attack plan against Iran has the military leaders freaked out and they are demanding it be pulled or they will quit. It seems that Klein doesn't share those views.


Bush says he is willing to accept a diplomatic settlement to the nuclear dispute with Iran. Just more bullshit and lies. Just as I pointed out in the previous post, IRAN ATTACK ON PAPER SINCE MAY 2003, the attack and probable...not possible...invasion of Iran has been in the works since May 2003.

If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of their neoconvict cohorts think that Al Qaeda has been a problem just wait til they attack an Islamic country the size of Alaska. These idiots haven't seen anything like what Iran will unleash on the US, Britian, and our allies (which aren't many anymore, thank you GWB) once the attack begins.

From Aljazeera News:

Iran suicide squads 'ready to retaliate'
Sunday 16 April 2006 4:24 AM GMT

Iran has threatened to hit back if attacked

Iran has trained battalions of suicide bombers to hit western targets if its nuclear plants are attacked, according to a British newspaper.

The Sunday Times quoted Iranian officials as saying that 40,000 trained suicide bombers were ready to strike Western targets.

Doctor Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said that 29 Western targets had been identified.

"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," he said in a speech, according to The Sunday Times.

He said that some of them were "quite close" to the Iranian border with Iraq.

The Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards was first spotted in March when members marched in a military parade.

The force wore explosive packs around their waists and held detonators, the newspaper said.


"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities"

Hassan Abbasi,
Head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards

Iran is in a stand-off with the West over its nuclear programme, which the Islamic republic insists is for entirely peaceful purposes.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, announced last Tuesday that the Islamic republic had successfully enriched uranium itself for use as nuclear fuel, sparking a wave of international condemnations.

The International Atomic Energy Agency - the United Nations' nuclear watchdog - is due to present a report on Iran's nuclear programme on April 28.

The United States insists it is seeking a diplomatic solution but has not ruled out the use of force despite opposition from even its closest allies.

For those who think the gas prices are high now, just you wait until the moron in the White House gives the go-ahead to start the attack...which he won't go before Congress for approval...and fuel prices skyrocket, and things state exploding around you.

I am sooo fucking glad that we live in a small community, for small communities may be the only safe place. Good luck everyone, we're all gonna need it....'cause ya know we ain't gonna get any help from Bush, the Republicans, the neoconvicts, or any of the motherfuckin' chicken-shit chickenhawks.


Just as it was planned several years prior to the invasion of Iraq; an attack, and probable invasion, of Iran has been in the works since May 2003. That puts it right after the invasion of Iraq.

Here again is even more proof that the Bush administration does not want diplomacy to have a chance to succeed. The only thing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neoconvicts want is war so their oil buddies and the military industrial complex can line their filthy pockets with blood money.

From Aljazeera News:

Terror warning over Iran attack
Sunday 16 April 2006 8:01 AM GMT

Clarke was a former top White House counterterrorism adviser

A possible US attack on Iran could be more damaging to American interests than the current offensive in Iraq has been, two former White House counterterrorism experts have warned.

The warning came as a former US intelligence analyst disclosed on Sunday that the United States have been planning a full-scale military campaign against Iran even before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Richard Clarke and Steven Simon, who coordinated counterterrorism policy in the Clinton and Bush administrations, wrote in The New York Times on Sunday that "any United States bombing campaign would simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process".

They warned that Iran would first attack Persian Gulf oil facilities and tankers, which could cause oil prices to spike above $80 a barrel.

However more likely, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States, Clarke and Simon said.

"Iran has forces at its command that are far superior to anything al-Qaeda was ever able to field," they wrote.

Their article argued that Iran was in a position to make the situation in Iraq far more difficult for the United States than it already is.

Military plan

A report disclosed by a former US official on Sunday said that the US has been planning an attack against Iran since 2003.

William Arkin, who served as the US Army's top intelligence mind on West Berlin in the 1970s and accurately predicted US military operations against Iraq, said the plan is known in military circles as TIRANNT, an acronym for "Theatre Iran Near Term".

It includes a scenario for a land invasion led by the US Marine Corps, a detailed analysis of the Iranian missile force and a global strike plan against any Iranian weapons of mass destruction, Arkin wrote in The Washington Post.

Preparations under TIRANNT began in earnest in May 2003 and never stopped, he said. The plan has since been updated using information collected in Iraq.

It's not the supposed nuclear...or is that nucular, in the words of the idiot in charge...that the Bush administration is worried about. They're worried about cheap oil for their oil cronies so they can charge high prices for fuel and reap HUGE profits.

Monday, April 10, 2006


So Bush wants a regime change in Iran.....and I suppose God told him to do this, or was it James Dobson. Either way what the hell gives that little twit of a cowboy the right to decide who can run what country. I wonder how Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the neocon pricks would like it if some other country decided it was time for a regime change here.

From the Guardian Unlimited:

US plans Iran strike - report

The US is planning military action against Iran because George Bush is intent on regime change in Tehran - and not just as a contingency if diplomatic efforts fail to halt its suspected nuclear weapons programme, it was reported yesterday.

In the New Yorker magazine, Seymour Hersh, America's best known investigative journalist, concluded that the Bush administration is even considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon against deep Iranian bunkers, but that top generals in the Pentagon are attempting to take that option off the table.

Hersh, who helped break the story of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, quoted an unnamed Pentagon adviser as saying the resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians was "a juggernaut that has to be stopped" and that some senior officers and officials were considering resignation over the issue.

There is also rising concern in the US military and abroad that Mr Bush's goal in Iran is not counter-proliferation but regime change, the article reports. The president and his aides now refer to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler, according to a former senior intelligence official.

Another government consultant is quoted as saying Mr Bush believes he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do" and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

"The word I'm hearing is messianic," Mr Hersh said yesterday on CNN. "[Bush] is politically free. He really thinks he has a chance and this is his mission."


Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism operations chief said Mr Bush had not yet made up his mind about the use of direct military action against Iran.

"There is a battle for Bush's soul over that," he said, adding that Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser is adamantly opposed to a war.

However, Mr Cannistraro said covert military action, in the form of special forces troops identifying targets and aiding dissident groups, is already under way.

"It's been authorised, and it's going on to the extent that there is some lethality to it. Some people have been killed."

He said US-backed Baluchi Sunni guerrillas had been involved in an attack in Sistan-Baluchistan last month in which over 20 Iranian government officials were killed and the governor of the provincial capital was wounded. The Iranian government had blamed British intelligence for the incident.


The Washington Post reported that while no military action is likely in the short term, the possible targets went beyond suspected nuclear installations and included the option of a "more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets".

It is a widespread belief in Washington's neo-conservative circles that a comprehensive air assault would disorient the Tehran government and galvanise the Iranian people into bringing it down. The departure of senior neo-conservatives from the administration after Mr Bush's 2004 re-election was thought to have weakened their clout, but Mr Hersh's report suggested that the president's personal convictions may yet prove decisive.

More of the article at the link.


Go see Fixer at Alternate Brain and see what he has to say about "Sanity".

Sunday, April 09, 2006


As Vermont Democrats did in 1974, when they called for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon....whom I still have contempt for, they once again take a stand and call for the impeachment of George W. Bush.

"Democratic state committees in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina have taken similar steps."

Here in Wisconsin, in 24 out of 32 local referendums on the ballot last Tuesday voters cast ballots in favor of Congress starting impeachment proceedings. Fixer at Alternate Brain Had a post up about this last Thursday .

From Reuters:

Vermont Democrats call for Bush impeachment

RANDOLPH, Vermont (Reuters) - Democratic Party leaders in Vermont on Saturday passed a motion asking Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

In an elementary school cafeteria strewn with American flags and copies of the U.S. Constitution, some 100 state party officials agreed to make the request to the U.S. House of Representatives.

"You know in your own hearts and minds that something is terribly wrong in this country," said Margaret Lucenti, a Democrat from Vermont's capital Montpelier.

The measure asks the Republican-controlled House to pass articles of impeachment against Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges.

Democratic state committees in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina have taken similar steps.

With a population of just 621,000 -- only Wyoming has fewer people -- the rural New England state is considered far left of mainstream American politics.

Last month residents of the Puritan-founded town of Newfane passed a resolution calling for the Republican president's impeachment. Since then at least six other Vermont towns have followed suit.

In 1999, more than two dozen towns called for a reduction in nuclear weapons. In 1974, one Vermont town meeting drew national attention when officials voted to seek the impeachment of then-President Richard Nixon.

"This is far bigger than a fringe movement on the left," said Dan DeWalt, a 49-year-old woodworker who drafted the Newfane impeachment resolution. "Vermont has a long tradition of speaking out on issues beyond our borders."


The approval ratings of Bush keep tumbling as if they were falling back into the abyss from which he came....and he's got a vise grip on the GOP and is dragging the whole party down with him. And this is a bad thing? No, this is a good thing for it shows that America is finally starting to wake up and realize just how much damage Bush, the Republicans, and the neocons have done to our Constitution, our country, and the rest of the world.

From the Associated Press via Yahoo News:

Bush, GOP Struggle for Public Approval

President Bush has hit new lows in public opinion for his handling of Iraq and the war on terror and for his overall job performance. Polling also shows the Republican Party surrendering its advantage on national security.

The AP-Ipsos survey is loaded with grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power. Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction — the largest percentage during the Bush presidency and up 13 points from a year ago.

"These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."

Democratic leaders predicted they will seize control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. Republicans said they feared the worst unless the political landscape quickly changes.

Bush's ratings:

_Just 36 percent of the public approves of his job performance, his lowest-ever rating in AP-Ipsos polling. By contrast, the president's job approval rating was 47 percent among likely voters just before Election Day 2004 and a whopping 64 percent among registered voters in October 2002.

_Only 40 percent of the public approves of Bush's performance on foreign policy and the war on terror, another low-water mark for his presidency. That's down 9 points from a year ago. Just before the 2002 election, 64 percent of registered voters backed Bush on terror and foreign policy.

_Just 35 percent of the public approves of Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest in AP-Ipsos polling.

As bad as Bush's numbers may be, Congress' are worse.

Just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance, and Republicans seem to be shouldering the blame.

By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress.

That 16-point Democratic advantage is the largest the party has enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling.

Bush's approval rating is down 12 points among Republicans since a year ago. Six in 10 Republicans said they disapproved of the GOP-led Congress.

Much more of the article at the link.

Sunday, April 02, 2006


Does everyone remember how Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt blasted Rep John Murtha after he called for a pullout of troops from Iraq, and then went on to LIE about what an Ohio State Rep had supposedly said to back her up? I know Tina from Fuzzy And Blue does....hard to forget when it's your own state the liar is from.

From Talking Points Memo via Crooks And Liars:

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) won't leave all the bamboozlement to Kaloogian?

A new elections complaints alleges (and pretty credibly) she said she had a degree she didn't; earlier one tagged her for bogus 'endorsement' by Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH).

Schmidt's response: Okay, maybe she never got the degree. But she took enough classes to get it.

The backstory here is that these elections complaints grow out of an inter-wingnut smackdown. The complainant is the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, an outfit founded by Schmidt's past primary opponent Tom Brinkman.


From Progressive Daily Beacon:

Homeland Stupidity
by A. Alexander, March 31st, 2006

"Sir! Sir," the Transportation Security Agency's airport screener
called, voice rising with each attempt at gaining the intended's
attention. "Sir, do you need that walker to stand-up?" The target of the
agent's question being an eighty-plus-year-old gentleman. "If not, I'll
take it from you until you've finished screening. If you can I'd like
you to remove your shoes too."

The man apparently informed the security-screener that he did indeed
require the use of his walking aid in order to feel comfortable
standing. For obvious reasons, he didn't seem willing to attempt
removing his shoes. Moments later the elder-citizen was being directed
toward the little coral now found at all airports, that area where still
more security personnel stand ready wand in hand prepared to scan, poke,
pat-down, and probe possible "evil-doers."

There's more at the link above.....but for those of you who don't follow the links, here's some new rules for the Department of Homeland (In)Security from the same column:

Perhaps if America is ever to prevail in the so-called war on terror, it is time to make some new rules:

New Rule Number 1: If a security screener at an airport has to ask an older passenger, "Do you need that walker to stand-up?" -- that passenger is excluded from doing anymore than walking through the metal detector. If someone cannot even walk unassisted, it does not seem terribly likely they'll be bum-rushing the plane's cockpit with a box cutter. Also, if they can't bend over to remove their shoes, they probably won't be bending over to light any shoe bombs either.

New Rule Number 2: No more invading countries just cuz the President wants tah.

New Rule Number 3: Peace activists are pacifists. If they don't like the idea of their government dropping bombs on people, it isn't likely the pacifists would suddenly feel compelled to start bombing people themselves. Therefore, no more government spying on peace activists.

New Rule Number 4: Every political movement has it's share of nutcases. Christian Republican's have Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Rick Scarborough, and -- okay all of them. Still, the FBI doesn't spy on every church in America just because every Republican Christian leader is off their al-Qaeda wannabe rockers, so the government shouldn't spy on environmental groups just because a few immature morons think torching some SUVs is going to make people stop wasting toilet paper. Also, just because people or groups of people disagree with the administration's drunk on oil, drill in every sensitive ecosystem while chasing the dream of another billion dollars for EXXON's coffers, doesn't mean they are "national security" risks. It just means they prefer the country learn to wean itself from a resource with a very limited future and which, should someone not have noticed, requires the United States to either invade nation's that pose no threat to security, or invade sensitive ecosystems like ANWR. Hence, no more spying on environmental groups and labeling them as being "terrorists."

New Rule Number 5: The Constitution is NOT multiple-choice, it is NOT optional, nor is it negotiable. Follow it or be impeached!

One last bit-o-advice: When any part of a nation's national security includes the phrase, "Sir, do you need that walker to stand up," and the reply is "yes" and that person isn't immediately considered a non-threat, you've completely lost the plot. Let's face it America, if someone can be stopped from rushing the cockpit by either a newspaper, novelette, or an IPOD being placed in their path, that individual is NOT anymore a threat to security than was Iraq.


Wes Clark has been hammerin' Bush for his policies.

From CNN:

Gen. Clark: Bush took U.S. on 'path to nowhere'

Ex-NATO head slams Iraq war, failure to stop nukes, find bin Laden

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark accused the Bush administration Saturday of taking the nation on a "path to nowhere" with misguided moves on national security.

The retired Army general and NATO military commander argued in the Democrats' weekly radio address that the United States needs a new plan to win the war on terror after failing to find September 11 terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq and stumbling in halting weapons proliferation in North Korea and Iran.

Clark coupled his criticism of President Bush's policies with a renewed call for the Democratic plan on national security that party leaders unveiled this week.

Portrayed by opponents as weak on national security, Democrats contend that they've cut into the Republican advantage in this midterm-election year based on White House missteps on Iraq and ports security.

"This administration has taken us on a path to nowhere -- replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious," Clark said in the broadcast.

A candidate in 2004 for the Democratic nomination, Clark has been mentioned as a possible contender again in 2008.

From Iraq to Louisiana

The administration "has shown tragic incompetence in everything from nation building in Iraq to disaster relief in Louisiana," he said. "Let's face it: We're not going to win the war on terror unless we start making more friends and fewer enemies in the world, and we're not going to be able to protect the American people without a new strategy."

Clark joined House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday in calling for a strategy that would provide U.S. agents with the resources to pursue bin Laden, redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, better equipment for the military and improved screening of containers and inbound cargo.

They amount to many of the proposals that Democrats have offered previously.

"Security is the first promise of any government, and Democrats mean to help deliver it," Clark said.

He argued that the nation "is in danger from the administration's mistaken policies and priorities."

Clark offered a litany of missteps, from the failure to get bin Laden to the more than 2,300 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and the thousands wounded. Domestically, he cited several challenges, including rising gasoline prices, illegal immigration and the impact of global warming.


Too bad there wasn't a miscarrage or an abortion involved here......or at least somebody's daddy pulling out before unloading. And people say George H.W. Bush is the smart one.

Bush and Darth Vader: Separated At Birth



Thought that would get your attention.

Yes, the Democrats have a platform. There are only three planks, but that's a start.

From the Washington Post:

Democrats Detail Security Policy: Bin Laden, Iraq and Domestic Safety Identified as Midterm Issues

Emboldened by President Bush's declining approval ratings, Democrats unveiled a national security platform yesterday for the midterm elections that stresses renewed focus on capturing Osama bin Laden, reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq and stepped up protection at home.

The new strategy, which comes after months of deliberations and several false starts, aims to neutralize the advantage Republicans have held on national security and terrorism issues, that Democrats acknowledge were critical in the GOP's midterm gains in 2002 and in Bush's reelection victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.

Flanked by former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed that Democrats could do a better job of defending the country than the administration has done since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Declaring that the administration's "dangerous incompetence has made America less safe," Reid said, "We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver."

.....Of course, the Republican slamming soon started.....

Republicans immediately attacked the Democratic plan, with Vice President Cheney arguing that Democrats' "behavior has been totally inconsistent with what they're now promising they're going to do."

.....Back to the Democrats.....

Among the proposals in the "Real Security" plan: eliminate bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network, implement in full the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, and work to make 2006 a year of "significant transition" in Iraq.

On terrorism, the Democrats call for doubling the size of U.S. Special Forces and eliminating terrorist breeding grounds by "combating the economic, social and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive."

The statement contains language -- voiced by Pelosi, Reid and others yesterday -- that the Democrats' security agenda will be both "tough and smart" in contrast to the "dangerous incompetence" the Bush administration has shown -- language that has been tested by the Democrats in anticipation of the fall campaign.

Albright decried the Bush administration's "rank incompetence" on such issues as the Iraq war and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Albright called for a security plan based on "facts not fantasy."

A series of national polls released in recent days have shown Democrats making up ground on Republicans when voters are asked which party they trust to better deal with issues of terrorism and homeland security.

Democrats have polled extensively on national security, testing various possible messages for the fall, and found that the more emphasis put on securing the homeland, the more voters respond. According to one poll taken for the Democratic National Committee, nearly three-quarters of those surveyed responded positively to such a message, rather than a message that emphasized taking the fight to the terrorists and staying the course in Iraq.

Read the rest at the link above.


It appears that Joe Lieberman....of "Joementum" fame.... is going to have to work to get re-elected this year. His own constituants don't even show him any respect. He shouldn't even be running on the Democratic ticket....he's a damn Republican.

From the New York Times:

Support for War Tests Lieberman's Re-election Prospects

HARTFORD, March 31 — Three times on Thursday night, Senator Joe Lieberman asked the crowd of 1,700 for quiet during his remarks at the state Democrats' annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey fund-raising dinner.

"Shhh," he told the guests. But rather than interrupting him with applause, many were ignoring him, having struck up conversations after finishing their chicken.

The inattentiveness — as well as the scattered boos amid the supportive calls of "Joe" that welcomed Mr. Lieberman to the podium — convinced some that the three-term senator, criticized for months because of his continued support for the war in Iraq, may be vulnerable in the primary challenge he faces.

"What I was struck by was that not many people were paying attention to him," said Leo Canty, chairman of the Democratic town committee in Windsor, which passed a resolution in February opposing Senator Lieberman's support for the war. "It used to be that he would be more of a presence when he came in."

....and I used to like Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, but....

A few minutes later, however, the audience was riveted as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the guest speaker at the $175-a-plate dinner, stood on the podium and began the customary round of recognition of candidates and incumbents in the room. When he got to Mr. Lieberman, who is his mentor in the Senate and who helped recruit him to speak at the event, the applause again was muted.

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

....and then there's this....

If Mr. Lieberman seems concerned, despite his good humor, he has reason. His rival for the primary, Ned Lamont, a Greenwich cable television executive, has described him as "George Bush's favorite Democrat" and "Republican Lite."

And on Thursday night, while Mr. Lieberman said he was pleased with how he was received, Mr. Lamont and his aides said they were pleased, too. Mr. Lamont described people discreetly flashing Lamont buttons from their pockets and whispering to him, "I'm with you quietly."

Although a February poll of 345 registered Democrats done by Quinnipiac University showed him leading Mr. Lamont by 55 percentage points, a lead far beyond the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 5.3 percentage points, Senator Lieberman says he is taking the challenge seriously.

He said on Friday that he had been calling delegates and town committee leaders who he had been told might oppose him at the nominating convention on May 20.

There's more at the link.


Fixer at Alternate Brain has a post up this morning about a "meeting" that's going to take place between government officals and military experts for the fomulation of a plan for the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Here's the link to the post: Done deal?

I think we all know by now how these "meetings" work. There's no discussion....everyone gets told what's going to happen.

And after it happens, the terrorism around the world...especially against the US and it's interests...will increase dramatically. The threat of that has already been made. So much for Bush's ideas of how to keep us safe.

From the Washington Post via the Boston Globe:

Iran terror response seen to US strike: Wash Post

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes against its nuclear sites with global attacks by intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams, The Washington Post reported in an article on its Web site on Saturday, citing unnamed "intelligence and terrorism experts."

Iran would attack U.S. targets in Iraq and there is "growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere," The Post said.

"U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action," it said.

But the article quoted one "senior official" as saying that the matter is "a huge issue" and another saying it "is consuming a lot of time" in the U.S. intelligence apparatus.

Intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected "preparatory measures" by Iran's foreign-based operatives, such as more surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, The Post said.

The Post article comes amid increased international tension over Iran's nuclear program, which some nations say is aimed at building atomic bombs. Iran says the program is civilian.

Friday, March 31, 2006


This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee met to consider...and debate...Sen. Russ Feingold's resolution for censure of Bush for ordering the NSA to wiretap the conversations of unsuspecting American citizens. Russ needed support from the rest of the Democrats, and from his witnesses there to testify.

Russ got help from his witnesses, and some from the other Dems......which may not be enough. Fuckin' spineless bastards!

First from Reuters via Google News:

John Dean backs uphill case for censure of Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House counsel John Dean said on Friday that U.S. President George W. Bush's domestic spying program raised more concerns about abuse of power than the Watergate scandal that toppled his boss Richard Nixon.

Dean, who served time in prison for his role in Watergate, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of a seemingly futile Democratic bid to censure Bush for the eavesdropping program that is part of his war on terrorism.

"I appear today because I believe, with good reason, that the situation is even more serious," Dean, whose testimony three decades ago help lead to Nixon's resignation in 1974, said in support of the seldom-used measure to discredit a president.

....and now from New York Times via Google News:

Censure Resolution Sparks Bitter Debate in Senate

WASHINGTON, March 31 — President Bush's once-secret surveillance program sparked a bitter debate today before the Senate Judiciary Committee over what kind of president George W. Bush has become and how he stands in history.

The committee met to consider a resolution by one of its members, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure the president over the surveillance program. The resolution was not voted on and is almost surely going nowhere, but it still had the power to ignite feelings.

Under Mr. Bush's theory of government, Mr. Feingold said, "we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government. We have a monarchy."

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the panel's ranking Democrat who was congratulated on his 66th birthday today in a rare moment of bipartisan friendliness, sided with Mr. Feingold, although stopping short of saying he would vote for censure.

The Congressional resolution of force passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, makes no mention of surveillance, Mr. Leahy said, yet "the administration claims now that Congress unconsciously authorized warrantless wiretaps."

"This is 'Alice in Wonderland' gone amok," Mr. Leahy said. "It is not what we in Congress said, and it certainly was not what we in Congress intended."

Go read both articles. True to form, the Dems are spineless and the Repubs are trying to legitimize Bush's illegal behavior.


Meet the F*ckers


Political labels, just about everyone has one. If you have ever taken a stand on a political issue....which I know most of you have....you've been labeled by someone.

Whether you are a liberal, or a progressive, or a democrat(I know, I didn't need to through this one in), or a socialist, or a communist, or maybe even a moderate republican, you will probably find humor in what I have below. If you're a republican/neocon, or just a plain ol' repub, yor're probably gonna get pissed.

If you are offended by this....waaaa, that's too bad. And for those who maybe/are offended remember one thing: It was King Louis XVI who BANKROLLED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!

And now for your enjoyment, the following:

Bush French Clothing Label

Sunday, March 26, 2006


I've written about it before....and, yeh, I think Russ would be a good President. If you stop to think about what some of the other "hopefuls" have done, along with their spinlessness, there is not one who has consistently stood up for us.

From the Associated Press via the Boston Globe:

Feingold's censure resolution may pay off

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., discusses his resolution to censure President Bush during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington in this March 16, 2006 file photo.

WASHINGTON --While only two Democrats in the Senate have embraced Sen. Russ Feingold's call for censuring President Bush, the idea is increasing his standing among many Democratic voters as he ponders a bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.

Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, insists his proposal has nothing to do with his political ambitions. But he does challenge Democrats who argue it will help energize Republicans.

"Those Democrats said that within two minutes of my announcing my idea," Feingold said in a telephone interview last week. "I don't see any serious evidence of that."

A Newsweek poll taken March 16-17 found that 50 percent of those surveyed opposed censuring Bush while 42 percent supported it, but among Democrats, 60 percent favored the effort.

Feingold's resolution would censure the president for authorizing a warrantless surveillance program, which the senator contends is illegal. Co-sponsors are Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California.


Feingold said his sole purpose was to hold Bush accountable, but he argued that it's also good politics.

"These Democratic pundits are all scared of the Republican base getting energized, but they're willing to pay the price of not energizing the Democratic base," he said. "It's an overly defensive and meek approach to politics."

Some Democrats have accused Feingold of putting his 2008 presidential ambitions over helping Democrats try to recapture the House and Senate in this year's midterm elections. Should Feingold run, his opposition to the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act and the spying program would help position him as the liberal candidate.


More at the link.


Looks like it's not only the Democrats who don't have a plan. Seems like the Republicans don't have a "plan" either....or a clue.

From the Washington Post:

GOP Struggles To Define Its Message for 2006 Elections

Republican efforts to craft a policy and political agenda to carry the party into the midterm elections have stumbled repeatedly as GOP leaders face widespread disaffection and disagreement within the ranks.

Anxiety over President Bush's Iraq policy, internal clashes over such divisive issues as immigration, and rising complaints that the party has abandoned conservative principles on spending restraint have all hobbled the effort to devise an election-year message, said several lawmakers involved in the effort.

While it is a Republican refrain that Democrats criticize Bush but have no positive vision, for now the governing party also has no national platform around which lawmakers are prepared to rally.

In January, Bush laid out a modest menu of ideas on health care and energy independence, but Congress has made little movement on them. Senior White House officials consulted with lawmakers earlier this year about jointly crafting an agenda that would allow Bush and Republicans in Congress -- both suffering from depressed public approval ratings -- to get off the defensive. A Republican familiar with the process said these discussions did not result in a consensus.

New House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has been wrestling with the same problem, so far without success.

The struggles reflect philosophical differences among competing factions within the party, but they also underscore the political consequences of holding power. Republicans insist they remain united around core principles of smaller government, lower taxes and a strong national defense, but can no longer agree on how to implement that philosophy and are squabbling over their delivery on those commitments.


You can read the rest at the link above.


I really didn't think our troops could, or would, do something like this. Bush's little war has fucked with and fucked-up our military.
This is a long read, but damn-it, it needs to be read.
Here's part of the article, follow the link for the rest.

From UK Times Online:

Iraqis killed by US troops ‘on rampage’
Hala Jaber and Tony Allen-Mills, New York
The Pentagon is finding claims of abuse by US forces tougher to dismiss, as campaigners demand harsher punishment for violent soldiers.

THE villagers of Abu Sifa near the Iraqi town of Balad had become used to the sound of explosions at night as American forces searched the area for suspected insurgents. But one night two weeks ago Issa Harat Khalaf heard a different sound that chilled him to the bone.

Khalaf, a 33-year-old security officer guarding oil pipelines, saw a US helicopter land near his home. American soldiers stormed out of the Chinook and advanced on a house owned by Khalaf’s brother Fayez, firing as they went.

Khalaf ran from his own house and hid in a nearby grove of trees. He saw the soldiers enter his brother’s home and then heard the sound of women and children screaming.

“Then there was a lot of machinegun fire,” he said last week. After that there was the most frightening sound of all — silence, followed by explosions as the soldiers left the house.

Once the troops were gone, Khalaf and his fellow villagers began a frantic search through the ruins of his brother’s home. Abu Sifa was about to join a lengthening list of Iraqi communities claiming to have suffered from American atrocities.

According to Iraqi police, 11 bodies were pulled from the wreckage of the house, among them four women and five children aged between six months and five years. An official police report obtained by a US reporter for Knight Ridder newspapers said: “The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 people.”

The Abu Sifa deaths on March 15 were first reported last weekend on the day that Time magazine published the results of a 10-week investigation into an incident last November when US marines killed 15 civilians in their homes in the western Iraqi town of Haditha.


In Abu Sifa last week, Khalaf’s account was corroborated by a neighbour, Hassan Kurdi Mahassen, who was also woken by the sound of helicopters and saw soldiers entering Fayez’s home after spraying it with such heavy fire that walls crumbled.

Mahassen said that once the soldiers had left — after apparently dropping several grenades that caused part of the house to collapse — villagers searched under the rubble “and found them all buried in one room”.

“Women and even the children were blindfolded and their hands bound. Some of their faces were totally disfigured. A lot of blood was on the floors and the walls.”

Khalaf said he had found the body of his mother Turkiya with her face unrecognisable. “She had been shot with a dumdum bullet,” he claimed.

This shit really pisses me off! I am so fucking tired of Bush and his bullshit moronic crap! His policies are destroying this country and now these same policies, and selfish whims, are turning our troops into butchers! Fuckin' bastard!