
Via Crooks and Liars, we have a clip of our fave talking head Stephen Colbert mourning the political demise of the lovely and talented Ralph Reed, as he has his ass handed to him by the values voters of Georgia.

The above led the state Democratic party to file a lawsuit to get the data they have been requesting.
The following is from an email from Rich McClear of KUDO1080, the Air America Radio affiliate in Anchorage, Alaska:
What I want to know is, why the hell is there a 'proprietary format' for data from a public election? Why is there private software for public data? Why is public voting, the cornerstone of our democracy, privatized? And to an obviously partisan company? This is the single most important issue on the table. This issue controls everything else in our country! Our votes are what supposedly put this gang of thugs in office! We have to be able to trust our voting system. We have to be able to check the results.The State of Alaska website shows 16 of 40 house districts with more than 200% voter turnout, Also, if you add up the vote totals from each district they come to more than 100,000 votes for state wide candidates than the summary reports show.
More than 7 months ago the Democrats asked for an explanation. The state said it could not release the data files because they were proprietary to Diebold.
Diebold gave the state permission to release the files.
The state still refused. The Democrats went to court, the state asked for extension after extension. Their final extension expired Thursday and they replied to the Court, in a 200 page document, that since it is a month from the primary election, they can't release the database without compromising the primary. There is not enough time to rebuild the central tabulator file if they release the data before the election.
The Democrats have to respond to the court Monday. To respond to a 200 page document would usually require the Democrats to ask for an extension but they are working throughout the weekend to get the filing in Monday. Right now I have the Democratic Spokesperson scheduled for my show Monday Morning.
The State stalled for 7 months and when they ran out the legal clock they claim it is too late to release the information because it is too close to the primary. I find it interesting that this has not been picked up by the local press yet, save KUDO.

Bush sez:
1. He's not making it illegal, he just doesn't want the government to pay for it.
2. In his view, it's murder.
Which leads one to conclude that, although it's murder, he's not for making it illegal.
Is it murder or not? Is murder legal or not?
But, since government won't be paying for the research, who will be doing the research? Why, our good friends in the private sector!
So, any progress in the research will, as usual, go to benefit those who can afford it.
And, believe me, to anyone who thinks that every AIDS patient gets the kind of medication that Magic Johnson gets - I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. There is medicine for Joe Average, and then there is medicine for the über-wealthy. And that's how they plan to keep it, folks.This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies.Okay. How long is this insanity going to be debated with a straight face? How long are these bizarre contradictions in logic going to be treated as if they were rational arguments?
So millions of viable human embryos each year produced via normal conception fail to implant and never develop further. Does this mean America is suffering a veritable holocaust of innocent human life annihilated? Consider the claim made by right-to-life apologists like Robert George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, that every embryo is "already a human being." Does that mean that if we could detect such unimplanted embryos as they leave the womb, we would have a duty to rescue them and try to implant them anyway?
"If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined," declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.
As far as I know, bioconservatives like Robert George do not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos. But why not? In right-to-life terms, normal unimplanted embryos are the moral equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children.
Of course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a child—and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people. Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?
Stepping onto dangerous theological ground, it seems that if human embryos consisting of one hundred cells or less are the moral equivalents of a normal adult, then religious believers must accept that such embryos share all of the attributes of a human being, including the possession of an immortal soul. So even if we generously exclude all of the naturally conceived abnormal embryos—presuming, for the sake of theological argument, that imperfections in their gene expression have somehow blocked the installation of a soul—that would still mean that perhaps 40 percent of all the residents of Heaven were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires.
Yet millions of intelligent people of good will maintain that seven-day-old embryos have the exact same moral standing as do readers of this column. Acting on this sincere belief, they are trying to block biomedical research on human embryonic stem cells that is desired by millions of their fellow citizens.



The first time I remember hearing the phrase 'conspiracy theory' was in grade school about Sirhan Sirhan. I didn't understand it, and I wasn't particularly interested. I've always thought of myself as rational, reasonable, not given to wild speculation. But, I find myself in the rather embarrasing position of being a full-fledged conspiracy - if not nut, then at least fellow-traveler.
