Hooterville On MSNBC Site - the Little Weblog That Could!

I don't know how it happened, but somehow this site was listed on MSNBC.com - Connected Coast to Coast with Ron Reagan and Monica Crowley - as one of 5 blogs that are talking about the Downing Street Memo! The other sites are AfterDowningStreet.org, DowningStreetMemo.com, our own Big Brass Alliance, and MyDD.com...august company indeed!

As a relatively insignificant little blog, I'm stunned. But I'm really, really happy to be a part of getting this information into the mainstream!

It just goes to show that every little bit counts, y'all...I'm a nobody, but I'm part of making a difference. We all can be. If I'm not too small, you're not either.

Remember 2000? Don't Say He Didn't Warn Us...

As I was aimlessly Googling around, I came upon a remarkable document. I found Gov. George W. Bush's speech accepting the nomination at the 2000 Republican convention. (God, aren't those beautiful words...'Governor George Bush'?) I'm sorry to make it so long, but I'd really like for you all come back with me, to look back at those golden years, the good ol' days before G.W. Bush assumed the Presidency (and made an 'ass' out of you and me). I'll try to trim it a little bit, but if you can stand to read it without getting a tear in your eye for those long-lost, happy days, here it is:

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and my fellow citizens ... I accept your nomination. Thank you for this honor. Together, we will renew America's purpose.

Our founders first defined that purpose here in Philadelphia ... Ben Franklin was here. Thomas Jefferson. And, of course, George Washington -- or, as his friends called him, "George W."

(no delusions of grandeur here...)

I am proud to have Dick Cheney at my side. He is a man of integrity and sound judgment, who has proven that public service can be noble service.

America will be proud to have a leader of such character to succeed Al Gore as Vice President of the United States.

This is a remarkable moment in the life of our nation. Never has the promise of prosperity been so vivid. But times of plenty, like times of crisis, are tests of American character.

Prosperity can be a tool in our hands -- used to build and better our country. Or it can be a drug in our system -- dulling our sense of urgency, of empathy, of duty.

(not anymore, it can't...)

Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment. So tonight we vow to our nation. We will seize this moment of American promise. We will use these good times for great goals.

We will confront the hard issues -- threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security -- before the challenges of our time become crises for our children.

And we will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country.

To every man and woman, a chance to succeed. To every child, a chance to learn. To every family, a chance to live with dignity and hope.

For eight years, the Clinton/Gore administration has coasted through prosperity. And the path of least resistance is always downhill. But America's way is the rising road. This nation is daring and decent and ready for change.

Our current president embodied the potential of a generation. So many talents. So much charm. Such great skill. But, in the end, to what end? So much promise, to no grat purpose.

Little more than a decade ago, the Cold War thawed and, with the leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, that wall came down. But instead of seizing this moment, the Clinton/Gore administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence.

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir.

This administration had its moment. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

This generation was given the gift of the best education in American history. Yet we do not share that gift with everyone. Seven of ten fourth-graders in our highest poverty schools cannot read a simple children's book.

And still this administration continues on the same old path with the same old programs -- while millions are trapped in schools where violence is common and learning is rare.

This administration had its chance. They have not led. We will.

America has a strong economy and a surplus. We have the public resources and the public will -- even the bipartisan opportunities -- to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare.

But this administration -- during eight years of increasing need -- did nothing. They had their moment. They have not led. We will.

And now they come asking for another chance, another shot. Our answer? Not this time. Not this year. This is not a time for third chances, it is a time for new beginnings.

(yeah - who needs all that crummy peace and prosperity?)

Tonight, in this hall, we resolve to be, not the party of repose, but the party of reform. We will write, not footnotes, but chapters in the American story. We will add the work of our hands to the inheritance of our fathers and mothers -- and leave this nation greater than we found it. We know the tests of leadership. The issues are joined.

We will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the greatest generation, and for generations to come. Medicare does more than meet the needs of our elderly, it reflects the values of our society.

We will set it on firm financial ground, and make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them. Social Security has been called the "third rail of American politics" -- the one you're not supposed to touch because it shocks you.

But, if you don't touch it, you can't fix it. And I intend to fix it.

(you heard it here first, folks)

To seniors in this country ... You earned your benefits, you made your plans, and President George W. Bush will keep the promise of Social Security ... no changes, no reductions, no way. Our opponents will say otherwise. This is their last, parting ploy, and don't believe a word of it.

Now is the time for Republicans and Democrats to end the politics of fear and save Social Security, together.

For younger workers, we will give you the option -- your choice -- to put a part of your payroll taxes into sound, responsible investments.

This will mean a higher return on your money, and, over 30 or 40 years, a nest egg to help your retirement, or pass along to your children. When this money is in your name, in your account, it's not just a program, it's your property.

Now is the time to give American workers security and independence that no politician can ever take away.

On education ... Too many American children are segregated into schools without standards, shuffled from grade-to-grade because of their age, regardless of their knowledge.

This is discrimination, pure and simple -- the soft bigotry of low expectations.

And our nation should treat it like other forms of discrimination ... We should end it.

One size does not fit all when it comes to educating our children, so local people should control local schools.

And those who spend your tax dollars must be held accountable.

Another test of leadership is tax relief.

The last time taxes were this high as a percentage of our economy, there was a good reason ... We were fighting World War II.

Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend. But they've got it backwards.

The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money.


All I can say is, don't say he didn't warn us...

The whole thing...

One 'Snowflake' Can Start An Avalanche!

I'm starting to hear a little more about the Downing Street Memo! We just might be starting to get somewhere. I know it's a little early to get my hopes up just yet, but I think John Conyers, the blogosphere, our Alliance, and the Downing Street sites might just be some of the 'snowflakes' it takes to start an investigative avalanche.

Downing Street - It's Not Just For Democrats Anymore!

In spite of the concerted, even heroic efforts by the right wing and their sock-puppets the mainstream media to trivialize, patronize, minimize, and dismiss the Downing Street Memo, a few free-thinking (or just 'thinking') Republicans are stepping up and talking sense.

Here's a succinct but blistering column about the Downing Street Memo.

George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation.

It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the US. America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.

As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies.

Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused one billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.

Here's the rest...

Now, who would you think wrote that? Greg Palast? Molly Ivins? Robert Scheer? Seymour Hirsch? Me?

Nope. All wrong. It was written by Paul Craig Roberts, a conservative Republican, former Reagan Administration official and syndicated columnist, former editor and columnist for that pinko rag the 'Wall Street Journal', as well as a list of fellowships and think-tank bona fides that would make any conservative swoon with ardor.

So if someone with the impeccable conservative credentials of Dr. Roberts can see the light on this issue, there may be some hope yet to bring it into the mainstream. This has to be a bipartisan effort to be effective and convince the American people of the seriousness of this memo and what it entails.

Here are some more of his articles.

Check out the Big Brass Alliance for more information about the Downing Street Memo.

Lie Vs. Lie

All right.

I have had e-motherf***-nough of this. Please excuse me while I go book a plane ticket, fly to Chicago, hail a cab, and go kick this motherf***'s ass.

Now, I can understand how the right-wingers feel about Clinton. After all, it's the same visceral reaction I get every time I see a picture or hear the name of George W. Bush. But I just cannot take any more of this anti-logic. I'm sick, sick, sick to death of it.

So. John Kass of the Chicago Tribune writes an article equating Linda Tripp and 'Deep Throat' as principled heroes. I never heard anything so disgusting in my life. The source he quoted in the interview was none other than Chicago attorney David Schippers, a Democrat who was the chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee, which pushed the impeachment fight against Clinton, and who argued passionately for Clinton to be convicted.

Those dogs will just not let go of that bone.

So I'm going to spell it out. In words of one syllable.

All lies are not the same.

All lies are not crimes.

Some crimes are not lies.

Some lies do not kill.

Some lies do kill.

Lies that kill are worse than lies that do not kill.

It's been five years now, and these pathetic people still can't let go of Clinton. Let me tell you, when we kick Dubya out of office, I'm going to forget his name so quick it will make your head spin. I will have instant amnesia. That name will never cross my lips again. Please believe it.

Bill and Hillary are single-handedly responsible for paying the bills at right-wing radio stations. Rush Limbaugh ought to be sending them a percentage of his salary; they gave him a career. If anything happened to them, most of the right-wing blusterers and bloviators would go out of business.

But if I hear one more person defend Bush by saying, "Well, Bill Clinton lied under oath! Bill Clinton desecrated the sanctity of the Oval Office! Bill Clinton dropped bombs to distract the nation from Monica Lewinsky!", I swear to you - I swear to you that I am going to go postal.

First of all, the case against Bill Clinton never should have been a case to begin with. "Troopergate", the article that started it all in the American Spectator, was a...lie! Exposed as such by David Brock, one of the people who was involved in it. Paula Jones was a sad, clueless pawn; manipulated from day one by the right, including plastic surgery (that seems to be de rigueur), looking for her little day in the spotlight, her ticket out of her small-town life. But that didn't stop the all-out assault by what Hillary rightly called the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'.

It's rather remarkable that the same people who treat King George as if his royal word is law, as if his every whim and wish is entitled to fulfillment, who coddle him and swaddle him like 'His Majesty the Baby', had no problem with jeopardizing our national and international safety and security by allowing a trumped-up lie of a case to hobble the leader of the free world. The same people who say, "The President deserves an up-and-down vote", "The President deserves a UN Ambassador who reflects his views" had no problem disrespecting Bill Clinton as Commander-in-Chief, disparaging him to our military. The same people who hustle anyone who has so much as a questionable bumper sticker out of the so-called 'public' forums where Bush propagandizes, said openly, "He's not our President". They had no respect for the office of the Presidency when someone they didn't like was in it. But now they demand, not just respect, but groveling, unquestioning, slavish obeisance. To this cruel, stupid disaster of a President.

Well, I've had it.

Yes, Bill Clinton lied. Under oath, as if other kinds of lies are just fine. He had been cleverly maneuvered into a lose-lose situation - 'have you stopped beating your wife?' He was put under oath under false pretenses. But his lies have not killed hundreds of thousand of people. Bush's have. And I'm sick and tired of people ignoring his lies.

Yes, there is a difference in lies.

And anyone who says they don't ever lie is a liar.

If you've turned down an unwanted date by saying you were playing gin rummy with Grandma, you're a liar.

If you ever said you were stuck in traffic because you overslept, you're a liar.

If you ever had lunch with an old boyfriend and told your husband it was a client, you're a liar.

You lying scum, you're a liar. I don't care what it was about, it was a lie and you're a liar.

But Linda Tripp, the worst kind of back-stabbing, two-faced, opportunistic 'friend', is a hero? Don't make me puke.

If Monica and Bill were doing something illegal or dangerous to the nation, perhaps it would be different.

But they weren't.

Nixon was.

And what the Republicans did to Bill Clinton was a 'High Crime and Misdemeanor'. I don't know what else you'd call putting the entire nation, and by inference, the entire world, at risk by distracting and diverting the President from doing the most important job in the world. Well, maybe you could call it 'treason'.

John Kass is lamenting the treatment that Linda Tripp got, and wondering why she's not being hailed as a 'hero'. I'm wondering what mental hospital John Kass escaped from.

'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'? The only thing 'high' is you, bro. You wouldn't know a 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' if it bit you in the ass.

It's high time to focus on the real 'High Crimes' going on right here and now.

Lies that kill are worse than lies that do not kill.

Get On the Downing Street Memo!

Okay, folks, here's what's happening with the Big Brass Alliance, courtesy of Shakespeare's Sister, who has coordinated this effort. I'm going to set down the info verbatim. Apologies for the length, but this is important stuff!

1. After Downing Street is a Coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. The campaign focuses on evidence that recently emerged in a British memo containing minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.

2. The name is a reference to the Downing Street Memo, a British memo recently made public in the London Times, which contained the minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.

3. After Downing Street reports: In response to the release of the memo, “John Bonifaz, a Boston attorney specializing in constitutional litigation, sent a memo to Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urging him to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Bush. Bonifaz's memo, made available today at www.AfterDowningStreet.org, begins: ‘The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.’"

4. Congressman Conyers is now seeking 100,000 signatures to sign a letter on the Downing Street Inquiry. Information available at Raw Story and dKos.

5. Sign the letter here. Write to your Congresspeople here.

-----------------------

Another important piece of information that has been overlooked in this story, as reported in a recent Salon article by Juan Cole (get the Site Pass), is that Tony Blair had to convince George Bush to go after al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and Bush would only do so in exchange for Britain’s support of the Iraq invasion:


“Astonishingly, the Bush administration almost took the United States to war against Iraq in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11. We know about this episode from the public account of Sir Christopher Meyer, then the U.K. ambassador in Washington. Meyer reported that in the two weeks after Sept. 11, the Bush national security team argued back and forth over whether to attack Iraq or Afghanistan. It appears from his account that Bush was leaning toward the Iraq option.

Meyer spoke again about the matter to Vanity Fair for its May 2004 report, "The Path to War." Soon after Sept. 11, Meyer went to a dinner at the White House, "attended also by Colin Powell, [and] Condi Rice," where "Bush made clear that he was determined to topple Saddam. 'Rumors were already flying that Bush would use 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq,' Meyer remembers." When British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived in Washington on Sept. 20, 2001, he was alarmed. If Blair had consulted MI6 about the relative merits of the Afghanistan and Iraq options, we can only imagine what well-informed British intelligence officers in Pakistan were cabling London about the dangers of leaving bin Laden and al-Qaida in place while plunging into a potential quagmire in Iraq. Fears that London was a major al-Qaida target would have underlined the risks to the United Kingdom of an "Iraq first" policy in Washington.


Meyer told Vanity Fair, "Blair came with a very strong message -- don't get distracted; the priorities were al-Qaida, Afghanistan, the Taliban." He must have been terrified that the Bush administration would abandon London to al-Qaida while pursuing the great white whale of Iraq. But he managed to help persuade Bush. Meyer reports, "Bush said, 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.'" Meyer also said, in spring 2004, that it was clear "that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions." In short, Meyer strongly implies that Blair persuaded Bush to make war on al-Qaida in Afghanistan first by promising him British support for a later Iraq campaign.”

Finding out if this underreported outrage is true is an important part of the inquiry for which After Downing Street is fighting. That President Bush’s entire presidency has relied on his ostensibly unique ability to “keep America safe,” even though he had to be cajoled into going after the party truly responsible for 9/11, is not only an outrage, but a national disgrace.

Thanks, friends.

I've Joined the Big Brass Alliance

Since the mainstream media is thundering ahead like a herd of turtles on the Downing Street Memo, it seems to be left to us to make enough noise about this thing to get the attention of the general public. I'll be posting as much info on all the goings-on as I can.

I don't think my powers of persuasion are up to the task of changing the minds of the Hootervillians, but my personal goal is to try to engage the people who 'just aren't interested in politics' - the ones who, if they really knew how bad things were, maybe would reconsider their disengagement.

As I've said before, I've been jacked up ever since I heard about the Downing Street Memo, and first posted it about it on May 3. The Big Brass Alliance seems to be a positive, concerted force and I want to be a part of taking action on this.

It's late, but on my next post I'll be listing all kinds of resources and ways to make our voices heard. In the meantime, click on the Big Brass Alliance and the After Downing Street logo on the sidebar for more info!

Let's 'disassemble' this corrupt régime!

Tommi Wants To Go To Mars

Well, well, well - I guess we just have all kinds of mad money just laying around. Deficit? What deficit?

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- NASA's new administrator and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, vow the space agency will have the necessary funding to implement President Bush's vision to send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars.

The only way I'll support that idea is if Tommi is on that rocket with a one-way ticket. Heck, why not build one big enough for the whole Bush Administration? I'll pony up for that!

Go 'Deep'!

I think it's fairly obvious by now that we are going to have to do this without the help of the media. We see what happens every time any news source or reporter gets 'too close to the bone' - they are attacked in full force by the Administration. Jobs are lost, access is denied, characters are smeared, reputations are ruined.

Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, Newsweek, Bill Moyers...no one is immune. The days of 'Deep Throat' and Woodward & Bernstein are over at this point, until enough people feel strongly enough about what's going on to put their jobs and reputations on the line.

The information is out there, as we can all see by now - it's a matter for the press to stop acting like the propaganda arm of the White House. Forget about being 'embedded' over in Iraq - it seems more dangerous to be 'embedded' here at home. If you love your country, ladies and gentlemen of the press, put on your body armor and 'go deep'!

Another Marvelous New Idea

Tired of listening to the Orwellian double-speak of Scott McClellan (or 'Puffy McMoonface', as he's known on the Stephanie Miller Show)? How about this idea, put forth by Martini Republic -

Suppose, during any further 'press conferences', no one asks any questions?

Wouldn't that be just great? That way, everyone would be happy. Bush and Puffy wouldn't have to listen to any pesky questions that they don't want to answer anyway, and we would not have to listen to the pack of lies and obfuscations that Puffy pulls out of his a**. Sure, the Jimmy/Jeffs and the hard-right media would still lob the cotton-candy softballs, but the silence of the rest of the credible media would eventually point out the absurdity of the joke that is a Bush 'press conference'.

Or, they could ask questions like, "Mr. President, sir - would it be out of place to say that you're one of the greatest presidents in history, and I can't imagine why anyone would be so uncouth and unpatriotic, sir, as to question any of your God-given decisions, and that you, sir, are my personal hero, if you'll forgive me for saying so, sir; and that's a particularly becoming tie, sir...have you lost weight, sir?"

Just Eddie-Haskell him to death...

A Vanishing Resource

Robert over at A Little Left of Centrist also put up a little snippet about "The Newseum" - a museum of news.

How prescient. Pretty soon that will be the only place you'll be able to find news - in a museum.

John Conyers Is Taking Action on Downing Street Memo

Another patron saint of this blog is John Conyers, and he's taking some action. I've been on about the Downing Street Memo since 2 days after it appeared in the London Times, and it seems like the media at large have deliberately stuck their fingers in their ears about this. However, a few people are making enough noise about it (props to Robert at A Little Left of Centrist) that I think people are starting, oh-so-slowly, to take a little bit of notice.

He has written a letter to the President requesting some answers to these questions, and he's asking for our signatures. I for one am on board with this, and I hope you will be, too, by taking a minute to click on the link, read the letter, and if you agree, add your name to it.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am pessimistic about impeachment, as we'd have to wipe out that whole mob, and I don't see that happening, but we have to do something, say something, shine some light on the dark and ugly deeds being perpetrated in our names. If people can be made to see what's really going on, we may stand a chance of getting these criminals out of power in '08, and we can no longer count on the mainstream media to help us. We can't roll over any more. Too many have died already, and too many more will continue to die if we don't support the people who are taking action and standing up to these thugs (and there are too few of them).

Here's the link to John Conyers explaining about the memo.

Here's the link to the actual letter.

Here's a great resource for all things Downing.

Thanks, friends.

A Sad Day In Hooterville

It's a sad day here in Hooterville. Our patron saint, Mr. Eddie Albert, died Thursday night at the ripe old age of 99.

Not only was his humorous yet poignant T.V. character Oliver Wendell Douglas on 'Green Acres' the inspiration for this blog, but also an inspiration in real life. He was a humanitarian, a World War II war hero, an environmental activist, and with his wife Margo, taught arts and music to children on L.A.'s Eastside in the late 1940's.

Nominated for 2 Academy Awards for best supporting actor ("Roman Holiday", 1953; "The Heartbreak Kid", 1972), he was a versatile and talented actor, with nearly 100 film credits to his name, and equally at home on stage, screen, television and radio. He was a singer (and replaced Robert Preston in 'The Music Man' on Broadway) and a trapeze artist, with his friends the Escalante Brothers in Mexico (which I know from my own circus experience is no mean feat!). While sailing off Baja California in 1939, he heard rumors of secret submarine fueling stations, and began reporting to Army intelligence that Japanese 'fishermen' were making hydrographic surveys, and reported Nazi activities while working as a circus 'flyer'.

He joined the Navy 7 months after the US joined the war, and saw action in the South Pacific. He was credited with saving scores of Marines from a deadly triple cross-fire during the bloody battle for Tarawa, for which he was awarded a Bronze Star with a combat 'V' (for valor).

He was an avid world traveler, spending time on a deserted island in Nova Scotia, as well as the Mexican wilderness during the 30s. In the 50s, he visited the Congo to discuss malnutrition with Dr. Albert Schweitzer, staying for several months.

In the 60s he became interested in ecology, studying and spending time with experts in the field. He observed first-hand the deadly effects of DDT runoff while visiting Anacapa Island off Ventura County and observing the nesting of pelicans, finding thousands of collapsed pelican eggs.

He became, in the words of a T.V. Guide reporter in 1970, a "kind of ecological Paul Revere", but he did not want to be called an ecologist:

"Ecologist, hell! Too mild a word. Check the Department of Agriculture; 60% of the world is hungry already. With our soil impoverished, our air poisoned, our wildlife crippled by DDT, our rivers and lakes turning into giant cesspools, and mass starvation an apparent inevitability by 1976, I call myself a human survivalist!"

In 1963, he served as a special world envoy for Meals for Millions, providing nutritious, low-cost food to underprivileged people around the world. In 1970, he helped launch the first Earth Day on his birthday, April 22, and four years later he served as a special consultant at the World Hunger Conference in Rome.

His work with East L.A. kids, along with his Mexico City-born wife Margo, helped to create Plaza De La Raza, a well-known community arts center in Lincoln Heights, CA.

He battled Alzheimer's the last 10 years of his life, but was still fit and active, shooting baskets and doing push-ups as recently as last month.

This biographical information comes from today's L.A. Times.

What a life! What a man! What an American!

When I started this blog, I did not know anything about Eddie Albert, the man. Even though it was a silly sitcom, I always had a soft spot in my heart for Mr. Douglas, but now I discover that his acting career, successful as it was, was the least part of this amazing, inspirational human being, who put not only his money, but his time, his energy, his intellect, his talent and his heart where his mouth was. That is his real legacy in this world; one to which we should all aspire, and of which we are all capable, no matter what our life circumstances.

Thank you, Eddie Albert. You were the farmer Mr. Douglas wanted to be, working tirelessly to encourage and nurture life, making things grow. You made many, many acres green. As you get on board the Hooterville Cannonball for your journey home, I hope you know that the world is a better place because of you.

Eddie Albert's family has suggested, in lieu of flowers, that donations be made to:

Plaza De La Raza
Attn: Rose Cano
3540 N. Mission Road
Los Angeles, CA 90031

Just Asking...

If George W. Bush were to be impeached, would that mean that Dick Cheney would be President?

Talk to me...

Friday Cat Blogging

This is Venus, one of our Burmese cats who thinks she is a dog. Here she is, fetching her favorite toy, a coiled-up pipe cleaner. She will bring you a 'fetch' and drop it on you until you throw it for her. She will mercilessly hunt it down, bring it back and drop it in front of you. She also drinks from the toilet and eats homework.

For more about Venus and Mercury, visit the Venus and Mercury Cat Blog!

Have a nice Friday.

And, as I was reminded by Lab Kat, go visit the Friday Ark on Fridays and the Carnival of the Cats on Sundays.

Why Bolton?

If you were looking for the person who would be the worst choice for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, you would need to look no further than John Bolton. So why is Dubya so adamant about shoving this obviously destructive, anti-diplomatic, tantrum-throwing, unsuitable, incompetent bully down our throats?

Well, he has to.

He owes him 'big time'.

Remember 2000? Here's a little refresher course:

"I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

Bolton was one of the pack of lawyers for the Republican presidential ticket who repeatedly sought to shut down recounts of the ballots from Florida counties before those counts revealed that Gore had actually won the state's electoral votes and the presidency.

read the rest here...

I Love Helen Thomas

Q The other day -- in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are -- that's where we currently --

Q -- in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you're taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and --

Q We're we invited into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today --

Q You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I'm talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments --

Q I'm talking about today, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future.

Q Did we invade those countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.

All press briefings available here. At least, for the time being...

Whenever They Start Blathering About Morals...

...go here.

Good for a little perspective.

You Are My Wife

A post over at The Curmudgeonly Crab got me thinking. It was referencing Jan LaRue, a member of the Concerned Women of America ('concerned' with getting all up in other peoples' private lives!) - a lawyer, for gosh sakes - talking about why gay marriage is so very wrong...

Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.

Qualified? Qualified?!?

Yes, I guess the lovely and talented Lyle Menendez is 'qualified' to get married. No doubt the devilishly handsome Scott Peterson, with his boyish charm, will be married before you know it, taking his pick of jailhouse proposals from the coterie of killer-hags that are inundating him with marriage offers. After all, he is single!

And if the purpose of marriage is to procreate only, are they going to snatch away the marriage licenses of the couples who don't have kids? Administer the 'Fertility Test' when you go for your marriage-license blood test?

If God indeed made us all, aren't you thwarting God's Will by interfering with the sexual orientation that God, in His Infinite Wisdom, conferred upon approximately 10% of His children?

And, no, you can't include child molesters (of either orientation) and sexual predators - they are not born with those urges, but have become psychologically twisted somewhere along the way. I know you'd like to include gays among their ranks, but it's simply not so. There are gay perverts, but it's the perversion that's the problem, not their gayness. Because there are straight child molesters, is that a reason to outlaw marriage between straight people?

So the vilest of the vile - if heterosexual - are 'qualified' to be married, and yet the most upright, responsible, well-adjusted, loving people - if gay - are not?

I don't know if you got the memo, Mrs. Concerned Woman, but Christians did not invent marriage. Marriage is a civil right first, which is legally binding, and covers so many facets of life, including property rights, next-of-kin rights, insurance rights, inheritance rights and other important life issues, that to deny them to one segment of the population is indeed a civil rights violation. You can get married without any religious ceremony at all and it is legally binding, but you can't get married in a religious ceremony and have it be legal without a civil license.

Of course, the religious right insists that people are not 'born gay', and that you can change your sexual orientation with enough prayer and church pressure, and they trot out their 'converted' poster children (most likely bisexual) as proof. If scientists were to come up with irrefutable proof that sexual orientation is an innate physical characteristic, fundamentalists would not suddenly say, "Oh, well, that's different! Who are we to question God's intention?" But that's really a smoke screen, like 'intelligent design', for their real position, which is "God sez it's a sin". Well, believe that all you like; I'm not in charge of what you believe, and wouldn't want to be if I could. But your belief system is not enough authority to deny someone else their civil rights under our Constitution.

Update - found an interesting article that notes that the lowest divorce rate in the country belongs to...what state allows gay marriage? And also notes that born-again Christians have among the highest. Check it out...

Marvelous New Idea

You know, after thinking about it, I guess the Bankruptcy Bill has its merits. Take, for instance, United Airlines (please!). It wants to file for bankruptcy - fine. So how about the people responsible - the ones who pull down the fat salaries, bonuses, stock options, golden parachutes, etc. - selling everything they own, going for credit counseling, and giving the lion's share of their future earnings in perpetuity to pay back their employees' pensions?

That sounds pretty fair to me. After all, isn't that what they've been insisting we do?

Galloway Testimony Gone Missing!

Found at Raw Story:
Well, well, well...according to the Brad Blog , it seems as if George Galloway's testimony has gone missing from the official Subcommittee website. They have PDFs of all the testimony except Galloway's, claiming that he 'did not submit a statement'.

How odd. How very odd.

Update: Now they claim he did not submit a written statement. Of course, there are certainly no secretaries or stenographers available to transcribe...

Simple But True

I found this snippet on The Smirking Chimp, in an article written by Stephen Pizzo of AlterNet, called 'Bush: Worst President Ever?':

During Bush's first term the economy perked up because Bush pumped $1.6 trillion in tax rebates into it. That was like giving a dying patient an injection of meth and then claiming he was cured because he was up and jerking around in bed.

It just seemed like such an apt metaphor.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole article here.

And Now For Something Completely Different - Cat Blog

Well, I have to lighten up for a sec -

here's the link to my Cat Blog.

Why Does It Matter Who Calls It What?

The reason it's so important is that this is indicative of the overall Republican strategy of using emotional language to slant issues, like 'death tax' instead of 'estate tax'. Once their own phrase (courtesy of Trent Lott) began testing badly for them, they immediately assigned it to the Democrats.

What is so galling is that the media aid and abet them instead of doing their job, which is to try to report what's really going on, not take the talking points straight out of the Karl Rove/Frank Luntz playbook.

'Words don't matter'? What are the media but words? Believe me, every word and phrase that is spoken in politics is carefully chosen, honed and crafted for a specific emotional intent, that may be the opposite of the literal meaning of the word or phrase (can you say 'Clear Skies'?). So to say that it doesn't matter who says 'Nuclear Option' is disingenuous at best. And we deserve better from the media than the laziness of taking everything said at face value.

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option.

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option.

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option.

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option.

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option.

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option.

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option.

The Republicans Call It The Nuclear Option.

Get it?

Curious George Rides A Bike

Curious George was out for a spin on his neat new bike. He pedaled faster and faster. Whee! This was fun! The red, white and blue streamers on his handlebars fluttered in the breeze. He was riding with his big friends, when suddenly a plane flew overhead. But George didn't see it. His best girl Laura and his pal Dick were hustled off to a safe location, but George pedaled on and on. His big friends knew about the plane. They talked to each other on their neat new walkie-talkies, but they did not talk to George. They did not want to spoil George's fun. He loved to ride his bike. He zipped along, waving to his friends. After a while, George got tired. He had ridden his bike so far and fast! He turned around and rode back to his big White House, huffing and puffing. Then George's big friends told him about the plane.

What an exciting day!

Smoke Gets In Your Eyes (and kills you!)

This is a little bit of a departure from my usual topics, but not really. I got this from Robert, who blogs at A Little Left Of Centrist. It's about a vaccine that is supposed to keep nicotine from binding to the receptors in your brain, thereby avoiding addiction.

Now, just about anyone who knows me knows that I'm somewhat rabid on the subject of cigarettes. But it's difficult for me to see any justification for keeping these things on the market. Robert mentions a 'civil liberties' issue, but that's pretty murky, it seems, if the 'civil liberties' apply to cigarettes only, and not to food substances, or drugs - legal or illegal.

This is why the FDA has no credibility, as far as I'm concerned. They'll yank a sweetener off the market in a hot second if they discover that a 500 X dose of a normal portion will give a rat cancer, but a proven killer of humans like tobacco products are fine - it's 'personal freedom' to choose what to put into your body. It's not personal freedom at all - it's just money. And when a product is not only guaranteed dangerous, but highly addictive, it's a little tougher to justify it as a 'personal choice'. Robert was fortunate in being able to overcome the addiction, and my hat is off to him. Too many people are not able to. Studies have proven that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. Especially if you have a genetic predisposition to addiction, quitting is much harder than just saying "I think I won't smoke any more." To an addict (and anyone who smokes regularly has a physical addiction), it's a necessity. Your body has genuinely come to need nicotine. So it is not really 'personal choice', although many smokers who do not want to admit that they are addicted will say defiantly, "I like to smoke. I choose to smoke. I smoke because I want to." It's easy to quit using an artificial sweetener. But if you're a regular smoker, it is the challenge of your life. Even alcohol, as destructive as it can be, is not physically addictive in the same way that nicotine is. It takes a lot of alcoholic drinking to be physically addicted, although if you have the genetic predisposition it will happen sooner, but of itself alcohol is not immediately (say, within weeks of consistent use) physically addictive. Cigarettes are. So it's completely hypocritical to say that smoking is a personal choice. Crack is a personal choice, too.

And it doesn't just hurt the person who smokes. Second-hand smoke is dangerous, too. I watched a friend who never smoked in her life die a horrible slow suffocating death from emphysema, because her husband smoked. The cost to society of smoking is enormous. Include in that the families who lose a loved one to smoking-related illness, and the staggering medical costs of cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. We all pay.

Either the FDA should get out of business altogether, and allow the public the 'personal freedom' to choose what dangerous products to ingest, or be consistent and ban tobacco.

The profits are just too good, the tobacco lobby too rich and strong, and so the addiction that leads directly to suffering and death (as the tobacco industry was aware of long before the general public) is just fine, so long as the shekels keep on a-rollin' in.

If they want to make it a personal choice issue, then be consistent and allow any product (including 'illegal' drugs) on the market, as long as the dangers are clearly labeled, and 'caveat emptor'. But I've seen so many grotesque and unnecessary deaths from cigarettes including people who desperately tried to quit and were not able to, that, as far as I'm concerned, it's just premeditatated murder for profit.

Which, I understand, is a capital crime.

Go, Pat, Go

I just love me some Pat Robertson. He's always good for a hoot. He never lets you down in the crazy-ass department. If only he'd take another run at the Presidency.

"Tax-and-Spend" Jesus

I ran across this today...love it!

Disclaimer - this is a parody, courtesy of the Timothy McSweeney blog.

A MESSAGE FROM PAT ROBERTSON
AND THE "VOTE NO FOR JESUS" CAMPAIGN
BY NATHAN MCINTIRE

- - - -

June 25, 2004

Fellow Christians,

The Second-Coming of Jesus Christ was a magnificent and joyous day for all. Interrupting a brand-new holiday episode of 7th Heaven with his divine electronic prowess, Jesus informed the world on the first night of Hanukkah that he would return on December 25, 2003, somewhere in Washington D.C. Cynics dismissed the announcement as a hoax, while the faithful flocked to churches everywhere in anticipation of Christ's reappearance. Doubts of His authenticity vanished on Christmas Day as He walked across the Potomac River and quietly addressed a breathless crowd gathering for the annual Anti-Kwanzaa rally at Christian Coalition headquarters. He connected with the masses as only Jesus can, mesmerizing on-lookers with profound messages of peace and hope. He outlined the steps necessary to steer the world toward a path of deliverance, stressing tolerance and compassion. With such virtuous ideals in mind, Jesus announced His intention to run for President of the United States. As President, Jesus insisted, He could rid the world of evil, unite humankind, end world hunger, and achieve eternal peace—shaping God's Land in the glorious image of Heaven.

And so it is with great sadness that I write this letter urging you to vote against Jesus Christ for President.

here's the rest...

It's A Joke, Right?

I keep thinking lately, "Come on - it has to be a joke, right?" I keep expecting someone to come out and say "Psyche! We really had you going there for a while, didn't we?"

Real ID? Excommunicating Democrats? 'Fixing facts' so we can attack a country who has not and cannot attack us? Gutting Social Security? Teaching creationism ('scuse me - intelligent design) in science class? Trying to abolish the separation of church and state? To criticize the President in any way, even by 'faint praise', is un-American, even treasonous? Attorneys-General like John "Patriot Act" Ashcroft and Alberto "No Pain, No Gain" Gonzales? 400 billion dollar deficit?

Imagine this going on five years ago - I can't! It sounds like crazy talk.

Why Isn't Anyone Screaming?

Am I crazy? Does anyone else see this as a big deal?
This from Buzzflash by Greg Palast:

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has, "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WDM. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" Vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo, uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

Please, please read the rest of this and then tell me why this man is not being impeached this very minute.

Is this untrue? Does it not matter?

Bill Clinton was impeached over a sad little affair (if it could be dignified by the term). No one died. And his most vociferous and self-righteous attackers were - almost to a man, it seemed - guilty of marital transgressions many, many times more serious.

But it seems as if George W. Bush could hold up the bleeding, severed head of John Kerry and no one would give a rat's ass.

"He's a man of faith"
(so was Torquemada)
"He's the kind of guy you could sit and have a beer with"
(or two, or five, or fifteen - oh, I forgot he doesn't do that any more)
"He's a strong leader"
(so was Stalin)

Talk about your Teflon President.

Well, it's just another beautiful day in Hooterville.

John Conyers on Secret Iraq Plan

From Raw Story - this is simply stunning.

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) is circulating a letter calling for a further inquiry into a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.


In a statement, Conyers says he is disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."

Read the rest at Raw Story.
Read the U.K. version here.

The Streets Are Paved With Gold

...in Heaven, but it seems that televangelist Pat Robertson is trying to get a head start here on Earth.

While bitterly decrying "the tyranny of an oligarchy", he was busily laying up treasures in cahoots with one of the most despotic and savage tyrants in the world - Charles Taylor, former 'President' of Liberia. Now in exile in Nigeria, Taylor has been indicted by the Special Court of Sierra Leone on 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in contributing to the death, rape, abduction, and mutilation of thousands of civilians during Sierra Leone’s civil war from 1991 to 2002.

Bad guy? Not according to Pat. In fact, according to Demopedia

Robertson and Taylor are good friends, so much so that in 1998 Robertson negotiated a business partnership with the Taylor regime giving him the rights to gold mining interests in Liberia in exchange for a 10% kick back to the Taylor government. To move on this opportunity Robertson created a for-profit company -- Freedom Gold -- in which he was listed as President as well as Chairman of Board; Robertson being the Board's only member. The company was chartered within the tax evading borders of the Cayman Islands.

Robertson also defended Taylor in his time of need. The strongest critic of the President (When it came to Charles Taylor stepping down) is televangelist Pat Roberston, who has been lecturing his national television audience regularly about how wrong headed it would be for the US to intervene in Liberia. Indeed, Robertson has been critical of US policy toward Liberia for several years. "We're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country," Robertson told his 700 Club audience recently. "And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down."

Strong words for the President, huh, Pat?

But, interestingly enough, there seemed to be a bit of a sticky wicket, legally, according to a 2001 article in The Perspective, a Liberian newsmagazine, which stated that

Under Liberian law, specifically Chapter V: Article 34 section (f) of the Liberian constitution states "The Legislature shall have the power: to approve treaties, conventions and such international agreements negotiated or signed on behalf of the Republic."

The Liberian Legislature refused to ratify the Freedom Gold agreement signed by President Taylor and Pat Robertson. So on Oct. 30,2000, a second contract, which is virtually identical to the first, except for one significant passage, was drawn up. Section 2 of the document was modified, according to GQ and Liberian legal experts familiar with the deal, to read that the contract will go in effect "when approved by the president of Republic of Liberia." Gone is the language that reads that the contract is to become valid only "in accordance with the constitution and laws of the Republic."

Clearly Mr. Robertson, a graduate of Yale Law School who was represented by Gerald Padmore, a Liberian-born Harvard Law School graduate, must know that his agreement with Taylor is unconstitutional.

Amazing. Just amazing. So last Sunday we find Pat holding forth with George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" (here's the transcript, thanks to the Randi Rhodes Show) and opining (in all seriousness) that the worst problem facing the nation is the "out-of-control judiciary". When Stephanopoulos asks him, "How can you say that these judges are a more serious threat than Islamic terrorists who slammed into the World Trade Center?", he answers (I kid you not):

"It depends on how you look at culture. If you look over the course of a hundred years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings. I think we're going to control al Qaeda. I think we're going to get Osama bin Laden. We won in Afghanistan. We won in Iraq, and we can contain that. But if there's an erosion at home, you know, Thomas Jefferson warned about a tyranny of an oligarchy and if we surrender our democracy to the tyranny of an oligarchy, we've made a terrible mistake."

A few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings. No big deal.

I can understand why it's no big deal to Pat. It's obvious that he's not squeamish about a li'l bit o' terrorism where his financial interests are concerned. After all, another interesting but little-discussed factoid about his "Christian buddy" Charles Taylor is that the Washington Post reported that Taylor received at least $1 million for providing safe harbor to agents of Osama bin Laden in the weeks following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. According to the American Atheist Newsletter in 2003,

The operatives were there to supervise "a $20 million diamond-buying spree that effectively cornered the market on the region's precious stones." Indeed, diamonds are part of a culture where deals are struck on a handshake and often leave no trace or records, including electronic "footprints" that are monitored by international police and intelligence services. Diamonds are more convenient to use than gold or other precious metals. They can be easily transported, re-cut, and serve as the ultimate black market currency.

Taylor's wealth and political power stem from his ties to the Revolution United Front (RUF) of neighboring Sierra Leon. The RUF controls extensive diamond mining operations which ship the stones to Liberia where they often sold for hard currency at discount to willing buyers, including al Qaeda agents. For providing safe harbor and anonymity, Taylor receives a commission on each transaction.

But it's OK, cause he's a "fellow Baptist".

I get it.

I may have to continue this post later, because at this point words are kind of failing me...

Hooter-Speak, and Those Who Fall For It

Wow.

I must say, I am impressed. Really.

These guys are good.

Now that the "Nukular Option" phrase is testing badly for the Hootervillains, not only are they Luntzing it into the "Constitutional Option", but they are now claiming that "Nukular Option" is what the Democrats call it!

That's what I call stones.

And the so-called "Liberal Media" are obediently going along with it.

Heck, who needs Fox News anymore?

The "King George Version" Bible

In honor of that upcoming free-for-all fetid festering festival of faux-faith, "Justice Sunday" (another particularly Hootervillian name), or, better yet, "Just, My Ass Sunday", I figured it was a good time to bust out the Good Book. Imagine my surprise when I saw that it was the updated 'King George Version'.

It was a good deal, well, smaller than I remembered. As I leafed through the pages, I couldn't help but notice that entire sections had been ripped out and replaced with hastily-scribbled pages. Here are some of the passages that I thought I was familiar with, but have been revised in the new 'KGV':

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Blessed are the poor: for they deserve it, the lazy bastards.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall have plenty to mourn about.

Blessed are the meek: for we shall shove our agenda down their throats without a peep out of them.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be S.O.L.

Blessed are the merciful: for they are suckers.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall have no idea how bad we're screwing them.

Blessed are the warmongers: for they shall be called the freedom fighters.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for there shall be no pesky ethics committee to impede them.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for there is a vast left-wing conspiracy against you.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to take away their funding.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till the activist judges are removed.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called a Majority Leader.

For more enlightenment, check here and here and here...
See you on Sunday!

This Is Why...

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Some pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions that they find morally objectionable. A year ago, this would have sounded like the crazy religious fringe. But, given the events of the last few months, it's not surprising.

Why does it sound even worth discussing? A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions that are written by a licensed physician. If a pharmacist chooses not to facilitate a doctor's order, he (or she) is in effect making a medical decision for the patient - i.e. impersonating a doctor. That is against the law. For instance, I have a friend who takes the Pill for reasons entirely unrelated to birth control. Is her pharmacist going to decide for her that she has to suffer with severe cramping because he (or she) objects to the Pill on 'principle'? Since when does a pharmacist get to decide what's medically necessary for anyone? Since when does a pharmacist get to overrule a doctor? Since when does a pharmacist get to tell me I can't use a contraceptive ordered by my doctor? Suppose a pregnancy would endanger my health or kill me? Suppose I just feel like having sex without getting pregnant?

Look - if you're a vegan, don't work at McDonald's. If you object to drinking, don't tend bar at the Dew Drop Inn. If you are not prepared to carry out the duties of a pharmacist - filling prescriptions written by licensed physicians - find some other line of work.

This is all part of the larger picture, though. The point of what's happening here is the separation of church and state. And though it seems silly and picayune and radical-ACLU to fuss about prayer in school or the Ten Commandments - how could something so innocuous and positive hurt anybody - this is where it begins leading to. The Hootervillains (not a typo) have come right out and said that they are actively working toward a religious state. In fact, my beloved Tommi, in speaking of Dubya's 'faith-based initiative' in 2001 at an invitation-only luncheon gathering for congressional staff organized by TV preacher D. James Kennedy's Center for Christian Statesmanship said, "I don't believe there is a separation of church and state."

Civil rights are being systematically dismantled and the Constitution is being flagrantly spat upon, and nobody seems to see anything alarming about this.

All aboard! The Hooterville Cannonball is now leaving the station, headed straight for Shari'a Town...

Morals - Rigid vs. Relative

One thing you hear constantly as a liberal is, "Well, you have no moral standards - everything's 'relative' so there is no right or wrong!" Apparently allowing people to make their own moral choices is somehow the same as having no morals. It is not enough to be moral oneself; one can only command the high ground by condemning those who do not choose your exact path.

I have a really, really hard time with that Hootervillian 'logic'. There are so many denominations with so many differing standards of 'righteousness' and what constitutes right living and right beliefs that everyone falls short somewhere. Many 'fundamentalist Christians' believe that Catholics are going to Hell. Some churches object to alcohol consumption. Others, such as the Latter-Day Saints, believe that caffeine, as well, is incompatible with Godliness. Some churches, like Church of Christ, do not allow dancing. Seventh-Day Adventists are asked to avoid alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, meat, and jewelry. The Shakers believed that sex of any kind was unholy (which accounted for its eventual demise). So does it follow that the more restrictive a church is, the 'holier' or closer to God they are?

Trying to impose 'Biblical' principles upon Americans via the government is impossible because every denomination interprets the Bible differently. This, of course, takes no notice of the very clear "separation of church and state" that is one of the bedrock principles upon which this nation was founded, and has been reiterated and reaffirmed throughout U.S. history. And just because I don't shove my beliefs and principles down your throat does not mean I don't have them and adhere to them.

I do have them, and I prefer to walk rather than talk. I believe that behavior and example are more persuasive than proselytizing. But it seems that the opposite is true for the Hootervillians. The louder they denounce something, the more likely it seems to be that they are doing it.

God's Gift To The Democrats - Tom DeLay!

You know, in the wake of all this religious fervor, I have had a revelation - an epiphany - a change of heart. Pay no attention to my earlier posts on Mr. DeLay (or, Tommi, as I think I'll call him from now on, since I feel so close to him). God has spoken to me, and He has informed me that Tommi is His gift to the Democratic Party. He has been sent to us to elevate the visibility of what's going on in America.

Go, Tommi, go!

The 'Defense' Rests

I received my first marriage proposal at the age of eighteen. My fiancé, a year older than I, was a real catch. A Tom Hanks look-alike, he was tall and lanky, with curly brown hair and a sweet, slightly loopy smile. Kenny was smart, funny, athletic, a gifted actor and a talented saxophone player who helped me get a full-tuition music scholarship at the community college he attended a year ahead of me. His mom had been my first piano teacher, and we had been friends ever since I was in the eighth grade. We bonded in high school, both of us being theater geeks, band nerds - not terribly popular but cool with being 'on the fringe'. Music and drama helped us both to find our own place in the spinning vortex that is high school.

Kenny was a college sophomore and I was a freshman when he proposed. We were both music majors, and both had jobs as well - I was playing keyboards in local bands at night, and he was the night manager of a convenience store. Unlike most of my other male friends, Kenny was already planning for a home and family. Hard-working and thrifty, he was putting away money for a down payment on a house. I adored him. We had so much in common - including the fact that we both liked guys.

Yep, Kenny was gay. It was not a 'lifestyle choice'; it was not a 'sexual preference', like drinking tea instead of coffee. Believe me, Kenny did not just wake up one fine morning and say, "I think I'll alienate my family, exclude myself from the social mainstream, jeopardize my ability to choose where I live and what I do, and lay myself open to rejection, discrimination, violence, hate, and fear." Folks, I'm afraid he was born that way. Take it from someone who grew up with him.

As close as we were in high school, we never talked about it. He had a 'girlfriend', a sax player at another high school, and we both pretended that he was in love with her long enough for him to have a prom date. It wasn't until after I graduated in the late '70s and disco was king that Kenny opened up to me about being gay. He introduced me to the gay subculture in our town, and I went with him to the gay bars and the all-night discos. He would have crushes on guy after guy, always so sure that this one was 'the one', but somehow it never seemed to work out. Although finally free to 'be himself' with other people who felt the way he did, the long-term relationship and stability that he wanted so much was at odds with the hedonistic excesses of the era, and there was no social framework in place to support him.

This was where I came in. As we saw it, our getting married could solve a lot of difficulties (I plead the ignorance of eighteen). Kenny's mom knew me and liked me; she would be forever grateful that I would give Kenny social validity; Kenny could have the home and family he wanted - well, at least the home and the appearance of a family. I could have my cake and eat it, too - a partner who would be there for me financially and emotionally without asking for sexual fidelity, who would give me a home and not care what time I came back to it!

Well, it turned out we didn't get married after all; there was that pesky detail of 'being in love' that we knew, as young and nutty as we were, was the real reason for getting married. As much as we loved each other as friends, there would never be a marriage in our hearts. We went our separate ways; I went on the road and he stayed in our home town, still working, still saving, still waiting and hoping for the dream to come true. We still kept in touch, and when I came home to visit my family, we'd get together and catch up on each others' lives. Kenny eventually got the home, but the life partner to share it with never happened.

After a few years, I moved to California and my visits were spaced farther and farther apart. Sometimes I saw him, sometimes I didn't, but there was always 'next time'. I got married (for real) and after the birth of my first child, I flew back home with my husband and new son, eager to introduce them to my family and friends. I couldn't catch up with Kenny; I left messages on his machine, but in the whirlwind of activity surrounding the new baby, I put Kenny on my 'next time' list.

Two weeks after I went back to California, my sister called me to tell me that Kenny had died of AIDS.

When I hear people talking about the "Defense of Marriage", it just makes me want to spit. I believe that if Kenny had been allowed to marry, if there had been a social structure in place at that time that encouraged and rewarded commitment in gay people as well as straight, that Kenny would most likely be alive today.

Just who are they 'defending' marriage from? Is there some straight woman that won't be able to find a mate because the gay boys 'got' all the men? The arguments that the staunch 'Knights of Matrimony' throw out don't hold water to me.

Jan LaRue, a member of the Concerned Women of America (‘concerned’ with getting all up in other peoples’ private lives!) – a lawyer, for gosh sakes – talks about why gay marriage is so very wrong…

"Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified."

Qualified? Qualified?!?

Yes, I guess the lovely and talented Lyle Menendez is ‘qualified’ to get married. No doubt the devilishly handsome Scott Peterson, with his boyish charm, will be married before you know it, taking his pick of jailhouse proposals from the coterie of killer-hags that are inundating him with marriage offers. After all, he is single!

point: A child should have a mother and a father.

counterpoint: First off, I think it pretty much goes without saying that in today's society, reproduction is not the only reason to be married. I don't remember the 'Fertility Test' when my husband and I were applying for our marriage license. There are straight couples who (gasp!) choose not to have children! And how about the couples who just can't and decide to live with it? Should their licenses be revoked? What about parents who have lost a partner to divorce or death? Should their children be taken away from them?

Then, of course, there are the straight couples who have absolutely no business having children, and have them any old way? Abusive parents, neglectful parents, parents who, in their heart of hearts, don't want children but have them because of outside pressure? Am I to believe that a loving, committed gay couple would be worse for the emotional health of a kid than parents like these? Apparently so. That's right along with the "Murphy Brown" school of condemnation - those awful, selfish women who want a child so badly that they choose to have one without being married. Selfish? Most single (by choice or not) moms (and dads) I know have very little 'self' at all - they're too busy trying to raise their kids right in a two-income society. They're always at the bottom of the list. But I digress. Maybe we could force them to marry a gay man or woman. One of the opposite gender, naturally. Serve them all right.

No doubt about it, mothers and fathers are great. Optimal, even. I am not suggesting that the mom-and-pop deal is just another family model choice. It's not. It is the dominant one, and, all other things being even is the situation that our society set up to best suit a family. But all things are not always even, and just as no one in their right mind today would force a woman to stay with an abusive man 'for the sake of the children', the idea that any two heterosexuals (no matter how sick and dysfunctional) are better parent material than any two homosexuals (no matter how emotionally healthy and loving) is not an idea that I am prepared to accept. I am sure that there are bad gay parents out there. But I know there are bad straight parents, lots and lots of them, and no one is suggesting we abolish marriage for straight people because of that. I might even posit that, as a group, gay parents might have a higher percentage of good parenting because they often have to go to extraordinary lengths to have children, and in the face of strong opposition. It doesn't just 'happen', and I suspect the process would tend to weed out the less-motivated.

Gender role modeling? Maybe. But the overwhelming majority of gay people have (drum roll, please)… straight parents! What happened there with the 'gender modeling'? Good parents of any kind make sure their kids have positive models around them.

And then there's always the trump card - IMMORALITY! Who sez? God sez! Whose God? My God! Oh, my God. I'm not even going to bother to discuss the Bible quotes in Leviticus that are trotted out on a regular basis - smarter people than I have refuted the 'cherry-picking' of Levitical laws employed by those who feel that God Hates Fags. To these people, I say, "Fine. You're absolutely right. No one should force you to marry a gay person." Like any self-respecting queer would want to. Our country was founded by people who left their homeland and traveled thousands and thousands of miles to be free to worship as they pleased. And,ß yes, they were Christians. But the whole idea (and a radical one it was) was to build a country where EVERYONE was free to worship as they pleased - not just Christian Puritans. Freedom of religion. Freedom NOT to worship if so inclined. Again, I'll leave the debating of the Constitution to my betters, but unless I'm way off the mark here, the United States of America is not a theocracy. Isn't that exactly what we're trying to avoid setting up in that other place…what's it called again?…oh, yes - Iraq!

Well, folks, I'd better get out while the getting's good - I can see I'm heading into deep water here. But I'm still not convinced that there is any sort of justice in the fact that a mass murderer can marry and have children, if he or she chooses a partner of the opposite sex, but a law-abiding, upstanding member of society - if gay - cannot. To my mind, the 'Defense' doesn't have a leg to stand on.

"Be Prepared" For More Family Values

I swear - sometimes I think people are just making this stuff up. I may have figured out a way to decipher what's really going on with the (so-called) religious right...just listen to what they accuse other people of. Voila! Whatever it is that they are up on their high horse about, that's very likely what they are either currently doing (or being) or have done, and now want to make sure nobody else does it.

The latest? Well, remember the big to-do over the Boy Scouts wanting to exclude kids who are gay, atheist or even agnostic? Didn't coincide with their Christian moral standards? Well, apparently one of these paragons of righteousness, the national director of programs for the Boy Scouts of America, has been charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. I guess it's not so bad to be gay, atheist or agnostic if it keeps you away from this pervert. But, of course,

“We’re shocked and dismayed to learn of this,” said Gregg Shields, national spokesman for the Boy Scouts, based in the Dallas suburb of Irving.

The Scouts have been under fire in recent years for refusing to allow gays, atheists or agnostics into the organization.

“That’s totally irrelevant to this,” Shields said.

Irrelevant? I think it is extremely relevant. In fact, I think it is directly connected. Unless you think agnosticism is sinful and child pornography is OK.

And the list goes on and on...

Family Values, Florida-Style

My mother, who lives in Tampa, called me Sunday night. The recent firestorm over the Terri Schiavo issue has made her nervous enough about her final wishes that she is re-doing her Living Will and Medical Power of Attorney. My brother is her executor, but several years ago he made it clear that, as a Catholic, he could not honor her request for 'no extreme measures' and 'do not resuscitate'. She asked my sister to be her medical designate, instead.

My mom is a liberal of the old school. Raised in Irish-Catholic Brooklyn, she became a Unitarian in the '60s after struggling with the 'don't question' dogma of the faith she was raised in. She (and we) remained Catholic for several years after her divorce, but ultimately the contradictions were too great for her to overcome, and she found a home in the Unitarian-Universalist Church. It was a little confusing to me (the oldest of three) to be suddenly un-Catholic, especially since I, unlike my younger sister and brother, went to Catechism and had my First Communion. I didn't particularly care for the Unitarians, who mostly struck me as a bunch of overly-friendly hippies, and what kind of church was it if it didn't tell you what to believe? Not that I missed going to boring old Mass and Catechism and Confession, but a church was supposed to be a Church, it seemed to me. Instead of spending our Sunday mornings all dressed up with a doily on my head at Corpus Christi, I spent my time in a back room of the Unitarian church with a clunky little 63-key piano, teaching myself to play and trying to avoid the peace-and-granola weirdos. For my mom, of course, it was different - a real spiritual home, where you could ask all the questions you wanted and come to your own conclusion about God, yet still be involved in a faith community. When, as a single mom, she needed to go to work, she put her money where her mouth was and went back to school to become a social worker - a stressful, thankless, bureaucratic nightmare of a job; underpaid, understaffed, overworked - because she felt that she could help people on a direct level in that way, and she worked for the State of Florida for 35 years.

As we grew to adulthood, we three kids found our own spiritual paths. I became a Christian of no particular denomination, my sister and her husband are Methodists (or Presbyterians, I can't remember which), and my brother is a born-again Catholic. Oddly enough, my mother and I, who are almost polar opposites in most matters, are on the same page politically. My brother and sister became Republicans - my sister for fiscal reasons, my brother for cultural reasons.

How did this happen? My siblings are good, principled people, and they would say the same about me. We all love one another dearly, and respect one another. We were raised to believe that family comes first, and we take care of one another in whatever way is needed. I'm more or less the 'rebel' of the family, having eschewed college for the life of a musician, but have nevertheless managed to get married, have a family, buy a house - all the good old-fashioned American values. My brother the accountant has disapproved of my unpredictable lifestyle (and my tattoo) but he would lay his life down for me in a heartbeat. I'm his sister, and that's the end of that. And when I rant and rave about the religious right, I have to remember that the baby brother I adore is one of them. Moreover, like my mom the bleeding-heart liberal, he puts his money where his mouth is. He tithes 10% of his income. He spends his weekends volunteering at soup kitchens. He walks the talk, unlike 99% of the politicians and ministers who claim to speak for him.

As passionate as I am about my political convictions, when I'm with my siblings I avoid talking about my own politics. I wish I was brave enough to just let the chips fall where they may, but while I feel strongly about my position, I don't think that arguing about politics and religion will do anything but put a wedge between me and the ones I love, and it's not worth it to me. They know how I feel; I know how they feel. But I wonder how we can be so close in our real life, our real values, and yet be at opposite ends of the political spectrum. And our values are the same - God, family, service to others. Why, then, can't we talk?

My mother's lawyers suggest that she name three family members for her Medical Power of Attorney. That would be me and my sister and brother-in-law. So now, if something happens to my mom similar to what happened to Terri Schiavo, if she is incapacitated with no hope of recovery, in fulfilling my mother's wishes, I may be looking at losing the brother I love. I do not want to end up like the Schiavos and the Schindlers. And I am sickened by the opportunistic politicians who are using these people to further their political ends.

God help us all.

Arnold Ziffel or Tom DeLay? You decide...

Well, well, well...what a surprise. Not that your humble hayseed is especially prescient, but couldn't you just see this coming a country mile away? Tom DeLay just can't pull his snout out of that trough. Now that the allegations are piling on and the lasso is tightening around the PAC pigpen, in retrospect the events of last November make perfect sense. Of course the House Republicans wanted to change the rule that required House Republican leaders and the heads of the various committees to relinquish their positions if indicted for a crime that could bring a prison term of at least two years. And now we see why.

Common Cause, last November, issued a press release that stated:

Today’s vote by the House Republican conference to change its party rules is arrogant, hypocritical and in defiance of the most basic ethical guidelines to which elected officials should adhere. The change allows for the possibility that members of Congress who are indicted by state grand juries retain their leadership posts - thus protecting House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), who may well be indicted as part of a Texas investigation.

It is ironic that 11 years ago, House Republicans adopted the same rule scrapped today in an effort to draw attention to Democrats’ ethical problems. In fact, Rep. DeLay himself was a key player in calling for those tougher ethics standards.

The move is all the more outrageous when considered in light of the track record of the leader that the amendment is designed to protect.

Rep. DeLay faced back-to-back admonishments last month from the GOP-led, bipartisan House Ethics Committee. In response to the ethics complaint filed by Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX), the committee admonished Rep. DeLay for conduct suggesting political donations would influence legislative action and for asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane carrying Texas Democratic state legislators during last year’s contentious redistricting battle. The panel deferred action on the third count of Rep. Bell’s complaint which alleged that Rep. DeLay was involved in illegal fundraising for candidates for the Texas State Legislature. The substance of this allegation is what is under investigation from the Texas grand jury.

But there is more.

Here are 10 good reasons to ask the swine to resign, courtesy of the Public Campaign Action Fund.

This article in Salon by Sidney Blumenthal is worth watching an ad to look at.

With all this manure, muck and mud, it's time for the shovel and pitchfork instead of "The Hammer".

Coincidence?

Add a "C" to Mr. Haney, and whaddya got?

The Stores!

I've been away for a while (thank you, Grillo, for your kind inquiry)...I'm not that great a blogger. Not that I'm not interested; just finding the time to organize my thoughts is difficult with 3 kids at home. However, I've been jolted once again into the alternate reality that is Hooterville by the cloture of the Bankruptcy Bill, or, in Hootervillian, "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005".

Did they really, really say the words 'Consumer Protection'?!? The only parties 'protected' here are the credit card companies and banking interests who have paid the Democrats $2 million and the Republicans $5 million in lobbying fees, and the wealthy individuals who can still 'protect' their already considerable assets by investing in a 'protected' home in Texas or Florida (nothing refreshes like a tall, cool glass of 'O.J.' in the Sunshine State!). After all, what better way to 'protect' the middle class and working poor who are more vulnerable than ever before, due to the fast-encroaching elimination of job security, pensions, unemployment, affordable or work-based health insurance, and, of course, Social (in)Security, than by cutting off the last means of getting back on their feet?

You may say, what's so wrong with asking people to pay what they owe?

Guess what? We aren't asking everyone to pay what they owe, just those least able to do so! And guess what else? We've already paid!! Those who are 'high-risk' have already paid the credit card companies in advance with 24% interest, and after the fact in egregiously high late fees! In fact, the credit card companies who are howling about 'deadbeats' depend on those same 'late payers' for their profits! If everyone paid on time, they'd be out of business.

90% of American bankruptcies are the result of personal crises: medical emergencies, job loss, divorce, or deaths of family members. Check this for an eye-opener.

I must be crazy. Why else would it seem to me that there is a fundamental difference between bankruptcy to stay off of the street and bankruptcy to keep all the cool stuff you already have. This seems to be the same old tired "Welfare Queen" story about all the lazy, shiftless, no-account loafers who just want to 'soak the rich' to avoid personal responsibility.

Have you ever filed bankruptcy? Do you know anyone who has? Then you know that on a personal level it is one of the hardest, saddest, most degrading things you ever have to do. In the interests of honesty, I personally have not filed for bankruptcy, but I have close friends who have. Most people will do anything to avoid it. The figures say '9 out of 10'. That means almost all the people who file do so out of desperation, and because of events over which they have no control - crushing medical bills, death, divorce and, yes - job loss. The people who don't anguish over bankruptcy are (usually, not always, but usually) those for whom bankruptcy is just another smart business move.

Yet somehow, here in Hooterville, it's just fine for the ones who will not become homeless, will not lose their families, will not have to go on welfare, will not be able to eat or buy clothes or have medical care. Belly on up to the bar, fellas! Drinks are on the House (and Senate).

Anyone for a screwdriver?