What Would I Do Without Someone Telling Me How To Vote?

Whew!

Thank goodness that someone so much smarter than I am is here to set me straight. Lawrence O'Donnell has just informed me that the candidate who comes the closest to representing my views is a loser, and I shoud not vote for him.

Wowzers.

By voting for my candidate, John Edwards, I am subverting the democratic process and depriving Hillary or Obama of a vote that is rightfully theirs. After all, it's really a two-horse race. Everybody says so. It's two 'historic' candidates. And they 'deserve a one-on-one contest.'

What is this? ESP-fucking-N?

Time for the white guy to get out of the way? Make way for the Thrilla In Manila?

Just one more reason for me to hate the media.

Well, Larry, you've just convinced me - to send some more money (that I don't have) to John Edwards.

John Edwards - The Invisible Man

Night before last, I went to a little bar in Santa Monica to watch the Iowa caucuses on MSNBC with Drinking Liberally. I saw some old friends (Skippy, Shockwave), met some new friends (dday, occam's hatchet) and checked out the show on the big-screen TVs. Most of the time it was difficult to hear what was going on, but we could see the numbers going up - Obama at 38%, Edwards at 30%, Clinton at 29%. (For a rundown on the numbers and the money spent in Iowa, check BruinKid's DailyKos post here.)

The big news, of course, was that Obama beat Hillary.

According to the MSM, there are only two horses in this race.

Listening to all three of the candidates' speeches afterwards, I was struck by the non-specifics of Obama. For all his talk about 'change' and 'hope' and making things better, I did not hear anything other than vague feel-goodies. What I have not seen, other than his initial opposition to going to war with Iraq (which I commend) has been leadership in the sphere where he is currently working - the Senate. When Chris Dodd stood up against amnesty for the telecoms in the FISA bill, we got Obama (and Hillary's) hearty good wishes and nothing more. In many other places where he could have stood up for something, he votes 'present' without committing himself. Dodd's stance alone made me send him money and support. I want a candidate who's going to fight for something other than caucus votes. I was disappointed when Dodd dropped out, becuase he has shown me that he has principles that he is willing to stand up for - even at the expense of his Presidential campaign.

Also, I think Obama is dead wrong when he talks about 'bipartisanship' and ending the rancor between the two parties. He does not seem to notice that in taking that position, he is stabbing the Dems in the back, and is falling into the trap that the Repubs have laid - that of equating the relentless attacks on Dems with the idea that both parties are equally culpable. The Republicans have been doing this since Bill Clinton got into office - see Digby. He is either unaware of it - which is not a quality I want in the next President - doesn't care about it, or is part of it, which is not what I want in the next President either.

For Hillary to have the machine she has, and the money and effort she's put into Iowa, and still trail Edwards, does not augur well for the viability of her message. She, also, has not stood up for things I think are important when they come before Congress - unless she thought she could get away with it without ruffling any corporate feathers. She's disappointed me with too many votes for me to get behind her for President. I don't have the Hillary-hate that many people have, but I think her views are incompatible with mine on too many issues. I see the desecration of the Constitution and the death-grip of corporatism (both of which are culpable for the Iraq debacle) as the biggest issues we have facing us, and she does not strike me as a candidate that will fight for either of those, as well as being far too hawkish for my taste. We don't need a Maggie Thatcher as our first woman President.

So, yes, I support John Edwards. No, he's not perfect; the 'perfect candidate' could never hope to be elected to so much as neighborhood dog-catcher in our hopelessly unworkable election system. But I think that John Edwards 'gets it'. I thought so in 2004 also, and supported him then.

And I think the proof that his message is hitting home is the virtual media blackout around him.

Even though he was vastly outspent in Iowa by his Democratic rivals -

Obama (more than $9.5 million)
Clinton (more than $7.5 million)
Romney ($7 million-plus)
Edwards ($4 million)
Huckabee ($1.4 million).

- he was the second-place winner, beating someone who outspent him almost 2-1. But as far as the media were concerned, he might as well have stayed home. He is not a part of the History-In-The-Making® narrative of the first African-American President Candidate vs the First Woman President Candidate Death-Cage Smackdown. He messes up their nice little World Premiere Television Event.

BruinKid writes:

Of all the multi-candidate headlines on Google News, Edwards appears in just 8%, compared to 97% for Obama and 95% for Clinton.

In other words, out of 2,901 multi-candidate headlines, Edwards appeared in only 228. Obama appeared in 2,813. Hillary, 2,761.

But it's his message that makes the establishment shake in their Ferragamos and Bruno Maglis. He openly talks about takng on the corporations. What's more, he's done it successfully as a (...dum dum dum...straight from the bowels of hell...) trial lawyer. He understands that there are, indeed, Two Americas. And that's the last thing that the plutocrats want us to know. The more they hammer on about 'personal responsibility', the less they have to worry about corporate responsibility. But it seems that, somewhere, somehow, a few Americans are starting to 'get it' also - Republicans as well as Democrats. As David Sirota points out, populism is on the rise. The media is attempting to spin Huckabee's win in Iowa as merely an evangelical phenomenon. But Huckabee is also the only Republican who talks about poverty, job outsourcing, CEO overindulgence, and other economic concerns. And having people start worrying about those issues instead of the War on Terra, Islamo-Fascism™ and 9/11-24/7 is to be avoided at any and all costs.

The mainstream media, with its incestuous relationships with those in power, are desperately trying to pretend there's no such thing as John Edwards. The intrepid Elizabeth Edwards, however, ain't havin' it, and calls out the Tweetmeister, Chris Matthews on Hardball. (h/t Crooks and Liars) When he inevitably goes after Edwards for taking money from the dreaded trial lawyers (the bane of the corporatists' existence, and the only line of defense for an individual who has been wronged by an entity much bigger and richer than he or she could ever hope to be), calling them an 'interest group', she neatly disposes of his talking points, one by one. He weasels, she hones in. But Tweety's telling phrase is this:

"I mean, he’s not the first woman president, first African American president—this is exciting history. John Edwards is just another white Protestant from the South."

Gee, Tweety. What a shame a great candidate has to go and ruin your frickin' "Movie of the Week." God forbid that a candidate with the interests of the American people at heart, not just the 'haves and the have-mores', should gum up the works when you have your Sweeps Week mini-series so neatly planned out. Perhaps it would be more interesting if, say, Edwards were to come out in a dress and pearls? The First Cross-Dressing President? (Never mind - Julie-ani's already covered that.) Or, maybe if Criss Angel were to have him materialize onstage in a puff of smoke, maybe with some devil-horns for good measure?

Won't somebody please think about the ratings?

(Update: for more in-depth analysis of the Incredible Shrinking Edwards, see JedReport.)

The Old Gray Mare, She Ain't What She Used To Be - more thoughts on NYT

(Welcome to the folks at Crooks & Liars! Thanks, Mike!)

DistributorcapNY wrote a great post on the hiring of Billy 'the Kid' Kristol - much better researched than mine (although in my defense, I wrote mine after coming home from my New Year's gig at 3:00 in the morning...)

Here's what I thought:

Have you noticed that all of the 'responses' to the people who write or e-mail the NYT with the complaint, not about Kristol's conservatism, but about the fact that he's Wrong. About. Everything. are answered with 'we want a variety of viewpoints'!

Yes, you must always balance truth with a lie - or it wouldn't be
'balanced', would it?

That non-answer is completely ignoring the question asked, which has nothing to do with what side of the political spectrum one is on, and everything to do with credibility. These buffoons refuse to address that issue, but switch their answer over to something that wasn't asked.

What, couldn't they get Katherine Harris?

The Old Gray Mare, she ain't what she used to be...

Happy New Year from Hooterville and Alicia!

Hi friends and fam,

It seems fitting to start my Hooterville Post Office Newsletter today.

2007 has been a year of ignition and transition; I'm hoping 2008 will be a year of fruition.

Although I started my book 'The Price of Right' at the end of 2006, last year was the year I really became a writer. It was a long, hard slog - especially trying to balance writing along with my first priority - my family - and my music work. My heartfelt thanks go out to my publisher, Drew Nederpelt at Sterling and Ross, because if it were not for his interest in my writing, I would not have written a book. Period. A note to my fellow bloggers out there: you can do it, too! As most of you know, I began blogging in 2004 after the debacle that was the Residential Selection. I did not start blogging because of any great conceit that I was a fabulous writer - I started blogging to save my sanity. I have no writing background; my 'higher education came to an end 3 months into my freshman year of college, when I got a road gig, and never looked back. But I was so 'shaken and stirred' by the outcome of the election that I had to find a vent for my thoughts and feelings, and that's when I became a blogger.

I had started a Wordpress blog earlier that summer, more to indulge my 'inner geek' and find out what this 'blog' thing I'd heard of was about, than to write about anything in particular. In fact, I think my first post was something along the lines of "Umm, this is my blog, and it's eleven o'clock at night, and I can't think of anything to write about." But the morning after Nov. 3rd, I was ready to spew, and started a Blogger blog just to say what I had to say. I didn't necessarily think I would write a second or third post, much less make it a regular part of my life. In fact, after my first couple of introductory posts, I didn't write again until the Bankruptcy Bill of 05 raised its ugly head on the scene. Furious, I threw myself back into blogging, which meant, of course, reading, researching, networking, and I've been reading, writing and researching ever since.

I would also be remiss if I didn't give props to my blogfather* Kyle E. Moore of Comments From Left Field, who was the first person that I actually had a blog conversation with, and who encouraged me to improve my writing. Thought of the day: you never know where a supportive word will take someone, so if you notice someone or something worth encouraging - do it!

Of course to Mike Malloy, whose radio show gives voice to what so many of us are thinking and feeling, whose outrage helps us by knowing that we're not alone in our own outrage, and who has been kind enough to read some of my articles on the air, including the one that caught the attention of my publisher.

And to you all - my family and friends, both blog-wise and in person, who have been along on this ride with me, thank you so much. As I said earlier - if you're a blogger (or even if you're not!), you can do this too. If you've learned to write something every day, that's 90% of the battle. Your voices are needed. Blogging for me was the first step that led to local activism, and then to a book. Blogging doesn't just have to be sitting in front of a computer and ranting to other bloggers - it can be a catalyst for change. It has been for me. As progressives,we may not have the luxury of being babysat by wealthy think-tanks to get our message out there. The Conservative Book Club is not going to buy a gazillion of our books to propel us onto the best-sellers lists. But it is absolutely imperative that everyone with something to say takes the opportunity to say it - while we still have that luxury.

It's difficult to keep up an optimistic viewpoint when we're faced with the daunting opponents of Big Money, Big Media, Big Guns and Big Religion, but as far as I'm concerned, apathy or 'opting out' are luxuries we simply can't afford. We must keep putting one foot in front of the other, regardless of whether we can see a light at the end of the tunnel or not. We have to ask ourselves "What's the right thing to do?" - not the easy thing or the thing that stands the most chance of success. And then we have to do it.

That's my resolution for 2008. I hope that the hard work of so many progressives will come to fruition, and that we will take courage from each other, and give support to each other. This is the only way we can win.

peace, Alicia

*he hates it when I call him that!

Bite Me, New York Times.

(Update: Front-paged on the Chimp again! Thanks to whoever does that!)
(Update 2: FP on Buzzflash! Wow, folks - thanks!)

On the last day of 2007, the New York Times published an editorial, titled "Looking at America," bemoaning what the nation has come to. It starts out like this:

"There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency."

It's a great editorial, and I agree with pretty much every word in it.

So why am I so pissed off?

Because the NYT was no small contributor to the state of affairs in which we find ourselves today. In fact, this little tid-bit:

"We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant."

was information that the Times knew about before the 2004 election - and sat on so as not to hurt George W. Bush's chances for re-election! Like the Supreme Court in 2000, who delivered a ruling that only applied to Bush to guarantee his civil right to be President by not counting votes, a lot of institutions seem dedicated to protecting at all costs one man's divine right to the Presidency. Funny - I thought the first responsibility the press has (and the reason that it is the only profession singled out in the First Amendment for special protection) is to the public interest and the public's right to know the truth - not covering the President's rear end. But the New York Times held back what they knew about warrantless wiretapping, and Dubya was able to weasel into another deadly term.

This supposed 'liberal rag' was a cheerleader for this war that they are now wringing their hands about. Judith Miller delivered article after article filled with 'information' trumpeting 'weapons of mass destruction', which gave credibility to the Bush Administration's insistence that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat who could only be dealt with by pre-emptive military attack.

Every time the Times had a chance to stand up and tell the truth, they cravenly rolled over for their corporate masters. Now they're blubbering about how awful these last seven years have been.

Boo hoo hoo.

You can bite me, NYT.

The editorial finishes up like this:

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

Unlike 2004? You mean when you kept vital information from the American voters so as to assure another Bush presidency? How about looking in the mirror as a newspaper, instead of a propaganda mouthpiece?

And, to add insult to injury, at the same time you're sniveling into your hankie about how horrid it's all been, you serve up more of the same, hiring Bill Kristol, neocon war-monger extraordinaire, as your newest 'columnist'. Could you possibly find a more credibility-challenged candidate? Practically every word out of his mouth has been proven wrong, and yet he continues to be treated as an 'authority' of some kind. David Corn writes in the Nation:

On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq."

Such vindication never came. Kristol was mistaken about the justification for the war, the costs of the war, the planning for the war, and the consequences of the war. That's a lot for a pundit to miss. In his columns and statements about Iraq, Kristol displayed little judgment or expertise. He was not informing the public; he was whipping it. He turned his wishes into pronouncements and helped move the country to a mismanaged and misguided war that has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That's not journalism.

This is someone who should be writing for the 'Paper of Record'?

So pardon me, NYT, if I'm not buying your sob story. Save it for some other chump.

The Gray Lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Peggy Noonan - Reasonable? Doubt.

I try not to comment on things that my betters (Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald) have already cleaned up on, but the discussions on today's Peggy Noonan WSJ opinion column led me to one of the points I talk about in The Price of Right - the demonization of intelligence, which may be one of the most dangerous conservative myths out there; certainly one that has wreaked havoc upon the running of our government. Usually, too, I tend to stay away from people like Miss Peggy because it just riles me up unnecessarily. Why invite the aggravation? Two sentences in and I'm spluttering.

Noonan insists she (and the thousands, millions that she speaks for) wants someone 'reasonable' in the White House in 2008. She (that is, 'we') "would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane." (She says this, ostensibly, with a straight face.) She proceeds to enlighten us in her seventh-grade 'slam book' way as to who she thinks is 'reasonable' and who she does not think is reasonable. She's generous to Biden and Dodd, positively swoony over McCain ("He makes me proud. He makes everyone proud." Yes, Peggers, you speak for all of us, dear.) Romney? He's a keeper, too, in spite of his flip-flopping. When Al Gore was accused of changing a position, she called him a liar - even when he was misquoted. ("His lying looks at this point not like a foible but a compulsion, a tendency that is ungovernable, like a tic. He doesn’t have to do it. He can always make his point without telling stories that aren’t true. Seeing Mr. Gore lie in speeches is like seeing a rich kleptomaniac stealing things he doesn’t need...") But when Mittens does it, it's OK. "I personally am not made anxious by his flip-flopping on big issues because everyone in politics gets to change his mind once. That is, you can be pro-life and then pro-choice but you can't go back to pro-life again, because if you do you'll look like a flake." Everyone in politics, that is, who's not a Democrat. Huckabee doesn't make the cut in spite of being God's Best Friend because he has the temerity to challenge the trickle-down corporatist mentality that Peggy equates with Republican Saintliness. Obama she likes cuz he's cute and smart (in that really-cute-guy-way kind of smart - not all arrogant), but her analysis of him is hard for me to parse - she thinks he's too young because men in their forties are on fire and like drama - but in the same sentence she says he's not on fire enough. You go figure - I can't. Edwards she summarily dismisses because of his hair. (Now, we're talking Reasonable with a capital 'R'!) And do I need to even mention Hillary? I don't believe I do.

Nevertheless, in reading a number of her articles, I was struck by a common theme that runs through her wet, sloppy junior-high kisses to Dubya and Saint Ronnie - and that is that the dumber they are, the harder she falls! If you have a brain in your head, P-Noonie has no use for you. Here's how she describes Bush's strengths (emphasis mine):

Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?" He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk. Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.

There you have it. There's the crux of the matter. The more marbles Reagan lost (not that he was chock-full to begin with), the better President she thought he was. And as for Dubya - well, she can't praise his stupidity enough. She's written paeans, odes, hymns, to the glory that is Bush's stubborn refusal to know anything about anything. He 'speaks the language of business and sports and politics'? Sure he does - if by 'speaks the language' you mean 'miserably fails at until rescued by his daddy's powerful connections'. And she uses a completely fallacious analogy to try to equate 'intellectual' with 'inaction'. Really, when I read that, I had to go back to make sure I read that correctly - that someone paid her to write that. Yes, Peggo, that's just what us pointy-headed liberal eggheads do - stand around discussing the distinguishing characteristics of fire while little Sally's burning to death. Good thing you've pointed that out, or maybe someone might actually get the notion that some pinko chemistry egghead invented a fire extinguisher that could save little Sally's life. But I digress. The point is that she conflates stupidity with goodness, and intelligence with badness.

In an article she wrote about the 2000 race titled "Dumb-Good vs. Evil-Smart", she talked about a Dem friend of hers:

Both in New York and in the presidential race, she announced, we have been given a choice between a candidate who’s nice and not smart, and a candidate who’s bright but not nice.

I said yes, you get the impression it’s a battle between Dumb-Good and Evil-Smart. That’s exactly it, she said.

Honestly, she didn't even need to bother to write the article - the title pretty much sums it up. According to Peggy and to many, many other conservatives, these are your choices. You want bright, you get evil. You want good, you take dumb. As in so much of the Manichean thinking of the conservative mindset, it's either one or the other. No smart, good people; no stupid, bad people. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. The deep distrust and disgust that many conservatives feel for intellect and intellectuals is, sadly, reflected in the screamingly, staggeringly inept and unqualified people who have been put into positions of influence in this government. And, speaking of running out and helping when there's a fire on the block, what happened there on September 11? When informed of what was arguably the biggest fire on the biggest block in America, did President Duncecap immediately rush into action? We both know the answer to that one. His stupidity did not translate into instant response, that's for sure. And what about Katrina? His stupidity did not budge his butt off his vacation one second earlier than he had planned.

Noonan wants to come off all seriousness ("We are grown-ups" - well, Peggy, you're a grown-up; I'm an adult. People use the word 'grown-up' when speaking to children) but 'reasonable' is not the operative word in your particular paradigm. Faith is better than reason; human beings 'reason' but God is The Truth. In fact, the more preposterous the claim, the more 'faith' you have for being able to swallow it. To use reason to make decisions is hubristic; it's a slap in the face to the Almighty. Just ask Galileo. Humans are fallible; God is not. And the more money you have, the more God approves of you. So, come off of this 'reasonable' stuff. We know you don't like the smarty-pants know-it-alls.

Embrace the stupid, Peggy! You know you want to.

Update - I cross-posted this at The Smirking Chimp (one of my daily must-reads) and it got front-paged! Check it out!

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated this morning by a shooter who then blew himself up, killing at least fifteen others in the process.

Juan Cole has analysis, via Digby.

Dubya Bush Superstar - over at Pottersville

I had a lovely Christmas - lovely, that is with the exception of a vile and foul stomach flu, which has had me bedridden for two days, and thus unable to be timely about telling you all about Dubya Bush Superstar, the epic rock opera by my brotha Jurassic Pork over at Welcome to Pottersville. It has become an annual tradition between Hooterville and Pottersville to produce a Xmastravaganza featuring JP's razor-sharp writing and my Photoshopping - see last year's "It's A Blunderful Life". We are already plotting next year's festivities.

Stop on by Pottersville for a post-Xmas treat!

"The Price of Right" - My Book Is Available For Pre-Order!

FYI - my book "The Price of Right" is now available for pre-order! You can order yours at one of these fine outlets:

Amazon.com
Barnes and Noble (pay no attention to the synopsis - it's a mistake!)
Tower Books

I'm still in shock! Me - write a book? I think it does say pretty much what I want it to say - anything beyond that, I have no idea. The official publication date is the end of February 2008, so look for it sometime after that. And thanks to my friends who have already pre-ordered (bless you, Maria!)

Let's take back our democracy!

Must...Lighten...Up...For Christmas

I laughed my *ss off at this last year, because it's so unbelievably true to life - if you've ever done an ad session. Watch Santa's face as he goes from merry to murderous...

In Which I Travel To Our Nation's Capital With Americans United

I was fortunate enough to be invited to Washington, D.C. last month by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU for short) as part of a blogger outreach. This organization, in my opinion, is addressing one of the most important issues facing us as a democracy, for the blurring of the line between religion and government has a direct impact upon all the other problems facing us.

The lovely and talented Blue Gal e-mailed me the invitation (for which I am most appreciative!) - four days in our nation's capital with some of the brightest, most informed and passionate people I have ever met in one place. What I found especially intriguing was that it was a mixture of religious and non-religious people with the same goal - to keep church and state separate as it was outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It wasn't just a bunch of atheist religion-haters trying to stamp out Christianity, no matter what Bill O'Reilly and his ilk like to imagine. No matter how the right tries to spin it, it's very clear that the intentions of our Founding Fathers were to protect both Church and State by keeping them out of each other's domain. When religion and politics mix, they both suffer badly.

I got to meet some great bloggers face-to-face - some new friends, some that I had only known online -

BAC from Yikes! who is also Field Director for AU and just as charming as she can be - our 'hostess with the mostess'!
Addie Stan from, well, AddieStan, a new friend who took me to a very cool blues jam on Monday night (good times!)
DCup from PoliTits (my fave blog name ever!)
Bruce Prescott - MainstreamBaptist
Dennis Mansker aka Farnsworth - One Pissed Off Veteran
Eric Haas from the Rock Ridge Institute - the think tank that works with Dr. George Lakoff's framing ideas - awesome!
Vast Left
Leo Lincourt of Neural Gourmet and Carnival of the Liberals
Maryscott O’Connor from My Left Wing - my girl is fierce!
Phil Plait from Bad Astronomy - science is kool!
PZ Meyers of Pharyngula - University of Minnesota
Tristero of the mighty 'Digby’s Blog'
Lambert Strether with Corrente Wire

I just wish there had been time for me to talk with everyone I wanted to talk to. Pretty much every person there was someone that I would have liked to sit down with and pick their brain for several hours. As part of the conference, we were set up with lobbying appointments to talk with our congresspeople about church-state issues in our home districts. Most people were meeting up with their House members, but the California contingent were meeting with people from our Senators' office. The issues we were there to talk about were the earmarking of funds to pay for the upkeep of the California missions, which do have historical value, but are also owned by the Catholic Church and have active parishes in 19 of the 21 missions. Also on the agenda was the issue of the Mount Soledad cross - a giant 43-foot cross that sits on public land and is a violation of California's constitutional church-state separation provisions, which are stricter than the First Amendment. Both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer had voted in favor of these issues, and we wanted to be able to present the AU take on it to our senators.

Our first appointment was with DiFi's office. When we got there we discovered that her aide, who we were supposed to talk with, was too busy to see us, so we had to talk to the 'aide's aide' - a girl who looked about 12. We were not even invited into the office - we had to stand out in the hall (there were about 10 of us) and tell our story to the little girl, who stood there wide-eyed, clutching her notebook, solemnly nodding her head and writing occasional notes, although it was clear that she had absolutely no idea what we were talking about. While we were standing there, who should come clip-clopping briskly down the hall but DiFi herself. Since we were standing in a sort of semi-circle, she walked right through the middle of our group without so much as a glance to the left or right. No matter that we were her constituents who had flown 3000 miles to see her - she had to have known that we had business with her office, considering that we were talking to her aidette. She couldn't even slow down.

Our visit to Barbara Boxer's office couldn't have been more different. We didn't get to talk to her, but we were ushered into a nice conference room and talked to her senior counsel, who was up to date on everything we were there to discuss, and we felt that, although she took a position that we opposed, her people were at least gracious enough to listen to our concerns and treat us with enough respect to have a dialogue. Boxer also had, displayed prominently at the front door to her office, a large placard listing the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq, which was updated every week. It's nice to know that someone in Congress is actually keeping them in mind.

AU is also at the forefront of the evolution-'intelligent design' issue, and I got to meet one of the chief warriors on that front, Dr. Eugenie Scott, who is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education. Not only brilliant but delightful, she's fighting the good fight to keep real science from being undermined by the 'stealth-creationism' that calls itself 'intelligent design'.

I am so glad to have gotten a closer look at AU. When I got back home, I immediately joined my local chapter and am now on the executive board. When the President of the United States believes that he has been divinely selected to lead our country, and that God told him to bomb Iraq, it is imperative that we deal with the crumbling wall between church and state and do it right now, for it is a cancer that is eating away at our democracy.

Another Thought On The Telecoms...

Does everyone realize that the telecoms did not just give our info to the Bush administration? I wrote about this a year and a half ago, but had forgotten it until I ran across this post from May '06:

One thing that I don't hear talked about a lot is the fact that the telcos did not give our records to the government; they sold them to the government. Note that the companies were not required to turn over the records to the NSA. If they had been required to cooperate by law, then Qwest would not have had the option not to cooperate.

The companies that did cooperate - AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon - are reported to be operating 'under contract' with the NSA. 'Under contract' means for a consideration. So, it is not unreasonable to infer that there is not a sufficient legal basis to require the phone records to be turned over to the NSA.

And, since the NSA, a government agency, has bought our records, whose money do you think they used to purchase these records? That's right, Einstein. Yours and mine.

Our tax dollars at work.

That should make us all sleep a little better, shouldn't it?

And, let's not forget that we have paid the telecoms for the service which steals our information and sells it to the government, which purchases that information...with our money! We pay out on both sides!

Aren't you a little bit tired of this? I know I am. It's like paying for your rapist's Viagra.

Man Up! Yes, Dodd Did It.

Chris Dodd has earned a closer look from me. He did what no other Democratic presidential candidate currently in Congress has done - actually demonstrated real leadership. Instead of talk, he brought action. By leaving Iowa, cancelling his campaign events, and spending 8 hours on the floor of the Senate arguing his case against retroactive immunity for the telecoms who conducted warrantless surveillance at the behest of the Bush administration, he showed himself to be that rarest of Democrats - one who acts according to his principles. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who seemed eager to grant the Republicans their every wish, ended up pulling the 'amended' FISA bill from the floor in the face of Dodd's determination to filibuster.

Dodd was joined by the ever-stalwart Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy. Campaigning Senators Clinton, Obama and Biden boldly sent their best wishes from Iowa. Ho hum.

Although I've been an Edwards girl (in the sad absence of Al Gore), I certainly owe Chris Dodd a look-see, and I've already sent him a few bucks. I sure would like to see more Democrats man up like that, whether they're running for President or not. And as much as we dog our own when we feel that they're letting us down, we need to make sure we let them know we appreciate it when they do right.

Thank you, Chris Dodd.

Done! (With the writing part, anyway...)

Oh my goodness. I can't believe it. I'm finished with my book. I have no idea what will be next. Wish me luck, y'all!

I'm Finishing My Book Today

Okay - for good, bad, or indifferent, I will be finishing my book today. Whatever else happens, I will have written a book!

Blackwater - Speaking of Recycled Posts...

...my most popular post of late, as evidenced by my StatCounter reports, is one I wrote a couple of years ago - right after Katrina, as a matter of fact.

It was a very short post - only a title and a link. The title of this post was "Want a Good Job? Join Blackwater!"

It's amazing how many people are interested.

A Year Ago Today - Neocons Deny Their Lord

Well, actually a year ago yesterday. But in solidarity with the Writer's Guild, I thought it might be interesting to recycle this:

Like rats from a sinking ship (the ship they sunk themselves!), the neocons are swimming away from Iraq and George W. Bush just as fast as their nasty, scrofulous little legs can paddle.

Vanity Fair has just posted a shocking (and I do not use that word lightly) article on its website. The magazine itself will not hit the news stands until the beginning of December, but the folks at VF apparently feel that this is important enough to warrant getting it out to the public now. When you read it, you'll see why.

Now that it's obvious to all but the most willfully blind that this unprovoked occupation of Iraq is a complete and utter disaster, the neoconservative architects of this debacle are completely distancing themselves from the bloody mess they created and pointing the finger at the crap-flinging, flea-bitten, hydrocephalic chimp they installed to do their dirty work.

Read the rest here...

I.O.U.

I owe you.

I apologize for getting so behind in all my correspondence and things I need to get done. I have two reviews to put up, one to a filmmaker and one to a writer, who have been generous enough to send me their work and deserve a response. BTW, both the film and the book are awesome - I can't wait to tell you in detail. Until I get back on track, please check these out:

First is the powerful film by producer/director Charles Ferguson, "No End In Sight: the American Occupation of Iraq", the Sundance award-winning documentary. According to the synopsis, it's:

The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraq’s descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy. NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insider’s tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the Spring of 2003), Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of the occupation of Iraq through May 2003) as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers, and prominent analysts.

According to me, it's a motherf***er of a must-see. Official review to follow soon. But you don't have to wait for me - go to the No End In Sight website and check it out for yourself.



Next, I would like to tell you about an incredible book that was sent to me by Aidan Delgado, a Buddhist conscientious objector who tells his moving and powerful story in a book called The Sutras of Abu Ghraib. He enlisted in the Army Reserves - not after, but on September 11; while he was signing up, a television was showing the planes crashing into the Twin Towers. The son of a diplomat who spent time in Egypt growing up, his knowledge of Arabic made him a valuable asset to the Army, and he was deployed to Iraq. What he saw over there, especially after being sent to Abu Ghraib, brought him to the realization that what was happening in this war was counter to every moral and religious principle he possessed, and he applied for conscientious objector status.

I believe that all Americans, no matter what their stance on the war is, should read his story. He tells it in a way that makes you feel as if you are there in Iraq with him, and as Americans we need to know this - not the spin, not the hype, not the propaganda. Again, I'll elaborate later, but I urge you to read it. I could not let it out of my hands once I began reading it.

In fact, I'll make you an offer - if you want to read or buy Aidan's book, but can't afford it, let me know and I'll buy one for you. That's how much I think of it.

In the meantime, friends - don't give up on me; once my book is done I'll be back in full force.

Torture Does Too Work

The New York Times tells us that in December 2004, the Justice Department was publicly denouncing torture as 'abhorrent' , and the Bush Administration was making noises that sounded like they were backing off of their previous declaration that Bush could order brutal torture anytime he pleased, just because he was the Decider. All that changed, however, mere months later when Abu 'No Pain, No Gain' Gonzales rolled into town and slapped the badge of A.G. on his chest, and the Justice Department issued quite another opinion, this one not quite so public.

This secret opinion was, according to the Times,

"a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures. Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard. The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil."

What a surprise. How very different of this Administration to pretend to do one thing, and secretly do another. They are just bound and determined to hang on to their beloved torture, no matter what the rest of America thinks, and if they have to lie to do it - so what?

Opponents of torture (i.e. pretty much everybody else) point out that torture doesn't work.

Although I am also an opponent of torture, I would beg to differ. Granted, it doesn't work if you are trying to get at the truth. I'll give you that.

But it works beautifully if your real goal is to get your torturee to say what you want him to say!

After all. isn't this how the Bush Administration has operated since Day One? Everything they have been able to do has been implemented with the help of 'cherry-picked intelligence'.

If you have a thousand credible Iraqi scientists saying there are no weapons of mass destruction and nothing in the works for developing a nuclear bomb, and one drunken nutball saying the opposite, who do you go with? Why, the nutball, of course!

And if you want evidence of Al-Qaeda, or spying, or terror plots, what better way to get the information you want than by torturing someone? They'll say exactly what you want them to say! It may not be the truth, but who cares?

Torture works marvelously well if that is your aim.

And that's why this Administration doesn't care what you or I or anyone else thinks about it.

We're not the Deciders, as Bush so very frequently reminds us. So for all you Ph.D. types who think you're all big ol' smarty-pants,

"I want to remind you who the adviser is and who the president is. [...]I got a lot of Ph.D.-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, `Mr. President, here's what's on my mind.' And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device (sic), I decide, you know, I say, `This is what we're going to do.' And it's `Yes, sir, Mr. President.' And then we get after it, implement policy."

"And it's `Yes, sir, Mr. President.'"

Sounds like torture to me.

Update: Oooops, I was wrong, wrong, wrong!

The ever-eloquent and silver-tongued Miz Dana Perino sez so.

"It's not true," sez she.

"Why not?"

"Cuz."

"Cuz why?"

"Just cuz."

"Just cuz why?"

"Just cuz America doesn't torture, that's why."

"Have you read the memo?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"I don't need to."

"So how do you know we don't torture?"

"Cuz. Whatever we do isn't torture, cuz we don't do that, stupid."

"*sigh*"

Oh No He Did Not EVEN Say That...

Hell to the no!

From Think Progress:

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) — who voted to criticize MoveOn.org — has decided to commend Rush Limbaugh. Today at 3:16 PM, Kingston introduced a resolution “[c]ommending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad.”

Just when you think the Republicans surely must have exhausted their giant stinking, bubbling vat of hypocrisy - just when you think it can't possibly get any worse - you get this.

But wait! There's more!

From the resolution:

Whereas Mr. Limbaugh’s commitment to American troops serving both here and abroad remains as strong as ever: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) recognizes Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his support of the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation and for providing free subscriptions for active-duty servicemembers;

(2) recognizes Mr Limbaugh’s desire to see American troops achieve a successful outcome in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever soldiers are stationed; and

(3) commends Mr. Limbaugh’s tireless public support for American troops and their families through radio broadcasts, fundraising and other public support.

Now how much would you pay?

Operators are standing by!

Where's my Ginsu knife?