Avedon Carol presents: The Sideshow

Check box to open new browser windows for links.

Sunday, 02 April 2006 Olio Bra of the Week Dwight Meredith caught Ramesh Ponnuru telling the truth about why Republicans attack gay rights and want to shut down 527s. Do you think it's possible to explain to Chuck Schumer that he's not exactly part of the solution? I've seen this kind of stupidity before, and it didn't work then, either. (More of the same, and how Lieberman stays in the picture.) And, what a shame these geniuses in the party didn't encourage Hackett to run against Schmidt again - he so had this one. You read the WaPo, you read the NYT, and you could almost believe this is Adam Nagourney's blog, and that all those other jerks really are leaving those comments there. Much as Atrios says. House Committee Report On NSA Domestic Spying says: You live in a fascist state. So, why did this cop pull that woman over? David Gerrold On The Nature Of Evil. (But don't forgot: sometimes they think they are doing God's work.) This is another good movie story from Mark Evanier, it did make me call him names. (Also: Did you know that the 1950s Dragnet scripts were approved by a young L.A.P.D. police officer named Gene Roddenberry, who was Chief Parker's head researcher and scriptwriter?) | 21:46 BST Reading the WaPo Deborah Howell addresses The Washington Post's descent, again sounding less like an ombudsman than an excuse-maker: Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com, has said without equivocation that hiring Domenech was a mistake. I'm not going to pile on. Anyone out there who's ever hired or fired has chosen at least a few clunkers. There are people who didn't work out, but I've never made a mistake like that in my life. They created a position they didn't need, for reasons they shouldn't have had, and put someone into it who should never have even been considered for the job. We're not talking about someone who looked good on paper and turned out not to fit in, we're talking about someone who didn't even look good on paper. Brady wants to enlarge the reach of the Web site's opinion section with a conservative blogger; there's nothing wrong with that. Yes, there is. For one thing, the paper already has plenty of far-right voices - Deborah Howell's apparently being one of them. And, for another, the segment of society that is crying out for more conservative voices is a bunch of people whose goals should be anathema to any good news organization: They want to promote ignorance and government propaganda, not inform the populace. Oh, look, there's an entire letter section called, "What's Wrong With The Post?" One of those letters inspired part of Howell's column, suggesting that being on the Internet-only section of the site is no excuse for unprofessional behavior. No kiddin'. In other news... So, apparently, MI5 really got ticked off at some guys who just didn't want to be spies for them. Leaving aside that it seems to have been one of the stupidest recruitment programs I've seen in a long time, it does tend to make you think that the real purpose of "anti-terrorist" operations is to create terrorism. What, don't they think they've annoyed the Muslim community in Britain enough, yet? I guess you're not allowed to say, "No," to MI5 - that fact alone apparently makes you a terrorist suspect: They were also accused of carrying a suspicious electronic device in their luggage to Gambia; British police who stopped them at Gatwick determined it was a battery charger, police reports show. [...] The tribunals ruled that both men should be classified as enemy combatants. Nobody loves Katherine Harris - rats, sinking ship, etc. Good news for the comedy profession: Apparently, the new White House strategery is to let Bush be Bush, and we have even more unscripted moments in store. This is supposed to make him look more like an "average Joe". Who has never had to work a day in his life and lives in a big white house with lots of tax-payer-funded security guards and can even afford to have a fake ranch. Yeah, all my friends are like that. | 14:34 BST You can't vote with chained feet In his follow-up article on immigration, "The Road to Dubai", I'm not sure Krugman is quite right when he says, "High-skilled immigrants - say, software engineers from South Asia - are, by any criterion I can think of, good for America." You know, I think this is just like anything else: It depends how you do it. And right now, we have corporations whining about how they just can't get the people they need without importing them, even while they are refusing to hire skilled and experienced Americans. Why, they're even laying them off. And for all that people are annoyed about being picked up by cab drivers they have trouble conversing with, the bottom line is that this is really an argument over wages - one side wants to drive them down, and the rest of us want to be paid enough that we can live comfortably in our own countries. See, if Krugman were really all as liberal as some people think, he would get this by now: The high level of illegal immigration we currently have in America is not just a matter of individuals south of the border suddenly deciding to run up north; it's a function of policies driven from Washington at the behest of our corporate owners from the Reagan administration onward (and don't you dare think Clinton isn't part of this). Those policies work to funnel people into our country and into situations where they cannot bargain for better treatment and wages, pitting them against all of the rest of us. Tom Maguire gets some of this, but we should really be congratulating the right-wing spinners and the corporate media for convincing people that our focus should be on those individual immigrants rather than the system that destabilizes their native economies and dumps them into ours. Coming up with ideas so disgusting that even a 2,000-mile fence starts to sound reasonable is also a nice touch. Gee, how did we get along for more than two centuries without a 2,000-mile fence? And - just imagine! - being an illegal immigrant was never a felony, before! What were we thinking? Look, they want you to be watching the borders so you'll be facing away from the real problem; don't turn your back on "our leaders" for a minute. Especially these leaders. The fact that Americans support the same policies Bush claims to support really ought to tell you something. Nathan Newman: Some see the issue as whether the undocumented committed an illegal act. But the real question should be whether our current immigration policy is itself moral. Slavery was legal, but that didn't make those who defied it immoral. The United States has an estimated 12 million people living in our country without legal status. Do we seriously expect to deport that many people in an act of ethnic cleansing that would bring global condemnation? And globalization can't just mean that money has freedom but people don't. If anything, we need more rules for money and fewer for people-- since the ability to walk away from bad job choices is about the only right the poorest of the poor have ever had in this world. Take away the right of mobility from workers and all the rest of their rights largely disappear as well. And so do ours. Employers who have virtual slaves at their disposal have no incentive to put up with Americans who expect to be treated like human beings. If we want to slow immigration to the United States, the real way to do it is to end sweatshops in Mexico and the rest of the developing world and end the rising inequality in global wealth within such countries. Mexico, for example, has increasing wealth, but because of the trade deals we created with them, most of that wealth goes to the richest section of the population-- Mexico has 13 billionaires yet working families are left struggling to survive. To tell such refugees from an economic system the US government helped engineer that they are to blame for their fate is immoral. And progressives should be standing side by side with the labor unions, civil rights groups and religious leaders marching by the hundreds of thousands in the streets to demand decent treatment for those refugees and a more just global economic system. | 12:26 BST Saturday, 01 April 2006 It's not good for us I was just catching up with yesterday's IHT on paper when I noticed I agreed with the review I was reading, so I looked up to see who wrote it and lo and behold, it was Brad DeLong. When I checked for it online, of course, it turned out to be an NYT Select item, so I went over to Brad's site to see if he'd posted it. Well, he has some of the end of the article, here, so I'll give you some of the beginning: Louis Uchitelle has long been one of the best economics reporters at The New York Times. Now he has written his first book, "The Disposable American," about large-scale layoffs and the harm he sees them doing to the country. Uchitelle believes Americans have acquiesced in permanent mass layoffs because of three myths: (1) that they are a necessary step to make companies better, stronger, more efficient and more productive; (2) that it is the laid-off workers' own fault if they fail to find near-equivalent new jobs in the modern economy; and (3) that layoffs ought to be decided upon by mangers looking at their corporation's dollars-and-cents bottom line. To Uchitelle's attack on these three myths I want to say yes, yes and yes. There are numerous costs associated with layoffs that are not measured by their effects on the corporation's bottom line. Moreover, older workers have a particularly hard time starting over, turning the skills and experience that made them a good fit at their old jobs into something valuable to a new employer. Subaru, for example, doesn't want workers laid off from the Ford assembly line. White-collar middle managers in their early 50s have next to no chance of finding remotely equivalent jobs. A huge amount of human capital disappears when businesses close down. And Uchitelle is right when he says mass layoffs do not make the companies that undertake them better. Mass layoffs make them different. | 23:44 BST Morning highlights "The Corps of Engineers informs us they cannot ensure even the minimum safety of S.E. Louisiana." 108 dozen roses for Helen Thomas Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker says the Capitol cops have a history of not recognizing McKinney. Josh Marshall: Guest worker programs come in two flavors, bad and really unbelievably bad. It's important to distinguish the two. Kevin Drum: Hey, guess who President Bush has nominated to head up the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division? That's right: the guy who represented Wal-Mart in trying to prevent a class of 1.5 million women from suing the company for discrimination in pay and promotions! He also appears to oppose pretty much every regulation related to wages and hours ever passed. The Poor Man Institute has done the hard work of finding all of the really important quotes from Joe Wilson's recent speech and creating "The Shrillmarillion". I like this cartoon that's being auctioned off to raise funds for reproductive freedom in South Dakota. Happy birthday, Mr. President. (OK, technically, I'm a day late, but what the hell.) Oh, and vote! | 11:33 BST Friday, 31 March 2006 Some bloggy stuff LiberalOasis discusses the disgusting behavior of the right-wing in reaction to Jill Carroll's release. (The wingers really deserve getting TBogged, too.) Bill also links to Max's post "FBI As Gestapo: Oppressing The Kurds Of Harrisonburg, Virginia." Lance Mannion watches Law & Order and explains why you can never permit torture. The Brad Blog: "New Electronic Voter Registration Database Rejects 43% of New Los Angeles Voter Applications! 26% Rejected State-Wide in California! Applications That Don't Match EXACTLY With DMV Records are Automatically Dumped by New System!" I can't even keep up with it all, there is just so much of it. Charles at Mercury Rising looks at the media coverage of McKinney's little dust-up and the frothing attention it's getting from the right-wingers. "OMG OMG BEST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE SO FAR" (via) | 23:40 BST What's on Today's the day when Russ Feingold's censure motion is to be introduced. Have you told your Senators you want them to support this motion? (Also: Read his article, The GOP's Stake In Checking The President.) The big news item yesterday was Murray Waas' "Insulating Bush", with more evidence that the White House knew perfectly well they were lying about their reasons for invading Iraq: Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. And Foreign Policy has Joseph Cirincione's piece, Fool Me Twice, saying it looks like they are repeating the pattern with Iran. (Thanks for the tip to Val of Nthposition, where there's more.) Booman Tribune (via) has a bit of history on this. God, I wish Bush would just keep his mouth shut. Lots of good stuff up at Epicycle (as always, if you're looking for geeky stuff and UK politics). On the latter subject, Dominic's thoughts on the Lords' cave-in on ID cards. There's also a pointer to a T-shirt we all must wear, parodying the old Home Taping is Killing Music campaign from the British Phonographic Industry. Dom also tells me you can get a free download of Billy Bragg's brand-new version of "Bourgeois Blues", recorded only last week when Bragg noticed, during his current tour, that things were not so good in America. Also, mix your own David Byrne/Brian Eno track. | 16:58 BST Think about it Garance Franke-Ruta follows-up her article on the lack of women's voices on the NYT op-eds on abortion: The further absence of women's advocates from the conversation means that broad factual distortions and questionable assumptions about our political life have flourished and become conventional wisdom. How many times in recent years have we heard calls for pro-choice advocates to work with pro-life ones to reduce abortion? I too thought it might be possible, until I read Cristina Page's recently published "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America," where she reports that "there is not one pro-life group in the United States that supports the use of birth control." Via a big-fat round-up post at Alas, a blog. Kevin Drum has a very pretty pie chart showing that Howard Kaloogian is just one of a whole passel of Republicans who all together add up to being neck-in-neck with Francine Busby, the Democrat in the race for a "heavily Republican district." (Also, I see Kevin and Ezra are both on board with me on immigration.) I'm so excited! The General has written a letter to my hero, Judith Reisman!!!* Gods in Chains | 11:53 BST I close my eyes, every day Riverbend faces Uncertainty: We sat drinking tea, mulling over the possibilities. It confirmed what has been obvious to Iraqis since the beginning - the Iraqi security forces are actually militias allied to religious and political parties. But it also brings to light other worrisome issues. The situation is so bad on the security front that the top two ministries in charge of protecting Iraqi civilians cannot trust each other. The Ministry of Defense can't even trust its own personnel, unless they are "accompanied by American coalition forces". [...] All of this directly contradicts claims by Bush and other American politicians that Iraqi troops and security forces are in control of the situation. Or maybe they are in control - just not in a good way. | 03:24 BST You're not from around here, are ya? Just in case you forgot that George F. Will hates America, just wait 'til you see his latest column advising that we take a page from a foreign country: America, the only developed nation that shares a long -- 2,000-mile -- border with a Third World nation, could seal that border. East Germany showed how: walls, barbed wire, machine gun-toting border guards in towers, mine fields, large, irritable dogs. And we have modern technologies that East Germany never had: sophisticated sensors, unmanned surveillance drones, etc. Ah, I guess that's okay, because it isn't France. Gideon Starorzewski's reaction to this was much the same as mine. See, this is pretty simple stuff. American companies relocate just south of the border, where they can pay people $60 a week instead of $60 a day. Mexicans move north to work in those places, where $60 a week is pretty good money. But it's still not so good, and if they just move north of the border, they can make a lot more - although, as illegals, they don't make as much as American workers make. Except when employers north of the border know they can pay illegals crap and treat them like dirt, Americans no longer get those jobs. Not that they could afford to take them at those low rates. To add insult to injury, this also means that people who still try to hire workers at a decent wage find they can't compete with the criminals who illegally hire this cheap labor, so wages get driven down inside the US. The corporatists love it, and the rest of us see our communities and our lives and our futures being destroyed. The way to stop all this is to go after the employers, not the immigrants. (Dumping NAFTA and CAFTA would also be a good start.) But you won't see that happening while these goniffs are in charge. I wonder if Will could learn anything from reading this site - but I doubt it. | 01:05 BST Thursday, 30 March 2006 Lost and found Via Firedoglake, Keith C. Burris in the Journal Inquirer on why Connecticut is turning against Joe Lieberman and embracing Ned Lamont, This is about war and democracy: Joe Lieberman keeps saying that his position has been misrepresented and he has been misquoted by his critics. But I have combed the coverage of the campaign, thus far, and cannot find a single example of his views being distorted or his quotes taken out of context. As I read him, what Lieberman has said, all along, is that we should accept this war and what our president tells us. Suspend citizenship. Ask the questions when the war is over. And that is what gives Lamont his issue. Another Republican with credibility problems - Charles Taylor of North Carolina. It seems we let this anniversary go by unnoticed, but let's try and correct that: Most of the Scottsboro Boys eventually were sentenced to death. What followed was a series of reversals, retrials, recanted witnesses, new judges, and on and on and on. Even after death sentences were thrown out, it took years, and in some cases decades, for all of the Scottsboro Boys to gain their freedom; many went on to broken lives -- and eventually, death -- due to their experiences. 75 years later, we should remember. Ansel Adams' Lost Los Angeles Found: I thought I would see if I could see for myself. I learned that the stunning and invaluable Seattle Public Library's Main Branch kept hard copies of Forbes going back into the 1930s. In a highly unusual move for the Internet age, I got in the car and found my way to the seventh floor of what is called "The Spiral" -- probably because it disorients patrons more quickly than any other shelving system ever invented. Nearly 200 forgotten pictures, recovered at last. (via) Weblog to enjoy today: Eccentricity. | 17:31 BST Metajournalism The other night I linked to this item (crossposted to HuffPo from Raw Story) about the Associated Press swiping a story without credit from RS. Josh Marshall now reports that four similar instances have shown up when stories by Paul Kiel and Justin Rood from TPMmuckraker.com came out from AP, again uncredited. As expected, Atrios saw the irony of the situation, but I couldn't help but wonder why it is that when right-wing blogs "break" a story, they seem to get credit a lot more routinely. This rankles especially because we know that it is almost guaranteed that whatever is on the right-wing blogs was really fed to them by Republican operatives. Raw Story and TPM, by contrast, are really doing their own original reporting. Josh says: Conventional news outlets frequently chide blogs for not doing any original reporting but rather feeding off the original reporting of the mainstream media. In many cases, the criticism is true. But if that is the criticism it behooves every mainstream media outlet to enforce their own standing policies and not allow reporters to rip off blog writers who are doing original reporting. I think this is way too kind. Most blogs aren't claiming to do original reporting - rather, we tend to provide a table of contents to other articles, mixed with commentary, which is something else; we tend to act largely as editors and opinionators rather than reporters. What original reporting we do is usually separate and marked as such, and most of it is personal journalism rather than what we would call "reporting". In most cases, the only time we are doing "reporting" in ways similar to what corporate journalists do is when we discuss public documents. Since even the best newspapers have taken to quoting directly from press releases, the fact that they may actually have visited the White House for the related event doesn't really make it much different; I can read the whitehouse.gov site as well as anyone else can. Although some of us are primary sources on our specialist issues and do provide important analysis that should be, but isn't, available from Big Media (Max, for example), most of us acknowledge that what we are doing is providing pointers to other work rather than originating information ourselves. (No good professional journalist should be complaining about that. If you're writing good or important articles, you should be glad that more people are seeing your work. It also means your work stays current longer - how can that be bad?) (Additionally, we let you know what was in our hometown paper that wasn't in yours, which means you get more news. We also do a lot of meta-analysis of the media itself - something that can be mere navel-gazing when paid journalists do it, but makes a real difference coming from experienced consumers of news.) But TPM and RS actually provide the real thing - they make the phone calls and burn the pavement. Josh Marshall is a part of the professional DC media - there is no reason to distinguish original reporting from his site from reporting in The Washington Post - except maybe that it's better. Professional jealousy is one thing (and who could blame you?), but giving credit where it's due is a professional requirement, too. | 16:20 BST Headlines Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll released: BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Kidnapped U.S. reporter Jill Carroll has been released after nearly three months in captivity, Iraq police and the leader of the Islamic Party said Thursday. Her editor said she was in good condition. This is a story I haven't said anything about because, basically, I'm superstitious. There were signs that her captors might not make good on their threats to kill her, and I've kind of been holding my breath. I guess humanity won out. A Capitol cop is claiming that Cynthia McKinney punched him when he grabbed her as she walked into the Longworth House Office Building. McKinney wasn't doing anything wrong - he just didn't recognize her. Given the state of paranoia that seems to be maintained on the Hill these days, I guess I might reflexively punch someone who grabbed me, too. | 13:17 BST A buncha more links Skimble is still keeping up with the Enron story, which is rife with irresponsibility, criminality, and a look inside the class war. I didn't realize Oliver Willis had a radio blog with some Armenian guy. (via) (That's two new Armenians in one day! Him and the one who can't tell Turkey and Iraq apart. Which, you must admit, is a very odd blind spot for an Armenian.) Crooks and Liars has video of four Congressional Democrats protesting the Rubber Stamp Republicans on the House floor - very neat. (And half of them are actually white!) No wonder the Republicans are so certain of voter fraud. Afghanistan: The night fairies - yet more signs that Bush has tossed away what might have been a successful mission as the Taliban rises again. "It's too bad Americans have to read the truth about the United States from an Israeli newspaper." This article at SCOTUSblog gives a pretty interesting analysis of Tuesday's Supreme Court proceedings in the Hamdan case. They also have a pointer to audio of the oral arguments. (I love the Internet!) The New York Times says FISA judges urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to enforce the law, but The Washington Times says they said Bush wasn't breaking the law. I'm so confused! I actually love the idea of women walking around red states wearing a red burka. Trouble is, you'd have to make them yourself, since they don't generally come in bright colors. However, you can buy the T-shirt. Monday's 60 Second Interview was with Sara Paretsky. | 03:40 BST Wednesday, 29 March 2006 Assorted stuff Chris Bowers explains why the activist base, rather than swing voters, should be the focus for the next election: This is why the conventional wisdom narrative on 2006 is out of date. To argue that Democrats are not properly taking advantage of the situation, and that they have not developed a message to appeal to swing voters, ignores both the enormous leads that Democrats have held in generic congressional ballots for nearly a full year, and that these leads have come almost entirely from their strength among swing voters, i.e. independents. The issue at hand is no longer "in the face of Republican collapse, why aren't Democrats doing better?" Democrats are doing better. They have huge leads, and have had them for several months. In contrast to the current conventional wisdom narrative, the actual issue at hand is whether or not Democrats have the electoral and activist recourses to deliver this new potential governing majority to the polls on Election Day. In other words, the issue is not whether or not Democrats can appeal to swing voters, because they have done that. The issue is whether or not the progressive activist base is excited enough to provide Democrats with the resources to win the 2006 election. Feingold or Gore, could do it. Hillary? No way. The Founders Never Imagined a Bush Administration - Joyce Appleby and Gary Hart discover that Hari Seldon didn't plan for the emergence of the Mule. Some idiot at The New York Times Magazine actually repeated that stupid Oreo story the other day. Sheesh! "May I take your order?" - and I thought I'd seen some good Chinese menus. Via Biomes Blog, naturally. That's what I want to hear - if you were wrong, admit it, with none of this pretend stuff about how you were more right than the people who were right all along. Stanislaw Lem has died in Krakow at the age of 84. | 18:50 BST News and muse I'm sorry, but headlines like "Card's Departure Seen as a Sign President Hears Words of Critics" just make me laugh. Shouldn't it be, "Jim VandeHei See's Card's Departure as a Sign President Hears Words of Critics"? Or "Jim VandeHei Wants You to See Card's Departure as a Sign President Hears Words of Critics"? I mean, who do you think you're foolin'? The problem is the policies, and Card didn't set those. No one was calling for Andy Card's head. Rumsfeld's, sure. Cheney's - oh, yeah. Rice's - yes, and well before she got her new job. Karl "Security Breach" Rove's? Uh huh. And Bush's, f'sure. But Card? Please. Card is only as good as his boss, and probably saner than most of them. Whoever Bush is listening to, it's not his critics. Declan gives a pretty weak cheer for the new FEC 'net regulations, and worries that this just opens the door for more. Happy 3rd Blogiversary to the very useful Confined Space, which invites you to help out. RU486 used in new pill: The new pill cuts the risk of breast cancer, thrombosis and heart disease, and stops periods altogether. Lance Mannion looks at the question of electability. Christopher Allbritton filed a Freedom of Information request and, having seen the result, wonders: Seriously, how common is it for a journalist to have a document about him that can't be released for "national security reasons"? (via) Not bloody likely: Will Bunch has the best copy of the photo, which seems to have disappeared from right-wing Republican candidate Howard Kaloogian's site. It used to be there claiming to be a picture of peaceful downtown Baghdad. At a glance, I'd say not. Josh Marshall, here and here, explains why he thinks it was more likely taken in Turkey. I have no idea what you're talking about... | 14:20 BST What's cookin' Ginger Mayerson (of Hackenblog) and Kathy Flake (of What Do I Know?) and a whole bunch of other bloggers would like you to click on that picture and do a little something for your taste buds and a really good cause. (You be the judge of whether the graphic suggested by Sadly, No! improves on this one and the other choice on offer.) President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, has announced the intention to set up a Planned Parenthood clinic on Oglala territory, where the anti-abortion law of South Dakota does not apply. Monkeyfister reminds us of George Bush's deep understanding of tribal sovereignty and points out that this issue is now a hot topic for the right-wingers, asking, "Did you ever, in a Brazillion years, ever imagine that the Abortion Issue would become a debate on Tribal Sovereign Status?" So, why does Delta Force hate America? There are lots of articles at Consortium News that I haven't gotten around to linking, lately, but really, you should take a look at the current contents page - you might especially be interested in "State after State Repudiates Bush", and "Time to Talk War Crimes". Sauce for the Gander - Ain't it funny which drugs are "too dangerous" for the FDA - and the media? So it turns out that, in addition to their other offenses, AP swipes stories from blogs and doesn't give them credit. I bet Atrios will get a good laugh out of that one. Bush Speak #649 An Open Letter to Straights, via Kung Fu Monkey. | 03:32 BST Border skirmishes Quiddity (here and here, with some help from Krugman) and Kash here and here), with some help from the Simpsons, take on the immigration issue. And Bill O'Reilly attacks! Politics TV - the latest is Jerome Armstrong and Kos talking about their book, and why DC consultants are no use. (via) Roxanne (via) directs our attention to this very good letter to the media about the stupid way they talk about the immigration issue. Or is it the illegal alien issue? Or is it the Hispanic issue? Or is it the Latino issue? Maybe the media don't know. Mobjectivist finds the right blogger for the WaPo. And reading what he says about what his political beliefs are, I gotta say he is as middle-of-the-road and mainstream as you can get. Guy name of Chomsky. I still have the capacity to be shocked, I see, even though it's a comparatively small thing in context, but now they're filing amicus briefs making up legislative history that doesn't exist for interpretations of bills - in the Supreme Court! Wow. | 00:35 BST Tuesday, 28 March 2006 Bits The Juicy Fruit Ant (via). Teresa, inspired by Jane Smiley: Bush is to public discourse as Three Card Monte is to card game. Buck Batard is always asking for frugality - so, I guess you can't get more frugal than free. In comments, HP points to more sources for antique music. (And you might want to have a look at Thump Thump, "A Weblog to Read in the Dark," too.) And in UK news, the Lords and MPs just can't agree on ID cards. (via) | 13:09 BST Monday, 27 March 2006 Royalty and religion Alterman has a whole passel of links up today, and quotes from Damon Linker's report on a somewhat horrifying conference of anti-constitutional loonies with such luminaries as Robert Bork himself: All of which should serve as a potent reminder--as if, in an age marked by the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world, we needed a reminder--that the strict separation of politics and religion is a rare, precious, and fragile achievement, one of America's most sublime achievements, and we should do everything in our power to preserve it. It is a large part of what makes America worth living in. He's also got a link up to Molly Ivins on Newspaper suicide and to Jonathan Chait on the administration's criminal negligence on homeland security. (And, no, I don't know why Eric thinks Michael Kinsley is brilliant, either.) And his own sum-up of that little red blogger embarrassment at the WaPo. Elsewhere... Prairie Weather presents some conversation about Bush's over-reach. At Unclaimed Territory, a guest post from Hypatia on that other massive tragedy, the War on (Some) Drugs. This morning's New York Times has even more proof that Bush and Blair knowingly lied us into unnecessary war, and Digby looks to be in sorrow and anger both at one more reminder of what has been done by these Small Stupid Men. Bill Moyers on A Time for Heresy: This is the heresy of our time - to wrestle with the gods who guard the boundaries of this great nation's promise, and to confront the medicine men in the woods, twirling their bullroarers to keep us in fear and trembling. For the greatest heretic of all is Jesus of Nazareth, who drove the money changers from the temple in Jerusalem as we must now drive the money changers from the temples of democracy. Russ Baker on Ganging Up On Feingold: Only a conscienceless bully-like the one dissected in the movie "Good Night, and Good Luck," about Edward R. Murrow's television crusade against McCarthy's serial abuse of the public trust-could have come up with the disgustingly misleading radio ads now attacking Sen. Russ Feingold. And only the chickenhearted-or those henpecked by consultants-would fail to back up this courageous figure. At Through the Looking Glass: While I was away, George W. Bush proclaimed himself dictator. That's not a joke, and it's not an exaggeration. Or maybe he crowned himself king. West Wing Story - the Heretik dances us through the play. Mike the Corpuscle writes a letter to God. | 22:34 BST Where is the news? Okay, so I didn't give Deborah Howell my traditional ombudslashing yesterday. This is partly because most of us had already given a good going-over to the same GOP talking point before Howell got around to it, and partly because someone else already did it for me - only I got distracted and forgot to post it. That would be Elton Beard, who did not stop with his Shorter Deborah Howell, but went on to say: Think about that. A reader accuses Washington Post journalists of siding with Goldstein - er, terrorists - and Deborah Howell doesn't think, this man is either demented or trying to manipulate me. She doesn't crumple up and toss the letter and she doesn't add it to her loony folder, already overflowing with missives from crazed liberals. She does not take offense at the slur on her colleagues. Quite the opposite. She takes the complaint seriously. Think about that again. That's what they've been doing all along, isn't it? They say things that fly completely in the face of stark reality and expect to see it treated seriously, and then the press actually treats it seriously so they won't be accused of bias. I think I first noticed it when The Bell Curve came out and all sorts of publications were treating it like it was not just a bunch of old-line crackpot racism. And then I was running into perfectly intelligent people who obviously believed that it was just common sense that Social Security was going to run out before we were old enough to retire. Man, I thought everyone knew better than that. And then, of course, there was that incredible, incredible moment when we were informed that there was something wrong with actually counting the ballots in an election - and the media just treated it like it was, you know, a perfectly legitimate take on the subject. It just kept happening. And then, and then.... Well. I'm grateful to Elton for reminding me once again that it really should be surprising that complete loonies aren't having their crank letters tossed in the Idiot File. But it's not new. Dammit. On the other hand, where the real news media is concerned, there is some good news via the BBC: Blogger up for non-fiction award An anonymous blog by a young woman in war-torn Iraq has been longlisted for BBC Four's Samuel Johnson Prize for non-fiction. Baghdad Burning, a first-hand account written under the pseudonym Riverbend, is one of 19 books in contention. As you know, she deserves it. She is the eyewitness we have wanted, needed, to the day to day life that goes on in the midst of our great folly. And, finally, more expert reportage from Atrios on whether we will be able to keep delivering the news this way, at least for the moment, as the FEC decides not to pretend that different rules should apply to the Internet than apply to political speech elsewhere. | 17:58 BST Does anybody really know what time it is? Well, yes, my body clock does rather object to the switch to British Summer Time, but the real problem is that it may have been a mistake to actually go back and look at that thread with Teresa's post from back in 2000 about the election/selection. For those who don't click links, that's the post that says: From: T Nielsen Hayden Date: Wed, Dec 13 2000 5:37 am Groups: rec.arts.sf.fandom I've been calling this an attempted coup since a few days after the election. Hell, I've been calling it that since the days of the hoked-up impeachment case against Clinton. No more. Now it's a successful coup. There are only two real reasons to choose GWB as a candidate. One is his insubstantiality: it's hard to argue against what isn't there. The other is his passivity: he won't get in the way. I will assume that there's a pending agenda. The people who funded this campaign spent their money for a reason. We'll shortly be finding out about it in more detail. The Republicans' use of fraud and force has been shocking. Let's go beyond that shock for the moment. What's truly troubling is that their tactics have been so blatant -- for example, the organized mob attack on the vote counting operation in Miami by a gang of out-of-state Republican operatives, including known staff members employed by highly placed officials. They didn't bother to conduct that as a covert operation. They didn't even hide the cashflow that paid for it. Such an approach is not sustainable long-term under our present system of law and government. But there's no use in seizing power just long enough to get inaugurated if all you do is spend the next four years pinned down in a hopeless tangle of legal actions and political countermeasures. Therefore, we have to assume that they are planning to consolidate their power shortly after Bush is inaugurated. If you're not following me: This is the equivalent of that moment in the plot where the guy who's being held captive by the bad guys realizes they're planning to kill him because they're letting him see their faces and hear their names spoken. They're not worried about the consequences. The Republicans are not worried about the consequences of their blatant abuses. The logical conclusion is that once they've consolidated their power, things are going to get a lot worse. How much worse? Bad enough that staffers employed by the ruling party don't anticipate having to worry about being identified as participants in an illegal attack on election workers who were then engaged in counting votes. It doesn't worry them that they crossed state lines to participate in it, engaged in conspiracy to commit various crimes, and for all I know are vulnerable under the RICO statutes as well. That means they don't expect that those who would normally oppose them are going to be in any position to do so effectively. This is bad. If you read further on in the thread, you'll see that people of various political tendencies thought this was a bit a alarmist. They were, unfortunately, wrong. (Most have since said they know it. It's a measure of how far gone some people are that they still don't.) Yes, Teresa was right; this is bad. And there's not much reason to think it will get better any time soon. I really, really wish people would take this stuff seriously, while there's at least a glimmer of hope. At least, I think there is. I hope. On the good days. | 16:22 BST Where it is Bra of the Week- because I need something pretty to cheer me up. Yes, that's right, there was so much good stuff to read that I didn't have time left to write anything. A lot of it as at The Mahablog, where I learned that Sherrod Brown has received no finer endorsement than to be slammed by George F. Will, who is afraid of him, saying, "For the first time in living memory, one of the major parties -- Brown's -- will be essentially hostile to free trade, the foundation of today's prosperity." (Whose prosperity, George?) A few days earlier, Susie Madrak notes, Will was lying again about the 2000 election. And Susie and Atrios have been wondering how you wake the slumbering press. Me too. And then there's Glenn Greenwald driving the point home that Bush really thinks he's above the law, followed-up by Digby's "Outlaw Party" and more from Anonymous Liberal, and more from MahaBarb. At the prospect that the case would come before Supremes, an anonymous commenter to Glenn's post said: Wouldn't that be an interesting situation.... A president that was appointed by the supreme court in a corrupt election where he lost the popular vote and stole the election in FL and used non-verifiable voting machines to claim majority support that exit polls demonstrate he did not win, then claims that because of "presidential power" (that he never actually won) he is no longer accountable to constitutional oversight... WOW, you couldn't have made this up... Yep, it always goes back to that, doesn't it? | 02:47 BST Sunday, 26 March 2006 Media & etc. Peter Daou has a piece up on the White House offensive against the media for not reporting the "good news" about Iraq. I don't often disagree with Peter, but I'm not sure he's right when he says: Democrats can learn a lesson from this new rightwing anti-media salvo. I don't see anything new, here - just the usual "blame the 'liberal' media" nonsense from the right. The White House is being more clear and overt in its participation, but there is no new message here. There's been a lot to learn from right-wing attacks on the media all along, and to me there's nothing special about this tactic at this late date. Democrats should have seen this coming at least 15 years ago. Didn't they notice that the whole Whitewater coverage should not have happened the way it did? Weren't they aware that "even the liberal" New York Times was giving more space, even then, to the faked-up conservative arguments than they were to the liberal rebuttal? Moreover, critiquing the media does hurt Democrats in ways it doesn't hurt Republicans, in part because conservatives own so much of the media. And unless a major network makes a conscious decision to provide us with an overt counterpart to the Fox-NBC axis, I'm not sure this can easily be changed. But I wouldn't recommend a presidential candidate attack the media. I think it was Tim Russert who asked Howard Dean if he wanted to see changes in the media, and when Dean said yes, I knew they'd be after him soon, and they were. So, while yes, Democrats should be taking a lesson from all of this, I don't see why they are any more likely to now than they did 15 years ago. I'd like to see some serious bite-back over that theme, though. The media doesn't report the "good news" from Iraq? Did they ever? The right-wing was pretty scathing about the fact that there is actually a scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 showing a pleasant, peaceful day in pre-invasion Iraq, as if it was totally dishonest for Michael Moore to portray a place that wasn't at war looking like it wasn't at war. You could say the same thing about any right-wing target: Is our public school system portrayed as the major success that it is, or is it depicted as a dismal failure? And how about universal healthcare in other countries - how often does the media tell us how much better those systems are than what the US has? There is plenty of good news from the NHS happening every day, so why do we get all this nit-picking about waiting lists and, often, problems that don't actually exist? (Crooks and Liars has a video of Peter making the related point about non-news on BSNBC.) * * * * * Bill Scher points out that the best way to protect the rights of Christians in Afghanistan is international law, but the administration is against that sort of thing. Ha ha ha. Katherine Harris did that big display about using her inheritance from Daddy to finance her campaign, but this appears not to be the case. Oh, dear. (via) Huh. I guess right-wingers are the same everywhere. | 15:13 BST Saturday, 25 March 2006 Leftover links It's been a bit of a tech day, so I haven't had time to post. At least I have a more promising back-up drive, now. Anyway, here's a few things I hadn't gotten around to, yet: Doug Ireland reports on more freedom on the march with "Shia Death Squads Target Iraqi Gays -- U.S. Indifferent": Following a death-to-gays fatwa issued last October by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (left), death squads of the Badr Corps have been systematically targeting gay Iraqis for persecution and execution, gay Iraqis say. But when they ask for help and protection from U.S. occupying authorities in the "Green Zone," gay Iraqis are met with indifference and derision. Just in case you were wondering, even some Muslim nations can argue about the wisdom of anti-pornography legislation. I find all of this kind of, I dunno, nostalgic. Here's the article about it, and here's where you can listen to old wax cylinders. | 20:33 GMT Friday, 24 March 2006 I fell asleep at my desk So, reports the post.blog, Ben Domenech has resigned after the whole plagiarism thing got too embarrassing. Not for the racist suggestion that poor criminals are black, and not for the Mcarthyite red-baiting or any of the other general crackpottery that appeared on his page from the very beginning, but for the plagiary. But, really, the damage is done, and washingtonpost.com has shown itself to be unprofessional, lazy, and blinkered enough to get them good jobs at the top of this administration. See, the thing is, the Post has no choice - if it is going to hire people for being movement conservatives who are regarded as such by other movement conservatives, this is what they are going to get, because the right-wing has no standards other than loyalty to their cause, and their cause has contempt for real professional integrity in any event. And especially they have contempt for facts, since the facts are, as you know, biased. Matt Stoller says the lesson is: Stop appeasing the right-wing. It's bad for you. In other news: Billmon explains why John Snow is Trusting the Marketplace. (via) Thomas Nephew has a reminder of why the Dixie Chicks story has important meaning for us all. (And it's a good song, too, so click on it this time.) At Best of the Blogs, the students are showing signs of a political spring. Anyone who has been paying even peripheral attention to the Iraq reconstruction knows it has to be the biggest scandal in history, but suddenly a lot of people who were on the ground are coming out of the woodwork to say so. Kevin Drum says: It's not censure or impeachment that Republicans are really worried about if they lose control of Congress. It's subpoenas. If they lose the ability to block Democrats from conducting genuine investigations backed by the subpoena power of Congress, the jig is up. And they know it. And Scaramouche worries about Bush's plan to rule the world, and shows us some different bras. | 23:46 GMT The hot stuff I hate to be alarmist, but even James Wolcott is talking about the disaster that's in front of us, now. I don't usually go to Wolcott's site expecting to find nightmares, and I especially don't expect to find him saying that a multi-billionnaire is starting to warn people about things I was hoping were just my nightmares, but that whole "total global collapse" thing is looking more and more solid every day. And it's not exactly reassuring to know that, as with 9/11 and Katrina, George Bush has been told - and doesn't seem to care. Via Firedoglake, where "ReddHedd" seems to be using her real name, now, and also wants to take the fight to Barney Fife, because there are so many ways in which this administration and its enablers have not done anything for national security. (And let's not forget the fabulous reportage in the NYT that doesn't even rise to the level of stenography.) Ah, hell, read all the rest of FDL if you haven't been there in the last couple of days. Jane is all over the astonishing background of Red State Ben, the WaPo blogger from the conservative mad scientist's laboratory, who turns out to be a rather impressive plagiarist as well as a racist. Naturally, Paul Lukasiak is also on the case. Jane also directs us to the C&L link for the video of Spinegold on The Daily Show (which, for my money answers the "electability" question on Feingold with a great big "YES!"), and says: I spent the day with my mom, a lifelong Republican who said today that "my party has abandoned me." She doesn't like the Democrats either because she doesn't see them fighting for people like her. She thought Feingold's courage to buck the party dons and stand up to George Bush was inspirational. If people like my mom are ready to listen the whole political landscape could soon be shifting. And Digby is saying that the hiring of Right-Wing Ben signals what could really be the death knell of the mainstream media - not because it is so offensive, but because it shows how clueless these people really are about what's really going on. It does rather seem amazing that journalists move father and farther to the right, and farther and farther from telling the truth, and then write alarmist articles about the decline in readership without ever making the connection between these things. Why is that? | 14:45 GMT Grab bag It's funny, in all the years I knew Chris Tame, and in all the discussions we had about politics, I never asked him for a specific outline of his own views. I knew that, although Chris and I obviously disagreed on libertarianism, we agreed on a great deal more than I expected. I always meant to ask him why his libertarianism was so different from the crackpot rubbish of the American libertarian movement (which is usually just a thinly disguised rationalization of some very non-libertarian right-wing views). But Sean Gabb's obituary for Chris in the Indy provides a taste of that conversation we never had. Amy Traub's "The Guest Worker Gamble" explains the proposed bill and what's right - and wrong - about it. But I'm not sure that it's worth supporting any bill the Republicans agree to, since by the time they get it out of conference it usually loses whatever was good about it. And anything short of forcing employers inside the United States to treat immigrant workers as they must treat full citizens - and treating full citizens well - degrades employment, and thus the entire economy, for virtually all of us. The most optimistic post I've read lately comes from, of all people, pessimist, at The Left Coaster. Elton Beard invites Jonah Goldberg to play poker. Man, this song seems so ironic in a time of chickenhawks. Maybe that explains the lack of good anti-war songs this time around - the only people left cheering for this one aren't in uniform. | 04:15 GMT Thursday, 23 March 2006 Recommended Ampersand has created a chart comparing the public positions of the anti-abortion movement on relevant issues to any actual belief that what they are doing is about preventing murder and saving lives. There are some unusually polite anti-abortion people contributing to the ensuing thread, and they are for the most part respectful of those they are debating with, but as nice and thoughtful as they are, I didn't see anything there that really contradicted Amp's points. They can say it very, very nicely, but they're still willing to fell a tree to save an acorn because they just don't care enough about the tree. Zachary Roth has an important warning about the rhetorical device conservatives are using to explain away the failure of their conservative movement as a failure of "big government liberalism". As I've noted before, conservatives persistently represent liberalism as being a kind of mindless support for "big government", despite the fact that no liberal has ever claimed to believe in 'big government'. One point that should be added to this package is that a current "moderate" meme is something like: "This is a failure of one-party government; the Democrats would have done the same thing, but right now they are out of power." In other words, the corruption and incompetence of this government is something the Democrats would have done if it were they who had total control of all four branches. This neatly ignores the fact that in modern history there have been moments in time when both houses and the executive were led by Democrats and we still did not ever reach the levels of negligence and corruption that were evident within the first six months of Bush's presidency, let alone what came later. I specify the first six months because 9/11 happened because of it, despite the fact that the Republicans' control of Congress was not yet absolute, and 9/11, not having yet happened, can not account for it. The simple fact is that virtually the entire GOP made cronyism, negligence, and corruption central to their methods immediately; it just took a few months for us to begin to see the evidence. Unfortunately, they also controlled the media, so the American public didn't really get the message until they saw Bush slacking off while an American city was lost. But it isn't just Bush that did this - it took a lot of people to make this happen, and those people were able to do so because they believe in conservatism. Scott Lemieux discusses the Supremes' decision in Georgia v. Randolph finding that the police can't be given permission to search your home by someone else who lives there - if you happen to be there, too. In a highly unsurprising development, Chief Justice Roberts signed on to the current belief of far too many federal judges that the War on (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs should act as a sort of solvent that dissolves any Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights that might be inconvenient to the state's power. Scott has also found "the most unintentionally hilarious piece of unreconstructed dumbass wingnuttery" from Ben Domenech. (It's really frustrating when you blog an interesting post, then go on to the next blog and blog an interesting post you found there, and then notice that there's a nearby post about the post you just blogged. And then you go to another blog and the same thing happens. And you can't help but think, "Gee, it looks like I got all of my stuff from just reading the one blog, and didn't even give credit." But that's actually what happened here. Suffice to say that if you find any of the subjects above compelling, you can probably find more discussion of it on one of the other named blogs, because they thought it was interesting, too.) Thanks to Monkyfister for the tip that you can listen to the Dixie Chicks sing "Not Ready to Make Nice", streaming at their site now. Or at least read the lyrics, y'all. | 15:16 GMT Reporting from the Big War I saw Bush on TV saying his job was tell people what was on his mind. What, does he think he's a blogger or something, then? I keep thinking he's supposed to have some other job. The question is whether the WaPo is run by idiots, or they just think we are idiots. I don't know how else you could explain this editorial which praises the masterful way Bush explained "his commitment to the war" at the press conference where he didn't answer any real questions. No one needs him to chant "9/11" more times - he knows perfectly well Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and he knew it in September of 2001, too. (via) Salon has a meaty article on The battle to ban birth control that makes it worth your while to watch the ad and get the day pass so you can read it. Via Twistedchick, from a post that has all the links you could ever need! And the wonderful Jane Smiley presents some Notes for Converts like "Bruce Bartlett, The Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, George Packer, William F. Buckley, Sandra Day O'Connor, Republican voters in Indiana and all the rest of you newly-minted dissenters from Bush's faith-based reality": Now you are fleeing him, but it's only because he's got the earmarks of a loser. Your problem is that you don't know why he's losing. You think he's made mistakes. But no. He's losing because the ideas that you taught him and demonstrated for him are bad ideas, self-destructive ideas, and even suicidal ideas. And they are immoral ideas. You should be ashamed of yourselves because not only have your ideas not worked to make the world a better place, they were inhumane and cruel to begin with, and they have served to cultivate and excuse the inhumane and cruel character traits of those who profess them. Amen, sister! (via) A piece at Raw Story has the look of a Mark of the Beast item, Editor forced out of job after running Democrat's column: The longtime chief correspondent for The Associated Press in Vermont has been forced out of his job, stunning the state's journalists and politicians, after he ran a column by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on the wire, the New York Times reports Wednesday. Some neat photos. | 02:23 GMT Wednesday, 22 March 2006 Open windows Radley Balko is doing some good original reporting on the Corey Maye story, and he's gone down and talked to lots of people personally, now, finding a pattern of "aggressive" drug squad tactics that make Maye's story even more believable. Also, complaining that the only pictures of Maye around the net are of him in the orange jump-suit, he supplies a better one. Press attention to this stories, and those like it, could be the only hope of justice being served, so it would be nice if more people would talk it up and hector the media to shine a spotlight on it. (Via a really link-rich post at Riba Rambles.) I've complained before about how the supposedly liberal New York Times never does anything to make a real case in support of its professed liberal positions (freedom of speech, abortion, opposition to the death penalty, etc.), and it's nice to see someone else taking notice. But Garance (and Amy Sullivan) should both bear this in mind the next time they want to castigate liberals for not talking about birth control (or faith, or anything else): Liberals aren't usually asked to present the liberal view of anything in the major media - they leave it to conservatives to tell the public what liberals supposedly say and think. And speaking of The New York Times, more confirmation that they aren't interested in legitimate criticism, either. Like the WaPo, they will add increasing numbers of right-wingers who bleat about how liberal it is to their staff, but not someone who might have a professor who criticizes them in Editor & Publisher. R.J. Eskow says "Finally! A White Guy Teaches Black Folk How to 'Rap About Race'" - a look at the pseudo-anti-racism of the right-wing. I just don't understand why this stuff comes out of Bush's mouth. Is he trying to tell us something? Considering what a big deal the Iran hostage crisis was at the time, not to mention the fact that they are now part of the "Axis of Evil" and etc., you'd really think the administration would be embarrassed to be on the wrong side of this. Feingold brings inspiration to MadKane. | 19:44 GMT All about the blogs So, the WaPo website has added a conservative blog. Yes, you're waiting to hear that they also added a liberal blog, right? Well, they didn't. Of course, they claim the addition of this little creep has nothing to do with being a sop to the right (they're lying) and that it's all about livening up their pages with good writers. The fact that Ben Domenech is just a mindless right-wing hack gives the lie to that one. I agree with Garance that, while the left doesn't have an equivalent in lying hackery (nor do we want one), a nice way to balance this out would be the addition of John Aravosis, who would elevate the quality of the site dramatically. Because, as Josh says, they've really been played and dragged it way, way down. This guy is still claiming that the far-right loonies he works for are mainstream. I can't wait for him to explain when "the far left" was repudiated at the ballot box, personally. Oh, yeah, I remember all those referenda on whether to go from a mixed economy to a communist state, you bet! (And the only socialist who ever gets tested at the ballot box is Bernie, and he always wins. And Gore won. Even if you won't listen to all the stuff about Florida, you can't deny that Gore won the popular vote after he alienated the DLC and "veered left".) But this is all part of what Chris Bowers is talking about when he says there's no right-wing blogosphere anymore. They've all been absorbed into their hated "MSM". The right wing makes sure that their cranks get paid - and The Washington Post is there to help. Maybe that's why AT&T Wants to Reach Out and Control You - just in case the Internet really does make any difference. (via) And, while it does, the full shortlist of Koufax Award nominees is now up at Wampum. | 15:49 GMT The big heist We were all stunned that Bush actually took a question from Helen Thomas today. "You're going to be sorry," she said, before asking the question everyone in Washington should have been asking for the last three years: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it? In response, Bush trotted out familiar lies, starting with the claim that he didn't want to go to war, and of course following up with his big favorite: My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Damn, I thought protecting the American people was what all that "oath of office" stuff more than seven months earlier had been about. Oh, no, wait - that was the Constitution he was sworn to protect. Hm, I wonder what could happen to make him start doing that. Well, in other words, Bush didn't answer the question. So maybe someone else can.... "Clear and Present Dangers", Alan Brinkley's review of American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century by Kevin Phillips, is scary and contains some important warnings, but also this: Less widely reported, but to Phillips far more meaningful, was the immediate posting of troops around the Iraqi Oil Ministry, which held the maps and charts that were the key to effective oil production. Phillips fully supports an explanation of the Iraq war that the Bush administration dismisses as conspiracy theory that its principal purpose was to secure vast oil reserves that would enable the United States to control production and to lower prices. But Greg Palast, who agrees that oil is central to the reason for the invasion, has a somewhat different view of the goal: Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools: The Mission Was Indeed Accomplished "It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude. And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC." Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude. Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel. There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get more of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing too much of it. This actually makes more sense to me in terms of the way the oilcrats think. They want to get rid of the middle class, and cheap oil wouldn't suit their purposes, would it? But I'm sure they want to hoard a bit for themselves, too. | 00:29 GMT Tuesday, 21 March 2006 Crawlin' the web Last night's topic: Is Bush the worst president ever - or at least worse than Reagan? Mark Schmitt, Josh Marshall, Atrios, and Tom (of CorrenteWire) all kick it around. Another interview from your Talking Dog: On March 11, 2006, an explosive letter appeared in Britain's prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, decrying the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and in particular, the practice of force-feeding hunger-striking detainees. Dr. David Nicholl, a neurologist based in Birmingham, England, and a human rights activist, was the lead signatory to that letter, which was signed by over 250 physicians from throughout the world. Subsequently, Dr. Nicholl was interviewed by the BBC, by Britain's Channel 4, and by CNN. Terry Jones says that God has lost faith in Blair. Dkos poll - vote for "Other" so they know you mean Gore. The ages of the victims are in Arabic numerals. Garden gnomes on the run from tax assessor. Architecture by Mixmaster | 15:23 GMT It must be spring! Get a load of the cover for the April issue of The American Prospect. Yep, Ezra gets the cover story with his name on the front and everything. I'm not sure I approve of this title, though; I don't recall an old new Gore, so I don't get the point of having two "new"s there - it was different when it was "the new new Nixon", since he was new more than once. So even if you believe that there was an old Gore who was boring and stiff and this passionate guy is a new thing, I think "The New Al Gore" would have been a more accurate title. But never mind that, let's get on down to it: The New New Gore Here's the scenario: Hillary Clinton continues rolling forward, amassing establishment support and locking down the large donors. Anti-Hillary voters prove unable to coalesce around a single champion, so Clinton is able to suck up all the oxygen but, as with most faits accomplis, attracts little genuine enthusiasm. At the same time, her hawkishness and ostentatious moderation sparks widespread disillusionment among the online activist community. Inevitably, the liberal wing of the party begins calling for a Bigfoot of its own to enter the primary, and the obvious prospect is Gore. DraftGore.com, which already exists, amplifies the drumbeat, collecting pledges and holding events. The press corps, sensing a Godzilla vs. King Kong battle, begins covering the events. As Marty Peretz, publisher of The New Republic and a longtime friend of Gore, says, "if he were to find that there was some groundswell for him, I think it would be hard to resist." But not impossible. Long-standing associates of Gore's say his appetite for a second campaign seems to depend, at least partially, on whether he judges it an issue-based endeavor that allows him to continue speaking out on matters of substance or just another round of dodging media-narratives and churlish characterizations. If Gore's experiments in disintermediation pan out, the 2008 campaign may prove a very different undertaking from 2000's. Whatever Al Gore does, I think he's still the closest thing we have to a leader. Remember, Feingold's censure motion came after Gore's speech at Constitution Hall. (Whether he runs or not, I still want to talk to Al Gore. I want to talk to him about global warming. I want him to convince me that there is anything to be done. Because right now I'm just hoping I'll die before we're all submerged. And, frankly, I expect it to look a lot more like the Somersea than like New Galveston.) | 02:59 GMT Monday, 20 March 2006 Chris Tame Chris Tame died around three this afternoon, surrounded by friends. We will all miss his enormous energy, his willingness to help wherever necessary, and his ability to make it easy to join in with the work. And I will miss his friendship and having him to argue politics with. His death is an enormous loss to the entire civil liberties community. | 21:24 GMT Watching the defectives Economist's View has Krugman - last week's piece on John McCain, "The Right's Man", and today's "Bogus Bush Bashing": So what's left? Well, it's safe for conservatives to criticize Mr. Bush for presiding over runaway growth in domestic spending, because that implies that he betrayed his conservative supporters. There's only one problem ... it's not true. No, it's Bush's tax cuts for the rich and his insane invasion of Iraq that have made all the difference. That and the incredible corruption that goes with it all. "How to spot a baby conservative" - a longitudinal study shows that the "whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints" grew up to be a conservative," while "confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests," confirming similar results from another study a few years ago. Via Suburban Guerrilla. Right-wing values - way out of the mainstream. Next time some right-wing jerk tries to mau-mau you about the "corruption" of Kofi Anan in the Oil For Food scandal, remind him that since the "grown-ups" have been in charge, what we've had is a Free Fraud Zone. And not just in Iraq - take a look at the Katrina clean-up (via). | 18:41 GMT Today's reminders Happy Nowruz - the Zorastrian holiday of the spring equinox also marks the start of the Persian new year. Do remember you can get permanently blog-friendly links to articles in the NYT at the NYT Link Generator. If you click on a decayed link at the NYT and it tells you it wants money to access the article, just patch into the link generator to get a useable link. If you're blogging an NYT article, use the link from the generator instead of the regular link. Why you drive me crazy: "Faze" doesn't mean "phase", "mute" doesn't mean "moot", "tact" doesn't mean "tack" (and it's "intact", not "in tact"). Add your favorites. | 17:10 GMT Better late than never Bra of the Week Isn't it funny that wherever Bush goes, there seem to be fake Secret Service agents? This is completely illegal, but Lambert notes that it seems to be people who are actually part of the Bush operation. Another great post from Digby, called, appropriately, "Don't Make Trouble. (You know the old joke, right?) Eleanor Clift has penned a column that she clearly wrote while half in the bag after playing spin the Jameson's with Chris Matthews and John McLaughlin at Bob Shrum's St Paddy's Day bash. A bigger puddle of misguided conventional wisdom I have not seen in quite some time. So, I guess Clift isn't watching The Daily Show. (Maybe you could write and beg them to watch that video. Or at least read this. Pelosi certainly needs some remedial help. And more here.) Watch the video of ReddHedd from Firedoglake in her appearance on Washington Journal. I see from comments and mail (Hi, Neil) that people want the point stressed that Tokyo Rose was not a traitor, so here are your TY links: Who was Tokyo Rose? Wikipedia - Tokyo Rose Iva Ikuko Toguri D'Aquino How did WWII propaganda broadcaster Tokyo Rose get info on Allied ship movements? Silly Season quiz, via Biomes Blog, where we also find all these cool mazes in the maize. And a test to find out how fast you read. | 13:16 GMT Sunday, 19 March 2006 Serious Rittenhouse Review alerts us that Arlen Specter has declared his priorities in a letter to The Philadelphia Enquirer: Sen. Santorum's reelection is my top priority in 2006. Nice to know he's not letting, oh, the future of our nation or anything trivial like that cloud his vision. | 17:17 GMT What the papers say We're torturers, on purpose. Okay, you already know that, but let's not forget that the United States of America, under the Bush administration, has been doing this - and that all those conservatives have been defending him. And, um, why was it, again, that it was so important to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Unsurprisingly, the legislative feint at repairing the damaged pension system is failing, for all the reasons we've come to expect in the last five years: As a result, the bill now being completed in a House-Senate conference committee, rather than strengthening the pension system, would actually weaken it, according to a little-noticed analysis by the government's pension agency. The agency's report projects that the House and Senate bills would lower corporate contributions to the already underfinanced pension system by $140 billion to $160 billion in the next three years. I seem to have missed that story in The Washington Post, so let's return to our tradition: Today's OmbudsHowl is really kind of hilarious, in a grim and dismal kind of way. There's no indication it came from reader complaints, being yet more navel-gazing about the decline of newspaper readership - and yet, that could hardly be more of a reader complaint. And there are some good quotes from people explaining the obvious reason that people have stopped reading: because the paper doesn't actually address readers' concerns, being mostly addressed to other journalists. Alas, we end up with a lot of market-speak that jumps past the rather significant issue of whether the papers really report the news. You Call This a Protest? WaPo readers smartly spank the paper in letters complaining about coverage for a paltry protest of 17 women who responded to Ann Coulter's call for a demonstration against The Vagina Monologues. The Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon's money-losing cheat-sheet, says that Democrats are planning to campaign. Really, it doesn't say much more than that. I hope it's true, though. Hm, someone at AP noticed that Bush uses straw-man arguments when he says things like, "There are some really decent people who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people." Welcome to the world, guys. The Observer reports that head cop Sir Ian Blair has been cleared over the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes on the grounds that he didn't know what he should have known. Is that it? Are we ever going to talk about why the killing never should have happened? In the Telegraph, more corruption at No. 10: Evidence linking Tony Blair personally to the £14 million "loans for peerages" scandal engulfing Labour can be revealed today. | 14:47 GMT Footnotes Those of you who can be in Hartford today are planning to demonstrate at Lieberman's office today, yeah? Boing Boing reports that Marvel and DC Comics are filing for joint ownership of the term "super-hero". Just leaving aside the fact that the term has been in common usage since I was a little girl (before you were born, kiddies), I'm boggled at the very idea that two separate, competing companies can both own the same trademark. Cory Doctorow's recommendation: from now on, let's never use the term "super-hero" to describe a Marvel character. Let's call them "underwear perverts" -- as Warren Ellis is wont to -- or vigilantes, or mutants. Let's reserve the term "super-hero" exclusively to describe the heros of comics published by companies that aren't crooked word-thieves.. (Thanks to Dominic (of) for the tip.) From Ostroy, Novak Sees Gore as the Only Threat to Hillary, and "cites Democratic insiders who say Al Gore is likely to make another run for the White House in 2008, saying the former veep's online fundraising power could amass a greater warchest than that of the Sen. Hillary Clinton, the party's presumptive front-runner." Christianist painter Kinkade urinates on Winnie the Pooh figure while drunk. (I'd have posted it earlier, but I think it got lost in a browser-crash.) I forgot to include the wonderful quote about Jane Fonda in the Stupid News. Never forget that Republicans aren't just dumb enough to say things this stupid, they're even dumb enough to elect people who say things this stupid: "She is as guilty of treason as Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose." And a quick google shows that they are even dumb enough to blog that quote approvingly. | 12:10 GMT Stupid news From Thursday's Metro: Support for road tolls 'is declining' The number of motorists willing to pay to travel on Britain's roads is falling, a survey out today reveals. More than one in four drivers were willing to pay to use city centre roads in 2002, but that figure fell to just 36 per cent in 2005, a study for the RAC said. So, I guess numeracy really isn't necessary anymore. From the back page of the Sat-Sun edition of the IHT, in its entirety: Dublin: Millions around the globe celebrated St. Patrick's Day on Friday. (AFP) And they had to get a French report to find that out? | 02:43 GMT Notebook Jane Hamsher has a nicely wrapped package of reasons to get rid of Joe Lieberman - and vote for Ned Lamont. And on this Sunday, the third anniversary of the horrendous war Joe Lieberman got us into, there will be a demonstration outside of Lieberman's office. Mike's Round Up at C&L has a good set of links. Faith-Based Idiocy Republicans are actually trying to make some amends on the drug benefit bill. Dems should be sure and remind people who voted for it and how it passed. 38 years after My Lai, what are the Lessons Learned? | 00:52 GMT Saturday, 18 March 2006 Linkorama Think Progress: Among the most vocal supporters of the FOIA bill in 1966? Freshman congressman Donald Rumsfeld of Illinois, an original co-sponsor of the legislation. [...] Somewhere along the line, Rumsfeld became what he fought against in 1966: a government official with "a vested interest in the machinery of their agencies and bureaus" who resent "any attempt to oversee their activities, either by the public, the Congress or appointed department heads." At The Reaction, The (liberal) Girl Next Door wonders, "When is it time to panic?" Yeah, I just can't get enough of all that good news about Iraq. You say they painted a school? Well, that makes up for everything! Greg at The Talent Show points out that more Americans agree with us wild-eyed bloggers than with the fog-headed cowards inside the Beltway, and has a good wail about how DC Dems need to get some 'nads. (And, my, that's an interesting ad.) Quick! Vote while the black people are gone. Lance Mannion dissects some Right to Life tropes. Shakespeare's Sister reports on The War Against Christians conference - no, really. The difference between them. I was curious to see what the Bull Moose had to say about the Jihad Against Liberalism until I realized that, as usual, he'd missed the mote in his own eye. (via) | 11:51 GMT Stops on the Infobahn In The American Prospect, Michael Tomasky interviews Sherrod Brown: I will run a race that you will know from the moment you cover it is a progressive campaign. I never run from the term liberal, but I look at it. To me, there's a major distinction between the terms liberal and progressive and that's why I call myself a progressive. A liberal is someone who supports LIHEAP programs because indigent seniors need help with their home heating bills. A progressive is someone who supports LIHEAP programs to challenge the power companies, and who thinks that sometimes the energy companies are price gouging. A liberal is someone who wants a good Medicare prescription drug benefit, better than the one we have, that really helps seniors and subsidizes seniors' prescription drugs, but a progressive is someone who supports those same programs but also wants to challenge the power of the drug and insurance industries. And that's how you will see my campaign this year as it unfolds -- a very populist kind of campaign. 46 Republicans just voted to privatize Social Security - and every single Democrat, with seven Republicans, voted against it, thank goodness. Ah, this is more like the Evan Bayh I know and loathe: How exactly does Bayh plan to be the big national security badass? By changing the law so that the President's illegal actions are made legal? Wow you are one tough hombre, Evan. It still really ticks me off that someone tried to assassinate two US Senators and nothing has really happened. Never been sure about this theory, but every now and then I like to remind people that while this was happening, John Ashcroft was out chasing hookers and pot-smokers. (via) If you haven't listened to "Habeas Schmabeas" yet, go over to This American Life and take the time to hear it out. You'll even learn a few things you didn't know. What is Michael Kinsley smoking? How many times does he have to be told that single-payer doesn't prohibit private health care? Neither did "Hillarycare". Hell, even I have been to Harley Street, and we have fully "socialized" healthcare over here, not even single-payer. Is there really anyone left who thinks we're being paranoid when we say the Republicans want to ban birth control? In Missouri, they're working on it: Yesterday, during debate on HB1010, the budget for the Departments of Health and Mental Health, House Republicans voted to ban county health clinics from providing family planning services. Let me get this straight - right wingers think "the left" should praise Bush for being a big-spending mismanager so that the right-wingers will see how wrong they are to like Bush? That's a good one. They ask, we ask: was it worse under Saddam? Kidnappings, power cuts, sectarian hatred, medical shortages, petrol queues, intimidation of women and a mass exodus of talent: all part of life in the new Iraq. Via Mia Culpa, one of my favorite bits from SNL when it was good - Lily Tomlin as Ernestine. | 00:17 GMT Friday, 17 March 2006 On the field We've been watching the reviews for V for Vendetta with interest. They've been pretty mixed, so we were particularly alert when Jonathan Ross gave his verdict. Ross likes science fiction and reads comics - and is a big fan of Alan Moore - so when he gives an sf-related movie the thumbs-down, it's not the usual confusion reviewers who don't understand the genre suffer from. And he hated the movie. Then again, Rachel Maddow loved it, but then I don't suppose she's ever read the comic, so I assume it's the politics that made her love it. There are other people who hate the movie on political grounds, and Atrios has some words for them. (Disclosure: We used to hang out at the pub with Alan. And I have an original V for Vendetta T-shirt, ordered from the original black & white comic when it first came out.) I was just jumping from link to link earlier and ran into this 1999 wedding announcement: Emma Gilbey, an author and journalist, was married yesterday to Bill Keller, the managing editor of The New York Times. The Rev. Robert J. Kennedy performed the ceremony at the Holy Name of Jesus Roman Catholic Church in Manhattan. [...] Mr. Keller, 50, graduated from Pomona College. He is the son of Adelaide and George M. Keller of San Mateo, Calif. The bridegroom's father retired as the chairman and chief executive of the Chevron Corporation in San Francisco. Oh, I see! Even Andrew Sullivan is now acknowledging that all that's left of "conservatism" is hatred of the left - and he thinks Bush's low poll numbers are only going to make it worse: My gut predicts a huge swing against the GOP this fall. So watch out for the anti-left hate and hysteria from Republicans. It's coming. It's all they've got left. We saw this going all the way back to the Selection in 2000, with even the threat/fear that if Democrats stand up for the law, the right-wing will present us with armed insurrection. Sullivan thinks Feingold's censure motion is a gift to the right, of course (he still has Inside-the-Beltway Disease), but at least now he's seeing what "conservatism" is all about, these days. (Although I would argue that that's really all conservatives ever really had. Even the whole anti-tax thing is about not being able to fund liberal programs. They never objected to taxation per se. After all, how are you going to pay for all those cops and wars?) Brad DeLong (via) has a fascinating post on how even Peggy Noonan has started to realize Bush has been lying not just to us, but to them. Of course, Noonan can't escape the silly habit of assuming that over-spending is some sort of "liberalism", but I suppose that's to be expected - "liberal" is the epithet that conservatives use for anyone they don't like. Did George Clooney blog? I don't think so, and neither does Elayne. Right now I'm a bit distracted because my friend Chris, after about a year of doing everything he could think of to fight the fastest case of bone cancer I've ever heard of, finally gave up the other day and agreed to take the heroin. I expect he'll be gone by tonight or some time tomorrow. In honor of the occasion: It's Not Gonna Be OK. (via) | 15:16 GMT Thursday, 16 March 2006 Lows and highs What the hell is this? The NYT has a headline: Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry to Bush's Base. Is it? Who knows? And who cares? I mean, Bush's base is getting mighty small these days. And why wasn't this the sort of headline we got during the Clinton impeachment, when people who didn't even like the President (i.e., me) felt compelled to defend him against the onslaught of phony charges? In those days, only the people who are now called "Bush's Base" were interested in impeaching Clinton, while two-thirds of Americans opposed it. Right now a significant majority of Americans think Bush's illegal activities (as well as his manifest failures) should be investigated, and I see that is not a headline in The New York Times. Mary at The Left Coaster, Digby, and John Aravosis at Americablog all have comments on that. Meanwhile, isn't it interesting that the press has worked so hard to downplay the fact that Feingold is not all on his own and that he does have some Democratic support. To: letters@nytimes.com Subject: "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry to Bush's Base" Gentlefolk; I note with interest David D. Kirkpatrick's article warning that Senator Russ Feingold's motion for censure of George W. Bush's illegal activities is rallying hard-core Bush supporters. But with Mr. Bush's popularity now at 33%, surely this is not the real story. I look forward to the headline that reflects the views of a majority of Americans - perhaps, "Most want investigations of administration law-breaking, incompetence." In other news: Atrios says Hillary & Friends have offered up a "We're moderate on abortion" amendment that is, in fact, moderate (that is, liberal, pro-choice, etc.), and will have no impact whatsoever. More White House law-breaking at Raw Story: Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives. Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Mule visited some old people in Silver Spring yesterday to tell them how wonderful his Medicare program is. Apparently, some video clips have been withheld from the public, but they're still in the transcripts. But, I gather, it kind of loses a lot in the text - all the fumbling when he got hit with smarter questions than his usual audience supplies. Some real video gems from Crooks and Liars (of course): Paul Hackett's wonderful bit on The Daily Show - If the Democrats get their act together, this'll be why. James Spader's courtroom speech from Boston Legal is kind of gratifying, too. And Keith Olbermann turns out to be even quicker than you thought during his interview on The Colbert Report. | 13:31 GMT From the Bizarro Bible Nice one from Whistler Blue in comments: All you need to know about the Pharisee wing of the religious right came between the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2005. They came out in droves to "vote their faith" against gays (something Christ never got around to addressing, and that is arguably absent from the entire New Testament). But when that abomination of a bankruptcy bill came along a few months later, they happily sat on their hands so as not to disturb it -- despite a far more important biblical precedent, historical church bans on usury, and the fact that bankruptcy destroys more families than any "activist judge" in Massachusetts could dream of. It's as if they think Christ went into the Temple and angrily preached "personal responsibility" to the moneyborrowers. | 11:30 GMT Wednesday, 15 March 2006 A whole buncha links "Al Gore Still the Most Electable Democrat" - There's only one candidate who has the political capital and overall gravitas to not only win a showdown with Clinton, but to win the big prize as well. George's excellent sleepover. "Oh Lord! Osama In Lodi, Again." David Horowitz answers Roy's question: "Instead of trying to legislate conservative quotas at colleges, why don't rightwing critics of socialist Harvard, Yale, Columbia etc. just build their new Jerusalem at existing Bible schools like Bob Jones and Liberty University?" Have you ever seen Robocop? It's one of my favorite movies. This is how it starts. (via) Everything you needed to know about what people mean by "religious sensitivity" is right here - sure, when it's your religion. (Jeez, does Hayes think the rest of us never got our oxes gored by those guys? They blew up Janeane's head!) And Steve Gilliard has a really really really good point about this religious stuff. What I wanna know is, who puts these crackpots on TV? It's one thing when they have their own TV stations, but that's really no finer credential than, say, having your own blog. And most bloggers aren't as crazy as they are. Skippy has some verbal karate, and a suggestion. (And you can read this, just in case I haven't mentioned it enough. And Bill Scher says it's not enough to only pick on Feinstein. Hmph, I see that even one of my Senators is on the list. So is Ted Kennedy. Tsk!) The antidote to networking (Thanks to Neil Rest for the tip.) Someone posted the clever little Simpson's promo up at YouTube. Via Epicycle, where I also learned of EFF's help page for people who were victims of the evil Sony root-kit CDs, and a resource for debugging your TV or VCR. Oh, and the Top 10 Strangest Lego Creations! | 19:59 GMT Censure Digby has a great piece on Feingold's censure motion and the news that Donna Brazile actually has said in Roll Call, "Don't Ignore the Feingold Resolution. Embrace It." Now that is a sea-change. At Daily Kos, mcjoan has put it all together for your Dem reps - now all you have to do is send it to them. (via) You might also want to tell news organizations that it's time to do censure polls - just like they did with Clinton. And another thing - Can it really be true that the Senate Democrats actually approve of Bush more than the American public does? Maybe we should take a poll! Meanwhile, do thank Senator Feingold, won't you? I can't watch The Sopranos anymore, it's too much like real life. | 14:17 GMT The Afterlife Insurance thread (cont'd) I am entertained by the fact that atheists yell at me for being a goddamn Christian and Christians yell at me for being a goddamn atheist, despite the fact that in "Faithless" the only time I referred to "we" I specified in that group unbelievers, Christian believers, and unspecified believers. I don't usually talk about what I believe, or if I believe, because I don't actually think it matters. There've been times in my life when I believed and times when I didn't, and no matter whether or not I believed in the irrational (yes, of course it's irrational - that's why they call it "faith"), I always had the same values. And, basically, I am happy to respect your beliefs if they are consistent with my values, and I am just as comfortable with sneering at you and Viewing With Alarm if you have values that I think are scummy. In case anyone's wondering where all this sudden stuff on religion started, it's about the amazing Brownback, a politician from Hell itself. Note to The Green Knight: I wasn't replying to Atrios (who I agree with); I was responding to Waldman, whose statement offended me. (More from Shakespeare's Sister on liberals and religion.) | 03:11 GMT Tuesday, 14 March 2006 Have a cuppa Boy, I'm getting really sick of dentistry. Mr. Sideshow was just on the phone with Roz Kaveney and he says they were talking about a Batman story that everyone thought had just too ludicrous a premise at the time it came out - No Man's Land, about what happens to Gotham after a major disaster hits it and the government just doesn't bother with rescue operations, and people with guns stand on the bridges preventing folks from evacuating. Readers just couldn't accept the premise - no one believed the United States government would ever abandon an American city to lawlessness. Note: The "Duncan" who posts comments here is not Atrios (Duncan Black). He doesn't write like Atrios, and Atrios already has a Haloscan identity as "Atrios". Chris Bowers is good on the "electability" issue - just don't engage it. Via The Liquid List. A couple of good recommendations from Scott Lemieux: - Why The Health Exemption Matters: As I discussed last week, most "centrist" discussion of abortion regulation ignores the complex legal issues involved. Roe v. Wade, after all, allows the state to proscribe post-viability abortions; it simply requires the state to allow doctors to perform abortions in cases where a woman's health is at risk. Mary Beth Williams explains why this is important (indeed, in many ways the more important issue that the lack of a rape/incest exemption). - Destroying the "But Everyone Thought Saddam Had WMDs, So the War Was Justified" Argument: Sick of arguments to the effect that anyone claiming that Bush was less than fully candid in making the case for a disastrous war must be arguing in bad faith? It's your lucky day, because Matthew Bargainer has the antidote. The Brad Blog has clips from the ACLU's movie on disenfranchisement. And it's good to know Bill Richardson has signed a new voting bill in New Mexico, given what we saw last time. Yeah, I've always wondered myself about whatever happened to those tons of explosives that disappeared because, "Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." | 21:02 GMT Morning notes Atrios recommends this "righteous rant" from Matt Stoller on Lieberman, abortion, and Beltway insiders - and so do I. For more, Atrios offers an old-fashioned computer game. (But also, read Matt on Hillary Clinton.) Al Gore spoke at the scene of a crime Sunday, and warned us not to take anything for granted. That's not enough for pessimist at The Left Coaster, though. Also at TLC, Duckman is pretty disgusted with Lieberman (well, who isn't?), especially after this look at the company he keeps. Oh, and Zell Miller and Donna Brazile, too! Explains a lot. And more from Steve Soto on Democratic presidential positioning, with a surprising thing about the guy who has previously shown no sign of being a real successor to Birch Bayh: Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will be speaking to Georgia Democrats this week on how the party can win national elections in red states, namely by holding onto its base and reaching out to independent voters and "reasonable Republicans", instead of the DLC method of basing your campaign on the independents and assuming the support of your base because they have nowhere else to go. Bayh will also be advising against appearing to speak down to people and looking elitist, while speaking credibly on national security and being sensitive to moral issues. Well, that sounds downright sensible. And I'm with Steve, of course, on thinking Gore/Clark doesn't sound too bad at all. Hm, the latest Zogby poll has a new question: "Are you proud or ashamed to have George W. Bush as President of the United States?" | 11:42 GMT Choice cuts Don't forget to call your Senators and ask them if they plan to support Russ Feingold's motion to censure Bush. If their offices say anything but, "Yes," encourage them to do so. And Dianne Feinstein - where is she now? A good question from Busy, Busy, Busy, which also has a Shorter Amy Sullivan Part I and Part II of the Truthdig interview with Gore Vidal: I wish the word terrorist would be erased from our language. All meaning has been pumped out of it by our rulers and their media, who wish to demonize everyone or -thing they dislike starting with Us The People. Chris Floyd explains how it works when the gloves come off. I just got spam from "Orwellian F. Fruits." | 02:36 GMT Monday, 13 March 2006 Weblog sampler Via Lis Riba, who has a bunch of 'em. The perfect GOP logo (via) I was hoping Crooks and Liars would come up with a clip of Sandra Day O'Connor's speech, but no luck there - though there is a clip from Olbermann's show about it, and a transcription. (I haven't said much about it myself because my principle reaction to this apparent buyer's remorse involves a lot of spluttering and screeching and What the hell did you think it was about when this guy went to court to stop the votes from being counted, you idiot?!?!?!?!) Josh Marshall is reminded that, with this crowd, you have to be careful about using "killed" metaphorically. Jim Macdonald is finding our government a bit bizarre. John M. Ford is in space. Gosh, a a whole blog about the Enron case. Via Skimble, natch. So, now we know: Jerome Doolittle tells us what kind of people are left in Cheney's 18%. "Uncaged Heat" - a news item from The Daily Show that really makes ya think. I like the Google logo today. I clicked and found this. | 22:01 GMT Faithless Atrios: I'm so sick of this crap. Is there a Republican talking point that our notional allies won't perpetuate without evidence? He's referring to this at Political Animal: I had been making a narrower point - that many liberals carry an elitist attitude toward evangelical Christians. Lerner's indictment is far more sweeping. Is he being unfair? I think a distinction should be made between the elites and the rank and file on this. The fact is that most Democrats are religious. But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach. Of course they do; conservatives have worked since time immemorial to cast those to their left as "godless". First we were godless commies, and now we're more recent variations on godlessness, but of course this is bollocks, as anyone with even a vague memory of the civil rights movement can still recall. You remember? Rev. Martin Luther King? The radical Jesuits? Meetings in Churches? (And not just black churches, I'll remind you.) The fact is that for a while there the religiosity of the left, and the moral high-ground that came with it, so overwhelmed the right wing that they obviously had to grab it back, and they've done so with a vengeance. But yes, of course the left - and the Democratic Party - is the territory that's safe for unbelievers and for those who don't believe in the iconic Baby Jesus (the one who is a content-free symbol), or who do believe in the (fairly socialistic) teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. The right wing is hostile territory for such people, so why wouldn't we inhabit the left instead? The right-wingers want you to forget that the '60s they hate so much were very much a time of spirituality and that our political leadership was full of religious leaders. But most of all they want you to forget that "secularism" as a feature of the political landscape isn't about spirituality - religion - at all, it's about the construction of law, and mixing overt religious demands and law easily becomes one of the most anti-spiritual and downright evil forces you can impose on the polity. The "religious" right (which contains a hefty percentage of atheists, too, but they won't admit it) isn't interested in freedom to believe at all, they just want to impose their own disgusting and perverted exploitation of "Christianity" on the rest of us, which means they want to stamp out a lot of honest Christian believers who just don't happen to share their version of "Christianity". The loaves-and-fishes types just don't get a terribly warm reception from folks whose favorite parts of the Bible are those little-known verses about birth control and abortion. Liberals aren't hostile to Evangelical Christians, we're hostile to evangelical dirtbags who spread hate and division. "Secular liberal" doesn't mean "atheist", and the opposite of "secular liberal" is not "religious", let alone "Evangelical Christian"; the opposite of "secular liberal" is "theocrat", and that's a very different thing. But then, conservatives always lie about what they stand for. They aren't fiscally conservative or Constitutionalists, and they aren't for limited government, either. Nor are they for free trade (in fact, with the tiny exception of a few libertarians who haven't figured it out, yet, no one is really for free trade), and they are absolutely not pro-life. They're about material power for themselves; they don't care about your soul. Update: Digby and tristero for more. | 16:51 GMT Open windows Bra of the Week - Not the sort of thing I'd buy, but it is remarkably sheer (which is kind of undercut by all those seams) and comparatively inexpensive, and it comes in some unusual sizes, which is nice for the people in those sizes. 300,000 Marched in Chicago Friday. Why Doesn't Anyone Know? (via) Roger Ailes (the good one) is shocked! shocked! to find bigots at The Washington Times. Maybe national security would be better if you couldn't track CIA operatives on the Internet. Oh, but maybe you can't, and maybe it would just be better if the White House didn't blow their cover. (via) The World's Angriest Hummingbird Dan Gillmor points out that AT&T has a monopoly on pay phones at PXs in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are price-gouging the troops as a result. James Wolcott blames John Boorman for frightening right-wing hacks into embracing misogyny. Cernig plays Spot The Pentagon Story Plant. Thomas Nephew notes that Jim Hoagland wrote a column with "one of the most damaging quotes I've ever seen out of a White House" - almost a direct translation from the original German. An hour of radio to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Patti Smith's Horses (Thanks to Karen Babbitch for the tip.) | 03:20 GMT Sunday, 12 March 2006 Assorted news, opinion, and entertainment Believe it or not, this is really the cover of this week's issue of The Economist. In comments, D. Potter supplies the link to the NYT article "The Vendetta Behind 'V for Vendetta'" (which comes with trailer and clips). The NYT also has a piece by Adam Cohen on Jerome and Kos' book, Crashing the Gate, about the Democratic Party and political organizing on the 'net, "Bloggers at the Gates: What Was Good for EBay Should Be Good for Politics": Much of the authors' criticism of the party establishment is dead-on. They rail against political consultants who take 15 percent commissions on media buys while giving bad advice. Via And, yes, I DO take it personally. Molly Ivins has also had Enough of the D.C. Dems: I don't know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton. I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don't jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater. Sing it, Molly! This is another one of those articles that people should fax to their Dem reps with a note that says: "She speaks for me." (via) Across the Great Divide finds a tricky bit of phraseology in an article about selective abortion in China. The WaPo has Dahlia Lithwick on Why Courts Are Adopting Gay Parenting: These legislative bans fly in the face of both necessity and truth. There are 119,000 children waiting to be adopted in this country, about half of them racial and ethnic minorities. There are about 588,000 children in foster care. Legislators -- like a clutch of Ohio Republicans -- pushing bans on gay adoption and fostering must argue that it's better for these children to languish in state custody, or bounce from foster home to foster home, than be raised by gay parents. If you go here and do a "find" on "Krugman" you can read his "The Conservative Epiphany". | 13:22 GMT Saturday, 11 March 2006 As the frog boils Just one of an obscene number of things, but so sad: As a young man I was honored to serve our nation as a commissioned officer and helicopter pilot in the U. S. Navy. Before me in WWII, my father defended the country spending two years in the Pacific aboard the U.S.S. Hornet (CV-14). We were patriots sworn "to protect and defend". Today I conclude that you have dishonored our service and the Constitution and principles of our oath. My dad was buried with full military honors so I cannot act for him. But for myself, I return enclosed the symbols of my years of service: the shoulder boards of my rank and my Naval Aviator's wings. I wish I could feel glee at Bush's political sinkhole, but it's only the result of an endless succession of failures that have been not just his, but ours; he is only here because he has already hurt us so badly. [I agree with the impeachment movement that we need to formally repudiate Bush and Cheney (and Cheney - that part is important, dammit!) for the sake of the country, and we should push the idea as hard as we can even though it is politically infeasible at this time.] Just when you think things couldn't get stupider, someone comes up with another stupid idea: Put a Pahlavi in charge. Quiddity wants to know if abortion clinics on reservations is a possibility. I don't know, either, but I would have thought so. (Also: A warning to the missing demographic.) Oversight by Capitulation by Robert Parry: Despite a dip in his opinion polls, George W. Bush's transformation of the United States into an authoritarian society continues apace, with new "compromises" with Congress actually consolidating his claims to virtually unlimited executive power. These arguments are always phrased as if they are about the poor, but when you remove the safety nets, almost everyone falls through. William Howard Taft, Sandra Day O'Conner, and the Grateful Dead on Tom DeLay. OK, not exactly. (Also: local literature at the public convenience, via The Rittenhouse Review.) | 15:36 GMT In one eye Click on this lovely fridge magnet and you can win one if you show Susie some well-deserved love. Five towns seek Bush impeachment: Voters in this postcard-perfect town didn't like the resolution asking Rep. Bernie Sanders to start impeachment proceedings against Pres. George Bush. So they made it broader. Via VLWC, where I also found a post about scandalitos. Colors of Comet Pojmanski Barry L. Ritholtz has yet more news and data for our collection on how Music Labels Continue to Ignore Basic Economics by pricing themselves out of the market. Watch the interview with Alan Moore on BBC2's The Culture Show. Thom Hartmann reviews Stephen Breyers' Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. See the trailer for Robert Greenwald's movie, The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress, or buy the movie, here. Take action: Demand Better Iraq War Coverage Building Doc Ock. (Thanks to Dominic (of) for the tip.) Complaint Department | 12:22 GMT Friday, 10 March 2006 Jalepeños If you thought about skipping Firedoglake today, change your mind, the place is hoppin'. There's the one on the liberal agenda; the one on building the grassroots network; more advice for Jay Rockefeller; focusing on abortion; and a spectacular appearance of the race card - and lazy shif'less welfare cheats. By the way, guess which Rolls-Royce Republican is the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee that's responsible for that racist "Fancy-Ford" campaign. And, in related news: Some of our readers from the 51st state may wonder what an IRS tax form actually looks like. Well, it looks remarkably like Liddy Dole's fundraising form! Hey, they really do think people who vote for them are stupid, don't they? (And maybe they're right.) | 21:55 GMT Blogged-up Hm, Swatch It says the Financial Times is doing a free week, and also recommends the delightfully educational Pirates and Emperors. Actually, there's lots of good stuff there; go read. Hey, I really am black. (via) Maurinsky's Modest Proposal for the anti-choicers. Atrios and Alterman both have some good points to make about once and future New Republic on the occasion of its change in editorship. (And Eric recommends Tom Engelhardt's article, "Shark and Awe".) The Heretik and Lance Mannion both do some important art appreciation. [And now that I think of it, I see no reason why I shouldn't win this award. I mean, who else gives you the Bra of the Week and reminds you that to "conspire" means to breathe together (yes, you, Janeane) and writes all this good stuff and gives you all those links, too? Vote for me! You know it makes sense.] And speaking of blog-whoring type stuff, if you'd like an idea of the difference between a second-tier blog and a really, really popular blog, take at look at my current hit rate after getting linked last night by both Digby and Atrios (for something, alas, that I only cut-and-pasted rather than wrote) by clicking here and looking at my eXtreme stats (scroll to "Last 20 days"), or here for my Sitemeter stats. (Those are dynamic, so for people finding this post weeks from now, suffice it to say that I'm already three or four times over my normal daily averages - depending on which stat you use - and I'm only about halfway through the day.) | 18:47 GMT "I said, 'Live it, or live with it!'" People who might be found hanging out with Kevin Drum at Political Animal, like Amy Sullivan, really ought to read Digby's reminder that, "They Mean It" - which is rich enough that I want to quote every word, but I'll just give you a bit of it in hopes that it will force everyone to click on that link, because in truth, everyone needs to absorb this stuff in self-defense: This development is very interesting in light of the new emphasis on birth control among strategists in the Democratic party. The next battle is already being fought out on the edges of the abortion debate. If this goes the way of Democrats' previous brilliant strategies in the culture wars, within five years we'll have jettisoned our argument about Roe altogether and will be fighting with all our might to preserve Griswold, which the other side will be arguing is a matter of states' rights just like Roe. (No "streamlining" necessary.) [...] The Republicans and the NRA wore their opposition down over the course of many, many years and they are doing the same thing with abortion. So far, it's working pretty much the same way. And the icing on the cake from the perspective of the Republicans is that every time they wear the Democrats down on these contentious issues, it makes their "Democratic weakness" argument more believable. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Michael Bérubé discusses this today by reflecting on the wide-spread belief among certain liberals that the anti-abortion people don't really mean it: My point is that Nader, like all too many men on the left, doesn't believe that the right-wing culture warriors really mean it. They think it's all shadow-boxing, a distraction, a sop thrown to the radical fringe. That same attitude can be found, as I've noted before, in Tom Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, where Frank writes, "Values may 'matter most' to voters, but they always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won. This is a basic earmark of the phenomenon, absolutely consistent in across its decades-long history. Abortion is never halted. Affirmative action is never abolished. The culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." The idea is that an actual abortion ban would go too far: the first back alley death, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble. Well, maybe and maybe not, folks. You might think, along similar lines, "the first hideous death by torture in the War on Terror, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble," or "the first unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble," or "the first data-mining program of domestic spying, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble," or "the first systemic corruption scandal involving Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham and Tom DeLay, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble," and you'd be, ah, wrong, you know. Besides, there's a nasty time lag between that first back-alley death and the repeal (if any) of a state's draconian abortion law, and in that time-lag, that state's Republican Party might or might not be in deep trouble. It's hard to unseat incumbents in this jerry-built and gerrymandered system, after all. So there's no guarantee that popular outrage against back-alley deaths would jeopardize a state's elected GOP officials en masse. But we can be pretty sure that women with unwanted pregnancies would be . . . how shall we say? in deep trouble. They really mean it. This is no bullshit. There is no downside to overturning Roe for them --- and if there is, they don't care. If they want to overturn Griswald, they'll do that too. They fought the gun control fight when people were freaking out over crime in the streets and political assassinations. Conservative absolutists don't give up just because liberals get up-in-arms. They certainly don't care if we think they are shrill. (And it's worth remembering that they now have some new wedge issues just in case they win - or even lose - on abortion, so they don't have to keep losing on abortion. Like the whole "gay marriage" thing. And, anyway, there's always Diebold. They really only need the religious right to give the appearance of strong support in order to explain away their inexplicable wins at the polls. Look at the way the mass media comfortably assured us that these "values voters" magically appeared to overcome the exit polls themselves, despite the fact that the public still overwhelmingly supports liberal, rather than conservative, values.) The Democratic Leadership Council theme seems to be that the way to win these fights is to not fight them. Who could come up with such a strategy? Probably people who don't want us to win. | 14:57 GMT Why I love the internet Atrios has a link up to a good one up at Back to Iraq 3.0 from a real reporter: Its more than a little churlish to say, We'll take you anywhere, as long as you're not too liberal/French/whatever and then turn around and criticize those you refuse to take with you as cowards. If the situation is so rosy, Mr. Peters, why on earth do I need to embed in the first place? Believe me, Id much rather travel around without a military entourage. You tend to get more truthful answers from Iraqis when they're not surrounded by soldiers with big guns, after all. It's an important point the right-wingers do seem to miss: If things were really all that good in Iraq, you wouldn't need to be taken anywhere, you could just walk around safely by yourself. But you can't. That's why Peters and all those other good news reporters never tell stories about just casually strolling around Iraq, popping into the markets, stumbling upon a new coffeehouse, etc. Sitting in at Firedoglake, Scott Lemieux shreds the phony argument that Roe v. Wade was bad jurisprudence. (And don't forget, you can download "Hang on Stevens", the song written in honor of one of our favorite Supreme Court justices, in the fervent hope that he does indeed hang on.) "If You Lose Music Row, You Lose the South," says Eric Boehlert, noting that the queen and king of Nashville recently slammed Bush for incompetence: Worse for Bush, the McGraw-Hill public flogging comes just days after a Elon University poll revealed a clear majority of voters in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida disapprove or strongly disapprove of Bush's performance in office. Two days later came the stunning poll results published in the Indianapolis Star that showed Hoosiers statewide giving Bush just a 37 job approval rating, down 18 points in one year. In 2004, Bush won Indiana, a longtime Republican bastion akin to the Deep South, by 21 points over John Kerry. (And no, I was not aware that there was a country music couple whose names could be confused with a publishing company.) Taylor Marsh is also sitting in at Firedoglake at the moment, and has a fun post on the food fight of the right-wing Christianists, as well as something back at her own site on fair and balanced Chris Matthews. A threat from Kung Fu Monkey. And a link to something from Warren Ellis. | 02:45 GMT Things that wreck my stomach lining I just watched The Road to Guantanamo. It was harrowing and infuriating. You can click the link and watch it yourself. I'm told people have complained that it "doesn't show both sides." Apparently, the "other side" is 9/11. Somehow, there are those who imagine that invoking 9/11 makes it all okay. Well, it doesn't. 9/11 explains none of this. None of it. Glenn Greenwald: No matter how strong of an immunity one thinks one has constructed against being shocked and disgusted by the acts of national Democrats, it always turns out that it's never actually strong enough. Angelica at Battle Panda provides A Cheat Sheet for Sen. Rockefeller (via). The Talking Dog interviews Rick Wilson, "one of the civilian attorneys representing Omar Khadr, a 19-year old Canadian national now detained at Camp 4, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Khadr was first detained a few months before his 16th birthday, and transferred to Guantanamo Bay shortly after his 16th birthday, and is, as far as anyone is aware, currently the youngest detainee still held there." Civil discussion of the occupation. | 01:19 GMT

W

The Sideshow Annex We Want the Airwaves! Airwaves blog 21st Century Tolkien Studies Sideshow Link Policy Avedon's Other Weblog (Emergency Blog) Draft Al Gore Fix your mail Air America Radio: AAR Main (NY)* Live feed WLIB 1190 NY KPOJ 620 Portland The MIC FM Madison RSS feed Volunteer for Ned Lamont. Please note: This account can't accept credit card payments. Fax Your MP Write to Congress Verify the Vote Media Contact: FAIR list Friends' Weblogs: Making Light Amygdala Roz Kaveney YAWL Charlie Stross Monkeys In My Pants Macadamia Pagan Prattle As I Please Ken MacLeod Arthur Hlavaty Kevin Maroney MK Kare The Corpuscle Jack Heneghan Epicycle VLWC: Atrios Demosthenes Rittenhouse Review Maxspeak Public Nuisance Scoobie Davis MadKane Silt³ Nathan Newman Loyal Opposition: Jim Henley Julian Sanchez Wendy McElroy Left-Right No War: Stand Down What She Said Specialists: Talk Left Pre$$titutes Crooks and Liars First Draft LiberalOasis Daily Kos Lefty Directory MyDD Infothought Progressive Gold The Public Health Press Balkinization News Hounds GOTV The Brad Blog Informed Comment UN Dispatch War and Piece Unclaimed Territory More Weblogs: Tennessee Guerilla Women Looking Glass Corrente Charles Kuffner Brad DeLong Busy, Busy, Busy Blah3 Norbizness Oliver Willis Body and Soul Firedoglake Pandagon War Liberal A Level Gaze Professor B Monkey Media Report The Grumpy Forester Majikthise Uggabugga Hullabaloo Pacific Views Alas Matthew Yglesias Jack Cluth Skippy The American Street Terminus Slacktivist Get Donkey Xymphora Eccentricity GailOnline Sisyphus Shrugged Interesting Times Talking Dog Liberal Desert TBogg Anger Management Seeing The Forest The Agonist Bob Geiger Orcinus King of Zembla Mark Kleiman Liquid List Elayne Riggs Wampum Skimble Michael Bérubé No More Mr. Nice Blog Fanatical Apathy Mark Evanier Roger Ailes Scratchings Suburban Guerrilla BadAttitudes Peevish Rantavation The Mahablog Echidne Of The Snakes Scrutiny Hooligans Respectful of Otters Max Blumenthal Two Glasses Everythingisruined Running Scared Sadly, No! WTF Is It Now? Attytood Rox Populi Alicublog Angry Bear Blue Streak No Capital Alternative Hippo Newsrack The Rude Pundit Ezra Klein Trish Wilson's Blog Fact-esque Lance Mannion Lawyers, Guns and Money Agitprop PSoTD Yellow Doggerel Democrat The Ostroy Report Reptile Wisdom AintNoBadDude StoutDem Adam Magazine Don't drink & read: The Poor Man Neal Pollack Jesus' General Fafblog Biomes Blog Katrina vanden Heuvel Kevin Drum Talking Points Altercation Dan Perkins Conason Tapped TomPaine weblog MoJo Blog Sirotablog Jim Hightower Chris Floyd Michaelangelo Signorile Huffington Post Naomi Klein James Wolcott What's left: Bear Left Lean Left Left i The Left Coaster Upper Left Left End of the Dial Here's What's Left Left in the West Metablog: The Daou Report Memeorandum Peek IceRocket Blogpulse Technorati Blogwise Clickable: Takebackthemedia Consortium News Daily Howler Common Dreams Buzzflash Smirking Chimp TomPaine Intervention Moose & Squirrel Make Them Accountable Failure is Impossible Ampol White Rose Society Velvet Revolution Cursor Bartcop Political Strategy Paul Krugman Gene Lyons Joe Conason The Comics: Boondocks Oliphant Toles Danziger Auth David Horsey Newspapers: WashPost NY Times Guardian Telegraph Resources: Browse the Bible US Constitution Bill of Rights Radio: Air America KEXP Radio Paradise WFMU Grassy Hill Liberal Resurgent RadioLeft Mike Malloy Randi Rhodes Listen to: Beck Country Joe Daniel Cainer Dana Lyons Flaming Lips Kelley Hunt Download: Janis Ian Lojo Russo Sara Messenger Barry Thomas Goldberg Archive: April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 The rest of April March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 Organizing Principles Is the media in denial? LatinAmericazation of the USA Contact: Photo More pix Member: FWA * * *

Avedon Carol at The Sideshow

And, no, it's not named after the book or the movie. It's just another sideshow.