Yes We Can!!! Mostly.

An historic night last night, as Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. Obama scored the largest electoral college win since 1996, winning at least 349 electoral votes to John McCain's 147, with Missouri and North Carolina still outstanding.

It wasn't the complete domination I'd hoped for. Montana, Georgia, and Arizona went for McCain, and Republicans held on to endangered Senate seats in Georgia, Kentucky, and possibly Alaska (still too close to call). But what are Alaska Republicans thinking? I guess if you can elect a wack-job like Sarah Palin governor, you don't mind a convicted felon like Ted Stevens as your senator.

Civil rights in the form of marriage equality took a big hit last night, too. Anti-same sex marriage initatives were approved in Arizona, Florida, and California. (Absentee ballots remain to be counted in California, but it doesn't look good.)

Despite the fact that Florida is my former home state and I have a lot of friends there, the result in California is particularly disappointing for me. For a few reasons:

(1) California is generally a relatively liberal state; certainly the win for Obama in CA was never in doubt. In some ways, I feel like, if the voters in CALIFORNIA won't support marriage equality, who will???

(2) Unlike in Florida and Arizona, the vote on Prop 8 in California REMOVES a pre-existing right. Same-sex couples have had the right to marry in California since earlier this year. Now, that right has (presumably) been cruelly stripped away. What happens to the same-sex marriages that were already legal? Do they instantly become void?

Or, if pre-existing same-sex marriages remain, doesn't that create two classes of people in California? Those who got married before November 4, and those who didn't? That's blatantly unconstitutional.

(3) The anti-gay "Yes on Prop 8" campaign was mostly funded (possibly as much as 75%) by the Mormon Church. Their ads were misleading and tried to convince voters that churchs and synagogues would be forced to perform gay marriage if Prop 8 failed. "Religious freedom" could be at stake, they said.

Bullshit. If you don't like gay people, and consider them second-class citizens, just say so. Although I'd vehemently disagree with that stance, at least it would be an honest one. But the very well-funded "Yes on 8" forces were able to use lies and misdirection to confuse just enough of the electorate for a narrow win.

Sadly, even some Orthodox Jewish groups got into the act, aligning with the Mormons and evangelical Christian groups. I'm ashamed to be a member of the same religion as the people who would send out (and many of those who comment on) articles like this homophobic piece of shit.

(4) Finally, I can't decide what Barack Obama's role should have been in the fight against Proposition 8. When asked on an MTV interview about it, he sort of hedged his bets:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

In one way, disappointing to hear him say "I am not in favor of gay marriage." Yet, on the other hand, he got it right in saying that our constitutions usually expand liberties, not curtail them.

I don't know. His candidacy brought lots of African-Americans to the polls in California (and across the nation). Gay rights is a difficult issue for the A-A community, especially for the evangelical A-A population. Exit polls suggest that nearly 70% of black voters voted for Proposition 8, against marriage equality.

With such a close vote overall, I can't help but wonder if Obama could have made a difference. In the last couple of days, couldn't he have recorded a commercial or robocall for the No on 8 campaign? Stating that constitutionally-mandated discrimination is something that no one -- particularly African-Americans -- should support?

Sure, a pro-gay marriage stance -- even a quiet one -- might have hurt his votes in some rural areas. It wouldn't have put his win in California in jeopardy, obviously. But maybe, if the McCain camp moved quickly to make an issue of it, it could have caused Obama to lose some of the close states he won last night? Maybe Virginia, maybe Indiana?

What if he'd turned even 10% of the A-A population from "Yes" to "No" votes on Proposition 8?

We'll never know, of course. And there remain legal and legislative options for marriage equality across the nation. This fight is not over, and I firmly believe that one day, our daughter Sophie will look back on this fight the way we look back at the bans on interracial marriage. It's nearly inconceivable to me that America once told blacks and whites they couldn't marry each other.

When Sophie is my age, I think she'll feel the same incredulity about the fact that two men or two women couldn't get married.

In any case, a great night for America last night. But it could have been even greater.

Hope vs. Nope

In 2004, on the day before Election Day, I wrote a post on this blog entitled: Please, America. Do the right thing tomorrow.

Yeah, well. We all know how that turned out.

So here we are, four years later, on the cusp of a historic election. America is about to elect either our first black president or our first female vice president.

Lines are stretching for blocks in states with early voting; I have no idea what the lines will be like here tomorrow, in non-early-voting Alabama. I've never in my life waited more than 5 minutes to cast a vote, in any election. I suspect that may change tomorrow.

I'm sure the vast majority (of the small minority) of people who read this blog have either (1) already voted via early/absentee ballot; or (2) have decided, with 100% certainty, for who they'll vote tomorrow. (And if you're not voting in this election, you'd better be under 18 and/or not an American citizen. Otherwise, no acceptable excuse.)

But just in case there are any "undecided" voters among my readership, let me make the final case for Barack Obama.

America has been incredibly damaged by the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency. I almost typed "irreparably," but I hope that's not the case. Our standing in the world is in tatters due to the nonsense of the Iraq war. We're spending $10 billion dollars EVERY MONTH in Iraq, driving our nation further into debt. Our education and healthcare systems are a fucking joke compared to the rest of the industrial world.

Osama bin Laden, who murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, remains at large. Bush had a chance to finish the war in Afghanistan, finish al-Qaeda once and for all, and he pissed away that chance, pulling troops into the Iraq quagmire instead.

Under eight years of George W. Bush, the disparity in this nation between rich and poor grew even wider. GWB rewarded his fat cat donors, his corporate masters, his oil company buddies with tax cuts and credits.

While New Orleans drowned, Bush helped John McCain celebrate his birthday. With cake, even.

The way John McCain has campaigned for the presidency leaves no doubt that he'd govern this nation the same way Bush has. He's run a divisive, nasty campaign, just like Bush ran in 2000 and 2004. Supporters at his rallies yell "terrorist" when Barack Obama's name is mentioned, they harass and sometimes attack members of the press, and McCain does nothing.

Like Bush before him, McCain is only interested in dividing the country to help him win. He doesn't care if he turns 50.1% of the nation against the other 49.9% if it gets him to 270 electoral votes.

His "Country First" campaign slogan was proven to be a crock of shit when he nominated Sarah Palin to the VP slot. It was clear then, that it was "McCain First," and always has been. No one can, with a straight face, state that Palin was the most qualified choice for the position. Not even close. A 72-year-old man, with a history of cancer, has chosen an unqualified crackpot to be second-in-line to the presidency. Unforgivable.

And yet, I don't want to encourage people to vote against George W. Bush. Or vote against John McCain. Or even vote against Sarah Palin.

Instead, I want people to vote FOR BARACK OBAMA.

This is a man that can bring this nation together. A man who would end the war in Iraq during his presidency. A man who will push for a healthcare system that will offer coverage to all Americans (and that's not "socialism," morons!). A man who will decrease the tax disparity between rich and poor; he understands that the largest tax breaks should go to the people who need them, not the people who don't.

I want a president who is smart, particularly after the monkey of the last eight years. Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard, where he finished magna cum laude. He was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review.

The man has brains. And he has a power to bring people together like no elected official I've ever seen. The way he has gotten people excited about his campaign, the way he defeated Hillary Clinton in the primaries (who had every possible advantage going in) is just amazing.

He is a devoted father and husband, and by all accounts he adores and dotes on his two daughters. I don't like to harp too much on "family values," but I think the way a person treats his/her family says a lot about their character.

I turned 18 in 1992, and cast my first presidential vote for Bill Clinton. I wasn't particularly politically-connected, but I knew I was a Democrat. I still think Bill Clinton was a great president, but his legacy will always be tarnished by the fact that he couldn't keep his pants zipped. (And to me, his conduct during the Obama/Hillary primary was deplorable.)

In 2000, I was -- and continue to be -- a fervent admirer of Al Gore. He would have been an amazing president; and yet, in the long run, he may do more good for the world because he lost (or, "lost") in 2000.

Barack Obama, though, has a real chance to be the greatest president of my generation. I will take my daughter Sophie to the polls with me tomorrow. And even though she's only two-and-a-half, and even though it may be tricky to stand in line with her for an extended period of time, and even though Alabama will end up in John McCain's column tomorrow, Sophie will be with me when I cast my vote.

Because I want her to know that she was in the voting booth on the day America made history.

Heart to Sarah Palin: "Fuck Off!"

OK, OK, maybe I'm paraphrasing a little.

Still, the rock band Heart has told Republican VP candidate Palin to stop using their 1977 classic "Barracuda," even though it is the fantastically-unqualified Palin's nickname. Their record label, Sony/BMG, has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the McCain/Palin campaign.

From the statement by sisters Ann and Nancy Wilson, founders of Heart:

"Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image. The song 'Barracuda' was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The 'barracuda' represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there's irony in Republican strategists' choice to make use of it there."

Heh. I knew I always liked them.

This is not the first time McCain and/or his party have been asked by a recording artist to stop playing their music. In fact, during this campaign, this is at least the sixth time an artist has asked either McCain or the GOP to stop using their songs, as Republican politics and beliefs go against everything they stand for. John Mellencamp, John Hall of the band Orleans (now a Democratic congressman from New York), Van Halen, Jackson Browne, and Frankie Valli have all previously chastised McCain for playing their music without permission.

Oh, and actor Mike Myers forced McCain to take down a web clip earlier this year that used a scene from "Wayne's World" without permission.

This may seem like a trivial matter, but maybe there's a lesson to be learned here. Is it possible that McCain and Palin -- and the voters they are trying to court -- are not sophisticated enough to handle the subtlety of music lyrics?

I mean, Barracuda, as the Wilson sisters note, was intended to be a rant against the soulless nature of the music business. Isn't there, as they say, more than a little irony in the Republican party, the most corporate-owned political party in the history of the world, using it as an anthem? I can just see the empty-headed GOPers bopping along in their seats, not even realizing that the song is about their fat, white, corporate-owned asses.

For heaven's sake, Mellencamp's song Our Country calls on government to "help the poor and common man." Does that sound like something the Republican Party is particularly interested in?

I guess McCain really is the heir to Ronald Reagan, who blindly played Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" at rallies in 1984, until Springsteen asked the campaign to stop. Reagan and the other dullards around him thought it was a nice, patriotic song about how great it was to have been born in the USA.

If only they could have done something complicated like, oh, I don't know, listened to the goddamn lyrics, maybe they'd have figured it out.

But again, reading, subtlety, deeper meaning -- these are not part of the GOP's platform.

Is Grandpa McCain the next Doug Flutie??

For his sake, he'd better hope so. Because he's just thrown a GIANT Hail Mary pass with his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I'm not sure what to think of this. A lot of speculation at DailyKos that other people (Romney, Lieberman, Pawlenty) turned McCain down and Palin wasn't his first choice.

I dunno. To me, this feels like a potential game-changer, something McCain needed to do to shake up the race. Despite recent polls that show the race between Barack Obama and McCain nearly tied, the electoral math is much better for Obama. Basically, if Obama wins any one of Colorado, Ohio, or Virginia, it's a done deal. There's virtually no way McCain can get to 270 electoral votes without all three of those states.

So I think the McCain campaign knew they needed a huge pick, a gamble. When a football team is losing by 4 with only 5 seconds left on the clock, and they're 60 yards from the endzone, there's only one thing to do -- throw a Hail Mary pass.

Most of the time, Hail Mary passes fall to the ground, incomplete, game over. But every so often (less than 10% of the time), a receiver makes a miraculous catch and the team that was behind wins the game. It's that less than 10% chance I'm kind of concerned about.

What can be said with certainty, however, is that this was completely a political choice for McCain. He's not thinking about how to best govern this nation, he's thinking about winning, plain and simple. (If Obama had chosen Hillary Clinton as his running mate, I would have said the same thing about him.)

I mean, come on. John McCain is 72 years old (today is his birthday, actually). He'd be the oldest person ever inaugurated president. He has a history of cancer. It's not crude to suggest that there's a decent possibility he could have health problems (or possibly even die) during four years, or especially eight years, as President.

And this makes the selection of his Vice President all the more crucial. So who does he pick? A woman who has been governor of Alaska for two years. Before that, she was mayor of the town of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of less than 10,000 people.

This makes her qualified to be second in line to the Presidency of the United States, behind a 72-year-old man?

All of McCain and the Republican Party's criticism of Barack Obama for being "inexperienced" (which he's not) just went out the window.

The McCain camp did time this pick very well; the press coverage is now all about Sarah Palin, pushing the coverage of Obama's masterful acceptance speech in front of 80,000 people last night to the sidelines. The timing was no accident, of course.

This is a political trick, a desperate act by a desperate man. But, the most dangerous animal is a cornered one, so I'm not celebrating Obama's win as a foregone conclusion just yet. Interesting to see how this plays out in the minds of the American people; and that will depend on how it is presented to them by the media.

Will the media pounce on this pick and ridicule Palin for being unprepared and unqualified, as they did with Dan Quayle in 1988?

Or will the media continue their love affair with John McCain and lavish praise on him for his "daring" and "unorthodox" choice?

Only time will tell.

Joe Lieberman = Douchebag

Need further proof?

Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee, took his criticism of Barack Obama to a new level Wednesday, writing in an op-ed that Republican John McCain’s “political courage” stands in stark contrast to Barack Obama’s – and that his former party had moved “further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.”
"Lieberman: Obama not willing to 'stand up to the left wing'", CNN.com

Uh, no, Joe.

You're a backstabbing traitor who left the Democratic Party when the Democrats in your state kicked your sorry-ass to the curb. You're writing for the Wall Street Journal, for heaven's sake. When you write for one of Rupert Murdoch's many right-wing propaganda outlets, you have no credibility in chastising your former party.

You've moved so far to the right, I'm not surprised the Democratic Party looks "far left" to you. I'm surprised you can even see out, you've crawled so far up the Bush/McCain ass.

I can't wait for the Democratic leadership in the Senate to kick your ass to the curb in the next Congress. When the Democrats gain a real majority in the Senate, your hypocritical, lying ass won't be needed. You'll finish out your term in obscurity and out of power, and in 2012, if you're dumb enough to run again, the voters in CT will boot your Republican tuchus into retirement.

And that will be a glorious day.

Keith Olbermann is my hero.

Seriously. "Mr. Bush, shut the hell up." And you could see by his crazy eyes -- he really, really wanted to say "shut the FUCK up."

Link: Olbermann's "preview" of this Comment at DailyKos

Senatorially Speaking.

An interesting experience today.

A mass email was sent out to the members of the local chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council on behalf of Alabama State Senator Vivian Figures. She is running for the US Senate this November against our Republican incumbent, Jeff Sessions.

The email was inquiring about the possibility of Senator Figures speaking to our NJDC chapter, and linked to her website. I looked at her website, and from the site, could not determine whether she was a Democrat challenging Sessions in the general election or a Republican primary challenger. I found that neither of the words "Democrat" or "Democratic" appeared anywhere on her site.

After confirming via other sources that she is in fact a Democratic state Senator from Mobile, I sent the following reply to the PR rep who had sent the original email:

Personally, I'm not particularly interested in hearing anyone speak to the NJDC who can't even place the word "Democrat" or "Democratic" anywhere on her website. (I've Googled the entire figures2008.com site, and neither term appears anywhere within.)

I would love to see Jeff Sessions pack his bags. But even in Alabama, in 2008, we can (and should) be proud to be Democrats.

If your firm is working with Sen. Figures, and trying to get her in front of DEMOCRATIC groups in Alabama, I'd suggest a little more party identification would be helpful.

The representative of Sen. Figures responded quickly, thanking me for my concerns. He also said that the Senator would like to call me and discuss the matter with me.

I provided my cell phone number.

Not 10 minutes later, it rings. And it is Senator Figures on the phone herself, not a representative, not a secretary.

What followed was a 30-40 minute conversation, easily the longest I've ever had with an elected official at the state level (or higher). Senator Figures thanked me for my concerns, and told me that she is certainly not running away from the term "Democrat." She's been a proud Democrat all her life, she said, and promised that the website will soon reflect a more prominent statement of party affiliation.

I know, I know, promises from politicians are a dime-a-dozen. But the mere fact that she called me to discuss my concerns really impresses me. Not only that, she gave me -- as she gives everyone -- her HOME phone number, usually forwarded to her cell phone, and asked me to call her at any time with any concerns.

She seems like the real deal, and if she's half as sincere as she appears to be, she'd be a welcome replacement for our "good ol' boy" incumbent, Jeff Sessions. I related the story of how Raya and I met Senator Sessions in 2003 at the United Jewish Communities Washington 13 conference, and how he was completely patronizing. Not only did he have no interest in signing on to the bill for which we were lobbying, he also made it clear that our opinions were useless to him. I guess he knew that he wasn't getting a lot of Jewish votes in Alabama, anyway.

I also told the Senator that I'd applied to attend the 2008 Democratic National Convention as a member of the State Blogger Corps. She promised to help if there's any way she can do so.

Senator Figures is a strong opponent of the Iraq War, wants to bring our troops home immediately. Sounds good to me.

Look, I would have voted for any Democrat running against Jeff Sessions in November. That moron needs to go. But Senator Figures really impressed me, responding personally to an offhand email comment. She really wanted to take the time to understand why it was important to me, and I appreciated that.

Personal conversations with elected officials? Very rare indeed.

Orwellian.

Wow. Remember when there used to be such a thing as the "liberal media"?

Shit, today I'd be grateful for an unbiased media, not controlled by conservative corporations with their noses shoved up the Republican Party's asshole.

Last night, 60 Minutes aired a report on the politically-motivated prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, exposing the dirty little fingers of Karl Rove in this operation.

However, viewers in North Alabama didn't get to see the Siegelman story on 60 Minutes. Why? Well, coincidentally enough, WHNT-19, the CBS affiliate in Huntsville, just happened to be off the air for 12 of the 13 minutes of the Siegelman story. How convenient.

Hmm. On the screen, in place of the 60 Minutes report, WHNT placed this notice:

We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a technical problem with CBS out of New York.

Well, nobody understands technical difficulties more than me, so end of story, right? Not so fast. An intrepid blogger named Scott Horton contacted CBS headquarters in New York, who told him this:

There is no delicate way to put this: the WHNT claim is not true. There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.” I was told that the decision to blacken screens across Northern Alabama “could only have been an editorial call."

Quickly, WHNT changed their story, saying that the technical problem had been on their end, with one of their satellite receivers, and not at the New York end.

Upon investigation, WHNT has learned that the satellite receiver that allows us to receive programming from CBS failed. The problem was on our end, not the network's.

WHNT rebroadcast the Siegelman segment during their local news last night, and also prominently posted the complete report on their website.

Again, end of story, right?

No, not necessarily. Even if you take WHNT's explanation at face value (which I have trouble) doing, and give them the benefit of the doubt that it was in fact technical difficulties, and give them credit for rebroadcasting the segment on-air and on their website, there's still the troubling matter of this:

Alabama GOP responds to 60 Minutes Report

This press release from the Alabama Republican Party is linked from WHNT's front page. No explanation, no editorial analysis, no context. WHNT is treating the 60 Minutes report as if it is one side of a debate, rather than an unbiased piece of reporting from the station's parent network.

Indeed, one of the main witnesses interviewed in the report was former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods. Not only is Woods a Republican, he's also co-chair of the McCain for President committee, in addition to being the godfather of one of John McCain's children!!! Not exactly a screaming liberal, and yet he said:

I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.

By allowing the Alabama GOP to respond with ridiculous talking points, WHNT legitimizes their argument. There are not necessarily "two sides to every story." Sometimes, there are the facts, and then there is everything else.

But, WHNT is controlled by "Oak Hill Partners" and the Bass family, who are known for giving large amounts of cash to Republican candidates. So none of this should surprise us, really.

The days of being able to trust ANYTHING from the mainstream media are over. They are all whores to their corporate masters, and the editorial decisions are made based on politics and greed.

Why I'm voting for Barack Obama

You know, a lot of times, it's difficult to be a liberal Democrat in Alabama. Not because we're persecuted, or anything like that. But because of the constant reminders that our votes don't count.

I mean, GWB carried this state by a margin of 250,000 votes in 2000, and over half a million votes in 2004. So although I went to the polls, what difference did it make, really? In our "winner-take-all" electoral college system, the nearly 700,000 Alabamians who voted for John Kerry in 2004 might as well have stayed home. We made no difference.

Alabama has been similarly irrelevant in recent primary elections, as well. Our primary was held so late in the season, the candidates were already long-decided. In 2004, our primary was on June 1, for heaven's sake!! In today's political climate, we didn't count for anything; John Kerry had been the presumptive Democratic nominee for nearly three months at that point.

In 2008, things are different. Now, I hold no hope that Alabama will vote for a Democrat in November's general election. But at least in the primary, we here in the heart of Dixie have a chance to make a difference, as Alabama votes on "Super Tuesday," February 5. And with the overall race so close, and a recent Birmingham News poll showing Senators Clinton and Obama in a virtual tie, Alabama Democrats have a real chance to have our votes heard.

Here are the reasons that, on February 5, I'm voting for Senator Barack Obama (listed in order of importance to me):

1. The war in Iraq. To me, the 2008 election is, first and foremost, a referendum on the eight horrendous years of George W. Bush and his policies. And, the legacy of Dubya will always be this misguided war in Iraq, the war that has cost us 3,000 American lives and billions of dollars.

Senator Obama gains my respect because he's been against the war in Iraq from the very beginning. As early as fall 2002, while still serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama took a strong position against the war, telling a crowd of supporters: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

In contrast, Senator Clinton's position on the war has been unclear and has shifted several times. In October 2002, she voted for the President's authorization to use force in Iraq. Now, like all Americans, Clinton was lied to by the Bush Administration about the rationale for the war. But while others have admitted they were misled and should not have voted for the war, Senator Clinton has refused to apologize for her vote, or admit it was a mistake.

On Larry King Live in 2004, Clinton said: "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

If Senator Clinton can't admit her past mistakes, can't see that this war was the United States' worst foreign policy blunder in decades, then I can't vote for her.

And indeed, Clinton would seem to invite me and others like me to vote for someone else. In February of last year, she said: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

Indeed, Senator.

2. Electability. It's crucial that we get a Democrat elected in 2008 and 2012. The eight years of Bush's presidency have done grave damage to civil liberties, legal protections, corporate responsibility, and the American economy. We need four or eight years to repair the damage that Bush has done to this country, domestically and to our reputation across the world.

We need a candidate that can defeat the Republican nominee. And with each passing primary, it appears as though the Republicans are finally getting their act together, and will nominate Senator John McCain, who is easily the most electable of their candidates.

In my heart of hearts, I don't believe that Hillary Clinton can defeat John McCain in November. They are similar candidates, but McCain trumps her on Senate experience, foreign policy experience, and has much more chance to win over independent and moderate voters. With Clinton, most people have already decided -- they love her or they hate her. Not a lot of middle ground.

If it's Clinton versus McCain in November, I fear McCain wins. Even more so if he does something "bold" like choose Joe Lieberman (the ultimate Republican-in-Democrat clothing) as his running mate.

If it's Obama versus McCain, it's still a tough race. But I think Obama has a much better chance.

3. Preventing an oligarchy. Counting George H.W. Bush's service as Vice President, there has been a Bush or Clinton in the White House for 28 consecutive years now. If Hillary Clinton wins this November, that streak extends to 32 years, possibly 36 years with a re-election in 2012.

Do we really want to entrust that sort of control in two families, two dynasties? Even discounting Bush's vice presidential years, a Bush or Clinton has been president for the last two decades. Do we want to extend that line?

Surely there must be someone qualified to be President who isn't named Bush or Clinton, right? The United States is not a monarchy, or an oligarchy, where power is concentrated in a few elite families. Is it really good for the nation to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton??

4. Escaping from divisive politics. Ever since 1992, there has been a President in office that half the country absolutely detested. Bill Clinton was hated with a vengeance by the Right, somewhat unjustly, but still. And since invading Iraq and ignoring the Constitution, George W. Bush has been detested by the Left in this country.

Aren't we sick of it? Do we really want to elect another President that engenders such vitrolic hatred? Now, it's not all Hillary Clinton's fault that she conjures up such venom from the Right. A lot of it is simply that they hated her husband, so they hate her by association. There's also some sexism to it, as a woman with ambition and a desire for power is seen as less of a woman, as a "bitch" or an "ice queen." A man would never be viewed that way.

So while I have some sympathy for her in this case, I'm also tired of the widening divide in this country. And yes, there will always be partisan politics. Republicans aren't going to fall down and kiss Obama's feet if he wins, and Democrats aren't going to instantly fall in love with McCain if he wins. But either of those candidates would be less divisive than Senator Clinton.

5. A Dirty Campaign. And speaking of "divisiveness," this brings me to my last point. Senator Clinton and her husband have been running a nasty, nasty campaign. It certainly seems as though they are out to win, at all costs, regardless of long-term damage to the Democratic Party.

In 1992, the first Presidential election in which I was able to vote, I wasn't very tuned in to the process. I knew I was a liberal, knew I'd vote for Clinton over Bush, and so I didn't pay much attention. (Of course, we didn't have dailykos.com back then, either.)

So maybe this is how Bill Clinton campaigned for President as well, and I just didn't know about it. But the tactics that the Hillary Clinton campaign is using make me sick to my stomach, as she's driving wedges between core constituencies of the Democratic Party.

For example, a Clinton pollster had this to say: "the Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

Now. Very little in a political campaign is said unscripted. This statement was carefully crafted to "remind" Hispanic voters that they "don't support" black candidates. Why? Because the Clinton campaign assumes they are going to lose most black voters, so they make a play for Hispanic voters, using this racist claptrap. "Remember, Hispanics? You don't like black people."

But in November, don't we all need to pull together and support the Democratic nominee? Why are the Clintons trying so hard to divide the party? Does win at all costs really mean "all costs"???

And of course, there are the constant "Obama is really a Muslim" references. The Clinton campaign made calls in Nevada, stressing Obama's middle name, referring to him as "Barack Hussein Obama."

On CNN, former Senator Bob Kerrey, a Clinton supporter, disingenuously said: "It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal. I’ve watched the blogs try to say that you can’t trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite."

What a fucking slimeball!! First of all, getting in the implication that Obama is still a Muslim (which shouldn't really matter, but he's not!); and then secondly, implying that he spent time in a Muslim school, a madrassa. Which he never did; and additionally, there's no such thing as a "secular madrassa." That's like saying a "secular Catholic school."

The Clinton's winner-take-all attitude is reprehensible. It's also reminiscent of the way George W. Bush ran his campaign against Kerry in 2004, and Gore in 2000. And I think it will come back to bite them in the ass. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think a lot of liberals will stay home in November, unable to stomach voting for her.

If I do that, in Alabama, it won't matter. As I said in the beginning, the Republican nominee will carry this state no matter what. But if liberal Democrats stay home in Ohio, or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or Washington, or New Mexico? Then it might make a big difference, and Republicans will sweep to victory.

And that's why I'm voting for Barack Obama on February 5.

Would CNBC have given airtime to Adolf Hitler???

So, as most of you probably know, conservative whore Ann Coulter said some pretty remarkable things on an episode of CNBC's "The Big Idea" this week. Of course, Coulter has made her fame and fortune spewing hate. But this was a little extreme, even for her, which is why the mainstream media has picked up on it.

Offering her version of a dream America, Coulter discussed the 2004 Republican National Convention in this exchange with host Donny Deutsch:

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they --

DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

Now. I'll set aside her ridiculous assumption that EVERYONE at the 2004 RNC was Christian. I don't believe that's true, but it's not relevant. She goes on to add that Jews simply need to be "perfected." (Side note: This is a common argument among evangelicals, one that makes me incredibly nervous about their increasing support for Israel.)

How can this hateful woman surprise anyone anymore? This is the woman who said John Edwards' haircut made him look like a "faggot."

This is a woman who said, of a group of 9/11 widows, "I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much."

And: "It would be a much better country if women did not vote."

And amazingly, she said this: "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." Amazing, because the First Amendment gives her the freedom to preach her hate.

So anyone who is surprised by the venom that drips from her fangs is a fool. But what is really frustrating is that the hosts, producers, and creators of these shows where she preaches her hate then act surprised when Coulter simply does what she always does.

Donny Deutsch pretended to be dismayed and offended on the show, and CNBC moved quickly to distance themselves from Coulter's remarks.

What the fuck did they expect??? When you invite a cow into your home, should you be surprised when it takes a shit all over your carpet?

So I lay the blame not on Coulter -- I'm beyond holding her to any sort of human standard. The excrement that comes out of her mouth has lost the ability to shock me.

Instead, I blame CNBC, CNN, Fox News, and the other mainstream TV networks in this country for allowing her to peddle her hate on their airwaves. According to mediamatters.org, Coulter has appeared on the NBC family of networks (NBC, MSNBC, CNBC) a whopping 194 times in the last decade.

While Coulter has the right to say whatever she wants (even though she's not a "big fan" of free speech), the networks don't have to continue to give her a soapbox for her hate. That's why I strongly support the petition being circulated online by the National Jewish Democratic Council in the wake of her anti-Semitic nonsense.

The petition encourages the networks to quit inviting her. A simple answer. Let's stop giving the bitch airtime to preach her hatred.

Please, click the button at right and sign the NJDC's petition today.

*(the quotes above, and lots more vile Coulter quotes available at Wikiquote.)

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried....

...man, who's running the Republican Party these days? A bunch of dumbasses?

Oh yeah, right.

Not only are they quickly positioning themselves as the anti-children party, yesterday they revealed the logo for the 2008 GOP convention.

An interesting piece of graphic design, don't you think? First of all, I believe there's only one time when elephants stand on their hind legs like that, and it's when they are....making more elephants, so to speak.

So this logo does accurately portray what the Republicans have been doing to this country, and what they'd like to do to us in 2008. At least there's some honesty there.

Secondly, aren't the Republicans supposed to be the "red state" party? Yet the ratio of blue to red in this logo looks to be about 80/20. Guess even Republicans don't want to be associated with red states at the moment.

Thirdly, doesn't that elephant seem to have somewhat of a "wide stance"? Since the GOP convention will be in Minneapolis/St. Paul of all places, he'd better stay out of airport bathrooms, just in case.

Well, they may not have health insurance....

...but at least "childrens do learn."

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Offering a grammar lesson guaranteed to make any English teacher cringe, President George W. Bush told a group of New York school kids on Wednesday: "Childrens do learn."

Yes, America, there's your "C-student and proud of it" president. At his very best.

The White House opted to clean up Bush's diction in the official transcript.

That's pitiful. Let his idiocy stand throughout time, as a warning against what happens when you elect a chimp to the White House.

Full story is here.

Do Republicans hate children?

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a bill that will expand and extend the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S-CHIP. This program, which is about to expire, currently provides health insurance for 6.6 million children whose parents can't afford private insurance.

The bill in question would expand the program to cover 10 million children, making a dent in the 9 million American kids without healthcare, spending $60 billion over the next five years. By getting kids regular medical care, it should keep uninsured children from visiting the emergency room as often, saving us all money in the long run.

The bill was passed in a bipartisan effort, 45 House Republicans joining nearly all House Democrats in voting for it.

And, although the bill has passed both the House and Senate, in the House it passed by less than a two-thirds vote. Meaning that, unless things change, the House doesn't have the votes to override President Bush's promised veto.

Now, why is President Bush threatening to use only the fourth veto of his presidency on a bill to help kids' get regular medical care? Not sure, and I've given up trying to interpret the miniscule efforts of the president's brain.

But what sickens me is that some Republicans, including all of Alabama's Republican representatives, have joined the president in opposing this bill. And I'd like to know why.

So I just sent the following email to our congressman, Rep. Spencer Bachus.

I am completely disappointed and disgusted that you sir, chose to vote against the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP).

This bill was a carefully crafted piece of bipartisan legislation. It has the approval of a long list of oft-combative organizations, including the AMA, the AARP, and health insurance providers. It would help some of the 9 million uninsured American children obtain health insurance and get regular health care.

As a parent of an 18-month-old child who was born 7 weeks premature, I understand the importance of regular doctor's visits for children. Yet for families without health insurance, paying for these regular checkups is sometimes impossible. So, families wait until their children are seriously ill; at that point, they take them to the emergency room.

As an employee of UAB, and someone who has taken classes in Healthcare Management, I understand that emergency room care is the MOST EXPENSIVE possible. Yet for families without health insurance, it is their only option. And who pays for their healthcare at that point? We do.

Insuring as many American children as we can is not only the morally responsible thing to do; it is the financially sound option as well.

Yet you and the rest of Alabama's spineless Republican delegation have chosen to, once again, be President Bush's lapdogs and vote the way the White House tells you. The reasons for President Bush's opposition to this bill are not clear, at least to me. The 60 billion dollars contained in the S-CHIP expansion are a drop in the bucket compared to the billions we're spending in Iraq. And, in the long run, getting regular health care for children will save us money, as it will keep them out of our emergency rooms.

But you don't care about that. You don't care about anything other than following orders from the White House. You've turned your back on the 10 million American children without health care.

And as a result, I will turn my back on you. I will never, ever, ever vote for you again, and I will celebrate the day when citizens concerned with the welfare of the Alabama family throw you out of office.

Your colleague Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) posed an interesting question, when he said: "I'm a little baffled as to why the Bush people picked this issue to fight it out on. It's very sensitive. It's about kids. Who's against kids' health care?"

Apparently, you are, Mr. Bachus.

I would encourage you to rethink your position and join the 45 members of your party in the House who are supporting this bill. Send a message to the president by overriding his veto, and tell the White House that in Alabama, we care for our children.

Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL)

Speaking to the local chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

There's your answer, fishbulb.

An addendum to my previous post on Jerry Falwell's passing. Apparently, Falwell gave an interview to CNN's Christiane Amanpour just last week. It was intended to air this fall as part of a CNN special about religion.

During this interview, Falwell mentions that he needs about "20 more years" to complete his work, and brings up the example of Hezekiah in the Bible, who supposedly asked God for 15 more years of life, and received it.

So Falwell says in the interview he's praying for 20 more years, "with an option to renew."

Twenty more years? God didn't even see fit to give you TWENTY MORE DAYS!!

Now, I don't actually believe that God decides when people live or die.

But plenty of evangelicals who now mourn Falwell do believe that. So I guess I'd ask them -- does it tell you something that Jerry Falwell is dead a week after asking God for twenty more years?

This isn't nice, I know.

It's not nice to be happy that someone is dead.

But I can't help how I feel. And I believe, with all my heart, that the world we live in is a better one today because Jerry Falwell is dead.

And I don't know if I believe in Hell. But I have to think that if Hell does exist, a man who said and did the following things is now burning there for all eternity:

• In the 1960s, he referred to the Civil Rights Movement as the "Civil Wrongs Movement."
• In the 1980s, he was a strong supporter of apartheid in South Africa, encouraging Americans to support the government of PW Botha buy purchasing krugerrands. He characterized Desmond Tutu as "a phony."
• In his book America Can Be Saved, Falwell wrote "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them."
• Falwell asserted that the Antichrist "would have to be, by necessity, a Jewish male." Maybe it's me?
  
• After the September 11 attacks, Falwell had plenty of blame to spread, when he said: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

There's more, of course, including the ridiculous "gay Teletubby" nonsense from 1999. But the point is made. This man was a reprehensible, homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic waste of human life. The dangerous part is that he gained a lot of power in this country, and twisted other minds into following his repugnant ideals.

Good riddance, you hate-filled bastard. I hope you're currently sweating your fat ass off in the flames of Hades.

Dear Anonymous Idiot....

To the anonymous coward who recently left a comment on my last blog post, I have three things to say to you:

1. Anonymous comments are not published on this blog. I have the balls to attach my name to my opinions, and if you want to be included on my blog, you have to do the same. I will soon post a note on this blog letting cowards know not to waste time on posting anonymous comments.
   
2. If you really think the pollution output of the 18th Century "Industrial Revolution" compares to the pollution output of the world today, you are truly an idiot. The earth's population in 1800 was roughly 900 million. Today, the earth's population is over 6.6 BILLION. Obviously, the industrialization of the earth has increased a thousandfold since that time. Oh yeah, people didn't drive cars back then either. So to compare our output of greenhouse gasses in 2007 to the output of the late 1700s is patently absurd.
3. Finally, if the science of global warming is so suspect and not to be believed, why is the neoconservative AEI offering payoffs to scientists willing to debunk it? I mean, if global warming is junk science, why do you have to bribe researchers to disprove it???? Sure, President Bush isn't the first chief executive to ignore global warming. But as far as I know, the AEI is the first group to try and bribe people to ignore it.
   

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has a great solution to decrease Americans' dependence on gasoline in his January 26 column: tax the hell out of it. President Bush wants to decrease gasoline usage by 20% in ten years. Adding a dollar to the price of every gallon of gas would smack Americans in the mouth, forcing us all to use less gasoline, and put more demands on automakers for fuel-efficient cars. As Krauthammer points out, it would probably cut our gas usage by 20% in TWO YEARS.

I'll put my money where my mouth is. To save the planet and ensure it still exists for my daughter and her children, I'd pay $4/gallon for gasoline. Of course, I've also made reasonable choices -- I drive a fuel-efficient sedan, not a monster SUV; and I live within a five-mile radius of my work and the places I normally go.

Americans pay some of the lowest gasoline prices in the world. We've been spoiled for a long time. Maybe it's time to pay our share. Europeans don't drive gas-hogging, planet-raping Canyoneros, because they can't afford to -- they pay the equivalent of four, five, even six dollars per gallon of gas.

There's no way to get Americans to conserve energy, no way to get the automakers to seriously make more fuel-efficient cars, then by hitting us all in the wallet.

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention...

On Friday, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report concluding "with 90 percent certainty" that humans are the cause of global warming, and that the Earth's temperatures are likely to rise by 3-7 degrees before the year 2100.

This report is the culmination of what reputable scientists have believed for years -- that humans have irrevocably altered the planet through the use of fossil fuels, and that we better start doing something about it, as rising temperatures could mean higher sea levels, causing major problems for coastal cities around the world.

Predictably, the oil company-owned Bush Administration gave lip service to the report, while denouncing efforts to enact governmental standards to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we release into the atmosphere. As if we can trust corporations to just be good citizens on their own without governmental controls, right?

And yet, it gets worse. The American Enterprise Institute, which is a "think tank" funded by ExxonMobil and employing many former members of the Bush Administration, has offered $10,000 to scientists and economists as a payoff if they will publicly criticize the IPCC report.

Because that's how you ensure reputable science, right? Pay the researchers to get the results you want. Sure. It's called the "$cientific method," I think.

It seems that the oil companies learned by watching what Big Tobacco did for years and years. If science doesn't support your position, doesn't support you continuing to stuff your pockets with cash, just lie, lie, lie. And if you can pay some other people to lie for you, even better.

This is what you get, America, for electing an oil company whore to the White House.

A great question for our moron President...

"First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial," said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?"
(from "Saddam Hussein buried next to two sons," The Jerusalem Post, 12/31/06)

Well, Mr. President? Do you have an answer for Specialist Sheck, and the 120,000 others stationed in Iraq? Do you have any justification for keeping them over there, when nearly 3,000 of them have been killed? What's the next bullshit story our men and women in uniform will be told? That a temporary "surge" in troop deployment will bring peace and quiet to the streets of Iraq?

Give me a break. Iraq's problems are now their own. Enough Americans have died for this ridiculous war. We've done the best thing we could for the Iraqi people -- we facilitated Saddam Hussein's trip to hell for them. He's dead and gone.

Let's bring our men and women home, before more of them die as well.

F**k Martinez (*)

So, in the wake of their devastating losses last Tuesday, the Republican party is scrambling to stop the bleeding.

In an apparent attempt to gather more of the Hispanic vote, Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) has been named chairman of the Republican National Committee. Right-wing bloggers, angry with Martinez because he's not anti-immigrant enough, have called this choice "Hispandering" and "Hispanicking," which makes me laugh.

Martinez, you may remember, was embarassed during the Terri Schiavo mess when a staffer from his office wrote a memo which noted that the Schiavo scandal would help "motivate their conservative base."

He's also a graduate of the same high school I graduated from, was active in alumni activities at said school, and has been obnoxious to my mother, which qualifies him as a raging asshole.

In short, I hate his guts, and hope his political career goes down in flames. By accepting the chairmanship of the RNC (even though it's mostly symbolic), he ties himself even closer to President Bush's legacy of failure. Hopefully Florida voters will kick him out on his culo in 2010.

* Apologies to 2 Live Crew for borrowing the title of their 1990 song, which was actually written about former Florida Governor Bob Martinez, not Mel. Oh well.

Presidential Pompousness.

After the Democrats' stunning wins on Tuesday, capturing the House, the Senate, and 28 governorships, President Bush seemed to take a deferential tone, bowing to the will of the voters. He canned Secretary of War (er, Defense) Donald Rumsfeld, and admitted that the Republican party "took a thumping."

After months of portraying Democrats as being in bed with Osama bin Laden, Bush even promised to work with new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional leaders, saying this about the Democrats:

"...we do agree that we love America equally, that we're concerned about the future of this country, and that we will do our very best to address big problems."

And yet, it's all crap. Behind all of it, President Bush is a divider, not a uniter, and he always will be. He's a spoiled rich kid who doesn't want to share his toys, because he never had to. He doesn't want to share the governance of this nation, either.

And here's how I know. At Wednesday's press conference, a reporter asked Bush if he was expecting the Republicans to lose so badly, based on the pre-election polls. Bush said this:

"Well, there was -- I read those same polls. And believed -- I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security."

Let me repeat what the President said. Americans voted for a Democratic Congress because we don't "understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security."

Oh, so that's why the Republicans got their asses handed to them. American voters are too stupid to "understand the importance" of these vital issues. We don't have the mental ability to understand that it's important to give huge tax breaks to the rich, apparently.

We don't understand the "importance of security." We don't see how the 2800 American lives lost in Iraq -- a country that had no WMDs, no ties to Al-Qaeda, and nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks -- are making America a safer place.

We're just stupid idiots, according to the president, and we don't "understand" things the way he does.

What a sanctimonious, arrogant prick.

The Worst American President in History

On September 11, 2001, nearly 3000 people were killed in Al-Qaeda's attack on the United States. Of that number, 2,738 were American citizens; the rest were foreign nationals.

Prior to 2001, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are alleged to have plotted the following attacks which killed Americans: the 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center, which killed six Americans; the 1998 attack on the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, which claimed 12 Americans among 235 total fatalities; and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in a Yemeni port, which took the lives of 17 American sailors.

All told, Osama bin Laden can be held directly responsible for 2,773 American deaths.

As of the end of October, 2006, there have been 2,801 American servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq. Meaning that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld have killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden.

And for what? Nothing. I didn't count the 340 American soldiers killed in Afghanistan; not because I value their sacrifice any less, but because I believe that fight is a noble and just one, and their deaths should have been for something. Bin Laden is still hiding, alive, somewhere in the caves of Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan allowed al-Qaeda to train and recruit, and so our 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was completely justified, and would have made the US safer in the long run, if we'd ever finished the mission, captured bin Laden, and wiped out al-Qaeda altogether.

Instead, we pulled most of our troops out of Afghanistan before the job was done, and sent them to fight this ridiculous war in Iraq -- one that we cannot possibly win.

I don't mean to focus only on American deaths, either. By all accounts the Iraqi civilian death toll is in the tens of thousands, and that's horrific. But a tragedy close to home is always a bigger tragedy, and George W. Bush has sent nearly 3000 American men and women to their deaths based on faulty intelligence and outright lies, and the end, their deaths will have accomplished NOTHING.

Everyone lampooned the critics of the Iraq War in 2003 who compared it to Vietnam. Well, that comparison looks more and more apt with each passing day, with each American death.

On May 1, 2003, our idiot-in-chief stood under a "Mission Accomplished" banner and declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." On that date, the American military death toll in Iraq stood at 139. I'm sure the families of the 2,662 American soldiers killed since then take little solace in the fact that "major combat operations" have been over for three and a half years. I guess those 2,662 soldiers were killed playing tiddly-winks with Iraqi civilians, huh???

This is why history will show that George W. Bush has been the worst American president in the past 100 years, if not in all of American history. Say what you will about other presidents in my generation -- they were crooks (Nixon); they were ineffective (Ford, Carter, Bush I); they were deceptive and confused (Reagan); they couldn't keep it in their pants (Clinton).

None of them sent nearly 3000 Americans to their deaths for no purpose and for no gain. Because of George W. Bush, the families of 2800 people are grieving their sons, brothers, husbands, daughters, sisters, wives. Children are orphaned, wives widowed, young lives cut short way before their time. Another 20,000 Americans have been injured in combat, some with life-altering injuries: amputations, shattered bones, head traumas.

So, when will it stop? Unfortunately, this administration of crooks, liars, and murderers has another two years to try and further ruin America. But, we can put the brakes on this runaway train of death by putting the Democrats back in control of Congress next week. Let's bring some oversight back to Washington, force the Legislative branch to be a "check and balance" on the Chief Executive, as our founding fathers intended.

For six years now, GWB has basically been "King George," with a rubber-stamp Congress approving everything he proposed. He's only had to use one veto in six years*, for heaven's sake. Congress is not supposed to be a yes-man to the President. Since the Republicans in Congress haven't had the balls to say no to President Bush, it's time to throw them out on their asses.

Vote Democratic next week, and let's start making America something to be proud of again.

* And, incidentally -- let's get enough votes in Congress to override his goddamn veto on stem-cell research. Why is it better to let unwanted embryos go into a trash can rather than a research lab? Thousands of embryos are discarded every year -- let's use a few of them to bring hope to thousands of Americans.

The "Liberal Media."

I never want to hear the phrase "liberal media" again. Because, ladies and gentlemen, it does not exist. The media outlets in this country are controlled with an iron fist by a small handful of soulless corporations. And there's no entity more conservative than corporate America.

Case in point?
NBC refuses to air ad for Dixie Chicks documentary (Variety)

The film "Shut Up and Sing," scheduled to be released on November 11th, talks about the fallout the Dixie Chicks received after Natalie Maines' 2003 comment that the Chicks were embarassed that President Bush was, like them, from Texas. (Although, he's actually Connecticut-born, but that's another story...)

The Chicks received death threats, boycotts, yada yada yada, and "Shut Up and Sing" documents the whole story.

In a letter explaining why they will not run the commercial, NBC's ad clearance department said it "cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush."

Um. What the fuck??????

A private television network refuses to run ads that disparage the President? Come on, that's what they do in Cuba, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia -- with state-run television stations. What possible justification can NBC have for this? It's not their job to protect the president's reputation. But apparently, they think it is.

ABC didn't have any problems making the "Path to 9/11" bullshit-umentary that disparaged President Clinton, blatantly contradicting the report of the 9/11 Commission and basically blaming the 3000 deaths from 9/11 on Clinton himself.

So that's OK, but ads for a documentary in which Americans express their freedom of speech are not permitted??

It's total nonsense, and this is how the fascist forces in our society will slowly but surely remove the right to free expression from "little" people like you and I. Sure, we have all the "right to free speech" in the world, but if you just stand on a street corner and scream, how many people will hear you?

If we continue to allow the media outlets in this country to be owned by the same five corporations, aren't they really the only ones who have free speech??

How can the media be "liberal" and still such ardent supports of the Bush Administration? The answer is they can't be, because there hasn't been a "liberal media" in a long time.

Click below to watch the full trailer for "Shut Up and Sing," (or use this link for the 30 second ad) and go see the movie when it opens on November 11.

Oh, Alabama should be proud....

...of our ass-clown Republicans:

Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

“Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” I asked him a few weeks ago.

Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: “One’s in one location, another’s in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don’t know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something.”

To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. “Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”

(from "Can you tell a Sunni from a Shiite?", Jeff Stein, The New York Times, 10/17/06. Emphasis added.)

Oh. Dear. Lord. This man is vice-chairman of the House subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence, and he can't even differentiate between the two factions fighting a civil war in Iraq? (And yes, Fox News -- it is a civil war, not sectarian violence.)

This is so typical of the Republicans in Congress -- they've been such a rubber-stamp legislature for our Moron-in-Chief, they don't even understand the issues. For the past six years, if President Bush proposed it, they approved it, calling anyone who disagreed traitors and "unpatriotic." Isn't it strange that Rep. Everett needed a newspaper columnist to explain to him why "what we're doing over there [is] extremely difficult"?

These idiots have to go. And fortunately, it looks like the Republican-majority Congress (at least the House) has a mere three weeks to live. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Torture is NOT an American value, for the next couple days, anyway.

I can't say it any better than Wil Wheaton did in today's post:

"Torture is not an American value. Torture is a totalitarian, sadistic value. Suspending access to courts and the right to face your accuser is not what Americans do. It is what tyrannical dictators and despots do, not a democratic republic like the one I was brought up in and love. Time and again, torture has proved unreliable to prevent or solve crimes, and it reduces our country to the level of the very terrorists we are supposedly fighting.

I believe in the right to a speedy and fair trial for everyone, even the most repugnant of defendants. No, especially for the most repugnant of defendants, because if we, as a society, can't guarantee the most hideously accused among us that right, what is it worth to the rest of us?"

Go read the rest of his post. Right now:
A Statement of Conscience

Wow, I miss Bill Clinton

President Clinton gives the smackdown to Chris Wallace, Fox News, the neo-cons, and President Bush. Wallace brought him on "Fox News Sunday" ostensibly to talk about climate change, then sucker-punches him with questions on 9/11 and bin Laden. Clinton fights back, proceeding to tear him a new one, with intelligence and facts -- two things usually missing from Fox News.

"For god's sakes, follow the same standards for everybody." Exactly, Fox News. This is beautiful.

Democrats defending the devil?

On Wednesday, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez scorchingly criticized President Bush before the United Nations, calling him the "devil" and accusing the president of speaking "as if he owned the world." Harsh rhetoric, to be sure, especially before the worthless UN -- but I couldn't really disagree with Chavez.

What really confuses me, however, is that the next day, some of Bush's fiercest domestic critics leapt to his defense, vilifying Chavez.

"You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," said Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).

Rangel continued, saying "If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state."

What the fuck? Only Americans have the right to criticize President Bush? Why is that our exclusive right? Bush has asserted his powers to invade another sovereign nation without authority from the United Nations. He has unilaterally decided that it's America's responsibility to fight the "global war on terror," almost completely on our own. Bush has no qualms criticizing other world leaders, or categorizing other nations as part of an "axis of evil."

So if Bush gets to shove his opinions and actions down the throats of the rest of the world, why do Americans get our panties in a wad when another world leader criticizes our president? I completely agree with Hugo Chavez (or did, at least until he started quoting Noam Chomsky), and he has every right to do what he did.

I was really, really disappointed in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), normally one of the fiercest critics of our Idiot-in-Chief, for leaping to his defense in a Joe Lieberman-style move. I still hope Pelosi is the Majority Leader in the next Congress, but I lost a great deal of respect for her when I read this quote:

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had speaking at the United Nations. In doing so, in the manner which he characterized the president, he demeaned himself and demeaned Venezuela."

Bullshit, Nancy. He said it like it is, and kudos to him for having the cojones to do so.

In fact, Chavez continued his war of words on the president, saying this at a stop in Harlem:

"He walks like this cowboy John Wayne. He doesn't have the slightest idea of politics. He got where he is because he is the son of his father. He was an alcoholic, an ex-alcoholic. He's a sick man, full of complexes, but very dangerous now because he has a lot of power."

In the United States, rich people are getting richer, and poor people are getting poorer, he said. "That's not a democracy; that's a tyranny."

Obviously, Chavez is showboating, criticizing the president because it will