Oooh, nuance!

It looks like the King of the Wandering Syntax will actually deign to appear before Congress to testify in the case of Pat Tillman's tragic death.

"In a late breaking development, Secretary Rumsfeld will appear before the Oversight Committee tomorrow," stated a release from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The release was confirmed by the Oversight Committee's Republican staff.

Will there be known knowns, or unknown knowns? And will there be anything remotely true in what this murderous old bastard says?

Tune in tomorrow...

Why don't we start World War Three by selling $20 billion in arms to Saudia Arabia? Let's let the usual Lackey - speaking on condition of anonymity, of course! - explain.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is preparing a package of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that could be worth some $20 billion over the next 10 years, a senior U.S. defense official said on Saturday.

The official largely confirmed reports of the deal in The New York Times and Washington Post ahead of a joint trip to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity as the deal has not yet been officially announced or completed, said the administration hoped to present the package to the U.S. Congress for approval in the fall.

Israel's a bit nervous about this, of course, because Saudi Arabia is a weensy bit close to their border for comfort. No problem - we'll just up the arms sales to Israel too! And they can have even MORE chocolate sauce on their ice cream than their uppity little Arab brothers.

The United States has sought to allay Israeli concerns about the forthcoming package. The senior U.S. defense official said Washington was working on a military assistance deal for Israel expected to top $30 billion during the next decade, a significant increase on current levels.

All right, so now we've got the Israelis calmed down. Whew! That was a close one! But wait - what about Saudi Arabia's other neighbors? Won't they feel, ya know, kinda left out? No worries - we've thought of that too!

The Saudi package would upgrade the country's missile defenses and air force and increase its naval capabilities, the official said. It "may make sense" also to provide Saudi Arabia with satellite-guided munitions, the official said.

"None of these things are final proposals by any means," the official said, stressing discussions with the countries involved and members of Congress were still needed.

The package would cover other U.S. allies in the Gulf, the official said. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are expected to benefit, the Times and Post said.

[snip]

The United States also is preparing a package of military assistance worth some $13 billion in the next decade for Egypt, another U.S. ally in the Middle East, a senior State Department official said.

But you know what? They're not TRYING to start World War Three, so it won't happen.

"This isn't an arming of the Middle East," the official said. "This is part of a continual, deliberate program."

Take that, skeptics!

I think it's really none of our business what Saudi Arabia wants to do with those weapons, anyway. I mean, we all know how benign their intentions have always been towards us. Hey, only 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi! And as for our little adventure in Iraq - well, I'm sure that they wouldn't interfere in that.

Oh wait...

Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, “That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not.”

All snarking aside...this is reason number 4,778 why neo-con foreign policy is horribly dangerous and will cause Armageddon. But unfortunately for Bush and his Rapture Right followers, Armageddon is a feature, not a bug.

Is it impeachment time yet?

Become a citizen co-sponsor of Congressman Jay Inslee's Gonzo Impeachment Resolution here.

But somehow, the teevee folks managed to ignore this story anyway.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress sent President Bush legislation Friday to intensify anti-terror efforts in the U.S., shifting money to high-risk states and cities and expanding screening of air and sea cargo to stave off future September 11-style attacks.

The measure carries out major recommendations of the independent 9/11 Commission.

The bill, passed by the House on a 371-40 vote, ranks among the top accomplishments of the six-month-old Democratic Congress. The Senate approved the measure late Thursday by 85-8, and the White House said the president would sign the bill.

Now why wouldn't all the Security Screamers on the teevee be talking about how Congress was finally doing something right? You know, making Our Homeland Safer and all that good stuff?

Oh, that's right. Hillary Clinton showed a quarter-millimeter of cleavage.

Never mind.

I'm not ashamed to say it...I LOVE this Congress.

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
A group of House Democrats will introduce a resolution calling on the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) will sponsor the measure. It will be dropped in the hopper tomorrow.

Who will be impeached first - Dick Cheney or Alberto "Bush's Dumber Brother" Gonzales?

Bill O'Reilly (R-Psychotic) has pledged to destroy the Daily Kos over an image posted on the site.

You mean this image, Bill? (h/t dan mcenroe)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

For the past 15-20 years, conservatives have been looking for Ronald Reagan...It finally occurred to me, what we should be looking for is Barry Goldwater.

Haaaaappppy Monday.

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

Via TPMmuckraker:

Senate Democrats are calling for a special counsel to investigate whether Alberto Gonzales perjured himself in testimony before Congress, MSNBC is reporting.

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) will be holding a press conference shortly.

Last night, a document was discovered that directly contradicts Gone-zales' sworn testi-lying.

Gonzales repeatedly insisted to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that the “emergency” White House briefing on March 10, and his later visit to Ashcroft’s hospital room that night, did not involve the president’s Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP)—a program that administration officials have said involves eavesdropping, without court warrants, of persons inside the country suspected of communicating with Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists overseas.

[snip]

But the little-noticed letter from Negroponte last year to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert appears to undermine Gonzales’s account. Dated May 17, 2006, the letter declassifies “the dates, locations and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.” It then lists a series of briefings for House and Senate leaders—including the chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committees—starting in the fall of 2001 and continuing through the spring of 2006.

Included in the list is the very same March 10, 2004, meeting that Gonzales testified this week involved disagreements about other intelligence activities.

Special prosecutors? Contempt of Congress? The "i" word? I thought the Democrats in Congress were all wimps, namby-pamby, same-as-Republics good-for-nothings?

Hmmmm. Looks like Harry Reid can play hardball. Looks like the Democrats' investigations were the preface to strong action. Most of all, it looks like Americans, of all political stripes, can have some hope that the accountability moment is finally coming for this out-of-control, fascist, criminal regime. Praise the Giant Green Lizard!

Update: Apparently my Leahy interpreter was working pretty well on Tuesday.

He's done with the Lackeys - he's subpoenaed KKKarl "Turdblossom" Rove and his clone, Scott Jennings.

It's a beeeyoootiful day for democracy.

Way to go, Congressman Robert D. Brady (D-PA)!

You're the 15th Representative to sign on to HR 333. Impeachment of Darth Cheney is only TWO VOTES AWAY.

Way to go, Barbara Lee (D-CA)! Your bill banning permanent bases in Iraq and protecting Iraqi oil from U.S. control passed the House 344-17.

Lee's HR 2929 was considered under suspension of the rules, which bars amendments, limits debate and requires a two-thirds vote for passage -- a sign that House Democratic leaders saw it not only as good policy, but as another tool putting Republicans on the spot to oppose a long-term presence in Iraq.

"Putting Congress on record with this clear statement helps take the targets off our troops' backs and it supports our goals of handing over responsibility for security and public safety to Iraqi forces," Lee, D-Oakland, said on the House floor.

"We must soundly reject the vision of an open-ended occupation as bad policy that undermines the safety of our troops and recognize it for what it is: another recruiting poster for terrorists," she said.

This, on top of contempt charges for Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers! Most, most exxxxxcellent.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee voted 22-17 along party lines to issue criminal contempt citations for Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. The full House will vote on the measure next, but it's not clear whether or not they will do so prior to their August break.

Contempt is such a perfect word for the Bush administration and its view of America, isn't it? They have contempt for the Constitution. They have contempt for the rule of law. They have contempt for the opposition party. Most of all, they have contempt for you and me, the public who presumably they are serving.

Personally, I believe that John Conyers is absolutely DYING to impeach Bush and Cheney. As far back as 2005, while he was in the minority party and forced to conduct meetings in basements, Representative Conyers put forth HR 635, which called for the following:

RESOLUTION

Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

Resolved, That there is hereby established in the House of Representatives a select committee to be known as the Select Committee on Administration Predetermination to Go to War and Manipulation of Intelligence (in this resolution referred to as the `Select Committee').

Given this evidence, and Brad Blog's July 21st report that he's chomping at the bit, Mr. Conyers deserves our thanks - and our assistance.

As I mentioned Monday, the good Representative is THREE VOTES away from having 218 votes in the House, which would be enough to proceed with the impeachment of Dick Cheney.

I called my representative today. It was an interesting experience. At first her aide was fairly matter-of-fact when she told me that Ms. Lowey had not yet signed on to the resolution. But when I told her that Dick Cheney is a clear and present danger to America and to our national security and that he needs to be removed as soon as possible, her manner completely changed. Suddenly, she realized that I was not some robo-caller - that the issue was extremely important to me. I believe that I made a difference today.

We need to do whatever we can to help John Conyers get those last three votes. Impeachment (at least Dick Cheney's) will not happen unless the Congress realizes that we won't rest until we get it. Even then, it may not succeed - but just the effort will bring sunlight to a very dark time in our history.

is election reform. Not just getting rid of the Republic-controlled, fully-hackable e-voting machines that produce no paper trail, but also taking corporate money out of our elections.

As long as the multinationals have the power to donate millions of dollars to any candidate they choose, we will have great difficulty pushing American values to the forefront of our legislative agenda. By American values, I mean:

• Universal health care via a single-payer system;
  
• A sane energy policy moving towards conservation and renewable energy sources;
  
• Investment in peace (education and infrastructure) rather than war (military-industrial complex); and
  
• Keeping jobs in America instead of sending them overseas.

The vast majority of the American people does not benefit from our government's policies. We have tens of millions of uninsured adults and children; an unsustainable energy policy that contributes to global warming; crumbling schools and roads; and fewer and fewer jobs that pay enough to support our families. Our society seems to be operating just to benefit the super-rich. Why?

We could blame Bush and the Republican Party, and in fact, it is mostly their fault, starting with the Root of All Evil, Raygun. The two parties are, indeed, vastly different. The Republican Party is currently 100% in the thrall of the corporations, and has an actual fascist, criminal agenda, whereas the Democrats generally have the right ideas and intentions (and in fact, some of them are even liberal enough for me!). But some Democrats are no better than Republicans; they have also been corrupted by corporate money, and thus will not stand up strongly for our American values.

If we are ever going to make progress towards a more enlightened society, we need to clean up our elections. Believe it or not, a bipartisan bill has originated in the Senate which would go a long way towards making this possible. I hope you will sign the petition and do whatever you can to help bring this issue to public attention.

Today on C-Span 3, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faces the Senate Judiciary committee for the third time.

In some ways, Gonzales is a big kahuna, the person whom these hearings are targeting. He has certainly been a big proponent of the Lackey Strategy himself, throwing the responsibility for his illegal activities onto inexperienced party loyalists like Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson. Gonzales has also been instrumental in implementing the Bush administration's most egregious offenses against the rule of law. He wrote the memo stating that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint", which enabled institutionalized torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. He gave the thumbs-up to the hundreds of signing statements Bush wrote, which, in many cases, contradicted the very legislation he was signing. And of course, he tried to manipulate a groggy, post-op John Ashcroft into approving the illegal NSA spying program, which Ashcroft had already refused to do.

But Patrick Leahy, the committee's chairman, knows there are bigger fish to fry than the man whom George W. Bush calls "Fredo".

Senator Patrick Leahy kicked off an oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by accusing top White House adviser Karl Rove of playing a key role in the firing of 8 US Attorneys.

"The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year," the committee's chairman said. "The evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House. ."

Leahy also described a Justice Department in a state of 'crisis.' He worried that most of the senior leadership in the department had resigned.

"I would joke that the last one out the door should turn off the lights, but the Department of Justice is more important than that," he stated. "We need to shine more light on the Justice Department, not less."

The Vermont Democrat went on to criticize Gonzales for failing to be forthcoming with information about the Federal Bureau of Investigation's use of National Security Letters and said it pointed to an inability to trust Gonzales and the Bush administration.

"With a history of civil liberty abuses and cover ups, this administration has squandered our trust," he warned.

Shorter Leahy: Lackey, your time is up. We're going after the big boys now.

There is good news this morning from Madam Speaker regarding our ongoing Constitutional crisis. The House Judiciary will charge Harriet Miers with contempt of Congress this week, according to the San Francisco Chronicle:

Congress this week will take the next step to force the Bush administration to hand over information about the dismissal of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday.

The House Judiciary Committee will bring contempt of Congress charges against the administration this week, said the San Francisco Democrat. She did not specify who the subject of the action would be, but Pelosi spokesman, Brendan Daly, said later it would be former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who defied a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to appear.

"They have disregarded the call of Congress for information about their politicizing the Department of Justice. We can document that. Those are actual facts and we will bring the contempt of Congress forth," said Pelosi, who spoke with reporters at a San Francisco workshop for people who want to become U.S. citizens.

She also shared her thoughts about impeachment. While admitting there is a call across the country for impeaching Bush and Cheney, she basically came right out and said that it would be impossible to get Presidential impeachment past the Congressional Republics.

Pelosi also reiterated Saturday that she would not engage in what would perhaps be the biggest confrontation possible with the White House -- seeking the impeachment of Bush over the Iraq war.

The speaker said she had "no hesitation" criticizing the president about his handling of the war, but said there were more important priorities for lawmakers -- such as health care and creating jobs -- than the divisive pursuit of impeachment.

"Look, it's hard enough for us to end the war. I don't know how we would be successful in impeaching the president," Pelosi said.

Speaker Pelosi very carefully states that she doesn't think she can impeach the President. However, she makes no promises regarding impeaching...the Vice President.

Representative Dennis Kucinich, as you may know, recently introduced House Resolution 333, which calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney on three counts:

1) manipulation of intelligence to show that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq;
2) manipulation of intelligence to show that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda; and
3) open aggression and threats against Iran.

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, is almost ready to start the proceedings.

We've reached the impeachment moment for Vice President Dick Cheney. We are now at what Rev. Lennox Yearwood calls the lunch counter moment in the impeachment movement. We've pushed the cosponsor list for H. Res. 333 up to 14. Chairman John Conyers says that if we get 3 more he'll begin impeachment proceedings [against Vice President Dick Cheney].

Mr. Kucinich knows that Cheney is the one who wants to torture, to bomb Iran, to continue the war forever and ever, to declare Bush emperor of the world. He is the real President and Bush is the genial front man used to put a pleasant face on Cheney's fascism. Remove him, and Bush collapses like a puppet with his strings cut.

Slowly but surely, the rusty wheels of our democracy, unused for the past 6 years, are beginning to turn. Accountability, so long postponed, is coming for the corrupt, power-mad, war-mongering Bush Administration.

What can we do? We've all got a responsibility to contact our Congresscritters in the House of Representatives and beg them to sign on to Dennis Kucinich's bill, or at least call Mr. Conyers in support of impeachment of Dick Cheney. Click here for help and a complete list of actions.

Our democracy needs us. Citizens, unite!

UPDATE: Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to be charged with contempt of Congress.

My first choice would be Al Gore, but (sniff! sob!) he's not running at the moment. So right now, it's all Senator Clinton, and this recent flap with the Lackey du Jour at the Department of Defense illustrates why.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I thought the Senator was brilliant in her response to Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman's ludicrous accusations. She took the offensive by calling his charges "outrageous and dangerous", and she immediately forced Secretary Gates' hand by pointedly demanding to know whether he agreed with the charges the lackey had made. Gates was forced to back down, and the lackey disappeared into the obscurity from whence he came. Game, set, match, Hillary.

Now, a lot of my friends have been asking me about John Edwards. I like a lot of things about him. I like the fact that he's addressing the issue of poverty, for example. But when the White House employed the Lackey Strategy against him by dispatching a rightwing Catholic to slam his hire of two liberal female bloggers, he fell apart like a wet Kleenex. Mr. Edwards should have told the Lackey to go to hell, and raised questions about HIS Christianity, but instead, he was caught playing defense, and the two bloggers were soon gone. And in 2004, when then-Senator Edwards debated the Master of Evil, Darth Cheney, he looked like a schoolboy who had wandered into the teachers' lounge by mistake. He barely got a swipe in as Cheney smoothly pummeled Edwards with lie after lie.

The bottom line is: if you can't stay on offense, you can't beat the Republics. Hillary Clinton can, and she will. And so for now, she's my girl. Sock it to 'em, Senator!

(P.S. Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm weading Hawwy Potter. Hehhehhehehhehhehhehhehheh!)

Isn't it funny how, when the White House wants to attack the Democrats, it's always some lackey who does it?

We see this time and time again with KKKarl Rove, whose slimy, fetid paws are all over the latest horrors perpetrated against Senator Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in Congress. Rove is such a "genius" that he thinks this incredibly transparent strategy will protect the President's reputation as a straight shooter and compassionate conservative. (I guess they really DON'T pay attention to polls...)

In Senator Clinton's case, they trotted out some nameless Undersecretary of Defense to pop out, like a cuckoo in a clock, yell "Traitor! Enemy of the State!", then pop back in, never to be seen again.

The Senator, unfortunately for KKKarl, knows how the Lackey Strategy works. Her response was as follows:

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Ka-THWAP! Sorry, Lackey.

Today's Lackey outrage comes from an "anonymous" White House source and was leaked to the Washington Post. In response to the threat of contempt proceedings being brought against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, "White House Officials" said that Congress doesn't have the right to ask the Justice Department to pursue statutory contempt charges once executive privilege has been asserted.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Once again, the Lackeys step forward and try to stomp all over the political opponents of the Bush Administration. The Democrats' response?

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

What can the Democrats do about this? For one thing, there is a type of contempt called "inherent contempt", which completely circumvents the Justice Department and the Executive Branch.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In the wake of the firestorm engendered by his unbelievable claim, George Bush has not said a word. But through his lackeys, the Deciderer has declared himself a king. The constitutional crisis is here, my friends. It's time for the Democrats to hit back as hard as Senator Clinton did, but with action, not words.

Inherent contempt. Impeachment. Whatever. We've had enough. DO IT NOW!!!! Or there may be nothing but Bush lackeys left in the coming Fourth Reich.

In previous posts about our junk culture and about the way lying is consequence-free in today's media, I mentioned the toxic influence of giant corporations on American society.

Yesterday in a small Oregon publication, a bombshell was dropped: Corporations are sneaking advertising into the news itself.

The barrier between news content and advertising in broadcast television may be crumbling.

According to a study recently published in the journal Electronic News, authored by two University professors and a former journalism doctoral student, there is increasing pressure from advertisers to integrate ads in newscasts, and small markets are most likely to promote advertisers during news stories.

The study was conducted over four months in 2004 and included 17 U.S. stations broadcasting early-evening news in a variety of markets. The types of "stealth advertising" studied included product placements, stories about a single business, segment sponsorship, and using a specific business as the sole example of a news story's theme.

The story goes on to say that advertisers may be concerned that Tivo-wielding consumers are fast-forwarding past their commercials, and that viewership of broadcast news is down. The solution, of course, is not to make the news better - less partisan, more factually based - to regain public interest. Of course not! The solution is to make the entire newscast one big commercial.

Television news became infotainment a long time ago, but must we really make it advertainment? Are we destined for a society as portrayed in the movie "Minority Report", where as Tom Cruise takes his late-night run, advertisements customized to his needs are projected on every wall he passes? News flash to GE and NewsCorp: We are not consumers - we are citizens, and despite your best efforts, we're awake now. We will not let you turn us into mindless zombies with credit cards.

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
--— Paul Weyrich, at a 1980 training session for 15,000 conservative preachers in Dallas.

I first heard that quote on the Thom Hartmann show, and after I picked my jaw up off the floor, my first coherent thought was "Of course!"

It has always seemed obvious to me that the Republics do not espouse American values. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "Screw you! I've got mine." Yet over and over again, that's what they say to everyone who is not as privileged as they. Tax cuts are only for the super-wealthy. Unions are bad for big business - never mind that they help better the lives of working people. War? It's when we say it is - it makes us and our friends rich. Science? Forget it - it interferes with our rape and pillage of the environment.

What some of us don't realize, is that the Republics know they don't represent the majority view; they've known it for decades, as the quote above illustrates. In our American "majority rule" system, that means that normally their party would not be able to hold a great deal of power. But this is an unacceptable outcome for the Republics - so, of course, they cheat.

Election fraud triumphed in 2000, 2002 and 2004, and it was narrowly avoided in 2006 due to a huge turnout and a large increase in voter awareness and election monitoring. (Remember when KKKarl said he had "the math" in 2006? We know what he meant, don't we?) Note: If you are still skeptical about election fraud, read Greg Palast, Bob Fitrakis and Brad Friedman.

And voila! Thanks to the "genius" of KKKarl Rove and his operatives in the Justice Department, the Bush Administration has taken election-stealing to a new level.

From Alternet.org:

State welfare offices across the country are not offering millions of low-income Americans the opportunity to register to vote when applying for public assistance despite a federal law requiring them to do so, according to an analysis of a recent federal voting registration report and experts who say the Department of Justice and states are to blame.

"It's huge. It's another area where the administration is failing us," said Donna Brazile, chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute, speaking of the Department of Justice's oversight of the nation's voter registration laws. "They are not pushing states to recognize their voter registration responsibilities."

At the same time, the Justice Department's Voting Section, which enforces voting rights and supervises elections in some states, is pressuring 10 states to do more to purge voter rolls -- or remove ineligible voters -- before the 2008 presidential election, according to letters sent to state election officials this spring.

So they are 1) denying welfare recipients their opportunities to register to vote, and 2) pressuring states to purge their voter rolls of "felons" prior to 2008 (Why not? It worked so well in Ohio and Florida).

Is it any wonder the new Democratic Congress went after the Justice Department so quickly and persistently? Now, thanks to their investigations, we are finding more and more evidence that the Administration was using the traditionally non-partisan Justice Department for its illegal vote-suppression activities.

Luckily for the American majority, 11/7/06 changed everything.

"Impeachment is not the cause of a Constitutional crisis - it's the remedy for a Constitutional crisis."

--John Nichols of The Nation magazine, Bill Moyers Journal (online at pbs.org)

I've always assumed that the Republics impeached Bill Clinton for the following reasons:

1) He was not a Republic.
2) He was not rich.
3) Chicks dug him. (I'm snarking a bit there, but not much.)

But I've been thinking a lot about the almost complete news blackout regarding the astonishing American support for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. The latest polls show 45% in favor of impeaching Bush, and 54% in favor of impeaching Cheney. In contrast, during Clinton's actual impeachment, the numbers in favor were much lower - averaging about 30% in favor. Why is the national news media only now starting to mention the "i" word - and most in a dismissive way?

Bear with me now, for here is where I fly off into the land of paranoia...What if longtime Republic operatives like Rove, Cheney, Norquist and Rumsfeld were planning all along to install someone like Bush in the presidency - someone who believes wholeheartedly that the executive branch should be supreme over all? What if they've been working for a long, long time to get party loyalists in Congress who would agree to weaken the legislative branch almost beyond repair, to further empower the Presidency? And what if they planned to nominate unitary executive believers to the Supreme Court who were likely to uphold any court challenges to the President's power?

And what if, to set all this up, they planned to impeach a sitting Democratic president on weak Constitutional grounds, just to set up a distaste for the impeachment process in the mainstream media?

If this was indeed their plan, it's working rather well.

In yesterday's statement, Wendy Vitter (Wife - Diaper-Wearing Prostitute-Frequenter) whined and moaned about how the media was persecuting the Vitters and their children. Why, they even followed poor widdu Wendy to CHURCH! How could the eeeeevil press hurt the family of such a paragon of Republic family values? After all, we all know how Jeebus-fearing it is to pay women for sex!

The crowning moment of eye-popping hypocrisy was when Ms. Vitter proclaimed, "In any other family, this would be a private matter." Uh-huh. Because breaking the law is okay if Jeebus and your wife forgive you, right? And of course, when Bill Clinton strayed with a consenting adult who was, in fact, NOT a prostitute, Ms. Vitter had this to say:

"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbit than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

So Bill Clinton didn't break the law, and he deserves to be Bobbitized by Hillary (who is, apparently, a wimp for allowing Bill to get away with a whole wee-wee). But Vitty breaks the law, and not only is Mrs. Vitty a long-suffering Christian wife, but she deserves to be left alone because it's a PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER?

Please excuse me while I go poke my eye out with a fork.

We all know that the Republican Party is greedy (hello, Jack Abramoff!), hypocritical (hello, Jim Taggart and Mark Foley!) and power-hungry in the extreme (hello, Project for the New American Century!). But there's one thing Harry Reid knows that we don't always remember: The Republican Party is LAZY.

Right now, the Republics in the Senate are doing a sort of pro-forma filibuster of the Levin-Reed Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment would mandate withdrawal from Iraq, and the Republics are making sure they don't have to vote on it at all.

But Harry Reid is not going to let them get away with quietly forcing the amendment to go away. No, he is going to make them [gasp!] WORK FOR IT.

From ThinkProgress:

Harry Reid just announced on the Senate floor that if the GOP continues their obstruction of the Reed-Levin amendment mandating withdrawal, he'll hold the Senate in session through the night on Tuesday.

That would force Republicans to filibuster the Iraq measure in person, right on the Senate floor.

This move is brilliant for two reasons:

1) Harry Reid is forcing the Senate Republics to show their true colors, even if they succeed in the filibuster.

The Republics will be on record, on C-SPAN, explaining why they don't want our soldiers to come home. They will sound cruel, stupid and unresponsive to their constituents' interests. There will be nowhere to hide from their own words.

2) Harry Reid is forcing the Senate Republics to, you know, work.

The 109th Congress, with the overwhelming Republic majority, worked less than any Congress in history since 1948. The last thing they want to do is give up their comfy cocktail hours.

So thank you very much, Harry Reid. I think a veto-proof withdrawal agreement just got a little bit closer.

Arianna Huffington has a great op-ed today which discusses the madness of Bill Kristol. Ms. Huffington was seated in front of Mr. Kristol on the Amtrak from New York to Washington, and she overheard a disturbing conversation. Apparently, ol' Bill is pleased as punch that he has found yet another ad slogan to terrify Americans into supporting an endless U.S. presence in Iraq:

Kristol was sitting a row behind me, talking on his cell phone with someone who apparently shared his optimism. "'Precipitous withdrawal' really worked," I overheard him say, clearly referring to the president's use of the term in that morning's press conference. "How many times did he use it? Three? Four?" he asked his interlocutor, and the conversation continued with a round of metaphorical back-slapping for the clever phrase they had "come up with."

Of course, like so many of the neoconservatives' greatest hits ("stay the course", anyone?), this phrase is neither original nor clever. Ms. Huffington goes on to explain:

...It's actually not all that new: back in January 1969, Richard Nixon used it again and again in his famous "Silent Majority" speech: "The precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace." Again and again throughout the speech, Nixon used the phrase to paint the nightmarish consequences of a "precipitate withdrawal" from Vietnam. Almost forty years later, George Bush is using the slightly tweaked "precipitous withdrawal" to paint his own nightmarish scenario of what will happen if American forces leave Iraq. And for that, apparently, we have Bill Kristol to thank. At least partially.

What Mr. Kristol fails to realize is that the American people have made up their minds. We changed the majority of Congress in 2006 for two main reasons, according to the post-election polling: 1) so that we can hold the Administration accountable for their crimes, and 2) so that we can get out of Iraq completely. If he truly thinks the 800th bumper sticker from the Department of Propaganda will bring America back to Bush's side, he's quite simply cuckoo.

In the criminal organization that is the Republican Party, disloyalty is the only crime that is ever punished. (As we know, Bush just admitted that someone in his government leaked Valerie Plame's name. His recommendation? We should "move on".)

In any case, Republic Senators Warner and Lugar should have known better than to approach George W. Bush with their proposition.

WASHINGTON — The White House is holding firm on its Iraq strategy in the face of yet another effort to curb the mission, proposed this time by moderate Republicans the Bush administration can ill afford to lose.

President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said Sunday the administration's "very orderly process" for reviewing its Iraq plans should be allowed to play out despite a hurry-up initiative from two respected GOP senators.

Hadley's reply was "No" when asked whether Bush could live with the proposal by Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana. They want to give the president until mid-October to submit a plan to restrict the use of U.S. troops in Iraq to fighting terrorists and securing borders and U.S. interests.

....

"They've done a useful service in indicating the kinds of things that we should be thinking about," Hadley said. "But the time to begin that process is September.

"And the opening shot really ought to be to hear from the commanders on the ground who can make an assessment of where we are."

First of all, I don't think this proposal had any chance to pass the Senate, so Bush isn't giving up much. But isn't the tone so in character for Bush's proxies? Somehow, I don't think they've ever read "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

It's just amazing how people keep trying to throw this drowning man a life preserver (remember the Baker-Hamilton Group, meant to provide Bush and Republics cover so they could exit Iraq gracefully?), and he keeps clutching his anvil instead.

Say it loud. Say it often.

It explains so much.

It's why there are so many Republicans in jail, under indictment or under investigation. If we investigated every single one of these guys in all the branches of government, I have absolutely no doubt that there is a criminal act in each and every one of their backgrounds (usually involving sex or money). But of course, you can't be a playa unless you're a made man (or woman), because the Republican Party is a criminal organization.

It cures Republic Scandal Fatigue (RSF) without the use of alcohol or drugs.

At this point, I personally am getting dizzy trying to keep up with all the laws these guys are breaking. I mean, what with Cheney and Bush pretending the government is their personal cash register and toy soldier generator, respectively, and with all the Congresscritters seemingly unable to deal with their sexual and monetary needs without resorting to crime, we've got a new horror assaulting us every day. It's enough mishegoss to make you permanently brain-fogged, unless you remember that the Republican Party is a criminal organization.

Ahhhh! I feel better already.

I am the first one to say that election fraud by the Republics in 2004 is the only reason that John Kerry is not President today. But one awful, damaging dirty trick they played, which lent credibility to Senator Kerry's political demise, was the forming of the RNC front group "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".

In the Good Old Days - i.e., before the Republics eviscerated the Fairness Doctrine and paved the way for massive media consolidation - there was an appreciation that the airwaves were public property. There was also an understanding that a free and truthful press was an important part of a functioning democracy. Democracy, after all, depends on the electorate having correct and timely information disseminated by the media in order to vote for the candidate that, as closely as possible in our current two-party system, represents its views. Finally, the media understood the difference between news and entertainment. The news divisions were not supposed to turn a profit. News was not flashy and exciting - it was informative. The love life of Farrah Fawcett, for example, did not rate a segment on Walter Cronkite's newscast.

In those Good Old Days, the Orwell Tribute Band called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would not have made it onto the teevee, or on the radio, or in the papers. The group's claims of having served with John Kerry, their "evidence" of his supposed cowardice, their smears regarding him "throwing away" his medals - all would have been investigated and debunked BEFORE they disgraced the public airwaves. Yet these transparent, blatant Liars for Rove were able to commandeer all media outlets, mostly for free and mostly unopposed by Kerry's campaign, for almost an entire month.

Our media is broken almost beyond repair. The pundits on TV, and even the "news reporters", lie with impunity (remember Brit Hume and Bill Bennett conflating two parts of FDR's speech to make it appear that Roosevelt was FOR privatization of Social Security?), while pundits and reporters that attempt to report the truth about the Administration (Ashleigh Banfield, Dan Rather, Phil Donahue and others come to mind) are relentlessly hounded out of their jobs. The only thing that has kept me sane during Dubya's Reign of Terra has been the Internet, and of course, the Republics are desperately trying to break that as well.

When we have a Democratic super-majority in this country in 2009, one of the most important issues we must address is Truth in Media. Restore the Fairness Doctrine and de-consolidate the media as we once did to AT&T. Let's kick the liars off our property.

I posted a while ago that You Gotta Have Heart. I am hereby proving I'm a good liberal gal by demonstrating that I unnerstan' what it's like to be George W. Bush these days.

See, in the early days of his appointment to the Presidency in 2001, Bush was riding high. "Heh-heh - Ah really CAN create mah own reality! Ah wasn't even elected and Ah'm still Preznit!"

Soon, his popularity sank like a stone as people realized he was no brighter than a monkey with a lobotomy. But then - the beautiful, the amazing trifecta was hit on September 11, 2001. The whole country united behind him, and he gained an all-purpose shield for every law he broke. Moreover, the press, never exactly adverse to Dubya's "charms", felt it was unpatriotic to do anything but lie down at his feet and grovel. They came up with adjectives that beggar belief - "Churchillian" being one of them, "a treat in jeans" another. This self-affirming hall of mirrors, though reflecting only Bush's own opinions and those of the pundit class, lasted right up until the devastation of Hurricane Katrina cracked them.

And thus, the nightmare of George W. Bush began, accelerating ever faster after the disaster (for him) of November 7, 2006.

I can imagine that being Bush is like being me, in some ways. I'm of a body type, for example, that was much more popular 50 years ago, in the age of Marilyn Monroe. Everywhere I go, I see images of "beautiful" women that look nothing like me, and that furthermore, I could never emulate even if I starved myself into anorexia. These images are so prevalent that every morning, I'm still briefly surprised that their created reality is not the same as mine, and that I have not, in fact, turned into a 6-foot, 110-pound supermodel overnight.

Bush must be feeling some of the same confusion. After all, he's moved from his own reality, where he is, in fact, the dictator and everything he does is legal and praiseworthy, to the fact-based reality of Nixonian disapproval ratings, GOP desertions, forced resignations and criminal indictments abounding, and the increasing certainty of his party achieving permanent minority status.

Empathy is a good liberal quality, and I'm glad I have it. But sympathy for this murdering, traitorous bastard? That, I just can't drum up.

From an L.A. Times story posted late last night:

WASHINGTON — In a broadly worded legal opinion, the Justice Department has concluded that President Bush's former top lawyer, and possibly other senior White House officials, can ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the firings of U.S. attorneys.

The three-page opinion raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt for not cooperating with the investigation into the firing last year of eight top prosecutors.

Forgive me, but I can't keep from yelling for a moment:

RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW! RULE! OF! LAW!

Ahh, I feel better...

IMHO, this type of Nixonian scenario - where the "Justice" Department completely breaks free of legal constraints and attempts to protect the Administration at all costs - is exactly why the Democrats went after the DOJ right away.

If "Justice" were still operating unchecked, as it was until January 2007, the political hacks that infested it would still be there. (Instead, the DOJ is like a war zone, with all top officials but the endlessly corrupt Alberto Gonzalez having to resign in disgrace.) Vote caging and other nefarious election-stealing schemes would be proceeding apace. And the "integrity" (I'm just unable to stop air-quoting, because these words have no meaning to the loyal Bushies) of the Attorney General would remain unquestioned.

What can be done about it? The words "special prosecutor" come to mind. (Hmmmm, I wonder if Bill Clinton is available...)

At this point, I picture the Administration collectively as the Black Knight in "Monty Python's The Holy Grail." They're standing in the road with their arms and legs chopped off, yelling "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah! I win! I win! I win!" These delusional criminals still believe they're creating their own reality. But the American people have caught on. The spin isn't working any more.

And in a democracy, which we still barely have, if you don't have the support of the people, you don't win. You lose. And very often, you wear an orange jumpsuit.

If we learn nothing from the Great Gay Sweater Scandal of 2007, we may be sure at least of two things:

1) John McCain is not an independent thinker. If he was so concerned about the alleged homosexuality of his sweaters (I'm still shaking my head at that one - did they have Jeff Gannon's pic from "HotMilitaryStuds.com" on them?), he shouldn't have worn them. But he demonstrated his true WeatherVane McCain character by going with the prevailing winds. And I thought Republics were such strong men, unlike those wussy Democrats! And they smell like Aqua Velva and stuff! (For the record, my vote for John McCain's smell is mothballs and Jack Daniels.)

2) John McCain is a typical Republic who refuses to take responsibility for any of his actions. Dude, your campaign is in the toilet because you're a scary, warmongering, generally unpleasant old man. Sweaters just ain't in it.

So, Sinfonian did this "meme tag" thing to me when I was emphatically NOT blogging on Aruba. Of course, I am now 100 blog-years too late with this now, but hey! A promise is a promise. Here goes nothing.

First, to post the rules:

1. All right, here are the rules.
2. We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
3. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
4. People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
5. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

Okay, everyone I know has been tagged, so I'm excusing myself from #5. But I'll do the rest.

Eight Random Facts about Me:

1) I am generally late to every trend. (Took me, like, 5 years to buy a DVD player.) So, this is par for the course.

2) My favorite color is purple. I am fond of all things purple, including grape soda.

3) I have a terrible weakness for John Hughes movies.

4) If I had my druthers, I'd do nothing but sing opera, write about politics, and design purty websites for artistic people.

5) I have been deliriously happily married for the past ten years.

6) My stepmother is both African-American AND Jewish. And she didn't have to convert.

7) My step-grandfather was Joan Crawford's lover and was mentioned in Christina Crawford's classic "Mommie Dearest" as "Uncle David".

8) I'm a Virgo with a Libra moon and a Scorpio rising.

Finito!!!

I just watched some of the CNN follow-up interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta (R-Liar), who was eating a significant amount of crow for his distortion of the facts in Michael's movie "Sicko".

Even more important than the question of national health care, which thanks to Moore the giant-headed ones are actually beginning to discuss in the mainstream media, is what Gupta brought up near the end of the segment.

Dripping with faux empathy, Gupta accused Moore of contradicting himself. "If you have no faith in government, then why do you want the government to take control of health care - one of our most precious resources?"

Moore was shocked. "I LOVE the government. We've done great things in the past. It's just that the leadership has been so pathetic lately that I don't trust THEM with healthcare. I think we can be capable of great things again."

THIS is the message that liberals need to promote. Government can be a force for good; for scientific advances, for social justice, for economic growth for all levels of society.

Ronald Reagan made popular the Big Lie that government can do nothing, and should do nothing to advance the common good. George W. Bush, his dumber and more radical spiritual son, has so privatized and bloated the government that Reagan's lies have almost become truth. But it doesn't have to be so. And thank you, Michael Moore, for being one of the first nationally prominent figures to tell us so in a long, long time.

http://www.michaelmoore.com

Having been out of the country for the last several days, I've gained a new perspective on America. I look around me, and all I see is the junk-if-ication of our culture.

Movies are one very easy example. "Die Hard 4" - what is it but a perfectly produced Twinkie? Tasty, internally coherent, but having no nutritional value whatsoever? I believe watching it actually lowered my IQ by a few points (and believe me, I can't spare 'em).

As for our "news" media? Do I really need to mention how CNN was doing stories on the safety of fireworks on the day of the heinous Scooter Libby "commutation"? (Isn't that something a governor does to a death sentence, by the way? I've never heard of this procedure done by a president before.)

And what about education and science? How ludicrous is it that the Christian rightwingers are feverishly insisting that Creationism to be taught in science class, as if it were an actual proven theory like evolution? How ridiculous is it that the man who was the chairman of the Senate Environment and Works Committee for 6 years was James Inhofe, a Neanderthal who insisted that global warming didn't exist? (His beliefs were, no doubt, greatly strengthened by the numerous contributions of the oil and gas industry to his campaign war chest.) And finally, how mind-blowing is it that the Bush Administration had its dirty little paws all over the EPA and NASA, literally changing their scientific reports to reflect better on the Administration's horrendous environmental performance?

Of course, there's my latest obsession - junk food. Now, I can't credit Aruba for this observation - I actually have been noticing this ever since we moved to suburbia in ought-two. A huge percentage of what's on our supermarket shelves cannot even really be called food; it's more like a tasty amalgamation of vaguely food-like substances held together with various and sundry polymers also used in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. (Exaggeration, of course....but you know what I mean.) What really bothers me is how we envy those who can process this pseudo-nutrition without gaining weight. Wow! What an amazing skill! It's as if we're being trained to worship those who consume the most junk without manifesting ill effects immediately. Who, I wonder, would benefit from this?

Why, the corporations, of course. The more junky food, entertainment and information are, the more they profit. It costs less in money and/or time to manufacture junk, and besides which, it's always easier to hire unskilled, underaged and/or illegal workers to make it. And as for promoting stupidity - like insisting proven science is wrong? Well, the stupider people are, the more junk they'll consume. Besides which, if global warming doesn't exist, the oil and gas companies don't have to clean up their pollution or convert their facilities to wind/solar/hydroponic power.

There are always exceptions to the junk rule, of course. There is a lot of good television around that combats the eighteenth season of "Survivor: Wal-Mart edition". Some more independent, indiosyncratic artists are able to gain national attention. Organic and locally grown foods are starting to be commonplace in supermarkets. And of course, there is the Internet, the savior of our time, which combats the otherwise news-free aspect of the media, and helps educate victims of the rightwing Christian agenda.

But if we're ever going to elevate our culture beyond McDonald's and Die Hard, we must break up the huge corporations that are strangling our society. Cheap is not a value we should be promoting. Diversity - not the fake "Well, Condoleezza Rice is a black woman!" type - must blossom once again, as it did in the 60's and 70's. It's right there, under the surface. All it needs is some air and light.

In light of Cindy Sheehan's recent grandstanding on her personal schedule for impeachment and the evils of the Democratic Party, I feel compelled to point out the true genius of Karl Rove.

No, he is not a political genius. After decades of efforts by his billionaire allies to take over and consolidate the media, and his own stacking of the deck in every conceivable manner (vote-rigging, election fraud, redistricting, court-packing, etc. etc. etc.), Rove has managed to, in only six years of one-party dominance, completely destroy the Republican Party. About 70% of Americans disapprove of Rove's beloved boy George Bush as President, and the Republicans in Congress are poised for another, even more crushing defeat in 2008. Rove's desire for Permanent Republican Majority seems to be as delusional as his "The Math" predictions were in 2006.

But what KKKarl is really, REALLY good at is creating frames which hit you in the gut. Never mind that they have no basis in reality - they are real-ish. They have truthiness.

Take Cindy Sheehan's point (despite my feeling that she has gone off the rails at this point, she does have one). She states that we elected the Democrats to stop the war and they haven't. Therefore, she feels the Dems have let her - and the American people - down.

But why does she feel this way? Factually speaking, the Democrats have done quite a bit to try and stop the war. And quite simply, they don't have the votes to override a veto in the Senate. Why isn't Cindy Sheehan, for example, placing the blame where it belongs - on George Bush, who vetoes every measure the Democrats put forward, and on the Republican Senators who refuse to do the will of the American people and vote with the Democrats? Because of the excellent, diabolical frame Roverer has put on the Democratic Party.

Here's how it goes.

1) If Democrats try and fail to pass a measure that they don't have the votes for, they are ineffectual losers. See: First attempt to cut off funding for the war.

2) If Democrats do NOT try to pass a measure that they don't have the votes for (i.e., impeachment, which will not pass the Senate), then they are spineless cowards.

3) If Republicans do anything that raises the outrage meter, make sure you pull out the false equivalency wand and wave it around until people become so cynical they don't even bother to analyze what's going on. See: Libby's commutation is JUST TEH SAME as Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

4) When all else fails, blame anyone else - never admit responsibility. See: The failure of the Iraq war is the media's fault.

It pains me greatly to see a passionate, intelligent woman like Cindy Sheehan falling for Rove's sleight of hand. But that's the true genius of the Turd Blossom. His frames stop your rational mind and make you feel like you've heard emotional truth. But all you've heard is truthiness.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —President George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

I believe that these are some of the truest words George W. Bush has ever spoken. They prove what we in the reality-based community have long suspected - that President Bush considers himself to be, in the main, a salesman, a huckster, a shill for his business and ideological interests. He is a man who, in his mind, is responsible for repeating talking points, for selling what his handlers and puppeteers want you to buy. And much like the advertising community at large, they want you to buy two things - fear and loathing.

The advertising community wants you to be afraid - what are you missing by not buying this gadget/home/SUV? Is it possible that other people have The American Dream(TM) whereas you only have a small portion thereof? They also want you to loathe yourself - as a woman, I am all too aware of this tactic. Why else would they put more and more junk food on the shelves every year, while simultaneously promoting more and more impossible fat-free standards of beauty? If you don't loathe yourself, you won't have that surgery/join Weight Watchers/buy those magazines, etc. etc. etc.

Seeing how well these principles work, Karl Rove has adopted them to attempt to create a Permanent Republican Majority(TM). Just call his little enterprise Fear and Loathing Inc. And Bush, in his "line of work", catapults the propaganda like a good front man, repeating the master's talking points with little understanding of, or regard for, the truth.

It is long past time for Fear and Loathing Inc. to stop running the country. We must take our country back for Tolerance and Truth before it is too late.

Hello all...we're back and we had a great time!

If anyone wants to see more pictures, I've put a fun little flash movie on the Web that you can browse.

http://www.yourcloseup.com/aruba2007.htm

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program....