Trust me, I'm Tom DeLay

Topeka, Kansas based Westar Energy has admitted that they made a $25,000 to Tom DeLay's PAC in order to attend a golf outing with DeLay and influence public policy [emphasis added].

Former DeLay aide Drew Maloney said DeLay's staff did not require that donations be given in exchange for access. The company claims it sent the money to talk with DeLay about getting an exemption in federal law, but not to affect legislative elections in Texas.

Westar spokeswoman Karla Olsen said the company made the contribution with no guarantees that the law would be changed. "We understood we were only having discussions," she said.

The provision the company sought was included in a House bill with DeLay's support, but it was later withdrawn after a grand jury began investigating corporate fund-raising during the state's 2002 legislative races.

DeLay had a little hand-slap about this from the House Ethics committee last year for creating the appearance of impropriety but did not find that he had improperly solicited contributions or done anything illegal in his dealings with Westar [emphasis added].

DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty said DeLay wasn't swayed by the donation. "Anyone who has worked with Majority Leader DeLay knows that his legislative efforts are based on sound public policy alone," she said.

Tags: Tom DeLay; ethics; Politics

Sphere: Related Content

Scotland Yard warned of London blast

Scotland Yard received warnings of this morning's blast minutes before the occured but with enough time for British police to notify the Israeli Embassy.

Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference.

The warnings were considered credible enough that the Israeli Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, canceled his plans to attend an economic forum scheduled for a hotel atop one of the subways where blasts occurred.

Jesse's providing updated coverage at Pandagon, including a Muslim condemnation of the attacks. Mixter's Mix has a screen-shot of a letter supposedly from those claiming responsibility for the attack; the letter appeared on a site "trafficked" by al Qaeda. The letter and claims have not been verified, but Der Spiegel Online has provided a translation

"Rejoice, community of Muslims," the letter states. "The heroic mujahedeens today conducted an attack in London," it continues. All of Great Britain is now shaken and shocked, "in the north, the south, west and east." "We've warned the British government and the British people time and again," the letter adds. "We've kept our promise and have carried out a blessed military operation."

"We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all other crusader governments." We demand that all countries pull their troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, states the letter, which has been signed by the "Secret Organization -- al Qaida in Europe."

Bush also issued a statement in response to the attack:

I spent some time recently with the prime minister, Tony Blair; had the opportunity to express our heartfelt condolences to the people of London, people who lost lives.

I appreciate Prime Minister Blair's steadfast determination and restraint.

He's on his way now to London here from the G-8 to speak directly to the people of London, to carry a message of solidarity with him.

This morning I've been in contact with our homeland security folks and I instructed them to be in touch with local and state officials about the facts of what took place here and in London and to be extra vigilant as our folks start heading to work.

The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taken place in London, what's taken place here is incredibly vivid to me.

On the one hand, we got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and that are working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.

The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is, we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists.

We will find them. We will bring them to justice. And at the same time we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.

Thank you very much.

Sadly, I expect BushCo to milk this for all its political worth in their continued co-mingling of the war on terror as justification of the war in Iraq. It's a pity this has been their focus instead of actually doing something about bin Laden and al Qaeda, and quite frightening to consider the CIA's statements indicating that the war in Iraq may provide better training for terrorists than Afghanistan provided bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Update 12:03 - Israel is claiming that contrary to previous reports, they did not receive any advanced warning about the attacks. According to Foerign Minister Silvan Shalom

“There was no early information about terrorist attacks,” Shalom told Israel Army Radio later. “After the first explosion an order was given that no one move until things become clear."

Israel was holding an economic conference in a hotel over the London subway stop where one of the blasts occurred. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to attend the conference, but “after the first explosion our finance minister received a request not to go anywhere,” Shalom said.

A translator at MSNBC believes there is an error in one of the Quran verses cited in the original letter that initially surfaced claiming responsibility on behalf of al Qaeda (the letter referenced above was a second statement supposedly issued).

In related news, the Taliban claims to be holding a missing Navy SEAL with plans to execute him and al Qaeda has posted video of kidnapped Egyptian Envoy, Ihab al-Sherif, and released a statement indicating he had been sentenced to death as an "apostate" for his country's support of the US and Iraqi governments. According to the al Qaeda statement, al-Sherif has already been executed and they plan to kidnap more ambassadors.

Additionally, Iraq marked a new effort to improve relations with Iran that would include forming joint committees to cooperate in the clearing of minefields and “modernizing Iraq’s army.”

Tags: politics; Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; terrorism

Sphere: Related Content

Jailing Judith - not about Freedom of the Press

I'm trying to avoid thinking about this morning's bombing/explosions in London as I'm sure the news can only get worse. . .in an effort to do so, I've decided to address the mixed signals I must be giving regarding PlameGate (at least based on some trackbacks and emails I've received).

I think the "Freedom of the Press" justification for a journalist who published a story (or spoke publicly about) & then refused to testify/reveal a source is bogus in this particular instance. We're not talking about a whistle-blower providing information about corruption in an effort to uncover (and stop) criminal activity; there would be an understandable & legitimate need to protect a source's identity under those circumstances.

This is a case that (theoretically, at least) involves what was either (depending on who you believe):

• the outing of a covert CIA operative;
• the (non)outing of a former operative that was widely known to be a former covert operative no longer involved in covert operations;
• the outing of a CIA agent whose name was public as a former operative that was once again working covertly (i.e., the outing served as notification she was again an active agent); or
• the outing of a NOC (agent with non-official cover).

In publishing this information, the reporter essentially serves as an agent of a pretty heinous crime (if Plame's ID as a CIA operative was so well known, why would or should the source of such information have to remain anonymous?).

One could even make the argument that a reporter who obtained information revealing the identity of a person believed to be a covert operative could have an obligation to report the source of that leak, since there is not only the potential for the operative's life to be endangered, there is also the potential to blow an operation in a manner that could potentially endanger several lives (depending on the operation itself). Of course, when the source is a high level government official, it's understandable why a reporter would fail to do so of their own volition but not why they would fail to do so under court order while in the public spotlight (which should, theoretically, provide some protection). Under these circumstances I think anyone who published the identity of Plame using anonymous sources should be required to testify in the matter and provide substantiating documentation, including source identification.

The problem with Judith Miller's situation is that Miller didn't report on this story. To justify requiring her to testify and jailing her for contempt in her refusal to do so, there has to be some other link to her (i.e., she was named as a source herself, she spent time discussing information and her own investigation into the matter with others that lead the inquiry back to her, or she is otherwise directly involved/linked in the matter - especially if the link to her makes her complicit in the cover-up of crime). In the absence of such a connection, anyone (not just the press) could theoretically be required to testify (or face jail time for contempt) about what they may or may not have heard, and from whom they may have heard it based on an understanding they may have heard something about X regardless of whether they publicized the "information" they received. That's not justice or a legitimate investigation, that's a witch hunt.

I am neither a fan of Judith Miller, nor am I someone who believes that a reporter like Matt Cooper or Robert Novak should be able to avoid testifying/naming sources in this case based on a claim the requirement to do so constitutes some egregious violation of freedom of the press, but I don't think (based on the information that is currently available to the public) that Judith Miller should go to jail for not revealing her source for a story she did not publish unless she meets the criteria stated above.

Edit 15:29 - added link to FP's post regarding the matter (review SB George's comments for further details)

Tags:Rove; Plame; politics; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; conservatism; robert novak; media; matt cooper; judith miller

Sphere: Related Content

The last word on Tom Cruise

until he shoots his mouth off again that is. Cruise's attorney is threatening legal action, but that won't stop folks from thinking Tom Cruise is nuts or from regaling us with great TomCruisementary like:

"If vitamins and exercise alone explain why Tom Cruise is so, um, knowledgeable and well-grounded, pass the Prozac."- Chicago Tribune

Tag: Tom Cruise

Sphere: Related Content

Is coverture part of Santorum's traditional marriage/family plan?

Stephanie Coontz, the director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, wrote an interesting OP/ED piece about the destruction of the "Traditional Marriage" by heterosexuals, and how gay marriage poses no threat to what has already been destroyed. According to Coontz

Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.

The first step down the road to gay and lesbian marriage took place 200 years ago, when Enlightenment thinkers raised the radical idea that parents and the state should not dictate who married whom, and when the American Revolution encouraged people to engage in "the pursuit of happiness," including marrying for love. Almost immediately, some thinkers, including Jeremy Bentham and the Marquis de Condorcet, began to argue that same-sex love should not be a crime.

In his book, "It Takes a Family", Senator Rick Santorum (R-VA) derides liberal policies that he claims have devastated the poor, destroyed the traditional family and brought about a sexual freedom that has resulted in "the debasement of women, mental illness, and an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, causing infertility cancer, even death." Santorum makes the case that today's modern problems can be solved through initiatives that encourage traditional marriage, including

fatherhood training programs, more tax relief for families raising children, changes that make divorce more difficult -- and even training professionals from hospital workers to welfare case workers to public educators on how to help couples see the benefits of marriage.

Per Coontz, the standard "benefits" of traditional marriage include the principle of coverture based on Scripture with mandated gender division of labor and subordination of women to their husbands

"Husband and wife are one," said the law in both England and America, from early medieval days until the late 19th century, "and that one is the husband."

This law of "coverture" was supposed to reflect the command of God and the essential nature of humans. It stipulated that a wife could not enter into legal contracts or own property on her own. In 1863, a New York court warned that giving wives independent property rights would "sow the seeds of perpetual discord," potentially dooming marriage.

Even after coverture had lost its legal force, courts, legislators and the public still cleaved to the belief that marriage required husbands and wives to play totally different domestic roles. In 1958, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the traditional legal view that wives (unlike husbands) couldn't sue for loss of the personal services, including housekeeping and the sexual attentions, of their spouses. The judges reasoned that only wives were expected to provide such personal services anyway.

Ironically, Santorum the traditionalist allowed his wife write two books (under a name other than Mrs. Rick Santorum, no less) which seems to fly in direct contrast to his role as champion of traditional marriage. Can it be that Santorum is picking out which aspects of traditional marriage/family that suit his purposes instead of being the literalist/traditionalist he claims he is (which means his determination of what is an acceptable "Traditional Marriage" is an arbitrary point in the breakdown of traditional marriage) or is he actually suggesting a return to coverture with females as chattle, best left uneducated and reliant on/obligated to their fathers and husbands (it's important to note that in his book, Santorum who'd previously indicated that privacy is not a Constitutional right, also notes that schools are not mentioned in the Constitution either)? Either way, Santorum's charge (supported by leaders in the Fundamentalist-Evangelical movement) hearkens back to the days of Dickens which was not a good time to be a woman (or child).

Tags: santorum; marriage; feminism; parenthood; conservatism

Sphere: Related Content

Cooper sings while Miller keeps it zipped

Raw Story is reporting that in order to avoid jail time, Time reporter Matt Cooper has agreed to testify in front of the grand jury to provide additional details about PlameGate. NY Times reporter, Judith Miller, will be headed to a DC area jail since she refuses to testify (I don't like her but, for crying out loud, she didn't publish anything on the story), and Bob Novak (the Bush shill who broke the story) probably had a very nice lunch today.

According to Dark Wraith, Plame was well known as a former CIA operative in Washington at the time of her "outing" & her status as a NOC was treated casually as well (whether it should have been or not, is another story altogether), this would explain how the shill Novak seems to have managed to avoid additional scrutiny and how Rove will get away with claiming he didn't knowingly out Plame to Novak, Cooper or Miller (my guess is that if her NOC status was treated so casually, it was due to some sort of Rovian political paybackscheme). Auntie Roo (in her comments on Blondesense) begs to differ a big on Wraith's points by providing a timeline for the leak as well as an interesting transcript of a PBS Newshour show with an ex-CIA agent stating that she was an undercover operative at the time.

There has got to be so much more to this and a huge reason that Miller is still keeping her mouth shut (other than the supposed need for journalistic shield to protect all sources as innocent whistle-blowers instead of spilling the beans when the source is potentially complicit in a crime) when others are now squealing like pigs, could there be some great reward for her loyalty or is she, as Joe Wilson claims, just collateral damage?

Tags:Rove; Plame; politics; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Honor; conservatism; robert novak; media; matt cooper; judith miller

Sphere: Related Content

Them's some mighty bright candles on that there cake

Raw Story is reporting that bombing in Iraq was heavier during the Clinton administration than in the official pre-war that was actually the start of the war period under the Bush administration. The actions under the Clinton administration were reportedly part of a "war of attrition" to downgrade Saddam Hussein's capabilities and prevent full-scale war, whereas BushCo appears to have been laying the groundwork to instigate an all out war.

Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair authorized air strikes on more than 100 days in 1999, sometimes several times per day. The bombings were ostensibly in response to Hussein’s refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country, though critics alleged the move was aimed at deflecting attention from impeachment.

[snip]

The British said they had no figures on how often coalition craft were attacked in 1999, but alleged that Iraqis had violated the Southern no-fly zone 53 times.

By contrast, Iraqis violated the zone just eight times in the eight months before President Bush sought a stiffer resolution from the UN to build a case for war.

In 2000 and 2001—over the course of 24 months—the British reported 280 Southern no-fly zone attacks on coalition forces, along with 18 airspace violations.

Comparative attacks in the eight months before the November 2002 UN resolution totaled just 41.

London Times reporter Michael Smith, who broke the story of the Downing Street Memo, stated that the joint US-UK effort was initially started as punishment for the removal of UN weapons inspectors and continued when the allies came under attack which was considered legal under international law by both countries.

In what some saw as a bid to provide cover for war, the U.S. subsequently engineered the removal of Brazilian diplomat Jose Bustani from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the group which enforces chemical weapons bans.

Under Bustani, the group oversaw the destruction of two million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world’s chemical weapons facilities, and raised the number of signatories from 87 to 145.

The U.S. accused him of threatening to inspect five countries "for political ends.”

It is abundantly clear that the spikes of activity under BushCo were done to instigate a response to justify a claim that the US was goaded into war by an overly agressive Iraq. When the desired response was not forthcoming, BushCo and the bloodle fixed the intel in order to obtain legal approval for the invasion that had already started.

Meanwhile, charter Axis of Evil member N. Korea has been mentoring that other Axis of Evil country, Iran, in the development of it nuclear (say it right: new-clear, not nu-cu-lar) program.

"In the late 1990s, cooperation began between the two countries, which focused on nuclear (research and development)," said an intelligence report obtained from a non-U.S. diplomat.

"There has been a significant improvement in relations between Iran and North Korea over the past few months," the report said. A recent example is what the three-page report described as a "special secret course to provide technological and practical information to outstanding students." Among the lecturers are senior North Korean scientists and atomic technicians, it said.

"This nuclear cooperation between the two countries has apparently increased significantly during the past year as seen in the arrival of an academic delegation from North Korea in Iran and the existence of this special course," it said.

While the foks in Tehran claim the assistance is merely to improve and accelerate their nuclear energy program, others are skeptical that the goal exclude development of nuclear weaponry, especially considering the fact that N. Korea withdrew from the 2003 nuclear non-proliferation treaty and claims it has already developed nuclear weapons.

Happy Birthday W, pity we all stand to risk more fire-power than the 59 candles nuclear warheads on your uranium cake.

Tags: politics; Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; Honor; conservatism; Rumsfeld; North Korea; Iran; nuclear proliferation

Sphere: Related Content

How could anything be more gratifying than "wimmins work"?

I'm sure if you've looked, you've seen a lot of people (myself included) having a field day poking fun at the Honorable Rick Santorum's (R-VA) new book "It Takes a Family". After reading Amanda's post last night, I'm starting to think that, maybe, we're too hard on the senator. The comments on Pandagon nail little Ricky for indicating that it is acceptable (and down-right proper) for him, as a man, to spend scads of time away from home in order to continue his fulfilling job, instead of find a more suitable position that would enable him to be available to assist in the daily management of his household. This is feminist tripe at its worst, he has a good wife (who does not work outside the home) - and everyone knows a good wife does not need any help in fulfilling her wifely duties. Plus, how could anyone criticize the man for working primarily in DC while his wife and 6 children reside at their 2 bedroom primary domicile in PA*; the upkeep on a small house like that (especially one that lacked a permit for occupancy as of November 2004) should be a breeze for a woman of Mrs. Santorum's exemplary wifely capabilities and the small size of the house should make child-monitoring quite the easy task.

The good Senator and his wife have made a committment to the cause of bettering the world and leading by example, people should be more appreciative for what this man is doing on behalf of the American family. Instead, they chastise him as having a problem with women (especially mothers) obtaining an education they do not need and working outside the home, this is far from the truth. Santorum's concern is the fact that women are working outside the home and finding the experience to be worthwhile & fulfilling, and obtaining . He clearly states as much in his book

"And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home."

". . .they find it easier, more “professionally” gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children"

Do these people not see the magnitude of his generosity to put the needs of other, obviously ignorant, families so he can spend time enacting legislation that would correct the errors of our ways, write such wonderful books so we can learn what is good, proper and moral, and how to put one's family first? Santorum's purpose in these statements is a call to action for every person of conscience in order to correct/prevent the severe damage professional gratification and personal fulfillment can do to any mother and her children?

Women who work, including mothers, are consistently found to be healthier, less depressed, and less frustrated than women who do not.

Nor is it true that working women are selfishly choosing their own fulfillment over their children's needs. In fact, a certain amount of "selfishness" seems to be good for kids as well as moms. A woman's satisfaction with her role as a worker, homemaker, or spouse, whatever that role may be, is one of the best predictors both of a good relationship with her child and of the child's own well-being.

Let's be honest, Santorum is right, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for a woman to find gratification beyond that inherent in motherhood and being her husband's indentured servant. If feminists would just stop perpetrating the myth that a woman's mental well being is of any consequence and cruelly misleading women to desire egalitarian relationships and/or personal satisfaction, women would just embrace marriage (& eschew divorce, as there's rarely a legitimate reason for it) for the social status, as well as the joy of being her husband's wife and mother to his children.

* they really live in VA, but claim PA residence so he can ruin my state instead of his own

Tags: santorum; marriage; feminism; parenthood; conservatism; satire

Sphere: Related Content

and then there's that pesky illiteracy problem

Capitol Buzz is posting excerpts from Rick Santorum's new book "It Takes a Family" so we can all get a chuckle or two without having to line the coffers of the logically impaired senator. Among the interesting things Santorum notes is that those who were aborted would consider themselves lucky to have the cushy lives of slaves ("in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave") and that diversity is a baaaaaaaad thing; Walmart, however, is the epitome of a corporate good citizen for not selling things some parents disapprove of (even though many of their employees need to go on the dole).

Most interesting is his stance on the aberration that is public school

"By asking the right question, we can see that when it comes to socialization, mass education is really the aberration, not homeschooling. Never before in human history have a majority of children spent at least half their waking hours in the presence of 25 to 35 unrelated children of exactly the same age (and usually the same socio-economic status), with only one adult to keep order and provide basic mentoring. Never before and never again after their years of mass education will any person live and work in such a radically narrow, age-segregated environment."

Santorum seems to forget a few things such as the fact that education was a luxury until relatively recent history and that those children who weren't attending school were working on the family farm or subjected to working under harsh conditions in mills, factories or were sent away to work as servants in the homes of others. He also seems to ignore the many children placed in orphanages because families could not afford them and had no consistently effective available way to limit family size (aside from the relatively high infant/child mortality rate of the dark ages he's leading us back to). As usual, facts and historical perspective are completely lost on Santorum.

There's more too, including little Ricky's take on how horrible it is that working mothers find it "professionally" gratifying and socially affirming to work outside the home; we all know how bad it is when women feel like that and that those evil feminists are surely to blame. Really, who knew Rick was so adept at satire?

Tags: santorum; abortion; feminism; public education; walmart; conservatism

Sphere: Related Content

Doin' Time til they talk?

Well it looks like Time magazine couldn't quite keep Matt Cooper out of trouble by turning over copies of notes. Special Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald is still demanding Cooper testify or be held in contempt. Fitzgerald also denied Cooper and NY Times reporter Judith Miller's request that they be grounded instead of going to jail. Despite their assurances that giving up their cell phones and missing the prom would teach them a lesson, Fitzgerald stated he didn't believe a simple time-out would make them feel in any way compelled to comply with the court order and assist in the investigation of someone who leaked classified information.

Sorry guys, it's one thing to protect a whistle-blower or someone whose live would be endangered if it were known they outed a criminal, it's a whole other thing to protect the criminal who ID'd a CIA agent to settle a political score, so I don't buy the "a reporter must have a shield law" excuse. This being said, Miller didn't report jack and I don't know what else they can get from Cooper since they already have his notes from Time. Novak's skating through so he better have testified without perjuring himself (or his ass should be hauled off to jail too), but somehow the shill seems a little too well lubed to ever be held responsible for anything he's done.

Update 6Jul05: Dark Wraith has spoken & The Heretick has chimed in as well - why does anyone watch made for TV soap operas when we have this?

Tags:Rove; Plame; politics; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Honor; conservatism; robert novak; media; matt cooper; judith miller

Sphere: Related Content

for those who claim cannbis/cannabinoids have no therapeutic benefit

Pharmaceuticals & Biotech companies are conducting research (some in clinical trials) of cannabinoids to treat pain & anorexia (from medical etiologies, not anorexia nervosa) and as an anti-emetic (there are additional potential indications as well). This news will just spur them on in what will likely be the next wave of increased politicalization of medicine (both at the FDA & at your local pharmacy).

GW Pharmaceuticals has now recived approval from Health Canada and launched the mouth spray Sativex (tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol) for the treatment of pain in patients with MS. The drug had previously been submitted to the British Health Authorities in 2003, last December the company was asked to provide additional efficacy data to support its filling.

Tags:health; medicine; medical marijuana

Sphere: Related Content

when you don't get your way immediately, just start bombing

Yet another Florida Women's clinic was fire bombed. Last night (a little happy Independece Day for those who oppose choice of pretty much any kind), the President's Womens Clinic in West Palm Beach, Florida was hit. Thanks to the holiday, nobody was inside or jured by the blaze. The FBI is investigating.

Tags: abortion; arson; zealotry

Sphere: Related Content

It's not Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood & it won't be airing on ABC anytime soon

Pandagonists wil be disappointed that, while any bit o' tripe can make it onto ABC's initial line up, it may be pulled prior to airing if the network realizes it has more than crossed the line. ABC has decided to pull "Welcome to the Neighborhood" due to concerns voiced by liberals and conservatives alike. The premise of the show is that 3 white families in a "comfortable" Austin, TX cul-de-sac get to violate housing laws by deciding who gets to move into a now vacant fourth home that competing families would not otherwise be able to afford. The white families are faced with a variety of folks that don't meet their definition of the "right" kind of family and include 1 black, 1 Hispanic & 1 Asian family, as well as: two gay white men who've adopted a black boy; a couple covered in tattoos and piercings; a Wiccan couple; and a white family with a stripper mom.

The idea is to see preconceptions, even prejudices, break down as the white homeowners get to know the competitors as people instead of stereotypes.

[snip]

Within the first two episodes, one man made a crack about the number of children piling out of the Hispanic family's car. The citizenry of the business-owning Asian family was questioned and displays of affection between the gay men were met with disgust.

In addition to the traditional liberal complaints about using minorities to educate ignorant white folks that people that are different to them are people and the degradation of having to, as Jesse called it "impress whitey", the Family Research Council objected to the program because it might give the public the impression that conservative Christians are overly judgmental buffoons. ABC was blind-sided by the reaction

"I didn't think that people would be this nervous," Andrea Wong, head of alternative programming at ABC, said before Wednesday's decision to ditch the show. "Because I really think it's such a positive show and such a good thing to put on TV and cause viewers to look at themselves, I'm surprised by the negative reaction to it."

[snip]

"You only sort of get half the story in watching the first two episodes," Blumenfield said before the cancellation. "You see the harshness, the entrenched points of view. These things kind of melt away as the humanity comes out. It was astonishing to watch and I think everyone felt very positive at the end."

The progression was telegraphed by the tattooed Sheets family, the most instantly reviled by the homeowners. Yet the Sheets quickly bonded with the neighbors when they realize they're all Republicans, and one couple came to see them as versions of themselves a decade earlier.

Tags:TV; ignorance; racism; prejudice; stupidity; americana

Sphere: Related Content

They didn't return enough fire, so we had to drop more bombs

Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley, the allied air force commander in the time leading up to official invasion of Iraq, indicated that allied forces flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and the start of the war. The Iraqis, in turn, fired a whopping 651 times - shots Moseley admits could have been in response to stepped-up allied bombings.

"We became a little more aggressive based on them shooting more at us, which allowed us to respond more," he told the New York Times. "Then the question is whether they were shooting at us because we were up there more. So there is a chicken and egg thing here."

In September 2002, Rummy admitted he ordered the implementation of the 1991 UN resolutions that allow pre-emptive strikes, because he didn't like they idea that our planes were getting "shot at with impunity". The resolution did not call for "no fly zones" implemented by US & British forces, not that it mattered since the US policy shift allowed for bombing outside the "no fly zones" established after the Gulf War.

Between March and November of 2002, coalition forces said they recorded eight violations by Iraqi forces of the No-Fly Zone and 143 instances of “recorded threats.”

In response, they attacked Iraqi installations with 253,000 pounds of bombs.

In June 2002, for instance, the coalition recorded three “threats,” and bombed with 20,800 pounds of munitions. The greatest number of threats during this period was in September 2002, when Iraqis are said to have shot at the U.S.-led forces ten times, and were hit with 109,200 pounds of bombs.

The administration did everything they could to further destabilize & exacerbate a potential, though non-imminent, threat. The more we stepped up bombing, they more they responded so we had no choice but to increase bombing because they had the gall to respond (but not fire back enough to justify an official invasion as required by BushCo). If they hadn't responded with fire, would the US sorties have discontinued? The entire purpose of this exercise was to incite an Iraqi response so BushCo could claim Iraq was an imminent threat and an invasion was necessary. Of course, they didn't quite get the ammo they needed, so they fixed the intel - that's patriotism.

Tags: politics; Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; Honor; conservatism; Rumsfeld

Sphere: Related Content

Canadian columnist likens US media to Pravda; Republicans declare war

OK, not quite but Toronto Star reporter Linda McQuaig did make the dreaded Ruskie reference which I'm sure will be raised if Canadian journos insist on supporting the notion that the DSM have been verified as accurate (they have, but shhhhhhh it's a secret). As McQuaig and many bloggers continue to point out, Bush illegally started the war while fixing the supposedly faulty intel to justify getting Congress to let him invade and nary a peep was heard from US media.

The Bush administration and the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee blamed this on "faulty intelligence," an explanation the media have largely parroted.

The Senate committee promised last summer to probe what role the White House may have played in concocting the faulty intelligence — but only after the presidential election. Once the president was re-elected last fall, the Senate committee chairman, Republican Pat Roberts, simply cancelled the promised investigation of the White House's role, insisting it would be "a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further."

Replow it further? How about plowing it once?

Roberts's decision to let the administration off the hook on Iraq was barely covered in the media.

McQuaig goes on to note that, in his speech last week, Bush reiterated his tired notion that 9/11 was to reason we had to invade Iraq, and yet, US press didn't hound him about repeating the lie especially in the face of DSM. My late Uncle was always fond of Pravda, said it served its function well because it was soft - I wonder which American rag he'd think most wipe-worthy.

Tags: media; politics; Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; conservatism

Sphere: Related Content

eating sacred cows

And so it goes, with the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor the world is starting to talk about how the Democrats will or should stop defending any aspect of Roe v Wade/abortion because it's the reason Democrats don't win elections. Yes, according to that Braniac David Brooks, politics is bad because of abortion and the liberals, unlike the Republicans, have "lost touch with the working class".

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that 'unless Roe v Wade is overturned, politics will never get better'. Liberals, he believes, have lost touch with working-class Americans because they rely on the courts to impose their views and have never had to debate 'values' with those voters.

Brooks seems to conventiently ignore that the American public has consistently supported Roe and, by greater than a 2:1 margin Americans would prefer a SCotUS nominee who would uphold Roe. This despite a campaign of misinformation by the right that, obfuscates the the facts of Roe v. Wade mispresenting it as legalizing all abortion under any circumstances without restriction.

Even adamant pro-choicers are calling a retreat due to the ugliness of the issue

In the Atlantic Monthly, avowed pro-choicer Benjamin Wittes advised abortion-rights supporters to 'let Roe die'. Commitment to it, he wrote, 'has been deeply unhealthy for American democracy'. The battle over Supreme Court nominees is likely to become 'an ugly spectacle in which a single narrow issue pushes to the sidelines discussion of a broad array of other important legal questions' and liberals should have faith in the pro-choice majority.

Mind you, we hear the same thing about tossing the "gay rights" support aside as well because it's an election loser. So when is that we should stand our ground? When they come for the Jews, Muslims and atheists? Nah, they're minority/fringe issue election losers too. If only more of those immigrants would become citizens so they could vote for us, then maybe we could have support brown people - screw 'em, they can't help us win an election. . .

The "religious right" has waited for this a long time, they've purchased their power and they plan on using it to its fullest extent

The prospect of a new Supreme Court vacancy has accelerated this campaign. With the blessings of the Bush White House, a team of conservative leaders self-dubbed "the four horsemen" formed in 2002 and has taken over much of the planning for the nomination fight.

These men are C. Boyden Gray, an establishment lawyer who chairs the Committee for Justice; Jay Alan Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice; Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society; and Edwin A. Meese III, attorney general during part of the Reagan administration.

Gray, in an interview, described a battle plan over two years in the making. The Federalist Society will provide research in support of the nominee. A group called Progress for America, which backed the reelection of Bush in 2004, will spend as much as $18 million on radio and television backing Bush's nominee; and the recently created Judicial Confirmation Network, run by a former Bush campaign coalitions director, is setting up a grass-roots network in the states of six key senators.

[snip]

The first goal of the conservatives' newfound organizational power is to pressure Bush to nominate an ideologically acceptable judicial candidate. Perkins said Bush "has committed to nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas." Rush Limbaugh, in his radio broadcast, warned that there "is no longer any room" for a "stealth" nominee without a proven conservative record.

We've all seen the America Dobson, Falwell, the Christian Coalition plan to impose on us. They've ordained the United States as a conservative Christian country with a right to use taxpayer money to proselytize and impose their state religion on non-adherents - even in the privacy of our own homes (common folk have no right to privacy, that was inappropriately granted by a liberal court); they've redefined abortion to include contraception and are willing to support interference in medical care of women because women may have sex without the expressed permission of the religious patriarchy); interjecting their own views as to who is alive/must be kept alive or not vis a vis inconsistent application of medical futility (probably diagnosed via videotape), and have already started proposing legislation aimed at interfering in doctrinal decisions of other denominations/religions.

Contrary to what Brooks & Wittes write, Democracy/American Politics isn't bad because of abortion; it's bad because a a political stream has narrowed the focus of most (if not all) elections to this issue in order to get single issue voter to ignore all other issues (the single issue abortion campaign is not a hallmark of the liberal parties). In other words, the religious right created a political issue out of the personal/medical issues of sex, reproduction and abortion. It worked for them, despite attempts at the left to discuss/debate other issues, and there's no way the Fundagelicals are going to stop beating this horse until they've achived their goal.

As I stated in my comments to Amanda, liberals/progressives/moderates need to get the word out that this isn't just about abortion, it's about the right-wing plan for control and domination under the auspices of protecting their religion from rejection by non-adherents. It's about time the Democrats grow a spine and start doing some "re-framing" of their own. The battle is about civil rights, dignity, privacy & right to self determination (this includes, but is not limited to, the right to make our own sexual, reproductive and medical decisions). Too many people voted against themselves and their families in voting for Bush, they're feeling that burn. Show them what else they stand to lose as a result of their vote last November and they may finally do something to correct their mistake.

Tags: Supreme Court; Politics; Religion; civil rights;abortion; reproductive rights; freedom of religion

Sphere: Related Content

Rovak's folly

Firedoglake is getting excited as chumfest 2005 begins. Jane notes that Bob Novak (you know, the Bush shill that first publicly identified Plame as a covert CIA operative) claimed nobody in the Bush Administration provided him any information regarding her identity and that there was "no great crime" committed. Actually he's wrong, there was a crime and it's one perpetuated by him and, according to credible sources, his buddy Karl Rove. This would not be the first time Novak begun where Rove ended: Rove was fired by Big Daddy's '92 campaign for leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher to Novak.

The Bobster should go to jail, and not for failing to reveal his source (though if he perjured himself by lying as to who his source was, he should be indicted on that as well - or held in contempt for refusing to identify his source). Novak committed a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Part (c) below does not require the person who outs the operative to have obtained the identity from a party authorized to disclose the operative's identity.

Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Tags:Rove; Plame; politics; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Honor; conservatism; robert novak; media

Sphere: Related Content

Rove's big fat mouth finally getting his ass into trouble?

Echidne, FP have updated information PlameGate based on MSNBC correspondent Lawrence O'Donnell's appearance on the McLaughing Group last night and follow up on the Huffington Report today, where he states Rove's involvement has been

"reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week."

Editor & Publisher had what, Echidne says, was a fascintaing article posted for about an hour today.

Adding to the growing intrigue in the Plame case, the grand jury investigating the leak of the covert CIA operative’s name subpoenaed has a wide range of White House documents, including records of telephone calls from Air Force One and information relating to an internal working group dealing with Iraq, government sources confirmed to CNN on Friday.

“We are complying fully with the request from the Department of Justice,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday.

Government sources told CNN the federal grand jury was seeking any information about contacts between White House officials and more than two dozen reporters. The grand jury also asked for a transcript of a briefing by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

The subpoenaed information regarding telephone calls to and from Air Force One, sources said, covered July 7-12, while the president was on a trip to Africa. The requested transcript was from a briefing during that trip as well.

The story has since been replaced with the following

Story posted here for about an hour Saturday afternoon was accurate but out of date and has been pulled from the site. We apologize.

Newsweek contains the Rove story O'Donnell expects

The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House.

[snip]

Initially, Fitzgerald's focus was on Novak's sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

[snip]

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game."

This all seems so much like a heightened flash-back to the late 60s-early 70s to me (only a bit scarier since the government's lies & manipulations in concert with the fundagelicals seems to have intertwined Americana and fascism more closely than previously thought possible - especially if there's (even) more info to substantiate administration fixing the intel to lead to Iraq

Tags:Rove; Plame; politics; Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; Honor; BBA;conservatism

Sphere: Related Content

Love in some sort of action (or not)

More from T, this time another update on the "Love in Action"/"Refuge" facility in Memphis. According to the Washington Blade, Tennessee is now investigating whether LIA is operating without approrpiate licensure.

Turner said that if the program is strictly faith-based it would not require licensing by the state, but that according to the group’s Web site, Love in Action has licensed counselors and provides services related to alcohol and drug addiction on site.

It's a bit of a catch-22 for LIA, which does have one licensed counselor on staff. If this counselor is on staff for the alcohol/drug treatment program, they cannot avoid the state requirement for licensing by claiming to be a faith based ministry; if they claim the counselor is treating clients for "reparative therapy", he is working well outside his realm of expertise.

Legislation giving the health department the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders to unlicensed alcohol and drug treatment facilities goes into effect July 1. Turner said that the health department is considering whether the Love in Action facility is causing harm.

Rachel Lassiter, of Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen’s communications office, said that the Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities has also begun research on Love in Action and is writing a letter of inquiry to the facility to determine whether an official investigation is warranted.

Lassiter said that only licensed professionals should provide mental health care in Tennessee and that the state has an interest in making sure that whatever services are offered are beneficial.

Even a leading proponent of "reparative therapy" has raised concerns about the LIA program mixing ministry with treatment in a manner that can be damaging, emphasizing that a parent can compel a teen to attend church but that a professional counselor is bound to obtain consent (more correctly, it would be assent from the teen in addition to consent from the parents/guardian) to treat a teen and that a counselor "should not treat a minor solely because his parents are upset about his sexual orientation."

click here to search all DF posts related to Zach/LIA

Tags: gay; christian; evangelical; mental health; love in action; reparative therapy

Sphere: Related Content

Clear as a bell

In other interesting health/medicine (and Tom Cruise) news, there are semi-conflicting reports of an FDA announcement regardling labeling changes of amphetamines used to treat ADHD that didn't apear to be posted at the FDA's web-site (at least not yet).

According to a report at Health Day, the pediatric advisory panel was hesitant to recommend class-wide changes in the labeling for the medications until more data based on current data.

A release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Web site noted that members of the Pediatric Advisory Committee, in a meeting Thursday, did not come across any new concerns about psychiatric side effects with Concerta and other methylphenidates, which include Ritalin and Metadate. Panel members also suggested that the FDA wait until more safety data have been collected on two other types of drugs used to treat ADHD -- methamphetamines such as Adderall and the non-stimulant Strattera.

The FDA should "delay the labeling change until they have a good sense of class effect," Acting Committee Chairman Robert Nelson, of The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, told FDA officials during the committee meeting, which was convened by the agency.

"We heard there is no terrible signal," Office of Pediatric Therapeutics Director Dianne Murphy said in the release.

"None of what I have heard today about these medications has made me particularly concerned," committee member Thomas Newman, of the University of California-San Francisco, said in the release.

According to a report at DowJones, the panel suggested the agency should move forward with label changes. Regardless of which reporter understood the gist of the panel's comments, the agency is still considering label revisions to address potential psychiatric side effects to "try to make it clearer what the situation is with regard to certain adverse events." That is, if they're "able to articulate it with certainty."

Tag: health care; medicine;ADHD; FDA ; tom cruise

Sphere: Related Content

Harbinger

Officials in Canada have identified 22 cases of a potentially fatal communicable disease seen primarily in tropical/sub-tropical countries. Lymphogranuloma venereum is a chlamydia infection of the inguinal lymph nodes that is spread through sexual contact. The cases in Canada, like a similar outbreak in the Netherlands last Fall, have been reported in men who have engaged in sexual activities with other men. Initial symptoms usually include a small, painless pimple/lesion on the penis or vagina that can easily go unnoticed. Left untreated, the infection can spread to the lymph nodes in the groin and surrounding areas. While some officials in Canada are calling this the "new AIDS" due to the circumstances of the current outbreakbeing similar to initial reports of what was later identified as infection with HIV, it's important to note that chlamydia is a bacteria treatable with antibiotics.

On the heals of the O'Connor retirement and an emboldened fundagelical movement, expect an increase in homophobic hystrionics and an all too real chance certain unpleasant parts of history may well start repeating themselves despite the fact that civilized people know better.

Tag: gay; STD; health care; medicine

Sphere: Related Content

Fristian Delight: O'Connor announces retirement

As anticipated (and prayed for by the fundagelical community), Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement today. O'Connor is best known as the first female judge on the SCotUS, but was most watched as the key swing vote in many cases that were divided along partisan lines. In preparation for the need to replace justices, the Dems have asked Bush to consult with them on choices of nominees; according to House Majority Dictator Bill Frist, Bush has reached out for suggestions but he warns Democrats on any consideration of utilizing the filibuster

"Senators should treat every nominee with dignity and respect and give them the courtesy of an up-or-down vote. And that includes any potential Supreme Court nominee should there be a vacancy," Frist said.

Last April, Frist has been clear about his stance on the Democrats use of the fillibuster to delay/prevent vote on any nominee considered extreme when Republicans have the votes to confirm that nominee

Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure that the Senate votes on confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees

Over the past 10 years, as I've expressed concern at the exponentially increasing division & antagonism in this country (especially as it pertains to religion and privacy), my brother keeps reminding me how the fringe of the right-wing keeps over-reaching and is pushed back into place when the complacent finally heard the alarm. It worked in the late 70s-early 80s, but they didn't have a stacked deck back then. I do not anticipate Bush to nominate anyone remotely moderate to the Supremes and I do not anticipate too many of the Republicans in Congress will have the guts to stand up to Repubevangelical Leadership.

It's time to stop hitting the snooze button. Without a major overhaul in the mid-term elections that brings us back to some middle ground, we will be far from the United States of America I was told we were when I was growing up.

Update 16:08 - I've checked MSM, the ads are out and talking heads are on (I hate to admit it, the bit of the right-wing ad I saw was kinda funny) and almost all of it is focused on abortion (that focus is shared on both sides). As Terence points out, there's more than abortion at stake. It's a battle of comparative ideologies that gets uglier every day.

The talking heads are now saying that to calm things down a bit, Bush may nominate someone more moderate (not necessarily moderate, just more moderate than someone who is an obvious extremist) and then follow-up with an arch-conservative to replace Rehnquist to repay his debt to Falwell, Dobson, et al. Anyone who values the freedom we have been blessed with in this country (understanding that some here aribtrarily have more freedom than others, but that almost all have more freedom than many outside this country could even begin to imagine) should be praying for cooler heads to prevail. We don't need political placement/ideologues on the court, we need someone whose loyalty truly lies with the consititution and our country. I'd be willling to bet that when Independence Day was first conceived as a holiday, its meaning wasn't lost on the celebrants. Let's hope it's not lost on the warring factions within our country this holiday week-end.

Tags: Supreme Court; Politics; Religion; civil rights

Sphere: Related Content

It's not really a lie if I misspoke, defended my statement and then made an error in. . .

Ah Hell, it's Bush Administration lie #8,962 (give or take) and it was only to show what a truly magnanimous administration his is when it comes to AIDS and Africa at the World Economic Forum last January. During the Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the administration claimed to be assisting in much needed treatment of 32,839 AIDS patients in Botswana. This was news to the folks in Botswana where they'd noted that Bush had promised millions of dollars in aid but hadn't actually sent anything.

The operations manager of Botswana's treatment program, Segolame Ramotlhwa, called the U.S. figures "a gross misrepresentation of the facts." His boss, Patson Mazonde, who as deputy permanent secretary for health services had overseen the program since its inception in 2002, called the Bush claim "false" but suggested it was merely a mistake.

They agreed on the number of patients in Botswana who had been put on treatment because of the Bush program: zero.

The administration, for its part, defended the figures they'd provided in January until last month when they revised the number of patients they help in Botswana to 20,000 that were receiving "significant support" for their AIDS treatment. The folks in Botswana checked again and found the number was more accurately assessed at 0.

According to WaPo, the dispute comes down to how support is defined. The government of Botswana considers support to be financial/medical in nature, the Bush administration includes prayers and good thoughts when calculating its contribution.

The head of the Bush administration's program in Botswana, Peter H. Kilmarx, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said in an interview here in May that he was aware of the upset among the Botswanan officials but that the treatment claims fit within U.S. government guidelines. The definition used for measuring support, he said, had broadened to the point that even assistance as trivial as editing a government health official's speeches could allow the Bush program to say it had supported treatment for everyone receiving antiretrovirals from that nation's public health system.

Tags: Bush; AIDS; Africa; humanitarian aid; politics

Sphere: Related Content