Well....

You may have noticed my blog somewhat inactive as of late. All my time is now devoted to Sum of Change Productions, LLC. So I will no longer be writing here at Left Chattering. I will still be writing, with the Sum of Change news and blog team. I hope you will check it out.

More Thoughts on Abortion Clinic Escort Training from Sum of Change Filmmakers

From Mitch Malasky, Executive Producer at Sum of Change Productions.

The abortion escort session that Will and I went to on Monday was certainly a wake-up call for me. Abortion has never been a top of the list issue for me personally and I had never even heard of clinic escorting until a couple weeks ago, when we met some escorts while shooting a short piece about one of the many vigils for Dr. Tiller. But now, I am 'trained' to become one. I use quotations because, as they told us, we aren't supposed to feel ready to actually go out and escort (and I certainly do not), just more aware of what it is going to entail and why it is necessary. I have always been socially and politically conscious, but I have not actively fought to support an issue often, much less one like abortion. Abortion is always something that I've long had an opinion about, but doesn't directly affect me (at least not yet), and wouldn't the same way it would a woman. There are many other issues that I care deeply about, probably more so than abortion. But what I've learned in the past few weeks has called me to service and caused me to take action.

The class itself was about half men, something I didn't expect. Personally, I find this significant though. Men seem to be the ones who keep making abortion an issue instead of a right, so the fact that men (at least some of us) are taking a stand is important. The class included a lot of history about how abortion protests have developed, how clinic escorting came to be, and how the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF) the group that supervises the escorting and ran the training, came to be. It also gave us a bunch of logistical details, what days and times there is escorting, what to expect from the 'antis' (their term for anti-abortion protesters), and what types of things an escort does. But I am going to focus on two aspects that struck me the most.

The first is that the session was not very hypocritical and wasn't about pushing women to have abortions, but rather to make the best decision. One the things that upsets me the most is the hypocrisy of so called 'pro-lifers' who end lives to prove their point. They want the government to stay out of their own lives, but not the lives of women who are unprepared or medically unfit for motherhood. The pro-choice crowd, on the other hand, believes that it is your decision to make and you should make it. Not once did anyone suggest that you should prevent a potential patient from considering all her options, including those you might not believe in, nor did they tell us that we should encourage women to get the procedure. The escort's only goal is to make sure that the women feel safe, physically and emotionally, to make the decision that makes the most sense for her.

The thing that was most eye awakening to me was a short role play that we did at the end to simulate what actual escorting is like. The role play itself was pretty shotty and low tech, but really made me understand how unnecessarily extra traumatic the experience is. I could feel how close and uncomfortable it can get when you have 10 people swarming around you. We were obviously using very mild language, but I can only imagine how much worse it gets for women when protesters get personal. We ran the simulation three times, and I played all the roles, an escort, an anti, and then a companion accompanying a woman to the clinic. All three attempts were very valuable lessons. As an anti, I could feel how much freedom I had to interfere, to get in the way, to berate my subject and as an escort I discovered what (few) options I had to do my job and how hard it was to actually non-violently protect the women. Most significant to me, however was the final simulation, when I was 'playing' a companion, someone who came in support of a woman getting a procedure. We started very unexpectedly, with very little shift from explaining what we were doing to being in the middle of it, and that abrupt shift I discovered simulates the feeling of being unexpectedly berated from all sides. Even in this safe, un-elaborate, confined, and contrived scenario, I got very nervous and panicky. By the time I got to our 'entrance' to the clinic, I had forgotten all about my friend for whom I was supposed to be a companion and discovered that I had accidentally abandoned her in the mob of antis and escorts. I could tell that if I felt that apprehensive as a fake companion in a contrived scenario, women on their way to clinics must feel exponentially more intimidated.

I am very glad that I went to the class and that we've began to undertake this project. I feel enriched by the experience so far and proud to be taking a stand. Please keep checking back to Sum of Change for blog updates and news about the movie as it gets produced. We appreciate all comments, positive or negative, that could improve our understanding of the issue and our final movie and hope we get your continued support.

Thanks.

Mitch Malasky

Sum of Change Filmmakers Go Through Abortion Clinic Escort Training

From the folks at Sum of Change Productions:

Last night, as part of our research for an upcoming project, Will Urquhart and Mitch Malasky from Sum of Change Productions, attended a training to become abortion clinic escorts. We are in the early stages of a documentary on the work that these escorts do, and the personal stories attached to the job.

We, as a group, decided that volunteering as escorts would not only be a good way to have a direct impact in the struggle to protect women's rights, but that a deep understanding of the nature of escorting would make our documentary that much better. It is always nice when the right thing and the smart thing happen to coincide.

We will be blogging about our experiences with clinic escorting as we go through the process. To get involved, we contacted the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF). WACDTF was founded in the 80's to provide clinics with volunteers, when requested, who can deal with protesters and help patients get to the clinic peacefully. The training session was great. Our instructors went over tactics one can use to resolve a situation non-violently (which I will not detail, for obvious reasons). Many of the tactics are fairly simple, as are many of the conflicts one will come across as an escort. Obviously, there are conflicts that require much more than a training can provide to settle. It appears to be more of an art than a science.

As our instructor told us at the beginning, this training is not going to leave one feeling comfortable. This is neither a comfortable nor easy task. Clinic escorts put themselves in harms way, so that others can be out of harms way. We are excited, and certainly a little nervous. Our first volunteer opportunity should be coming up very shortly and we will be sure to write more about our experiences.

Iran, A World Watching

In what is the largest protest by Iranians since the 1979 revolution, mobs of nonviolent protesters have saturated our tv's and tweetdecks. Nonviolent protests met with violent Iranian authorities or militias. It is both inspiring, and terrifying, to those of us who can, so easily, take for granted our life in the US. Although we are no strangers to stolen elections (see 2000, Bush v Gore), in the United States a stolen election is the outlier, not the norm. Most importantly, these events make one appreciate freedom of speech.

At this moment, what Iranian civilians are saying is putting them in harms way. Authorities are monitoring twitter (one of the only means of communicating outside the country) searching for dissenters. Just to get a message outside of the country requires more internet savvy than I can comprehend. Imagine for a minute, armed men kicking your door down and arresting you because of something you said on twitter.

The movement for change in Iran needs our support more than ever.

Grow the Hope's Hunger Action Team

On Saturday, June 13th, Sum of Change Productions joined volunteers from Grow the Hope's Hunger Action Team who are organizing food drives to help restock the Manna Food Center in Rockville, Maryland. A sign of the economic crisis, supplies are reported to be down by 50%. The Hunger Action Team is a part of a local volunteer organization called Grow the Hope (GTH). GTH was formed by volunteers from the Bethesda Obama Office (the BOO). David Hart, the founder of GTH, said that they are working to "nurture the spark of creativity and hope that came alive during the Obama campaign."

Utilizing the same tactics they used to help elect President Obama, GTH organized house meetings, calling on members of the community to join the Hunger Action Team and take direct actions to combat the food crisis. On June 13th, volunteers gathered at a Giant in Silver Spring, Maryland, with a shopping list. They asked people to buy some extra food; a can of tuna, a box of cereal, some peanut butter. Anything nonperishable.

When President Obama (then candidate) talked about building an organization that lives on past his campaign, this is what he meant. The same strategies that helped forge a campaign for change, often as simple as volunteering some time outside a grocery store, are the same strategies we can use to make real and direct changes in our communities.

You can join Grow the Hope and build a Hunger Action Team in your neighborhood too. I urge you to sign up and ask how you can help.

The Utter Racism

Bigots across the country have found a race that is acceptable in society to be prejudice against; Muslims. This is nothing new, and I doubt even a few of you were surprised at the first sentence. Ever since 9/11, conservatives have been all too giddy to connect every problem, every issue, every everything to terrorism. But seriously!?! These fucking bigots are going to blame the Holocaust Memorial shooting on Muslims?

it is because of Muslims--who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels--that neo-Nazis feel comfortable--far more comfortable!--manifesting their views about Jews.

Everyone got it? Muslims, not secret Muslims but invisible Muslim forces, shot up the Holocaust Memorial, not a white-supremacist. That is how delusional the neoconservatives have become. It has little to do with national security, it is pure racism. That is why Muslim terrorist need to be held off US soil, tortured, without charges, but white supremacists deserve a full and fair trial.

Debbie Schlussel, your opinion on anything relating to Islam, or Muslims in general, no longer counts you bigot.

Tell me this: does anyone believe a white supremacist was influenced in his racism by Muslims? That is what we call well outside the realm of realistic probability. What is far more likely, is that the rapid increase of chatter at white supremacist websites made this man more "comfortable" acting out his hatred.

PS: It was not long ago I was writing about the racist war on terror re: Redstate.com.

NY Times Correction, More Reasons Young People Don't Read Newspapers

The New York Times ran an article titled "1 in 7 freed detainees rejoins fight, report says" which I used to explain a major reason young people do not read newspapers. The article regurgitated a claim by the Pentagon without the slightest bit of questioning or investigative journalism. I, and many others, questioned the legitimacy of this claim, but the reporters that brought us the news did not. Today they had to clarify.

But the article on which he based that statement was seriously flawed and greatly overplayed. It demonstrated again the dangers when editors run with exclusive leaked material in politically charged circumstances and fail to push back skeptically.

And Jill Abramson, the managing editor for NY Times' news, went on...

Abramson said, “The whole game of leaks can be problematical if you aren’t given a document or the time to look at it in a full way.”

Ah yes. No document to back up the claims. This is a completely ridiculous excuse. Two days after the article first appeared, I contacted the Pentagon to ask for a clarification of how they determine whether or not a detainee has rejoined the fight. I received this pdf, which clearly demonstrates that the 1 in 7 number was an "unverified" statistic.

The lack of truth (the lies), in this article were not due to the pentagon withholding the relevant "document" at all. In fact, the Pentagon was more than willing to provide a document relating to the news. And had they bothered to read the document, they would have seen this part:

Definition of “Suspected” — Significant reporting indicates a former Defense Department detainee is involved in terrorist activities, and analysis indicates the detainee most likely is associated with a specific former detainee or unverified or single-source, but plausible, reporting indicates a specific former detainee is involved in terrorist activities.

"Unverified"

In other words, the entire point of the article, the title, was unverified. And yet, the investigative journalists, that we are supposed to bend over backwards saving, did not even take the time to ask for relevant documents. They were not given to them, so they assumed they did not exist. That is why I laugh in the face of anyone that says the death of the newspaper means the death of investigative journalism.

The New York Times needs to run another clarification:

We did not bother to take the time to ask questions of the Pentagon, or to even ask how they determine that a detainee has returned to the fight. Instead, we took the lazy way out. We ran with what they gave us. We owe better than that to our readers.

This Was Fun, the Celebrate-Ignorance-Conservative

So, I'm on twitter. Just messin' around with the good old #tcot folks (if you don't know what that means, google "hashtags"). Anywho, I get into one discussion like so:



A simple question. If you claim that waterboarding saves lives, any rational person would assume that you have seen some type of evidence to lead you to that conclusion. But there you underestimate the power of the celebrate-ignorance-conservative. This is in no way directed at all conservatives, just the 21%'ers. The real whacko, neocon, gone crazy from losing to Obama, crowd. And the conversation continues:



Still yet to provide one piece of evidence to back up the claim. Just another claim that he or she "could" provide more evidence that torture saves lives than I could about abortion saving lives. Evidence #1. There. Me: 1. Jackass: 0 as of yet.




So classic. The celebrate-ignorance-conservative will be quick to straight out lie about what he just said. The statement was not, in any way, that interrogation saves lives. And then, this:




So nice. You would have thought that this person would walk away, conceding my point. But no. Alas, the celebrate-ignorance-conservative will just delve farther into nonsense when proven wrong.



And more nonsense:



And then, the explosion of nonsense.



So let's get this straight:

Water torture saves lives. No wait. I didn't say that. I said interrogation saves lives. Fine. Interrogation saves lives, water torture doesn't. Well wait. Water torture, is interrogation, so it does save lives. (sticks fingers in ears) BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!

This Was No Lone Nut, Dr Tiller's Assassination Was Orchestrated

I came across a blog today, An Email About George Tiller's Killer (Non-Obscene for the Kids). This email tears right into the claim that Mr Roeder was a psycho, acting completely on his own, without the backing of any organized group.

According to papers Roeder filed today, his possessions amount to a 16yr.-old Taurus and $10, and he only works occasionally at minimum-wage jobs. Yet he managed to finance several 400-mile round trips to Wichita from the KC area in the last month to case the church and know Dr. Tiller by sight, bought a handgun, gas and meals etc.

You see? There had to be funding. I have done plenty of long distance driving, and 400 mile trips are not free.

Somebody had to put him up to it, help him plan it and pay his expenses, and will now feed him to the sharks. Hopefully, and maybe with a bit of psych help, he will realize how he was used and name names.

We can only hope. But for now, the FBI is investigating the murder. I imagine the money trail will certainly be one of their focuses. Operation Rescue, and the other groups he was a part of, have been broiling this guy up with their hate speech directed towards Dr. Tiller. That is something that is very difficult to prove guilt in court. Funding, on the other hand, makes them an accomplice and conspirator. We will be sure to follow this one.

Hat-tip to Cody Kessler (Cody_K) for bringing this to my attention.

Coverage of the Vigil in DC to Honor Dr. George Tiller, Call to Action

On Monday, June 1st, people in DC and the surrounding areas assembled outside the White House for a vigil in honor of Dr George Tiller. Sum of Change Productions was there to document the occasion and brings us this video:



"We will not stand for cowards who resort to violence."

Dr Tiller touched many lives, and this vigil, or any, will never fully repay all that he gave to society. In most MSM outlets he is referred to as an "abortion doctor" although anyone who knows anything about him knows full well that he was far more than that. He cared for women and families, and provided them with many services, often when few others would. His assassination was "cowardice" and we shall treat it as so.

We want to take a moment to thank all the clinic workers and clinic escorts, they have lost a colleague, and our nation has lost a hero. Clinic escorts provide a valuable service. As the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF) puts it, they "ensure a peaceful and reassuring presence for patients, their companions, and staff, at several local clinics." It is a wonderful way that you personally can take action on this issue. People in the DC area can contact the WACDTF if you would like to volunteer. Others should contact your local clinic.

And do not forget, you can always contribute to the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF). The NNAF was formed in 1993. It is a "network of over 100 grassroots groups in more than 40 states that help women pay for abortion services." If you can spare, now is as important a time as ever to do so.

Lastly: Thank you Dr George Tiller for your years of service and dedication, you will be missed.

Spare Me Your "Values"

You just have to watch this video:

Sometimes I Wonder if the Pilgrims Made a Mistake Fleeing Britain

Between the universal health care and the strict gun control, sometimes I wonder if splitting from the UK was the best idea. And then there's this:

The tribunal ruled that a "heterosexuals only" policy in the adoption field of the Catholic Church in England and Wales would fall foul of the ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation brought in two years ago.

Well done England. If only we could recognize the pure bigotry that is so blatant amongst our own religious "charities," let alone non-religious charities.

This decision is due to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, which came into effect in 2007. Essentially, this act says what anyone with intelligence should know, that it is wrong to discriminate, on any grounds, against someone because of the person's sexual orientation. It would be beautiful, and something I know we will not see anytime soon, if the US could follow suit and pass our own act protecting the rights of homosexuals.

Redstate.com Proves Their War on Terror is Racist

Redstate.com has, on its front page, an article titled; Obama Silent on First Terror Attack Since 9/11. If you are like me, you thought, wait, how did I miss this? Rather than provide a link to their site, here's a picture of the post:

So, Mark Impomeni, openly admits that when it comes to fighting the war on terror, he is completely okay with being racist. White man guns someone down for the purposes of installing fear in his political and religious opponents, crime. Non-white man guns someone down for the purposes of installing fear in his political and religious opponents, terror. If they wonder why there is a perception that the far right in this country is blatantly racist, look no farther.

The assassination of Dr. George Tiller absolutely was terrorism. It is ignorant and racist to claim that it doesn't count because the suspect "is not a terrorist of the kind that the United States has been fighting since the September 11th attacks." Although he is right about one thing. We haven't been fighting this kind of terrorist since September 11th, they've been around for a lot longer.

Just disgusting.

Anti-War Groups Don't Pull an Operation Rescue

Operation Rescue's response to the murder of Dr. Tiller will surely go down as one of the most heartless responses to a tragedy.

"George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder."

Very classy. I am sure the family is glad to hear how "concerned" you are. Just imagine if a liberal, anti-war group said the same thing about this recent tragedy (which is a complete tragedy)

"I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use this recruiter's killing to intimidate anti-war activists into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.

Michelle Malkin would have a field day with that one. And rightly so. It would be one of the most heartless responses to a tragedy.

Good thing anti-war groups are decent enough, or at least smart enough, not to say something so heartless and unnecessary.

Another Diggin-Your-Hole-Deeper Day for the GOP

Well, wow. The last couple days have been..... just...... wow. I mean, seriously. Yesterday, we had New Gingrich twittering from Auschwitz, aka, really lowering the bar. Now we get this gold mine from Rush Limbaugh:


Tom Tancredo, self proclaimed foe of diversity and multiculturalism, was asked whether or not President Obama hates white people today, to which he replied, "I don't know." Which is not to say that Tancredo believes President Obama hates white people, he just does not believe that President Obama does not hate white people. Totally different, if you are an ignoramus.

But let us, for some ridiculous reason, actually look into this claim. Does Obama hate white people? Hmmph. Let's see. His Vice President is white. His Chief of Staff is white. His Secretary of Defense is white. His Secretary of State is white. His Secretary of the Treasury is white. I think you see where this is going. A lot of people in his administration are white, plenty of them male too.

I think he really does hate white people. Let's keep digging.

Ohhhhh wait. His mother is white. His grandparents, on his mother's side, are white. Doesn't that make him white?

It is a blatant statement about yourself when you think someone who is half black, half white, probably hates white people. You might want to think before speaking from now on.

So You Think You Know What Affirmative Action Is

Earlier today, I wrote a post about affirmative action. EFerrari over at Democratic Underground responded with this personal story that elegantly makes the point I attempted to make:

In my case, I was a Latina that grew up in a household just holding its own around the poverty line. No one at my high school ever talked to me about college even though I was in the top 1% of my class. Heck, *I* didn't even know that until years later because my future was so scripted for me -- I'd drop a few kids and maybe go type somewhere if they'd have me. That's true. I didn't have any burning awareness of the way we were routed at the time.

But, after only dropping 1 kid, lol, I knew I couldn't type the rest of my life and stay sane. So, I took some more classes at our JC and then applied to Berkeley. And the only reason I applied there was that they had access to AA grants and loans. In other words, that was really the only campus I had any hope of going to that I could afford. I brought my academic record and they responded by giving me a few grants and access to a few good loans. No one pushed me forward because of my gender or my ethnicity, they pushed me forward because of my record. All they were doing was helping me stay in school once I showed that I could produce.

I was one of two Latinos in my grad school class, and one of three students of color and one of two students over 30 -- all in a class of 19. I don't see how we can take over the world at that rate, so everyone should just relax. Especially given all the time we spend filling out forms and interviewing and writing to committees to get the money we need just to do something easy like stay in grad school.

Affirmative Action isn't about putting unqualified people in better positions. It's about not wasting qualified people. About retaining them and helping them position themselves where the benefit is not only to themselves but to the community. Now, there's a thought.

As usual, the Republicans have inverted what Affirmative Action means and are getting away with it.

Thank you EFerrari.

Rush Limbaugh Declares that the US is a Center Left Nation

Oh happy days, happy days. Rush Limbaugh, the acknowledged leader of the Republican Party has announced the death of my least favorite conservative talking point, that our nation is a center right nation.

Most of us liberals never really believed it, yet conservatives, so nonchalantly, continued to claim our nation is center right and that the Democrats are far too left for most Americans. It hurt my ears every time I heard it. So you will understand if I dance for glory a little today.


Apparently, according to Rush Limbaugh, conservatives are a minority in this country. Which means, by definition, that we are not a center right nation. It is not possible for the nation to be conservative, if conservatives make up a minority of the people. So let us celebrate today, Wednesday May 27th as the day that the Republican party officially declared we are a center left nation.

A big hat tip goes out to Media Matters, and Markos for pointing it out to me.

Just Shut the F*ck Up

I swear to, well, who or whatever, that if I hear one more conservative say that the 2008 election is proof that we do not need affirmative action, I am going to tear my hair out. Of course, with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, the conservatives are all giddy about this chance to yell at minorities about how horrible life is for white males. "White men need not apply" they scream. So let's have at it.

Yes, the Sotomayor pick is affirmative action. President Obama picked a female, and a hispanic one at that, and those traits surely played a role in his choice. I am going to state, right now, that that is a good thing. It is good that our President intentionally chose a hispanic female. As to the "White men need not apply" meme; it is not that white men need not apply, it is that, for the last couple centuries, the sign read "All but white men need not apply."

Now on to the claim that the 2008 elections demonstrated that our country no longer needs affirmative action. First off, the vast majority of the people making this claim never supported affirmative action to begin with. They do not think we no longer need it, they never wanted it at all. Let us forget that for a moment, and discuss the validity of this claim. First thing conservatives say is, "President Obama proves that anyone can make it in America." They forget one thing. That is, that President Obama says himself that he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” And he did. The only reason he could afford to go to such fantastic universities is because of a strong student loan program and partial scholarships. And while these loans and scholarships did not make him who he is, to claim he did not "benefit" from them is ubsurd. And it is a non sequitur to argue that because President Obama achieved much, affirmative action is no longer needed. Just because A is true, it does not necessarily mean B is true. The only thing President Obama's story should tell us, is that affirmative action can actually do exactly what it is intended to do: help minorities take steps towards more success.

Now on to Sotomayor and the predictable conservative outcry that she was chosen only because she is a minority. This claim, is complete crap. It is the regurgitation of the unsubstantiated conservative meme that all affirmative action choices are made solely because of race or gender. I will try to state this as plainly and directly as possible: Affirmative action is not about promoting unqualified minorities, rather, it is about intentionally seeking out qualified minorities, in an effort to correct past mistakes.

Sotomayor is absolutely a qualified candidate. In fact, she is possibly the most credentialed SC nominee in my lifetime. She was chosen beacuse she is qualified. Her race did play a role in this choice, but her credentials were the priority.

Spare Me Your Strict Interpretation of the Law

Nate Kennedy had some great commentary on a leaked memo of GOP talking points. Of course, this memo contained the most traditional GOP talking point, that they believe:

judges should interpret rather than make law...

Yes, yes. We all know, that Republicans think anyone who is progressive is completely incapable of interpreting the law. They even have the nerve to act as if this train of thought is common knowledge, mainstream.

And for some reason, we never seem to ask what a person's interpretation of the law actually is. Yes, judges should interpret the law not make it. That is what judges do, whether progressive or conservative. It is merely a distraction to discuss whether or not a person will interpret the law. We must discuss how that person will interpret law.

Frankly, I find it hilarious that Republicans have the balls to talk all high and mighty about interpreting the law.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo, "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with "Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...", to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

So the party of "Yes You Can (crush his testicles)" is going to talk down to me about interpreting the law? You have to wonder where these people learn so well to ignore fact and reason.

Why Do Republicans Hate Involved Citizens

It is game time again, and this time, our team is home. The GOP's attacks on President Obama's supreme court nominee were obvious well before a name was chosen. BLANK is an activist judge. BLANK believes in rewriting the constitution. BLANK will legislate from the bench.

Let's discuss this term, "activist." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as:

a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue

Dictionary.com defines it as:

–noun

1.	an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause.

–adjective

2.	of or pertaining to activism or activists: an activist organization for environmental concern.

3.	advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause: Activist opponents of the President picketed the White House.

So, an activist, is anyone that believes strongly in an issue and actually gets off their ass to do something to make real the change they want to see in the world. Sounds horrible. How dare President Obama nominate someone who actually had the nerve to be an involved citizen!

Wait a minute... Should we be discouraging civic involvement? Should we be sending the message to our youths that they should think twice before getting involved in their community? GOP, please listen up for a second. If you would like to attack her, attack the issues she was active on, not the fact that she was active. Being an activist is the oldest American tradition. It is supposed to be a positive thing. Our founding fathers were activists and community organizers. So please spare me the shit.

Why is it, that the Republicans would want a disengaged public? Do they? I mean, they loved the "grassroots" (google "astro-turf organizing") teabaggers, didn't they? It is not that they are against, or in support of, real activists. They really do not care. All they care about is winning the argument. When their people are in the streets, yelling at the President, that is patriotism. When our side is in the streets, yelling at the President, we should move to Europe.

Now, on to legislating from the bench. Every progressive should know this one fact.

But a 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder showed that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Those most frequently labeled "liberal" were the least likely to strike down statutes passed by Congress.

What is the definition of legislating from the bench if it is not ruling in opposition to the legislature? The point is, the GOP does not actually give a shit about "legislating from the bench." They just absolutely hate any ruling that would be considered progressive, or, gasp, liberal. To the GOP, a progressive ruling is legislating from the bench.

So, how about we take these attacks for what they are, shallow, unsubstantiated, insincere, and so on, and so on....

Check Back Tuesday

I just wanted to let any visitors know that there will not be anything new on this blog until Tuesday.  While I am enjoying a weekend at the beach, I am doing my best to disconnect myself, I haven't even looked at my blackberry all day.  Anyways, check back tuesday, but until then, assume I am relaxing with a beer, by the pool, without even looking at a computer.

Peace.

Pentagon Responds to My Request for Definition of "Rejoins Fight"

On Wed, May 20th, the New York Times ran an article, which MSNBC put on its website, about an unreleased Pentagon report that claims about 1 out of every 7 released detainees have "returned to terrorism or militant activity." I had one immediate concern after reading the article and that was that it never defined the term; rejoins fight. I contacted the Pentagon this morning, requesting a definition, and just received this pdf.

Definitions for Confirmed and Suspected Cases

Definition of “Confirmed” — A preponderance of evidence—fingerprints, DNA, conclusive photographic match, or reliable, verified, or well-corroborated intelligence reporting—identifies a specific former Defense Department detainee as directly involved in terrorist activities.

Definition of “Suspected” — Significant reporting indicates a former Defense Department detainee is involved in terrorist activities, and analysis indicates the detainee most likely is associated with a specific former detainee or unverified or single-source, but plausible, reporting indicates a specific former detainee is involved in terrorist activities.

If you are like me, one line stands out, glaringly:

unverified or single-source, but plausible, reporting indicates a specific former detainee is involved in terrorist activities.

So let's take this number for what it is, unverified.

Why Don't Republicans Support Our Service Men and Women?

The prison guards in the United States of America are some of the best prison guards in the world. They take on an extremely difficult job, knowing full well the dangers it brings with it. They are honorable, dedicated, and talented. So why is it that Republicans continue to demonstrate their blatant hatred for out elite force of prison guards? Every time that these Republicans say our prison guards are not capable of holding terrorists, it is an attack on our service men and women.

Is that not what they would say to us? Is that not what they do say to us, about the military? When we say, "There is no military solution in Iraq, pull our troops out." They say, Democrats do not support the troops.

"When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called 'slow bleeding,' they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining them," Cheney said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Right. When members of Congress try to end a war, using the only means available to them, they do not support the troops. Hell, Michelle Malkin has an entire "They don't support the troops" category at her website.

What would they say, if we said that every time they claim our prisons cannot hold terrorists, they "slime" our prison guards?

Michelle Malkin Does Not Want Muslims In Jail

Michelle Malkin, in today's column, chastises President Obama for daring to hold Muslim terrorists in US prisons. This comes after the arrests of four homegrown terrorists. A plot that was foiled by a traditional FBI investigation, not by torture or warrentless wiretapping. A plot that was foiled over a year, not on a ticking-time-bomb. She argues that holding these men in US prisons allows the "virus" of terrorism, no wait, Muslim terrorism, to spread like wildfire.

Before I get into the meat of this argument, I would just like to give Malkin a grammar tip. When you have multiple adjectives describing a single noun, as in, "murder-minded black Muslim jailhouse converts..." commas are required in between adjectives. I know, it is so hard to use proper grammar with all that oozy hatred spewing out of your mouth.

I have long argued that the chickenhead warhawks of our nation seem utterly obsessed with Muslims. Where was Malkin when this happened:

Federal Agents arrested a former National Guardsman for allegedly planning to blow up a synagogue and a National Guard armory in Tennessee.

The only difference between this terrorism and the type that Malkin thinks has no place in our jails, is that this terrorist was white and Christian. Malkin misses, however, one major issue.

FBI Special Agent R. Joe Clark said, “Mr. Braden represents the most difficult kind of terrorist - the lone wolf.”

But that kind of terrorism is okay to have in our jails. That kind of terrorist is not a threat to hummanity in our prisons. Only the, black, Muslim, jailhouse converts (see how easy it was to use those commas), not the white, Christian, neo-Nazi, National Guard converts, are dangerous.

Oh, and as to Malkin's criticism about President Obama not talking more about this, where was she all those numerous times the Republicans refused to talk about an ongoing investigation? Is it at all possible that President Obama is waiting for all to be said and done before needlessly commenting on what appears to be a successful investigation?

How Many Innocents Must Pay To Lock Up One Terrorist?

cross-posted at DailyKos

The Pentagon, in an unreleased report, is claiming that one out of every seven Guantanamo detainees have "rejoined" the fight. I wrote about how they neglect to define the term "rejoin fight" and how the Pentagon has grossly embellished this statistic in the past. However, let us, for a moment, assume that this number is completely accurate.

Let us forget that if we released them, we cannot really say they are "rejoining" the fight because we clearly never knew for a fact they were part of the fight to begin with. Let us just accept this number as accurate. That means, that for up to seven years, we kept six innocent people locked away indefinitely, possibly tortured, for every one terrorist. Think about that for a moment, I can wait....

Done? Great. Now think about if we applied that same mentality to any other crime. When our founding fathers created certain rights, like habeas corpus, they knew that we would inevitably let some guilty men go free. And we all know that happens. We all hear stories of criminals going free due to some technicality. That is a hard truth. Yet there was a deep and noble principal that stood behind it. A principal that, we would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man lose his freedom. It was a courageous principal, based on a notion that we must protect the individual right to freedom by all means.

Our founding fathers were not incompetent. They knew full well the consequences of their actions. Yet today, we treat those principals as naive. They are addorable, quaint notions that do not take into account the harsh realities of the world we live in. Crap. It is always the realpolitiks that claim the realistic high ground. Rather, it is naive to believe you can protect individual rights while throwing them out the window when it gets a little scary. I will conclude with this question my father posed to me:

How many innocents are we willing to lock up in order to put away one terrorist? Is it six? Becuase that is what we have done, at the lowest possible estimation.

This Is Why Young People Don't Read Newspapers

Recently, I wrote about how important the difference between sourcing and linking is to young people. I wrote about how skeptical my generation is, how we are never surprised to find politicians, journalists, teachers, anyone, lying to us. I wrote about how linking to sources provides our skepticism with somewhere to go. This article on MSNBC's website is the perfect example.

This article asserts that "many detainees rejoin fight" without ever taking the time to define the term "rejoin fight." It credits, or sources, the appropriate people, but does not provide a single link to these sources. So the article carries absolutely no weight, whatsoever. If we do not know how the Pentagon determines that an individual has rejoined the fight, well, we really cannot make up our own mind as to whether or not that claim is true.

This is why I feel so passionately about linking to sources. In this case, it appears that this report is unreleased as of yet. Clearly, this is simply a journalist reporting on what the Pentagon says. This journalist did not take the time to ask the Pentagon to clarify what rejoining the fight means. Is this that awesome investigative journalism I keep hearing about? Is this the standard that I am supposed to save? Give me a break. This article is pure propaganda. I am predicting, right now, that this term includes things like; he met someone that might be a terrorist in a bar, he wrote something for a newspaper that was anti-American, he gave a speech chastising the US for torture, and so on, and so on...

They did it before...

three of the former detainees included in one of the 43 reports were described as having "returned to the battlefield" because they were in a documentary about Guantanamo, as well as five who were included because their lawyer wrote a letter to the editor about Guantanamo and two who had never even been in Guantanamo

If You Want Us to Start Snitching, Lead the Way

Warning, this video is not suitable for everyone. Please use caution, it contains extreme violence.



When I am incredibly sick of is that we never, ever, ever, ever hear about police officers arresting one of their own when they commit a crime. Every single cop that was at this scene is guilty of breaking the law, and have failed to live up to their oath; serve and protect. Imagine, for an instance, that those police were just civilians. Imagine civilians had chased a man down, flipped his car, then beat him brutally while he was already unconscious. Every single one of them would be charged with a crime. Those that had not hit the man would be charged as accomplices for helping the others to flee the scene of a crime and for neglecting to inform the appropriate authorities.

The one thing we do know, is that every police officer that was there knew what happened and kept quiet. We all have heard police officers ranting against those "stop snitching" gangsters, especially if you ever watch John Walsh from America's Most Wanted. Their attempts to squash the stop snitching calls have been utterly futile. And it is for one reason only. Police routinely refer to Internal Affairs as the "rat pack." If police officers want civilians to start "snitching" they should lead by fucking example!

The Difference Between Crediting and Linking

As I watched Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, on MSNBC talking about Maureen Dow's recent plagiarism, it reminding me of something my father and I were talking about recently. I have been itching to write something on the death of newspapers, as I believe they are dying. We are watching them die. They are dying for one reason, and one reason only, the newspaper is an outdated method of bringing information to an individual. To many, this seems as natural as the death of the typewriter after the development of computers. Yet to many others, this is equivalent to the death of investigative journalism.

That is what they tell us. They tell us that only in a newspaper do we receive quality, local, investigative journalism. And somehow, this has become an accepted truth. Maybe it is just the MSM standing up for other MSM, but we should not blindly accept this assumption. We should not assume that it is improbable, let alone impossible, that television, radio, and, gasp, web journalists can provide quality investigative journalism. The acceptance of this assumption is a statement about our society, that we are resigned to a main stream media that brings us gossip instead of news. What I wonder about all these people that feel we need to stand up and save the newspapers to save investigative journalism is; what have you done to demand good journalism from television, radio, and web journalist?

My father and I were talking about this and he related this story to me. 'Me and my golf buddies were talking about the newspapers. They brought up that argument, and I said to them, that's crap. When you read a newspaper you get one source, when I go online for news I have infinite sources.' This topic of sources is so vitally important, and relevant to the Dowd controversy. As Markos stated, bloggers are incredibly stringent on sourcing. When we read blogs with quotes and no links, we immediately take a step back. We demand links. We demand sources.

Something Markos did not talk about, however, is the difference between crediting, or sourcing, and linking. When you read a newspaper, they may quote a United Nations resolution, and credit it appropriately. You can, later, dig up that source to see for yourself. On a blog, on the other hand, you do not just get a source name, you get a link. You can, right then and there, open that source and see it for yourself. What that allows us to do, is find out whether or not the author is taking something out of context.

As a young person, I can tell you that my generation has grown up skeptical of everyone and everything. My father used to tell me how surprised they were to find that they had been lied to about Vietnam. My generation is never surprised when we are lied to. That is status quo for us. My generation, coincidentally, is also reading newspapers less than all older age groups. I do not think our skepticism is why we do not read newspapers. We do not read them because, as I stated previously, a newspaper is an outdated method for receiving information. However, newspapers are not capable of fulfilling what we look for, in some part, because of our skepticism.

Our skepticism, however, makes us perfect for blogs and website journalists. With linking, instead of merely crediting, our skepticism has somewhere to go. And linking, is something that newspapers will never be able to do. When the NYTimes newspaper quotes a source to me, they will never be able to deliver, right then and there, the entire source for me to see myself. Maybe you do not see the importance of linking as I do. Maybe you are more trusting then I am. I find, however, that on both sides of the isle, taking quotes out of context is status quo. Chery picking quotes is status quo. Sourcing does little to help, but linking may be the key. If you know that your readers can instantly see the source you are quoting, you are more likely to take the extra effort to make sure your quote is ethical.

Water Torture, Not Water Boarding

I want to thank Devilstower (Mark Sumner) from DailyKos, for pointing something out to me today.

In 2004 the CIA first used the term "water boarding" as a joke on surf boarding. Before that it was called simply "water torture. "

And it is true, not sure about the joke on surf boarding, but the timing is accurate. Wikipedia has a somewhat extensive description of the etymology of the term "water boarding."

While the techniques involved in waterboarding have been used for centuries, the use of the phrase "waterboarding" to describe such techniques is a relatively recent phenomenon.

The first use of the term "water boarding" in the media was in a New York Times article of May 13, 2004:

In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as 'water boarding', in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.

The American attorney Alan Dershowitz is reported to have been responsible, two days later, for shortening the term to a single word – "waterboarding" – in a Boston Globe article where he stated: "After all, the administration did approve rough interrogation methods for some high valued detainees. These included waterboarding...

So, I have an idea. From now on, we refer to this technique as what it is, "Water Torture." This is not to make it sound worse, rather, we should make it sound exactly as bad as it is. Next time you hear someone use the term "water boarding," please be sure to to enlighten them.

Conservatives for Patients' Rights? You Are Kidding, Right?

Like most of you, probably, I have become increasingly sick of the commercials being aired by the CPR talking, almost exclusively, about waiting lines in Canada. What this group has done, is highlighted some cases of people who were let down by a "Government run" health care system. I am not going to argue whether or not those people were let down, let us assume they were. Not a single, that is right, not a single universal health care advocate claims that a universal system would be perfect. We know, that occasionally, people will be let down by their health care system, regardless of what system that is.

So where this conversation should really be held, is on the basis of which system lets down fewer people, and which system does so fairly. For instance, conservatives love to bring up the waiting lines in Canada as a major reason not to switch to a single-payer system. First off, it is a myth that waiting lines in Canada are worse than in the US. If your procedure is urgently needed, it is provided. Only elective surgeries are put on hold in order to take care of the urgent needs first. And you know what? Waiting lines in the US do not include all the people that never get in line because they have no insurance and know they will not get care. Simply put, waiting lines in the US, if you include those people, are probably far worse than in Canada. The only difference is that someone went around our waiting line and said, "All those with lots of money, please come to the front." Our lines are based on who can afford the procedure, Canada's are based on who needs it most.

For every person the CPR finds who is unhappy with a "Government run" health care system, we can find 50, or 100, who are unhappy with ours. And there is one thing that is more telling than any personal story whatsoever, and that is the numbers. So please, go do some research. Check out how much money per capita we spend on health care compared to Canada, or the UK, or, gasp, France. Check out how many people we have uninsured compared to them (hint: they're number is infinitely closer to zero than ours is). Check out what percentage of our uninsured are working full time. Check out where our nation, the most prosperous in the world, stands on life expectancy. Check out where we stand on infant mortality rates. I am not going to give you these statistics because I want you to google them. It is that easy. Literally search "Where does the US stand on life expectancy compared to other nations?" You'll get plenty of results.

UPDATE: Thanks go out to pkdu over at democraticunderground.com for pointing out this tidbit of information about the CPR spokesman and the health care company he created:

which company did he create ? Columbia/HCA

and what fine did Columbia/HCA pay in Dec 2000 " pleaded guilty to criminal conduct and paid out $840m in criminal fines, civil penalties and damages for alleged unlawful billing practices in what the US government described as 'the largest government fraud settlement ever reached by the Justice Department'."
http://www.againstcorruption.org/briberycase.asp?id=841

This astroturf frontman should be thanking his lucky stars every day he's not in prison.

That makes perfect sense. If you are planning on convincing American's of the "horrors" of universal health care, you need someone that knows a thing or two about defrauding the general public. Also, if you read the link, this guys hatred for the British health care system might have something to do with the fact that his company was one of the bidders to be a part of it, they just lost the bid.

Abstinence Works 100% of the Time... Almost

100% of the time. That's the claim made by one of those beloved freepers, and backed up by several posters. And they are right, abstinence works 100% of the time, if you do not count all those that were taught abstinence only and ignored it. I should cough here, and under my breath mutter, "Bristol Palin."

This poster goes on to quote the World Health Organization (I should note that he/she failed to provide a link to the source so readers can see for themselves). The WHO says that, with perfect use of a condom, the pregnancy rate is "is 3 percent at 12 months." The WHO does not clarify, but my interpretation of that statistic is that after 12 months of sexual activity (which is not defined) there is a 3% chance that your condom has failed. The poster left out the 12 months part. Mostly because he/she was trying to say that every 30 times you have sex, based on that 3%, your condom has failed once. If fact, this poster went even further:

That means by the 30th time, the couple that uses condoms “perfectly” have already conceived or will do so very soon!

That is false. In fact, it is a complete and utter lie. Not only does it completely ignore the 12 months phrasing, but a condom failing does not mean you have conceived. Ask any couple having trouble conceiving.

However, we can leave that alone. We progressives never, ever, ever, ever, ever claimed condoms to be 100% effective. And we have never argued that abstinence is not the most effective step you can take to ensure you will not get, or get someone else, pregnant, or transmit an STD. Nor have we ever argued that abstinence should not be a part of any sexual education plan. What we progressives really want is a comprehensive sexual education plan that states abstinence as the most effective method of preventing pregnancy and STD's, but informs our youths of the steps one can take to minimize the risk if partaking in sexual activity. Notice my specific phrasing, "minimize the risk." We are not anti-abstinence, we are just not stupid enough to believe abstinence only is enough.

Rather, it is the conservatives, really just the neoconservatives and the religious right, that want factual and relevant information denied to our young.

I Should Be Getting Laid More

Cross-posted at DailyKos

By now, we have all heard about Miss California's remarks on gay marriage. While I completely disagree with her belief on this issue, this is an opportunity to engage the nation, and many people that might not otherwise be engaged, in a serious discussion about the suffering, and the hopes, of American homosexuals.

I find this topic hinges on one major point: is homosexuality a choice?

They, as in the homophobic movement, tell us it is. That is why, they say, you cannot compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement in the 60's and 70's. They say, "It's different. You are born black, or brown, or white, or whatever, but you choose to be gay."

This, of course, begs the immediate question of, "When did you choose to be straight?" Think about yourself, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. If you are straight, you're not attracted to everyone of the opposite sex right? And at least once, in your lifetime, you thought someone was pretty fucking hot and your best friend thought your were nuts, right? Or maybe your friend thought someone was hot who you would not ever touch? But that's just physical attraction.

When we get into personal attraction the divide grows larger. You and your friend will likely disagree more often on who is personally attractive. And you definitely do not choose. You do not decide, out of nowhere, "Well, I really hate this person, and I find him/her ugly, but I think we'll get married." Okay, okay, gold diggers. Sure, but that's considered immoral isn't it? Are we not taught by our parents, our teachers, our role models, that we should marry the person we love? Not the person with money, or power, or fame. Not the person that will make your life easier.

What we are asking homosexuals to do, if they wish to get married, is to choose who they are attracted to both physically and personally. This is asking an unfair burden. This is asking a burden that is not asked of heterosexuals, any longer. It is segregation. And the truly disgusting side effects of this government sanctioned segregation are; the people who feel their hatred affirmed, the beatings, the murders, the rapes, the barrage of insults and humiliation, that often lead to suicide.

All this, because some people think that homosexuals choose to be that way, because they believe it is acceptable to hate something they deem a choice.

So, I will end with this. If it truly is a choice who you are attracted to, I should be getting laid way more than I do. If only I could choose to be attracted to anyone, I would never have to go without. Sadly, that is not the way the world works. I do not get to choose who I am attracted to.

Redstate, This is Exactly Why You Keep Losing

This is redstate.com's quote of the day on Tuesday:

“Most of the legislature is elected by a collection of enviro-twits, trust-funders, crybabies, welfare garbage and nudists.”

That's a front page post by Skanderbeg.

The fact is, the people they are talking about are what we call voters. They are mostly average people. The conservatives absurd love for "America" is only trumped by their yet more absurd hatred for the American people. This disdain has become increasingly blatant. Whether it be condescension directed towards common working men, especially union workers, or the hateful comments about anyone living near a major city, conservatives have demonstrated their belief that only rich, white, men are capable of intelligence and sound work ethics.

I say, keep it up. On a day when your blog was littered with stories about driving a Senator into the Democratic party's arms, you displayed exactly the reason for us to find easily.

Republicans Now Support Torture Prosecutions

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.):

What's at stake here is the rule of law. Even the president of the United States has no right to break the law. If the House votes down this inquiry... the result will be a return to the imperial presidency of the Nixon era, where the White House felt that the laws did not apply to them, since they never would be punished. That would be a national tragedy of immense consequences.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.):

The president is a citizen with the same duty to follow the laws as all other citizens. The world marvels that our president is not above the law, and my vote today helps assure that this rule continues. With a commitment to the principles of the rule of law which makes this country the beacon of hope for political refugees like myself throughout the world, I cast my vote in favor of the resolution to undertake an... inquiry of the conduct of the president of the United States.

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.):

Of course, we do want to move along to important issues facing the country. We do want to restore freedom in health care. We do want to secure the future of Medicare and Social Security, and we do want to continue the progress toward balancing the budget. All of those things we want to do.

But I would ask my colleagues to consider this: Really, this is the crucial business of the country. This is the crucial business. As we go into the next century, the question is does the truth even matter?

Now, some would say just move along. It doesn't matter. Just move along. But if you move along, what you're leaving aside is serious allegations of serious crimes.

Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.):

I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.

Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.

The president has many responsibilities and many privileges. His chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of this land. He does not have the privilege to break the law.

Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.):

Earlier today, one of my colleagues said that this would be the most divisive issue since the Vietnam War. While he may believe that to be true, I take strong exception with that, and I'll tell you why. Men and women were sent overseas like every other war or military conflict since our nation's birth, to defend the rule of law, the notions of personal freedom and individual liberty.

And in the case before us today, we're asking a simple question: "Did the president of the United States violate any of those rules of law that we cherish and that so many men and women have died for and are willing to die for at every point around the globe?"

I don't want to be here today, like so many of my colleagues. But the generations of Americans yet unborn must look back on this day in this matter, in this situation, and see this as our finest hour.

Bush's First 100 Days: "A Surplus Unending", Another Stupid (Yet Moral) War, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy

Let us take a glance to the past and examine President George W. Bush's first 100 days in office:

Item #1: PBS

MARK SHIELDS: The president's mantra is: we have a surplus unending. If we can afford a $1.6 trillion tax cut, then my goodness we can afford $50 billion more for AIDS research; we can afford a billion more for children's literacy. That's the fight he is going to fight. It isn't just - he's going to find out it isn't just Democrats versus Republicans; it's Republicans and Democrats and all bets are off because there is a surplus and there is no deficit.

And then there's this:

PAUL GIGOT: The surplus has been a disaster for believers in small government, there's no question about that. It makes it very hard to make-- you have to make the case against spending on a philosophical basis and there are not a lot of politicians who are really prepared to do that. They say, well, we can't spend because of the deficit; that was the great --

That really puts into perspective the recent chest-thumping cries about spending coming from our Republican friends. Apparently, it is only politically worth it to decry spending after you have managed to destroy a surplus.

Funny quote about Vietnam:

PAUL GIGOT: The right -- on the other hand -- said, "It wasn't executed well but it was a morally right effort on our behalf."

Funny how they end up saying that every time we say, "This is a stupid war, I'm against it." (I realized I should explain why this quote is in here. It came up in the discussion about Sen Kerrey)

On Bush's bipartisan cred, we present Item #2: CNN

"You could call him 'Wedge' for the way he has been driving Democrats and Republicans apart on an issue as important as the budget," Tom Daschle

And here's a quote from Bush that really makes you think about the latter part in relation to Republican's killing pandemic flue funding:

"Politics in Washington has been divided between those who wanted Big Government without regard to cost and those who wanted Small Government without regard to need."

And on to Karl Rove, with Item #3: CNN. First, his guess, after Bush's first 100 days, on how the world will judge President Bush:

ROVE: Over the long haul they are going to see this administration as one is that committed to using new technology and new innovative approaches to clean the air, clean the water and clean the land.

Remember that "clean the air, clean the water and clean the land" means to take absolutely no steps, whatsoever, to actually do that. Let the market take care of it!

On President Cheney, oops, VP Cheney's back room energy deals in comparison to the Clinton's health care efforts:

ROVE: Well, there's no comparison, Wolf. Mrs. Clinton's task force involved hundreds of experts who met for months and months and months and months and months to produce a series of proposals for President Clinton. This is a small group of Cabinet-level officials, who are meeting to discuss a recommendation that they're going to propose to the president for a comprehensive energy policy.

Shock!!!! How dare the Clintons involve "experts who met for months..." Good thing Bush's energy policies were made by a small cabal of politicians and oil executives and not "experts." Only Rove can use the term "experts" as an insult without his head exploding.

Then there's this, on President Bush's travels across the country:

ROVE: The American people like to see their president out among the people explaining their agenda, visiting with them, hearing what's going on around the country, and it's a useful exercise.

Contrast that with his remarks on President Obama's travels:

ROVE: He's been around the country, getting on the television, doing events to draw attention to himself -- there is a danger of being overexposed, particularly if it sounds like he is saying the same thing.

Ooooooo, Item #4: FOX: this is a pretty hilarious quote from Matt Lewis:

First of all, think of the hypocrisy here. If George W. Bush had, in the middle of a crisis like this, gone on Jay Leno, or Letterman, or any show, liberals, and probably everybody would have been outraged.

Yes, President Bush's mid-crisis management was impeccable:


That's Bush and McCain during the Katrina disaster.


And that's Bush being told, literally, "America is under attack." You will recall he then spent the next several minutes attempting to appear calm, rather then leaving immediately to handle the crisis.

Oh, and the next time someone chastises President Obama for not having more bipartisan success, ask them about President Bush's first budget, which only one Democrat would support.

Shane Murphy, Pirate Fighter, Takes On Rush and the Dittoheads

Via thinkprogress, Second-in-command of hijacked ship blasts Rush Limbaugh’s ‘disgusting’ comments

You may remember this comment from good old Rush, cries like a baby, Limbaugh:

"If only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers are actually young black Muslim teenagers, I'm sure he wouldn't have given the order to shoot."

Well, Shane Murphy, the second-in-command of the Maersk, has responded.

"It feels great to be home," Murphy said. "With the exception of Rush Limbaugh who is trying to make this into a race issue. It's disgusting."

"The president did the right thing. It's a war. It's about good versus evil. And what you (Limbaugh) said is evil, that is hate speech. I won't tolerate it," Murphy said.

All I have to say is, way to go.

Karl Rove Calls for an End to the Blago Investigation

Karl Rove, evil mastermind, is calling for an end to the investigation into the former Governor of Illinois, or Blago as well all call him. Apparently, Karl is absolutely fed up with the partisan investigations into "policy disagreements" going on in Chicago. And he is not going to stand for it anymore.

“What they've essentially said is if we have policy disagreements with our predecessors... we're going to turn ourselves into the moral equivalent of a Latin American country run by colonels in mirrored sunglasses... It may be the way that they do things in Chicago, but that's not the way we do things here in America.”

Stupid Chicago and their stupid investigation into criminal acti.... I mean "policy disagreements." Ooops, I made one mistake. When he said "policy disagreements" he meant torture. Apparently torture is a simple philosophy that should be accepted, just like murder, rape, and genocide. Not crimes against humanity, "policy disagreements."

I have something to say to you Karl: Torture is not, never has been, nor can it ever be, simply a difference of policy. It is a war crime. And investigating a war crime is not a partisan act.

Lastly, if you want to know what it looks like to investigate, in a partisan manner, political opponents, simply for disagreements in policy, take a long look in your own fucking mirror.

Don't Torture, But Tell Them We Do

I guess I have to add my two cents to the torture topic, with the release of Bush admin memos. Talking point number 1 from the GOP is that the release of this information makes us less safe. They say, that telling our enemies about our tactics hurts us. That terrorist now know that if they are captured by the US they will not actually be hurt, therefore reducing our ability to trick them into thinking we will hurt them.

This is the single stupidest argument I have ever heard. Do we want terrorists thinking they will be tortured if caught? Did Japan not use that fear to train their soldiers to fight us until death because capture would be worse than death? I want the world to know, to be completely confident, that the US will not torture them. Have we not seen Al-Qaeda using torture, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo as a tool for recruitment? If we are going to say, as President Bush did (blatantly lying to the American people) that we absolutely do not torture, do we not want the world to know that?

It is simply idiotic, not wrong, idiotic to argue that America should not torture, but should make sure the world thinks we do so they are scared of us. Idiotic. Idiotic. Idiotic.

In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey make this idiotic argument, as elegantly as they tried to frame it:

Public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

Prove it. Actually give us proof of these claims, or shut the fuck up. We as an electorate, can only make accurate decisions about our Representatives if we are informed, so spare me the we have to lie (a lie of omission is still a lie) to you to protect you.

I guess we will call this the "Bluff technique" to anti-terrorism. Do not actually torture but tell the world we do torture. This is what we call speak hard but walk with a soft stick. Simply stupid.

The Google Constituency and New Incentives

There is a uniqueness of the "Youtube Era" and that is the creation of the "Youtube Election." Although, in truth they should be called the "Google Era" and the "Google Constituency." I guess I should briefly explain why I call it the "Google Constituency" and not, specifically not, the "Youtube Election." The reason is, that Youtube, while a substantial part, was merely one of many tools used to increase our communication and connectedness. Google, while only one tool as well, is a symbol of our ability to find information. As a search engine, one that works magnificently, it represents our ability to find what one said yesterday to check it against today. And while Youtube made those moments of hypocrisy and pandering real and vivid, there were many other forms of communication that played a role as well. Blogs acted as a running log of expectations, surprises, fears, hopes, and lies. Ads embedded at a website acted as a volunteer, registering voters, expressing a candidates message, and recruiting more volunteers. All this, and much more, combined with our ability to find this relevant information to create an impressive force of citizen power.

The "Google Constituency" brings with it, consequences that, in large part, protect and progress the integrity and sanctity of our electoral process.

The increase in communication and ease with which the individual can find information has had a specific effect on politicians (many of them) and the idea of political messaging. Whereas, in decades past, politicians had a clear incentive to say one thing to one group of people and something completely different to another, in the election of '08, anything you said could be easily uploaded and blogged. It became somewhat of a risk to pander.

And there was another, more unexpected, consequence. That consequence is the exact opposite of the "say one thing to one group and another to another" strategy. That is the political gain of saying the wrong thing to the wrong group of people intentionally, out of principal. President Barack Obama (then Senator Obama) spoke of carbon caps and energy efficiency in Detroit, and the importance of fatherhood at a mostly African American church. Both of these speeches could be seen as condecending, or could be taken that way by the members of the audience. A "Google Constituency" however, makes those local events a national occurrence. Therefore, while President Obama was speaking to a small group, the entire country was listening. While he may not have been in front of the choir, at least not for the specific issue he spoke of, the choir was still listening. And those that disagree with you tend to respect pandering less than saying something they disagree with, assuming they find out it was just pandering.

These events, these instances of saying the wrong thing to the wrong group of people intentionally, became a talking point for surrogates and volunteers to describe President Obama's courage and commitment to the issues he preached, preached even if the choir wasn't listening. This concept is entirely new to politics. The "Google Constituency" has allowed us to question all of the traditional thinkings on political strategies. Standard operating procedures now longer apply.

So We Teabagged, What Now?

It may be awkward at first. Staring into your country's eyes, trying not to think about the disgusting teabaggin' you just did to it. What now? Now that you have demonstrated your rage over taxation without representation, errr, I mean, losing an election. What was the purpose? What was the plan, past the act of teabaggin'?

Or is this, yet another, phony, astroturf act of organizing? Was this nothing more than a display for media? A desperate call for attention, like a teenager who gets a tattoo just so mommy and daddy notice him. A play, in the theatrical sense, to show the public that there is an angry, hurt, and hateful group of people that are ready to yell.

What I am trying to get at is this question: What is their plan?

Think back to 2004. We had just lost to President Bush, again. After four years of yelling, we had lost again. However, that time, we decided to get real. Liberals that had never taken a truly active role, put down their "Make Peace Not War" sign in exchange for a clipboard. Gov. Howard Dean called on us to help him create a 50-state strategy and we responded, laying the framework for President Obama's historic campaign. We realized that having a voice is not all that powerful, it is how you use that voice that counts.

Will the teabaggers realize that screaming about the things you disagree with is not nearly enough? I highly doubt it. The likes of Hannity and Santelli care far more for grandstanding than real organizing. Because, as we all know, conservatives have jobs (unlike liberals of course) so they have no time for protests and organizing.

The Responsibility to be an Asshat, err, I Mean Republican

I need to take a quick minute to share with you, a bit of hilarity from the folks over at redstate. An article they have up about the Gov of the country of Texas.

First things first, a series of questions from sir asshat:

Can anyone tell me that Medicare and Social Security are not each about to hit a wall VERY hard, and leave millions of Americans wondering what in the hell happened to their retirement and health care? Can anyone tell me that the massive amounts of spending being spent will not lead to significant inflation in the coming years? Can anyone tell me that the United States government will enforce its borders? Can anyone tell me that the United States government will take the necessary steps to get adequate fossil fuels, or build nuclear power to maximize liberty and lower energy costs? Can anyone tell me that we will be able to celebrate Christmas in schools or graduate students equipped for the world if we follow the ways of Washington? Can anyone tell me our healthcare system will be better off with greater Washington involvement?

Question 1: Yes. In fact, the Social Security bankruptcy is an unsubstantiated myth. When our government evaluates Social Security, they put together three separate forecasts. An optimistic one, a pessimistic one, and one somewhere in the middle. The one saying it will be bankrupt is the middle one. At first glance, that sounds reasonable. However, historical evidence shows us that every time, the optimistic forecast has been the most accurate. Our optimistic forecast (put out by President Bush's administration, mind you) says that, not only, will we not be bankrupt, we will have more money for it than we do now. Secondly, when it comes to Medicare, please show me one mainstream Republican that is in favor of cutting Medicare, or cutting up their own Medicare card. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it.

Question 2: First off, "spending being spent" is not exactly proper English. As you like to say to the non-whites, you're in America, learn English. And no, I cannot tell you it will not lead to inflation. What I can tell you, is that doing nothing (or in Republican, cutting taxes and reducing regulations) would have a far worse impact on our economy after the devastation of your king, err, President Bush.

Question 3: Yes. In fact, liberals support enforcing the border (especially pro labor liberals). And, I think, our support for it will increase tenfold if Texas secedes. Secondly, I ask conservatives to name one democrat since Reagan's amnesty drive that has reduced the number of boarder patrol guards. Until then, shut the fuck up.

Question 4: Yes. You know what else they'll do in the process, invest in new, cheap, cleaner, more efficient forms of energy to make us "energy independent" so we don't have to give so much money to the conservatives most hated people, Muslims (see "terrorist" in the GOP dictionary).

Question 5: That's not a real question, right? Name one, one single move that President Obama has taken to outlaw celebrating Christmas in schools? This reminds me of when I got in a fight with a McCain staffer because one of their guest speakers accused President Obama (then Senator) of wanting to outlaw the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously, you whacko, fuckhead, see a therapist.

Question 6: Yes. In fact, the best health care systems are Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration. I dare you too find anyone clamoring to get off Medicare. In fact, when ever people do switch from Medicare to a private option, they later complain about being lied to, manipulated, scammed. So yes, almost anything would be better than an industry which makes its money off denying coverage to the ill (or the people that need health care, as I like to call them).

So, in conclusion, shut up.

And about that crazy, asshat of a Governor, the federal government has the right to attach strings to funds (which is why I agreed with the feds that schools who refuse military recruiters can lose federal funding, I would be the first one to set up a table next to them telling people not to enlist while we have an immoral war going on in Iraq, but I agreed with the feds). Where was this outrage while President Bush tied our economy up and put out lit cigars on it? Where was this outrage when we found out that President Cheney, err, Bush was spying on Grannies for peace?

Where was the outrage when our legislators passed the Patriot Act, the single largest dump ever taken on the Constitution?

Republican's are not conservative. They are anti Democrat. In other words, they support everything the Republican's do, so long as it is not in line with anything the Democrats do, and if it is, they better have done it first.

I call your bluff Governor Perry. Our opinion on the subject has not changed. So, either secede and cut off all ties to this oppressive dictatorship, or shut up with the grandstanding.