Daily Show

You're getting your cable bill's-worth tonight. Watch.

Today's Press Gaggle Covey

David Gregory ain't buying what Scott McLellan is selling. Read this, it's hilarious and encouraging. The press is starting to smell the blood in the water. (pun sort of intended)

I'm Done Laughing

Yeah I had my fun at Cheney & Co's expense along with everyone else, but after reading this, I'm no longer laughing...

Monday's hunting trip to Pennsylvania by Vice President Dick Cheney in which he reportedly shot more than 70 stocked pheasants and an unknown number of mallard ducks at an exclusive private club places a spotlight on an increasingly popular and deplorable form of hunting, in which birds are pen-reared and released to be shot in large numbers by patrons. The ethics of these hunts are called into question by rank-and-file sportsmen, who hunt animals in their native habitat and do not shoot confined or pen-raised animals that cannot escape.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported today that 500 farm-raised pheasants were released yesterday morning at the Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township for the benefit of Cheney's 10-person hunting party. The group killed at least 417 of the birds, illustrating the unsporting nature of canned hunts. The party also shot an unknown number of captive mallards in the afternoon.

I’m not a hunter, and never will be, but my wife’s grandfather and uncles duck-hunt and I suppose that’s fine for them. But what Cheney does is the equivelent to shooting fish in a barrel. That’s not hunting—that’s skeet shooting with living targets. And I'm not the only one who thinks so...

"This wasn't a hunting ground. It was an open-air abattoir, and the vice president should be ashamed to have patronized this operation and then slaughtered so many animals," states Wayne Pacelle, a senior vice president of The Humane Society of the United States. "If the Vice President and his friends wanted to sharpen their shooting skills, they could have shot skeet or clay, not resorted to the slaughter of more than 400 creatures planted right in front of them as animated targets."

Does one get bored after shooting their 30th pheasant? The 40th? 60th?

That’s a callous disregard for life that speaks of sociopathy. That’s not a kid killing or torturing animals that’s the supposed moral leadership of the country gunning down living birds for shits and giggles.

A serious question: When somebody can suit up for the day and kill fifty to a hundred of anything—where does one draw a line? Birds only? Or would Cheney and pals shoot deer in a corral? Big game in a zoo? It’s the stuff of science fiction—but these are the kind of maniacs that would be hunting people if they could.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's no wonder these fucking cavemen can send people off to war without a second thought. Pro-fucking-Life my ass. It's all about personal gratification and nothing else. Nobody that would spend a weekend mindlessly slaughtering animals for fun (not even sport) should be entrusted with life and death decisions about anything. There is something fundamentally wrong with a person like that.

And as far as the guy he shot, if this was one of those expeditions and he was a party to it, any sympathy for him just flew out the window. Every one of them should receive a nice “peppering” of birdshot.

A 78 year old asshole is every bit as deserving as a cage-raised quail.

UPDATE: Posted a varition of this as a diary at Kos, and it got over 250 comments. In case you're interested...

Also, more at pharyngula:

Blowing away a horde of pen-raised animals, released in front of you to scurry into your gunsights, is not a sport. It's disgusting bloody-mindedness, a lazy, cowardly, vicious sort of abuse.

They say that torturing and killing helpless animals is one of the signs of a sadistic sociopath. Somehow, it's fitting that our vice-president is the kind of guy who takes glee in unfeeling butchery.

firedoglake has several excellent posts on the whole thing. just go and scroll...

Shootout at the VP Corral

I dunno, something about armed cyborgs hunting down unsuspecting vacationers—the jokes practically Photoshop themselves...

Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.

Harry Whittington, 78, was "alert and doing fine" after Cheney sprayed him with shotgun pellets on Saturday while the two were hunting at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.

Armstrong said Whittington was mostly injured on his right side, with the pellets hitting his cheek, neck and chest, and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Whittington was in stable condition Sunday, said Yvonne Wheeler, spokeswoman for the Christus Spohn Health System.

[...]

Armstrong said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail late afternoon on Saturday.

Whittington shot a bird and went to look for it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and found a second covey.

Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong told the Associated Press in an interview.

"The vice president didn't see him," she continued. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."

Now I've never hunted quail before (or anything else), but don't you usually flush them, and shoot them while they're in ther air? The article didn't mention this Whittington guy being thirteen feet tall... "He came up from behind..." So Cheney whips around and unloads? Nice work, Dick.

[Go ahead and steal my image if you like, just gimme a link...]

How Bush Honors MLK

I mentioned in the comments of my post about the King funeral that Bush recess-appointed two well-known civil rights opponents to lifetime positions on the Federal bench. I was wrong. It was 2004, not last year, and it was one judge, Charles Pickering.

In 2003, Bush marked the holiday by announcing his opposition to affirmative action.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush plans to challenge a University of Michigan program that gives preference to minority students, telling the Supreme Court there are better ways to promote diversity, administration officials say.

[...] Fleischer outlined Bush's philosophy moments after announcing the president's plans to commemorate Martin Luther King's birthday and increase aid to Africa.

Nice.

Danish Cartoons, Take 2

I need to follow-up on the post below. At the time I read the column below, I thought it was one of the better ones I'd read in terms of summarizing the events, and it made a couple good points, particularly in reference to Denmark, that I hadn't seen anywhere else.

By the time I finished writing my post however, and in retrospect, it became clear that I disagree with the Lessenberry's overall point—that a free press can, and should, do whatever the fuck it wants. It's still a good column and his opinion and point are valid, just not shared by me. I think Lessenberry is treating this whole thing as too academic, with no regard for real-world consequences. It's irresponsible. Especially for him to think his own paper had an obligation to print them, or for him to be annoyed that they didn't. On this point I disagree with him strongly for the reasons stated in the previous post.

Today, Ezra links to an excellent piece at slate.com and makes this point:

It is the case that other, more politically efficacious religious movements, have no problem bringing down massive pressure on media outlets that offend them. Think the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, or the Catholic Church. But since they have electoral/financial clout and can use accepted institutional levers, few get worked up over their blatant attempts to silence critical or derogatory speech. The Danish cartoons, which projected, during a tense time, anti-Muslim stereotypes on a continent already bristling with them, aroused the same sort of opportunistic religious leaders we're used to, but it their organizations deploy riots and flag burnings rather than boycotts and political pressure. Different, sure, but only in degree, not in kind.

Precisely. European Muslims are already feeling persecuted, and are not only powerless to protest in an effective or "acceptable" manner, it is patently obvious that the situation is ripe for trouble on the street and exploitation from the pulpit. Outside the Middle East, this is a population that feels oppressed. Within the Middle East they are often oppressed as well. It is no wonder that this stuff explodes. To be clear—I'm not excusing—just making a point.

The slate piece, written by a Muslim [link], acknowledeges the Muslim role in this, but also does an excellent job expressing the offense and rage in text, that overseas has more often taken the form of a rock or flame.

You Mean Those Hornets Sting?

I don't have much to say about the Muhammad cartoon controversy. I will, however, point you to one of the better pieces I read on the whole thing by local alt-weekly and would-be NPR host Jack Lessenberry.

[link] ...Fundamentalist Muslims went ballistic. Fundamentalist imams demanded a meeting with Denmark's prime minister. (He rightly refused.) The fundamentalists then began whipping up outrage by showing the cartoons around the Middle East. And get this. These "holy men of God" included phony cartoons that were much worse than the real ones.

They included images showing Muhammed as a pig, a pedophile and a sodomizer of animals. (I'd love to know who did those.) The cartoons in the Danish newspaper were far milder. Some were pro-Muslim, some didn't depict the prophet at all, and one attacked the editor as a "reactionary provocateur."

Naturally, inflamed Muslims began behaving badly. Danish flags were burned; people have been killed in demonstrations; diplomatic installations have been set on fire; and they called for an international boycott of Danish products, which must be bad if you're addicted to small buttery cookies.

Accordingly, last week a number of European papers did something that should put the press here to shame. They courageously reprinted the cartoons.

One of those, the German newspaper Die Welt, added this: "Democracy is the institutionalized form of freedom of expression. There is no right to protection from satire in the West; there is a right to blasphemy."

Amen, amen, selah and salaam. Thomas Jefferson couldn't have said it better. Lovers of freedom all over the world ought to be very, very proud of every editor who published them. Naturally, various so-called liberals howled that this was racism, and whined that it would help an anti-immigration party in Denmark.

That's a load of bullshit. Denmark is a postage-stamp country with barely half Michigan's population. And all you need to know about it is that when the Nazis occupied them and came to round up and murder their Jews, the Danes said no. No way. The entire nation then collaborated to smuggle nearly the entire Jewish population to Sweden. Nobody else did anything like that.

They are people of courage, tolerance and a sense of humor, three qualities that America — especially the American press — is sorely lacking.

I will say this much—the editor who commissioned the illustrations knew this would be provocative, and printing these pictures was akin to poking around the ashes for some hot embers. They surely had the right to print 'em, as Danish Muslims had the right to be offended. Should Muslims halfway around the world be rioting and killing people over it, of course not. But does this come as a surprise? At this point how does every embassy in Tehran not have an escape rocket?

Lessenberry goes on to lambaste American media (including his own paper) for not taking up arms with their Danish and European brethren and publishing the pictures. I disagree. I think it would be gratuitous to do so. These pictures are readily available online for anyone to find if they are curious, or alternatively, need a reason to get pissed off and burn Danish flags. The U.S. has enough problems with the Middle East, and 150,000 targets walking around over there. I agree with a little discretion here.

Particularly in the case of his paper, the "Metro Times Detroit", a free weekly distributed throughout the geographic area containing the largest Arab population outside of the Middle East. We're not talking about a subscription-only venue or anything like it. This is one of those papers that stares you in the face when you walk into Subway. there's freedom of the press and there's rubbing people's faces in something. Freedom to is also freedom not to and nobody should be too annoyed that a newspaper editor is not willing to play Larry Flynt for a day.

Right Wing Panties In a Bunch--Film at 11

To all those on the Right worried about the legacy of Coretta Scott King—who the fuck do you think you are to tell people how to pay tribute to someone? Particularly in the case of the Kings, or a few years ago, Paul Wellstone—these are public figures who were activists working against pretty much everything you stand for. Their families and followers ahould be free to express and console themselves however they choose.

Everyone from Imus to Michelle Malkin is wringing their hands over the fact that some of the speakers at Coretta Scott King's funeral took time at the podium to criticize the War or point out that her life's work might not quite be accomplished.

Perish the thought.

They are concerned that it wasn't gracious to do so in front of the President. Well, fuck that, and fuck him. And fuck anyone who has a problem with it. This was the funeral for a woman who dedicated her life to fighting injustice, war and racism. Her husband was gunned down in the prime of his life for doing the same thing. Many of the people attending or speaking at that funeral fought those same battles. There is no MORE appropriate place to make those comments. If the President cannot handle it, he should never have gone. This was a lose/lose for him—if he attends, he might be exposed to some hostility, if he doesn't, he opens himself up for criticism—boo fucking hoo. That's part of the job. Considering he spends the other 364 days of the year surrounded by nothing but yes-men and sycophants, he can suck it up for an hour or two.

More here, here, here, and here. John Cole was fool enough to opin on this, and got roundly smacked down by his readers. 150 560+ comments later, I'm sure he wishes he could have that one back. (For some highlights from that thread, go to the the comments below, I picked out a couple good ones.)

[Added 2/9] If the President or Republicans (or the government as a whole) want to throw a memorial service or reception, then fine, perhaps they can set some groundrules for decorum. If the President decides at the last minute to crash a private ceremony, then he gets whatever is coming to him.

UPDATE: I should note. I have NO problem with Bush attending the funeral, or anthing he did or said while there. I have a problem with the Bushmonkeys who feel it's their place to leap to Bush's defense when he suffers any indignity, perceived or real. Bush went to the service, was gracious, and left. While he was there, some other folks levelled criticisms that could be laid at Bush's feet. And there is no indication that he had a problem with what he heard. End of story. Except that to some on the right, criticism of Dear Leader is an offense, even if he is not named, or if he doesn't care. They cry "politicization!" when the only people talking about this and stoking the fire is themselves, just like at Wellstone's funeral. Shut the hell up, already. Funerals and feeding tubes are none of your business.

[Note: Opener rewritten slightly & new content added (as noted). 2/9]

NSA Hearings 2: Electric Boogaloo

Based on the reviews from the blogosphere, the Dems on the Committee did a pretty good job (except for Kennedy, from what I've seen) in the hearings and landed some blows on Gonzales. I did not watch any news or read very many news accounts of the hearings, so I cannot say how the media is playing things. I should point out, that part of the theater of the hearings would mean the Dems would make some good arguments and get some good soundbites off, the "spectacular failure" would come in the form of mised opportunities and the ultimate portrayal of the hearings by the press as well as how much the Republicans would shepherd Gonzales through the hearing.

Crooks and Liars has several video clips, including the fiasco of not swearing Gonzales in here (it's not exactly compelling TV, but Specter really comes off badly, and it's nice to see the Republicans forced to vote by roll call NOT to swear the witness). The clip worth watching is Leahy's opening statement—about 95% very forceful and effective. He wanders a bit at the very end, but really got off some good stuff. And don't miss Gonzalez claiming Washington and Lincoln engaged in electronic surveillance.

For an excellent Cliff's Notes version of the hearings see the 5-part synopsis at firedoglake.com. It really doesn't matter if you read them in order...

But the performance of the day goes to Glenn Greenwald on CSPAN this morning. This should be required viewing for any Democrat likely to face a question on or chance to explain this NSA situation. In two minutes he deftly turns an absolute wingnut caller's question and effectively uses it to make just about every possible case against this spying program. Seriously—the call is probably straight out of a Dem handler's worst-case scenario handbook, and Greenwald absolutely mops the floor with the caller and his "conservative" counterweight.

Tony LaRussa's Hair

I've tossed the occasional "Get a haircut" grenade in my comments about Tony LaRussa (usually by myself, out loud to the TV), but it seems Tony's locks are long for a reason—he's a Card-Carrying Rocker. His omni-present aviators are no doubt to conceal his bleary, bloodshot eyes resulting from whatever smoky dive he was headbanging in the previous night...

Yup, famous baseball manager Tony LaRussa has a blog, and it's mostly about the various concerts he obviously spends the entire off-season attending.

It could be fake, but why would anyone go to the trouble?

[h/t Brilliant at Breakfast]

NSA Hearings Whitewash

The hearings on the NSA domestic spying imbroglio are underway. Lots of folks on the left are gung-ho for these hearings, believing that this will damage the White House now, and by extension, Republicans this fall (after all the President ain't running again). That this is our chance to hold AG Gonzales to the fire and expose the WH and its illegal actions. That this is a terrific scoring opportunity for our side...

I'm not so sanguine about that result.

"But, no less than Committee Chair Sen. Arlen Spector as been full of outrage on the Sunday shows, and other Republicans (Graham, Coburn, Brownback) have grave concerns as well." This is a fucking act. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. These clowns roll for the White House every time. It's one thing to spout tough rhetoric on "Meet the Press" and another to do it in the hearing. When the TV audience is at work on Monday morning, it will be Party before Constitution from the Republicans without exception.

As far as the Dems, they are going to fail spectacularly, no matter what they do or try. Everyone keeps acting like the Republicans/White House "don't want these hearings." Bullshit. This is the perfect forum to underscore the seriousness Republicans assign our security (break a few eggs) and the Dems fecklessness (pussies worried about abstract civil liberites). Watch tonite's soundbites. The Dems should go forward, and hammer Gonzales because it's the right thing to do, but there will be no political benefit for the Dems as a result of this hearing. None.

I'd love to be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

UPDATE: By party-line vote (which Spector refused to even reveal) the Republicans are allowing Gonzales to testify without being sworn in under oath. At which point the Democrats should have gotten up and walked out of the hearing.

Picking up some things from other threads...

[from comments at Carpetbagger]: "...call centers that are now outsourced in "international" locations. Are these calls (which could cover anything from technical support for your laptop, to making vacation reservations, to discussing financial information, etc.) subject to the program?

Good point. Many people likely feel this has no effect on them. Assigning the old "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about," bolstered by, "I never make or recieve international calls anyway."

People are making international calls all the time now without realizing it and many of those calls are routed to the same (or adjacent) part of the world the NSA is supposedly targetting/filtering.

MORE: Glenn Greenwald is doing a tremendous job live-blogging the hearings here. From his early remarks:

Of course Gonzales begins his Opening Statement by quoting Osama bin Laden and Zawahri. We used to quote Madison, Jefferson and Lincoln to decide what the principles of our Government are going to be. Now we quote Al Qaeda. The Administration wants Al Qaeda and its speeches to dictate the type of Government we have. It is the centerpiece of everything they do and say.

Excellent comment on the Al Qaeda/fear-mongering.

And anybody foolish enough to think this actually has anything to do with "The War on Terror" take a look at this:

President Gerald Ford chats with recently named White House chief of staff Dick Cheney outside the White House in this Nov. 7, 1975 file photo. Newly disclosed historic documents obtained by the Associated Press show that an intense debate erupted during the Ford Administration over the president's powers to eavesdrop without warrants for foreign intelligence purposes. (AP Photo/Bob Daugherty/File)

That's Big Time Dick Cheney who was after this kind of thing thirty years ago in the Nixon/Ford era. This is all about Executive Branch power and surveilling whoever the hell they want without oversight. All of this phony-ass "9/11 changed everything" is a load. They are merely using 9/11 as a pretext. And even that is a stretch, as they already had legal means to do everything they are claiming. They chose to go outside the law. The real question is, "Why?"

Will Dems effectively raise it? will the media cover it that way? And, will anyone care?

FRT: Back from the grave and ready to party...

Alright. It's been a while—at least a month or two—since I last bothered with the Friday Random Ten (12/9 to be precise). For some reason I think everybody was tapped out on the topic (as evidenced by the lack of participation over at LLATPN). Well, I'm bringing it back, and taking a cue from Otto—he picks a wacky album cover, I'm picking something to illustrate the list as well. Call it a motivator, but when I had to find just the right picture of Pete Townshend windmilling, it was more fun...

Here's the list:

1. "Shining Star" - Earth, Wind and Fire
2. "Song for Margo" - NY Loose
3. "Stickshifts and Safetybelts" - Cake
4. "The Nurse" - The White Stripes
5. "Medicine Hat" - Son Volt
6. "The Fleecing of America'" - dada
7. "Got the Time" - Joe Jackson
8. "Red Barchetta" - Rush
9. "Mother Popcorn" - James Brown
10. "Romeo and Juliet" - Dire Straits

I'll still put the extended commentary in the comments so I don't bump all the rest of my Pulitzer material down too far.

The New, Tan Face of Corruption

Over at Balloon Juice, John Cole references a profile of Tom DeLay's replacement as House Majority Leader, Tim Boehner, and then tosses in a throwaway comment...

[link] "...Boehner, a perpetually tanned conservative, had spent much of the past year meeting secretly with Republicans who complained about the current leadership team, especially Blunt and his mentor, DeLay, and encouraged Boehner to launch a political comeback..."

[Cole] I had always thought he looked a little tan.

What's with that? Is this guy some metrosexual with a tanning bed? He's not the Representative from Palm Springs, he's from Cincinnati. From the comments at Balloon Juice, it seems "the perpetual tan" is from playing so much golf. He and DeLay are reputed to be the best golfers in the House, and Boehner is a member and an exclusive all-male club in Washington where membership runs $75,000 a year.

Waitasec—

So he makes what as a Congressman…$180,000? How the hell does he spend forty percent of his salary on a club membership?

I know, he’s a Republican and he was probably a millionaire before he ever took office, and I’m sure his wife makes six figures through some “connected” job, but come on.

Nobody from Ohio that spends enough time golfing that he can maintain a tan all year round should be serving in Congress. Golf costs money and somebody is paying for it. Besides, nothing good for the taxpayer was ever determined on a golf course. NO FUCKING GOLF should be the first item on any reform agenda.

Where I went

[Got the idea from Cap'n Design, who got it from Kottke.]
Places I went in 2005. At least one night's stay required to make the list...

Avon, CT
New York, NY
Empire, MI
Toronto, ONT
Orlando, FL
Eagles Mere, PA
Bucks County, PA (don't remember the town)
Hale, MI
Pennsylvania Turnpike (spent at least 20 hours driving on it, and slept in the car at a rest area one trip)

Pretty thin list. I gotta get out of the house more...

SOTU

I have the SOTU on in the background as I do some freelance work. I wasn't planning on watching, since it would likely piss me off, but I'll pay half attention and throw some thoughts down as we go...

It's been on for a while when I tune in, Bush is now talking about social security. He gets a decent joke in about his dad's two favorite people—him and Clinton. But the Dems get the last laugh with a raucous ovation when Bush scolds Congress for "failing to join him in saving social security." Oops.

Boilerplate about "nobody out-competing/producing the American worker"...

Bush breezes through his health care stuff and tosses out simple talking points that sound good at a glance; portability of health plans (good) and ability to buy individual plans at group rates (already exists for many—at least in Michigan). Really he barely gets into this, and hardly even mentions HSAs by name. Hardly a centerpiece, barely a mention. And only those in the know realize Bush is essentially throwing you to the wolves with his plan. Probably why he barely gets into it. For him, the less said, the better.

He's smoother than usual, but extra smirky.

Some crap about medical malpractice. And passing reform.

Declares that America is addicted to oil. My wife mentioned that he'd say that. His energy plan talks a good game, but I know better than to trust him. His boast "over the last five years, America has invested over $10 Billion on alternative forms of energy" is less money than Exxon's profits last quarter. He hypes new types of ethanol (promising), and zero-emission coal plants (a fantasy?).

He's filled with "I will propose..." followed by "doubling" or some massive increase or another of "spending" or "investing" throughout the speech. We all know none of this stuff will ever actually be appropriated or funded. Yawn.

Some stuff about immigration. They show Homeland Security honcho Chertoff clapping like he's the Swedish chef from 'The Muppet Show.' Are those his arms? Yikes.

Abortion at lowest level in decades. A lie? Does he mean for the duration of this speech?

Teenage moms down for twelve years? Sharing credit with Clinton?

"Activist courts redefine marriage..."

Reference to the "pessimists"

Thanks to O'Connor—she's not in attendance...

Human/animal hybrids? Is that on anybody's radar? What the fuck? I guess Dr. Moreau is the new Osama.

Ethics reform. Wasn't sure he'd go here.

Talking about Katrina reconstruction when the TiVo wants to change to record "The Closer" for my wife. I let it.

Whatever. From what I saw, I'd say it was a good performance by Bush with fairly empty material. I didn't get to see any Iraq, Iran or foreign policy stuff. Did he kiss Lieberman again?

Mr Furious—Now with 50% Less Wisdom!

Well, a sudden trip to New York for an interview [which I feel went well], and then oral surgery [which went as well as could be expected] has left me out of the loop: Are we filibustering Alito or not? Did the Sox make a dumb trade? And boy, the New York papers sure had a field day with the Palestinian elections...

If you ever want to ensure you don't get too nervous for a job interview, just make sure you have surgery lined up the next morning. At least it worked for me. I was far more worried about that, rendering the interview relatively painless...

No Excuses. Call NOW!

I work in an office with no long distance, that is the usual hurdle for me calling my representatives. No longer. CALL 1-800-426-8073 or 1-888-355-3588 AND TELL YOUR SENATOR YOU EXPECT THEM TO OPPOSE THE ALITO NOMINATION, AND SUPPORT A FILIBUSTER IF IT COMES TO THAT. Do it now. It took me less than thirty seconds.

If you only call your Senators once in your life, this is the time. I cannot think of a more important issue than opposing this lifetime appointment. This isn't about "a judge in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor" or even Roe v. Wade anymore. Alito or any subsequent nominee from Bush will oppose Roe, but this nominee subscribes to such a broad view of Executive Power that he is a threat to the very Constitution and the Separation of Powers. I don't care if the Committee Dems failed to "damage" Alito in the hearings, and if that raises the political risk. It's time for the opposition party to oppose. As I said last week, this is the time to make the stand.

UPDATE: There are countless petitions sites up and running, I like this one, it gets right to the point. In the comments section, this is what I added:

Samuel Alito is a threat to the very Constitution and the Separation of Powers. He represents total fealty to the Executive Branch and is the greatest threat that President Bush could send up for nomination. I expect any judge nominated by Bush to oppose Roe, but Alito will do far more, and worse than that. The creation of an all-powerful Executive is too grave a risk. This nomination must be stopped now. By filibuster or any means necessary. If Alito still ends up on the bench because the Republicans break the rules of the Senate, so be it, but I expect you as my Senator and all of your colleagues to oppose this nomination with every possible effort. You will not cast a more important vote in my opinion, and I, and everyone I can tell, will be watching.

Republican "Democracy" in Action

Bill Frist won't allow Senators to speak on the Senate floor about Alito...

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) tried to secure time this week to speak on the Senate floor about Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would not allow any time for speeches until January 25, a day after the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on Alito's nomination.

[h/t Armando at Kos]

Republican's Propose Lobby "Reform"

In the spirit of "Clear Skies," "Healthy Forests" comes "Leave No Politician Behind Empty-Handed...

[link] According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.

The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.

So, if a free steak or round of golf wasn't enough, now you get a check to drive the bribe home. What did I just say about laugh tests? You couldn't make this stuff up. Foxes and henhouses indeed.

Time to Go 'All In'

Brilliant playwright/screenwriter David Mamet lays it all out. He wrote this in the LA Times months ago, but it applies NOW on Alito. I am on-board with a filibuster for this nominee.

POKER PARTY
In politics as in poker, the only way to win is to seize the initiative. The Democrats need to make bold wagers or risk being rolled over again.

By David Mamet

ONE NEEDS TO know but three words to play poker: call, raise or fold. Fold means keep the money, I'm out of the hand; call means to match your opponents' bet. That leaves raise, which is the only way to win at poker. The raiser puts his opponent on the defensive, seizing the initiative. Initiative is only important if one wants to win.

[...]

If you are branded as passive, the table will roll right over you -- your opponents will steal antes without fear. Why? Because the addicted caller has never exhibited what, in the wider world, is known as courage. In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one's convictions, one's intuitions, one's understanding. There can be no victory without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods. Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing, regardless of the cards he is dealt.

For example, take a player who has never acted with initiative -- he has never raised, merely called. Now, at the end of the evening, he is dealt a royal flush. The hand, per se, is unbeatable, but the passive player has never acted aggressively; his current bet (on the sure thing) will signal to the other players that his hand is unbeatable, and they will fold. His patient, passive quest for certainty has won nothing.

The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country.

Committed Democrats watched while Al Gore frittered away the sure-thing election of 2000. They watched, passively, while the Bush administration concocted a phony war; they, in the main, voted for the war knowing it was purposeless, out of fear of being thought weak. They then ran a candidate who refused to stand up to accusations of lack of patriotism.

The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.

John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely "calling" the attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance. Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only where they started before the accusations began.

Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail.

[...]

One may sit at the poker table all night and never bet and still go home broke, having anted away one's stake. The Democrats are anteing away their time at the table. They may be bold and risk defeat, or be passive and ensure it.

It seems Harry Reid is auditioning for the lead these days too. Certainly on the Abramoff affair, but Reid's been upping the rhetoric on alito as well.

Waiting for a sure-thing "we know we have the votes" filibuster or a worst candidate is pointless. In my mind, it doesn't get worse than Alito. He is worse than a bonafide religious zealot, because at least that zealot might answer to someone other than Bush. Alito is a made man and a sure vote for whatever Bush wants. Alito stands for an all-powerful Executive—and if that comes to pass, we have more to worry about than just Roe.

Laugh Test or Smell Test? Republican's Fail Both

''A year ago most people around Congress couldn't tell you who Jack Abramoff was.''
—Speaker of the Freaking House Denny Hastert—Abramoff? Never heard of the guy...


"Well, I don't know what you mean by Senate liaison to the, quote, "K Street Project." I'm not aware of any Senate liaison job that I do for the K Street Project."
—Senator Rick Santorum—The guy who personally ran the K-Street meetings and determined strategy. Also gets more re-election money from lobbyists than any other incumbent senator.


Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House."

Just go to The Carpetbagger Report and scroll. Steve's on this stuff like, er, a carpet...

The NEW New Orleans

Mayor Nagin's vision for New Orleans in a thirty second video. Link.

Clearly, Nagin is trying to go big time by going toe to toe with Bush for dumbest MLK speech of the day. More here, here and here.

Alito: Does CAP Really Matter?

It's confirmation hearing time, and the best part of that is a week of Dahlia Lithwick. There's been much hand-wringing from the left on Alito's membership in a crazy-ass "Keep Princeton White and Male" organization back in the 70s, and why he would highlight that on his resume when he got his job in the Reagan White House.The Republicans want to dismiss all of this simply because Alito wasn't "on the board, or a major contributor." Depending on who and what you read on this it's easy to think both sides are off base. Is this really that important?

It takes a good writer to draw out the reason that this issue, while old and small, matters. From Lithwick's Wednesday report:

But as trivial as the screaming over CAP may seem, it matters. Not because it proves the nominee hates women or minorities or criminal defendants or immigrants. That's a caricature of a conservative judge. It matters because CAP was code in 1985 for all the things Alito refused to write on his application and refuses to discuss before the committee now. Instead of being forthright about his convictions, Alito hides behind the fiction that there is only one way to decide cases. Instead of proudly bearing witness—as he has done throughout his career—to his opposition to the Warren Court's rulings, his disdain for the reasoning in Roe, his preference for states' rights, strong police powers, and "traditional values"—he pretends that all those amassed thoughts and ideas are irrelevant. He pretends—as do his supporters in the GOP—that every one of those thoughts has absolutely no bearing on how he decides cases. And that is just not true.

I recognize why Judge Alito can't talk openly about his convictions. I keep waiting in vain for that brave conversation to take place. I suppose I understand why he cannot stand before this committee and say, "Yes, I believe that most employment discrimination claims are probably bogus; that most cops are honest and that most death-row prisoners deserve to die. Period." That would require a hell of a sales job. But if we cannot have an honest conversation about Alito's legal views and preferences, his coded messages become doubly important.

Membership in CAP and using that to burnish your creds as a angry white conservativeIs this worth three days of hammering? Only if the hearings were a month long, and this was week three... While that shit is worrying, the biggest reasons to keep Alito the hell off the bench have nothing to do with what kind of an ass-kissing bigot he tried to sell himself as to Ed Meese.

But Dahlia's right. If no one is allowed to get a straight answer on matters of actual importance or substance, the stupid shit starts to matter. By not giving an answer, Alito forces us to fill in the blanks.

The 700 is His Score From 1-10 On Being a Dick

Now, I'm no fan of Ariel Sharon, but, he and his family (and Israel) are certainly going through a tough time. That doesn't slow Pat "Smite 'Em When They're Down" Robertson at all:

Robertson: Sharon punished for dividing Israel

The Rev. Pat Robertson said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is being punished by God for dividing the Land of Israel. Robertson, speaking on the “700 Club” on Thursday, suggested Sharon, who is currently in an induced coma, and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated by an Israeli extremist in 1995, were being treated with enmity by God for dividing Israel. “He was dividing God’s land,” Robertson said. “And I would say, Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations or the United States of America. God says, This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.”

He's fucking crazy. Seriously. And the only bigger asshole than Robertson is the "God" that resides in his head.

[h/t Josh Marshall]

UPDATE The guy running this church is giving Pat a run for his money. Now we know "What's the Matter with Kansas." [link from the comments at The Talent Show]

MIA

Still alive. Still outraged. Just got other shit to worry about.

Ranting about politics and stuff has had to move to the back burner for a bit. As those of you who know me know, I've been trying to solve my underemployment problem with a massive nationwide job search. I've come close a couple times, but the "sure bet" that I thought was about to pay off for me (us), just fell through.

So, my idle time online has been spent on mediabistro and hotjobs, and I've been cranking out the resumes again. Spent the break spiffing up the portfolio, and I have to enter the new year with reckless job-hunting abandon. I'm talking Jesse Ventura in "Commando" fearlessness with overwhelming firepower-type hunting (hopefully with better results for me).

It's disappointing that I have to let things slide a bit when it seems people might actually drop in to read, but priorities have to take over. Unless some Pajama Media-type is going to lavish me with some serious cash to do this, I've got shoeleather to wear out...

On that note, here's the deal. I am an experienced magazine Art Director languishing in a marketing job I'm vastly overqualified (and underpaid) for, supplemented with a steadily declining freelance base. I need to get back in the game. Fast. And if that means moving back to New York or anywhere else, I am ready to jump. What I really want is a good gig back on a title, but I will take any freelance I can get in the meantime. If anybody who wanders in here has lead on anything, leave me a comment or send me an email.

I'm not quite ready to tie my true identity to the profanity-laced, opinionated-jackass personality I've cultivated here, by linking to my online portfolio—you never know who might be offended or pissed off. So, I'm going to maintain the slight veil of anonymity I have left for now.

That's all. Hopefully something will break for me, and I can get back into blog-form soon.

Happy New Year.