PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Theocracy Now! Looking for Values at the Values Voter Summit
Posted by Max Blumenthal on October 31, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Max Blumenthal, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

On October 20 and 21st, I attended the Value Voters Summit, a massive gathering hosted by the Colorado-based Christian right mega-ministry, Focus on the Family, and its Washington lobbying arm, the Family Research Council. With the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani leading in the race for the Republican nomination and the threat of another Clinton presidency looming, the stakes for the Christian right were high.

At the Summit, I witnessed all of the major Republican presidential candidates compete for the affection of so-called value voters. Rudy Giuliani, the current frontrunner, sought to assuage movement leaders' concerns about his multiple marriages, pro-choice politics, and penchant for cross-dressing. Mitt Romney pledged to fight for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, hoping his newfound conservatism would somehow lessen evangelical resentment of his Mormon faith.

Though no candidate emerged from the Summit as a clear Christian right favorite, the badly underfunded former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee won over the audience with his insistence that banning abortion would put an end to America's illegal immigration problem. Huckabee's comparison of "liberalized abortion" to the Holocaust further endeared him to the "value voters." Later, during a press conference, I challenged Huckabee to explain the logic behind his rhetoric.

Recently, there has been a lot of mainstream media noise about a new, more socially conscious evangelical movement rising from the angry ashes of the Christian right. Pastors like Rick Warren and "evangelical feminist" Bill Hybels are supposedly bringing issues like the environment and poverty to the forefront of the movement's social agenda, while pushing anti-abortion and anti-gay activism to the wayside. Yet no one told those evangelicals gathered at the Value Voters Summit about this friendly new initiative.

If anything, the movement seemed more extreme and paranoid than it did four years ago. Rev. Lou Sheldon, dubbed "Lucky Louie" by his former paymaster Jack Abramoff, told me that homosexuality is a "pathological disorder" and "a groove" that is difficult to escape from. He proceeded to passionately defend his friend, Senator Larry Craig, from allegations of homosexuality.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

One KKK Group Protests Another Over Immigration
Posted by Pam Spaulding on October 31, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

Kate's a native of Alabama, so I always give her grief when stories like this come up -- Members of one Klan group plan to protest another in Cullman. She actually has relatives that live in this town; I've heard hair-raising tales about the racism and organized Klan activity there.

Let's start from the beginning -- a national branch of the Klan has secured a permit to hold a protest against illegal immigrants at the Cullman County Courthouse. (Cullman Times):

Dan Quinn, Grand Dragon of the Realm of Alabama for the Church of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc., wrote to Mayor Don Green and the council asking for permission to hold the rally Nov. 10.

Quinn said the reason for the group's meeting would be to speak "out against the invasion of our beautiful state by the illegal immigrants and their impact on our societies."

However, another branch of the KKK will have none of this. Its leadership thinks that the other Klan faction is uncouth and un-Christian. Try reading this without laughing.

Members of one Ku Klux Klan organization say they will assemble at the courthouse Nov. 10 to show their opposition to another Klan group that plans an anti-immigration rally there that day.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Karen Hughes Resigns After Two Years of Making US Image Abroad Even Worse
Posted by Steve Benen on October 31, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

I've never been entirely clear on why Karen Hughes was tapped to be the Bush administration's undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. Granted, Hughes is not without talents -- she was a capable local journalist, she's not a bad writer, and she manages to connect unrelated events to 9/11 quite well -- but there's literally nothing in her background regarding diplomacy or international affairs.

After a couple of years on the job, and no successes to speak of, Hughes announced her resignation this morning.

Karen Hughes, who led efforts to improve the U.S. image abroad and was one of President Bush's last remaining advisers from the close circle of Texas aides, will leave the government at the end of the year. [...]

Announcing Hughes' decision to leave the department in mid-December, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she had accepted the resignation "with a great deal of sadness but also a great deal of happiness for what she has achieved" and with the understanding that she would continue to work on several projects. [...]

"I knew that she would bring a great dedication and great commitment to all that we're trying to do," Rice said. "She has done just a remarkable job."

Really? Because I've been looking for any kind of achievements from Hughes' efforts, and I can't seem to find one.

Indeed, the AP notes, rather matter-of-factly, "Polls show no improvement in the world's view of the U.S. since Hughes took over. A Pew Research Center survey earlier said the unpopular Iraq war is a persistent drag on the U.S. image and has helped push favorable opinion of the United States in Muslim Indonesia, for instance, from 75 percent in 2000 to 30 percent last year."

Any suggestion that Hughes is responsible for declining U.S. popularity would be wildly unfair. That said, it's not unreasonable to consider Hughes' on-the-job performance. (I'll give you a hint: it wasn't very good.)

I'm reminded, for example, of this Fred Kaplan piece, noting one of Hughes' trips to the Middle East.

Could someone please explain to me what Karen Hughes is doing. Her maiden voyage to the Middle East has turned into a fiasco. She assures a room of Saudi women that they, too, will someday drive cars; they tell her they're actually happy right now, thank you. She meets with a group of Turkish women -- hand-picked by an outfit that supports women running for political office -- who brusquely tell her she has no credibility as long as U.S. troops occupy Iraq.

In a sense, this is par for the course when American officials meet with unofficial audiences abroad. But here's the puzzler: Why is it Karen Hughes who's taking these meetings? It was strange enough when her longtime friend President George W. Bush named her as the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. It's absolutely mind-numbing to discover that she considers it one of her mandates to be the public diplomat. [...]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is the GOP Propaganda Network Clear Channel Out to Kill Springsteen's "Magic"?
Posted by Howie Klein on October 31, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

If you look for Springsteen in Google News, you get one rave review of his live sold out tour after another. Last Thursday and Friday he wowed 'em at the Oakland Coliseum. Last night he was in L.A.

At 58, Springsteen certainly can't call himself young any more-- at least not chronologically. Despite the hurricane force he and the E Street Band frequently mustered during their two-hour show, plenty of fans cheering them on no doubt recall the nights of yore when this fabled group was just starting to break a sweat at the two-hour mark.

Still, what this outfit does on stage each night remains fairly daring, and the older they get, the greater the risk of the without-a-net abandon with which they administer the sacrament of rock 'n' roll.

The invigorating thing about the New Jersey bard is the way he and his merry band embrace their coming of age. For all the kudos Springsteen's new Magic album is earning for the joyful rocking it delivers, it's rife with self-doubt, disillusionment, anger and acceptance of the disappointments and compromises life inevitably presents the thinking person.

A couple weeks ago the new album was #1 on the Billboard album chart. Kid Rock's new album knocked it down a peg and this week, Springsteen disposed on Kid Rock and is back at #1. The album is already gold and headed right towards platinum and he's got a great shot to win a Grammy for Best Album of the Year. Magic's reviews virtually everywhere are over the top and the intro to his latest interview in Rolling Stone refers to the album's subject matter as "weighty stuff like the direction of our democracy and party stuff that recalls the days when sparks first flew on E Street more than three decades ago."

Republican radio network Clear Channel, a monopoly in many cities and a dominant player in most of the rest, isn't interested. Is it because Springsteen has been an outspoken campaigner for Democrats and progressives? Clear Channel has taken a political stand with its programming in the past. Just think back to their boycott of the Dixie Chicks. Oh, no... not way back, just back to when they released their most recent album. Despite being one of the top 10 best-selling American albums of the year-- across all genres and demographics-- radio studiously ignored it. There were maybe half a dozen country stations that even played it at all. What Clear Channel did to the Dixie Chicks is a watertight case for the need to break the media companies up into a thousand pieces. (John Sununu disagrees; he's pro-censorship.) I spoke with an old friend who heads a record company and preferred to speak off the record.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Mukasey Still Refuses to Call Waterboarding Torture Or Illegal
Posted by Matt Corley on October 31, 2007 at 7:03 AM.

This post, written by Matt Corley, originally appeared on Think Progress

In a written response to questions from Senate Democrats today, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey refused to explicitly say whether he believed waterboarding to be torture. In the four-page letter, Mukasey called the interrogation technique "over the line" and "repugnant" on "a personal basis," but added that he would need the "actual facts and circumstances" to strike a "legal opinion":

Hypotheticals are different from real life and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical.

CNN's Ed Henry notes that with his "facts and circumstances" hedge, "essentially Michael Mukasey is dodging the question of whether legally waterboarding is torture." Watch Henry's report in the video to your right.

Senate Democrats have said that Mukasey's answer on the question of waterboarding and torture is crucial to their vote on his confirmation. "It's fair to say my vote would depend on him answering that question," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) told reporters last week. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) called it "the seminal issue."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a judge advocate general in the military, has said that it shouldn't be difficult for Mukasey to be clear on the issue:

If he does not believe that waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind because I don't think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates" the Geneva Convention and other statutes.

Time reported earlier today that if Mukasey "refuses to declare waterboarding expressly illegal, he looks likely to be rejected by the Judiciary Committee."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Democratic Debate in Philly: Everybody vs. Hillary
Posted by Steve Benen on October 31, 2007 at 5:04 AM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originaly appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

Not since the first debate for the Democratic presidential candidates, way back in April, has there actually been some anticipation about what might happen. Last night, in Philadelphia, it was obvious that Hillary Clinton's rivals would be more aggressive towards the front-runner, but how much? Who'd benefit? Would it make a difference?

We gained some insights into the questions last night. One of the things I thought was interesting was that Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards all went after Clinton, to one degree or another, but they all went about it in very different ways.

Obama characterized Clinton as inconsistent, and therefore, unreliable: "Clinton in her campaign, I think, has been for NAFTA previously, now she's against it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago and then most recently has taken a different position. She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later said this was a war for diplomacy. Now, that may be politically savvy, but I don't think that it offers the clear contrast that we need."

Edwards characterized Clinton as dishonest, and therefore, lacking integrity: "She says she'll stand up to George Bush on Iran. She just said it again. And in fact, she voted to give George Bush the first step in moving militarily on Iran, and he's taken it.... I was surprised by Senator Clinton's vote, I'll be honest about that, and then I saw an explanation of it in The New York Times for her vote, which basically said she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I think that our responsibility as presidential candidates is to be in tell-the-truth mode all the time."

Dodd characterized Clinton as unelectable, and therefore, not worth voting for: "Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from -- from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her. I'm not saying that people don't know already. I don't necessarily like it, but those are the facts."

In previous debates, Clinton would just laugh off any criticism directed at her, or deflect it with a joke. Last night, that wasn't an option -- the questions dominated the event. Obama emphasized Clinton's secrecy on presidential papers from the '90s; Edwards emphasized Clinton's fundraising; everyone emphasized Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman.

But in a real change of pace, Clinton actually slipped a little, and actually made a mistake.

Towards the end of the debate, Russert noted New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) plan to provide driver's licenses to immigrants who enter the country illegally. Clinton had told a New Hampshire paper that the plan "makes a lot of sense." Clinton hedged, and explained why Spitzer is pursuing the policy, in an apparent defense.

Dodd questioned the policy, saying a driver's license should be a privilege. Clinton tried to backpedal: "I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."

Oops. She said the plan makes a lot of sense, and defended Spitzer's efforts, but then isn't sure if the idea is any good? Clinton supports the policy, but won't endorse the policy?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Spitzer On Dobbs: "He Spews Venom, Hate and Misinformation"
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake on October 31, 2007 at 5:00 AM.

This post, written by Jane Hamsher, originally appeared on FireDogLake

Elliot Spitzer rightly called out Lou Dobbs for his race baiting in the New York drivers' license controversy yesterday morning (the video is to your right):

SPITZER: Look, I'm not going to demean myself by getting into a back and forth with somebody who on TV spews venom, hate and fundamental misinformation. Of course not. He knows it.

As I said, it's beneath me, it's beneath my office, to, in any way, involve myself with Lou Dobbs. And I think his knowing spread of venom is beneath CNN as well.

Lou, of course, just flipped his shit:

The governor should know better than to inject racism into a debate about giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens or any other debate of public policy.

Well, Lou, that is of course the appropriate thing to do when that's what someone is engaging in.

Dobbs then went on to put up this poll:

Do you believe it is racist to enforce US immigration laws to secure our ports and borders?

I'm sure Lou feels mightily vindicated that the vote is 98% "no" but that isn't what Spitzer claimed, not by a long shot. The chiron then flashed "Fears of Massive Voter Fraud," and I'm waiting for somebody to say there's a risk with these drivers' licenses of massive voter fraud, but it turns out the person who's worried about that is...Lou Dobbs.

Let's remember that Richard Clarke has said that Spitzer's plan will make the country more secure because "it is far preferable for the state to know who is living in it and driving on its roads." And according to AAA, Spitzer's plan will reduce accidents. Spitzer also says it will save New York drivers' $120 million a year in insurance costs.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP State Rep Caught Cross-Dressing With Male Hookers
Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! on October 31, 2007 at 4:54 AM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

UPDATE: GOP Rep. Curtis resigns, more details on this story here

According to today's Times-Picayune David Diapers Vitter (R-LA) "has agreed to pay a $25,000 fine for violating federal election laws during his campaign for the Senate in 2004." Kind of completes the image of what he is and always has been. He cheats on his wife and cheats the voters as well.

Meanwhile, way on the otherside of the country, up in Washington another I'm-Not-Gay-Republican-- yawn-- Washington Rep. Richard Curtis is all caught up in some extortion business with a gay prostitute. KREM, a Spokane TV station, reported that Curtis and the male hooker had "a sexual encounter and were seen together at various spots around the city." Spokane is just up the road apiece from Idaho and Curtis said, "I am not gay. I have not had sex with a guy." A.P. is reporting that Curtis and the hooker met at one of those porno video shops (the Hollywood Erotic Boutique) at 12:45am and then went back to Curtis' hotel room at 3:30am for sex. They don't say who did what to whom but the trick, Cody Castagna, demanded a grand to not blab that Curtis, who is married, is also enjoying the company of young men, and Curtis called the cops.

Before you start feeling too sorry for this chump, keep this in mind: he's a self-righteous right-wing turd who he voted against domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples. Last year, he opposed a gay rights bill that banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Flush another Republican hypocrite down the toilet. I've lost count.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Aussie Family Values Party Drops Candidate Over Porn Pics
Posted by Paddy on October 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Paddy, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

CANBERRA (Reuters) - A family values campaigner accused of taking pornographic photographs of himself has been dumped as a candidate for Australia's November election by the Christian-values Family First Party.

Sydney music teacher Andrew Quah, 21, admitted photographs showing his penis and circulating widely on gay websites had embarrassed his party and made his candidacy untenable.

"But that's not my penis," Quah told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, adding one of the images may have been digitally altered.

"I might have been drunk off my face, or my political enemies might have drugged me," Quah said. "It was a mistake that I would not have committed had I been of right mind. All I know, I have been humiliated."

I'm guessing he's been humiliated for a completely different reason, since the people who have seen the pictures have dubbed him, "The Smallest Loser". My.

h/t Christopher

Iraq War Profiteer Spends Millions On Himself, Leaves Troops With Shoddy Body Armor
Posted by Howie Klein on October 30, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

What ever happened to the good old days when war profiteers and traitors undermining our soldiers in the field were put against a wall and shot? (Yes, unlike many of my liberal pals, I'm a death penalty fanatic-- although just when the punishment fits the crime-- like in the case of the Bush Regime cronies who have long and solid records of treasonous criminality.)

David Brooks is probably best known, in our shallow, celebrity-obsessed society, for the lavish and grotesque bat mitzvah be threw for his daughter Liza at the Rainbow Room in 2005. Aside from 50 Cent (for the kids) his own middle-aged friends were entertained by middle aged rockers Aerosmith (who were paid a million dollars for the show), as well as Tom Petty, Kenny G and the Eagles. I can't imagine that the Eagles or Tom Petty took less than the fee Aerosmith got since they all share the same manager. I don't know much about Kenny G. but I suspect he got more than your average bat mitzvah band even if his music sounds just like your average bat mitzvah band's.

But it isn't the $10,000,000 tax deductible, company-paid bat mitzvah, the $194,000 Bentley, the stable of 100 race horses, the $100,000 diamond-studded belt buckle and numerous other egregious instances of fashion crimes or even more shameful manifestations of the sybartic lifestyle the Bush tax breaks for multimillionaires encourages. It's how he made all that loot.

Now, keep in mind that when Brooks was in business with the Bush Regime, making defective body armor for our troops on the front lines, he gave the National Republican Campaign Committee a nice fat check for $25,000, much less than he paid Kenny G to wow his friends at the notorious bat mitzvah the same year, but still, something the Republicrooks were happy to see come there way. He got plenty of business... unfortunately.

According to yesterday's NY Post it was our troops who got the shitty end of that Republican stick. Brooks reaped $185 million by selling his company's stock "when he learned that 6,000 bullet-proof vests the company made were about to be recalled for being faulty and not able to block bullets."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Thinks Listening to the American People Is a "Waste of Time"
Posted by Ali Frick on October 30, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by Ali Frick, originally appeared on Think Progress

This morning, President Bush met exclusively with Republican congressional leaders to discuss the SCHIP bill. Afterward, he held a press conference slamming the Democratic leadership for "not getting its work done" in Congress, stating that the Senate had "wasted valuable time" trying to end the war in Iraq:

BUSH: Congress is not getting its work done. Near -- we're near the end of the year and there really isn't much to show for it.

The House of Representatives has wasted valuable time on a constant stream of investigations and the Senate has wasted valuable time on an endless series of failed votes to pull our troops out of Iraq. And yet there's important work to be done on behalf of the American people.

Watch the video to your right.

According to Bush, the Senate has wasted time listening to the wishes of the American public. Sixty-eight percent of Americans want U.S. forces in Iraq reduced or withdrawn entirely, according to a September CBS poll. An October Washington Post/ABC poll also found that a majority of Americans "do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Thompson Confuses Civil Unions With Soviet Union
Posted by Pam Spaulding on October 30, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

Freeper fantasy candidate Fred Thompson's pre-programmed answers on same-sex marriage ("those activist judges!") didn't exactly help him out when asked about New Hampshire's new civil unions law, and the possibility of a federal CU. He blew a circuit. (AP):

Edward Paul, an employee of the Delta Dental Plans Association, asked the question Monday, but had trouble being understood.

"I'm proud to say that in January 2008 New Hampshire has passed a law facilitating civil unions here. ... What is your belief for federal civil unions to be passed?" Paul asked.

"Soviet Union?" Thompson responded.

"No, civil unions," Paul said.

"Oh. No, I would not be in support of that," Thompson said.

Thompson then went on to talk about marriage, since he had that answer in RAM:

"Basically so far, it is a judge-made controversy," Thompson said. "No state or governor has signed off on such legislation on the state level that has endorsed marriage between the same sexes. There may have been a couple of courts that said the Constitution of their states has required that, so it's a judicially made situation as far as I am concerned."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dodd Declares He Won't Support Mukasey, Fellow Democrats Follow His Lead
Posted by Marc Cooper on October 30, 2007 at 6:52 AM.

This post, written by Marc Cooper, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

Kudos to Chris Dodd whose third-tier-nothing-to-lose presidential campaign has sprouted him a robust pair of cojones. Dodd became the most prominent Democrat, and the first among the presidential candidates, to declare he will vote against Bush nominee Michael Mukasey's confirmation as Attorney General.

Angered by Mukasey's Senate testimony last week in which the former federal judge and prosecutor floated a legal "theory" that the President of the United States could, indeed, stand above constitutional statutes, Dodd declared on Monday:

"That is about as basic as it gets," Dodd said. "You must obey the law. Everyone must."

Dodd, along with a slew of other legal and political observers were also dismayed when Mukasey dodged Senators' questions last week about whether or not so-called waterboarding was, in fact, a form of torture. After eluding any straight answer, Mukasey wound up making the incredulous statement that he wasn't quite sure what was meant by the term.

Over the weekend, some leading Senate Democrats ranging from Dianne Feinstein of California to Carl Levin of Michigan engaged in their own form of equivocation, warning they might vote against Mukasey if he doesn't properly clarify his views when he responds to written questions from the Senate later this week.

But Dodd's bold stepping-out on this issue, rejecting any mulligan for a nominee who refuses to call torture by its proper name, seems like it might force the hand of fellow Democrats who might start looking rather silly if they don't turn thumbs down on the newly proposed AG. Within hours of Dodd's statement, fellow candidate and Delaware Senator Joe Biden also said he had made up his mind to vote nay. Campaign spokesmen for John Edwards and Bill Richardson also joined the chorus. And by late Monday night, the campaign of Barack Obama piled on, telling The New York Sun:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Cheney Visits Hunting Lodge That Hangs Confederate Flag
Posted by Faiz Shakir on October 30, 2007 at 6:42 AM.

This post, written by Faiz Shakir, originally appeared on Think Progress

Last week, the Poughkeepsie Journal reported that Vice President Dick Cheney was planning to go hunting in upstate New York over the weekend. The paper reported that Cheney would "head to the Clove Valley Rod & Gun Club in LaGrangeville" on Monday morning.

Yesterday, Cheney spent eight hours hunting at the "secluded Hudson Valley gun club where well-heeled enthusiasts shoot ducks and pheasants." It was his second visit to the club; the previous trip was in fall 2001.

Although Cheney did not shoot anyone on this hunting excursion, the New York Daily News reports that the trip still managed to stir up problems for the Vice President:

Nobody got shot, but Vice President Cheney still fired up controversy Monday when he went hunting at a private club that hangs the Confederate flag.

A Daily News photographer captured the 3-by-5 foot Dixie flag affixed to a door in the garage of the Clove Valley Gun and Rod Club in upstate Union Vale, N.Y.

"It's appalling for the VP to be at a private club displaying the flag of lynching, hate and murder," said Rev. Al Sharpton. "It's the epitome of an insult."

Cheney spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said, "No one in our office was aware there was such a flag. The vice president did not see a flag, nor did anyone on his staff traveling with him in New York." The Daily News photographer who took the picture, Howard Simmons, said "the flag was plainly viewable in the strong sunlight streaming toward the garage", but he also "said it is conceivable the garage door could have been closed when the vice president and his guests were there."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

US State Dept Granted Blackwater Immunity in Killing of 17 Civilians
Posted by Siun on October 30, 2007 at 5:44 AM.

This post, written by Siun, originally appeared on FireDogLake

Remember that Blackwater killing of 17 Iraqi civilians - and the oh so independent investigation that was supposed to dig out the truth (yeah, right).

Well, it seems the investigation is stalled because:*

The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month's deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, The Associated Press has learned.

The immunity deal has delayed a criminal inquiry into the Sept. 16 killings and could undermine any effort to prosecute security contractors for their role in the incident that has infuriated the Iraqi government.

H/T to Marcy who wonders:

Gosh, I couldn't imagine why the State Department would immediately immunize all the guards in this investigation, can you?

Anyway don't you think that's something Condi should have told Waxman's committee the other day ... that these guys had already been given immunity from prosecution and that, therefore, the FBI investigation is likely to end up-like all other investigations of Blackwater-holding no one responsible?

Given the apparent lack of investigatory muscle we've seen on Blackwater, it's encouraging to see that "the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions is planning an official visit to the US to investigate allegations of unlawful killings by US military and non-military actors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Incidents like the killings of Iraqi civilians in Haditha prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and civilian deaths caused by airstrikes in Afghanistan have all raised issues that Alston would like to investigate."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pastor Accused of Raping, Sexually Abusing His Parishioners
Posted by Cliff Schecter on October 30, 2007 at 5:16 AM.

This post, written by Cliff Schecter, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

The short (and very sad) version: No

Because too many of these guys have all sorts of power and projection issues they should be working out on a couch somewhere, which they instead relieve by publicly lecturing the rest of us while behaving like animals in private.

Here is the scoop, via my pal Pastordan, on the latest behavior that doesn't quite fit the guidelines many in the religious right community espouse for the rest of poor sheep:

At least 100 people were gathered for Sunday afternoon prayer at a Northeast Portland church when a woman stood to interrupt the preacher's sermon with some alarming allegations.

Pastor Sergio Alvarizares, she said, had used sweet talk and lavish compliments to draw her into his office, lock the door and make unwanted sexual advances.

Soon, other women rose to make similar accusations. A ruckus erupted, and the pastor tried to shout over them from the pulpit, "That's a lie! That's a lie!"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Fake CNN Website Tries to Frame Hispanic Group for Wildfires
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on October 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM.

This post, written by Lindsay Beyerstein, originally appeared on Majikthise

Speaking of fake news... Someone registered the domain name "cnnheadlienews" on Oct. 25 2007, to run a bogus news story alleging that Hispanic separatist group had claimed responsibility for setting the California wildfires.

The page is dummied up to look like a CNN web page. There's no other content on the site. A WHOIS search reveals that the page is registered to something called "Bleach Boy Manufacturing."

(click for larger version)

There is no such corporation on file with the Tennessee Secretary of State.

Katharine Zalecki of Huffington Post reports that some anti-immigrant websites cited the story as fact, without noticing or caring that the url was a dead giveaway.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Is Obama Making Appearances With An Anti-Gay Pastor?
Posted by Matt Stoller on October 29, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Matt Stoller, originally appeared on Open Left

In the whole McClurkin fiasco, one interesting note here is that Obama seems to have built the opposite of the Dean coalition. Dean's very first base group was the gay community that funded his initial campaign, and then he moved to the blogs and the wider white progressive space, but he never really picked up traction among African-Americans. Obama's McClurkin incident has coalesced the blogs and the gay community against him, and he's now fighting Clinton for African-Americans. There's an exception of course in that both Dean and Obama were much stronger among men than women, but the gist of the McClurkin story is that Obama has gelled the latent anti-Obama sentiment among progressives into something solid.

I should be clear. The McClurkin situation is not about gay bashing and it never has been about gay bashing. Obama's not a homophobe, he is probably more comfortable around gay people than any Presidential candidate and he has a great record on LGBT rights. It is a significant incident though, because it's about priorities. It's obvious from the campaign's blundering politics that the people Obama listens to for political advice simply don't care about the concerns of progressives. Here's Obama on the gay-baiting McClurkin controversy.

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don't think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

So the choice, apparently, is between the LGBT community and the Democratic Party being hermetically sealed from the faith community and inviting gay-bashers to act as surrogates. Ok, fine. At least Obama would take the notion of dialogue seriously, right? Both sides would get their say. And McClurkin is just a singer, not a spokesman.

Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.

He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: "Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings," he cried.

"God delivered me from homosexuality," he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: "God is the only way." The crowd sang and clapped along in full support....

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Administration Wanted to Promote FEMA Staffer Behind Staged Press Conference
Posted by Faiz Shakir on October 29, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by Faiz Shakir, originally appeared on Think Progress

Last Friday, the Washington Post revealed that a FEMA press conference about the California wildfires was staged. In an event that was aired live on cable stations, FEMA staffers posed as journalists and lobbed softball questions at Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the deputy administrator of FEMA.

FEMA quickly came under a storm of criticism. The Department of Homeland Security said the propaganda press conference was "inexcusable," and claimed they were taking the issue "very seriously." Dana Perino said the White House does not "condone" FEMA's actions.

John "Pat" Philbin, FEMA's director of external affairs, quickly announced his resignation. "It was absolutely a bad decision. I regret it happened. Certainly...I should have stopped it," he said. But Philbin simultaneously announced that he was landing comfortably at the Director of Public Affairs for the Director of National Intelligence, where he is starting today.

The Bush administration has sought to portray Philbin's departure as an act of accountability. In a phone call with CNN's Jeanne Meserve this morning, FEMA Director David Paulison pointed to Philbin's exit as an example of the "disciplinary action" that was being undertaken in the wake of the phony press conference:

MESERVE: [Paulison] also said that some disciplinary action has been taken over at FEMA and that he was very disturbed at the effect this had on morale in his agency. When I asked if it had a deleterious effect, he said undoubtedly it had. [...]

I did ask him also about John Philbin, also known also as Pat Philbin. ... I asked Paulison if he thought it was appropriate that Philbin should make the move over to another government agency. He said that's between Philbin and his new boss. But Paulison did say in an e-mail, Philbin had taken complete responsibility for what had happened at that press conference.

Watch it to your right.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush May Recess Appoint Homophobic Surgeon General Nominee
Posted by Amanda Terkel on October 29, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

President Bush's Surgeon General nominee James Holsinger appeared before the Senate health committee on July 12, forced to defend his controversial positions on homosexuality. Yet three months later, Holsinger is "no closer to becoming the nation's next surgeon general."

ThinkProgress today spoke with a spokesperson for chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA) who said the committee still has not received a response to a follow-up questionnaire it sent Holsinger three months ago:

We sent out the questions on 7/26 and requested that they be returned by COB on 8/10. We have not received the answers and there is no Committee action scheduled at this time.

Holsinger's lengthy delay indicates that Bush may be angling to recess appoint Holsinger. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports:

The committee must vote before the full Senate can consider the nomination, and senators are hoping to adjourn for the year by mid-November.

The delay leaves open the possibility that Holsinger will either have to wait until next year for a confirmation vote or get the job through a "recess appointment" by Bush. [...]

A recess appointment would allow Holsinger to serve as surgeon general until the end of the current Congress late next year.

Bush has been more than willing to use this executive power to avoid or delay battles over divisive nominees such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton and Swift Boat-funder Sam Fox. In June, the Washington Post reported that Bush had filled 105 full-time positions with recess appointments, compared to just 42 such appointments under President Clinton at the same point in his presidency.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Colbert and Edwards Spar Over Doritos, Who's South Carolina's "Favorite Son"
Posted by GottaLaff on October 29, 2007 at 6:49 AM.

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Blog

Colbert loves him some Doritos:

Edwards spokesperson Teresa Wells also ribbed Colbert for his ties to the snack food industry. Colbert has said his campaign will be sponsored by Doritos.

"What is more troubling than his quest for a status his own mother won't grant him (favorite son) are his ties to the salty food industry," Wells said. "As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from taco chip lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of the snack food special interests."

Now excuse me while I stick my hand in the bag of the snack food special interests.

UPDATE: Stephen Colbert Launches Campaign in South Carolina -- Edwards' Campaign Gets Hot About It

Stephen Colbert launched his native son candidacy for president in South Carolina today -- and drew comparisons with Christ while earning the wrath of another native, former Sen. John Edwards.

Columbia, S.C., Mayor Bob Coble presented the "Comedy Central" hero a key to the city, declared him South Carolina's "favorite son" and officially proclaimed it Stephen Colbert day. Some in the crowd held signs with images of Colbert and Jesus that read, "Colbert. Christ. Favorite Sons '08."

Colbert said he was honored to receive the key to the city and said he "loves South Carolina, almost as much as South Carolina loves" him.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is The Religious Right On Its Last Legs?
Posted by Christy Hardin Smith on October 29, 2007 at 6:16 AM.

This post, written by Christy Hardin Smith, originally appeared on FireDogLake

The NYTimes Magazine has an intriguing article about the schisms that may be occurring within the evangelical community. It seems that the "marketing potential" of supporting the Bush Administration is way down in terms of synergistic fundraising...at least based on where the Dobson Focus on the Family folks are...erm...focusing themselves these days. The switch from hate-filled invective directed at "libruls" to the actual message of acting on the humanism and peace contained in Christ's teachings would certainly be an improvement, but I'm filing this in the "believe it when I've seen it for more than a couple of months" category.

In any case, I thought this was a fascinating bit of insight from a reporter who has been covering the Christian right for quite a while:

...Meanwhile, a younger generation of evangelical pastors -- including the widely emulated preachers Rick Warren and Bill Hybels -- are pushing the movement and its theology in new directions. There are many related ways to characterize the split: a push to better this world as well as save eternal souls; a focus on the spiritual growth that follows conversion rather than the yes-or-no moment of salvation; a renewed attention to Jesus' teachings about social justice as well as about personal or sexual morality. However conceived, though, the result is a new interest in public policies that address problems of peace, health and poverty -- problems, unlike abortion and same-sex marriage, where left and right compete to present the best answers.

The backlash on the right against Bush and the war has emboldened some previously circumspect evangelical leaders to criticize the leadership of the Christian conservative political movement. "The quickness to arms, the quickness to invade, I think that caused a kind of desertion of what has been known as the Christian right," Hybels, whose Willow Creek Association now includes 12,000 churches, told me over the summer. "People who might be called progressive evangelicals or centrist evangelicals are one stirring away from a real awakening."

The generational and theological shifts in the evangelical world are turning the next election into a credibility test for the conservative Christian establishment. The current Republican front-runner in national polls, Rudolph W. Giuliani, could hardly be less like their kind of guy: twice divorced, thrice married, estranged from his children and church and a supporter of legalized abortion and gay rights. Alarmed at the continued strength of his candidacy, Dobson and a group of about 50 evangelical Christians leaders agreed last month to back a third party if Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee. But polls show that Giuliani is the most popular candidate among white evangelical voters. He has the support, so far, of a plurality if not a majority of conservative Christians. If Giuliani captures the nomination despite the threat of an evangelical revolt, it will be a long time before Republican strategists pay attention to the demands of conservative Christian leaders again. And if the Democrats capitalize on the current demoralization to capture a larger share of evangelical votes, the credibility damage could be just as severe.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

US Consciously Kills Civilians In Afghanistan
Posted by Scarecrow on October 29, 2007 at 6:15 AM.

This post, written by Scarecrow, originally appeared on FireDogLake

CBS 60 Minutes revealed last night that the US military in Afghanistan uses air strikes in situations it knows will kill innocent civilians, if the commanders also believe enough Taliban might be killed. The result has been a doubling of civilian casualties, such that we now kill as many civilians as the Taliban and al Qaeda.

And all Aghfan President Karzai can do is plead with George Bush, so far unsuccessfully, that the US stop using air strikes against civilian targets.

In one of many such incidents this year, US forces announced they had carried out an air strike and had killed several suspected militants. However, the military declined to provide further information on who might have been killed, and when reports leaked out that most of the victims had been women and children -- innocent civilians -- 60 Minutes sent a team to find out what happened.

In interviews with 60 Minutes, US military acknowledged that field commanders had clearance to call in air strikes on civilian targets, knowing that innocent deaths would likely occur, provided they made what one official described as a "macabre kind of calculus" about whether the "target" was "worth" the likely number of civilian deaths.

We learned there are two kinds of targets: deliberate targets which are analyzed for days and watched for patterns of civilians coming and going, and immediate targets, such as when troops are in combat and need air support. In both cases, civilian casualties are estimated in advance and it's up to the commander on the ground to decide whether the strike is worth the cost.

"We rely on those commanders to make the assessment at the time of what the requirement is. He assesses proportionality. He assesses the validity of the military target," Crowder explains. . . .

"In some circumstances, we will bomb the house," says Crowder. "It is entirely dependent upon the circumstances on the ground, and the ground commander's assessment of that particular situation."

"There's this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth," says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.

Until now, the official US position was that civilian deaths were regrettable accidents, "mistakes" based on faulty intelligence or missing the intended targets -- just the unavoidable incidents of war or more the result of enemy tactics than ours. But apparently that was false, a cover for rules of engagement that assume that the lives of Afghani civilians have only relative value that gets weighed in the judgment of US field commanders.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rumsfeld On the Run From French Torture Charges
Posted by Siun on October 29, 2007 at 5:00 AM.

This post, written by Siun, originally appeared on FireDogLake

On Friday Donald Rumsfeld arrived in France to give a speech - but he had to leave via a back door that went directly into the US Embassy and then quickly scampered out of the country. Why? He was afraid French prosecutors would act on an indictment brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights and several other NGOs.

The criminal complaint states that because of the failure of authorities in the United States and Iraq to launch any independent investigation into the responsibility of Rumsfeld and other high-level U.S. officials for torture despite a documented paper trail and government memos implicating them in direct as well as command responsibility for torture - and because the U.S. has refused to join the International Criminal Court - it is the legal obligation of states such as France to take up the case.

In this case, charges are brought under the 1984 Convention against Torture, ratified by both the United States and France, which has been used in France in previous torture cases.

While Rumsfeld had apparently gotten out of France before an arrest, the case can be prosecuted since he was in the country when it was filed. As Larry Johnson notes:

One thing is certain, Rummy is now part of an exclusive but growing club of Amcits who face legal peril in foreign lands because they participated (allegedly) in some kind of torture, disappearance, or other violation of international human rights. That means he won't be going on any foreign junkets. Once outside the safe confines of the United States he can be snatched up and hauled off to France to face questioning.

You can listen to an interview with the attorney's bringing the charge at Democracy Now and follow the case at the site for the International Federation for Human Rights. CCR is asking everyone to fax or call the French prosecutors and ask them to bring Rummy to justice - please take a minute to do so.

While Rumsfeld was playing hide and seek with French law, children in Iraq are not playing at all - in fact, this week the UN news service IRIN reported that children are being held in Iraqi prisons - and they too are being tortured:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is Mitch McConnell The Next Sleazy Republican Larry Flynt Will Expose?
Posted by Howie Klein on October 28, 2007 at 9:10 AM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

McConnell is infamous in Washington for a number of things, aside from his official duty as Bush's chief obstructionist in the Senate. He's as dirty as they come and, unlike many of his colleagues, he's known for taking bribes from overseas interests. He's been an "unofficial"-- but immensely well-paid-- lobbyist for China for a long time. A new scandal, though, has him taking money from closer to home: a British arms dealer.

The story broke in the Kentucky papers today and it could be a devastating blow to McConnell's already shaky re-election prospects. In a state plagued with severe economic problems, it looks very bad that McConnell was caught earmarking $25 million for a British armsmaker, BAE, "that is under criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and suspected by American diplomats of a 'long-standing, widespread pattern of bribery allegations.'"

According to the story in the Lexington paper "McConnell has taken at least $53,000 in campaign donations from BAE's political action committees and employees since his 2002 re-election." He is suspected of having taken hundreds of thousands of dollars under the table.

Ethics watchdogs say they're surprised McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, would continue to give earmarks and take donations from a corporation in hot water with his own government. McConnell should keep his distance, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"Most politicians decide that a scandal is a good time to stop doing business with a company, at least until the scandal is over," Sloan said. "Particularly when we're talking about a criminal investigation over bribery. You would think that a member of Congress would want to steer clear of anyone accused of bribery."

Even without the scandal, it looks bad for a senator to earmark federal money for a corporation, as compared to a public university or a local government in his state, said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center in Washington.

"Why did they need special favors from Senator McConnell instead of going through the usual open competition and budgeting process at the Pentagon?" Boehm asked.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dallas Billboard Implies Link Between Sagging Pants and Homosexuality
Posted by Pam Spaulding on October 28, 2007 at 8:16 AM.

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

Dan L. has a diary up about a dress code in some Dekalb, IL bars that bans "baggy clothing" -- referring to the still-popular style (god knows why) of wearing saggy pants, ostensibly to reduce the number of young urban men (i.e. of color) coming in. Dan asks whether this policy is racist or not.

This "style dragnet," which at one bar also includes "hoodies, do-rags, hats and caps, all baggy clothes, jerseys, large chains, basketball shorts, sleeveless shirts, "bling" and warm-up pants," is going to sweep up white suburban hip-hop star wannabes as well, so I think that while this is partially about race, it's also about class and culture as well. These bars are looking to filter out a certain kind of clientele -- and members of hip hop culture are on that list.

I guess you can add homos to that list as well, at least if you are in the city of Dallas, which is running a campaign to shame young men into pulling their pants up lest they be tagged as gay. (NPR):

The campaign has a signature song, "Pull Your Pants Up," by Dooney Da' Priest, that links so-called saggin' with being gay. After the BPP blogged NPR's original report on the public service announcement, listeners objected to lyrics they consider homophobic.

...An accompanying billboard says it's rude to be "walking around showin' your behind to other dudes." The song's refrain is "Be a real man -- pull your pants up."

In an interview with a local television station, Dooney explained that saggin' comes from jail, where he argued that showing your boxers has a very particular meaning. "You're letting another man know that you're available," Dooney said.

I find this amusing in some respect, because I'm sure the vast majority of these "tough guys" trying to emulate gangstas in lockup, walking around with their asses out, aren't going to like that message one iota.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Ugly Truth About the GOP Base and Race
Posted by Jane Hamsher on October 28, 2007 at 8:02 AM.

This post, written by Jane Hamsher, originally appeared on FireDogLake

I was on Bonnie Erbe's To the Contrary yesterday and we were discussing Mike Huckabee's contention that we'd have plenty of people willing to do menial jobs in the US if only there weren't so damn many abortions. I made the comment that Huckabee was obviously killing two birds with one stone -- appealing to the anti-woman and racist elements of the Republican base at the same time, to which the two conservative women on the panel gave a giant "harumph."

From Rick Perlstein's article entitled "The Unspoken Truth about the GOP. Southern Discomfort" in The New Republic:

The very heart of his argument is a taboo notion: that the South votes Republican because the Republicans have perfected their appeal to Southern racism, and that Democrats simply can't (and shouldn't) compete.

But, among scholars, this is hardly news. Schaller builds this conclusion on one of the most impressive papers in recent political science, "Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South," by Nicholas Valentino and David Sears. Running regressions on a massive data set of ideological opinions, Sears and Valentino demonstrate with precision that, for example, a white Southern man who calls himself a "conservative," controlling for racial attitudes, is no less likely to chance a vote for a Democratic presidential candidate than a Northerner who calls himself a conservative. Likewise, a pro-life or hawkish Southern white man is no less likely-again controlling for racial attitudes-than a pro-life or hawkish Northerner to vote for the Democrat.

But, on the other hand, when the relevant identifier is anti-black answers to survey questions (such as whether one agrees "If blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," or choosing whether blacks are "lazy" or "hardworking"), an untoward result jumps out: white Southerners are twice as likely than white Northerners to refuse to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. Schaller's writes: "Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters ... the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past."

I often wonder how many people in the Republican party have simply blocked out all memory of Southern Strategy, and how they manage to discount its lingering effects. Do they think it's just a coincidence that GOP presidential candidates won't go near the African American debates? That Rudy Giuliani and his history with Abner Louima (and others) is doing just dandy in the south purely for being an authoritarian asshole, despite his so-called "social liberal" positions? That John McCain didn't show up for the vote on the DREAM Act, which he co-sponsored, because he was having a bad hair day?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

U.S. Hid Details Of 2005 Blackwater Shootings
Posted by GottaLaff on October 28, 2007 at 7:00 AM.

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films

Well well well. Our lovely, transparent State Department is busted again trying to protect poor, innocent Blackwater:

Even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended her department's oversight of private security contractors, new evidence surfaced Thursday that the U.S. sought to conceal details of Blackwater shootings of Iraqi civilians more than two years ago.

In one instance, internal e-mails show that State Department officials tried to deflect a 2005 Los Angeles Times inquiry into an alleged killing of an Iraqi civilian by Blackwater guards.

But Blackwater never does that! They're perfect!

Uh-oh! An email! I guess it didn't get deleted with the other 5 million:

"Give [the Los Angeles Times] what we can and then dump the rest on Blackwater," one State Department official wrote to another in the e-mails... "We can't win this one."

Not any more you can't. Oh, there was a whole chain of emails:

[T]he "findings of the investigation are to remain off-limits to the reporter." Another recommended that there be no mention of the existence of a criminal investigation since such a reference would "raise questions and issues."

That's not nice. That's just not nice. Play fair, State.

In the May 2005 incident, Blackwater opened fire on a taxi, wounding the driver and killing a passenger, 19-year-old newlywed.

Not nice at all. Neither was this:

Peter Mitchell, then a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, told superiors that he planned to tell a reporter that the State Department had "thoroughly investigated" the incident and that "no criminal act occurred."

But the investigation was only "administrative", not criminal. Two Blackwater employees were fired.

I'm sure they're sorry for what they didn't do.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Georgia Court Orders Release Of Man Jailed For Consensual Sex As Teen
Posted by TChris on October 27, 2007 at 7:53 AM.

This post, written by TChris, originally appeared on Talk Left

If you believe in justice, the best news you are likely to hear today is this:

The Georgia Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of Genarlow Wilson, the Douglas County teenager who has been serving a controversial 10-year sentence for consensual oral sex. The court's 4-3 decision upholds a Monroe County judge's ruling that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under both the Georgia and U.S. constitutions.

Wilson was caught in a bind because he was sentenced under a law (later changed) that imposed a ten year mandatory minimum for having consensual oral sex with a minor, even though she was only two years younger than Wilson, who was 17 at the time. Wilson's ordeal is chronicled in these TalkLeft posts.

The Georgia Supremes made the decision bullet-proof by concluding that the sentence was cruel and unusual under the Georgia Constitution. Even if Georgia were to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the federal constitutional holding, the independent state constitutional holding will continue to protect Wilson.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Take A Stand to End This War Today
Posted by John Ehrenfield on October 27, 2007 at 7:47 AM.

This post, written by John Ehrenfield, originally appeared on Brave New Films

Brave New Foundation is pleased to release this video promoting a historical and momentous event that is about to occur. Watch it and see how you can participate in a gathering that can help change the world.

On Saturday, October 27th there will be 11 massive demonstrations for peace throughout the United States. In Boston, Chicago, Jonesborough, Tennessee, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Seattle, people from all walks of life will join together to express their anti-war sentiments and to call for an immediate end to the conflict in Iraq.

With each passing day the human and financial cost of this unnecessary war grows more and more painful. It's time for the American people to speak out; to collectively let our government know that it's time for this war to end. October 27th provides just that opportunity and the world will be watching.

Take a look at the mobilization web site to get details on the marches October 27th and join your family, friends and neighbors in making sure that your voice is heard. It's time.

Working together with our partners at United For Peace And Justice, Brave New Films has demonstrated again just how effective an advocacy tool video can be. As this video spreads throughout cyberspace, help it on its essential journey by spreading the word to friends and family. The power is in your hands, please use it and help the cause of peace now.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

On Iraq, Post-Partum Depression and Trading Sex for Intel
Posted by Valerie Plame Wilson on October 27, 2007 at 7:37 AM.

This post, written by Valerie Plame Wilson, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

On this fifth day of my book tour for Fair Game; My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House and my final book tour blog for the Huffington Post, I'm finding my stride. With the outing of my covert identity by conservative columnist Robert Novak in July 2003, I went from being a very private person whose entire professional career was devoted to the idea that discretion was paramount, to a public persona in the middle of a media maelstrom literally overnight. I have to say that I am still adjusting. As I have worked through numerous interviews for newspapers, radio, and TV, I am faintly surprised that there are a few questions that for the most part, I have not been asked about the book. Therefore, I thought I would use this blog as a means to answer some of them.

1. Why did you include a chapter on your bout with postpartum depression and were you concerned that the CIA would look unkindly on the fact that you sought help for your condition?

I included the chapter on postpartum depression (PPD) frankly because my publisher, Simon & Schuster, allowed me too, even though it is a departure from the rest of the themes of my book. It is something that I feel passionately about and was actually somewhat painful to write. With the birth of my twins in 2000, I experienced serious postpartum depression and initially had absolutely no idea what was happening. I think it's fair to say that up to that point in my life, I had demonstrated a high degree of coping abilities under significant stress and had always come through just fine. Here I was, an educated, happily married woman with two beautiful, healthy babies and I was completely thrown off balance by dark feelings I had never before experienced. I sought professional help, once a friend clued me into what might be going on. As I pulled out of this truly troubling period in my life -- around the time the twins were about 8 or 9 months old -- I thought of the many women who did not have the resources I had and were struggling with their deep, debilitating depression (PPD is estimated to strike at least 15-20% of all new mothers). I became involved in organizations that sought to educate and heighten awareness on PPD. Although I would not wish PPD on my worst enemy, I am a richer and more empathetic person for having gone through it. I had no qualms about revealing that I had sought professional help for my PPD to the CIA during a subsequent medical exam required to serve overseas. I wanted to be honest about my experiences and indeed, felt wiser and more mentally healthy as a result.

2. Were you and former colleagues at the CIA for or against the war?

During the intense period of operational activity in my office that preceded the war in Iraq, I never remember anyone discussing whether they were "for" or "against" the war. It simply wasn't done and would have been highly inappropriate. We were intelligence professionals working our hardest using every tradecraft skill and intuition we collectively had to try and collect solid intelligence from the Iraqi scientists within the presumed WMD programs. At the working level, our discussions were about how to reach a target, whether to consider a "cold pitch" if circumstances permitted, seeing if we could corroborate a source's intelligence, and figuring out if we could get a particularly valuable source out of Iraq with family, if warranted.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right Wing Flips Out Over Laura Bush Wearing a Headscarf
Posted by Satyam Khanna on October 27, 2007 at 7:36 AM.

This post, written by Satyam Khanna, originally appeared on Think Progress

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wore a headscarf while visiting the Umayyad mosque in Damascus in April, the right wing pounced on her, attacking her as "subservient" and calling the act "disgust[ing]." Ironically, the right wing failed to note that First Lady Laura Bush had also worn a headscarf while previously visiting the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

During a tour of the Middle East this week, Laura Bush again donned a traditional hijab given to her as a gift by a Saudi Arabian doctor. Subsequently, several progressive bloggers questioned whether similar "opprobium" would follow from the right wing this time. Now we have our answer.

The conservative blogosphere has released its seething intolerance, collectively rising up to denounce Laura Bush as "Ms. Pander Clause" for wearing the head cover:

"I find the image from Saudi Arabia so disturbing. ... That she would oblige her hosts by wearing a shmata on her head is a tacit endorsement of Islam's subjugation of women." -- Weekly Standard

"Bad craziness in Saudi Arabia ... [W]e get this, from one of the most misogynistic societies on the planet: a photo of Laura Bush wearing an abaya and a veil. -- Little Green Footballs

"This is Sheikha Laura, yesterday, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ... Laura Bush [is] butt-kissing Saudi King Abdullah." -- Debbie Schlussel

Showing tolerance and respect for other cultures is interpreted as "butt-kissing" by far right conservatives.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Henry Waxman: The Bush Administration's Worst Nightmare
Posted by Christy Hardin Smith on October 26, 2007 at 1:01 PM.

This post, written by Christy Hardin Smith, originally appeared on FireDogLake

Here's to peeking under a lot more rocks -- if ever a town needed it, it is Washington D.C. Via the WaPo:

...Waxman has become the Bush administration's worst nightmare: a Democrat in the majority with subpoena power and the inclination to overturn rocks. But in Waxman the White House also faces an indefatigable capital veteran -- with a staff renowned for its depth and experience -- who has been waiting for this for 14 years.

These days, the 16-term congressman is always ready with a hearing, a fresh crop of internal administration e-mails or a new explosive report. And he has more than two dozen investigations underway, on such issues as the politicization of the entire federal government, formaldehyde in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers, global warming, and safety concerns about the diabetes drug Avandia.

"We have to let people know they have someone watching them after six years with no oversight at all," said Waxman, 68. "And we've got a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick."...

"For the administration, and for a lot of others, people need to be careful now," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), the ranking Republican on the committee. "Someone is looking over their shoulder."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

FEMA Staffers Posed As Reporters at Their Own Press Conference
Posted by Matt Corley on October 26, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by Matt Corley, originally appeared on Think Progress

On Tuesday, while "wildfires raged" in California, Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the deputy administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), held a press conference at FEMA's Southwest D.C. offices that was "carried live on Fox News, MSNBC and other outlets." In the presser, Johnson said he was "very happy with FEMA's response" while praising "the good messaging" of federal and local government responders.

But if the questions lobbed at Johnson seemed a bit like softballs, that's because they were asked by FEMA employees posing as journalists. The Washington Post's Al Kamen reports:

We're told the questions were asked by Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of external affairs, and by "Mike" Widomski, the deputy director of public affairs. Director of External Affairs John "Pat" Philbin asked a question, and another came, we understand, from someone who sounds like press aide Ali Kirin.

Watch a segment of Fox News' coverage of the presser, which never mentions the FEMA stage handling to your right.

Though FEMA told Kamen that "the staff did not make up the questions," the press briefing was filled with softball questions and opportunities for Johnson to praise the FEMA's response to the disaster, contrasting it with the agency's performance during Hurricane Katrina. Kamen writes:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rumsfeld Hit With Torture Lawsuit While In Paris
Posted by Dr. Bruce Prescott on October 26, 2007 at 9:00 AM.

This post, written by Dr. Bruce Prescott, originally appeared on Raw Story

Raw Story is reporting that a criminal complaint of "torture" was filed in a French court against former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Here's a quote:

Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's jaunt to France was interrupted today by an unscheduled itinerary item -- he was slapped with a criminal complaint charging him with torture.

Rumsfeld, in Paris for a discussion sponsored by the magazine Foreign Policy, was by tracked down by representatives of a coalition of international human rights groups, who informed the architect of the US invasion of Iraq that they had submitted a torture suit against him in French court.

The filed documents allege that during his tenure, the former defense secretary "ordered and authorized" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The head of one of the groups responsible for bringing the charges, the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights, told RAW STORY today by phone that the suit was a long time coming.

"We've been working on cornering Rumsfeld and getting him indicted somewhere going on three years now," said the Center's president, Michael Ratner. "Four days ago, we got confidential information he was going to be in France."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is Ron Paul Open to a Fourth Party Campaign?
Posted by Steve Benen on October 26, 2007 at 6:05 AM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

For the last several weeks, there's been plenty of talk about a third-party campaign, but all of it has been focused on the GOP's religious right base. James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and other far-right social conservatives have been surprisingly candid about their intentions to break with the Republican Party, if the presidential nomination goes to a supporter of abortion and gay rights (i.e., Rudy Giuliani).

But what about a fourth-party campaign from Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)?

A couple of weeks ago, during a Republican debate, Paul was asked whether he promised to support the GOP nominee next year, no matter who emerges from the primary process. "Not right now I don't," Paul said, "not unless they're willing to end the war and bring our troops home."

During an MSNBC interview this week, Norah O'Donnell followed up on this point.

O'DONNELL: Congressman, as you know, most of the other Republicans running for president that you have stood onstage with during the debates, they support a continuation of the war in Iraq. You want to end the war in Iraq. If one of them is awarded the Republican nomination, will you choose a third party? Will you not back that nominee?

PAUL: No, I don't plan to run in a third party. That's not my goal. But if we have a candidate that loves the war and loves the neo-con position of promoting our -

At that point in the interview, O'Donnell interrupted, and the interview didn't return to the subject. But the more I think about it, the more I think Paul and his supporters would make a logical third- (or fourth-) party run.

The Dobson crowd is certainly annoyed by the prospect of a Giuliani nomination, as they should be. But the truth is, all of the leading GOP candidates, including the former NYC mayor, are still trying to make the religious right happy. Giuliani has effectively abandoned any hint of social liberalism that he embraced as mayor.

But Paul seems like a more obvious choice for an independent run. The party isn't even trying to reach out to Paul's supporters.

Watching the debates and watching the interviews, Ron Paul isn't necessarily running as a Republican candidate; he's running as Ron Paul. His ideas and policy agenda are entirely detached from the GOP mainstream -- indeed, they are entirely antithetical to the GOP mainstream -- and his supporters seem far more interested in Paul specifically than the Republican Party in general.

In other words, Paul is leading something akin to a movement. It's almost a textbook case of the kind of candidate who would launch an independent run for the White House.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Now Only One Democrat Opposes Health Care for Children
Posted by Howie Klein on October 26, 2007 at 6:04 AM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

(click for larger version)

Earlier we mentioned the House leadership was bringing up S-CHIP again. They did. And it passed again-- with 43 Republicans joining all but one Democrat. We'll get to that in a second. But first I want to share with you some of the responses from our GOP congressmember who refused to vote for children's health care. Please bear in mind that all of their families are covered by far more sumptuous healthcare (at taxpayer expense):

First from the scumbag whose concern for the welfare of children made him cover-up his colleague Mark Foley's serial molestation of underage male pages for years so as not to endanger a GOP-held seat in Florida: Tom Reynolds, one of the most vile and despicable creatures to crawl around the halls of the Capitol-- "The bill puts lipstick on a sow. Today is raw politics-- trotting out a vote just for the sake of a vote." If you'd like to help put an end to the disgrace of this pile of vomit's career, the name of his opponent is Jon Powers, someone who very much cares about children and, in fact, started an organization to care for war orphans after returning from the war in Iraq. Please consider helping him at his Blue America page.

Last year we mentioned that rubber stamp Republican Ginny Brown-Waite was certifiably insane after she demanded that the U.S. dig up all the bodies of American fighting men buried in France and return them home. Her embarrassed Republican colleagues just ignored her. Her consciously false reason for voting again children's health care today was because she said it will be a "magnet for illegal aliens." As she is-- assuming she is vaguely literate-- aware, the bill specifically excludes undocumented immigrants in order to address Republican xenophobic hysteria. But she voted no anyway-- and then lied about it to her constituents.

But no deception rises to the level of Michigan crook Mike Rogers. In a convoluted excuse for his anti-family vote he "said that rich children could still qualify for benefits because states, in determining eligibility, could ignore or disregard part of a family's income." Mike Rogers, whose entire career has been one championing the prerogatives of the rich and powerful over ordinary Americans, whose entire career has been 100% dedicated to serving, slavishly, special interests-- basically his campaign contributors, is afraid states will bend the rules to cater to the children of the rich? Give me a break! Does anyone listen to this stuff with a straight face?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

One of Larry Craig's Gay Lovers Tells All
Posted by Pam Spaulding on October 26, 2007 at 5:26 AM.

This post. written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

What a day of sordid revelations this is. First one of Donnie McClurkin's bed buddies fesses up, now one of Toe-Tapping Larry Craig's pickups comes forward to talk about a sexual encounter with the Idaho Senator. Via Wonkette:

One night, Phillips continues, "I followed [Craig] from The Follies to a Capitol Hill neighborhood, parking on the street no telling how far from his house. We walked up the alley and through the back door of a house, with him repeating several times, 'You were never here. You don't know me. Right?' and me responding, 'Right!' in boyish submission.

As we tiptoed from the back door to the stairs to the upper floor, as if somebody else was home, he turned to grope my crotch and brush my face with his hand." The house's decor led Phillips to believe that this was a married man: "The bric-a-brac with family pictures didn't scream 'old queen' to me; it announced a woman's influence. Still, we made our way upstairs.

"When we got to what reminded me of a rarely used guest room, he stripped me down, and the man's hands and mouth were all over me.

Argh. That's enough. It gets even more graphic later on.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Naomi Wolf's Guide to Restoring Liberty in America
Posted by Naomi Wolf on October 26, 2007 at 5:08 AM.

This post, written by Naomi Wolf, originally appeared on FireDogLake

All right: Blackwater and other contractors have four BILLION dollars in US funds and, the New York Times reports today, almost no oversight in Iraq; wildfires are consuming acres of Southern California and many counties have been declared to be in a state of emergency -- and nothing at all but a whisper of popular opposition and a prayer -- nothing legal -- would prevent Bush today from declaring that the National Guard is overstretched and that it is Blackwater's torturers and murderers, recruited from Salvadoran, Ecuadoran and Nigerian paramilitaries, who will be `maintaining order' in the `public emergency' that is Southern California; and Mukasey has informed Congress that he has no idea what waterboarding is -- which professed cluelessness alone should disqualify him from service -- and that the President does not actually need to obey the law of the United States of America -- which alone should alert us that if he is confirmed the game is over. Once Congress confirms someone to decide the law of the land who holds that the President is exempt from the law of the land (which assertion was, notably, an historic tipping point when Hitler asked his Reichstag to confirm a similar position about his powers in regard to the law and the constitution) it is open season on all of us.

It is time to take to the streets.

Many of you have asked about a national strike. This is the next step in a democracy movement. We need to hold monthly strikes -- a word that is too scary for some, and we want to be inclusive, so rather we will urge people of all walks of life to participate in mass-action Constitution Days.

What will we do -- in our millions, hopefully, we will Sit Down for the Constitution in the most public space in our communities. The seated mass citizen action is more effective now than a march; less cause for confrontation, more family-friendly, you can gather more people for a longer time and it can be more of a community affirmation of American values and the Rule of Law. Daniel Ellsberg, whom I had the honor of meeting last week in Berkeley, along with his brave and beautiful wife Patricia, reminded me that it took only three days of a widely observed National Moratorium to strike a real blow to the war in the Vietnam.

We propose that local citizens organize these Constitution Days once a month, on the 6th, starting Nov. 6 (before or after you vote). We suggest that those who can refrain from going to work or to school -- use the time to be with your fellow citizens at the event or reading about democracy and sharing those ideals with your friends and neighbors. Those who can't leave work, come for lunch hour. If millions join the nation will react, and even if the first few are small, we must begin. You guys have to organize these locally -- we can't. But that is powerful. Here is how to proceed:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani Jokes About Torture, Trivializes Waterboarding
Posted by Matt Corley on October 25, 2007 at 3:00 PM.

This post, written by Matt Corley, originally appeared on Think Progress

Asked last night in Iowa about Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey's refusal to call waterboarding torture, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said "it depends on the circumstances" and "on who does it" because "liberal newspapers have exaggerated it."

Giuliani then called liberals "silly" for describing "sleep deprivation" as torture, joking that "on that theory, I'm getting tortured running for president of the United States":

And I see, when the Democrats are talking about torture, they're not just talking about even this definition of waterboarding, which again, if you look at the liberal media and you look at the way they describe it, you could say it was torture and you shouldn't do it. But they talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I'm getting tortured running for president of the United States. That's plain silly. That's silly.

Giuliani should familiarize himself with the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which describes "abnormal sleep deprivation" as a form of mental torture. Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Israel have ruled sleep deprivation to be inhumane and unlawful.

Even John Yoo, the prime author of the administrations infamous torture memo, has conceded that sustained sleep deprivation can "amount to a violation of the Geneva Convention."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Colbert Reaches Double Digits in '08 Polling
Posted by Steve Benen on October 25, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

Sure, Stephen Colbert is a comedian who has never held elected office. And sure, he's running for president as a fictional, bombastic character. And sure, he said he's limiting his campaign to just one state, in part because the whole "presidential campaign" is just an amusing little stunt for entertainment purposes.

But it's probably worth noting that the Colbert character may actually win some votes.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Colbert is preferred by 13% of voters as an independent candidate challenging Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani. The survey was conducted shortly after Colbert's surprise announcement that he is lusting for the Oval Office.

The result is similar when Fred Thompson is the Republican in the three-way race. With Thompson as the GOP candidate, Colbert earns 12% of the vote.

Here's the kicker: In a three-way contest, among voters aged 18-29, Colbert does better than the Republican candidate.

Among all voters, in a three-way race, Rasmussen shows Hillary Clinton leading with 45%, followed by Giuliani at 35%, and Colbert third with 13%. The numbers are nearly identical with Fred Thompson in the mix instead of Giuliani.

To be sure, this is silly. Colbert is a fictional character, and he's not really a candidate. But the poll is actually illuminating anyway. Colbert's support in the Rasmussen data comes almost exclusively from the right, which as Matt Yglesias suggested, is "evidence that an anti-Giuliani spoiler candidate (Tancredo? Paul? Buchanan?) could find an audience," because "there's an evident disaffection with the Republican options."

Either that, or as Eric Kleefeld notes, "conservatives who have watched his show really don't get the joke."

Of course, it's also worth noting that the FEC isn't amused.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Deluded Judge Suggests Domestic Violence Victim Wanted to Be Hit
Posted by Karen Houppert on October 25, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Karen Houppert, originally appeared on The Nation

Domestic violence cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

But every once in a while, prosecutors get handed the tools for a conviction on a silver platter: An impartial eyewitness who just happens to be a police officer.

Such was the case in a domestic violence trial that made the local papers here in Maryland last week. A cop pulling into an Exxon station saw a man hit his girlfriend in the face three times, called in back-up and had the man arrested.

But according to Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul Harris, who is "probably as against domestic violence as anybody, when the case is proven," one can't simply assume that a woman who is being hit didn't consent to the attack. "Sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up," the judge reminded the courtroom--then acquitted the man.

The judge appeared to be in a snit because the girlfriend, the alleged victim in the attack, had disappeared, even though she had been ordered to testify. Ignoring decades of research proving that domestic violence victims are often too afraid and intimidated to testify against perpetrators, the judge discounted the female cop's eyewitness account.

The Baltimore Sun reported on the judge's comments: "The state is stepping into the shoes of the victim when she obviously doesn't care," Harris told the prosecutor, according to a recording of the October 3 hearing. "It's that big brother mentality of the state....But I have to decide the case based on what I have and I think a crucial element is missing." Judge Harris, defending his position, asserted that to prove this was truly a second-degree assault, it had to be clear that "the defendant's actions were not consented to by the victim." He wondered, "How do you determine that without the victim?"

Hmmm.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will Gore Get Arrested?
Posted by Mark Hertsgaard on October 25, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by Mark Hertsgaard, originally appeared on Mark Hertsgaard.com

Fresh from winning the Nobel peace prize for his climate change evangelism, Al Gore is apparently considering an invitation from a prominent environmental group to engage in civil disobedience against the construction of new coal-fired power plants.

Rainforest Action Network issued the invitation to the former U.S. vice president, according to RAN executive director Michael Brune. The San Francisco-based group has a twenty year history of protesting against destructive logging practices and other causes of climate change; it specializes in targeting corporations as much as governments.

"We came across a quote from Gore in an interview with [New York Times] columnist Nicholas Kristoff back in August, saying he didn't understand, quote, 'why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them constructing new coal-fired power plants,'" said Brune. "We thought, 'Great idea!' That's the kind of activism we do at RAN. So we decided to invite Gore to join us."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani Still Scheming to Steal California's Electoral Votes
Posted by Howie Klein on October 25, 2007 at 6:41 AM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

Raging wildfires have forced over half a million 900,000 Californians to evacuate their homes. But while the southern part of the state burns-- and while CNN anchor Glenn Beck revels in the thought that liberals and others he disagrees with politically are losing their homes to fires-- Giuliani and his partisan allies are back again trying to dilute California's electoral power.

By Tuesday, more than 400 square miles in seven counties had been consumed by some 16 fires, flames fueled by high desert winds and hot temperatures that remained largely impervious to air attacks, garden hoses, fire retardant or prayers for relief.

The authorities said the blazes, raging from the Simi Valley northwest of Los Angeles to the Mexican border, were responsible for two deaths, and possibly five others. At least 25 firefighters and civilians were reported to have suffered burns.

By late Tuesday, the fires had consumed well over 1,000 homes and commercial structures, with the authorities reporting that 68,500 homes remained threatened. At least 500,000 people were estimated to have evacuated and thousands more had been ordered to move, making the evacuation effort roughly half the size of that from the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina. The authorities said firefighters were overwhelmed as new blazes sparked and existing ones thrashed in new directions, impeding efforts to focus energy and resources. By midday, a new fire began in San Diego County even as fires elsewhere became partially contained.

Before I get into Giuliano's attempt to screw with California's electoral votes while peoples' atttention is focused elsewhere, I have something to say about an even lower-life piece of crap Republican, xenophobic maniac and vicious nazi hatemonger Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who "alerted federal officials Tuesday to an event that he said would be attended by 'several illegal aliens.'" The event that the mentally unbalanced and hysterical Tancredo went running to the police about was a "Dream Act" Senate staff briefing attended by Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and several students who were asked to testify.I wonder if Tancredo also called the police on the "60 Mexican firefighters from the border cities of Tijuana and Tecate [who] crossed into the United States on Sunday to help fight the fires."

Now to the foul Giuliani. Last month we reported that Giuliani's nefarious plot to steal the presidential election by screwing with the California electoral system had been uncovered and the culprits had slinked away in shame. They're back!

When the Californians are busy putting out fires, Giuliani's team is re-starting them. The most thorough explanation of what exactly they are up to was written yesterday by Frank Russo in the California Progress Report.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Return of Rick Santorum, As a Hack Hollywood Screenwriter?
Posted by GottaLaff on October 25, 2007 at 6:14 AM.

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

Our family barely made it through the 1988 writers' strike. It was endless, and it changed everything. Projects got shelved, jobs were permanently lost, and because everyone went back to work at the same time, new and previously working writers had to wait in line behind the A-Listers for even the less prestigious jobs.

Timing is everything, Hollywood Rick:

"Talking about the threat of Islamic terrorism is now Santorum's main occupation, though the Republican sounds laid-back these days. He is pitching a movie idea to Hollywood and laughed off speculation about a political comeback in Pennsylvania."

The article explains that he has talked with "Hollywood producer Steve McEveety, who produced the Mel Gibson megahits 'Braveheart' and 'The Passion of the Christ,' on a movie idea that, naturally, has a terrorism element."

Having made a living in Hollywood for centuries myself, and being married to someone who is a producer, I'm having difficulty picturing Tinsel Rick in a room with a major producer pitching anything.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Wildfires Bring Out The Worst in Glenn Beck
Posted by Amanda Terkel on October 25, 2007 at 6:08 AM.

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

Last night, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck blamed California's massive wildfires on the "damn environmentalists" and their "bad environmental policies." He also claimed that global warming has nothing to do with the situation, stating,

To prove his points, he brought on R.J. Smith of the Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute and Chris Horner, author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. Horner -- who is also a senior fellow at CEI -- predictably argued that "[g]lobal warming is not a likely suspect" for the fires and Smith said that "the greens have made things worse by stopping all [fuels] management." Watch it to your right.

These claims have been echoed by the right-wing blogs. Michelle Malkin blamed "litigious environmentalists" for "standing in the way" of Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI).

In 2002, Bush proposed HFI, which advocated "thinning" forests to decrease the risk of wildfires. But more than anything else, it was an attempt to curry favor with the timber and logging industries, which donated more than $1 million to Bush's 2000 campaign. HFI allowed loggers to cut down large, valuable trees miles from at-risk communities, allegedly in order to finance the removal of the smaller brush that fuels wildfires.

Environmentalists don't oppose removing brush and chapparal in at-risk areas, but logging in backforests has nothing to do with wildfire prevention. Removing brush is not a solution in itself. A 2006 study by Prof. A.L. Westerling, et al. concludes that addressing global warming needs to go hand-in-hand:

[L]arge increases in wildfire driven by increased temperatures and earlier spring snowmelts in forests where land-use history had little impact on fire risks indicates that ecological restoration and fuels management alone will not be sufficient to reverse current wildfire trends.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

SCHIP Is Back, House to Vote Again This Week
Posted by Scarecrow on October 25, 2007 at 5:34 AM.

This post, written by Scarecrow, originally appeared on FireDogLake

Last night Speaker Pelosi announced she would bring a slightly revised SCHIP funding bill to the House floor for a vote -- today. The revised bill still provides $35 billion in additional funds and health coverage for 10 million children, but it makes a few changes to counter the Bush Administration's misrepresentations and opponent's alleged concerns.

As Pelosi promised last week, the plan is to enact the full SCHIP funding again, and if the President is foolish and heartless enough to veto it again, attempt another override, with the opposition having even fewer excuses to vote no. This type of strategy is exactly what many progressives have been hoping from the Democratic leadership when they know the public is solidly behind them against an out-of-touch, unpopular President. It's not just good politics; it's good public policy, because this program deserves passage and has the overwhelming support of the American people.

The changes include clarification that coverage does not extend to families with annual incomes at $83,000 (a confusion left over from New York's request that the Administration had already denied); it apparently won't cover those not legally in the US for five years; and it further limits coverage for adults who do not have covered children.

Although the "revision" regarding immigrants appears only a clarification of what was already in the prior bill, the absence of potential coverage for undocumented immigrants is particularly regrettable; denying health care to any child is both morally unconscionable and incomprehensible from a public health perspective. But in light of yesterday's 52-44 failed cloture vote -- 60 were needed -- on the DREAM Act, which would have allowed those undocumented immigrants brought to the US when they were 15 or younger to earn a path to legal status after two years of college or military service [see Marisa Trevino's post and Phoenix Woman's coverage], that exclusion in SCHIP appeared politically unavoidable. Add that to the list of 100+ other really important things we need to fix in 2009.

From Speaker Pelosi's statement:

"It's supported by a bipartisan coalition, Democrats and Republicans across the country. Republican and Democratic governors support the SCHIP initiative. Every organization that you can name, from the AARP to the YWCA, and everything in between, AMA, the Catholic Hospital Association, Families First, are lobbying for the passage of this legislation. . . .

"The focus is on the poor children. These are poor children. The poorest children receive their health care through Medicaid. Then just above that tier, the working poor families, the focus is there and we're very proud of the legislation.

"It honors the spirit of 10 million children, $35 billion all paid for, no new deficit spending, pay as you go. And again, this is a clarification of the legislation that we put forth to ensure these children. We are responding to some of the concerns expressed by our colleagues and some clarification that we thought improved the bill."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

O'Reilly's Homophobia Runs Rampant Over Dumbledore's Outing
Posted by Matt Corley on October 24, 2007 at 3:00 PM.

This post, written by Matt Corley, originally appeared on Think Progress

Last Friday, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling revealed that one of the central characters in the series, Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore, was gay. Though Rowling says her books are a "prolonged argument for tolerance," some conservatives attacked the revelation, saying it was "revolting" and vindication for the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's homophobia.

On his Fox News show last night, Bill O'Reilly joined in the fray, asking if Dumbledore's outing was part of the "gay agenda" of "indoctrination" of "children." O'Reilly claimed that by dropping "the gay bomb," Rowling is a "provocateur" who is "going to let all hell break loose":

O'REILLY: Now, Dumbledore is not overtly gay in the book.

JORDAN: Absolutely not.

O'REILLY: So you wouldn't know whether he was gay or not, right?

JORDAN: And in fact, you don't know anything about the sex lives of any of the teachers.

O'REILLY: Of any of them. Although those wizards, I'm very very suspicious about what they're doing in their spare time. So, I think, this is my conclusion, is that J.K. Rowling is a provocateur, did it on purpose, and now is going to let all hell break loose.

O'Reilly argued there are "many parents" who are "worried in America about the gay agenda and indoctrination of their children to see homosexuality in a certain way." His guest, Entertainment Weekly Senior Editor Tina Jordan, called his "indoctrination" claims "a shallow argument," saying "indoctrination is a very strong word" because "we all know gay people, whether we know it or not."

O'Reilly has a history of boorishly attacking the gay community in the name of his ongoing battle against "secular progressives":

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain Promises Gun Company He'll Personally Chase Bin Laden and Shoot Him
Posted by GottaLaff on October 24, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

I'm running, but I couldn't ignore this:

While speaking at a company called Thompson, which bills itself as "America's Master Gunmaker," John McCain declared:"I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products."

We're all for hunting down Osama, but the current administration has failed to do that over the past several years.

It's a little difficult to imagine that John McCain would single-handedly take a gun made in New Hampshire, as president, chase across the world and personally find and shoot Osama to death.

Just what we need, another delusional cowpoke.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Fundamentalist Christian Uses California Wildfires As Excuse to Attack Gays
Posted by Pam Spaulding on October 24, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

Oh, yeah! I was eagerly awaiting the deranged reaction of James Hartline regarding the tragic, dangerous fires in Southern California. (See Autumn's diary and pictures on the firestorms.)

Hartline, a fundamentalist, recloseted gay man with AIDS (he contracted HIV from years of unsafe sex in bathhouses) today sees himself as battling dark forces in San Diego's "homosexual stronghold of Hillcrest," says the fires are God's wrath on the Homosexual Agenda.

They shook their fists at God and said, "We don't care what God says, we will issue our legal brief to support gay marriage in San Diego!" Then Mayor Jerry Sanders mocked the Christian vote and signed off on this rebellious legal document to support same-sex marriage.

And then the streets of La Jolla under the Mt. Soledad Cross began to cave in.

They shook their fists at God and said, "We don't care what the Bible says, We want the California school children indoctrinated into homosexuality!" And then Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the heinous SB777 which bans the use of "mom" and "dad" in the text books and promotes homosexuality to all school children in California.

And then the wildfires of Southern California engulfed the land like a raging judgment against the radicalized anti-christian California rebels.

How low will we go?

Why won't they listen?

Why won't they stop their madness? The Bible says that in the last days, the nations will rebel against God until He can't take it anymore. Was it all worth it? Were the few years of sexual immorality worth the eternal destruction and earthly chaos it brought? How low will we go?

This isn't the first time he's erupted about God damning San Diego. Check out Is San Diego's Gay Community Experiencing God's Judgment - Violence, Disease & Death Overwhelming Local Gay Community. A snippet of his madness.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Louisiana's New Governor May Be a Minority, But His Policies Are Racist
Posted by Megan Izen on October 24, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by Megan Izen, originally appeared on RaceWire

(click for larger version)

This past weekend Louisiana elected its first governor of color since Reconstruction. Unfortunately, we don't have reason to celebrate a person of color and child of immigrants taking over the state where racism has destroyed countless lives in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Bobby Jindal is a poster child for the "model minority." He rejected his Hindu faith for Catholicism, changed his name to Bobby (his given name is Piyush) and became a card-carrying football-loving Republican. How much more 'American' does it get?

The bottom line is that Jindal's politics aren't just bad, they're downright racist. His plan for crime: blur the lines between prosecutors, federal and local law enforcement even further to ensure that no former felon can escape his or her conviction. The message: you will never stop paying for your crime...ever. Can you imagine what will happen in the state with the highest incarceration rate in the nation?

His primary targets are drug offenders and gangs. This is nothing we haven't heard before. The "War on Drugs" has been taking its toll on communities of color for decades. While Jindal was delivering his acceptance speech, the ACLU of New Jersey was grappling with criminal justice reform at their Race Still Matters conference.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dodd: Warrantless Wiretaps Are a "Victory" for Terrorists
Posted by Scarecrow on October 24, 2007 at 6:21 AM.

This post, written by Scarecrow, originally appeared on FireDogLake

"When you give up basic Constitutional rights, you give terrorists a far greater victory in ways," Dodd said during an online video chat.

There's a huge difference between people who are actual leaders and who happen to want to be President, and people who want to be President so they can be the leader. We're seeing that difference right now in the debate over whether the FISA bill will award retroactive immunity to the telecoms for their complicity in the Bush Administration's illegal spying programs.

Chris Dodd showed his leadership last week, announcing he would place a hold on, and if needed, personally filibuster any bill that granted the telecoms immunity. His principled stand to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law was immediately joined by Senator Feingold, who, like Dodd, has been a champion of the Constitution, insisting on the FISA (and Fourth Amendment) requirement to obtain individual warrants before conducting surveillance on US persons. And to his credit, Senator Biden gave an unqualified, unhestitating "yes" when asked if he supported Dodd's position.

These men understand that upholding the rule of law requires holding the Administration and those complicit in their lawbreaking accountable for their actions. Granting immunity for willfully violating a criminal statute and the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against warrantless searches undermines the Constitution and the rule of law, one of those "self evident truths" that should not need explaining.

These are the Democratic Party's true leaders. They understand that defending the Constitution is their first duty as citizens and elected officials. They did not wait to see which way the wind was blowing or see what their colleagues (or other candidates) might say or check to see if they might be supported. They knew what needed to be said and done and that's what they did.

Dodd, Feingold and Biden understand that the Constitution and the rule of law are under siege by a lawless Administration and that it is critical for principled officials to stand up against this assault. They know that some of their colleagues are weak and susceptible to other influences. Someone has to lead, to defend the Constitution, to take the risks that their stands might be unpopular or lonely, but to set the standard that others will follow. It is because of patriotic leaders like Senators Dodd and Feingold that we have a Constitution in the first place, and why, at critical times in our history when it was under siege, the Constitution persevered and served our nation well for over 200 years.

There are others who aspire to leadership, but do not readily demonstrate it, but whose support in following the leaders is nevertheless essential. So we should welcome the statements yesterday from Senators Obama and Clinton that indicate -- sort of -- they will support a filibuster of at least the "current bill" if it contains retroactive immunity for telecoms.

Here, via TPM's Greg Sargent, is a statement from Senator Obama's spokesman from yesterday:

"Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani Defends, Employs Priest Accused of Molesting Teens
Posted by Howie Klein on October 24, 2007 at 6:18 AM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

Ahh... finally the mainstream media is picking up on the Alan Placa story we've been trying to get out there since last spring.

ABC-TV even has a video out using one of DWT's important themes, that Giuliani is unable to ever hire any decent people to work with. If he isn't hiring mafia criminals, cocaine dealers, whoremongers and closet queens, he's not letting go of a child molester, one of his closest friends and business associates.

Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani hired a Catholic priest to work in his consulting firm months after the priest was accused of sexually molesting two former students and an altar boy and told by the church to stop performing his priestly duties.

That's Placa-- the guy who does something official at every Giuliani wedding and who now works at Giuliani Partners.

The ABC-TV report is way better but they don't share with blogs so either go to this link and watch it or look at this far less encompassing version

Conservative Blog Bans Ron Paul Supporters
Posted by Steven Reynolds on October 24, 2007 at 6:09 AM.

This post, written by Steven Reynolds, originally appeared on The All Spin Zone

Ron Paul supporters are not Republicans according to RedState.com, so they're going to limit what Ron Paul supporters can say on the web site. Isn't speech supposed to be for all people, RedState?

Not only are Ron Paul supporters "a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans," but they are now restricted in their use of the RedState.com website. In a stunning move against supporters of a Republican candidate for President of the United States, the powers that be at RedState.com, a magnet site on the conservative end of the political spectrum, has decided to censor those from the party RedState supports. I got this stunning news from Politico, but let's look at Leon H. Wolf's words. He's from RedState. (Since comments are closed on this post over at RedState, I invite Ron Paul supporters to comment here by posting nearly all of Wolf's rant:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.

Man, there's trouble in RedStateland. Imagine! They've got a candidate doing far better than anyone thought he could. Ron Paul. They've got other candidates who are about as middling as middling gets. the whole collection of McCain, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani have maybe half the excitement and firepower that Ron Paul does. Certainly Ron Paul has the supporters who are willing to work for him. So what do these Republicans at RedState do? They ban the speech of the Ron Paul supporters.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush To Veto Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Posted by Amanda Terkel on October 24, 2007 at 6:08 AM.

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

Today, the House is expected to vote on the Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA). The bill, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or fail to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation.

To obtain White House support for ENDA, lawmakers compromised by exempting "small businesses, religious organizations and the uniformed members of the armed forces" from the bill. Yesterday, an article on the right-wing site WorldNetDaily revealed that White House staffers had helped craft these exemptions:

"Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill," according to Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth organization.

After the meeting, officials refused to say whether or not the President would veto the bill. But today the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy making clear that despite the exemption compromise, "senior advisors" will still recommend that President Bush veto the bill:

H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish "a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

While the vast majority -- nearly 90 percent -- of Fortune 500 companies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there are surprisingly no federal prohibitions against such discriminatory behavior. ENDA would ensure that for the first time ever, gay and lesbian employees are afforded this critical federal protection.

Urge your senators to support ENDA here.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Tobacco Industry Targets Black America
Posted by Marti1704 on October 23, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Mart1704, originally appeared on Brave New Films

Black people; lend me your ear. Wait...this is actually good information for everyone.

I know you thought you were already on the look out for all your potential assassins. The bigots, the racial profilers, poverty, crime, police brutality, discrimination as a result of affirmative action... But an old but new threat has emerged in a vile and nasty form - Big Tobacco and it's little sister menthol. Don't laugh, I'm serious.

Even while anti-smoking ads are on the rise; in low income neighborhoods of all races, smoking has remained pretty much the same. But what is alarming is that young, black adults...are smoking tons of Newport Menthols. Why? Because their advertising is everywhere! That's why. "It appears the industry is targeting the most vulnerable groups through advertising and manipulation of menthol levels..."

I remember when I was little, driving through the 'hood with my mother. There was literally a "500 Liquor Store" on every other corner. But it was a nightmare trying to find a grocery store. When you DID find a grocery store, soda was $.50 a bottle, but milk was $1.95! Things haven't changed! Why do you think the nutrition and health epidemic is such an issue in low income neighborhoods? Poor people everywhere are being poisoned with that garbage because it's accessible and cheap. But I digress.

"Lorillard Tobacco Company, maker of Newports, said its marketing was directed at "all adult smokers," although 51 percent of Newport buyers are blacks."

And the advertising is slick, very sexy, geared towards hip hop and flashy in color. Young couples and sexy girls hanging out, being athletic, having fun, kissing -- all while smoking menthol cigarettes.

Then there are Black & Mild cigars that come in yummy flavors like cream, wine and apple. 24% of black 18-24 year olds in Baltimore surveyed said they smoked a Black & Mild at least once in the past 30 days.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pentagon Used Independent Military Newspaper For Pro-Bush PR Campaign
Posted by Amanda Terkel on October 23, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

The Pentagon has engaged in an aggressive U.S. grassroots efforts to drum up support for Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the guise of supporting the troops. A central front in this effort has been the "non-political" America Supports You (ASY) program. (One branch of ASY is Operation Straight Up, an "evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military.")

As the New York Times reported in May, the Pentagon Inspector General (IG) is currently investigating whether Pentagon officials "engaged in improper fund-raising and unauthorized spending" for the program. Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," with a large portion of the funds going to the PR firm Susan Davis International to bolster domestic support for the war.

On Saturday, the independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that it, too, is now part of the IG's investigation. Without the knowledge of top editors, the Pentagon transferred Stars and Stripes funds to Susan Davis International for ASY promotion:

But documents obtained Friday show that Stars and Stripes awarded a $499,000 purchase agreement in July 2006 for a public relations firm to represent America Supports You. [...]

One of the tasks the document outlines for Susan Davis International is to develop "[m]edia strategy, message and outreach for communications nationwide in markets and in overseas areas of military deployments and operations."

The revelations have caused "extreme concern" among the Stars and Stripes staff, who believe they may jeopardize their legitimacy as an "editorially independent newspaper."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Suspended Monsignor Says He Has Secret "Vatican Gay List"
Posted by Pam Spaulding on October 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pandagon

My, my, my...are we about to see a papal outing?

Earlier this week, Monsignor Tommaso Stenico was suspended from his position in the Vatican's Congregation for Clergy, which is charged with ensuring proper conduct by priests. Stenico's conduct was a bit out of sorts with the Vatican line as he participated in a TV program and was interviewed about sexual relationships with men -- and his lack of guilt about it as he declared himself an "active homosexual."

In the program on a private Italian television network, the monsignor said he "didn't feel he was sinning" by having sex with gay men, Rome daily La Repubblica reported Saturday. Vatican officials recognized the Vatican office in the interview took place, La Repubblica reported.

When he was recognized by Vatican officials and suspended, Stenico quickly denied he was gay and said he was merely doing research.

Apparently that must not have been enough for the angry homos at the top, because now Stenico faces being defrocked, but he's talking to the press about a list of names in his possession -- and the folks aren't on it for being on their knees...praying.

Father Tommaso Stenico, 60, had "a detailed dossier" of all the homosexual clerics at Vatican "with a list of names and circumstances implicating a certain number of priests and even bishops working at the Curia," Ignazio Ingrao, reporter for the conservative news weekly said.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Treats Congress Like ATM Machine, Requests Another $46 Billion for War
Posted by Steve Benen on October 23, 2007 at 6:40 AM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

(click for larger version)

At a press conference in July, the president said Congress has one, and only one, role to play in shaping war policy: handing over big bags of money, with no questions asked and no strings attached. "Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying," Bush said. "Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops."

With that in mind, the president is demanding that his ATM pony up once again.

President Bush asked Congress on Monday for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and finance other national security needs. "We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done," Bush said.

The figure brings to $196.4 billion the total requested by the administration for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the budget year that started Oct. 1. It includes $189.3 billion for the Defense Department, $6.9 billion for the State Department and $200 million for other agencies.

To date, Congress has already provided more than $455 billion for the Iraq war, with stepped-up military operations running about $10 billion a month.

The original funding request was for $141.7 billion. In July, Bush asked for $5.3 billion more. Today, it's $46 billion more.

Of course, the pre-emptive demagoguery came before lawmakers could even raise an objection.

Bush made his request in the Roosevelt Room after meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of veterans service organizations, a fallen Marine's family and military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]

Bush said any member of Congress who wants to see success in Iraq, and see U.S. troops return home, should strongly support the request.

"I know some in Congress are against the war and are seeking ways to demonstrate that opposition," Bush said. "I recognize their position and they should make their views heard. But they ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed. Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C." [...]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Firefighters Believe In Global Warming, So Why Doesn't Bush?
Posted by GottaLaff on October 23, 2007 at 6:32 AM.

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

Our Make-Believer in Chief loves firefighters. Remember? Right after 9/11, do you recall how he said he "could hear" them?

Well, well, well, can you hear them now, W? Because last night on 60 Minutes they were loud and clear. And you know what they were saying?

Tom Boatner, who after 30 years on the fire line, is now the chief of fire operations for the federal government, said this:

"We got records going back to 1960 of the acres burned in America. So, that's 47 fire seasons. Seven of the 10 busiest fire seasons have been since 1999."

Why would that be? Too many matches? Nah. Squirrels and chipmunks becoming arsonists? Absurd! Too much hot air emanating from D.C.? Maybe.

Tom Swetnam, one of the world's leading fire ecologists:

"As the spring is arriving earlier because of warming conditions, the snow on these high mountain areas is melting and running off. So the logs and the branches and the tree needles all can dry out more quickly and have a longer time period to be dry. And so there's a longer time period and opportunity for fires to start. [...] The spring comes earlier, so the fire season is just longer. [...] The fire season in the last 15 years or so has increased more than two months over the whole Western U.S. So actually 78 days of average longer fire season in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15 or 20 years."

And what would be the reason for that phenomenon?

Swetnam says that climate change -- global warming -- has increased temperatures in the West about one degree and that has caused four times more fires. Swetnam and his colleagues published those findings in the journal "Science," and the world's leading researchers on climate change have endorsed their conclusions.

No way! One teensy weensy degree can do all that? But W and his buds don't believe in science. Not even one degree of it!

And global warming? That's just some silly story made up by Al Gore. And who's gonna believe him?

But you believe in firefighters, don't you, W?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Glenn Beck Launches Hateful Attack On Victims of California Wildfires
Posted by Howie Klein on October 23, 2007 at 6:09 AM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!>

(click for larger version)

In May when the firefighters banged on my front door and told me I had 30 seconds to evacuate my house I was annoyed. Then I looked out the back windows and saw the flames shooting up into the sky. I was out of there in 20 seconds. I was a horrible feeling-- like I might never see my home again. My heart goes out to everyone in southern California who is going through that horror tonight. Many friends and family members have called to ask me if I'm ok. All the dry wooded areas in the Los Feliz hills burned down in May. We're doing OK. The fires are an hour away (as the car drives).

Even when I heard that Mel Gibson's house might burn down, I didn't have any feelings of glee. Nor did I when I read reports that Ken Starr was seen fleeing half clothed from his Malibu digs near the right-wing college he teaches at where the grounds were aflame this morning. I called the police and asked if they needed people in vehicles to drive down there to help with rescues. They didn't.

But I was shocked, even dismayed, to hear the public radio waves being used to stir up hatred by right wingers rejoicing that some of the victims of the wildfires were probably Democrats. CNN anchorman and psychotic hatemonger Glenn Beck was at it again. Does this guy belong on the public airwaves? The one person who died was a man in a wheelchair who couldn't get out of his burning home. Was Glenn Beck beating off at the thought that the man might have been a liberal?

"I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today. There are a few people that hate America. But I don't think the Democrats are those. I think there are those posing as Democrats that are like that."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

DC Madam Invesitigation Leads to Monica Goodling, Attorney Firings
Posted by Phoenix Woman on October 23, 2007 at 4:51 AM.

This post, written by Pheonix Woman, originally appeared onFireDogLake

Poor David Vitter. The job security of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's most prominent client just got a bit shakier.

See, the main (if not only) reason his fellow Republicans aren't currently trying to boot him like they are Larry "Wide Stance" Craig is because a Democrat is -- for the next couple of months -- governor of Louisiana. But when Piyush "Bobby" Jindal is sworn in as governor of the Pelican State, Louisiana will join Larry Craig's state of Idaho in having a Republican governor, one that will appoint a Republican to replace Vitter should he be forced to leave his seat for any reason.

And his reasons for doing so just got a bit hotter, with the heating up of the long-simmering "DC Madam" case:

CLG exclusive: Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG) has learned that a US Judge will hear a selective prosecution argument made by the so-called DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, on Monday. Palfrey told CLG that Monica Goodling "likely will be subpoenaed in this matter - along with many others at Justice - in the near future."

Oh, my. And get this:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Plame: White House Likely To "Twist Intelligence" On Iran
Posted by Amanda Terkel on October 22, 2007 at 3:00 PM.

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

This morning, former CIA agent Valerie Plame appeared on NBC's Today Show and spoke about whether the Bush administration is on a path to war with Iran. She told host Meredith Vieria that she believes the administration is "capable" of again misleading the American public "into a disastrous war based on twisted intelligence." Watch it to your right.

Plame's comments come one day after Vice President Cheney issued "his sternest warning to date on Iran," stating that "the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences." Norman Podhoretz recently met privately with the President for 45 minutes, advocating war with Iran. In a CSPAN interview earlier this month, Podhoretz stated, "I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office."

While the right wing continues to bolster Cheney's war-mongering, members of the intelligence community are reportedly trying to "slow down what the president, most particularly the vice president, want to do in Iran."

Before Bush administration officials blew her cover as a covert CIA agent, Plame was involved in preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. She was "involved in one highly classified mission to deliver fake nuclear weapons blueprints to Tehran."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani Hires Racist Campaign Chair, Secretly Supports Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment
Posted by Adam Howard on October 22, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

I used to have this ongoing debate with my friends in New York about who I hated more: President Bush or Rudy Giuliani. I give up. Giuliani has got to be the most sinister politician on the planet. I know, I know, what about Dick Cheney? Hey, it's not easy to pick the worst. And plus Cheney is more of mythical beast than a politician.

I guess Bush and Cheney are diminished in my mind because they're on their way out, while on the other hand Giuliani seems to be just getting started. First I read this today:

Sheriff Richard Stanek was appointed to the post of chair of Minnesota Law Enforcement for Rudy. The campaign's press release promised that Stanek "will work with law enforcement personnel throughout the state to communicate Mayor Giuliani's record of fighting crime and his commitment to first responders."

But as a rival campaign has pointed out to us, it turns out Stanek has admitted to having a history of racially charged remarks. He was forced to resign his post as Minnesota's public safety commissioner in 2004 after it came to light that he'd admitted in a deposition that he'd used racist slurs in the past, including repeated use of the word "nigger."

This isn't the first time this has happened to Rudy. Last June, he appointed a new co-chair to his South Carolina campaign who also had a history of racially charged remarks.

Then I see this linked to over at The Huffington Post

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, told The Hill Saturday that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Perkins said Giuliani told him in a private meeting that if the Defense of Marriage Act appeared to be failing or if multiple states began to legalize same-sex marriages, then he would support the constitutional amendment.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Ron Paul Schools Dems; Stands Up Against Terror Hysteria
Posted by Joshua Holland on October 22, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

Behind the Ron Paul sensation is a desperate desire for someone, anyone, to stand up and call "bullshit" on the "War on Terror" and all that it has entailed, from illegal surveillance of citizens and nightmarish foreign adventures to an executive branch mad with power and drunk on its sense of entitlement.

Last week Paul, whose opposition to much of the 20th century makes him terrible on just about every issue which touches the political economy and whose Birchian isolationism leas him to embrace conspiracy theories about shady cabals of globalists undermining American sovereignty and sapping our precious bodily fluids (not to mention his little white supremacy problem), simply schooled Democrats on how to roll back the disasters of the Bush era introducing the "American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007."

Some highlights of the act [HT: Steven D at Booman Trib]:

(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Unchecked power by any branch leads to oppressive transgressions on individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies.

(2) The Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution to protect against government abuses to derail ill-conceived domestic or foreign endeavors.

(3) Checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses that would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism, and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive counter-terrorism measures.

(4) Checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and a desire permanently to alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government.

(5) The unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since 9/11 subtracted national security and have been asserted for non-national security purposes.

(6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military commissions or military law.

Then the nitty-gritty:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »