July, 2007 archive

High publishing fees:

A jilted lover who wrote a book of lies about his former girlfriend, then distributed it to her workplace and family, owes her $52,000 for defamation, a Cecil County jury decided.

Charles W. Azain, 56, said he was despondent over his 2004 breakup with the plaintiff, Bonnie Gifford. He wrote a 54-page manuscript called “The Bonnie Chronicles,” where he falsely accused her of having HIV and bipolar disorder.

This merger certainly brings to mind interesting possibilities for that favorite of the management consultants, “synergy.”

Hillary Clinton gives me the willies, as I told Jeremy and Jason at Drinking Liberally last week.

It’s strictly an emotional reaction.

It has nothing to do with policies or positions or principles.

Her policies and positions seem to be thoroughly manufactured middle of the road.

Her principles seem to be what can get her elected hard to fathom–oh, never mind.

Bill Clinton seems to have been very much what he appeared to be. For good or ill, faults and strengths, he was himself. What you saw was what you got.

But Hillary seems to be a cipher.

I frankly think that, of the candidates for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards is the best choice. I also think that he doesn’t have a prayer, because he has let himself become an object of ridicule.

But, in the long run, remember, any Democrat is better than every Republican.

Thoughts?

Michael Chertoff says he has a gut feeling something is going to happen. From Gene Robinson:

I agree with Bush on one thing: Surely al-Qaeda’s surviving leaders are up to no good. We haven’t neutralized al-Qaeda, we’ve dispersed it; we haven’t decimated the organization, we’ve inspired new recruits to take the place of those members we have killed or captured. And Bush has us worrying about the political leanings of obscure tribal leaders in Iraq’s Anbar province, while the real enemy schemes and waits — and probably laughs.

Meanwhile, we haven’t even put in place effective controls over radioactive materials. I guess it makes sense that Chertoff is feeling a little queasy.

Maybe it has something to do with the new terror alert system. From Delaware Liberal:

Nothing to add.

Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush by mid-October to come up with a plan to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.

This is too true to be good!

I’ve turned on Firestats. We’ll see how the new box holds up.

From time to time, I get email forwards.

I don’t get many. When you go to Snopes, research the myth, paste the link into the “compose message” window, and send back a one word reply, “Hoax,” with the link, eventually the forwarders get the message.

One of my friends very judiciously chooses what to forward to me. Those forwards usually bring a smile (though I do not forward them to 10 people within one hour–I am the king of breaking the chain).

I got a forwarded email the other day from one of my old bosses–the best boss, in fact, that I or anyone ever had. I hear from her seldom, so I know it was a forward from the heart, not just some reflex:

We need to show more sympathy for these people. They travel miles
in the heat, they risk their lives crossing a border, they don’t get
paid enough wages, they do jobs that others won’t do or are afraid
to do, they live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a
different language, they rarely see their families, and they face
adversity all day every day.

I’m not talking about illegal Mexicans, I’m talking about our troops.
Doesn’t it seem strange that the Democrats are willing to lavish all
kinds of social benefits on illegal’s, but don’t support our troops
and are now threatening to defund them?

Please pass this on. This is worth the short time it takes to read it.

While the sentiment seems sincere, the reasoning is fallacious.

The message sounds nice, but it is a distraction. It’s a political version of the shell game, designed to get us to look under the wrong shell for the truth.

The decision to go to war, especially to go to a war of choice, rather than a war of self-defense, is ultimately a political decision. The email forward quoted above attempts to distract us from that fact with thoughts of the service of the men and women in the uniform of the United States of America.

The troops did not send themselves to Iraq, however honorably they may serve there.

They were sent to Iraq by a corrupt and conniving regime that cynically and duplicitously marketed a war, much as someone would market toothpaste or Tylenol.

It did not “support the troops” to send them on a fool’s errand, or on an errand for a fool.

It does not “support the troops” to keep them on a fool’s errand, or on an errand for a fool.

The Current Federal Administrator broke the egg that has become the constant carnage of the War in Iraq, a cascade of American and of even more–much more–Iraqi blood. And we, as American citizens, are implicated as his accomplices.

There is no graceful exit.

And the fool’s errand–the errand for a fool–will forever stain our sacred homor.

Meanwhile.

Via TPM Muckraker:

“I took an oath the president, and I take that oath very seriously,” Sara Taylor said in answer to a question early in the hearing.

And right after a break, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked her if she was sure about that. “Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?” Leahy asked. It was a telling exchange.

Just in case there’s any question, here’s the oath of office for the United States of America (emphasis added):

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“

Via Andrew Sullivan, an interview with the Current Federal Administrator. Why does not the American press ask these tough questions?

Twist and spin, spin and twist.

Dick Polman on ex-Surgeon General Carmona’s testimony regarding his being hamstrung by Bushie ideologues (emphasis added):

I was particularly struck, however, by one item in his sworn testimony – fresh evidence that the loyal Bushies were trying to compel nonpartisan public servants to subscribe to the kind of leadership cult commonly seen in places like North Korea:

It was the little detail about how he was ordered to invoke Bush’s name three times on every page of every speech.

By the way, the White House countered in the usual fashion yesterday, contending that Carmona failed in his job. Make of that what you will. I also anticipate that the Bush defenders will blithely ignore Carmona’s list of substantive complaints (among other things, he was ordered not to talk about advances in stem-cell science, or about how Bush’s abstinence-only stance on teen sex contradicted the best public health science), and simply take refuge in the “What About Clinton?” defense. And, yes, it’s true that Carmona’s predecessor, David Satcher, was barred in 1998 from releasing a new report about sexuality because its release would have been politically awkward for a president enmeshed at the time in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And yes, it’s also true that Clinton forced Satcher’s predecessor, Jocelyn Elders, to resign in 1994 after she suggested publicly that masturbation should be discussed in sex ed courses.

But Carmona’s remarks need to be seen in proper context – as further evidence of the Bush regime’s unprecedented attempts to politicize the institutions of government, to bend them in the service of partisan ends.

In the wake of U.S. Sen. David Vitter’s apology after his phone number turned up in an escort service’s call list, a member of the Republican State Central Committee called for him to resign.

Vincent Bruno of Kenner said today that Vitter should resign “for his own good, the good of the party and the good of his family.” If he doesn’t resign, Vitter should “join the Democratic Party where they think that kind of behavior is OK.”

Hmmmm.

I’m thinking back.

Isn’t the motto of the Party of Family Values, “leave no page unturned“?

Ya know, it ain’t the sex. Sexual misconduct is part of the human condition and cuts across all the lines, political, social, religious, ethnic, all the lines we think divide us.

It’s the hypocrisy.

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. “There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse,” Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Every time I think the Current Federal Administration has plumbed the depths of sleaze, they have a new attack of creativity.

Have these people no sense of decency? No concept of right and wrong? No moral anchor? No–oh, never mind.

I shouldn’t ask questions to which I already know the answers.

This has been another episode of what Digby said, Pine View Farm Edition.

(With apologies to Duncan, who I think has trademarked that title, but he doesn’t read me anyway.)

This is a hoot:

Via Susie. You can go to her place to get the background information.

Brendan has a good post up about net neutrality.

You can act now.

Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Chairman of the FCC. and, slightly reworked, to my elected representatives incongruously assembled.

Feel free to plagiarize it to your heart’s desire:

This is to express my opposition to proposals to allow Internet Service Providers to allow favored access for some websites over others.

It is not true or right that everything in this nation should be for sale.

When I pay my not insubstantial fee to my ISP, I should have access to the entire internet on the same level playing field.

It is true that there is such a thing as the public good. Making everything for sale is not in the public good.

Addendum, 7/11/2007:

Here’s my gracious response, received today at 8:12 a. ET:

Dear Consumer,

Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is an automated message to confirm that we have received your correspondence. We will review your information to determine how we can best serve you.

If you need to send additional information, you may reply back with this email, leaving the case number (example: . . . .) in the subject line, or contact us at our toll free phone number 1-888-Call-FCC (1-888-225-5332) and reference the case number.

The Federal Communications Commission

Tomorrow, Tangier Restaurant, 18th and Lombard, Philadelphia. In the heart of Center City, just behind Jeff.

Part 1: What’s Happened to Us?

Part 2: If Not Now, When . . .

Patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Executive privilege is.