[BREAK] Politics has become much more savvy, both media wise and in psychological terms, to allow what they now consider a major mistake to occur again. The granting of any credit to war protesters for bringing eventual sense to a nation whose people swallowed whole easily refutable lies ended with the Vietnam War. Even today, much is written about how the protests had little or no real effect on ending the war, with hawks saying the American public just "lost its will" or "ran out of patience." We dinosaurs who lived during the period, and, most especially, we who had the soil of Vietnam on our boots and jungle rot . . . in odd places, know better. We left Vietnam for, at least, two reasons, one military and one civilian. The lack of morale was often spoken of by the military leadership in the latter 1960's, and the protests had much to do with that. Not any spitting on returning troops or other horror stories. But the points the protests highlighted. Between moments of Hell, there were times of boredom. During those times, troops read. The read letters, newspapers and books. In Vietnam, we read about the protests, and heard facts we were never taught in Basic, AIT or OCS. There were too many "facts" to list here, but they pointed to reasons we might be fighting, how much money was being generated by the blood of our dead friends and the foibles of the politicians who, even then, lied of gifting "liberty" but led us, and the Vietnamese, down a primrose path to perdition. The protesters had no "gifts" of "liberty" to promise anyone, but the knowledge they highlighted led many of us serving in Vietnam to realize that while patriotism and/or a Draft might place your ass in Vietnam, the reasons for fighting and chancing death and mutilation might have been rather flimsy. And when doubt, especially doubt based on fact, creeps under your tent, your leaders soon realize that its getting to be time to leave. Back home, the protests educated the parents of the protesters. They highlighted the deaths of our relatives, friends and neighbors. While the media had not yet surrendered to the forces of Corporatism, and therefore was reporting much more info on Vietnam than we get today on Iraq, the protests fanned the sparks of outrage that were flaring all over America. And those fires put so much heat on the once war-happy politicians (Republican AND Democratic), that support for the war collapsed. Once enough politicians began marching to the drums of "War, What Is It Good For?", the Congress began cutting the funds that allowed the Vietnam War to continue long after most sane folk realized it was . . . say it with me now . . . A QUAGMIRE! So, the protests were, at minimum, a catalyst that considerably pushed up the end date for that war, saved many American and Vietnamese lives and stopped a financial drain on our treasury that could have led to a true depression. For the reasons above, today's hawks are trying to negate any acknowledgment that those who were, early on, against the illegal attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq might have been right. And that the protests had the same effect as they did in the 60's. That they educated both the troops and the American civilians/electorate of facts with which they were unaware (and that our subservient media was not about to publish.) And, I believe, that's why the pundits and politicians who have finally woken up and smelt the odor of burning American troops and Iraqi civilians in a no-win war are suddenly finding post-invasion reasons for withdrawing today. And they will either say that the early protesters were wrong and that Saddam had to go, or they'll conflate the protesters into their camp and try to make it seem as though the protests were against not the "Why?" of our unwarranted attack on a non-aggressor nation but against the "How" of the ensuing failed strategy that now has us being compared unfavorably to Saddam when it comes to torture and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Andrew Sullivan has been a great example of these "Get out of Iraq" Johnny come lately's. He's quoted in a story titled After President Meets Reporters, Sullivan -- Once a Bush Backer -- Now Suggests He May Have 'Lost His Mind' by the staff at Editor & Publisher.

No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that it has been done well. It's a disaster. "For him to say it's a fantastic job suggests the president has lost it, I'm sorry, there's no other way to say it.....These people must be held accountable."

Don't let Sullivan put those who "were for it, as I was" into the same tent as those who were "against it". To place all together in a camp complaining about the failed strategy in Iraq would appear to imply that:

• 1) there was a "winning" strategy for an attack against what was a highly nationalistic AND a 3 way militantly religious country.
• 2) if we did "win" in Iraq it would have somehow made the attack legitimate and might have caused to protesters to then embrace the original illegal attack in Bush's Baghdad Blunder.

I can't, of course, speak for other protesters. But I believe that even had we sent the "several hundred thousand troops" that General Shinseki estimated we'd need to take and hold secure Iraq, we would have still needed to retain a huge (200,000?) military force in Iraq for the unseeable future, as the granting of "freedom" from Saddam's secular rule would still have allowed the same tribal/religious battles of today to begin. Unlike the dream of easy victory that Sullivan and his ilk pushed for years (and held through the 2004 election, granting us a second term of Bushies), I and many of the protesters with whom I spoke believed that attacking Iraq should have occurred only in one circumstance: Iraq launching an attack against American interests. Being down on Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush today is easy. You're now in the majority . . . and you know it. (Though, sadly, pundits predict little change in Iraq regrdless of next wee's election's outcomes.) Sullivan changed stripes years and many deaths too late. While I welcome him to the right side of the road, and hope more former Bush cheerleaders will join him, I am not about to grant some form of post-dated heroism onto the people who took so long to open their eyes. Blood is on their hands, and even calling Bush an idiot (Sullivan on Bush's current optimism in the face of stark reality: ""It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind.")and calling for Rumsfeld's resignation will not cause the stained palms to come clear. Those who helped push us into a war they now wish to disassociate from need to perform some form of penance before I allow them to peacock around as peace-loving sages, so shortly after being warmongering dunces. Let Andrew volunteer at Walter Reed. Or, better still, let him work in one of the "hospitals" the US taxpayer gave billions to Bushie corps to build in Iraq. Helping those he once pushed to kill/maim might make me want to shake Andrew's hand. For now, as crude as it may sound, I could only spit in it. And I'll be damned if I'd allow him to try and form any public coalition between his neo-con con men who used lies and deceit to push us into Iraq and those who protested early and suffered the brickbats thrown in his columns and in those of other recent-day withdrawal worshipers. Too much blood, from 19 year-old American troops and 3 year-old innocent Iraqi children cloud my windshield for me to see clearly to a place where these former cheerleaders sit in places of honor! ========== [/BREAK]

After President Meets Reporters, Sullivan -- Once a Bush Backer -- Now Suggests He May Have 'Lost His Mind' By E&P Staff Published: November 01, 2006 10:00 PM ET NEW YORK In a move that no doubt sent a shiver through several candidates in his own party, President Bush, in a special interview with wire service reporters in the White House, today guaranteed a job for his Pentagon chief for two more years, adding that both Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney "are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them." But it wasn't only endangered Republicans who have been calling for Rumsfeld's ouster who may have blanched. Andrew Sullivan, the conservative writer who was once a key media supporter for the Iraq war, denounced the latest Bush statement on CNN on Wednesday night, stating that the president is so delusional, "This is not an election anymore, it's an intervention." Sullivan said the president was "so in denial," comparing the Rumsfeld endorsement to applauding the job FEMA's Michael Brown did on Katrina: "It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind. No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that it has been done well. It's a disaster. "For him to say it's a fantastic job suggests the president has lost it, I'm sorry, there's no other way to say it.....These people must be held accountable." He added that today, Richard Perle, a leading neocon and Iraq war backer, had today called the administration "dysfunctional."

More Here!

[BREAK] Give me that Old Time Religion! Okay, I'm no biblical scholar here. However, if the nuns and brothers who were so forceful in their teachings of religion were not putting me on, Christ had 2 women who held a special place in his heart. Coincidentally, both were named Mary. His mom, Mary, an unmarried teenage mom of whom I've heard tell was a virgin, and would therefore qualify to be hired at the Pope's television studio, where she would be demeaned, underpaid and victimized. And there was Mary Magdalene, a woman loved by Christ and a Mary whom I've heard was not so much of the virginity persuasion. (Of course, according to the stories/Gospels/books written by a few of Christ's friends, long after he had departed, he didn't seem to spend much time dating. So, I guess he might not have realized that virginity is a pre-existing condition that, unless quickly cured, can make prostitution a very poor career choice for a woman looking to earn a living.) This Mary would not be welcome to suffer under the Pope's TV execs.

An unholy row has broken out at the Pope's television station, with accusations flying that it paid derisory salaries, imposed demeaning conditions, victimised women employees - and even tried to hold a staff meeting to find out if some were virgins.

In keeping with the "God knows all" theme, the powers-that-be seemed to take such care of their employees that they even heard their complaints when the employees might well have thought no one was listening:

The director of Telepace (Peace TV), Monsignor Guido Todeschini, is to appear before the council of the Italian journalists' professional body in the next few days to answer claims by employees and the journalists' union. Union representatives will be seeking to find out if he has fulfilled earlier undertakings, given in February, not to monitor employees' telephone calls and to end the practice of requiring journalists to stamp a card at the start and end of work.

Also, it seems that for a very old church, they've kept up with even Wal*Mart's latest business practices:

- - - SNIP The source said women journalists working full-time were kept on part-time contracts with take-home pay of less than £11,000 a year. No one at Telepace was available for comment. - - - End of SNIPPET

No matter where you look today, from the uber-Christians justifying war, torture and more . . . in the name of Christ, to some in the Catholic hierarchy who believe that Christ should have been more condemning than compassionate to the Mary not his mom, you find that at least some branches of the followers of Christ have allowed their understanding of his teachings to evolve . . . while, interestingly, insisting that "understanding" is the only way in which anything involved with their species has ever evolved! The stories report of how a group may "hold a staff" anything [meeting] in search of virgin divining sounds like hymen dousing and seems a bit weird to me . . . but having a group of men try to justify the mistreatment of women based on whether they had ever had sex [or rode a rough horse?] makes the word "weird" seem a gross understatement. Especially when we have so recently read that other men of power at the Vatican are accused of harboring/hiding perverts who traveled around America like itinerant miners . . . only the ore they sought was trusting, faithful young boys. If one were a skeptic, one might look on the whole as being proof of a real fear of women in the hearts of powerful old men in robes. I'm only sayin' . . . [/BREAK]

[BREAK] So, in England, finding that, for large cash transfers, someone gets to put a few letters after their name (OBE) causes an uproar that could unseat and/or jail, the leader of their government. Meanwhile, back in the former colony that fought a revolution with England over the partnership of England's government with a powerful corrupt corporation that was in bed with the rulers, large cash transfers lets corporations raid the treasury and steal billions from the taxpayers through fraud and corrupt contracting processes. AND NOBODY WORRIES ABOUT LOSING THEIR JOBS, LET ALONE EVER GOING TO JAIL! Maybe it's time we started a system with "Honours", whereby instead of stealing the billions that will need to come from our kids, we hold auctions to let the heads of huge corporation's call themselves Marquis of Manhattan, Duke of Detroit, Baron of Boston, Lord of LA or some such? In return, when caught stealing public funds through contract finagling/war profiteering, instead of allowing Repugnants to fire the person who finds the fraud, we send the white-collar theives to a CIA secret prison where they are subjected to the latest in the Bush administration's definition of (non-torture???) "aggressive interrogation, without access to family, lawyer or court . . . forever and a day! When it is a defense contractor, and their finagling has led to the deaths of our troops from inferior products or shortages caused by the stealing of allocated funds, we offer them either the same deal as above, or a trial we guarantee to run as well/fairly as that of the dictator Hussein. (Their lawyers will be subjected to assassination, we'll change the judge any time we feel he isn't as biased as possible against the defendant and the prosecution chooses what evidence the defense can present.) Or, we have a much easier method available to help throttle back the razing of America's future by our loss of moral authority, the theft of the treasury and the tax-breaks for the wealthy that is making certain the treasury remains insolvent for decades so things like universal health care and improvements in public education are just impossible dreams. Kick the bums out! VOTE! If you've never voted, or have been a Republican who feels shame at what the Repugnants have done to your party/country, tomorrow is the day you can look for some absolution, while placing America back on life support. Despite some predictions, every vote does count and the outcome can come down to very few ballots (remember Florida!) Vote for Democratic candidates as if the future of America depended upon it.

Because it very well might!

[/BREAK] ==========

Killer e-mail sends Blair into panic over cash for honours row | News | This is London Tony Blair is in a blind panic over the looming threat of being arrested in the police inquiry into the cash-for-peerages scandal, Cabinet sources have revealed. A senior Minister said a 'black cloud' had descended over Downing Street at the growing realisation that the Prime Minister and his closest allies face the risk of being prosecuted over the affair.

More on this story, here.

[BREAK] Gonna take today off, as if it were a new American holiday - In Honor Of Retaining Our Democracy, Our Sanity and, with luck, Our Moral Compass!!! Jack =====

A new contract with America | Salon.com GOP corruption and an unpopular war bring an end to Republican domination in Washington -- and leave President Bush answering to a new Democratic majority. By Walter Shapiro Nov. 8, 2006 | "This is not a Republican victory. It's not a Democratic victory. It's about the American people making a set of choices." -- House Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich in Marietta, Ga., on election night 1994 Twelve years later, the American people have made another set of choices, erasing the once impregnable Sunbelt-based House conservative majority that Gingrich and his successors worked so hard to maintain. But corruption will do that to you -- the outright money-for-favors corruption that pointed two GOP incumbents toward prison, the see-no-evil corruption that caused the House Republican leadership to wink at Mark Foley's preying on congressional pages and, most of all, the corruption of the idea that Congress is an independent branch of government.

=====

Democrats Take House - washingtonpost.com Democrats Take House Two Dozen Seats Gained in House

=====

A Loud Message for Bush - New York Times Everything is different now for President Bush. The era of one-party Republican rule in Washington ended with a crash in yesterday’s midterm elections, putting a proudly unyielding president on notice that the voters want change, especially on the war in Iraq.

=====

A Voter Rebuke For Bush, the War And the Right - washingtonpost.com

=====

Democrats Promise Broad New Agenda - washingtonpost.com

=====

The Democratic House - New York Times There was only one explanation for the crazy-quilt combination of victories around the country that gave the Democrats control of the House of Representatives last night: an angry shout of repudiation of the Bush White House and the abysmal way the Republican majority has run Congress.

===== And here's some icing on that American cake!

South Dakotans Reject Tough Abortion Ban - washingtonpost.com

[/BREAK]

[BREAK] From today's NY Times:

Pakistan Link Seen in Afghan Suicide Attacks - New York Times By CARLOTTA GALL Published: November 14, 2006 PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Nov. 13 — Afghan and NATO security forces have recently rounded up several men like Hafiz Daoud Shah, a 21-year-old unemployed Afghan refugee who says he drove across the border to Afghanistan in September in a taxi with three other would-be suicide bombers. Every case, Afghan security officials say, is similar to that of Mr. Shah, who repeated his story in a rare jailhouse interview with a reporter in Kabul, the Afghan capital. The trail of organizing, financing and recruiting the bombers who have carried out a rising number of suicide attacks in Afghanistan traces back to Pakistan, they say. “Every single bomber or I.E.D. in one way or another is linked to Pakistan,” a senior Afghan intelligence official said, referring to improvised explosive devices like roadside bombs. “Their reasons are to keep Afghanistan destabilized, to make us fail, and to keep us fragmented.” He would speak on the subject only if not identified. A senior United States military official based in Afghanistan agreed for the most part. “The strong belief is that recruiting, training and provision of technical equipment for I.E.D.’s in the main takes place outside Afghanistan,” he said. By I.E.D.’s he meant suicide bombers as well. He, too, did not want his name used because he knew his remarks were likely to offend Pakistani leaders. Story continues here.

While I don't give much credence to the theory that the Bushies actually were involved in the planning of 9/11 (I mean, the attack worked, right?) or knew of the date/time in advance, it sure is interesting that the country we suddenly became best friends with post-9/11 has sold nuclear bomb making secrets to "terrorist states" [North Korea for one] provides a hiding place for Osama Bin Laden and followers and, as seen below, aids those who fight against us in Afghanistan. Bush sends his "ally" General/Dictator Pervez Musharraf billions in aid, and, in turn, Pakistan helps terrorists gift wrap/body bag young Americans to send home to their families. Sure makes one wonder about those conspiracy theories. . . [/BREAK]

[BREAK] In today's Huffington Post, Arianna writes:

The Blog | Arianna Huffington: Murtha Loses... But It's Still a Victory for Pelosi

The Washington Post, with a much larger circulation, tells the story a bit differently:

Democrats Pick Hoyer Over Murtha - washingtonpost.com Democrats Pick Hoyer Over Murtha House Colleagues Elect Pelosi Speaker but Reject Her Choice for Majority Leader By Jonathan Weisman and Lois Romano Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A01 House Democrats elected Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) the new majority leader yesterday over strong opposition from Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), exposing a deep political divide even before the party takes control. The 149 to 86 vote for Hoyer over Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.) was viewed by many in the party as a repudiation of Pelosi's strong-arm tactics and a recognition of Hoyer's tireless work to elect a Democratic majority for the first time in 12 years. If the Hoyer camp's head count was correct going into yesterday's secret balloting, Pelosi and her allies may not have swayed a single vote for Murtha, a close associate.

And, this losing battle gave the media another shot at the Democrats . . . months before any of these jobs are even empowered:

Political Pragmatism Carried Hoyer to the Top - washingtonpost.com By Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A06 Steny H. Hoyer is a practical moderate and Nancy Pelosi is a liberal idealist, and for more than 40 years they have competed like siblings, all the way to the pinnacle of politics. Hoyer's rout yesterday of Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), Pelosi's handpicked candidate for majority leader, validated the methodical, no-frills approach that the congressman from Maryland has taken throughout his long career, from his rapid ascent in state politics to his somewhat bumpier climb through the House.

The other major media all have Pelosi suffering a huge loss. And so called "progressive pundits", like E. J. Dionne, are already chastising Pelosi and the Dems as if this 3 day battle delayed important legislation.

E. J. Dionne Jr. - Remember Who Sent You - washingtonpost.com Remember Who Sent You Memo to Democrats: Stop Squabbling and Start Helping the Middle Class By E. J. Dionne Jr. Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A25 Democrats might usefully take a break from their inane round of back-stabbing and score-settling to focus, for a few moments, on why voters gave them their congressional majorities. A lot of Americans are hurting in the pocketbook, and if Democrats don't use the next two years to help them, the party will squander the trust it has temporarily earned.

(Don't you love E. J.'s choice of words: . . . the party will squander the trust it has temporarily earned. After the stunning election victory had by the Democrats, and especially the progressives, most would say they had, for now and until they did something to have that trust removed, "earned" the voters trust. But old E.J. has his perspicacity at full tilt, so he knows this is only short term trust. Hence "temporary", I guess? I fear that the corporate media "liberals", like Dionne, will be a Hell of a lot tougher on the Democrats than they were on the Bushies . . . when they seemed to lay down wagging their tales while the Constitution was shredded and America began embracing a policy of illegal war and sanctioned war crimes. Of course, no matter how some blow up the impact of the loss, nor how much Arianna tries to morph it into a strategic victory, Pelosi did suffer a loss. The vote wasn't even close, and, unless Pelosi secretly wanted Murtha humiliated, she isn't celebrating a win today. She and Murtha could have done well, even with a Hoyer win, had she played their cards a bit differently. You know, I surely I marveled at how the Repugnants would, over the past 6 years, turn political sow's ears into silken GOP purses. How, no matter the level of awful in some policy defeat or news story, Rove and his ilk could make it appear, through their rule over the corporate media, that the Repugs had done well again. Look at Plamegate: 1) Libby indicted. 2) Karl Rove needs 5 trips to the Grand Jury in order to finally tell a believable enough story that proves he DID give classified info to a Time magazine reporter, but he gave it after Libby had already told Judy Miller. 3) Richard Armitage, Bush's number 2 at the State Dept., turns out to have been the first to reveal the secret of Valerie Plame's identity. There's much more, but let's just look at those 3. We have 3 top tier figures in the White House now known to have revealed secret info, put Plame and her whole crew of spies [working on Iran and WMD!!!] in jeopardy, but we, the majority at least, are told to be proud that it wasn't Bush or Cheney who may have committed treason. It was just their top people. In an unfortunate way, the Dems have learned from the Bushies . . . if learning to deceive is what you want? Problem is, without the Roveian advantage of having mainstream corporate media to trumpet in your deception, the only ones you play to are the more savvy political junkies who keep up with the important battles that occur daily in our government. When the press tells the vast majority of the voters that Pelosi suffered a big defeat. If past practice is a predictor, the people will believe what they've read. Hence, Arianna's spin goes mainly to the savvy political junkie . . . and there it dies. Because we all know it was NOT A WIN. Murtha lost, so did Pelosi. However, there could have been a far better result. And one that would have been seen as a win, partial or complete, by many more folks than those who read Arianna. Let's give this a closer look. Here we have Arianna saying, in a perfect example of Rovian double-speak:

- - - SNIP "It bodes well for Pelosi that was willing to spend her political capital right off the bat -- especially on the issue that will define her time at the helm. Far too many modern politicians save their political capital until it's lost all its value." - - - End of SNIPPET

If you read behind that pleasant sounding rhetoric, you find that, in reality-ville, Arianna is complementing Pelosi for spending her political capital on a LOSS? The term "political capital" has a definition, and when used in a battle it is always diminished, to some extent. If a politician proposes something with universal acclaim, no political capital is used. Only when a proposal requires arm twisting is political capital offered, and to the recipients of the twisted arm, some of that capital is lost. The encyclopedia at Free Dictionary defines this ethereal currency thusly:

Political capital is the quality of a public figure's favorable image among the populace. Also, his current standing among other important personalities (who are usually in government) is important. It is thought of as a commodity which must be spent wisely in pushing for an issue which may not be as popular unless advocated by someone popular.

Now, I am not knocking Ms. Pelosi for backing someone who aided her when she needed a friend. That is an all too lacking of an attribute amongst many politicians. And her use of political capital was a fine way of showing she is loyal to those who help her help America. On the other hand, I believe, in this instance, the important portion of the definition is: " . . . a commodity which must be spent wisely . . . " Using it on a losing cause is rarely a wise expenditure. Spending it on a friend with a bucket of ethical problems was a mistake. But it did not have to be. I believe it COULD have been changed from throwing that capital to the wind into an investment of capital to help a friend AND gain interest on the metaphorical cash. Pelosi and Murtha should have had their staffs work on a short proposal that Murtha would make to the Democratic caucus. Mr. Murtha would outline reforms he'd like made to guide the House Ethics Committee. Reforms that would toughen the committee and make clear some of the gray areas that still guide/camouflage problems wherein money/donations skirt the rules and help influence/buy Members of Congress. In the same week that Jack Abramoff was jailed, Jack Murtha could have given some tough talk about K Street's influence and pushed for rules making in impossible for the technically "legal" golfing/fishing/hunting trips that caught up so many Repugs in scandals these past few years. Murtha is also one of the few Members who could have brought up his own past forays into gray areas that taught him that better defined ethics rules can help "keep the honest person from stumbling into that gray area, while still needing to 'bring home the bacon' to her/his constituency/district and raise ridiculous sums of money for the next campaign." Of course, such a statement leads right into two areas of concern for intelligent voters. The misuse of "earmarks" in legislation and the horrible state of campaign financing. (See, instead of taking home a loss that cost Pelosi much capital, even a loss under this scenario could have been a major gain BEFORE Pelosi et al have even taken the reigns of power. It would have made Pelosi's choice to back him seem much more in the people's interest, instead of just having the corporate media pointing to Abscam and Murtha's more recent tap dancing around ethical conundrums. If Murtha won, Pelosi would win. If Murtha lost, Pelosi would look like a champion of clean-up, who could retain most of her political capital for another day. Karl Rove would have . . . defecated! [/BREAK]

[BREAK] Yes, Virginia. Iraq is not the only place where Liberty's skirt is dragging through some self-made mud. Unfortunately, when the Dems extricate us from Bush's Baghdad Blunder, most Americans will feel so glad that our "right hand" is cleansed that they will ignore the steady dripping of mud/blood from the left hand, that forms an ugly, and growing, toxic pool at her feet. ----- [/BREAK]

This Modern World � Blog Archive � Why do “they” hate us? Is it somehow connected to the way we cut off their limbs with chainsaws? Jonathan Schwarz: Why do “they” hate us? Is it somehow connected to the way we cut off their limbs with chainsaws? Before the 9/11 attacks came along, I used to work with groups trying to get the U.S. to stop funding Colombia’s right-wing paramilitaries. The pretense, of course, was we were funding the Colombian military in their heroic struggle in the War on Drugs. The reality, that the paramilitaries were run by the Colombian government to murder anyone to the left of Elliot Abrams, is finally being acknowledged: The government of President �lvaro Uribe is being shaken by its most serious political crisis yet, as details emerge about members of Congress who collaborated with right-wing death squads to spread terror and exert political control across Colombia’s Caribbean coast…All are from the state of Sucre, where the attorney general’s office has been exhuming bodies from mass graves… It’s difficult to overstate the level of human depravity exhibited by the paramilitaries. One of their favorite techniques is to kill people with chainsaws: More here

[BREAK] Media Matters has a good take on the current flap over our web footed friends. ( Media Matters - The War on Christmas Penguins) Seems that penguins are really getting on the Repugnant's nerves. This time, it is due to the pro environment background in the movie. Earlier this month, it was about two male penguins who "adopted" and raised an orphaned penguin chick. The penguins "mated" for a time, but, eventually, one moved on to a hot female bird! But tree-hugging, or same sex hugging, little guys in tuxes have the right-wing all aflutter. Now, whatever your religion, or lack of one, if there is an all wise God/Gods/Thing/Spirit, It/They/He/She/Whatever is laughing They/Its/His/Her/Whatevers head(s) off at the utter stupidity and downright arrogant ignorance of the species that claims to be the highest intelligence on one of the billions upon billions of rocks hurtling through the universe. A portrayal of Gay and/or environmentalist (cartoon???) penguins threaten our way of life? Of course, biologists tell us that, like the all-mighty human animal, our more wild fellow denizens of the planet have a 10% to 20% "gay" population also. Ironically, though, in this well publicized case, the demonic penguins who want to take our kids to a wicked place aren't even Gay, in the more literal sense. As Ellen S (a member of a daily news mailing list I put out) pointed out in a reply to the original news story on this that I had forwarded a while back:

So, to use accurate lingo, the penguins weren't gay or bi, they were MSM's - (Men who have sex with men) like guys in jail just because that's what's available...

On a related note, I recall in high school how a guy tried to berate me for having a gay friend [Buddy R. - who wore bright clothing and worshiped Judy Garland - yet it took over a year before I figured out he was gay?] The guy said to me "You just don't get it, Ballinger. Your friend is a perve. Can you think of anything as gross and disgusting as what 2 gay men do?" In my one brush with brilliant repartee, I replied: "Yeah, I remember being 10 and having an older guy tell me how a man and a woman made babies. My God, I had never heard anything so disgusting ! . . and it took years - about 2 1/2 if I remember right - before I completely changed my mind on that subject. Just think, maybe you'll do an about face on this subject in just a couple of years." [/BREAK]

[BREAK] The new Amerika! Where enabling illegal and unjustified war is a "good thing" and propagating peace is virulently controversial? Well, based on this month's election, we may be leaving that disgusting time behind . . . maybe! (Of course, having top administration officials still pushing for a stay the course strategy makes on a wee bit skeptical that the bozos running this country even heard of the election results?) Adding more to the worry about our leaders' sanity, we are now in a phase where blaming the Iraqi victims for being angry at our ruin of their country is becoming an acceptable political tactic, and belittling the power and competence of our most recent of the parade of puppets we've made ruler of the mess we've made of Iraq is somehow seen as a move toward aiding him in his tough task of binding together tribes whose hatred of each other predates much of Western civilization. Even if we somehow find ourselves on a path that leads to less than decades of religious war blanketing the planet, we face the internecine battles that are gnawing away at societies from the middle east through eastern Asia and down to Africa. Coming soon to a block near you: The neighbor vs neighbor cage matches in new Amerika! Our idiocy knows no bounds. In a place where consideration of the banning of Muslim religious gear [veil, burka], can be conducted by officials wearing yarmulkes or crucifixes, while civil servants and prisoners can sue if they are denied a religious menu in prison or their "right" to long facial hair [Hasid beards] that makes [fire dept., police dept., EMT, etc.] breathing gear ineffective. Showing our total disregard for being pounded about the head and shoulders by the God of irony, we get our panties in a wad over somebody daring to equate peace with the birth of its "Prince" and "fine" those who would attempt to do so. What fools these mortals be! Update: The Board rescinds order to remove wreath, resigns, sends apology to the couple who had the audacity to visibly wish for peace on Earth.. War in Iraq gets worse, as Muqtada al-Sadr has his followers leave the coalition government and the US mulls retreating from "dangerous Sunni-dominated al-Anbar province" and concentrating on trying to keep Baghdad proper secure. (Bush's need to meet with Iraq's Prime Minister in Jordan, and not in Baghdad, certainly shows that security, even in the much vaunted "Green Zone", is not able to satisfy Bush or the Secret Service. Score: Peace 1 War 1 The tie is a loss, to our troops! [/BREAK]

USATODAY.com - On Deadline | Archives | Local look: Neighborhood fights over peace wreath Local look: Neighborhood fights over peace wreath From the Colorado brief in today's "Across the USA" roundup: "Pagosa Springs -- A homeowners group says it will fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that has offended some other residents as an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. Lisa Jensen said she's not taking it down until after Christmas." More on this story here!

Movable Type Publishing Platform