Skip to content

More comics

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Sorry if this is poor quality. I couldn’t find it on line, so I had to scan it. It doesn’t even come up on my comics widget. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might be suspicious:

souptonutz.jpg

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Saturday Night Music

Friday, June 29, 2007

Last week the Lovin Spoonful, this week the Byrds. I’m going to make this a regular thing I guess. Here’s the Byrds as old geezers singing “Turn, Turn, Turn”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNopQq5lWqQ[/youtube]

And, because I couldn’t make up my mind, here’s another with an appearance by the author:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pum6MtyC3NA[/youtube]

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (2)

No there there

Friday, June 29, 2007

Fred Thompson underwhelms them in New Hampshire.

In 2004 Wes Clark was a threat to everyone, including Bush, before he got in the race. Once he did, he faded. Clark actually had substance and would probably have been a capable president. Thompson is a lightweight, who did nothing as a Senator, and would be a horrible president. The country can’t afford 8 years of play acting. Oops, I forgot, that’s all we’ll get from any of them, assuming we don’t get a dictatorship (Looking at you, Rudy).

My wife says it will be Romney, and I’m beginning to agree. It’s hard to believe someone so obviously calculating (and an animal abuser to boot ) can win, but in the toilet bowl that is the GOP, you know what floats to the top. Romney is saying all the right things, even though it’s fairly clear that if he believes anything he’s saying it’s only by chance. He’s got the money too. If he wins he’ll be a formidable candidate, since the press has already proven it is ready to give him a free pass. According to them, he even smells good.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

McClatchey calls Bush on Al Qaeda

Friday, June 29, 2007

I am just piggybacking onto Atrios here, but I think it’s worth doing. Recognizing good journalism is as important as decrying the trash, particularly since, for the most part, we internet types don’t have the resources to do original reporting.

I have written about the brain dead way portions of our media (including the New York Times) have fallen into line behind Bushco’s latest practice of calling the “enemy” in Iraq “Al-Qaeda“. Not only have they gone along with the terminology, but they have done so without explanation, and seemingly without reflection.

McClatchey, the former Knight-Ridder, was the only major news organization that was skeptical during the run up to war, and it does itself proud on this issue as well (Bush plays al Qaida card to bolster support for Iraq policy ):

Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida “the main enemy” in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration’s senior intelligence analysts.

The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn’t reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.

Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

“Al Qaida is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni and Kurds alike,” Bush asserted. “Al Qaida’s responsible for the most sensational killings in Iraq. They’re responsible for the sensational killings on U.S. soil.”

U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn’t exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn’t pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn’t controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.

Bush’s references to al Qaida came just days after Republican Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and George Voinovich of Ohio broke with Bush over his Iraq strategy and joined calls to begin an American withdrawal.

“The only way they think they can rally people is by blaming al Qaida,” said Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center who’s critical of the administration’s strategy.

Next month, the Senate is expected to debate the Iraq issue as it considers a Pentagon spending bill. Democrats are planning to offer at least three amendments that seek to change Iraq strategy, including revoking the 2002 resolution that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq and mandating that a withdrawal of troops begin within 120 days.

Bush’s use of al Qaida in his speech had strong echoes of the strategy the administration had used to whip up public support for the Iraq invasion by accusing the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of cooperating with bin Laden and implying that he’d played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Administration officials have since acknowledged that Saddam had no ties to bin Laden or 9-11.

A similar pattern has developed in Iraq, where the U.S. military has cited al Qaida 33 times in a barrage of news releases in the last seven days, and some news organizations have echoed the drumbeat. Last month, al Qaida was mentioned only nine times in U.S. military news releases.

In a barely polite way, they are accusing Bush of lying again, just like he lied us into war in the first place. How refreshing-a news organization that actually examines the truth content of statements that are being made, rather than just report them.

Filed in Iraq | | Comments (0)

Home Depot says no to Griswold-maybe

Thursday, June 28, 2007

It is with some chagrin, that I must issue a provisional correction to a charge of environmental depredation that I made against Home Depot recently. Home Depot has pleaded “not interested” to the charge of wishing to cover a Griswold farm with asphalt and ugliness, according to the Norwich Bulletin (Home Depot Refutes Rumor)

I have no one but myself to blame, having relied solely on the authority of the Norwich Bulletin in support of the original allegations. (By the way, Bulletin, technically they denied the rumor, they didn’t refute it) In retrospect, I realize that relying on the Bulletin to get the facts right is a little like relying on a blind man to call balls and strikes.

The picture remains muddy:

A spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based company said Al Boschen, vice president of real estate for the company, does not know of any proposals to build a 1 million-square-foot distribution center on the farm of Harvey Polinsky.

“We’ve checked with all our folks and we don’t know of anything,” Jennifer King said Tuesday.

The letter sent by Fred Allyn III, broker/owner of Allyn and Associates LLC, stated, “I have procured an offer from Atlanta, Georgia based Home Depot (A Fortune 200 Company) to purchase all or part of the parcel.”

Allyn wrote in the letter the Polinsky farm is a prime location because of its proximity to I-395, availability of water, topography and central location between New York and Boston.

He said Tuesday he expected The Home Depot might not know of a proposed distribution center because the proposal is still being worked out.

“In corporate America, you get all kinds of things,” he said.

Tom Giard, chairman of the Economic Development Commission, concurred.

“In fact, (The Home Depot) may not be totally in sync with their point people,” he said. “The point people, the development arm, is obviously going to be several months ahead of (The Home Depot) in preparing sites, and I would assume the development corporation who does this was given marching orders in a loose format that says, ‘We need a new distribution center,’ and off they go.”

(Emphasis added to weasel words)

In keeping with its find tradition of investigative reporting the Bulletin made no apparent effort to resolve the contradictions. I personally am at a loss as to who to believe. My reflexive ideological predilections, on which I, like so many Americans, rely for primary guidance, offer no help. Who do I believe: a soulless corporation or a real estate developer? It’s a dead heat for last place.

There is a chance that my firmly held beliefs will be reinforced in the end. They could both be lying.

So, the jury being temporarily out, I must withdraw the charge against Home Depot. I take solace from the fact that while the specific charge may be groundless, the general charge is not, so I have done no possible damage to Home Depot’s reputation.

Filed in Environment, Local issues | | Comments (1)

Republicans filibuster, Democrats quail

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

There is a very interesting diary entry today on Daily Kos about the fact that the Republicans are “filibustering” a bill that has already passed, namely the bill adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Different versions of the bill have passed each house, and the Republicans are now threatening to filibuster the normally routine question of whether the Senate should appoint a committee to meet with House members to reconcile the bills. The Republicans object to letting federal employees unionize. As more people should know, the filibuster is not what it used to be. In the days of yore, a Senator literally had to put his or her mouth where the money was, but no more:

In the Senate, however, pretty much anything that’s subject to debate is subject to extended debate, and that means it’s subject to a filibuster. What’s more, often all it takes is the threat of a filibuster to make everyone else back off. Nobody wants to have to sit through an actual Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style filibuster, so the threat of it — in the form of an objection to a unanimous consent request (in this case, to go to conference or appoint conferees) — is all it takes to gum up the works. It’s assumed that the Senator who objects is, if push comes to shove, willing to actually filibuster by holding the floor indefinitely. Rarely is anyone put to the test.

Ahh, there’s the rub. Rarely is anyone put to the test. Recollect, if you will, that the Democrats repeatedly chickened out of filibustering anything, and meekly submitted when they lost a cloture vote. But as the diarist notes, in this case at least, even a successful cloture vote doesn’t end the story:

So that’s what happened today. Republican obstructionists objected to the unanimous consent request that the Senate go to conference on these bills. In order for Dems to call his or her bluff, someone has to make a motion to go to conference. Then, when the Senate begins to debate that motion, the Senator who objected can opt to filibuster right there. Which means that until the Senate votes for cloture (if it can find the 60 votes to do that at all), everything comes to a halt. And at this point, even if cloture is achieved, all you’ve done is agreed to 30 more hours of debate on the question of whether or not to go to conference. Assuming that motion passes, you still need to appoint conferees. And guess what? That’s subject to debate, too. And thus, to yet another filibuster.

The Republicans happily framed the filibuster threat as a violation of the sacred principle of the up or down vote, a principle that has lost its moral force since they lost the Senate. The Democrats were cowed by that argument, and now that the shoe’s on the other foot, they are afraid to deploy it. Moreover, they’re afraid to do something even more radical-making the Republicans put their money where their mouth is. I submit that they should make them filibuster, and then frame the issue as a Republican refusal to vote on the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. If the Democrats can’t win that debate in the public forum, particularly given the widespread disgust with the Republicans these days, then they don’t deserve their majority status.

The Democrats have reverted to an earlier time when filibusters always worked-when there was a gentleman’s agreement not to put the filibusterer to the test. That was probably never a good agreement, but given the Republican insistence that the filibuster is only legitimate when they wield it, it is a fool’s bargain. Joe’s Gang of 14 is strangely silent now, they have no problem with the filibuster when it’s a Republican weapon.

My suggestion: Make them come out and identify themselves. Make them tell the nation that they object to implementing the commission’s recommendations. Make them stand spouting blather. Make Susan Collins and her “moderate” ilk go on record either voting to cut off debate, or voting with the mad right wing of their party. Make Joe Lieberman squirm.

My breath is not being held. Despite their majority status, the Democrats have not quite gotten over the battered spouse syndrome from which they suffered over the past 12 years.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (1)

Monday comics

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

mgg0626.gif

Filed in Humour | | Comments (0)

Forgiving the sinner, but not the sin

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

There is a woman named Katrina Swett, who is running in the New Hampshire Democratic primary for the United States Senate. The short case against her candidacy is made here (stolen from My Left Nutmeg):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5dx1nvagrw[/youtube]

Recently Ms. Swett has attempted to distance herself from Saint Joe:

As we reported recently, Swett suggested a couple weeks ago that she was drifting away from Lieberman. At the time, she said that she found herself “disagreeing with him more and more frequently these days,” adding: “This doesn’t change the fact that we are friends, but it does change my support of him as a politician.” …

There is a lively debate, see comments to the TPM post above, about whether Ms. Swett should be forgiven. We learn here that Matthew reports that Jesus said:

Then Peter came up to him and said, ‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times but seventy times seven.”

For those that are counting, that’s 490 times. Presumably, at 491 you can give up on your brother. Luke, on the other hand, according to the same source (which I’m sure is reliable), indicates that we should withhold forgiveness until we see proof of true repentance:

“if there is repentance, you must forgive.” Luke’s gospel emphasizes repentance more than the gospels of Mark and Matthew. We recall Luke uniquely saying, “Unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:3, 5)

I’m not aware that Jesus said we should ever forget the sin. Even Jesus, I suspect, would not expect us to assume that the sinner, once forgiven, will never sin again.

I am reminded of an event I attended at Colby College back in 1970 during the student strike against the war in Vietnam. Students from all of Maine attended, and both Maine Senators, Ed Muskie and Margaret Chase Smith, addressed the crowd. Ed Muskie had, early on, been a supporter of the war, but had long since changed his position. He said, in essence, that he had done so because he had been convinced by students like us that the war was wrong. Even that didn’t sit well with some of the crowd, and I remember feeling a bit puzzled. What were we there for, if not to convince others of the rightness of our position? If we condemned those who we convinced, what chance did we have of success?

I am convinced today, as I was then, that Muskie had truly repented, but I freely acknowledge that it’s a judgment call, made all the more difficult by the fact that hypocrisy is almost a job requirement for modern politicians.

How then, do we deal with politicians like Swett?

In her case, there are substantial reasons to reject her attempts to ingratiate herself with the members of her own party, who she rejected during the 2006 campaign. We need not decide whether she has truly repented (requiring, as any Catholic can tell you, a true act of contrition), we need only decide that she lacks the judgment to be a United States Senator (remembering always that if she gets the nomination, it is time to hold one’s nose and do the least evil). Any candidate who did not know, by 2006, that Iraq was the preeminent issue of our time, any candidate who did not recognize the threat to our constitution that the war and the Bush brand of empire poses, simply lacks the judgment to be a preferred candidate for the United States Senate. By 2006 any person paying attention should have, must have, known these things. Yet here’s what Swett said shortly after Ned beat Joe in the primary:

Swett believes Lieberman lost because of three perceived Democratic “sins”: the sin of supporting the Iraq war and being tough on defense, the sin of being bipartisan and the sin of displaying religious faith. Swett said those traits might make Lieberman undesirable to many Democrats but they could be key for Democrats in winning future national elections.

Here I am, a convinced agnostic, slowly sliding toward confirmed atheism, yet I say unto you: It is, and was, indeed a sin to support the Iraq war. Moreover, I say unto you, with all the certitude a former Catholic can summon, that this sin is and was not merely venial, but mortal ((Theology at the link not necessarily endorsed by CTBlue)). I bemoan the fact that there is no Hell in which to incinerate folks like Lieberman. Like Jesus, we can forgive Swett for condoning the sin, but we should not forget that she did so, and we must unfortunately continue to suspect that, were she not shilling for votes in a state grown ever more weary of war (and ever more blue), she would still be condoning the sin.

Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (5)

The Supreme Court strikes back

Monday, June 25, 2007

The fan is being hit fast and furiously these days. Joe Lieberman’s gift to the nation-a right wing Supreme Court, has announced itself with force over the last couple of days. Corporate free speech good, student free speech, bad. Corporations good, environment bad. Institutionalized religion good, taxpayer standing bad.

What’s interesting is the degree to which the hard right judges are showing their true colors. The plurality opinion in the student free speech case allowed that students have some free speech rights, just not when they’re saying something that might be interpreted as being pro-drugs. You can look it up, there’s an asterisk in the First Amendment that makes an exception for that. But Clarence Thomas was having none of it. No half way measures for him:

In sort, in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order.

Long and short: no free speech rights for students, according to Thomas. Case closed. Yes, that’s right, Clarence Thomas elevated 18th century educational practices to the status of legal precedent in a constitutional case.

In the long run, the case that may cause the most harm involved a suit by taxpayers against the Bush Administration’s giveaways to religious groups. The court said that atheist and agnostic taxpayers lacked standing to “sue to stop conferences that help religious charities apply for federal grants”.

Taxpayer standing often represents the only effective check on unconstitutional activities by the government. Once again, the court plurality opted to neuter the legal principle rather than kill it, but that was not good enough for Scalia (joined by Thomas):

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone further that the rest of the court, favoring a repudiation of the 1968 decision that in certain instances allows taxpayer lawsuits.

”We had an opportunity today to erase this blot on our jurisprudence, but instead have simply smudged it,” Scalia wrote.

No doubt Big Tony will have many more chances to deprive ordinary citizens of redress in the courts. They’re in charge now. We are about to see the most activist court in American history, but it won’t be covered that way. Somehow restricting the rights of the American people doesn’t qualify as activism.

I’m waiting, by the way, for Clarence Thomas to call for the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. After all, segregated schools were universal in the good old days, so they must also be constitutional.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Secularism rising

Monday, June 25, 2007

Steve Benen, writing at Talking Points Memo, comments on an article in the Atlantic, which noted that the number of Americans who stated that they had “no religious preference” doubled (from 7%) between 1992 and 2002. The authors of a study cited in the article, Michael Hout and Claude S. Fischer, concluded that the increase was not due to a rise in atheism, but to a growing disgust with the religous right. Benen concludes:

But if the Hout/Fischer analysis is right, and more people are turning away from organized religion because they’re just so repulsed by the Dobson/Robertson crowd, well, that’s just hilarious.

It may or may not be hilarious, but I doubt that it would be disturbing to the Dobson/Robertson crowd, on either doctrinal or political grounds.

I’m no expert on Protestantism, since they’re all heretics. But I do know that there are contradictory currents running through their brand of Christianity. On the one hand, they do proselytize, but for many of them there is the concept of the elect, that is, some people are bound for heaven, and some won’t get in no matter what. Naturally, each one believes that he or she is one of the elect, and is more than happy to count nearly every one else as being of the “left behind” variety. The non-believers are just announcing their status, pre-judgment.

Politically, the Dobsons and Robertsons will no doubt thrive if open secularists become more numerous. They flourish by fostering a sense of exceptionalism and victimhood in their followers. The more they can portray themselves and their sheep (Jesus sure chose the right metaphor there, didn’t he?) as persecuted, the more blind loyalty and fanaticism they can engender. They aren’t particularly interested in winning over a majority of Americans. They are particularly interested in controlling a subset significant enough to enable them to control elections. It’s no small achievement to have total control over 20 to 30% of the voting population. The more they can scare the sheep, the more they can herd them to “safety”.

Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)