America: She's Turnin' Blue!

Yellow Blog Dog has posted a very interesting map, courtesy of survey USA. As you say to yourself, "hmm...what parts of the country are still in a hurricane of denial (no pun intended to my Louisiana readers) regarding the incredibly shitty job this president is doing on a daily basis?"

Well, look below for your answer.

The map prompts 3 observations:

1. I have re-named New York, New Jersey, and Vermont as the "tri-state of intelligence." They now get 20 senators a piece, instead of 2.

2. I'm SO proud to live in the Northeastern United States of America. We'll be forming our own nation soon, so good luck getting great pizza or bagels in Nebraska.

3. Idaho and Utah - as your economic conditions worsen, your kids get sent off to a war because of lies, and your sister can't get the abortion she needs after you impregnate her for the third time - I will look at you, shrug, and continue through my day without a care in the world.

Unhappy With Work? Move to a Blue State

The Political Economy Research Institute at Umass recently published a study called the Work Environment Index.

In a nutshell, states' jobs are evaluated in terms of average pay, employment opportunities, employee benefits, percentage of low-income workers, fair treatment between genders and ability for employees to unionize.

The study concludes that there is, "consistent correspondence between the quality of a state's environment for workers and its economic health."

Conservatives pride themselves on both representing the "working man," as well as having the ability to stimulate the economy in the private sector. Look at both maps below and tell me what a load of bullshit that is (keeping in mind AK and HI are both blue):

You can view a list of the rankings here.

Someone Please Feed Ann Coulter a Sandwich

It didn't take long for yet another Republican who has never served and never will to become a walking metaphore of hypocracy by labeling a Democratic war veteran a coward.

Ann Coulter just couldn't wait to claim the latest prize. Apparently, the pointy-faced wicked bitch of the Right not only agreed with Congresswoman Jean Schmidt's absolutely disgusting comments on the House floor last week, but she also echoed them.

"It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home...The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors."

Nice work Ann. Military recruiting is way, way down. Your local recruiting office awaits your arrival.

Randi Rhodes Bitch-Slaps Another Conservative on the Air

Listen to this audio clip - too long for me to transcribe - and tell me Randi Rhodes isn't a goddess, and tell me every single liberal radio show shouldn't be this good:

I chose this clip in particular because you'll get to listen to yet another Republican who is actually a decent person overall, and really get a sense of when they're presented actual facts filled with both reason and history, they're totally unable to defend their point of view, and their logic crumbles.

Like I've always said - of those who continue to support this President, 90% are good, moral people who simply buy into bullshit easily, or get sexually aroused by the site of an American flag to the point where they cannot think clearly, and they end up following the herd like helpless sheep.

The other 10% - we'll, they're in on it.

Non-IE users clickhere.

Adopt a Fat, Drug Addicted Conservative Talk Show Host

If there are people out there that still believe shiny American flag lapel pins and bumper stickers that claim, “I support President Bush and our troops” are all it takes to really support your military, you may want to enroll in Rush Limbaugh’s new program.

The conservative talk show host who wants to send everyone “up the river” for illegal drug use recently announced his Adopt-a-Soldier program for those serving around the world.

At first glance, the name sounds cute and cuddly, and hey, who doesn’t want to support our troops.

After all, it’s a program that allows people aid in making life easier for those fighting for our freedom in the Middle East, right?

Well, not so much. Here’s a description of the program from his web site:

"Support our men and women in uniform by giving a subscription to Rush 24/7 and the Limbaugh Letter to a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Adopt as many soldiers as you like at a discounted price and make sure that our military has full access to all three hours of every Rush Limbaugh Show. Say thank you by giving the gift of Rush to the men and women who protect our freedom.”

That’s right. Nothing says thank you more than giving the gift of the very bullshit conservative philosophy that got our troops in this mess to begin with, all penned by a thrice-divorced conservative drug-addict best known for dodging the Vietnam War draft because of a pimple on his ass, straight from his Florida mansion.

Oh, and here are a list of other issues I have with this newsletter giveaway:

* If the irony of one of the wealthiest radio hosts in media history getting people to give him money – lot’s of money – in the name of a program masquerading as charity hasn’t hit you yet, again, I’d encourage you to sign up.

* How exactly does receiving his newsletter help soldiers? Are 18 year-old kids really big Rush Limbaugh fans or conservative hacks that want to be fed bullshit spin on why they’re in the Middle East in the first place?

* Have you ever heard of $49.95 for a newsletter? Considering the newsletter advertises his show, shouldn’t the newsletters be free? Aren’t most newsletters free, or like, $10 a month if they put effort into the publishing?

* How about setting up a program for donating money for armor, protection, food, stamps for mail sent by family and friends?

* Unless they’re made from Kevlar, I don’t think the newsletters can stop a bullet.

* Is it not enough that Limbaugh sells his political point of view for free on a daily basis considering his show is broadcasted on Arm Services radio?

Share your own thoughts about Rush’s ridiculous philosophy on how to support the troops by entering a comment below.

Bush's Poll Numbers Point and Laugh at Cheney's

Not only is Bush's Approval rating going down like a bucket of KFC at Rush Limbaugh's house, but the good news associated with this is that poll numbres confirm reason to get even more sleep at night: Dick Cheney could never, ever be president.

No, I'm not referring to the heart attacks I'm referring to his latest approval ratings.
Typically a useless statistic, you might ask the question, "when does theVP approval rating ever make news?"

How about when it's nearly ready to dip below 20%.

With the exception of flyover states Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, Cheney's approval rating is at a record low across America, safely below the 1/4 mark. Those of us who progressed through grade school might remember any grade below a 60 is, well, an F. Anything below 40 and your parents got notified.

Anything around a 20 and you shouldn't have even gone to school that day.

Here is a snapshot of some numbers:

Morford to San Fran: Let's Blow Up Bill O'Reilly

If you do not currently subscribe to Mark Morford's twice-a-week column, drop everything you're in the middle of and do so immediately.

I recently wrote about Bill O'Reilly, America's favorite advocate for the peace and love that is Christiany, and his laughable comments directed toward the City by the Bay.

Morford however, can put it in to perspective much better than yours truly, so without further ado:

It's almost too easy. He's too easy a target, really, Bill O'Reilly of the casually toxic Fox News, too bloviated and too silly and too undercooked, and no one whose opinion you truly value or with an IQ higher than their waist size actually watches him with anything resembling intellectual honesty or takes anything he says the slightest bit seriously. You hope.

Especially when he, like Pat Robertson ranting about how gays caused Sept. 11 or that Dover, Pa., is now a doomed and godless hell pit, given how the town fired every
single one the imbecilic, intelligent design-supporting Repubs from the school board, especially when Billy goes off his nut once again and essentially wishes al Qaeda would attack San Francisco, well, it is up to us to merely look at him like Shiva looks at a sea slug -- i.e., a moment of compassion for his regrettable incarnation -- and then laugh and shake our heads and move the hell on.

I mean, what else do you want to do? Allow him credence? Give his infantile words any sort of weight and import? Let him slither into your heart like a worm and fester and burn? O'Reilly is, after all, the Right's most self-aggrandizing blowhard, one who still vilifies France like a child who hates broccoli, one who has, next to Rush Limbaugh, perhaps the worst spin in all of media.

And he is one who now suggests that because San Francisco dared to ban aggressive military recruiting in our high schools so disadvantaged 18-year-olds won't be unwittingly sucked into the brutish military vortex so they can be shipped off to Iraq to die for appalling and indefensible reasons, al Qaeda should blow up Coit Tower.

What do you do with that? You laugh. Sure, file a formal complaint with the Fox network. Sure, demand that Billy be fired, which is a bit like demanding Ronald McDonald be canned from the McDonald's corporation for poisoning our children. Yes, you have to do it, even if such complaints come from someone like San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, not exactly the poster child for tact and grace when it comes to political maneuvering.

But of course, it won't make one bit of difference. BOR is still Fox's cash cow. He draws big ratings, even here in the Bay Area. And even if O'Reilly's cultural relevance is tanking right along with the bad ship BushCo, he's still getting PR for miles out of the childish comment. Hell, you're reading a column about it right now, which means all those extremist right-wing inbreeding sites get to squeal "San Francisco in Uproar Over O'Reilly Comments," and grunt and revel in our displeasure. Ah well.

It matters not.

Here's the takeaway, the only thing you need to know: Bill O'Reilly is a walking, snorting cautionary tale. For those of us who occasionally tread similar terrain of barbed political commentary (tempered, I hope, with satire and hope and sex and humor and fire hoses of divine juice), he is the Grand Pariah, the threshold, the Place You Do Not Want To Go as an intellectually curious human soul. He is the guy you can always look to, no matter how bad it gets, and say, Wow, at least I'm not him.

In a way, we should be grateful for O'Reilly and Robertson and Limbaugh and Coulter and their slime-slinging ilk. They live in those black and nasty psycho-emotional places, so we don't have to. They show us how ugly we can be, how poisonous and ill, so we may recoil and say, Whoa, you know what? I think I need to be more gentle and less judgmental and kinder to those I love. BOR works an inverse effect on anyone with a vibrant and active soul -- he makes us better by sucking all the grossness into himself and blowing it out via a TV channel no one of any spiritual acumen really respects anyway.

Hell, this very column has been known to wallow in political extremes too, often and regularly wishing fiery karmic pain upon Rove and Cheney and Dubya et al. for the humanitarian and environmental and moral hells they have unleashed upon our once-prosperous, gorgeous, diverse nation, and for the wars and the homophobia and the misogyny and the rampant lies and the unchecked ignorance of the workings of the human spirit.

But I would never go so far as to wish terrorists would blow up, say, Washington, D.C. Or Bill O'Reilly's personal fetish dungeon at Fox HQ in New York. I would never take a similar BOR tack and suggest that every red state that openly supports Bush and his miserable wars (and by extension, O'Reilly and his miserable worldview) should offer up their kid as a blood sacrifice to the Iraq War.

Check that: Maybe I would. Of course I would. But I would recognize the inherent silliness of it all, and the futility, and push it so far into satire that I'd suggest we also send in the NRA, and the Bush daughters, and Ashlee Simpson, and moreover I'd suggest they string up Karl Rove as bait because you know what Islamic extremists think of creatures both godless and porcine.

Conversely, BOR, of course, takes himself quite seriously, the inflation of his ego and speed of his rapid-fire fury matched only by the obvious deterioration of his heart.

But maybe that's not quite true. It has been rumored, somewhere, that Bill O'Reilly has a soul, that he was personally hurt and wronged by that sex scandal last year, that he's reasonably intelligent and that his almost comical lack of nuanced comprehension on the air and in his public persona, like Bush's mumbling incoherence or Condi Rice's apparent lack of the slightest hint of femininity, is a bit of a stage act, a dumb ruse that masks a keener intelligence, all designed to milk his bloviation for his bloody, mealy slice of fleeting fame. You may believe this as you wish.

It does not matter. What is clear is that BOR has made a Faustian bargain of the ugliest kind, taken on a worldview where there is no room for humor and light and sex and joy and grace, whereby he gets to unleash streams of rather appalling ignorance upon the progressive segments of the nation -- like, you know, cities that dare to encourage peace and nonviolence and a measured, respectful response to the world -- and he gets paid enormous sums and lives like an angry, sneering king, while the gods of karma can only sigh, and shake their heads, and wait.

O'Reilly to Al Qaeda: Have at San Francisco

With thanksgiving right around the corner, I'm thankful for two things today.

1). My brother has moved back East from San Francisco

2). Bill O'Reilly not president, but is instead a screaming, red-faced, pussy-boy child, whose demented view of the world is laughed at by most, and shared by only morons.

That's because on Tuesday this week, O'Reilly criticized a vote passed by the majority of San Franciscans to help limit military recruiting of kids on High school and college campuses. Again – read carefully – they’re not banning military recruiting in general, or even near such places, or at the mall where these kids are most vulnerable – they’re asking people to stay off of school property when they do it.

O'Reilly's response? Sick 'em Al Qaeda, sick 'em!

“Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead.

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”

Audio here. Video here.

What a fucking prick. Just remember, it's the liberals that are attacking America, right?

The First Vet's Day Speech Used to DIShonor

Today President Bush made a speech in which he used the Veteran’s Day podium to slam Democrats who have questioned the Bush administration’s pull for war.

Nevermind the fact that the administration has a long history of dishonoring troops – having never been to a single fallen soldier’s funeral and sending them into a misguided war without the proper armor, bullets or other equipment, and without an exit strategy, but with a backdoor draft/stop loss plan – but today he defiled those who question that very dishonor.

There are two arguments I hear from Republicans – ALL THE TIME – when they try to dodge their responsibility for voting in this president, and vicariously, for voting in this war.

THE FIRST ARGUMENT: The Democrats voted for this war too.
This is absolutely not true. The Democrats did NOT vote to bomb Iraq. The Democrats voted to give the president authority that required Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

As we remember – inspectors were still on the ground in Iraq, doing their jobs, and they were finding nothing. The inspectors begged for more time, wanted to stay, were forced to leave, and we subsequently attacked an unarmed nation who never attacked us. Cooperation with the Iraqi government was on the increase, rather than waning.

The vote in congress was to allow the President to attack Iraq after all else failed, and all else was still very under way.

In addition – All Republicans but 1 voted for this authority. 147 Democratic Senators and House members voted to shoot it down.


THE SECOND ARGUMENT: The Democrats had the same pre-war intelligence that the President did.

This is a complete and total lie, and Think Progress does a great job explaining why:

FACT — Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:
[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department’s dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate.” [NYT, 10/3/04]


FACT — Sen. Kerrey: Bush “Has Much More Access” to Intel Than Congress:
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman: “The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress — ‘We believe these would be used for centrifuges.’ — didn’t deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it’s unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress.” [10/7/04]


FACT — Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:
Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): “[P]eople say, ‘Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had.’ And I’m here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don’t have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We don’t have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don’t release their — an administration which tends not to release — not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others — they control information. There’s a lot of intelligence that we don’t get that they have.” [11/04/05]

FACT — War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in “Creative Omission” of Iraq Intel:
In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, “a Clinton-era National Security Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq,” “the Administration consistently engaged in ‘creative omission,’ overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it had evidence to the contrary. ‘The President is responsible for serving the entire nation,’ Pollack writes. ‘Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government – and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.’” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]

FACT — White House Had Exclusive Access to “Unique” Intel Sources:
“The claim that the White House and Congress saw the ’same intelligence’ on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush administration’s use of outside intelligence channels. For more than year prior to the war, the administration received intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the Department of Defense’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi.” [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]

Some More Good 'ol Angry Threats from Christians

If you have been recently walking around saying to yourself, "man, it's been a while since Pat Robertson has made headlines with some obnoxious, juvenile assassination threat or some sort of message from God that he's going to smite gays, Jews, or the New York Times in a fiery ball of hell," as of yesterday, you need not wonder any longer.

What’s got Pat all huffy now?

Recently, in a rare but glowing sliver of hope among the American populace at the polls, the city of Dover voted to oust every single Republican school board member who advocated the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside science – in their kids’ science classes (Kansas voters, we’re all looking for you to do the same…but no one is holding their collective breath).

Lest the conservative Christians of America get their Rapture manuals out, breathe easier knowing that many Dover residents still attend Church, they believe in God, and they haven’t started Satanically slaughtering each other yet – but they do feel that science should be taught in public school science classes, and religion should be taught at the Mosque, Church, Synagogue, or wherever else appropriate

What say you to this Pat?

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city.

And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.”

Well I’ll be. It turns out that God, the most powerful entity of anything in the entire universe, has to cope with the vulnerable flaws of jealousy, anger, and vengeance – like my friend’s 1-year-old when he doesn’t get his bottle.

I never knew this.

The good news for Dover though, is apparently God works slowly however, because the state of Massachusetts has yet to morph into a dung beetle eternally bound to Hell after passing gay marriage laws. Same with Canada an other European nations who did the same.

Hurricane season isn’t official over yet though, so let’s wait and see what happens.

Rabid Hyper-Patriot Country Music is Cute

Just the other day I was watching a documentary on the Klan, aired by one of the cable channels over 100.

The piece focused entirely on the “new and improved” KKK, and how there is a little tiff within the ranks between those who still want to string up black people and those who want the Klan to present a kinder, more compassionate image.

Well, the new Klan is certainly a fine group of men and women. They don’t really hate Spics, Jews, and Fags – they just like you a lot better if you’re not one of them.

Throughout the entire hour, there were constant references to “this is in the name of God,” or “this is how Christ intended,” and any other Christian reference you can think of.

Certainly, they don’t represent any form of sanctioned Christianity and in fact twist their Christian dedication into something perverted, in order to support the terror they instill and justify the suffering of innocent people at their hands.

Right. I’m sure most Americans say the same thing about Muslims and connections to terrorism.

What struck me as sickeningly amusing, however, was at the end of each “new Klan” rally – consisting of like, 11 unhooded men barricaded behind about 4,000 protesters – they play a little song into their rented loudspeaker system, as if it’s supposed to tie up some sort of lose ends emotionally, like a soundtrack played at the end of a movie when the credits roll.

Their song of choice? “Payback Time” by the king of Right Wing rednecks himself, Charlie Daniels.

This got me thinking… since nearly the entire Country music industry has become blind Patriotism on steroids washed down with Budweiser cans, it makes perfect sense that the new Klan would be attracted to and proudly stand behind songs from guys like Daniels.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with Patriotic music…each nation has several anthems that get it’s citizens behind their country – why they need a song to do that I don’t know, but hey, if it works for you, go nuts.

What is funny about the latest rush of country music artists trying to out-nationalize one another since 9/11 (because before then of course the only important things were chicks, pickup trucks, and beer), is that it comes out so completely shallow – so completely misguided, so knee-jerk, so childish, so simple, so predictable, so bandwagony, so badly informed, so naïve, so juvenile and unsophisticated in it’s world view – exactly how a 7-year-0ld reacts when someone hurts his mommy. The result is that it cheapens the very Patriotism and feelings of community, nationalism and freedom the song tries to market. It’s absolutely perfect Wal-Mart music – a blend of Patriotism and Christianity, with themes of revenge, and kickin’ the ass of foreigner-types. I can think of nothing more wholesomely Christian-American.

Therefore, I’ve decided that I’ll start to gather a compilation of incredibly comical Country lyrics, written to show off the ignorance and completely small-mindedness of their authors. I’ll keep posting more as I can think of them – after all I’m proudly underexposed to country. I will however post a few favorites from conservative kings of twang, Charlie Daniels and Toby Keith.

Charlie Daniels
“This ain't no rag it's a flag
And we don't wear it on our heads
It's a symbol of the land where the good guys live
Are you listening to what I said
You're a coward and a fool
And you broke all of the rules
And you wounded our American pride
And now we're coming with a gun
And we know you're gonna run
But you can't find no place to hide
We're gonna hunt you down like a mad dog hound
Make you pay for the lives you stole
We're all through talking and a messing around
And now it's time to rock and roll”


“Another day, another knife
Another precious unborn life
Will never see the light of day
Will never run or jump or play
It's just another sacrifice
The sky will part each knee will bow
To greet the awesome hour of His returning
When it's payback time
And the sheep are gathered in
When the roll is called up yonder
And eternity begins
When the wedding supper's ready
And the faithful called to dine
Who'll be sitting at the table
When it's payback time”



Toby Keith
“Hey Uncle Sam, put your name at the top of his list
And the Statue of Liberty started shakin’ her fist
And the eagle will fly, man, it’s gonna be hell
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringin’ her bell
And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Brought to you courtesy of the Red White and Blue”


“Now they attacked New York City cause they thought they could win
Said they would, stand and fight until the very bloody end
Mr Bush got on the phone with Iraq and Iran and said
‘Now, you sons-of-bitches you better not be doin any business with the taliban’”

And Now, For Some Local Maine Flavor.

On the ballot today, Mainers are being asked - and I'm not kidding - if a law currently in place that protects gays and lesbians from discrimination in housing, loans, and the workplace, is a bad idea.

Much to my own embarrassment, considering I am a resident here, the people of Maine have twice said in the 1990's - "no, we really don't feel they should be protected." They later added, "Fags!"

The battle up here has been really amusing, because there are "good Christian" folk who are pouring money, effort, and Church supper time into scaring the hell out of voters in Maine over "them dang queers runnin' everything."

How are they doing that? Here is the exact question below as phrased on the ballot:

"Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?"

What do the vote Yes on 1 crowd put up for signs?

"Protect Marriage. Vote Yes on 1."

Are you kidding me? Protect marriage? We're trying to keep a law that makes it illegal to fire certain minorities and we're talking about marriage on the political signs?

In fact, the law itself protects people from discrimination and has an interesting clause in it, specifically dealing with marriage:

"This Act may not be construed to create, add, alter or abolish any right to marry that may exist under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Maine or the laws of this State."

Yet the conservatives will have you thinking your marriage ends immediately if the ban is upheld.

Actually, this makes perfect sense. Conservatives get people to the polls based on one emotion and one emotion alone: fear. They scare the shit out of you.

Vote Nixon, or the Commies will eat you and your children.
Vote Reagan, or the welfare queens will take over.
Vote Bush I, or you'll be taxed to death.
Vote Bush II or the terrorists will kill you and your pets.
Vote Yes on one, because if we don't ban gay people from housing, your wife will find out about that hooker in Portland you keep screwing.

What's further, is that you can tell a lot about an issue or a politician based on who leads the charge for their vote. This is why when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were jumping up and down when Bush was "elected," and scientists, college professors and the entire rest of the world looked concerned, it gave voters all they really needed to know about the candidates.

Enter the ring-leader of the Christian Civic League leader of Maine, Satan himself, or as Yes on 1 voters refer to him, Michael Heath.

Just to give you some background on this pathetic, small man, just last year he tried to use the Christian Civic League's web site to solicit information on which Maine lawmakers might be gay - in order to out them for the entire world to see. What a sweetheart.

Other groups supporting Mr. Heath are various Republican groups (shocker), and other small Christian organizations (another shocker) with words like "concerned," or "moral" in their name.

As far as the No on 1 crowd is concerned - they only have the backing of every major newspaper in the state (including the Maine Sunday Telegram, Kennebec Journal, Portsmouth Herald, Morning Sentinel, Lewiston Sun Journal and Ellsworth American), as well as:

Maine's governor, the Maine Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Council of Churches, League of Women Voters, Maine Education Association, the Maine NAACP, Christians for Justice, Maine Innkeepers Association, Greater Bangor Area Central Labor Council, Commission for Witness Life, Maine Conference, United Church of Christ, Maine Nurse Practitioners Association, American Association of University Women (Maine), American Academy of Pediatrics, Maine State Employees Association, Maine Psychological Association, the Religious Coalition Against Discrimination, Dirigo Alliance, National Association of Social Workers (Maine Chapter),
Maine Nurses Association, and on and on and on.

The Yes on 1 response to all this opposition? They steal signs.

For an FAQ on why this legislation is important, go here.

I've Got Your Activist Judges Right Here (No, Seriously..)

With the confirmation hearings not until January for the Right-Wing frozen caveman judge Alito, who comes from a time when women were dragged by their hair by club-wielding, NASCAR watching husbands, you’re going to hear a lot of talk from pundits, including most definitely our president, about how he’s not an “activist judge.”

It’s the latest and most frequently uttered buzz phrase invented by the Right to get an increasingly uneducated American public in a frenzy about any particular judicial decision they don’t agree with.

A court struck down provisions that make it ok to kick gay people out of housing simply because their gay? Must be the activist judges.

Judge so-and-so used the Constitution to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against expecting mothers in the workplace? Must have been an activist judge.

“Activist judge” simply means some justice somewhere in the United States determined that the current law passed by a legislative body (and therefore the “will of the people”) was inherently unconstitutional because it violates the rights and protections of those same people.

Well, I’m here to prove once and for all that this phrase (along with countless others) are baseless marketing ploys, that not only ring untrue when you look at the actual facts – but also prove the exactly opposite of what the phrase itself was intended to convey.

One only needs to look at the rulings of justices on the Supreme Court. Why? Because the very judges who most frequently overrule the legislative bodies of Congress are the ones that are considered to be and appointed by conservatives in the first place.

The New York Times recently conducted a study of the Supreme Court rulings since 1994 to determine which justices are ruling against the current legislation. What did they find?

The most activist justice on the court was Bush I appointee, and avid pornography connoisseur, one Judge Clarence Thomas. The least activist? Clinton nomination and typically liberal voting justice, Mr. Stephen Breyer. Here’s the date (justices who were nominated by Republicans and/or are considered conservative are shaded red, those nominated by Democrats and/or are considered to vote more progressive, are shaded blue)

Thomas 65.63%
Kennedy 64.06%
Scalia 56.25%
Rehnquist 46.88%
O’Connor 46.77%
Souter 42.19%
Stevens 39.34%
Ginsburg 39.06%
Breyer 28.13%

Or, put another way:

The conclusion of the Times is as follows:

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more
"liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul
Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

And finally, my two cents:

If by it’s very definition, an activist judge overturns legislation, I do not consider the label “activist judge” a true pejorative label. Judges are not appointed to “go with the majority.” In fact, quite the opposite. They are there to interpret the law, first and foremost the Constitution – they are, in actuality, the very check to balance out the will of the people when that will goes against the protection of said people.

The will of the people in this country has not always been perfectly stellar. I would point to slavery, segregation, women’s suffrage, voting rights and other Civil Rights abominations that were once the will of the people, but clearly not just or beneficiary to our country.

Consequently the courts are there to protect us, when 51% of our fellow Americans will not.

I strongly encourage you to email this post to any of your Republican friends who buy into the whole "activist judge" thing. Instead of arguing the merits of your position - they will dismiss the entire thing because it was published by the New York Times.

How activist-like.

Mmmm...Right Wing Porn

Have you ever noticed that those who repress their sexuality the most in public are the most hypocritical behind closed doors? It goes along with the old saying – the most anti-gay politicians are probably the ones who are gay. I’m looking at you, Mayor Jim West. I’m looking at you, Boy Scout director Douglas Smith.

Anyway – it turns out that many of our favorite Right-Wing, faith-based, vomit-inducing Family Value sexual-phobic friends are actually churning out some of the most interesting sex novels.

Earlier I wrote about O’Reilly’s sex book, but have discovered a couple of others authored by Bill’s perverted friends after listening to last Thursday's Randi Rhoads show.

Scooter’s book was recently highlighted in a New Yorker article, describing some of the content, including “generous mention of lice, snot, drunkenness, bad breath, torture, urine, “turds,” armpits, arm hair, neck hair, pubic hair, pus, boils, and blood (regular and menstrual).”

I’ve decided to take a compilation of the most interesting passages (including more for O’Reilly I didn’t post the first time) from their respective authors below. Get out the baby oil, and enjoy:


Scooter Libby (from his book The Apprentice, 1996) with a little bestiality for you:

"At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest."

Right Wing Columnist (for the "Liberal" New York Times) William Safire (from a book whose title I'm still searching for, as read by Randi Rhoads)

"She finally came to him in the bed and shouted ‘Arragghrrorwr!’ in his ear, bit his neck, plunged her head between his legs and devoured him.”

First Lady Lynne Cheney (from her book Sisters, 1981. Click here for some audio):

Sophie opened it, thinking she should thank Adah, but when she saw what was
inside, she was speechless. There were several small sponges, each in a silken net with a string attached. There were packets labeled "Preventive Powders" and lined up in neat rows. with several dozen condoms.

"There are all these things, you know?" Adah was saying. "But the sheaths really are the best. Sometimes men don't like them."

"Why do we stay? I have no reason beyond a few pupils who would miss me briefly, and your life would be infinitely better away from him. Let us go away together, away from the anger and imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded bower where they dare not venture. There will be only the two of us, and we shall linger through long afternoons of sweet retirement. In the evenings I shall read to you while you work your cross-stitch in the firelight. And then we shall go to bed, our bed, my dearest girl."

Bill O’Reilly (from his book, Those who Trespass, 1998. Click here for audio of Bill Reading the passage below himself – with Randi Rhodes getting grossed out in the background):

Robo used his “product” only occasionally, but tonight was special. He had two fifteen-year-old girls who would do anything for the drug, and he was determined to exploit the situation.

“Say, baby, put that pipe down and get my pipe up,” Robo said to one of the girls. She was so intoxicated she had trouble standing, but Robo was her sugar daddy, and as he sat in a filthy, imitation, leather couch, there in the living room of a run-down three-bedroom apartment, she obediently performed oral sex on him.

Five feet away, the other teenage girl sat on a mattress on the floor and watched, greedily sucking on the crack pipe Robo had passed to her. Edgar looked over and
grinned, showing yellow, decaying teeth. Obviously, he preferred oral sex to oral hygiene.

“You’re next, girl, and I want you to do her too,” he ordered. As Robo took the crack pipe back the girl groggily nodded her consent. Inhaling deeply, Robo blew the cocaine smoke out through his nose and mouth. The bitter taste left him feeling powerful, energized, and free of worry. He was bad and he was flush.

And to close it out, you can listen to the O’Reilly porn medley by clicking here.

Kids of Big Oil's CEOs Are Getting Your Kids' Birthday Presents

Hey, remember earlier this year after the Katrina disaster when gas prices were over three bucks? You would gets calls from friends telling you which stations had the lowest prices, and you'd fill up your car only halfway hoping that when you were down near empty again prices would be closer to normal?

Remember when you wondered if you should take that 4-hour trip after all, or when you went fishing this summer and had to fill up your boat and you almost fell over when you saw what the final tally was at the pump?

You remember that? Remember when Bush asked the gas companies, his own friends that contribute ass-loads of cash to his still stunning election "victories" that makes the rest of the world point and laugh at us, to not gouge the public? He asked them to maybe, settle it down a bit and give us fair prices and not go ape-shit over his now crying-like-a-little-bitch FEMA director who fucked this entire disaster up in the first place?

Remember?

I do.

Well guess how the oil companies did last quarter.

Survive the scare? Even better.
Made profits? Even better
Made really good profits? Keep going.
Made record profits higher than the gross domestic products of some countries?

Bingo.

Thank god we have the most big-oil connected administration in the history of this country. How the hell else are these oil execs going to afford TWO ivory back scratchers instead of just one?

I honestly never expected this from a federal government whose Secretary of State has a goddamned oil tanker named after her.

Ok Ladies, Time to Dust Off the Coat Hanger

Alright. Obviously there is a lot of buzz within the blogosphere regarding Bush’s new Supreme Court pick (oh and I do applaud him for picking someone who actually has judicial experience, and is not located 21 feet down the hall from his office. It’s a learning curve, folks).

There’s really no opinion I can write here that isn’t already being shared at this very moment via the blog entries and comments on the Liberal Trinity – Dailykos, Americablog, and Crooks & Liars. The guy is about as conservative as one can get - and by conservative I mean he constantly legislates from the bench.

I would, however, like to take a small snapshot of some highlights spanning Alito’s career.

Here are four things you should know about him based on his work as a judge:


Judge Alito is not a big fan women’s reproductive health, their personal privacy or those in abusive relationships.

In a 1991 decision striking down a Pennsylvania law that would have required a woman to tell her husband that she planned to have an abortion (and made her offer proof of doing so), Alito was the lone dissenter. Think about this for a second. If you’re pregnant and in an abusive relationship, you can probably attest to why this was a terrible law. If you’re not in a violent relationship, this scenario happens more than you might think.

And don’t just take my word for it. The scumbags over at operation rescue (that’s the pro-life group who kills people in abortion clinics) had this to say about Mr. Alito:
“Roe’s days are numbered. We are trusting that we are now on the fast-track to derailing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.”

Judge Alito is not really a big fan of women after they give birth, either.

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” Enacted under the Clinton Administration, the FMLA guarantees eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave for a serious illness, to care for a seriously ill family member, or to care for a newborn or newly adopted child. In a 2000 case, Alito used his judicial position to “prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights protections.” Alito held that Congress overstepped its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore had no power to require employers to comply with the FMLA. In 2003, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist led the majority that overturned Alito’s decision.

Judge Alito is not really a big fan of women period.

In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home

Judge Alito – not really a big fan of “the blacks.”

Throughout his career, Alito has been willing to push the boundaries of the law for big business. In Bray v. Marriott Hotels (1996), Marriott sought to deny the plaintiff, an African-American woman, the right to present her case of racial discrimination. Alito sided with Marriott, while the majority siding with Bray criticized Alito for overstepping his judicial role and "acting as a factfinder [and] taking it upon himself to interpret the meaning of the deposition testimony of one of the defendants."

Finally, I think Slate Magazine's article on Alito says it best:

Best of all for Bush's base, Alito is the kind of "restrained" jurist who isn't above striking down acts of Congress whenever they offend him. Bush noted this morning: "He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people."

Except, of course, that Alito doesn't think Congress has the power to regulate machine-gun possession, or to broadly enforce the Family and Medical Leave Act, or to enact race or gender discrimination laws that might be effective in remedying race and gender discrimination, or to tackle monopolists.