Kindness Toward The Less Fortunate

"My friends and I are collecting prom dresses to give to girls who can't afford them for their proms."
-Lauren Bush, on the importance of charity

I Haven't Abandoned You

my lovely guests. I've just been too angry to post. You all know that I'm not about the hatin', so I've been trying to shake my rage. But it isn't working. If anything, it is getting worse.

I had a moment or two of optimism when I attended a Cindy Sheehan vigil last week. I was struck by the overwhelming ordinaryness of the attendees, all ages, all colors, all classes. Just sincere Americans worried about what is going on. It was good to feel a little less alone for a while.

But The Uglies are everywhere I look. An American radical cleric calls for assassination. And then lies about it. I shouldn't be shocked or even surprised, but I am.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars applauds Our President's call to "stay the course." As a Vietnam veteran said to me this morning, they should know better. They were there. But that's not all. The national commander of the American Legion opposes free speech, saying

"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples."

These are the same people who always claim that their service is the source of our freedoms. Backwards world again.

And now I hear that the Pentagon is sending 1500 more troops to Iraq. I suppose when folks keep dying, they need to replenish the supply. I hope the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars get on board and start lobbying the Congress for enforcement of the Americans With Disabilities Act because all of those maimed young people are going to need a lifetime of accommodation with their artificial limbs and wheelchairs.

It is way beyond time the 'leaders' of the loyal opposition step up to the plate and say what the rank and file are saying -- it is time to bring the troops home. We lost the war. Shock and awe for a week wasn't enough. And if Our President can't stand the personal knowledge of defeat, let him declare victory and bring the troops home. Now.

Backwards World


Here in Backwards World, these are the Bad People. "Cindy Sheehan, left, and Juan Torres comfort each other in front of crosses lining the road leading to President Bush's ranch near Crawford, Texas. Both have lost their sons in the Iraq War."


Oh, about those crosses. You can see a picture of how they used to look a few posts back. Many of them now look like this. Here in Backwards World, Larry Northern who hooked a pipe under his truck with a chain and drove over crosses bearing the name of dead soldiers and American flags, is one of the Good People. Seems that driving over crosses and flags is a way of supporting our troops. Or something.

It Never Stops

It Never Stops

This morning on C-Span's Morning Journal some assclown calls in demanding to know how come, if an airplane slammed into the Pentagon, they never found one square inch of airplane detritus. (He didn't say detritus, of course.) *scream*

Katherine Graham

who I greatly admire, is turning over in her grave. The Washington Post is my local paper, a paper I have read ever since I was a tiny tot. I started reading it before I went to elementary school. I was a scary kid. Ms. Graham led the newspaper for three decades. She personally made the decision to publish The Pentagon Papers. She allowed two young reporters to follow a thread beginning with tape over a door latch and ended with the resignation of Richard Nixon.

Over the past decade, but accelerating since Mr. Bush took the presidency, I have increasingly mourned the days when the newspaper that I used to count on became a tool of the right. While fine journalists remain, the editorial page is despicable. I have bitterly complained to anyone who would listen, but most folks, remembering the halcydon days, wave me off. Today Armando at Kos noticed too. Yes, Armando, WaPo has been an arm of Bush & Co. for some while now.

He points to an editorial today entitled Dangerous Days. Following this quote by Abu Musab Zarqawi

"The judicial court of the Organization of al Qaeda in Iraq has ruled that it is a duty to uphold God's law and kill those who have declared themselves God's partners in drafting this constitution."

the Post's editors say

"In a certain sense, this death threat should bring comfort to Americans fighting in Iraq and to the Iraqis struggling to finish their delayed constitution, which is supposed to be ready on Monday. Had al Qaeda set out to prove to a growing number of doubters that the war in Iraq really is about democracy -- and not about oil, hubris or imperialism -- its leaders couldn't have done so more clearly."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that Al Quaida was not in Iraq. The current administration has even stopped making this argument. I am again both disgusted and disappointed. How can they even pretend to be a serious newspaper when they make this kind error of fact on their editorial page? It is stunning.

How can we possibly get a free press that serves the needs of the people when the best papers seem to be jumping as high as they can to get in administration's pants pocket?

Update on the Crawford Vigil


Courtesy of the farmer, one of the best writers in the blogosphere, an AP photo of the vigil at what is now known as Camp Casey.

On Casey Sheehan

I am still too angry to speak of Michelle Malkin and her despicable trashing of Cindy Sheehan. But worse, she put words in the mouth of her dead son. If there is a hell, surely there is a very special place waiting for her.
TBogg sums up Michelle Malkin's role in discussing Casey Sheehan's feelings nicely.

Follow Up re Cindy Sheehan

(Read the post below first.) Atrios has nominated Michelle Maglalang Malkin (to whom I will not link) as America's Worst American. Today she kills many electrons trying to trash Ms. Sheehan, or, as Atrios says, "dishonestly shitting all over the mother of a man who died doing something neither Michelle nor Jesse are apparently courageous enough to do." She makes me physically ill.

Oh, I second the nomination.

Cindy Sheehan Waits in the Summer Heat

She lives in a bus outside of Our President's summer home, asking only to speak to him.

Cindy Sheehan mother of Casey who died in Baghdad Iraq on April 4, 2004, President of Gold Star Families for Peace, is waiting for Our President to meet with her, to talk to her.

It was reported on Kos and Cindy confirmed in a Buzzflash interview that there is speculation that she will be arrested on Thursday. I have heard The Shrill screeching on talk radio that she is treasonous and a threat to the President, that she ought be arrested. A threat to national security they say. Check the photo and see how threatened you feel.

The administration noticed here right away. They roused folks out of the August reverie that wafts over Washington in August and got national security adviser Steve Hadley and deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin appear in Crawford to meet with her.

Another of the Shrill radio callers demanded to know what should Mr. Bush do? Can we really expect Our President to speak to a regular person? (Apparently there are many folks who confuse the Presidency with a monarchy.) Now as my regular readers know, I'm no Bill Clinton fan, but I can't help but contrast Mr. Bush's behavior with that of Mr. Clinton. He would have pulled on his jeans and his polo shirt and walked purposefully down that road. He would have waved off the secret service and taken her hands in his, looked into her eyes, and would have spoken of her son, by name. He would have known what he was like, who his friend

I Can Barely Stand

waiting for the shuttle to return. It has been waved off twice this morning, so we have to wait until tomorrow. I wish I had the confidence in NASA that I once had.

Who Controls Your Body? Twisted Logic on the Supreme Court

I know that the trendy topic of conversation is John Roberts's sexual orientation, but at the risk of being accused of being a one issue blogger magazinist or a divider, not a uniter, I need to talk about reproductive rights. So let me start with what we call this whole issue. Reproductive rights, "choice," and the like are buzzwords for something profoundly important for men and women. The issue is better framed as "who gets to decide what you do with your body."

This general question has long been sublimated in lots of details with the traditional left generally coming down on the side of 'you get to decide' and the traditional right generally coming down on the side of 'if the government doesn't control you, you're likely to be found having groups sex on the playground of the local elementary school' in spite of the fact that traditional conservatives claimed to have been in favor of smaller government. This split generally continues until today, with the right favoring governmental control of such matters as expressions of different sexual orientation, use of birth control, abortion, and sexual positimons used by consenting adults behind closed doors. The left, obviously, is less likely to favor governmental control over aspects of sexual expression and reproduction.

On the other hand, the left generally favors other types of 'nanny' legislation designed to keep you their version of safe, including motorcycle helmet legislation and anti-smoking legislation. Proponents of other interventions including things like forcing the children of Christian Scientists to have medical treatment and Saving Terri Schiavo are less ideologically consistent. My main point here is that nobody has the right to stand on her or his pedestal and claim to have an ideologically pure perspective on these matters. Including me.

(Ok, I didn't intend a scholarly tome here. I'll focus.)

But Mr. Roberts -- a Supremes wannabe of the highest order -- seems to have a much less ideologically pure approach to these matters than I might consider optimal. And a much greater fog of duplicity surrounding his ideology. In simple words, he seems to be a smooth liar.

To wit: In Bray v Alexandria Clinic he argued on behalf of what are laughingly called protesters (via Echidne). The folks called protesters are actually anti-abortion extremist who, in another context, would more likely be referred to as terrorists.

The injunction being challenged by anti-abortion extremists was based on an 1871 civil rights statute that provided protection against private conspiracies, such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) preventing blacks from exercising their new-found freedoms. Applying the KKK Act to anti-abortion violence was a perfect match. It helped cast OR and other such groups in the same mold as the KKK, the difference being that in this case it was women who were being prevented from exercising a relatively new freedom.

But there were problems. Earlier Supreme Court cases had held that that for the KKK Act to apply outside the context of race, there had to be evidence of an "invidious, class-based animus" by the perpetrators against the victims. In this case the perpetrators were OR and similar groups, and the victims were women seeking abortions, as well as the clinics and their staffs. The central legal question became: Are these extremist anti-abortion groups acting with an "invidious, class-based animus" against women when they block clinics or is their animus directed just at abortion and not at women?

At the time that Bray was being heard by the Supreme Court, there was an epidemic of blockades and attacks on abortion clinics. Yet the United States filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief on the side of the extremists, arguing that the KKK Act should not apply to them because the protesters were opposed to abortion, not to women. The court agreed.

You can hear the audio of the arguments courtesy of The Oyez Project. So not only is Your Justice Department arguing on the side of extremists -- a position that would cause great hue and cry were it the ACLU instead of a rightist federal agency -- but Mr. Roberts adopts a position that seems to imply there is no relationship between abortion and womanhood. He seriously argues that the class is those who might have an abortion, not women. (???) Go listen. This ability to separate the act from the person is beyond bizarre. It's damn close to pathological. But it is argued fervently.

Ok, this is long enough. More another time. This ability to twist logic to suit ones desires, so reminiscent of Mr. Rove, is even more frightening on the Supreme Court.

Your Game Headquarters

Another quiz, this one fill in the blank. Today I saw for the first time someone wearing an army uniform that looked something like this:

I must admit that the soldier I saw sported a mohawk and looked much more like a trained killer. Taken aback, I asked "What is that camouflage for? ____________?"

What would you have put in the blank?

Hint: He told me nobody had ever said that before.