ScoopMag

In the Corner

2007-10-19T17:44:00.000-07:00

I actually think the Christian wing of the GOP has painted itself into an interesting corner here. To fully support a 3rd party run would show the limits of their voting power, which I suspect would be hard-pressed to surpass Perot's 1992 numbers. Maybe a 20-24% cap, the Bush base. But the entire party apparatus is dominated by this segment of the party. I agree with what Digby said, "they are in politics for the long run", and this run started possibly as far back as 1976, when they almost forced a Ford-Reagan "co-presidency" ticket. Since then, true believers (or at least those who dare not cross the God faction) have aggressively sought and won spots in the power structure from the top on down to the county chairs.

So what I see is a Titanic of a party, unable to change course for this election cycle, and almost certainly not for 2012 and maybe beyond. Determined to represent "values", but the "values" now in full display by the GOP are turning independent voters away. Without votes from the middle, or with the Christian wing going on it's own, either way the Republicans will have minority status for years to come. So I don't see the religious right leaving the GOP for another minority party, and I doubt the GOP can rid itself of them.

Brokered convention, anyone? And if Rudy manages to get the nod there, I think the GOP GOTV will go MIA.

Rudy!

Update:
Ok, I see Howie got there first. DWT!

Memo to Congress: Re: "Betrayus"

2007-09-26T19:00:00.000-07:00

Memo to Congress: Re: "Betrayus"

No. YOU sit down, YOU shut the fuck up, YOU listen to US.

5 words:

Colin Powell.

End this war.

Signed,
2/3 of We the People
(some of whom are members of MoveOn.org)

p.s. And don't even THINK about starting another goddamn war.

Separated at Birth?

2007-06-23T15:23:00.000-07:00

Fred Dalton Thompson

Vigo the Carpathian

In earlier days, they would have called us blasphemers, and simply burnt us at the stake

2007-03-08T21:45:00.000-08:00

Ah, the Internet. Sweet bastion of free speech (so far) and home of the blog, a virtually limitless forum for dissemination and discussion. They provide the ability write and link to other writings so freely that it all can resemble a casual conversation between friends. And as friends sometimes do, the "coarseness" of some speech can itself become a topic. To them I say, then take a walk. Be alone with your Purity of Essence.

Too bad that the normal real-life response to encountering such a discussion is not also the rule online. If Someone walks up to a group of people chattering excitedly about a hot topic that interests them and wishes to chime in, the context matters a great deal. This group was already here, and they have established a norm that they are all comfortable with. Does anybody there know this Someone? A friend's voice is always welcome. And if this "friend" leaps in with a snide comment about the coarse language they are hearing, they are likely to either kill the conversation or to evoke a response like, "And who the fuck are you again? Who knows this guy?". Turns out nobody does, and the consensus is, Go to the PTA if you want a civil discussion. We're trying to stop another goddamn war here. If you wanna talk about that, have a seat.

And Someone walks away, looking for Someone else to cry to, about how badly the Dirty Fucking Hippies treated him. Swearing like a bunch of sailors.

My grandfather Jack was a sailor, serving in the Pacific in WWII. Around the time I came along in the late 50's, he bought The West Branch Times and ran the small-town paper for 25 years until retiring. And as the editor, he wrote the editorials during a period that spanned Sputnik and the Space Shuttle. Editorials about Vietnam, civil rights, the loss of a President and his brother, who would have been President. I once heard him say that a Republican would piss on your leg and try to tell you it's raining. Some things never change. But for the most part my folks kept me away from the places where people talked like adults until my tender ears were ready. You have to wonder how all those easily offended types ever survived Cable TV.

The blog concept runs completely counter to the authoritarian bent of the Right. As much as they claim to hate the "liberal" media, in order to start a war for pure neocon theories they truly needed a backup propaganda outlet besides the official government channels. And that same "liberal" media happily passed on the disinformation. Corporate consolidation has so poisoned the old media that if blogs did not exist, we would have created something else, some other detour around the power structure to find more credible sources. Because our lives depend on it, and because that shit positively drives them up the wall.

So. They wanna complain about us DFH's. Yeah, well, tough. Take a walk. See there? I could have sworn at them too, but I didn't want that kind of emphasis right there. And so, unable to control our speech, on their own blogs, they look for ways to bring back the fucking stake. Very Christian of them.

Impeach Gonzalez First

2007-01-23T19:46:00.000-08:00

Crooks and Liars » Colbert Defends Alberto Gonzalez

Can you believe that sonofabitch? He said this UNDER OATH.

Impeach Gonzalez first.

Blogging for Choice - The True Choice

2007-01-22T17:48:00.000-08:00

My personal philosophy on abortion?

Those not born with the ability to conceive, really have no vote in the matter. I know if I really wanted to (for instance) sterilize myself badly enough, you can bet I'd find a way. The potential for procreation is enough motivation.

Ok. Now that that's out of the way, what is the real choice here? Is it as the pro-lifers say, a choice to affirm life, or to opt for personal convenience (and murder)? OR is it the ability of a woman to choose how, when, and for what her body is used? Yeah, no, I don't know, who cares. Absolutism in the defense of ideology is the norm. God. I am so sick of the debate being framed in those terms.

I care about the enforcement end of the first position's characterization.

Yeah, I'm talking Johnny Law. You know. We write the laws, he enforces them. Does anyone in their right minds think that, for instance, South Dakota's recently defeated Rapist's Parental Protection Act would be the final stop on the war to control the act of conception? That law banned all but a single type of abortion procedure; those performed "when the life of the mother was in immediate danger." So the logical target for enforcement efforts would be the abortion providers. The doctors and clinics could no longer provide the procedure legally and would cease altogether. A static target taken out, victory for the God Squad. And - the number of abortions sought and received by the women of South Dakota would.....drum roll please!.....Not be zero? I can guarantee that. I can also guarantee that those who can afford it, will take a trip to Iowa or Colorado or Canada and reclaim control of their bodies.

Ahh, now the race to the bottom begins. The theocrats will next demand laws to prohibit interstate travel for having an abortion. And no, you can't take someone else there. Looks like we'd better revamp the state border crossings to include an area for strip searches and pregnancy tests. Enforcement, remember? Meanwhile, on the medical front, a thriving black market in Plan B pregnancy prevention doses and probably abortifacients like RU-486 begins to create incentives for other drugs or genetically derived solutions to the New Prohibition. So, now we need regular blood tests too.

I've written previously about what I think the theocratic agenda is on sex in general. In the long run, the only solution, the only way to know if a woman has prevented a pregnancy, or has somehow acted to end a pregnancy (and therefore has sinned against the government of Jesusland) is to count those eggs, baby. They'll have to start monitoring before the first ovum is released and will need an explanation for how that egg and each of the following eggs ended up. "You had a miscarriage? That must be the 100th time I've heard that one. Put on the hood, ma'am. Let's go."

I hereby nominate James Dobson as the first Minister of the Ovarian Census.

Is the true choice clearer now?

Thanks to Crooks and Liars for the hat tip

2006-12-22T15:51:00.000-08:00

As a regular reader, I was looking for a clip from this hearing and posted a comment to that effect, I'm grateful to SilentPatriot at Crooks and Liars for posting it and alerting other readers. I'm not a dedicated blogger, I use this site as more of an editorial page, for my own "Special Comment" when I feel so inspired. Hope you like it.

Crooks and Liars
C-SPAN’s Potty Mouth Broadcast

Scoop

Wherein I Revisit The 2nd Amendment

2006-10-06T21:57:00.000-07:00

Few things in life make one appreciate what one has (or used to have) more than having it taken away. Though they haven't come for our guns yet, the federal government is building the capability to have private gun ownership become another nugget in the vast database that will one day track our every move, online and off.

Now I know, using the phrase "come for our guns" elicits the specter of Charlton Heston, proclaiming they can have his gun "...only when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!" What a nut, huh. Yeah, I used to think so too. Gun control laws always seemed reasonable to me, what with increases in firearm lethality and availability combined with a seeming dearth of empathy among some of those who were inclined to use guns for criminal purposes. As Elvis Costello sings it, "It only took my little finger to blow you away...".

I won't rehash the history and intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Those dusty old arguments remind me of the quaint "debate" held in Congress last month over habeas corpus, before the motherfuckers took it away from us. John McCain, I'm looking at you. You and John Warner and Lindsey Graham caved in to President Bush on habeas and on torture too, in a despicable game of chicken with the Democrats, and you should resign for voting for that bill. You and your creation will forever live in infamy, as we cannot depend on even the Supreme Court to check your legislative cowardice. To you and every single congressman who voted for this travesty, I say, Go fuck yourself.

So it is up to us to fight to regain our liberties. As it ever was. A fight to reclaim a government instituted among men, created "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Even the Framers of the Constitution inherently knew that self-defense and liberty and justice are NOT mutually exclusive. It's all in how you write the laws. And the legal balance has now tipped precariously against a voting public, in favor of an authoritarian and increasingly fascistic executive branch of our own government. Better watch out if you were thinking of disclosing any more illegal government activities to a "free" press. They will come for the leaker and the reporter, too.

This is serious shit, people. Under color of this law and the inevitable presidential signing statement, as I quote from the New York Times, an enemy combatant is defined as "anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense". In other words, YOU. ME. ANYONE. And as an enemy combatant, you can be hauled away in the dead of night and thrown in a cell to rot, with no legal recourse and with only the sound of your own tortured screams for company.

Fortunately, if one believes the polls and (God willing) if the Republicans continue to circle up and shoot at each other over their leadership's complete abdication of responsibility in the Foley mess, in November Democrats may be able to wrest control of at least one house of Congress from the criminals currently in charge. That is, if all the hackable Diebold voting machines can't overcome the tide of disgust sweeping the nation. Because if they steal one more election, so help me God...

I'm 48 years old. I was born in Wyoming, a state in the United States of America. I'm a lifelong liberal and am proud to be a patriotic American. And for the first time in my life, I am seriously considering becoming a gun owner.

I gotta get out more

2006-08-04T18:46:00.000-07:00

Oh. My. God.

Antimatter containment failure? I can fix that.

Your results:
You are Geordi LaForge

You work well with others and often
fix problems quickly. Your romantic
relationships are often bungled.

Geordi LaForge		75%
Jean-Luc Picard		55%

Click here to take the "Which Star Trek character am I?" quiz...

Звезда Spangled Знамя

2006-04-28T18:16:00.000-07:00

I swear to God, I don't understand conservatives. Twenty years ago, if it had been disclosed that Russians had written a Russian-language version of the American national anthem and were singing and playing it openly, the right wing would be crowing about how they had won a major moral victory and perhaps even the Cold War itself. They would be sending a cassette of the song with every Holy Bible they smuggled into the Soviet Union. So why the outcry over the Spanish language version of that same song? It's because this time, they're actually here, and their growing diversity and influence is in sharp contrast to the look of a typical Republican party convention.

The demographics of the future America, even given reduced immigration after the Cal-Texas Wall is built, must simply scare the bejesus out of the white privileged core of the Republican party. Looking at the long arc of their attempts to write bigotry into law, perhaps the modern rise of the conservative movement was due not merely to the galvanizing effect of the Goldwater debacle of 1964, but also to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967. From Answers.com: "the..Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the 'Racial Integrity Act of 1924', unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restriction on marriage in the United States."

Imagine how THAT one hit the rednecks - right in their limbic brains. Bad enough they had to let them into "our" schools, but this one had to make their racist blood boil. The only difference today is the race and origin of the "outsiders", one set having been dragged here in chains, and the others seeking to break their own chains of poverty. The natural end result of our shining beacon of freedom is a nation so beckoning and promising that non-natives wish to sing OUR national anthem in their native tounge. And they wish to let us know, they have found their voices and intend to keep using them. Another natural result is, those freedom-seekers will have their children here. And yes, Virginia, there will be racial mixing.

So how could they stop this brown wave, conservatives must have wondered. From the usual think-tanks and media organs was built the bottom-up concept; get a religious activist base rallied around acceptable social issues, run candidates for everything from dogcatcher on up, portray the proper political actions as matters of faith, and build a majority to appoint judges who will rule the correct way. We can't let our people be too free.

And they don't stop there, either. The right wing is the source of a constant stream of proposals to amend the Constitution, and it's striking how many such proposals would have the effect of limiting the freedoms of some group of people. From prohibiting gay marriage, to taking away reproductive rights, to banning flag-burning, it seems we Americans have too many rights for our own good.

I say, it's time for a Privacy Amendment. From the Electronic Privacy Information Center: "Gallup Poll, conducted February 8-9, 1999. A survey of 1,054 adults by phone found: 70% responded that the Constitution guaranteed citizens the right to privacy." And guess what? It does not even use the word. The 9th amendment however, says that by enumerating some rights, the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." [Emphasis mine-Scoop.] And to me, and to nearly 3 of 4 Americans, privacy IS an actual constitutional right. Privacy IS freedom.

Now look at the right wing's favorite jurists and President Bush's models for Supreme Court appointees, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Scalia and his lap-dog joined in the opinion that stated in part,

"The Roe Court reached too far when it analogized the right to abort a fetus to the rights involved in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 ; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 ; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 ; and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , and thereby deemed the right to abortion to be "fundamental." None of these decisions endorsed an all-encompassing "right of privacy," as Roe, supra, at 152-153, claimed." [Emphasis mine-Scoop.]

But the fact that these laws were struck down, and thus have in effect preserved this right, has helped shape our knowledge of a right to privacy. No court or government can take it away, for they did not give it to us. It is OURS.

And look at some of the laws cited. A heavily Catholic state, Connecticut tried to prevent even married adults from using contraceptives. The Society of Sisters was a private religious school that won the right of parents to decide where their children would go to school. Virginia, after Loving, was safe for interracial lovers to privately couple. And in Nebraska, a state law proscribing the teaching of German was struck down. Oh dear, could the same logic strike down English-only laws? Better amend the Constitution again.

For the white race crowd, it's all downhill from here. The remaining true believers are such an inept bunch, everything they do in the current polling climate seems to turn people even more against them. I pray to God for the continued health of Justice Stevens, for I feel an obligation to humanity, to counter Ann Coulter's exhortations to the contrary. That's just plain wrong, Ann. And if they get their swing vote, the subsequent rolling back of privacy protections will make a Privacy Amendment an urgent matter. Because they won't stop until they can dictate who you can and cannot fuck, no mixing of races in White America. They want to tell you when, where, and even how you fuck. And you won't be able to get birth control, or dildos, or morning-after pills even when you have been raped. But at least all the nice men raping young girls will have their right to be daddies preserved.

And the national anthem? The title of this article is a Babel Fish translation of 'The Star Spangled Banner' into Russian. I wanna hear it sung in a hundred languages! Damn, wouldn't that be awesome? We Are the World, all right. Hell, put it out in binary, and Braille, and Esperanto and text messages. I wonder what "land of the free" sounds like in an Eastern European language? Especially when sung by people who really get it. People who know what a government knock on the door sounds like.

O say, cn u c?

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran...Canada??

2006-04-20T19:36:00.000-07:00

Via TPM comes this tip to a column by the Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, about Iran's diplomatic overture to the United States in the aftermath of the "liberation" of Iraq. And an anonymous source may supply the keystone to the conservative arches of power. The magic words: regime change.

The source, on attempts to agree on a National Security Policy Directive for dealing with Iran, said the effort failed "because officials in Cheney's office and in Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and kept trying to amend it." That's right, 3 years ago, Vice President Cheney and alleged Decider President Bush were already focused on bringing down the next government in their Axis of Evil. And they are now following the same script again as if the whole thing were on rails.

So. What's the end game here? I'm sure this crowd believes that once they pull their strings on the electorate this fall and keep GOP majorities in Congress, and after sliding Cheney out and Condoleeza Rice in to the role of natural heir, they will have a clear path to overthrow Iran and realize their fondest neocon wet dreams for the next decade. So beyond asking, you and what freakin army??, I have to wonder how they themselves conceive of this power they claim. Is it Eminent Domain on steroids? Total Dominion? And once they have defeated terrorism and radical Islam, where next to flex our almighty-blessed muscles?

O Canada!

Is global warming starting to look a bit real, even to GOP donors? We all know Republicans can't do science, it won't get published if their results don't follow the party line. Ignore the facts, we're trying to prove God's plan. But businessmen are another matter. With eyes less clouded by ideology, perhaps some can see that real scientists are essentially in agreement. Global warming is happening. And businesses that plan to remain in business need to plan for the long term. Businesses like, oh, say, Halliburton?

So I have a question for the Heritage Foundation. When the Gulf Stream and the rest of the thermohaline circulation collapse, and America faces threats of agricultural disruption and receding coastlines, will we even need to give a reason to change the regime in Canada? Mexico? Something like, Hey, they have some land and stuff that we might need? I'm just asking. There's no chance anybody in the rest of the world will be dealing with us by then, unless it's to gang up and kick our asses.

Coming to America - The Chinese Internet model

2006-04-17T22:18:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has it right. This concept of governmental monitoring of the nodes of the Internet was raised some years ago, and abandoned after cries of outrage rendered it political dynamite. But I am certain it has resurfaced, has been implemented without our knowledge, and I consider it possible that the government has given itself the means to completely control the domestic portion of internet traffic.

The lead balloon was known as Carnivore. This article seems almost quaint in describing the presumed legal basis for such monitoring. The FBI planned to use Carnivore for specific reasons. "Particularly, the agency would request a court order to use Carnivore" to gather intelligence on certain crimes. Well, folks, this is 2006. And King George, he don't need no stinkin' warrants. The AT&T suit is only the tip of the iceberg on this thing. They went ahead and did it. Those black boxes now see everything from emails to instant messages sent by millions of Americans.

The utility of the information that is being illegally gathered is not going to be in any court prosecutions. Without warrants, anything learned could not be admitted in a court of law. The ass-covering claim will be made that the President deemed it necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and though they won't say it quite like this, that his magical unitary powers give him the right to suspend the 4th Amendment en masse and unannounced. This is ridiculous. Even given keyword-based search algorithms to filter and mine the data, the amount of information gathered is mind-boggling, and the false hits will always astronomically outweigh any real leads. For prevention of modern terrorism, based on informal and highly suspicious groups of cautious people, the wholescale vacuuming of data is going to be useless.

Defeat of terrorism will be best accomplished by conventional human intelligence methods. And, I would argue, by America acting like the America I remember, and not like the impending embodiment of neoconservative global military domination fantasies. Real warriors for Christ, these guys.

Those monitoring units would now likely be under the control of the NSA. They can almost certainly be updated remotely, and depending on the actual placement, could also include active filtering and censorship capability. If so, then all that is lacking now for near totalitarian government control of the U.S. portion of Internet is the will to do so. I only hope for our sake that it's not ready and waiting when the President begins his pre-election bombing of Iran. You may be prevented from seeing this blog after that.

You can't control what you don't know is going on. And yes, government monitoring of private domestic communications, without a warrant, IS an unconstitutional restraint on our freedom of speech. I am of course urging people to vote Democratic this November, as I truly believe we are in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis right now. If the Rubberstamp Republicans maintain their majorities in both houses of Congress, centuries of theories on the constitution and human rights will fall to the fictional construct of a unitary president. There will be no further checks on him for the next 2 years. We the people must check the imperious behavior of George W. Bush.

One final thought. Think, Alternets. Point to point and private wireless mesh networks. New lines of communication to reroute around government interference with free speech. Widespread use of strong encryption will slow those NSA processors down (see now why they wanted to ban encrytion?). With such an impetus to distrust government, and the means to do something about it, we may spark yet another phase in our information (r)evolution. Perhaps we should update Marshall McLuhan ("The Medium is the Message") and now proclaim that the message makes the medium irrelevant.

Beware the October Surprise

2006-04-08T12:20:00.000-07:00

It just kills me when the traditional media totally misses a point. In the New York Times editorial April 7, 2006 called Playing Hardball With Secrets, they say "revealing selected bits of intelligence, including information that officials may well have known to be false, seems like a serious abuse of power. It's not even clear that Mr. Bush can legally declassify intelligence at whim."

This whim is precisely the point. President Bush feels his whim is the law. He claims to have been elected a unitary President, with powers unlimited as long as he deems them necessary. His signing statements show that his executive branch is not bound by any laws passed by any Congress. He creates ad hoc courts where they are allowed to make up rules as they go. And not even the Supreme Court can stop him.

I have never cast a presidential vote imagining that the person I was voting for, would possess that kind of power. My conception of a system of checks and balances has been rendered obsolete by a palace coup of corrupt and conscienceless politicians. THIS is the true issue we face, in this most important election year in my memory. And I think Americans are coming around, with more indications that the electorate is leaning Democratic this year. But November is months away, and before then I truly do anticipate an October surprise.

The current bunch in charge, complicit Republicans in Congress included, has shown no reservations in doing anything necessary to keep their hold on their now imperial power. I hope we can learn from past manipulations of this kind, and be able to respond immediately, perhaps even massing protests as needed at short notice. If it looks like Bush is about to nuke Iran, by God, I WILL be out in the streets. But I fear something much worse, a terrorist-related or other national security disaster, which could throw an upcoming election in doubt. I welcome any ideas at organizing a response to such an occurence. We cannot afford to allow the cynical and savvy media/party machines, to appeal to the basest emotions of enough voters to sway this election. Let's be ready for them, this has got to stop.

Hello NSA, yes, I mean you too.

God helps those who help themselves.

The potential for change - the death of taxation?

2006-04-04T20:05:00.000-07:00

I've been rolling it around in my head the last decade or so, that given a broad enough base with universal internet access, and confidence in the security of electronic transactions and ALL other domestic internet communications, we as Americans may someday be able to self-fund a large and growing portion of the responses to perceived social needs. In fact, a global cooperative of this kind of work could well arise.

I believe we have a chance to begin aiming toward a truer marketplace of ideas, where right alongside the businesses, charities can continue their good works and people can contribute small amounts much more easily. Small donations multiplied many times over, if the solicitors are persuasive enough in their arguments. Online fundraising is nothing new of course, but I see an opportunity to put our money where our mouths are.

My grandmother served three terms as the mayor in my hometown, and she was also director of the local food bank for years. The latter activity gave her immense personal gratification. The farm crisis and unemployment made for some tough times for area families. People of the town gave so generously that Grandma had wonderment in her voice as she spoke of it. They saw a need and gave, wanting no thanks, for they saw with their own eyes how hard some folks had it.

My point here is, we should make it a national goal to facilitate impulse donations of any size to any cause, such as that local food bank. Local or national to begin with, since charitable finance rules need to apply or even be re-written, as well as banking laws. A global framework for certification or reciprocity may evolve as well. But ideally, one should be able to see a need, and have a way to help fill it. It could well allow us to someday bypass an inefficient system of collection and distribution, one tax at a time. National defense of course benefits all, and the costs should be shared equally.

See, we are not all about tax and spend.

Update: 12/23/06

NPR Report: "Young Donors Turn to Micro Loans
All Things Considered, December 23, 2006 · A new kind of philanthropic giving -- particularly among the young and web-savvy -- is facilitated by a non-profit organization called Kiva. Donors are encouraged to give microloans to entrepreneurs in the developing world."

Kiva's website

Democratic deer in the Colbert Report headlights

2006-03-30T17:32:00.000-08:00

I've liked the Colbert Report on Comedy Central since it debuted. It took me a while to get Steven Colbert's schtick, and it's clear some still aren't aware of what he's doing. Case in point, last night's (3/29/06) show where he again highlighted a House district, and the congressman who represents them. And the Democratic rep from California's 29th District, Adam Schiff, was totally unprepared for this clown in his office. Sorry, no serious questions today, just a clever parody.

Iowa has only one Democratic representative in Congress (hurry up November!). I think I'll write Leonard Boswell (a veteran) and give him the heads up. Steven's predictable fastballs right in the strike zone could generate some homers for the good guys.

So yeah, I blog now. What of it? I'll get around to the profile soon. Hope to post the occasional video clip too.

Scoop