I was just handed an inter-office mail letting me know that I have yet to sign my “Stock Option Grant Agreement Letter” and am now at risk of losing my options. Y’see, way back in April of 2000 when the economy was good and our president was democractically elected, I was granted 291 shares of stock. At the time, my strike price was 66.21, but now it’s a measly 21.29. I guess I better hurry up and sign this letter, or I’ll miss my chance to cash in on my stock options and lose more than $13,000. Isn’t this supposed to be an incentive of some sort?? Oh well, at least I still have a job.

Why does the Pentagon keep releasing pictures and videos of the corpses of Hussein’s sons? Yesterday they released pictures of their bloody faces and today they’re got this weird video where their bodies have been “prettied up” to look like wax dummies. I can understand that the Iraqi people have a hard time believing that the U.S. is telling the truth (they’re not the only ones), but there’s something really tacky about all this. Aren’t these photos being released by the same people who chastised the Iraqis for releasing pictures of dead U.S. POWs? I guess the rules only apply to the “bad guys” .

What the hell is it going to take to convince George W. Bush that global warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed? In the spring of 2001, despite a report released by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that warned “emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that affect the climate system”, George Bush unveiled a global warming plan that shunned the Kyoto Treaty and called for more research. At the time, it was disappointing, but not entirely suprising. After all, this is what Bush had to say about global warming in the 2000 debates :

I think it’s an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I don’t think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don’t think we’ve got all the facts before we make decisions.
. . .
What the heck. I — of course there’s a lot — look, global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there’s a lot — there’s differing opinions. And before we react, I think it’s best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.

In June of 2002, when the Environmental Protection Agency delivered his report on global warming, the results once again weren’t to his liking :

“I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,” Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

The report was the first by the Bush administration to mostly blame human activity for global warming.

“The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability,” the report says.

The report also says that despite some lingering scientific uncertainties, “There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years.”

Fast forward to a year later, in June of 2003, the EPA released a comprehensive report on environmental problems that was two years in the making. In the final version of the report, the section on global warming was heavily trimmed in order to support the Bush Administration’s predetermined conclusions about climate change :

The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that recent warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tailpipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems.

Among the deletions were references to the conclusions of a 2001 report by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that Bush had endorsed in speeches that year.

White House officials also deleted a reference to a widely cited 1999 study showing that global temperatures had spiked sharply in the last decade compared with levels over the last 1,000 years; in its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, that questioned that conclusion.

So here we are now. It’s been almost three years since Bush pledged to get more information about the causes of global warming (despite the fact that the rest of the world has concluded for decades that human activity is the main cause). What’s the next step for Bush on the environment? More research!

The chief goal in a White House plan to study global warming is learning more about natural causes of climate change, drawing criticism from environmentalists who say reducing industrial carbon emissions is the real problem.

The new 10-year plan and $130 million proposal to speed up research in some high-priority areas was being released Thursday by Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.
. . .
But environmentalists said the administration was focusing too much on natural causes and reopening scientific issues already well studied.

Philip Clapp, president of National Environmental Trust, predicted that “most climate scientists around the world will see this as fiddling while Rome burns. … This would have been a great research program if it had been announced by the first President Bush 10 years ago.”

So, rather than distract us with the annual “We need more research” speech, they’re just going to embark on a 10-year project to study a phenomenon that we already understand. How many times does Bush need to be told the same conclusions before they sink into his head? Ten times? Twenty times?

Ann Coulter has finally lost her mind :

I’ve been staying in a modern building in New York … everything that is unpleasant in life has been brought to us by liberals. One of them is the fact that we can only have two tablespoons of water in our toilet bowls because of some idiotic conservation of water. It’s wacky enough for liberals to think about global warming, but that we would run out of natural resources? It rains. The water doesn’t go away. Because of liberal government bureaucrats, they decided that we can only have two tablespoons of water in the toilet. You throw half a tissue in the toilet and you have to flush it 16 times.

16 times?! What the hell is this woman eating??

Here’s one more quote from the 9/11 report that debunks the Iraqi connection to al Qaeda (emphasis added) :

DCI Tenet testified that ?Atta may also have traveled outside of the U.S. in early April 2001 to meet an Iraqi intelligence officer, although we are still working to [page 144] corroborate this.? Atta may have traveled under an unknown alias: the CIA has been unable to establish that he left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias.
. . .
In February 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Iraq had formed a suicide pilot unit that it planned to use against British and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. The CIA commented that this was highly unlikely and probably disinformation.

Keep in mind that this infromation was released at least a month (if not much longer) before Bush said this :

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

So tell me, why does Bush still have a job?

The inquiry into the 9/11 Attacks is now available here. I’ve already found this interesting tidbit :

There must be a vigorous national debate about the need for a domestic intelligence agency. The American people have a right to know, a right to be heard and a right to be included. The debate must be conducted in the sunshine. Congress should review any proposals through the committee process. Public comment should be encouraged through hearings, town halls meetings and other forums.

The American people must be informed and involved. Reform cannot be achieved in secret or by executive fiat. A decision on a new intelligence agency should be based on a national debate and national consensus, not partisan politics.

This debate must take place, and it must happen soon. I have no doubt that if America goes to war against Iraq, terrorists will go to war against America ? on American soil. America will be part of the battlefield. We must be prepared.

Hmmm…that sure does sound familiar….

Okay, I know this is totally off-topic and complaining about these “Greatest _____ of all time” lists is like saying “The Real World isn’t real?!”, but I’ve gotta get this off my chest : VH1’s 200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons of All Time is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen! (You can see the full list here)

To be fair, I missed the very beginning, so they might have explained exactly what qualifies someone to be a “Pop Culture Icon”. Maybe there’s some sort of twisted VH1 logic wherein putting Bob Denver (as Gilligan) two places above Sigmund Freud makes perfect sense. Maybe Betty Ford really does have a greater impact on pop culture than Woody Allen, the Three Stooges, or Bob Marley. Perhaps I was asleep when everyone agreed that JFK Jr. was a better “Icon” than his father, the cast of “Friends” are more influential than the Beatles, and Oprah Winfrey is the most important “Pop Culture Icon” ever (Personally, I’d include Jesus on the list somewhere). If there is some sort of pop culture Rosetta Stone out there somewhere that I can use to decode this list, please point it out, because right now this list makes no sense at all.

So I’m listening to the live coverage of the Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante declaring October 7th as the day for the recall and he just finished his statement with “… is why October 7th as been chosen as the date*. And now for a few words in Spanish…” I guess this is pretty normal for all you native Californians, but for a guy from Oklahoma (yeah, I’ve been here for five years) this kind of openness to other languages and cultures is mind blowing. God I love it here.

* By the way, Bustamante seemed pretty pissed. He made it clear that although the date is chosen at his discretion, the law says that the election must take place between 60-80 days after the election is certified and must take place on a Tuesday that doesn’t follow a Monday holiday. So that gives him, what, 2 or 3 days to chose from?

If the Uranium/Niger story was just an appetizer, then tomorrow’s release on the congression inquiry into the 9/11 attacks will contain the main course :

The report of the joint congressional inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, to be published Thursday, reveals U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida, United Press International has learned.

“The report shows there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida,” said a government official who has seen the report.

Former senate Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who was a member of the joint congressional committee that produced the report, confirmed the official’s statement.

Asked whether he believed the report will reveal that there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq, Cleland replied: “I do … There’s no connection, and that’s been confirmed by some of (al-Qaida leader Osama) bin Laden’s terrorist followers.”

The revelation is likely to embarrass the Bush administration, which made links between Saddam’s support for bin Laden — and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction — a major plank of its case for war.

“The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war,” said Cleland. “What you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.”

Let’s watch Bush try to use the Corky Defense on this one. It’s one thing to claim that he didn’t get a memo from the CIA, but there’s no way he missed the report that was the result of a joint congressional inquiry into the worst act of terrorism in our country’s history. He can’t pretend he didn’t know that the Iraq/al Qaeda connections were bullshit when made those claims in the State of the Union a month later.

During the 2000 debates, when asked about judicial appointments, Bush made the following pledge:

LEHRER: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Court or any other federal court will also be pro- life?

BUSH: Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. The voters will know I’ll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy.

But his actions since his appointement by the Supreme Court show that a willingness to overturn Roe vs. Wade is a litmus test. Since Catholics are among the most fervent opponents of abortion, Bush has nominated a number of them for judicial appointments. Now the GOP is stepping up their rhetoric by accusing the Democrats of opposing Bush’s nominees because they’re Catholic :

Ads run in Maine and Rhode Island newspapers last weekend show a sign hanging from closed doors under the words “Judicial Chambers.” The sign reads: “Catholics need not apply.”

The ads — probably the toughest so far in the senate’s battle over President Bush’s judicial nominations — accuse “some in the U.S. senate,” apparently meaning Democrats, of opposing the appeals court nomination of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. because he is a devout Catholic.
. . .
“Some in the U.S. senate are attacking Bill Pryor for having ‘deeply held’ Catholic beliefs to prevent him from becoming a federal judge,” the ads said. “Don’t they know the Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for public office?”

The ads did not specifically mention Pryor’s strong opposition to abortion, although that is one of the issues cited by Democrats in questioning whether Pryor could set aside his personal views in determining issues of law as a federal judge.

What’s being forgotten here is that these appointments are being opposed because Bush is nominating judges who put their own religious beliefs above the rule of law

Mr. Pryor, who has been nominated for a seat on the Federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, has views that fall far outside the political and legal mainstream. He has called Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion-rights ruling, “the worst abomination” of constitutional law in our history. He recently urged the Supreme Court to uphold laws criminalizing gay sex, a position the court soundly rejected last month. He has defended the installation of a massive Ten Commandments monument in Alabama’s main judicial building, which a federal appeals court recently held violated the First Amendment. And he has urged Congress to repeal an important part of the Voting Rights Act.

Whether Bush, Pryor, and the rest of the GOP like it or not, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that Americans have a constitutional right to privacy (which was the basis for Roe vs. Wade and the recent sodomy decision). Any judge that doesn’t accept this constitutional right clearly holds his/her religious beliefs in higher regard than the constitution. Anyone who has this clear a disregard for constitutionally upheld principles has no business being a federal judge. Period.