In case you ever wondered why rappers don’t like the 5-0, here’s a good example of why :

The Chicago Police Department has apologized for issuing a community alert that described a man suspected in a series of sexual assaults as resembling hip-hop artist and actor Ice Cube after a local television station aired one of the rapper’s videos during its evening newscast.
. . .
Police are searching for a man who sexually assaulted three woman in Chicago’s Wicker Park neighborhood, a trendy area on the city’s North Side.

A police alert released Sunday described the man as a black male in his mid-20s who “resembles the popular rap artist ‘Ice Cube.’”

The Chicago TV station owned and operated by CBS, WBBM-TV, subsequently broadcast one of Ice Cube’s videos when it reported the story Monday night.

I guess the Chicago police think all black people look alike. Can you tell the difference between the two pictures below?

Ben Weasel has a damn good post about the gung-ho reaction to the deaths of Saddam’s sons :

Maybe one of their victims vocalizing his wish that Uday and Qusay Hussein had been caught alive so they could be tortured makes some kind of sense, at least knowing that the wish comes from such a dark place. But for Americans who have only heard the names and seen the photos and video of Uday and Qusay on the news, such ranting comes off as nothing more than an opportunity to act like an animal. Dancing on their graves like demented ghouls doesn’t make you look like you’re full of compassion for the rest of the world, it just makes you look like a rabid loonie who might well be full of, if not hatred, at least ambivalence for humanity; why else would such an over-the-top demonstration be necessary?

This is why I’m so sick of Bush’s macho attitude towards his enemies. Saying “bring it on” doesn’t make him sound tough or cool, it makes him look like the little toadie friend of the schoolyard bully who’s constantly laughing at the nerds who get beat up but has never actually had to fight.

For all the people who consider themselves big fans of Jesus out there, there are very few who are able to show compassion for their enemies as well as their friends. I’m as happy as anyone that Uday and Qusay are no longer a threat, but the deaths of two people (not to mention the two innocent people caught in the crossfire) should never be a cause for celebration.

Rep. Bill Thomas is a little bitch :

The mighty stood humbled in the well of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Rep. Bill Thomas choking back tears as he confessed to poor judgment in approving the use of Capitol police to break up a meeting of Democrats on the committee he chairs.

By his remarks, Thomas and fellow Republicans hoped to quell a controversy that flared on Friday when a routine committee meeting ended in a partisan clash that spilled onto the House floor. Democrats objected to changes Republicans had made overnight in a pension bill, and filed into the adjoining committee library to consider their next move.
. . .
House senate Leader Nancy Pelosi, one of a few members of her party not to stand in applause after Thomas spoke, told reporters that the record “does not bear” out a portion of the remarks he made. “So while I’m sympathetic to the generosity of spirit that it took for him to make those statements, and I respect the fact that he did that, it didn’t mean that I had to stand up and cheer,” she said.

Actions speak louder than words. In this case, GOP leaders can offer all the half-hearted apologies they want and it won’t change the fact that they acted like goddamn thugs. Pushing a bill through committee before it can even be read is already inexcusable, but calling the police on the members who aren’t willing to get rolled over is despicable.

A number of people have found this site in the last two days searching for information about the person who accused Kobe Bryant of rape. For those of you who are finding this site searching Google for “kobe bryant’s victim picture”, “kobe rape victim name”, “info on the girl kobe raped”, or “Kobe’s victim address” (all actual search terms), You can go straight to Hell. You need to leave this poor girl alone. There is no reason on Earth why you need any information about her. Cyberstalking a rape victim is one of the most repulsive things I can possibly imagine. If you’re the kind of person who doesn’t respect this girl’s privacy, then I don’t want you visiting my site. Ever.

Okay, I’m just being a dick. Seriously though, TBOGG links to this interesting article about the psychological factors behind political conservatism :

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

- Fear and aggression

- Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

- Uncertainty avoidance

- Need for cognitive closure

- Terror management

“From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination,” the researchers wrote in an article, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” recently published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin.
. . .
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material – which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups – yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought – the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism – an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way.

I’d like to see a similar survey done for liberal values as well. In the meantime, I’m sure this will just add fuel to the fire regarding conservative complaints over the liberal bias on college campuses. It’s too bad really, because these guys make some interesting points.

Conservative adherence to tradition really is a half-assed attempt to cling to an idealized vision of the “good old days” that never existed in the first place. For every good thing about the past (taxing the hell out of the rich, a working social safety net, a general sense of pride and responsibility) there’s something even worse (rampant sexism and racism, xenophobia, lower life expectancy). In short, Conservatives don’t want to return us to the real past, but only a past that they’ve invented.

Conservatives want all of the things about the past that will benefit them directly (less regulation over industry) but none of the stuff that would prevent them from making boatloads of money (general sense of community and civic pride). It’s hard to imagine the sterotypical 50′s era businessman laying off a factory full of workers so he can move the company overseas to save money on workers salaries and paying any taxes.

For all their talk about “traditional values” the one I don’t ever hear espoused by conservatives is an obligation towards the interests of the community over the generation of profits. These days, the accumulation of wealth is the most important value, more important than civic pride, family values, or patriotism. Back in “the day”, screwing over people by doing anything that’s legally possible to make money was virtually unthinkable. These days, it’s just par for the course.

I know I’m late on this one, but let me just go on record as saying this is completely screwed up :

In a meeting they thought was private but was actually broadcast around the Capitol on Monday, 11 Assembly Democrats debated prolonging California’s budget crisis to further their political goals.

Members of the senate Study Group, a caucus that defines itself as progressive, were unaware that a microphone in Committee Room 127 was on as they discussed slowing progress in an attempt to increase pressure on Republicans to accept tax increases as part of a deal to resolve the state’s $38-billion budget gap.

The conversation was transmitted to roughly 500 “squawk boxes” around Sacramento that political staff, lobbyists and reporters use to listen in on legislative proceedings.

According to Republican staff members who captured parts of the meeting on tape, Los Angeles Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg and others discussed holding up the budget to dramatize the consequences and build support for a ballot initiative that would make it easier to raise taxes.

“Since this is going to be a crisis, the crisis could be this year,” Goldberg said, according to a transcript. “No one’s running [for reelection]. And maybe you end up better off than you would have, and maybe you don’t. But what you do is you show people that you can’t get to this without a 55% vote.”

The ballot initiative would let the Legislature approve any tax increase with a 55% vote. The state Constitution requires a two-thirds majority. That means that under the current makeup of the Legislature, at least eight Republicans must join the slim senate majority for a tax increase to pass.

Fabian Nunez, also of Los Angeles, agreed. “If you don’t have a budget, it helps Democrats,” he said.

While a delay might serve the tactical advantage of Democrats, its consequences are already being felt by students, vendors and the poor: Since the new fiscal year began July 1 without a budget, the state has already begun to cut off money to some programs.

Republicans noted that many caucus members have charged the GOP with holding the budget process hostage. Yet, those same Democrats are now caught on tape discussing ways to hold things up.

The fact that these guys are willing to prolong a crisis for political gain is just plain evil. These are the guys who need to be recalled.

As far as the Davis recall is concerned, as much as I’ve defended him, I really hope he resigns today. After the petition names are verified, he can’t resign and California will be forced to hold a recall election. I can’t imagine any outcome of that election that would be much better than what we’ve currently got. Davis is a political whore, but I don’t think he’s primarily responsible for the problems he’s being recalled over. That said, if he steps down, he can spare the state the pain of having to kick him out and he can ensure that his successor is a Democrat. Of course stepping down would require a certain amount of selfless dedication to the best interests of the state, and even Davis’s strongest supporters doubt he has that.

It looks like the Catholic Church’s molestation problem is a lot worse than any of us could have imagined :

Clergy members and others in the Boston Archdiocese probably sexually abused more than 1,000 people over a period of six decades, Massachusetts’ attorney general said Wednesday, calling the scandal so massive it “borders on the unbelievable.”

The report, the result of a grand jury investigation that explored whether church hierarchy should be charged criminally for turning a blind eye to allegations of abuse, said the archdiocese received complaints from 789 alleged victims, involving more than 250 clergy and other workers.

However, when other sources are considered, the attorney general said, the abuse likely affected more than 1,000 victims from 1940 until today.

It’s shocking that anyone could actually support the Catholic heirarchy after something like this. I could understand a few cases of abuse happening without anyone finding out, but 1000 just in Boston!? There is(was) clearly a conspiracy to cover all this up (and in the process make this problem much, much worse).

This all reminds me of a question that was raised in discussion of the Kobe Bryant matter today at Unlearned Hand :

If you had children who normally played at a neighbor’s home, would you continue to let them do so after he or she’d been charged with a sex crime (but not tried or convicted)? If not, why not?

If you knew that your local Archdiocese was involved in the rapes of hundreds of children, why would you continue to support them?

Here’s a warning about the latest spin we’ll get getting from the GOP over Iraq :

The Bush administration is reaching out to its Republican allies in Congress in an effort to counter criticism of President Bush’s Iraq policy and his use of discredited intelligence to advance the case for toppling Saddam Hussein.

With Bush’s job approval ratings slipping, and U.S. casualties in Iraq continuing to climb, the White House is in full damage-control mode, trying to reframe the debate over the Iraq war away from the flap over Bush’s assertion in his State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

On Monday, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett went to Capitol Hill to urge Republicans to emphasize positive aspects of the broader war against terrorism, administration and congressional officials said.

Bartlett met with top GOP House and senate aides to essentially provide “talking points” for countering senate attacks and to share recently declassified intelligence information with them, officials said.

The administration wants its GOP allies in Congress to do more to emphasize some of the upside to deposing Saddam, including humanitarian gestures and the freeing of the Iraqi people.

The Bush Administration never used Saddam’s horrible human rights record as the justification for war. They exagerrated the threat he posed to us. Why? Because they knew the American people would never go along with an Iraqi invasion when we’re in the middle of a “war” against terrorism.

Right now the biggest threat to our safety is Islamic extremists. If the Bush Administration wants to distract attention from that threat to start going after secular dictatorships that are guilty of human right violations, then they should at least be consistent about it.

There was a pretty good commentary by Ann Crittenden yesterday on Marketplace about how the upcoming tax refund checks aren’t going to help solve some of our real problems :

The only problem is, we can’t spend the money on the things we like. Oh sure, some of it could go to vacations abroad, great European clothes, or a Japanese car that gets forty miles to the gallon, but none of this spending is going to help the American economy or produce American jobs. And the things really want more of and would create American jobs, we can’t buy at all. We can’t go out and buy protection for the rivers and forests we love our son can enjoy them for years to come. We can’t buy new teachers for those little kids in our town who sit thirty in a classroom. We can’t earmark our money to keep sick animals out of the food chain. We can’t spend our great tax savings on better safety at nuclear power plants or for better public libraries. We can’t go out on Sunday afternoon and patch the potholed highways or clean up the toxic waste sites nearby. We can’t play doctor for even one of those millions of kids with no health care and we can’t play mommy and daddy for the millions of kids with no child care. Some things, believe it or not, our individual money can’t buy. Some things only all of us together can buy with what’s called our tax dollars. There are countries where the rich people don’t pay taxes and sure enough they don’t have the things that only tax dollars can buy like decent public schools, well-protected national parks, honest police, and great highways. These are all third-world countries like Mexico, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In those countries, there is little taxation of the rich and few of the public amenities that we usually associate with a civilized society. Until we realize that there are things that only all of us can do together, we’ll keep heading in a very wrong direction.

Although it’s a little sugary, this is a pretty good response to the whole “Who do you trust more with your money? You or the government?” argument that conservatives love to make. I don’t mind paying taxes, but I hate the way the GOP spends them. The real question should be “Who do you trust more with your money? Republicans or Democrats?”

Somebody needs to tell the Secret Service what a metaphor is :

The Secret Service is studying a pro-Bush cartoon in the Los Angeles Times, showing the president with a gun to his head, as a possible threat, U.S. officials said on Monday.

Cartoonist Michael Ramirez said the drawing, which ran in Sunday’s paper, was only meant to call attention to the unjust “political assassination” of Bush over his Iraq policy.
. . .

“We’re aware of the image and we’re in the process of determining what action if any can be taken,” John Gill, Secret Service spokesman, said.

An official who asked not to be named said: “The Secret Service does take threats against all of their protectees very seriously and they have an obligation to look into any threat that’s made against any of their protectees.” The official did not elaborate.

I’d think they’d be culturally literate enough to recognize this photo…

…and be smart enough to see that the cartoon is pro-Bush (as well as unfunny and misguided). I guess the Secret Service are desperately trying to track down who the hell this “politics” guy is and try to stop him before he hurts anyone.

It’s been a month since Ann Couler’s blog was supposed to launch and she still hasn’t posted a single entry. It’s not like her crazyass ranting requires her to think before she types.

Looks like all this misleading the American public, turning Iraq into a chaotic hellhole, and racking up billions of dollars in debt for the U.S. in order to give a handout to the righ can get pretty exhausting :

Meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Crawford today, it seems, with almost no fanfare, Bush has relocated to his Texas ranch until Labor Day.

The White House won’t call it his month long vacation, because they plan to cover it with a bunch of day trips in August where he can “discuss” the economy. But in essence, Bush is out of the White House and plans to be out of the White House for the better part of six weeks.

He’ll pop in and out, of course, but one can bet most of his time will be spent clearing brush on his sheepless, cowless, purposeless ranch. While Ward 57 gets a bunch more wounded, and US troops patrol in Iraq, we can be assured that Bush will have nearly six weeks of downtime, enlivened by the odd trip or two.

He’ll be back in time for Sept. 11th. (He never misses an oppportunity to pat himself on the back). When was the last time any of you got to take more than a month long vacation? I think I was 15.

Jeez. Do conservatives have nothing better to do than continually trash Clinton? I guess not…

Just a few blocks from the future site of Bill Clinton’s $160 million presidential library, a couple of Clinton haters hope to open a museum devoted to mocking his presidency.

“As long as he’s talking, we’ll have to be here trying to keep him somewhat honest and stop him from rewriting history,” says John LeBoutillier, a former Republican congressman from New York who rode Ronald Reagan’s coattails to victory in 1980.

LeBoutillier and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, plan to call it the Counter-Clinton Library. They say the museum here and one planned for Washington will look at such topics as Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, the last-minute pardons, even damaged White House furniture.

“We already hear he’s going to bring a bunch of egghead economists to his library to say how great the economy was when he was president,” LeBoutillier says. “And we’ll find our own who can say it had nothing to do with him.”
. . .
“Reagan, Nixon, that’s the past,” he says. “The problem is Clinton’s still young, he’s the most powerful force in senate politics, and he would like nothing more than to erase the past so he can return to the White House with Hillary.”

You gotta love the “egghead” comment. As far as these guys are concerned the only thing that’s as bad as lying about marital infidelity (which is apparently an impechable offense), is being smart. I was going to use the word “anti-intellectualism” but I don’t wanna seem like an egghead.

This really is pretty childish. Maybe if I win the lottery, I can start shopping for some real estate in Yorba Linda to open my Counter-Reagan library. I haven’t been to Reagan’s library yet, but I’m sure he’s probably left out a few details about the stock market crash of 1987, his various tax increases that followed his initial tax cut, the explosion in the homeless population, supplying checmical weapons to Saddam Hussein, busting the air traffic controller strike, training Osama Bin Laden, and Iran-Contra. Sure, Reagan is “in the past”, but only if you don’t pay attention to who makes up the Bush Administration or al Qaeda.

Matt Yglesias and Eric Alterman are both reviving the “Greens want to re-elect Bush” meme in response to this piece in the Washington Post :

The Green Party emerged from a national meeting over the weekend increasingly certain that it will run a presidential candidate in next year’s election, all but settling a debate within the group over how it should approach the 2004 contest.
. . .
Some have maintained the Greens should skip the race and support the senate candidate in the hopes of unseating President Bush. “Bush is a serious threat to your country and the planet — a much greater threat than any Gore-like Democrat,” wrote Jason Salzman and Aaron Toso on their Web site, repentantnadervoter.com. Both were supporters of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000.

Most, however, said the party should join the race. Many said they believe there is still little difference between the major parties — one activist tagging them “Republicrats and Demopublicans.”

Others complained the Democratic party is too weak-willed to adequately oppose Bush’s agenda. Others said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), the only senate presidential candidate who has much support among the Greens, is unlikely to win his party’s nomination.

Now I’m no fan of the Greens. I think their whole “There’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats” thing is stupid and short-sighted. They were definitely a spoiler factor in the 2000 election, but they are not responsible for Gore’s loss to Bush. Gore got more votes nationally and in Florida. The Green’s candidate may have made it much easier for Bush to steal the election, but it doesn’t change the fact that Gore was robbed.

That said, I agree with Matt and Eric’s larger, unspoken point that the Greens would be completely nuts to run a candidate against the Dems next year. If we’ve learned anything over the last two and a half years, it’s that there are significant differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Bush’s tenure as president has exceeded the worst-case scenarios of almost every progressive voter.

Of course, most of those who actually voted Green in the last election probably realize this, so I’m not to worried about them screwing up this election. If the Green party weren’t so full of themselves, they’d be willing to comprimise and help get a better candidate elected than make use endure another four years of Bush. Instead we’ll probably end up with another one-issue Nader campaign.

Over the weekend I saw a guy at Comic-Con wearing a “Free Kobe” t-shirt and I’ve seen similar poster in at least a couple of the cubicles here at work. Honestly, I don’t give a damn about basketball and I wouldn’t know who the hell Kobe Bryant was if I didn’t live in L.A. Maybe if I was a Lakers fan, I’d “get it”, but I don’t understand why people are so quick to rush to Kobe’s defense in this whole rape thing (and in the process implicitly smear the alleged victim as a liar and a slut). Doesn’t it occur to anyone that if there was enough evidence to bring charges, that this probably goes beyond the realm of “he said / she said”?

Last year, another loveable famous person was accused of rape. Who was it? None other than George W. Bush. According to her complaint, Margie Schoedinger and her husband were drugged and raped by George W. Bush. Since the alleged rapes, Bush has used the FBI and police to try to harrass her into killing herself. Why hasn’t this recieved any media attention? Not because the media are Bush lapdogs, but because this woman is batshit crazy.

Kobe Bryant’s defenders would love to pretend that Kobe’s alleged victim was as crazy as Margie Schoedinger (How else do you explain the slanderous attacks on her mental condition?), but the big difference here is that there is evidence to suggest that Bryant wasn’t the saint that the media (and Nike) have made him out to be :

The Los Angeles Times reported that employees of the resort saw Bryant talking and flirting with the alleged victim when he checked in. Another employee told the newspaper that hotel security was called to Bryant’s room in reference to noise complaints from other guests early in the morning July 1.

The alleged victim delivered room service to Bryant’s room, the New York Post reported. The newspaper said she returned 20-30 minutes later shaking and in tears.

That combined with the rumored physical evidence should be enough to keep people from taking sides in this case. The way people are freaking out, you’d think this was the first time a universally beloved, family-friendly sports superstar was accused of commiting a violent crime against a woman.