Surprise, surprise. The “rebel” Republicans weren’t so rebellious after all. They’ve spent the last week or two grandstanding and insisting on their opposition to the President’s torture and mock trials, but when it came time to choose between their (supposed) principles and helping their party present a united front in an election year, they sold out. Of course the ever-compliant media will bless this compromise since St. McCain can do no wrong. Even when he’s acting like a partisan ass, he’s somehow a non-partisan maverick. As usual, Digby‘s got the right take on all this :

Can anyone in the know explain to me how letting McCain run with this torture debate benefitted the Democrats in any way?

Here’s how the optics look to me:

McCain, the Republican rebel maverick, showed that Republicans are moral and look out for their troops.

Bush, the Republican statesman and leader, showed that he is committed to protecting Americans but that he is willing to listen and compromise when people of good faith express reservations about tactics.

The Democrats showed they are ciphers who don’t have the stones to even say a word when the most important moral issue confronting the government is being debated.

Unless the Dems ready to threaten to filibuster a national security bill a month before an election — which I doubt — I expect that the Republicans are going to rush this through the conference and force through this piece of shit bill in a hurry, just like they forced the AUMF through in October 2002 and give the republicans a big honking “victory” in the GWOT.

The Dems are all going to be twisted into pretzels and look like they have no backbones as they struggle with a united GOP saying that McCain and Huckleberry Graham made sure “the program” is moral and necessary. Vote for it for for the terrorists. So they’ll end up voting for it without getting any benefit from it.

Digby’s not the only one ready to call this one a defeat for Democrats but it shouldn’t be too hard for them to regain control on this issue (provided that a couple of them grow a spine). A decent rebuttal would go something like this :

“Senators McCain and Graham may have sold out on this issue, but the Democratic party still believes that torture is torture, no matter what the President may choose to call it. We in the Democratic party aren’t willing to sacrifice our humanity in order to protect our way of life, because to do so would destroy the moral foundation upon which this great nation was founded. The inhuman treatment of suspects by this administration is deplorable and if Senator McCain is no longer opposed to torture, then we’ll have to continue this fight without him.”

Don’t let the conventional wisdom coalesce around the notion that rubber stamping the President’s bill is a compromise. The GOP “rebels” are cowards for buckling under the pressure of their President and their party. The only compromise was the one made when those Senators sold their souls.

Weird. Though I hadn’t even given it a second thought since I wrote it, for some reason I just recalled a review of the Superman DVD collection that I wrote for the defunct comic book fandom site Spinner Rack five years ago. Out of curiosity, I tracked it down at archive.org and – here’s the most surprising part – it doesn’t suck as much as I thought it would. In fact, I even like some of it. It’s cheesy in parts (the last paragraph makes me cringe), but what the hell. If you’re interested, the full review is in the extended entry.
(more…)

It’s hardly surprising that the GOP Senators who have been standing up to the President on torture would end up selling out (it’s an election year, after all), but does this AP headline strike you as a little odd?

Bush, GOP Rebels Said to Be Near Accord

Rebels? Accord? Opposing the President is hardly an act of rebellion. Is it normal to equate a political compromise with words normally used to describe a cease-fire. I’m not implying there’s anything sinister here, just that somebody at the Associated Press picked some strange words for this headline.

I can’t stand when religious groups co-opt patriotic imagery as if to imply that our country was founded on Christianity (it wasn’t) and you have to be a good Christian to be a good American (you don’t). Even though this has probably already made its rounds through the blogosphere, I probably don’t even need to bother telling you what I think of this monstrosity :

And if the sight of the Statue of Liberty holding a giant cross isn’t strange enough for you, check out the symbolism page of the statue’s website :



Just so you don’t get your teardrop kitsch confused, lemme make clear that the Statue of Liberation Through Christ’s teardrop is because of our rapidly declining Judeo-Christian values. The mighty eagle’s tear, on the other hand, is for those we lost on 9/11.



…and Little Miss No Name cries because she’s a poor orphan who just wants to be loved.



Does anyone have any Kleenex? I’m starting to get a little choked up here.

I like Al Gore, but something about this idea rubs me the wrong way :

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore on Monday suggested taxing carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees’ pay in a bid to stem global warming.

“Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution,” Gore said in a speech at New York University School of Law.

The pollution tax would replace all payroll taxes, including those for Social Security and unemployment compensation, Gore said. He said the overall level of taxation, would remain the same.

“Instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees it would discourage business from producing more pollution,” Gore said.

First of all, any time I hear about a plan to radically change the way we collect or spend taxes that promises to be revenue neutral, my bullshit meter starts going off. Nothing personal, Al, but the endless conservative talk about flat taxes, consumption taxes, and the hollow promises that have accompanied all of the President’s tax cuts have convinced me that this shit usually looks good on paper, but when Congress gets their hands on it, people get screwed.

But that’s not my only gripe with Gore’s proposal. I don’t like the proposition that our taxes serve as a form of punishment, which is what Gore implies when he accuses payroll taxes of “penalizing employment”. The problem with payroll taxes is that they’re a regressive tax that unfairly burdens the poor and lower middle class. It’s the way payroll taxes are calculated that’s punitive, not the existence of those taxes themselves. While pollution taxes would make a fine addition to other “sin taxes”, not all taxes are created equal.

While I applaud Gore ability to “think outside the bun” and try to kill two birds with one stone by helping the poor and middle class while sticking it to corporate polluters, what would the long-term consequences of this change be? By changing the revenue stream for social security, wouldn’t that make it easier for the SS bamboozlers to revisit the “crisis”? Let’s say a business-friendly (eg. paid-off) Congress were to subtly adjust the way pollution taxes were levied (change pollution limits, make pollution credits transferable, exempt certain industries from regulation), the affects on what was originally a revenue neutral tax could be dramatic. Even worse, what would happen if we started taxing pollution and industries responded by dumping fewer toxins into our environment? Less money flowing into that SS surplus could reignite the debate over whether or not our country should join Argentina in diving off a fiscal cliff.

Yeah, I’ve already written about the big hit of the faux-pharmaceutical industry, but here’s the funny thing about releasing a fizzy, orangeish-flavored drink while making claims that it will prevent illnesses…you open yourself up to generic versions :

I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess that these versions were created by a fireman, an astronaut, a chef, and a cowboy respectively. That’s how you know they work.

The GOP’s unofficial Minister of Propaganda pulls back the curtain to show you how to lie with numbers :

Fuck you, Frank.

Every couple of weeks or so, I get an email from somebody asking if I’ve seen the 9/11 conspiracy documentary “Loose Change” and asking me to help “spread the word”. The only problem is that “Loose Change” is complete shit. Granted, it’s a brilliantly-edited turd, it’s still a ridiculously weak collection of innuendos and strawmen. The Pentagon wasn’t hit by a missile, the people on Flight 93 weren’t shipped off to an undisclosed location, and the World Trade Center wasn’t brought down by a controlled demolition.

If you actually believe the tinfoil hat bullshit in “Loose Change”, check out the now infamous Popular Mechanics article that debunks the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, a debate between the makers of Loose Change and the people behind the Popular Mechanics article from Democracy Now, and the five-part series on Youtube “9/11 Deniers Speak” (in which, among other things, one of the filmmakers tells a grieving 9/11 widow “Our government killed your husband”).

Cue the trolls in 3, 2, 1….

God, I hate it when conservatives try to distance themselves from their scandal-plagued leaders. Case in point from Andrew Sullivan :

They’re debating faith and politics over at Jim Wallis’ new blog. Check it out – although I have no idea why Reed has been chosen to represent the religious right. He’s a political operative, tainted by financial scandal.

Gosh, I dunno why Ralph Reed would be chosen to represent the religious right….

He’s a religious leader and a political operative. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Especially considering that Reed was handpicked to run the Christian Coalition by the ultimate political operative/ religious leader, Pat Robertson.

Do you ever find yourself obnoxiously repeating a word or phrase in conversations and you can’t remember where you picked it up? That happens to me a few times per year and every time I notice it, I get really annoyed with myself. The word that I’ve been beating to death lately is “unbelievable”, but the awful part isn’t just my overuse of the word itself, but the way I use it. Unnnn-believable. Un – Be – Lievable. Or in more discriminating company, Un – Fucking- Believable. Just typing this word, I can think of all the times I’ve said that lately and it’s driving me nuts.

I’m just glad I didn’t have a blog five or more years ago, because I used to fall into the same annoying habits, but it would start with using awful slang in an ironic way. It was never as bad as “talk to the hand” or anything like that, but it was embarrassing enough in retrospect that I’ve blocked a lot of the more awkward phrases from my memory. If I wrote now the way I spoke ten years ago, this site would be an unreadable mess (as opposed to the semi-literate balderdash that it is today).

Word.

As I’ve made clear in previous posts, I think Nancy Grace is a loathsome troll whose show defiles the network upon which she appears. Even if this is the third post I’ve done on the subject this month, Dahlia Lithwick’s article “Graceless” is a must-read :

Grace is a former—very successful—prosecutor from Atlanta who has devoted herself to victims’ rights since she lost her college sweetheart to a violent mugging. Grace mixes the sweetness of a Southern debutante with the snarling tenacity of a mad dog, and she has carved out a niche for herself on Headline News and Court TV, as a legal expert/talk-show host/roving prosecutor. She knew Peterson was guilty long before the jury did, and even her mistakes (she knew Gary Condit did it, too) are readily forgotten.

Some of the criticisms Grace faces this week are fair, but many aren’t. Some go to larger problems about what passes for truth on television and the sick culture of O.J.-tainment that has been with us since the Salem witch trials and has exploded with Court TV. Yes, Melinda Duckett was treated like crap by Nancy. But Duckett, after all, freely chose to go on the show.
. . .
Another criticism of Grace is that she privileges sensationalism, raw emotionalism, and victims’ rights over the complexity of the legal process. She declines the journalist’s project of clarifying or explaining the law and aims for the entertainer’s use of the law as a vehicle for the war between good and evil. In her 2005 book, Objection, Grace dismisses “legalese, arguments for argument’s sake. … None of it matters. All that matters is the truth and it remains the same, no matter how attorneys twist it and turn it and repackage it.”

Grace’s conviction that there is a single, simple “truth” to every case, and that lawyers and legal processes work to confound rather than clarify it, is chilling in a lawyer. More troubling still, is her tingly spider-sense that she alone can discern that truth in the earliest days of the investigation. But worst of all is her belief that she has some singular role to play in bringing the criminal to justice.

To me, the “worst of all” can be summed up by this line further in the article :

Grace readily confesses that she isn’t a journalist.

Then what the hell is she doing with a show on the Cable News Network??

CNN, if you insist on giving a platform to people who add little more to public discourse than a sense of righteous rage, could you at least give us a way of setting our expectations accordingly? Which of your hosts should we expect to live up to a reasonable standard of journalistic ethics and which ones are just on the air to provide a shallow thrill? If it’s unfair of us to consider some of he people who appear on CNN as “journalists”, then which ones can we rely on to give us that “most trusted name in news” level of credibility and which ones are just loudmouths you hired to boost ratings?

If you want to ask your favorite CNN personality whether or not they’re considered “journalists”, CNN employee emails are firstname.lastname@turner.com (ex. Jayson.Blair@turner.com). Watch your language, be nice, and be sure to let me know if you hear anything back.

From the Texas Department of Criminal Justice database on executed prisoners‘ last words. (via MeFi) David Martinez :

Only the sky and the green grass goes on forever and today is a good day to die.

Douglas Roberts :

Yes sir, Warden Okay I’ve been hanging around this popsicle stand way too long. Before I leave, I want to tell you all. When I die, bury me deep, lay two speakers at my feet, put some headphones on my head and rock and roll me when I’m dead. I’ll see you in Heaven someday. That’s all Warden.

David Ray Harris :

Yes I do. Sir, in honor of a true American hero. “let’s roll”. Lord Jesus receive my spirit.

Kelsey Patterson :

Statement to what. State What. I am not guilty of the charge of capital murder. Steal me and my family’s money. My truth will always be my truth. There is no kin and no friend; no fear what you do to me. No kin to you undertaker. Murderer. [Portion of statement omitted due to profanity] Get my money. Give me my rights. Give me my rights. Give me my rights. Give me my life back.

James Powell :

I am ready for the final blessing.

Monty Delk :

“I’ve got one thing to say, get your Warden off this gurney and shut up. I am from the island of Barbados. I am the Warden of this unit. People are seeing you do this.”

Jeffery Doughtie :

For almost nine years I have thought about the death penalty, whether it is right or wrong and I don’t have any answers. But I don’t think the world will be a better or safer place without me. If you had wanted to punish me you would have killed me the day after, instead of killing me now. You are not hurting me now. I have had time to get ready, to tell my family goodbye, to get my life where it needed to be.

It started with a needle and it is ending with a needle.

One odd thing I noticed. The most common last word seems to be “warden” as in “That’s all, warden”.

Have some sympathy for Slate’s David Plotz. On May 15th, he began Slate’s series “Blogging the Bible” with the intention of reading the Bible all the way through and writing his impressions as he goes. Yet he’s only on the fifth book and already beginning to lose his patience :

This must be obvious by now, but I might as well come right out and say it, rather than keep seething quietly. The more I read of Deuteronomy, the more I hate it. The first four books of the Bible are full of immoral behavior and divine fickleness and savage laws, but all balanced by extraordinary stories of decency and courage, the wisdom of Moses, the underlying love of God, and some of the most beautiful words you will ever read about protecting the poor, weak, and innocent. But Deuteronomy is heartless. It’s so cold. All the warmth and humanity has drained away, leaving nothing but icy laws and a vengeful prophet. It’s very painful to read.

It’s been four months and he’s non even out of the Torah yet. And you wonder why most people (Christian or otherwise) haven’t read the book cover to cover. Don’t fret David, assuming you’re reading the same stolen-from-a-hotel Gideon bible than I am, you’re only 760 pages away from this :

Or rather, you’re 760 pages and 34 books away from the first mention of Jesus. He doesn’t become a dental assistant until later.

…and start comparing it to World War One (via Americablog):

Iraqi security forces will dig trenches around Baghdad and set up checkpoints along all roads leading into the city to try to reduce some of the violence plaguing the capital, the Interior Ministry said Friday.
. . .
The plan to dig trenches around Baghdad will be implemented in coming weeks, Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Kareem Khalaf told The Associated Press.

It comes as more than 130 people were slain in two days — either killed in attacks or tortured and dumped in rivers or on the city’s streets.

“Trenches will be dug around Baghdad in the coming weeks when the third part of the Baghdad security plan is implemented,” Khalaf said.

One nice thing about trench warfare in the desert, it’s easy to keep your feet dry.

The best thing I’ve gotten in my inbox in a long time :

Dear reader,
I could not help noticing on your post room that a person passed a comment that the Pope sucks. I am deeply hurt by this.. just because he has a different character to the last Pope they have no right to insult the holy father in that way.I just checked with the online international Police and found that it is possible to press charges for such a comment. Please do the bit from your side to remove the page were it is written that the Pope sucks.

thank you

You’re welcome…but the Pope still sucks.