Even Windbags Have First Amendment Rights

While working out in the wee hours of the morning today, I heard this interesting story on MSNBC. Some South Florida Democrat with a lack of Constitutional knowledge wants to revoke a radio station's access to vital hurricane information because it airs Rush Limbaugh. The story can be found on The Miami Herald's website, but I could not find it on any of the big 3 cable networks' websites.

Apparently, Broward County (remember that from 2000?) Commissioner Stacy Ritter refused to designate Miami radio station WIOD 610 AM as the region's emergency hurricane information broadcaster solely because Rush Limbaugh is on it. She said,

We want to cancel this contract here because we don't want to have our hurricane information on the station that Rush Limbaugh is broadcast on, and Sean Hannity. (source)

Rush, ever the inappropriate comedian, called Ritter "a babe" after he saw her photo in the Herald. He also commented on their shenanigans, saying:

...[L]iberals in the face of utter disaster will not tune to the station to get information because my show is on it. So who is stupid here? This is politicizing a nonpartisan issue. Hurricane emergency information is nonpartisan. (same source as above)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with El Rushbo. Any type of emergency information supersedes political ideology, and any attempt to revoke that based on ideology by the government is suppression of free speech. WIOD has a large reach, and therefore can reach a lot of people, so it's the logical choice for emergency information.

I look at it this way: let's say the tables were turned, and a Republican county commissioner decided to decline giving emergency information to a progressive station, even though it had the furthest reach. I would be up in arms at this obvious subversion of the First Amendment. Therefore, I have to support Rush in this battle, similar to how the ACLU supported him during his OxyContin troubles.

I have a couple of gripes, though. First of all, why can't the Broward County commissioners give every station emergency hurricane information? It's called a broadcast for a reason, and limiting the information to one station, regardless of reach, means that it will not reach as many people as it could if it were given to multiple stations. I'm sure that every county, city, or state has similar deals in place, but that's not the way it should be.

Second, in spite of his obvious disagreement with Ritter's statement, he still doesn't like that his show can be pre-empted by these emergency warnings, or even preparedness warnings (which are as important, in my opinion). Reading another Herald story on-air, he said:

"On the air Wednesday, Limbaugh joked that under the deal, the county would have the power to preempt his midday broadcast." They quoted me accurately here. I said, "All these idiots on the Broward County Commission have to do is schedule their press conferences from noon to 3," and by the terms of the deal, if they want to do a three-hour press conference, they can preempt my show that day. In fact, they could do it today. They could schedule a press conference, not emergency information, but preparedness and things you could do. These people are just blooming idiots. (same source as above)

So, Rush despises using politics with emergency information, and then plays politics with emergency information. Do you honestly think that the rest of those commissioners have it out for you bad enough to want to pre-empt only your show to broadcast "preparedness and things you could do" without just cause, just because they're all Democrats?

Dream on. The other commissioners said that they don't listen to you and don't really care about you. They want to ensure that the right information reaches the right people, their constituency, expediently. If it happens to be from 12 to 3, so what? It could be all day for all I care. Alleging that Broward County officials (save Ritter) want to prevent people from listening to you by using this designation to their advantage is baseless.

Rush finished off with this gem:

I'll tell you what's going to happen tomorrow. Tomorrow morning, there will be a press conference or a little statement that will go out, a sunshine emergency declared in Broward County, press conference at noon, drought emergency press conference at one. (Laughing.) How to protect your skin. (same source as above)

There you go again, Rush. Thinking your views are relevant. But then again, you have the right to say them, and I have to defend it. That's what true patriots do — protect speech they don't like too.

By the way, WIOD will likely get to keep their emergency broadcasts.

~Deep Blue

Support The Troops

Others may say "Have a Happy Memorial Day." I take issue with that. Memorial Day is a day of remembrance for soldiers that have died fighting for our freedoms. Whether we agree with this current occupation or not, we all must stand together and remember those that fought for us.

So everyone, have a solemn and mournful Memorial Day.

~ Deep Blue

P.S. No, I haven't gone all conservative on you. I for one will spend this day thinking of all the soldiers that needlessly died during this occupation. Soldiers that had families back home, worrying from one day to the next. I mourn for the troops today, wishing with all my might that they will be home soon. I support the troops -- by not wanting them in Iraq.

Spell Out IMPEACH in Reno and Tahoe - April 28th

As heard on the Thom Hartmann show today:

Reno:
Spell out the word "Impeach!" on the steps of the Bruce Thompson Federal Building in Reno (the corner of Liberty and Virginia). Saturday, April 28th, 1-3 PM. For more info, contact jpom22@myway.com. I'll try to get down there with a camera and take some photos.


South Lake Tahoe/Carson City:
Spell out "IMPEACH!" on El Dorado Beach, east of Sprouts Café and the hemp store, on Saturday April 28th (time not given). For more info, contact miss.heather@hotmail.com.


I got this information from A28 (link) and its ImpeachSpace (link).

~ Deep Blue

The Truth About the SURGE!

I've avoided this topic long enough, mostly because it's been beaten to death on the Bill Manders show (hell, they're re-running his Friday show on this topic today), but I couldn't resist once I saw his headline.

RGJ: Cheney Lashes Out at Harry Reid

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Tuesday of pursuing a defeatest strategy in Iraq to win votes in the next election -- a charge Reid said did not warrant a response.

The two sparred hours after President Bush said he will veto the latest war spending bill taking shape in Congress, which includes a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Cheney, after attending the weekly Republican policy lunch on Capitol Hill, lashed out at Reid.

"Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics," Cheney said. "Sen. Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election.

"It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage," Cheney said.

Reid, D-Nev., dismissed Cheney's remarks later to reporters, but not before getting in his own dig at the vice president.

"I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the administration's chief attack dog," Reid said.

That last line killed me. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, but you have to admit that calling someone a name whilst saying that you don't want to enter a name-calling match is funny, even if Cheney is the administration's attack dog. If I were Harry Reid, I would've put a sarcastic spin on a term of esteem, such as "I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the always dignified, never unintelligent Vice President."

Cheney's assessment of the War on Iraq giving the Democrats seats in the next election is actually quite accurate, but also quite obvious. The Democrats don't really have to do anything to gain seats in the next election. But is political gain the main reason why Sen. Reid even uttered the words "the war is lost" in succession?

No. He said them because it's the truth, and as I always say, the truth has a liberal bias.

The truth is that Iraq has gotten really deadly, not just for Iraqis, but our soldiers as well. Larry Johnson, who "worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism" (so he knows a thing or two about terrorism and war), wrote on his blog last Wednesday that 364 Iraqis were killed between April 15th and April 18th (source). Yesterday he wrote that 9 American soldiers were killed and 20 more were injured "in a suicide car bombing against a patrol base northeast of the capital in Diyala province" (source, quoting an AP article). Read those articles and tell me that the SURGE! is going well.

Some people (including Manders) say that we liberals want the SURGE! to fail. We already know that it will fail, because this isn't the first SURGE!. Oh no, there've been other SURGE!s over the past 3 years. Does "Operation Together Forward" ring a bell? It should, because that was when we SURGE!d into Iraq between July and October 2006 (source). You know how Bush says that he listens to "the generals on the ground?" Well, he didn't listen to Major General William Caldwell, who said that Operation Together Forward "[did not meet] our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence" (source). So even the generals on the ground didn't think that that SURGE! worked.

Further SURGE!s can be documented in the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index (PDF link). The table in question is on page 23, titled "Coalition Troop Strength in Iraq since May 2003," and that table was taken from tens of articles and statistical compilations. This table shows numerous other SURGE!s, such as the SURGE! that happened between September and November 2005 (22,000 additional troops with no long-term benefits), or the between November 2004 and February 2005 (12,000 additional troops with no long-term benefits), or even the SURGE! between January and May 2004 that happened during troop rotations (7,000 troops reduction followed by a 20,000 troop addition with no long-term benefits).

So the right-wingers won't tell you that there have actually been nearly as many troop SURGE!s as there have been Rocky movies. The only reason why this is news is because the Democrats are now in power, and President Bush isn't used to not getting his way. This story has spread throughout the Right Wing Talking Points Network, hitting just about every major conservative talk show in the country. I'm surprised that a petition hasn't been created to try and recall Reid. There sure has been enough talk of it on right-wing websites. That's just like the typical conservative: all talk and no walk.

It is in this vein that I urge you to call Senator Reid and tell him that you support his views. It's great Americans like him that will help get our troops out of a civil war in Iraq and actually working to capture the real bad guy from 9/11. Does anyone remember a guy named Osama bin Laden?

Reno Office: (775) 686-5750
Carson City Office: (775) 882-7343
Las Vegas Office: (702) 388-5020
Congressional Office: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) (Nevadans only); (202) 224-3542

~ Deep Blue

Update (11:22 PM PDT): JWH over at The Blog Formerly Known as "No Gibbons" has the Reid quote listed above as "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating" in his latest post. This quoting comes from the New York Times. I am going to keep my quote as-is because the RGJ article still states it as above, although this alternate quote (additional quote?) is just as funny.

America All Bushed Out

Former President George H.W. Bush says that the American people may be experiencing "Bush fatigue," or at least that's what he said on Larry King Live.

Video:
Larry King Interview on CNN

CNN Political Ticker:
Bush Sr.: 'Bush fatigue' may be setting in

These comments were a response to Mitt Romney stating his admiration of Jeb Bush, saying that if his last name weren't Bush, Jeb would be the front-runner in the GOP primary. Bush 41 agrees and reveals that this is why Jeb is staying out of the '08 Republican presidential nomination race, but that "he's got a future" in politics. Hopefully that future is relegated to a position as a talking head on Fox News.

Finally, Bush 41 realizes that the country has the same thing that the left has had since Bush v. Gore was decided in 2000. We are sick and tired of Bush's failed policies, we are weary of W's ill-informed and out-of-touch rhetoric, and we are working to set things right.

It is in the same Bush fatigue vein that I have trouble supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't want to look back in 2024 and realize that the past 5 presidents were Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, with Chelsea as the '24 Democratic front-runner. That's why I am, at this point in time, a Barack Obama supporter. Quite frankly, it's too early to tell on either side of the aisle on who the nominee would be. Even Bush 41 doesn't have a favorite on either side.

I have no dog in that hunt, but three good men are leading and there are some others too. Anyway I can't talk bad about the Democrats. It's very, very early, but it's comfortable to be on the sidelines.

In this recent rash of political parties pushing up their primaries almost into this year, I too feel good on the sidelines, just watching events unfold. It opens up the possibility for a Bill Clinton-esque dark horse candidate that will lead the Dems to victory in '08. Yeah yeah, it's a long shot, but I still have my fingers crossed.

~ Deep Blue

Gay Rights Stack

There have been a couple of stories over the weekend that fall into my Gay Rights file, and I feel that as a believer in equal rights for everybody, I have to comment.

First up: Dad Wants $20K, Says Lesbian Book Disturbed Teens

A Bentonville, Ark., man is seeking $20,000 from the city after his two teenage sons found a book on lesbian sex on a public library bookshelf.

He also wants the library director fired.

Earl Adams said his 14- and 16-year-old sons were "greatly disturbed" after finding the book, titled "The Whole Lesbian Sex Book." Adams said the book caused "many sleepless nights in our house."

Adams said the book is "patently offensive and lacks any artistic, literary or scientific value," according to a letter he faxed to Mayor Bob McCaslin. He said the teenagers found it while browsing for material on military academies.

Adams wants the city to pay $10,000 to each of his sons. That's the maximum allowed under the Arkansas obscenity law. However, the city's attorney dismissed Adams' claim as baseless. She said the book is not pornographic.

"There is not a valid legal concern here," Camille Thompson said. "In fact, (the request for money) made me question his motivation."

Yeah, I'm sure that two teenage boys were "disturbed" by finding the book. As a former teenage boy and current heterosexual, I believe, nay, I know that there is not a hot-blooded heterosexual male out there that would find two women together "disturbing," unless the "disturbance" was in their pants. Yeah yeah, all you Alec Baldwins out there can call me a pig; I just remember how I was when I was 16. I agree with Camille Thompson in that I think that this is a money-making ploy, and I think that the "many sleepless nights" at that house were for completely different reasons.

Adams further said "[a]ny effort to reinstate the book will be met with legal action and protests from the Christian community." So Bentonville is now under threat of theocracy. Seriously, when is America going to wake up to the real threat to our country: Christian extremist ideologues? If you are a Christian extremist, and you feel like the public library is offensive, then don't go there. Not everyone in this wonderful country of ours believes in the same things you do, and not everyone agrees with your version of morality. I hope that if legal action does come of it, they lose and have to reimburse the taxpayers for wasting the city's time.

Onto the other story: 'Transgender' Candidate on Prom King Ballot

FRESNO, California (AP) -- When school officials announce the name of the Fresno High School prom king on Saturday, Cinthia Covarrubias will be wearing a tuxedo just like the six boys vying for the honor.

Administrators agreed to reverse a district protocol this week that limited males to compete for the title after Covarrubias was nominated by her classmates.

"I would never have run for anything if I had to wear a dress," said Covarrubias, who considers herself transgender, an umbrella term that covers people whose outward appearance and internal identity don't match their gender at birth.

Gay youth advocates called it a landmark victory for campus gender expression and said they believe it's the first time in the United States that an openly transgender student has run for prom royalty.

"We are growing as a society to accept much more diversity in gender expression, and that's a positive thing," said Carolyn Laub, director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Covarrubias, who wears black-and-white Vans, baggy shorts and close-cropped brown hair, sometimes identifies herself as Tony. Her date, a close female friend, plans to wear a black dress and red corsage to the prom at an outdoor reception hall surrounded by artificial waterfalls.

On Wednesday, officials at the school of 2,700 students shifted course, saying the district's lawyers had recommended adding Covarrubias' name to the ballot to comply with a 2000 state law protecting students' ability to express their gender identity on campus.

"We always want to do the right thing by our students," Vice Principal Sheila Uriarte said. "This is why we came to this decision."

I'm glad that California is leading the way for gay and transgender rights in this country. It also seems as though most people in her age group also approve of Cinthia running for prom king. CNN, being a true fair and balanced news channel, also had opposing views, or rather, an opposing view:

"I like lesbians, but they shouldn't be allowed to run for king," said senior Erich Logan, 18, as he stood outside the stately high school building.

Once again, public schools have to cater to all points of view (or they should), not just those that are confined to traditional heterosexual Christian values. Studies have shown that each generation that passes has a more favorable view of homosexuality, making this current young generation the most liberal with respect to those values. As I am a part of that generation, I couldn't be prouder.

The Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" this includes homosexuals living just like the rest of us, including getting married (yes, married), having children, and receiving medical benefits and inheritance rights. Why is equal rights (not so-called "special" rights) for gays so hard for right-wingers to understand? I guess they believe in the credo from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Quite frankly, that viewpoint is out-of-touch with reality and pathetic.

~ Deep Blue

Update (9:44 AM PDT): As it turns out, story #2 in the Gay Rights stack is scheduled to be covered by Bill Manders today, according to the KKOH website (see the right panel). I can't wait to hear his take, although I can take a stab at what it is. I just hope that he doesn't regurgitate that whole "the Bible says..." argument, or worse, links it to Seung-Hui Cho somehow.

Update (3:20 PM PDT): False alarm on the Manders Watch. Today is a "best-of" episode of Bill Manders from April 4th, 2007 because he is sick. Maybe tomorrow.

Ruminations on a Villain

I wish that I didn't have to do this, but thanks to the incessant media coverage Seung-Hui Cho is getting, I feel like it is my duty to say something to the media:

STOP FOCUSING ON THE GODDAMN SHOOTER!!

I know it may sound crazy, but we as Americans should not give this guy anymore posthumous airtime. Focus on the victims and their heroic acts and innocence. Don't focus on the guy who would've been in a mental hospital if it weren't for Ronald Reagan's mental health budget cuts.

I have to say this, though...stay with me. I have to admit that he was brilliant, in a very sickening sort of way. This mentally sick individual knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. He planned this "media manifesto" 6 days in advance, typing an 1800 word nonsensical rant, taking endless photos with himself posing with his weaponry, recording rambling video (some of which occurred between shootings). He then sent it to the people who he knew would give him exposure: a national news network.

He wanted to be a star. He wanted to be glorified like the Columbine shooters after he killed himself. And NBC fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was a brilliant point to make about the celebrity-obsessed, "if it bleeds it leads" media, but it was the complete wrong way to make it. Thirty-three people needn't have died to make your point. No one needn't have died at all. There are better ways to get your message across. Then again, I'm trying to rationalize an irrational person's thoughts.

Some people say NBC "did the right thing" by turning it over to the FBI after they received it. Bollocks. They made copies of the material so that they would have the exclusive, thinking of their profit margins only, then they sent it to the Feds. Someone on Wednesday night on MSNBC (I forget who it is) even said that they had the right to copy all the material because it was their property. I don't deny that they had the "right" to do so, but they shouldn't have done so. It makes me sick. The manifesto should have become an urban legend, vanishing into some FBI bunker in Quantico. Shame on the media for reveling in this killer's exploitation of that very media. He played all of you for fools.

The problem lies in the media's desire to make money off of everything, especially tragedies such as this. There were even Google ads that were sponsored for people searching "Virginia Tech shootings." A screenshot of when I searched is posted below:


I compare the handling of the manifesto to the Rutgers women's basketball/Imus controversy. These victims died heroically, some defending their classmates, and this villain ruins their moment. Just like Imus ruined the moment of the Rutgers women's basketball season. This time, however, we will never hear an apology from the Imus figure. Not that he would've apologized; in his own head, he was justified.

Because of the excessive airtime that this guy has been receiving, numerous copycats are already showing themselves all across this country. There was even one here in Reno, where an Iraqi war veteran and former University of Nevada student said in an e-mail to a relative that "the Korean was a hero" and that he would be "on a mission" in a few days (source). He was fortunately arrested last night, but not before the UNR campus was closed down. I won't even mention his name because that would give saliency to the argument that Cho made when he sent that damn media manifesto to NBC.

I for one am glad that there will be no victims at UNR. Not from that guy, anyway. But I can't help but wonder if the horrors of the Iraq war made the Reno guy think that way, that maybe his mental condition is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. If that's the case, it would pretty much destroy the idea that this war is a good thing.

Anyway, just some thoughts. No one in their right mind would've done such a thing. I don't think it's a gun thing more than it's a mental health thing, although if Virginia had more stringent gun laws, such as provisions preventing mentally unhealthy people from obtaining guns, this guy would've at least been thwarted on that avenue.

~ Deep Blue

Update (1:12 PM PDT): Speaking of nuts with guns, some breaking news out of the Gun State (or Texas, as you may call it): Gunman Opened Fire at NASA Building, Police Say (CNN), NASA Evacuates Houston Building Amid Alert (MSNBC), Reports: Possible Shooting at Johnson Space Center in Houston (Fox News).

I think it's telling that all these gun crimes happen in places where gun laws are already lax. It really debunks that whole "more guns = less crime" argument. So when a gun crime happens in a place where guns are easy to get, the solution is to make guns easier to get?

Everything you know is wrong, I guess.

Update (4-23 9:46 AM PDT): Minor fix: I transposed "Seung-Hui" and "Cho" so that they are now westernized. I didn't know that Cho was his family (last) name until I read a story about his parents.

John Edwards' Expensive Haircut

Sigh...

AP via The Boston Globe: Edwards' Haircuts Cost a Pretty Penny

Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

A spokeswoman for Edwards' campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

What pisses me off the most about this is that it goes against Edwards' small-town common man image. A small-town common man would get his hair cut at SuperCuts or a local haircut place, not a "hair salon." Way to connect to Middle America, John.

This story is tailor-made for the right-wing. They'll say, "He pays $1275 for 4 haircuts, just like he has that expensive house in North Carolina." Also notice what the first two words of the article are: Looking pretty. Is this author channeling Ann Coulter or something? She sure sounds like she's playing into the "John Edwards is a girlie-man" conservative stereotype.

The right-wing blogs should be picking up on this now, because the story only broke on the AP an hour or so ago. It'll be interesting to hear what they have to say. I better head over to Free Republic.

I (and other progressives like myself) want a Democratic common man (or woman) to lead the way, but many of these Democrats are not it. Hillary Clinton is always schmoozing with Hollywood, and now John Edwards has joined the fray with his celebrity stylist haircuts. I like Edwards' policies, but this incident shows that he's not focusing on that image enough. I also like Barack Obama because it sounds like he is connecting with us common folk. While he raised $24 million, just under Hillary's $25 mil, the FEC records showed that he received money from twice as many donors as Hillary, and more than Hillary and Edwards combined.

And Edwards wonders why he's trailing in the polls and donations. Oh well, at least he reported them, right?

I really want a Democrat to win (surprise surprise), and so I want to help them win. Four haircuts totaling $1275 is not the way to go.

~ Deep Blue

Carnage in Blacksburg

CNN: Officials: Gunman Dead After Bloody Campus Rampage
MSNBC: At Least 33 Dead in Rampage on Virginia Campus
Fox News: Virginia Tech Campus Reels from Shooting that Leaves at Least 33 Dead

It was a horrible tragedy. A lone gunman walked into a dormitory and shot some people, then he shot up a bunch more people in a classroom. Thirty-three people were confirmed dead with dozens more injured.

Fox News calls it the "worst mass shooting in U.S. history," then it asks, in big bold letters:

WHY?

The answer came when I turned on right-wing radio. I knew that as soon as the tragedy started unfolding that I'd have the pleasure of hearing all the gun nuts call up their sanctuaries, the right-wing pundits, and say "I gots ta keep mah gun!"

Some of them were just, I dunno, sickening. One person on the Bill Manders show called up and had the audacity to say that this tragedy didn't happen, that it was all a conspiracy by the left-wing anti-gun people to show the danger of guns. I'm sure that the families of the students who perished would love to know that people actually think that it was a conspiracy.

A majority of callers expressed the desire for people to carry their guns on campus. One caller even related this to the story of a country that allowed people to conceal their guns. His paraphrased call:

Let me tell you the story of a country that had so much gun violence that it allowed people to carry concealed weapons. That country was Israel. Before all the bombings started happening, the Palestinians were shooting Israelis with their guns. When the Israelis could carry guns with them at all times, everything got a lot better there.

Now, let me get that straight, people were allowed to carry guns everywhere...before there were bombings by the Palestinians. I'll say it again, people were allowed to carry guns before there were bombings. So, in other words, we should all carry guns around this country so that the wacky gunmen can resort to bombings? It's just like the arms race of the 1950's that brought about nuclear warheads and the constant threat of nuclear anihilation.

Another person pulled the Blame Society card, saying that kids today have those crazy video games where people can just "get up" after getting shot. Apparently kids are stupid, so they would think that they can shoot their friends with real guns just because they could in Halo 2.

Wow. How dumb can you get?

I grew up with FPS games. 007 Goldeneye is still one of my favorite games, but I never for a moment thought that I could take a Walther PPK and shoot someone, who would then respawn (or "get up"), completely okay, in another part of the city. I doubt that kids are that dumb.

Now, it may sound like I have a beef against all guns. Not true. I support hunters rights to carry weapons, but that's because they have tons of permits and protection behind them. What sort of purpose does a handgun serve? Killing a person. You don't take your handgun to shoot deer.

The solution to this problem is not easy. Pandora's Box has already been opened, and it's damn near impossible to cram it back in. As opposed to gun control, I actually subscribe to the Chris Rock "bullet control" theory.

You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? We need some bullet control. Man, we need to control the bullets, that's right. I think all bullets should cost $5,000. $5,000 for a bullet. You know why? 'Cause if a bullet costs $5000 there'd be no more innocent bystanders. That'd be it. Every time someone gets shot, people will be like... "Sh*t, they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass." People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000. "Man, I would blow your f*cking head off, if l could afford it." ... "You better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway."

Makes sense to me.

~ Deep Blue

CNN: Anti-Kremlin Protesters Clash in St. Petersburg

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Hundreds of anti-Kremlin protesters crowded the streets of St. Petersburg, Russia's second largest city, Sunday and clashed with riot police a day after similar demonstrations in Moscow.

The protesters chanted slogans against President Vladimir Putin, whom they blame for rolling back democratic reforms in Russia and persecuting his political opponents.

Dozens were arrested at the unauthorized St. Petersburg rally, including Eduard Limonov, an opposition leader and member of "The Other Russia" -- a coalition of opposition groups that organized the rally. (full article)

It appears to me that Russia is slowly starting to creep back into Soviet Union territory as of late. The rollback of personal freedoms in that country is troubling but not surprising. Russia has been a corrupt country throughout the Cold War and afterwards, with many oligarchs controlling the industry. In fact, in the 2007 Freedom in the World survey (link), Russia has a rating of 6 for political rights and a 5 for civil liberties (on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is the most free), giving it a ranking of "not free."

If our goal is to spread freedom around the world, why is Russia not free? Why aren't we invading the former Communist country in a pre-emptive strike to help this repressed people? I mean, they have valuable natural gas, oil, and timber, and they have tired huddled masses yearning to be free.

Oh, I guess it's because they're white. That's why we don't do it. That and the fact that they have 2500 nukes that could be directed at our coastline.

We need to use what little credibility we have in the world to promote freedom through diplomatic means everywhere, not just in Arab countries that just happen to have oil.

~ Дип Блу

One Racist Shock-Jock to Go...

(For those of you born after 1986, the title is based on the title of one of Imus' comedy albums from the 1970's, One Sacred Chicken to Go)

Today would've been the last day that Don Imus would've been on the air before his 2 week suspension. Of course this is before he got fired from CBS radio on Thursday, so his wife Dierdre filled in for him on his radio telethon. Imus was fired just before he met with the Rutgers basketball team. He still kept the appointment, which I feel shows genuine concern and remorse for his actions.

Now this does not mean that his comment should be excused. I for one blame him for not having enough self-control and awareness that this is, in fact, the 21st century, and people tend to be a bit touchy when you call them "nappy-headed hos." His shock-jock schtick got old in the 1970's.

That being said, you know how some people when they're not paying attention repeat the last thing that was heard, then hurriedly continue with another train of thought? I think that's what Imus did. It was his executive producer, Bernard McGuirk, that said that the team was full of "hardcore hos," which initiated Imus' comments. McGuirk further commented that they were "jiggaboos and wannabes," referencing a Spike Lee film. These comments were very racially charged, as McGuirk has had other run-ins with racist comments in the past. Therefore, McGuirk deserves some of the blame.

Then there's MSNBC and CBS Radio. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up to broadcast and simulcast Imus in the 1990's. He's a shock-jock, for Christ's sake. It would be as if ABC Family signed up to simulcast Howard Stern and then became shocked — shocked! — when he talked about sex acts. They knew his style, which is why they wanted him, but they couldn't take the heat when their (fading) star said something offensive. They both deserve some of the blame.

The advertisers should have known too. Once again, he's a shock-jock. What part of "shock" don't they understand? If you don't want the shock, don't advertise the jock. Period.

The problem that Imus' firing brings about, however appropriate it may be, is the free-speech chilling effect that it could have. While it may result in more heads rolling (Rush Limbaugh for mocking Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's Disease, Michael Savage for his endless tirades against gays and lesbians, Glenn Beck for his Muslimophobia, etc.), it could reach into other arenas. For example, the Stephanie Miller Show, a liberal political talk/entertainment/comedy show on KJFK, bills itself as "too liberal for conservatives, too politically incorrect for liberals," which is kind of like this blog sometimes. One of their features is Stand-Up News, where "voice-deity" Jim Ward imitates public figures based on news stories. What if Jim Ward's imitation of Kim Jong-Il rubs Koreans the wrong way? Stephanie Miller's name is on the show, so she'll get canned, which cans her other two mooks.

In other words, the Don Imus comment situation could be the Nipplegate of talk radio.

I am a big advocate of positive race relations, but I am also a big advocate of free speech. I can disagree with the KKK and their vile hate speech, but I have to support their right to say it. I have to, so that I can have the same freedom of speech to call KKK members names such as bigots and white-hooded hicks.

Uh oh, I called klansmen "white-hooded hicks." I guess I gotta go meet them now and apologize.

~ Deep Blue

Update (3:22 PM PDT): Oh man, Bill Manders is playing into the talking point that Imus is a liberal Democrat. No liberal Democrat would support McCain, Manders, and he said that he is the only Republican in Manhattan. He may be a RINO, but then again, a RINO may not vote for McCain either. Manders is once again living in Right-Wing Fantasy World where everyone in talk radio is liberal and he is the great crusader.

I also like his comments about blogs, saying that other bloggers are calling for his head and that there are 3 blog readers and 50 blogs in Northern Nevada. Well, apparently he's one of those readers, because he wouldn't know about what us bloggers are doing if he weren't.

I am not calling for his head at this point in time because his rhetoric and talking points are tired and flaccid. They've already been talked about on Rush and Hannity before him, so he sounds like an angry grandfather telling "those damn kids" to get off his lawn and support the war. And yet I'm drawn to him, drawn to commenting about his every move. I guess I'm his watchdog. Well, one of them anyway. And even if no one reads my blog, I'll still do it. Every talk show needs to be held accountable for those kinds of things, even the almighty Bill Manders.

Deep Blue on Thom Hartmann

Just wanted to let you all know that I got on the Thom Hartmann program today, towards the tail-end of the second hour of his show, to talk about the Manders incident. He thought that it was great, saying "Good on ya, Deep Blue!" after I quickly recapped my experience to him. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to mention that I stopped him short of his expected path: Bashing Al Gore (probably also jabbing him about global warning) and illegal immigration in conjunction with Democratic policies. Nor was I able to mention that I wrote about it in my blog.

It was great talking with him, and I hope that I get on again in the future for another reason.

Maybe I should start pestering Manders and Michael Lafferty of the RN&R and any other right-winger who peddles in lies.

~ Deep Blue

Manders on Social Security = Wrong!

Sorry for the lack of posts...my job's been a killer lately.

So I got a little bit of a pleasant surprise as I was wending my way home yesterday. I was listening to Bill Manders on KOH rant about God knows what (probably something to do with illegal immegration or Nancy Pelosi's Syria trip, two of his favorite topic as of late), and all of a sudden he switches gears. He says that he is about to read something that will either "light up the phone boards" or make the lines go silent, as in something that either everyone or no one knows. So I perked up my ears and took a listen.

Then he began reading something I heard before. On liberal talk. Where they debunked everything line by line thanks to a well-researched Snopes article (link).

What did he read? Social Security talking points.

He asked for people to give the answer to a program that originally:

1. Was completely voluntary
2. Participants would only pay 1% of the first $1400 of income
3. Monies invested would be tax-deductible, and
4. Annuity payments would not be taxed as income.

I had to call. To be fair, I didn't hear those last two (or know if those last two were even spoken) because I was dialing and talking to the call screener about my answer. I didn't want to give out my real name (though I toyed with "Blue"), so I gave the first name I could think of: Roy, after Roy Rogers. I was put on hold.

Whilst on hold, I heard that Manders pick up another person's line, a guy by the name of Steve. Steve correctly stated that it was Social Security that Manders was talking about. Since the Social Security list came out of a spam e-mail, I have a feeling that's where he heard it. The whole e-mail is full of anti-Democrat lies that have been well documented and debunked, so I was confident that I could set them straight if I got on the air.

I have to tell you before I continue: It's easier to scream at a radio host when you're not on the phone with him. Also, some of the wording may not be the same as how it actually happened, but the spirit is the same. I didn't tape it (I wish I had) and don't have a transcript. If you do, my e-mail's to the right.

Anyway, I was listening to Steve's exchange with Manders, who asked the caller about which president took Social Security from the independent fund and put it in the General fund. He didn't know, so Manders said "Let's see if Roy knows."

Showtime.

He asked me the same question, and I said that I too did not know. (The correct answer is no president, because the money has not been moved since the program's inception in 1939, but I honestly didn't know off-hand.) He asked me what I wanted to talk about, and I responded that I was going to answer "Social Security" as my answer but that he talked to Steve first. He then had both of us stay on, as sort of a competition to see who knew the talking points more. The killer for me: He called us "smart guys." Oh Manders, if you only knew...

He then moved down the line and asked us a question that I did know the answer to: I don't remember at this point in time, but I know it began with "Which political party..." Steve answered "The Democrats." Manders then asked me, and I said, "Well, I would say the Democrats, but the problem is that it would be a lie that was debunked on Snopes.com."

Manders was taken aback for a quick second but kept going. "It's all a lie, huh." I said something to the effect of "Yeah, it originated from a spam e-mail going around." He said that in fact he had compiled all of these "facts" (my air quotes). Not knowing how to react, I said, "Oh, I though you got those from an e-mail because the $1400 thing tipped me off."

That was it. I was done. He said "Nice talkin' to you," and I said, "No problem."

There were many things that I should have said. I should've told him that I heard the same talking points two days ago on the Thom Hartmann show on Air America. I should've told the listeners that the truth is out there. I should have said my blog name, or at least something more intelligent than "no problem," but that was that. I turned off my cell and continued listening.

Not surprisingly, Steve "won" the debate. However, I believe that this debate ended prematurely. Manders was going to go on down the line, spouting falsehoods all the way. I bet he would've gone down to Al Gore causing the taxation of Social Security annuities in 1993 (they were taxed at 50% in 1983, a joint effort from President Reagan and the Democratically-controlled Congress; the 1993 effort made that 85%). He then would've mentioned his personal favorite, given his propensity to talking about immigrants every other show: Jimmy Carter and the Democrats started giving annuity payments to immigrants who never would've paid a dime into the system. Which would've segued into a tirade about the Democrats and immigration, sliding into the topic of illegal immigrants and the Millennium Scholarship, his topic on today's show.

But he didn't get that far. I cut him short, and he wasn't interested in having someone steal his thunder. He just said, "Yeah, Social Security is not what it was intended to be," without a second thought to "Roy". I just wish I had a print-out of the Snopes page in front of me, where I could've quoted part of the Social Security Act.

Oh well, too many coulda-woulda-shoulda's. Time to focus on the future. I'm going to call Thom Hartmann on AAR tomorrow to tell him about my experience. To the rest of you, keep on the lookout for right-wingers spouting the same lies about Social Security. I provided the debunking link above, but here it is again: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp.

~ Deep Blue a.k.a. "Roy"

Tony Snow Has Colon Cancer Resurgence

The big story today is that White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's colon cancer has returned (source 2 3 4). Snow battled colon cancer two years ago successfully, but now a new crop of the same cancer has shown up in his liver. It was removed on Monday, and Snow is reportedly in good spirits, optimistic about his chances for survival.

Today, I urge all liberals, progressives, moderate-lefties and true patriots to stand with Tony Snow and send up your prayers to him and his family, just as we have done with Elizabeth Edwards last week. I feel like anything less would be hypocritical and inhuman, so please, think of him. This disease transcends political boundaries.

That being said, I decided to perform a little test to see how hard-core conservatives would react to a liberal offering good wishes to Tony Snow. I created a login name on freerepublic.com, the Freepers' domain, under Deep Blue Nevada. After acquiring my password (promptly changed), I posted a message of support for Snow on a thread (this one). It went a-little something like this:

Off the bat, I have to say that as a liberal, I may not agree with everything that you guys say most of the time.

However, my thoughts and prayers are now with Tony Snow. I wish all the best for him and his family, just as I have wished all the best for Elizabeth Edwards and his family. To do any less would be inhuman and soulless of me.

This disease reaches across the aisle, as it is a tragedy when anyone is afflicted with it, especially after previous occurrences. Having two family members that have died of cancer helps me identify with, and pray for, Tony and Elizabeth and anyone else suffering from it.

~ Deep Blue

I posted this message around 10:13 AM PDT on 3/27/2007. It told me that the post would be "reviewed," probably because of earlier abuse from other Freepers. Here is a picture of that page:

I then waited to see when it would show up and what the reaction would be. Five minutes went by. Then 10. Now it's been almost 25 minutes and my post hasn't shown up.

Now, it is their site and they can manage it anyway they please. But it will be a sad commentary on how they act if they decide that a liberal reaching across the aisle is not worthy of server time. I was not inflammatory (well, the first sentence could be), and I was not mean-spirited...I just wanted to show my support for Snow's battle. I haven't even called him by his nickname once in this post.

I will periodically check back to see if I've been approved, rejected, rebuked, and/or kicked off the site. I hope they lighten up over there.

~ Deep Blue

Update (10:58 AM PDT): My post still hasn't shown up, so I fired off an inquiry to the webmaster asking him if he could check on the status of my post to see where it went. I'll update ASAP.

Update (11:08 AM PDT): My comment was posted at 10:55 AM PDT on this page. I am post #480 on the page, shown here:

And now I play the waiting game...

Update (12:33 PM PDT): I received my first response from a Freeper who said that they went to Edwards' site and left them a message of prayer for them. I'm glad that the first response to my post was a positive one. Every word I said in that post was true and sincere, and I'm glad that I've at least got some people thinking about it. That's all I really wanted to do: show people that this disease knows no ideology, and that we should pray for recoveries for everybody. In some regard, it changes my admittedly preconceived notions about all Freepers.

Update (1:22 PM PDT): I just realized I made a typo when I posted my original message. I said "...Elizabeth Edwards and his family..." as opposed to "her family." My mistake. I will not correct it on this site because I cannot correct it on FreeRepublic. Stupid copy/paste and not proofreading...


Update (3:59 PM PDT): I got another positive response from a Freeper, saying that it took me a lot of courage coming in here. It really did...I had no clue what the response would be, just my aforementioned preconceived notions. I wish that more liberals would wish Tony Snow the best, in spite of his political leanings.

All my responses can be viewed here.

Do You Enjoy Being Shot At?

If you do, then International Executive Services, LLC, has the job opportunity of a lifetime!

You too can join other contracted employees in the Middle East fighting terrorists who plot against the United States! Dodge IEDs in the desert while making $134k - $200k per year with an 80 percent tax exemption! Do the job our military isn't getting paid nearly enough to do with equipment and weapons the 109th Congress wasn't ballsy enough to provide! The best part: Training only takes a grand total of eight weeks!

Sound like the job for you?

Not really.

The sad part is, it's all true. We have private contractors doing the military's job.

This International Executive Services LLC, website found at internationalexecutives.net, is now recruiting bodyguards to help be "part of the Security to help protect against anti terrorist that attempt to plot destruction against the United States." While they are clear to say that "[t]his site isn't a part of the U.S. Border Patrol or Homeland Security," this is clearly the job that these recruits are planning to do. It makes sense; we have corporations providing food to our troops, doing kitchen patrol, acting as mercenaries, torturing terror suspects, even taking over Walter Reed. Corporate armies are the next logical step, and it makes me sick.

They're advertising their jobs all across the country. I first learned about this on the Randi Rhodes Show on Air America, when a caller mentioned that this company was advertizing in the penny ads of a Brooklyn paper. I did a little digging (with some difficulty, because apparently International Executive Services is a business term and an unrelated non-profit organization in addition to this horrible company) and found that they also advertized for this position in Vegas (source), which means they could show up in Reno. On the company website detailing the position (source), the job requirements require the applicant to have 2 years experience in the military, 2 years experience as a police officer, or a 2-year degree in criminal justice. My guess is not too many applicants will have a degree.

By performing a WHOIS search of the domain (source), I found that the company that owns the domain name is TSV Group of White Plains, NY. According to their website (source), TSV Group is "a technology driven search and new media company that focuses on search marketing, local search and online comparison shopping," and apparently counter-terrorism contracts. They "[own] a network of local search and online shopping Web sites with millions of visitors each month, including more than 5,000 local-based Web properties." I checked their list of websites that they own, and International Executive Services is suspiciously absent from the list. Hmm...is it that they want to portray an image that doesn't involve crappy graphics of rotating handguns?

By the way, check out their photo gallery (source). Among pictures of these mercenaries in action include the stereotypical bald eagle superimposed on an American flag and a happy corporate woman on a laptop. That picture looks like it was stolen from a pay photo website...it even has a swirl watermark over it!

The point is: we don't need yet another contractor messing up a volatile Middle East situation. There's a reason why it takes a long time to train our soldiers. These mercenaries are luring our citizens into a dangerous situation where they are accountable to no-one and no government. We have enough to worry about from government mess-ups...we don't need World War III brought to you by TSV Group.

If you want to contact them and tell them that their job is a disservice to our armed forces, they can be reached at:

International Executive Services, LLC
c/o TSV Group
1 North Lexington Avenue, 5th Floor
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone 1: 1-914-328-5510
Phone 2: 1-914-428-8206
Toll-Free: 1-800-601-6603
Fax: 1-914-428-8251
update@webimage.com (an e-mail address associated with the domain registration)

LEGAL MUMBO-JUMBO: Since this information can be dug up using the links above, I am not legally responsible for any correspondences that come from this website.

~ Deep Blue

Low-TIDE

On its main page tonight, MSNBC has an interesting story: Terror Database Casts a Wide Net, by way of the Washington Post.

The gist of the article is that it documents the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, "a storehouse for data about individuals that the intelligence community believes might harm the United States."

While cataloguing terrorists and their activites is a good idea in practice, the execution...well, sucks. First of all, the sheer amount of data coming into the TIDE system is overwhelming it. In 2003, the system managed 100,000 files; now, it has 435,000. Simply put, it is outgrowing its britches faster than a kid with a thyroid problem, and the people who manage it are having a hell of a time keeping in good working order.

Now I've worked with databases, and unless you know what you're doing and have enough people to manage it, it becomes very easy to corrupt and compromise the data. I feel sorry for these guys. It must really stress them out being overwhelmed by this system.

TIDE also casts a wide net. U.S. citizen and foreigner are combined into a single database for the first time, according to the article, and that has led to many mix-ups due to similar names and appearances. Worse still, once you're on the list, it's damn near impossible to get off. This problem is most likely a combination of poor design and the overworked managers listed above. They have to sift through thousands of documents daily to see what information is critical to TIDE. As a result, some vital information can slip through the cracks and other irrelevant information can gain importance, leading to mistakes. One famous one is that Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' wife was once stopped because her name (Catherine), when shortened, matches a famous folk-singer who converted to Islam and changed his name (the former Cat Stevens, now Yousef Islam). Yousef is banned from flying into the United States for undisclosed reasons.

Don't get me wrong. Intelligence gathering on terrorists is a good thing when done right. It sounds like this program is too bloated and ineffective at getting to the real terrorists while being all too effective at keeping those sleeper-cell senators' wives off them airplanes. For a massive database that I imagine costs billions of dollars to set-up and maintain, I'm surprised that it's not working well. Actually, I'm not surprised, but still saddened. They need to work out the kinks and get it protecting us from those international terrorists that do want to do us harm, not American citizens that just want to fly home with no delays.

~ Deep Blue

P.S. I'm purposefully not mentioning the Tony Snow/stomach surgery story. If I criticize people for making fun of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer struggle, and then proceed to make fun of Tony Snow's cancer struggle or accuse him of using it to his advantage, that would stoop me to their level. I wish him the best and hope for a speedy recovery.

Besides, there's still plenty to make fun of Zippy for, anyway.

Friday Funstack I

Being a major computer nerd, I thought that I'd take a break from politics and give my opinion on something that bugs the crap out of me: Comic Sans MS.

That's right, a font. For those not familiar, here's a sample:

I hate this damn font. It's not quite right for comic books, but too cute for anything else. Furthermore, it's overused. It was overused the first time it was used. On products, business signs, documents, computer programs, even MySpace...Comic Sans MS is everywhere. The only reason that it's around is probably because President Bush writes his memos in it before Cheney proofreads them for spelling and grammatical errors.

It needs to die and never be resurrected again.

I am not the only one who thinks this way. Yes, there is an entire site devoted to banning the ubiquitous typeface. Head on over to Ban Comic Sans and support the movement to off this typeface.

Macs have an equivalent called Chalkboard that is even worse because it's a derivative of a crappy font. Chalkboard is the Arial to Comic Sans' Helvetica. It should die twice and be drawn and quartered.

I feel dirty comparing Comic Sans to Helvetica, but I know designers' hatred for Arial, so you get the idea.

So ban Comic Sans, and punch anyone over the age of 18 using it for any important document or website design.

That's it for now. I'm off to add signatures to the bottoms of my earlier posts.

~ Deep Blue

Friday News Roundup

Here are the stories that got buried yesterday and that are being talked about today:

• Bush Campaigner's Conviction in New Hampshire Phone Jamming Case Overturned
  
  Yesterday, the US Court of Appeals First Circuit overturned the conviction of James Tobin, the Bush campaign chair for New England druing the 2004 election. He was convicted of jamming Democratic voting drive phone lines during the 2002 New Hampshire Senate election. Tobin, sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, 2 years probation, and a $10,000 fine, claimed throughout the trial that he had no clue about 800 hang-up phone calls placed to the get-out-the-Democratic-vote numbers. According to the first circuit, no intent to harass was alleged, proved, or disputed by the parties.
  
  Now I know why Laura Ingraham didn't get caught when she advocated people from her show jamming "1-800-DUMB-VOTE."
  
  That being said, others involved, including Allen Raymond, the former president of Republic consulting group GOP Marketplace, and Chuck McGee, the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party, were convicted to the scheme. McGee actually admitted that he "paid a Virginia telemarketing company more than $15,000 in a scheme to jam Democratic Party phone lines with computer-generated calls."
  
  
• George P. Bush Signs Up for Naval Reserve
  
  President Bush's nephew has decided to join the Naval Reserve as an intelligence officer, being commissioned for an eight-year service. He said he was moved into joining the service when he attended the commissioning of the USS George H.W. Bush. "My grandfather's my hero, and what really sold me on the ultimate decision was having the chance to see the CVN-77 be commissioned under his name," he said. "That was pretty moving, and I had a chance to meet some Navy admirals, as well. I had a chance to talk to them briefly about the opportunity, and I was won over." At the bottom of the article, Bush said that he wouldn't talk about his own political plans, but "friends say they believe the family may soon be in store for another gubernatorial campaign."
  
  This is just what this country needs right now: Yet another offspring of the Bush dynasty in politics. Gag me.
  
  On a side note, it's the first time "Bush" and "intelligence" has been in the same sentence since H.W. was in the CIA. And I'm still holding out for the twins joining the Army infantry.
  
  
• UK Soldiers Captured at Gunpoint by Iranians
  
  Fifteen British Navy sailors have been captured close to the Iraq-Iran border aboard the HMS Cornwall. The sailors, on routine patrol, are so far unharmed, and that the 15 people were "understood to be safe and had reacted in an 'extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement.' "
  
  The reason for the Iranians capturing the sailors could be due to the dispute between Iraq and Iran over the waterway the ship was patrolling. This waterway, according to CBS Radio News, was in dispute between Iran and Iraq ever since Iraq was created. The British fleet claims that they were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians claim they were in Iranian waters, and everybody hopes it was just a mistake over territorial waters claim.
  
  I for one hope that the soldiers are okay and that they are returned safe and expediently. I also hope that this is not the major Tonkin-esque event that draws the Coalition of the Willing into open conflict with Tehran. Iran is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation: The Iranians themselves want freedom, and we should give it to them, but China and Russia have oil interests in Iran and will defend their investment disproportionate to the attack from the West. My worry: We send a few missiles into Iranian airspace and the Eastern Seaboard gets nuked by Beijing and Moscow, putting the Sino-Soviet split to bed and starting World War III. That conflict will be worse than any conflict the right-wingers have seen (mostly because they all got deferments from Vietnam).
  
  Here's an overview of the area, courtesy BBC:
  

I'm waiting for comments from the GOPeanut Gallery on the Iran story. Should be interesting.

~ Deep Blue

Elizabeth Edwards' Cancer Returns

John Edwards announced that his wife's cancer has returned, but that he will not be suspending his 2008 presidential campaign bid after discussing it with Elizabeth (source).

The cancer was found in a cracked rib over the past few days. This isn't Elizabeth's first bout with cancer, receiving treatment for breast cancer in 2004 during the Kerry Campaign.

Not to be hindered by this latest setback, Edwards says that he will still run. "You can go cower in the corner and hide or you can go out there and stand up for what you believe in," he said. "We have no intentions of cowering in the corner" (same source as above).

Good for him. The decision to continue to run for president is a family decision, and it reinforces the great family values that this country stands for. I wish that more people in both parties would be more like him, although I've noticed that more of those people come from the left. I really wish the best for the two of them and their family.

That being said, I can't wait to hear what the right-wingers are gonna say about him. Will Ann "Succubus" Coulter say Edwards is a "faggot" for not stepping down? What will Rush say? What will Manders say?

I think I'm gonna have to go into Right-Wing Radio World and find out. (Why do I always feel so dirty when I say that?)

~ Deep Blue

Edit: Rush Limbaugh is hinting on his radio show at 9:52 AM PDT that the Edwards campaign will be testing the waters to see if there's a "bump" from this story, almost insinuating that Edwards revealed it to help his campaign as opposed to showing actual concern. His response to people calling him callous? "That's politics." No, Rush, that's sickening.

Further Edit: The Freepers are out in force echoing Rush about Edwards exploiting his wife's illness (link). There are a couple that sympathize, and some even say that Edwards was being very genuine, but most decide to make one-lines calling him every name under the sun for having the audacity to continue running (a joint decision between John and Elizabeth, remember) in the face of this terrible announcement. Thank you, sick predictable right-wingers, for proving my point. This is the reason while I will never become a conservative.

Furtherer Edit: Apparently I wasn't the only one on the left who caught Rush Limbaugh's comment about Edwards using his wife's illness as a boost to his campaign. Not only was this talked about on Air America by Stacy Taylor (filling in for Randi Rhodes) for the first two hours of his show, but also MSNBC's Countdown's Keith Olbermann named El Rushbo the Worst Person in the World for the stunt. Of course Rush won't apologize. After all, "that's politics."

Watch the clip here.

Zippy's Column

Gonzogate Update - March 22:

Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow is still defending President Bush's right to executive privilege in press conferences. This is in stark contrast to his opinion of President Clinton's right to executive privilege in a March 29, 1998 Detroit News column, as reprinted by the Chicago Tribune on March 21, 2007 (link). I've decided to take out all references to Clinton, exchange them for Bush references whenever possible (bolded), and reprint the article below. Enjoy:

From Day One, the chief challenge facing this White House has been to place maximum distance between George W. Bush and his behavior. That strategy has succeeded, but only with the help of mighty assaults on our common sense.

In order to exonerate the chief, aides have made fantastic claims: that they lied to their personal diaries, that Velcro-brained lawyers couldn't recall crucial incidents, that e-mails vanished or moved from one place to another as if by magic, that scores of people with nothing to gain from lying nevertheless perjured themselves, and that this contagion of amnesia, sloppiness and venality was just the gosh darnedest series of coincidences ever witnessed by man or beast.

The wall of separation between Mr. Bush and his deeds remains strong because minions have stuck to their alibis. But now comes an episode in which the Man from War stands alone. It is his recent attempt to claim executive privilege for Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Mr. Bush can't blame his lawyers for this latest feint. He alone can assert the privilege. The maneuver places him at the heart of his administration's ongoing effort to use executive privilege as a way of concealing the truth about whether the president exposed himself. It is almost impossible to think of this as anything but a tactic to delay Congress long enough for Alberto Gonzales and other red-ant assailants to nibble at Congress and pump as much venom as possible into the political system.

Consider the key issues:

• Are former White House counsels subject to privilege?

*snip of Hillary Clinton material that doesn't sync up*

• What kinds of conversations does executive privilege protect?

The courts have said a president generally can shield communications that reveal fundamental deliberative processes. That includes communications between aides as they try to develop recommendations for their boss.

But protected conversations involve predictable categories: military, diplomatic or national security secrets or law-enforcement activities. Jurists haven't found a constitutional writ for protecting damage-control meetings involving allegations of using politics to fire attorneys. So unless Alberto Gonzales were ... advising the president on nuclear proliferation or the tobacco deal, the assertion of privilege seems highly suspect.

• What are the limits on privilege?

Earlier in the Clinton administration, then-White House legal counsel Lloyd Cutler decreed that the White House never would assert privilege in the face of a criminal investigation. He merely was reiterating long-standing executive-branch policy along those lines. President Ronald Reagan didn't invoke privilege in Iran-contra, and neither did President George Bush.

But precedent is gone, and Mr. Bush wants to protect conversations about subverting checks and balances. In so doing, he becomes the second president since Richard Nixon to use executive privilege in a criminal inquiry. (Deep Blue note on the "second": fair is fair)

Evidently, Mr. Bush wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Bush values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Bush will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.

Hypocrisy's a bitch, ain't it Zippy?

Aside from parts excluded about Hillary (which I almost could turn into a Harriet Miers comment if it weren't for the Kennedy Law), it translates perfectly.

Also of note is the comparison between Gonzogate and the -gate that started it all. In the 3,000 pages of e-mails released by the DOJ a couple of days ago, a 16-day gap was found, the loudest silence since the 18½ minute gap on the Nixon tapes. President Bush doesn't use e-mail (source), Alberto Gonzales doesn't use e-mail (source), and Harriet Miers has alleged that she doesn't use much e-mail (heard on Thom Hartmann show, 3-22-2007 9:17 AM PDT), so how do you think they communicated and why do you think the gap exists?

~ Deep Blue

Zippy Ruins a Bush Talking Point

Ellen Ratner of the Talk Radio News Service called the Thom Hartmann show on Air America Radio at 11:35 AM PDT today to give an update on the Ed Henry/Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow debacle. For back-story, what I didn't include yesterday in my Gonzogate post (because the news was coming so fast and furious) was that President Bush turned cowboy, making all sorts of veiled threats when the Democrats started threating subpoena power for his officials. The Democrats, spines intact, voted to allow subpoenas to be presented to White House officials today. Let's hope they don't wuss out.

Anyway, Zippy gave a press conference today saying that the decision to fire the attorneys wasn't made by President Bush or anyone in the White House but someone underneath him in the Executive Branch hierarchy. At this point, Henry asked "If the decision wasn't made by a White House official, why is the president using executive privilege to prevent White House officials from testifying under oath on these matters?"

Zippy's response was classic: "That's an intriguing question."

That's it. Four words long. And he never came back to it, according to Ellen Ratner.

This proves one of three things:

a. They're lying about not authorizing the attorney firings and they don't want to be found out.
b. They're telling the truth about not authorizing the attorney firings but don't want to reveal that they exerted influence on certain people.
c. They didn't have anything to do with Gonzogate but don't want this to set a precedent for subpoenas on, say, election fraud in 2000 or 2004, or misleading the country into Iraq, etc. ad infinitum.

It's not that they fear Gonzogate will be a media circus, it's that they fear their cronyism will be uncovered. Zippy showed that when he destroyed Bush's talking point on not allowing officials to testify under oath. The whole Executive Branch makes me sick.

I'm just glad the media is waking up from their post-9/11 slumber.

~ Deep Blue

Gonzogate Update

For those of you just tuning in, Alberto Gonzales just got bitch-slapped by the Senate. In a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that put the kibosh on a section of the Patriot Act, authored by the Justice Department, that allowed the embattled attorney general to fill vacant federal prosecutor seats without Senate confirmation and oversight (source). His resignation seems imminent (source).

Naturally, whenever any senior official is embroiled in scandal, President Bush gives out his "Heckuva Job" Award to that official before accepting (or forcing?) his resignation. This month, Gonzo joins Rummy and Brownie as the newest recipient (MSNBC source above).

The Justice Department, meanwhile, also released 3,000 pages of e-mails to congressional investigators, who will now sift through this material to determine wrongdoing on behalf of J.D. officials (MSNBC source above). I think it won't be long until they find something. Hell, they've already found a bunch of e-mails stating the original goal of firing all 93 prosecutors in one go, eventually reducing that number to 20% of prosecutors deemed to be "underperforming," keeping only the ones who were "loyal Bushies" (source).

The right-wing regressives are all up in arms over the Democrats' determination to bring this to light, whining on various sites (such as Free Republic) about all of the injustices that Democratic presidents did to the prosecutors when they were in office. For example, on one article called "Selective Amnesia on firing US Attorneys" (link), one Freeper pulls a reductio ad Clintonum, saying that Slick Willy fired them all (at the beginning of his term) and the mainstream media isn't mentioning it at all.

The problem with this logic is that while yes, Clinton did fire them all at the beginning of his term, so did Bush. This is the executive privilege that all presidents have. I and my liberal counterparts do not care that Bush and Clinton (and probably Bush Sr. and Reagan and Carter and…) fired the attorneys at the beginning of their terms. I don't even care that Bush did it 6 years in. That's not what matters.

What matters is why Bush fired only eight attorneys who had stellar performance reviews for investigating Republicans (such as with Duke Cunningham in California) and not investigating Democrats, according to congressional Democrats (source). What also matters is why Bush snuck in a provision in the PATRIOT Act saying that he can appoint any attorney without Senate confirmation. Bush hasn't seen a check-and-balance loophole he didn't like (why do you think he's using those signing statements all the time?), so naturally, he'd jump on the bandwagon on this one too.

I also like how rejected potential Supreme Court justice Harriet Miers was thrown under the bus again by the Bush administration, saying that she was the one who had initiated the program in 2005. Our old buddy Karl Rove also was accused of having a hand in this, because he does have a hand in lots of other scandals in Red Washington (source).

I really hope that when the Gonzales hits the fan for the Republicans that the Democrats grow a spine and do what we as a nation elected them to do: clean up our capitol. Right-wing corruption and cronyism appears systemic in the Executive branch, but apparently those held in GOP hypnosis in the Legislature are starting to wake up. The 94-2 majority to revoke the PATRIOT Act provision demonstrates that this is not a political issue but an ethics/morals issue.

The vote on the bill, S. 214, can be found here. Here are 2 that voted no and the 4 that didn't vote:

• Joe Biden (D-DE) - Did Not Vote


• Kit Bond (R-MO) - No


• Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - No


• Tim Johnson (D-SD) - Did Not Vote recovering from brain surgery


• John McCain (R-AZ) - Did Not Vote


• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) - Did Not Vote

I'd like to know why Biden, Bond, Hagel, McCain, and Mikulski voted (or didn't vote) the way they did, especially McCain.

~ Deep Blue

Breaking News (12:00 pm PDT): Rove and Miers will be interviewed by committees probing the attorney firings, but not testify under oath., says Rep. Chris Cannon by way of CNN (source). Additionally, it will be behind closed doors with no transcripts, and "[a] representative of the Office of the Counsel to the President would attend these interviews and personal counsel to the invited officials may be present at their election" (source)

So they will once again sidestep the blame. Great, the same old song and dance. Why am I not surprised?

This cartoon from CNN's Bill Mitchell says it all:

Update (2:45 pm PDT): Patrick Leahy (D-VT) rejects the offer for interviews, stating that Rove needs to answer questions under oath and on the record, according to CNN's home page and MSNBC. I guess the Democrats are growing spines after all. Good on ya!

Is Tony Snow Dr. Evil?

Off-camera before a press conference today, Tony Snow lambasted the Democrats for supporting a so-called "Recipe for Defeat" for Iraq in the House today. Undaunted, CNN's Ed Henry decided to ask what the White House's corresponding "Recipe for Success" was. Snow, snotty and indignant, proceeded to ask Henry what his recipe for success was. Henry objected to the question, as it is not up to a reporter to define governmental policy, and repeated the question, where at that time Snow told Henry to "zip it" (source with video clip). Apparently, Snow revealed his true age to be five.

Snow eventually apologized and laid out the plan, which consisted of turning things over to the Iraqis at some point (without elaboration) but admitting "[y]ou don't know how things will play out" (same source).

Henry stated that it's the same thing that's been said for four years and one day now. I really wish that I had podcasting set up because at this point I'd play Sinatra's "Same Old Song and Dance" à la Bill Manders whenever he talks smack about the Democrats as of late. Put it on the to-do list, I suppose.

Which brings me to the question of the day: Is Tony Snow really Dr. Evil? I think I'm gonna start calling him "Zippy Longstocking" from now on. That's a great nickname.

~ Deep Blue

Another Great Wolf Pack Year Ends

7 Nevada 62 (Final)
2 Memphis 78

Congratulations Wolf Pack on another great year!

~ Deep Blue

RN&R - Catering to Californians?

So I was out and about today, and I decided to pick up the latest issue of the Reno News & Review. It had a cover story that listed all soldiers who have died so far in the War in Iraq. It is very striking to me that over 3,000 have died fighting in a country where not one of the 9/11 hijackers was from.

However, today is not the day where I give an anti-war rant. The cover is the focus of this blog entry. It has a darkened American flag overlaid by a partial list of the names inside and a pair of unworn Army boots. A small image of the cover is provided at the left, courtesy of the Reno News & Review website.

What caught my eye is that on the partial list, only the names of Californians are bolded. This would not be such a big deal normally, considering that California is only 10 miles away as the crow flies. However, not a single Nevada soldier was highlighted. Take a look at this scan from the front page below; Sgt. Evan Asa Ashcraft of California has his name bolded, but Capt. Joshua Todd Byers of Nevada is not.

I investigated a little bit on the RN&R website and found that the Sacramento News & Review and the Chico News & Review both have the same cover. So the RN&R has been the victim of a recycled cover, as if somebody did not want to do the extra work of making a separate cover that included Nevada's dead soldiers...only California's.

Now, I'm not saying that Nevada's fallen soldiers are more important than California's or vice versa...every one is important. However, for a Nevada audience, Nevada's soldiers should get the respect on the front cover that they deserve. It's as simple as that.

I should note that on the inside, this mistake was not duplicated. I hope in the future that the News & Review team honors our state's fallen soldiers by highlighting their names on the cover as a testament to how the war affects all of us.

~ Deep Blue

Edit: I guess this might take me out of the running for RN&R's "Best Local Blogger" award.