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

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.

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.

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 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!