Wednesday, May 30, 2007


The Senate Intelligence committee has just released a CIA sponsored report from the National Intelligence Counsel, which was prepared and delivered to the Bush administration two months prior to going to war. Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not listen, because the report is alarmingly accurate in its predictions for sending troops into Iraq. The report predicts the following scenarios, which have come to pass...
The recovery of Al Qaida forces in Afghanistan
An increase in terrorism by Al Qaida
A lengthy war and US presence in Iraq
Increasing global support for Al Qaida
Al Qaida will gain new allies
Iran will improve relations with Syria
Other countries will speed up all programs to produce WMD for their defense programs
A greater terrorist threat against the US
Factional violence leading to civil war
Wouldn't you know it? The one source of credible intel in regards to the war, and the Bush administration failed to listen. The Bush administration claimed WMD's in Iraq, but upon their incursion, failed to secure those sites. They knew we would increase the level of terrorism in Iraq, but failed to secure the borders.
What can you expect from an administration so arrogant as to think they could invade a country, overthrow its dictator and restore order, in a quote- unquote "cakewalk". Additionally, they actually predicted they would be welcomed as "liberators." My gawd, folks, where do we go from here? We stay, we're screwed. We leave and Iraq is screwed. Not only Iraq, but the Bush administration has put its indelible mark upon the entire region. Unfortunately, for the worse.

Sunday, May 27, 2007


We knew this was a good idea.....
but in the process,

What has it done to this?

Saturday, May 26, 2007


Carl's Jr. and the Hardees food chains have sued Jack In The Box over what they say are misleading ads. Jack in the Box and its parent organization, CKE Restaurants, have always been very innovative in their advertisements; which are hot commodities in the burger wars (remember Paris Hilton washing her car and dripping a sponge full of sudsy water over her barely clad body?, that was a Jack in the Box spot). The suit claims Jack in the Box unfairly insinuates they use a better quality of meat (100% sirloin), than their competitors "Angus" meat, which is inferred to be actually comprised of cow anus.
One such ad shows a room full of Jack in the Box executives sitting around a board room laughing hysterically over the word "Angus." Another shows Jack being asked to point to a diagram of a cow and show where Angus meat comes from. Jack replies, "I'd rather not." The employee asking Jack the question is simultaneously drawing a circle in the air with a pencil and repeating the word "Angus." To clarify, sirloin is an actual cut of meat, Angus is a breed of animal.
Personally, I hope this does go to trial as we would all like to know where all three companies get their hamburger meat off the animal, wouldn't we? Obviously, this is a media ploy. None of the three fast food giants actually want to testify as to the origins of their Jumbo Jacks or Junior Bacon Cheeseburgers, and that's no bull. Get over it. The ads are juvenile, yet funny. The bottom line is the consumer picks their fast food restaurant choices by food choices, food quality, and location to them. Almost no one picks their restaurant of choice by quality ad work.
And that is "The World According to Kimba." See you in line, and have your money ready at the window to save time. And for gawd sakes do not use plastic (charge / debit cards) at a drive through pathetic are you?


The new governor of Nevada, Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada), is being investigated by the FBI because of alleged gifts and payments from Warren Trepp, a defense contractor whose Nevada firm received tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts. The FBI wants to know if Gibbons, while a member of Congress, improperly used his influence to help Trepp get those contracts.
Days before the cruise, Trepp's wife e-mails her husband: "Please don't forget to bring the money you promised Jim and Dawn on the trip." Hours later, Trepp e-mails back: "Don't ever send this kind of message to me! Erase this message from your computer now!" There also is a paper trail showing Gibbons helped Trepp's company, eTreppid, get government contracts. In a 2003 e-mail, an eTreppid executive tells Trepp that Gibbons helped secure a contract and "we need to take care of him like we discussed." Two years later, the same executive writes, "He [Gibbons] has always been really good to us."
Sources close to the investigation say a key focus is a lavish week-long Caribbean cruise in March 2005 by Gibbons, his wife and son, and Trepp, who paid for almost everything. Software designer Dennis Montgomery was also on that cruise with Gibbons. In an exclusive interview with NBC, Montgomery — who's now at war with his former partner — makes an explosive charge. He says that near the end of the cruise, he saw Trepp pass money to the congressman. INCIDENT NUMBER ONE:
Montgomery: He took a hundred thousand out of his desk, two $50,000 bundles, and asked me to get a briefcase, which I did. 15 minutes later, Jim came in, picked it up and left.
Myers: Did you see the Congressman with the briefcase?
Montgomery: Yes.
Myers: And you're sure the money was in there?
Montgomery: Yes
Dennis Montgomery: There was a lot of alcohol and a lot of drinking. And that's when I first saw Warren give Jim Gibbons money.
Lisa Myers: How much?
Montgomery: Close to $100,000.
Myers: How can you know?
Montgomery: Because he gave him casino chips and cash.
Myers: Are you sure about what you saw?
Montgomery: I'm absolutely, positively sure.
Montgomery's credibility will be put to the test, but so will Trepp's. He was chief broker for junk-bond trader and convicted felon Michael Milken. The Securities and Exchange Commission tried to bar Trepp from the industry for what a judge called "egregious, recurring and intentional" misconduct. The case against him eventually was dismissed because the government waited too long to bring charges. The FBI now is trying to sort out who's telling the truth. It's always possible that no charges will be brought. But grand-jury subpoenas have gone out and a governor's reputation hangs in the balance.


Get over it, Michael Moore is a first class journalist. You may have been at odds with his previous works, but can anyone out there deny that our health care system is in crisis, and despirately in need of examination, and "treatment?"

Moore writes, directs and produces thought provoking movies intended to enlighten, entertain and inform a sleeping and largely apathetic society on a variety of social ills. For his efforts, he has been criticised, harangued and been treated to public scrutiny such as the web site pictured above. Fortunately, Moore continues on despite all of this.

His latest documentary is on the American health care system, specifically focusing on insured patients, and their fight to receive the treatment they need to survive. The type of treatment most HMO's fight to deny in an endless quest to turn a profit. The type of costly treatment that can save a life, and turn a balance sheet upside down. The kind of treatment and procedures the insured thought they had been paying for throughout the years. "Sicko" the movie is being released this week in many markets, and here is an advance review from Salon magazine to wet your whistle while considering whether or not you want to spend your hard earned money on a movie of substance, or to opt for Shrek 23, or whatever.

"There is no mistaking the passion and political intelligence at work in "Sicko." It's both a more finely calibrated film and one with more far-reaching consequences than any he's made before. Moore is trying to rouse Americans to action on an issue most of us agree about, at least superficially. You may know people who will still defend the Iraq war (although they're less and less eager to talk about it). But who do you know who will defend the current method of health care delivery, administered by insurance companies whose central task is to minimize cost and maximize shareholder return? Americans of many different political stripes would probably share Moore's conclusions at the press conference: "It's wrong and it's immoral. We have to take the profit motive out of health care. It's as simple as that."
Salon magazine

Tuesday, May 22, 2007


The high and mighty Democrats rode into town, atop their high horses promising radical changes in Congress; accountability of earmarks, and a higher moral and ethical ground than the Republican controlled congress before them.
Today, the Dems got their first chance to back up those all too hollow words with action. A vote to uphold the ethical and moral standards of practice that all Congressmen and women should follow. Surely house speaker Pelosi would lead the charge, as she had been previously so committed to these new moral high grounds. She couldn't possibly display the moral myopia she accused the conservative controlled congress of, just months ago, or could she?
And it shouldn't be hard to give a hand slap / reprimand to someone who freely admitted, and flaunted his public display of displeasure towards a fellow House member. Someone who, when found his latest juicy bit of pork (earmark) added to a bill challenged, charged across the aisle of the House and confronted Republican house member Mike Rogers, who had the audacity to challenge the mighty institution of Murtha.
Unfortunately, we are talking about one of the highest tenured members of the House (Murtha) , who is also one of the highest ranking members of the almighty Armed Services committee. A committee who serves up more pork than Farmer John and Jimmy Dean combined.
Well I guess you know the rest of the story. The Dems, who loudly criticized the Republicans inability / unwillingness to take action against Mark Foley, went spineless and voted to reject the House measure to reprimand Murtha. Here are the bloody details...
The House voted 219-189 to kill the Republicans' motion to reprimand Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, Iraq war foe and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Two Democrats – Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jim Cooper of Tennessee – voted against killing the motion. One Republican – Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania – voted for the motion to table, or kill, the proposed reprimand.
Murtha, known for his bluff manner and fondness of pork barrel projects, did not dispute claims that he charged across the House floor May 17 to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a $23 million Murtha earmark – a targeted spending item – for a drug intelligence center in Murtha's district. In a House speech Monday, Rogers said Murtha threatened him by saying, “you will not get any earmarks now and forever.” Rogers, backed by House GOP leaders, said Murtha's threat violated congressional ethics rules.
When Democrats took control of the House and Senate in January, they vowed to reform the practice of placing earmarks in spending bills. Members seeking earmarks would have to identify themselves and their intentions in time for staffers to review the items, leaders said.
And that is "The World According to Kimba"
Thanks for reading

Sunday, May 20, 2007


Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding. "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies." Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.
Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone. "The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."
Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient." "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Saturday, May 19, 2007


Terrific insight on the m.o. of the Bush administration from a op/ed piece from the Washington Post. Click here to get an insiders look into the repulsive behaviors that permeate this administration.

Gonzales's Signature Moment
By Eugene Robinson
Saturday, May 19, 2007
It just gets worse and worse. We already knew that Alberto Gonzales -- who, unbelievably, remains our attorney general -- was willing to construe the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions however George W. Bush and Dick Cheney wanted. We knew he was willing to politicize the Justice Department, if that was what the White House wanted. Now we learn that Gonzales also was willing to accost a seriously ill man in his hospital room to get his signature on a dodgy justification for unprecedented domestic surveillance.
The man Gonzales harried on his sickbed was his predecessor as attorney general, John Ashcroft. The episode-- recounted this week in congressional testimony by Ashcroft's former deputy, James Comey -- sounds like something from Hollywood, not Washington. It's hard not to think of that scene in "The Godfather" when Don Corleone is left alone in his hospital bed, vulnerable to his enemies, and Michael has to save him.

Friday, May 18, 2007


Paul Wolfowitz, nominated to head the World Bank by King George II, resigns by popular demand. Add another scar to the lifeless and listless body that is the Bush administration. Obviously, "W" will not be happy until he destroys everything, including our right to place Americans as the head of the World Bank. By appointing Wolfowitz, who embarrassed the entire country by extending the hubris and will full disregard for established rules and policies (which he no doubt learned from his "hey everybody, lets go to war" days in the administration), he established once again the destructive nature of his perennial usage of cronyism. Can this administration find new ways in the remaining two years to run the good name of America through the mud? Stay tuned. This administration is very creative this way. No doubt they will find additional ways to destroy the reputation and world opinion of what was once a shining example of what a democracy can be.

Sunday, May 13, 2007


While you stop by your local Starbucks weary, eyes blood shot and half awake, have you noticed the side of the cup you are sucking down like it is your life blood? Starbucks has printed reader supported little bits of philosophy on each one, labeled "The Way I See It."

Starbucks, on their web site, explains the notion this way: "Sparking conversation in the tradition of coffee houses everywhere, Starbucks has always supported a good, healthy discussion. To get people talking, “The Way I See It” is a collection of thoughts, opinions and expressions provided by notable figures that now appear on our widely shared cups.

Now some of these are completely folksy and saccharin, completely innocuous...For example,
A mature person is one who can say: My parents may have made some mistakes raising me, but they did the best they could: now it’s up to me. -- Shannon Fry Starbucks customer from Ann Arbor, Michigan.
And then there is the occasional professional, religious oriented message.....
You are not an accident. Your parents may not have planned you, but God did. He wanted you alive and created you for a purpose. Focusing on yourself will never reveal your purpose. You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance, and our destiny. — Dr. Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose-Driven Life.”
Now, apparently to give equal time, here are two questionable messages...
Heaven is totally overrated. It seems boring. Clouds, listening to people play the harp. It should be somewhere you can’t wait to go, like a luxury hotel. Maybe blue skies and soft music were enough to keep people in line in the 17th century, but Heaven has to step it up a bit. They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than Hell. -- Joel Stein, columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure. - Bill Scheel Starbucks customer from London, Ontario.
He describes himself as a "modern day nobody."

Personally, I like the concept. Putting the messages sent into their corporation as a starting point for conversation, whether they agree with the viewpoint or not. However, in my travels and visitations at numerous different Starbucks, and I do mean many; I have yet to hear any scintillating, or even thought provoking conversations. Just the insipid music they play, and their customers, normally perched with their laptops, alone, in silence, except for the chattering of keyboards. We don't open ourselves up anymore. We do not trust any stranger, or engage a stranger in conversation, most of the time not even a civil "good morning."
Are we turning into mindless drones?
Perhaps everyone at Starbucks should just Instant Messenger each other.
That at least, should be in their comfort zones.
And that is "The World According to Kimba"
Thanks for reading. atheistic


H.R. 1592: Hate Crimes Protection Bill
Scaring the CRAP out of the christian right.

This coupon was found on the Faith2Action website,
and it reads as follows:
CRIMINAL: 33% off jail time for assaulting Grandma or other non-homosexuals. Present this sentence "saving" coupon along with the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" for a reduced penalty just for targeting Grandma, a small child, or an innocent bystander rather than a homosexual.
HOMOSEXUAL: Rep. Conyers says that your sexual activities gives you special protection under the law. If Congress agrees, present this coupon (and homosexual sex verification) to receive more protection than a Grandma assaulted in the exact same way!
GRANDMA: Tough luck!!
The coupon goes on to say, "Just tell Grandma her life isn't worth as much as a homosexuals's. I'm sure she'll understand--some victim's lives are more important than others.

Saturday, May 12, 2007



Remember when the biggest controversy we had in Washington was whether or not these two were foolin' around in the White House?
Ok, he shouldn't have lied about it. It is never the act, it is the cover-up that gets them, isn't it?
But you have to admit, these were much better days, weren't they?

Friday, May 11, 2007


Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, under fire from conservatives for his support of abortion rights, defended his views on Friday."I disagree with myself sometimes, and I change my mind sometimes," Giuliani said to laughter as he addressed a largely anti-abortion audience at Houston Baptist University.
The lone candidate in the Republican field to support a woman's right to an abortion, Giuliani was criticized for appearing to vacillate on the issue in last week's debate in California. Asked whether the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade should be overturned, Giuliani said it would be OK either way but that he would appoint judges and let them do their job. On Friday, Giuliani restated his personal opposition to abortion but support of a woman's right to choose.
"It's a difficult issue," he said.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007


I suppose I could be generous and chalk it up to a misunderstanding, or a miscommunication, or faulty intelligence. But let's face it, against common knowledge, or common sense, the Republicans just aren't getting it. Let's talk a look at a couple of examples that leave me scratching my noggin'....
Hate crimes against gays are so few and far between that the gay community has been staging assaults and making them up just to appear persecuted, and in need of hate crime legislation.
Homophobia is just a figment of our imaginations.
Global warming does not exist. In fact, the dumping of tons of hydro-carbons into the atmosphere have had little of no effect on our environment, so lets all go buy a Hummer!!
Hail, Exxon!!
Here is one from today. Vice President Cheney, in Iraq on a surprise visit, said that, "Yes we have a long way to go in Iraq, but "based on conversations he had throughout the day, Iraqi leaders felt that sectarian violence was “down fairly dramatically.” “I think everybody recognizes there still are some security problems, security threats, no question about it,” Cheney said. Now, I wish this was true. I wish we could believe the VP.
And in all fairness, his point was underscored by a thunderous explosion that rattled windows in the U.S. Embassy where he spent most of the day.
The blast in Baghdad struck about 6:25 p.m. local time, just half an hour before Cheney’s wrap-up news conference. It appeared to strike in the vicinity of the heavily fortified Green Zone, which contains the U.S. and British embassies and many Iraqi government buildings.
Now, I am a charitable man, and I believe our VP. He probably meant to say, outside of the green zone, where you might have had your ass blown up today....outside of that, we have made substantial progress.
Maybe he should have brought John Mc Cain.
They could have gone produce shopping together.
The truth is, we havn't accomplished much of anything in Iraq.
No sense lying about it.
What we have been doing isn't working. But they aren't about to give up.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007


Breaking news, George W. Bush, President of the people, all the people, and the self styled "decider," has finally given in to the nation, and congress and given them a strict time line like they have been asking for, as the...
Pentagon tells 35,000: Prepare to deploy
I"ll give you until the end of fall.
Let me know if you want another time line, folks.
Love, "W"
According to the Army, the combat brigades would deploy for up to 15 months. The Army also said that close to 1,000 additional support troops from the U.S. Army Reserves would also deploy in August. Those would come from two units, an engineer battalion from Fort Thomas, Ky., and a signal battalion from Fort Huachuca, Az.

Sunday, May 6, 2007


The following is the Senate transcript from Senator Hillary Clinton, who is partnering with Senator Byrd in a proposed bill to force the President to, in effect, ask Congress to continue to authorize the "war" in Iraq. At the end of the transcript, I will give you five reasons why this is not a good idea. Yes, I know this may be troubling to my fellow liberals, but hear me out before jumping on the "get out of Iraq bandwagon." Yes, I was against it going in. Yes, I think the intel was deliberately doctored to go into this unnecessary police action. Yes, I think Bush and Cheney had this planned out, and seized on 911 as their golden ticket to get into the middle east. Just hear me out....
SENATOR CLINTON: "Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution. As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible. Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home. I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that. The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor. "
5 Reasons We Should Stay In Iraq and Finish The Job
We owe it to the Iraqi people. They are depending on us not to leave them high and dry and in a far worse condition than they were in before Bush got us into this mess.
We have our reputations at stake. We can't leave with our tails between our legs with another Vietnamese embarrassment. At least the world will know that when we go after something (or someone) we do not stop until we are victorious. We have resolve.
We owe it to our fallen soldiers. If we leave now, all of our fallen soldiers (and the many more fallen peace seeking Iraqi citizens) will have died for nothing.
Leaving Iraq now will leave a dying carcass of a country that will be easy pickings for the neighboring Shia countries to devour. And absolutely devastate the Sunni population that we already screwed over last time when they could have toppled Hussein themselves with our help, but we turned our backs on them, and stood by while Saddam gassed them to death as a punishment.
If we leave now, the rest of the World will realize that we are no longer a super power, and will not partner with us when we need them to. Although their lack of support for the Bush effort was simply good judgement in hindsight, next time it becomes necessary to enlist their support (for something really serious, and not some personal agenda from the U S administration) they will think twice. We have already shown ourselves to be weak in fighting ground wars number one, and we will look like quitters when the going gets tough, number two. Not the kind of country you want to unilaterally support in a time of war, or look up to for protection, is it?
How to stabilize Iraq so we can leave
Good Lord help me, but the only one one offering up any semblance of a concrete plan for stabilizing this country is that nut job Tommy Thompson, and I agree in principle with it.
So what does that say about me, you ask?
Divide the country into 18 (?) separate and unique regions (by religious beliefs) who will elect their own legislative bodies and sit in an Iraqi senate.
Additionally, they will receive 1/18th of the oil revenue so they can set up local governments and police / reservist peace keeping bodies. This will allow us, not to leave, but back away from active peace keeping / policing activities within the hot spots.
Some regions will be more effective at keeping the peace than others. The peaceful regions will see an influx of the good people (doctors, etc.) that left in droves when all this started playing out.
Local religious leaders will focus their attentions on improving their region, rather than on killing, and getting our forces out. All citizens will step up to protect their region and take back some pride in each individual sector, be they Sunni, Shia, Kurd, etc.
This will separate the warring factions of this "civil war", and neighboring countries will step in and help out individual regions with revenue as well (Saudis will help Sunni's, others will help out the Kurd's, the Shia, etc.).
Although it would be naive to assume there will be an immediate "balance of local powers", at least it would be a step in the right direction, and the local citizenship would have some hope that they have a voice in the government of the country they love so much.

Friday, May 4, 2007

SHAPING THE COURSE OF HIS-STORY is reporting that White House chief presidential advisor Karl Rove was in the middle of a March 5th meeting with Deputy counsel Kelly, Chief counsel Fielding, Deputy A G's Mc Nulty and Moschella among the others. The topic? Moschella's testimony the next day to the Judiciary committee of the House in regards to the termination of eight Special Prosecutors.
The meeting, which was previously reported by the Justice department, was to "shape the testimony of Deputy A G Moschella as to what they did, and why they did it." Not surprisingly, the previous disclosure by the Justice department in regards to the attendees mysteriously omitted one attendees guessed it, Karl Rove. More bad intelligence?
Although 3 participants of the meeting (Rove, Mc Nulty and Fielding) knew in advance of the White House's role in pushing for the firings, Moschella was left uninformed, and thus, in capable of telling the truth when questioned by the house judiciary.
Newsweek is asking the obvious question, "Two months ago, he (Rove) helped coach Justice Department officials on how to testify about the U.S. attorneys’ firings. Was that a harmless part of his job, or an inappropriate attempt to mislead Congress?
It appears more and more obvious that the House Judiciary, in order to get down to the truth, must hear testimony from Rove, and others into this dreadful, apparently deceitful affair. The White House, of course is spurning any request, up to and including the threat of subpeonas. What would you expect from an administration so overloaded with things to hide?

Thursday, May 3, 2007


The Republicans took their debating turn tonight, with Chris Matthews reining herd on the all too full stage (like last weeks Democratic debate). Every one got in their sound bytes and their pre-programmed responses to all too obvious questions, and the two hour spectacle was over without any major, campaign ending faux pas.
An immediate MSNBC Internet poll, with over 11,000 responders and counting) showed a surprising across the board support for Mitt Romney, of all people. He was what he is, youthful and articulate. He does garner support as the unwitting victim of religious bias. And believe me, they didn't shy away from the topic either.
John Mc Cain was a shell of his former self, the strong willed American hero who calls them like he sees them, a fierce independent who has reached across the aisle on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, he appears to be afraid of losing. His remarks were stump speeches, too pre-programmed with the passion seemingly forced.
Now anyone who has read more than an inch of copy from this blog knows, I share almost no commonality with any of these candidates, and frankly like on the Democratic side, I have no idea why some of these people are wasting money in an all too vain hope of election. No chance. Some of them tonight were merely filling out their resumes before the inevitable withdrawal.
But, I can recognize someone of seeming character, integrity and value. Someone who exudes a certain leadership value. And although I would have to be hogtied and threatened with a very painful death unless I voted conservative to do so, without Fred Thompson in the field, I would give the nod to Sam Brownback. I would do some research of course. There are some who call this man an absolute nut job, but I liked him. Hated some of his positions, but he looked you in the eye and answered in a straightforward, candid way. Not rehearsed (or seemingly) and genuine. Strong and opinionated, and unwilling to criticize the others on the stage. Take it for what it is worth, on a very shallow surface level, I like this guy. he intrigues me. The Abramhoff money not withstanding, I think he deserves a look see. And that is the World According to Kimba. A very liberal world indeed.


President threatens another veto, this time over a bill which would add protection against hate crimes, allowing federal law enforcement to take part in, or assist local prosecutions with bias motivated attacks.
The bill, which is speeding through the senate, and has already passed the House with a vote of 237 to 180, merely adds additional protection and help in enforcing prosecution involving perpetrators of bias based hate crimes. And who in their right minds are actually in favor of violent acts against homosexuals?
You guessed it, the Bush administration, and the ultra-conservatives. The administration's official stance is that there is "no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement." The conservative watch dog groups are all over this one in opposition, largely because they "are afraid the added protection under the law will hamper their demonstrations in opposition to homosexuality." And, of course this logic is completely understandable, because what is a demonstration against gays without random acts of violence which constitute hate crimes.
In other news, the administration is looking into the sexuality of the victims at Virginia Tech before officially declaring their opposition / support of the carnage there some two weeks ago. Same logic. Same incredible hubris.
Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.
The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crimes investigations. It approves $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crimes prosecutions.
So let's see...two proposed veto's in six years. One to prolong a war, and one to lessen the ability of law enforcement to prosecute criminals who commit hate crimes of groups for their sex, or sexual orientation.
I have never, ever been so proud to be a member of the Democratic party. For all of our faults, and we have many, we are the ones consistently against bias and bigotry. We are the ones who reach down to give a helping hand up. We are the party that actually follows their religious beliefs by treating everyone fairly, rather than picking groups of people to hate, and wield their power against. We are the party of the people, all of the people. Ask Barney Frank, who was never so proud as to be able to preside over the House as they overwhelmingly passed the bill.
No reports yet from other members of the Republican party, namely Mark Foley and the Vice Presidents daughter, two of their own who must be proud as punch today at the prospect with the further enabling of violent acts, in Iraq, and on our own soil. Kind of makes you wonder who is next, doesn't it?