This is from Randi Rhodes' newest email update. Check out the trailer for the Red State Road Trip, which seems to be a documentary, and join me in despair at what happens with lack of education and a complicit press that helps spread the talking points. These people are brainwashed! Its almost as if they need a really charismatic character to grab their attention and then, once they've got it, tell them the truth...because they certainly are not able to reason by themselves with what is right in front of them.

Also, here is Dowd from this week a little late but still timely...maybe more so as the news churns on and this thing sinks in....
Just as I might sink into despair...its raining and, on the heels of the blizzard (made so much worse by warm oceans, the scientists say...not those Christian Scientists either!) its been 50+ degrees F in this area...and now its gonna get really cold and snow again early next week!......
Here is Stella, my beautiful and cute God-daughter! (... And she smells good too!)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 15, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Shooter Slips on a Silencer
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

Who did this old guy think he was, coming between Dick Cheney and his helpless prey?

The luckless 78-year-old Texas lawyer, Harry Whittington, is in intensive care after a heart attack, with up to 200 pellets riddling his face and body — one stuck in his heart — from Dick Cheney's designer Perazzi Brescia shotgun. And still his friend, the vice president, is Swift-BB-ing him.

Private citizens have been enlisted to blame the victim. Maybe poor Mr. Whittington put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. But he was, after all, behind Vice, not in front of him. And the hunter pulling the trigger is supposed to make sure he has a clear shot. Wouldn't it be, well, classy for Shooter to express just a bit of contrition and humility?

Instead, the usual sliming has begun, with the Cheney camp trying to protect the vice president by casting a veteran hunter as Elmer Dud.

Scott McClellan told the White House press corps that Katharine Armstrong, a lobbyist with government ties who owns the Texas ranch (and whose mother, Anne, was on the Halliburton board that hired Mr. Cheney as C.E.O.), "pointed out that the protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington when it came to notifying the others that he was there."

As the story of the weekend's bizarre hunting accident is wrenched out of the White House, the picture isn't pretty: With American soldiers dying in Iraq, Five-Deferment Dick "I Had Other Priorities in the 60's Than Military Service" Cheney gets his macho kicks gunning down little birds and the occasional old man while W. rides his bike, blissfully oblivious to any collateral damage. Shouldn't these guys work on weekends until we figure out how to fix Iraq, New Orleans, Medicare and gas prices?

This version of "The Most Dangerous Game" neatly follows the four-step Bush-Cheney cycle:

Step 1: Set out to pick off what you think is an easy target, like quail this time or pen-raised and netted pheasant in the past, or a certain sanction-caged Iraqi dictator.

Step 2: In the corrupt company of lobbyist-contractor friends, botch things up. Ignore the peril at hand — as with, oh, Osama at Tora Bora, or Katrina, or the Iraq occupation — and with steely resolve, indulge your raging incompetence. (Oops.)

Step 3: Stonewall. Resist giving Congress information about 9/11 or Katrina; don't tell the public how you're tapping phones at home, setting up gulags abroad and making war and energy policy in secret. Why give the taxpayers, who are ponying up for these weekend hunting trips, the extraordinary news that Vice shot his hunting companion in the face and chest? Scott McClellan knew before yesterday's White House briefing at noon that Mr. Whittington was worse, but did not tell the reporters. He left that to Corpus Christi doctors, who spun the heart attack as "an inflammatory response to a metallic foreign BB."

Step 4: Admit no mistakes. Express sympathy. Blame the victim without leaving fingerprints by outsourcing the smear to the private sector.

Trent Lott joked in a meeting yesterday that Mr. Cheney was now the "shooter in chief," while other wags noted that Quayle was always a problem for Bushes.

Presidential staff members and lawmakers speculated yesterday about whether Shooter would resign and make room for Condi if Mr. Whittington did not survive. His death would trigger a more thorough police investigation and probably a grand jury.

"Are you crazy?" one Republican senator told a reporter. "He'd never quit." (Aaron Burr presided over the Senate after he killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.)

The shooter in chief can't quit because he is the administration. Who'd even tell him to quit? If necessary, he'd probably make W. take the fall.

Despite efforts by Mr. McClellan to joke and urge reporters to get back to "the pressing priorities of the American people," the hunting debacle once more showed Mr. Cheney running the imperial show.

He didn't talk to the sheriff for 14 hours, or even call the president to notify him after the 5:50 p.m. accident. Vice left that to Andy Card, who called Mr. Bush at 7:30 p.m. to say there had been a hunting accident, without mentioning that Vice was the gunman. Soon after that, Karl Rove called Mr. Bush back with that little detail.

A reporter, surprised, pressed Mr. McClellan: "The vice president did not call the president to tell him he was the shooter?"

Usually when there's a White House cover-up, the president's in on it.



Copyright 2006 The New York Times

HORRIBLE!!

Things happen so fast and furious round here and I've been jumping from one topic to the next while trying to finish off a long blog entry that I'm pretty sure no one will be all that interested in. That one is about how insulated we are in our little groups and how easy it can be to feel like people of the world while surrounded by the cotton of our little boxes.
Then the whole thing comes crashing down through the cover of my lil' box with the release of the horrible and upsetting new Abu Gahraib torture pictures. I strongly caution anyone who wants to look at these that they really put an indelible image on your minds eye. So don't look if you're someone who will be haunted by this (like me, unfortunately.) Though I strongly believe that they have to be seen. The vast majority of the people held there, sometimes for 3 or more years with out charges, are innocent victims of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. This is not the work of just some "low hanging fruit," as Bill Mahr put it. This is an institutional failure from the top on down. The fact that so many people have been held there for so long without any due process is mind-boggling to someone who has taken our rights and the rules of war for granted. Boy, has living through this time in government changed all of that idealistic thought.

What are we supposed to think at this point? We have a government gone wild and its gotten to the point where its so bad that even people who pay no attention are finding it on the cover of their National Enquirer or on their Today show instead of the cooking segment. Its time for everybody with a mind to wake up and think about this stuff.

What is America and what do we stand for? How do we govern and what are our laws? Do we care about our constitution or is it maybe not so important to most people?
These are conscious decisions that have to be made before the mid term elections if we are going to make a real change here. If not, then things will continue spiraling downward for at least another 2 years. No one can tell you what is important to you. But don't be like a baby transfixed on the shiny ball of one issue. Look at the big picture and what you want to be the underlying tenents that differing opinions rest on. The administration in office is chipping away at the foundation of our government and turning America into a tyrannical, isolationist country. Our rights are being eroded and if anyone thinks that this couldn't happen to them, just keep in mind that the government is wiretapping all over the place and anyone you know could know someone who knows someone. It is a small world and you just can't say that you couldn't be wrongly picked up just like any of those prisoners.
Our government is building huge detention centers in the Southwest! These are said to be for emergency influx of illegal aliens or some such thing, but every article I read about this has a tacked on disclaimer in the form of this operative line: " ...Or to support the rapid development of new programs...." Now what does that mean?

I am not an alarmist. I am actually very level headed and a realist. I believe in the checks and balances of our government between sane groups of citizens who follow the law. At the same time I know that alot has gone down and that alot of covert operations are going on all of the time. But this particular Administration is run by a fringe group of extremists who are every bit as extreme as any of the infamous dictators in history. We have enough warning here to stop this before it gets any worse. They believe that they are fighting for a greater good and that God is on their side. Do they have to escalate to torture and killing on American soil before we stop them? How bad does it have to get? They are breaking the law and not being called on it because they have control of the bodies in government that would usually provide oversignt. So, with no body of government or press to oversee what is going on, it is up to us citizens and bloggers, Republicans and Democrats and third parties to say that enough is enough!

I have been hearing alot of Lefties who are disgusted with the Democratic party talk about a revolution and a strong third party candidate. I have to say that I find this really troubling because we cant afford to split the vote this time or any time soon. The people who voted for Nader in 2000, or the people who didn't vote at all because they didn't feel like their vote counted, made a decision back then that put the country on this path. So many votes are stolen or lost that every vote does count. If we are ever to have a successful third or even fourth party in this country we have to first take control away from the extremists who have somehow gotten themselves into office. So even if it comes down to holding my nose and voting for Hillary, I will. And then after that I will work on getting the fairness doctrine back in place and making it possible to have more viable candidates.

Someone wrote to me on a blog the other day that I had fallen victim to the Democrat's line; that the Dems are evil and that until we all start a revolution we will be in this position. Well, um...I guess....But realistically, we have to work within this broken system to fix it. There is no third party candidate who will be able to win the presidency in 2008. If you know of one or don't agree with me, then please leave a comment. I would like to know how exactly it will go when the third party takes over or the people take to the streets. Back here in reality, you should be mad at the Democratic party, if that's how you feel, and let them know that you are not giving them money or support but will instead support individual candidates. But you cant possibly think that you will go and vote for the Greens or any other candidate besides a Democrat for president this time round. We are in a hard place and this is war, in more ways than one! The Democratic party is pushing out candidates who don't seem viable and want all support to be behind the strongest candidate. Its tragic that we cant see our wonderful system play out with debates and decisions and letting the people decide, but it is critical that we line up our candidates in a methodical fashion and work in concert with eachother.

This is what the Republicans have been doing for years, with incredible foresight and plans put in place meant to play out over many administrations. They lay in wait for their time, laying the groundwork for what will be. We have to be the same. This is not about money or power anymore. It is about people's lives and our enviornment and what we leave for our children. The reprehensible decisions made during this administration will go down in history as a well planned movement to change the very structure and fiber of our country.

Like it or not, this administration was made possible not only by the idiotic Democrats who cant get their act together, but by our own idealism about what our country should be. So, rather than looking at the hard facts some people threw votes to a third party to send a message or whatever. Its so great that we have that freedom, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to look at what is happening and realize that your vote is needed to get rid of the evil that has invaded us. I love it that we have so many voices in this country and that people have so many ideas. I love that we can debate and that things balance out somehow...Usually...But as we now have a huge imbalance, we have to take the drastic measure of all getting together and putting whatever the lesser of the two evils is.

If you question it just look at those pictures....Look at the number of soldiers killed in Iraq...Look at the way in which our officials break the law and get away with it. This list could go on and on but I think I've made my point.

I have no words....

The Islam Riots

February 12, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The Islam the Riots Drowned Out
By EMRAN QURESHI
Cambridge, Mass.

IN a world of wrenching change, the Danish cartoon affair has widened a growing fissure between Islam and the West. The controversy comes at a time when many in the Islamic world view the war on terrorism as a war on Islam. They draw on memories of colonization and of the Crusades, when Western invaders ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad as an imposter.

Sadly, the recent polarization obscures a rich humanistic tradition within Islam — one in which cosmopolitanism, pluralism and a spirit of open-minded inquiry once constituted a dominant ethos.

European Muslims for the most part have protested the Danish cartoons but kept their protests peaceful. That is good. Stigmatized European Muslims are often the targets of right-wing attacks and feel increasingly beleaguered. But the lesson many have learned from this affair has not been the utility of freedom of speech so much as that their continued presence is an affront to European identity.

Within the Muslim world, the cartoon imbroglio has given ammunition to the two entrenched forces for censorship — namely, authoritarian regimes and their Islamic fundamentalist opposition. Both would prefer to silence their critics. By evincing outrage over the Danish cartoons, authoritarian regimes seek to divert attention from their own manifold failures and to bolster their religious credentials against the Islamists who seek to unseat them.

Ironies abound. Saudi Arabia leads the protests, yet is systematically destroying its Islamic heritage. The Wahhabis who dominate Saudi Arabia do not believe in honoring Islam's holy men and women or the Prophet Muhammad (they've proscribed the celebration of his birthday). Driven by sectarian zeal, the Saudi authorities have razed and dug up virtually every site in Mecca and Medina linked to Muhammad, members of his family and his companions.

But these acts of disrespect and desecration have failed to arouse any protest from those who now take to the streets to condemn the Danish cartoons.

Elsewhere, Sunni Muslim fundamentalist leaders express anger over the Danish cartoons, but no comparable indignation over suicide bombers who attacked Shiite Muslim mosques during Ramadan in Iraq. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws have been used by fundamentalists to attack Christians and Hindus.

All this is a far cry from the Islamic humanism of Ibn al-Arabi, the Andalusian philosopher and mystic, or of Rumi, the Persian Sufi poet.

Muslim societies have paid a dear price for the militants in their midst. Many of the best and brightest within the Muslim world have had to flee to the West to avoid being silenced or killed. Fazlur Rahman, a brilliant and deeply religious Pakistani scholar of Islam, had to flee his native land for the University of Chicago. Similarly, the Islamic studies scholar Nasr Abu Zayd fled Egyptian Islamists for the Netherlands. Naguib Mahfouz, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature, was stabbed in the neck in Cairo and barely survived; the Egyptian writer Faraj Foda was not so lucky.

In some Western Muslim quarters, the proposed solution is more censorship — that these cartoons and similar expressions should be banned as hate speech. By that logic, shouldn't Salafist diatribes against Shiites also be banned? Shouldn't the writings of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi and his Jamaat-e-Islami, which were instrumental in persecuting the Ahmadis, a Muslim minority in Pakistan, be banned as well? Maududi's religious writings, best sellers among Muslims in the West, are suffused with an intolerant and anti-Western hue.

No, the answer is not more censorship. But it would be nice if Western champions of freedom of speech didn't trivialize it by deriving pleasure from their ability to gratuitously offend Muslims. They view freedom of speech much as Islamic fundamentalists do — simply as the ability to offend — rather than as the cornerstone of a liberal democratic polity that uses such freedoms wisely and responsibly. Worse, these advocates insist on handing Muslim radicals a platform from which to pose as defenders of the faith against an alleged Western assault on Islam.

Today's Muslim leaders, for their part, seem unable to formulate an ethical response to the challenges of the modern world. Moreover, their actions lead to the stereotyping of Islam. What else is one to conclude from this episode?

The loudest and most murderous forces have chosen to forget the spirit of the Koran, which opens with an invocation of God's mercy and compassion and which repeatedly urges believers to practice patience and kindness. There is something very ugly about the power of the radicals, their recourse to violence, their anti-intellectualism and their ability to trample and blaspheme a more humanistic Islamic tradition.

It is right and proper for Muslims to be offended, to be hurt, to protest. But we should be wary of the authoritarian voices that claim to speak and act in the name of Islam. The answer is not more violence and censorship, but rather peace, mercy and compassion.

Emran Qureshi is a fellow at the Labor and Work Life Program at Harvard Law School.



Copyright 2006 The New York Times