President Carter's Take on Iraq

From Young Turks on Air America radio:

Well, you know, it (Iraq) has been a disaster. I think the administration and the present administration and even the neo-cons who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq, all look back on it and know it was a very great tragedy.

Its alienated most of the nations of the world away from us, dropped the esteem for America - the popularity of America, the trust of America to unprecedented lows, and now of course what we are trying to do is not to succeed in our original plans but to get out of Iraq with a minimal loss of life and prestige.

I think in many ways anyone that would argue that is was a success or a good decision, would be totally wrong. I'm not going to criticize President Bush because I agree with him on many things, but I believe that this was one of the biggest mistakes in foreign affairs that I've ever known. - Jimmy Carter; 39th President of the United States

President Carter added tonight on Anderson Cooper 360 that perhaps the greatest tragedy of all that gets left out of most discussions is what Iraq did to our efforts in Afghanistan. He said that we had the opportunity to defeat the terrorists there in that country, to rebuild it, and maybe even make it a model of self government, with the support of the world rather than snubbing the world as we did in Iraq.


There's a custom that ex-Presidents don't "criticize" sitting ones, so I'm sure that many people are furious with both Clinton and Carter for their words lately. But let's face it, folks. Its quite obvious how history is going to remember George W. Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Clarke), and it ain't going to be too sporty. Carter isn't remembered all that grandly himself, and he'll look like Honest Abe Lincoln alongside Dubya someday.

So to expect these men to play dead and not speak up is foolish. At some point it becomes their duty to do so. And honestly, if Bush goes much further into denial and continues to plow us further into destruction, I expect his own father to become a bit more assertive. To call Clinton and Carter's words partisan at this point is off base. It is akin to calling people partisan for wanting to find an end to Vietnam in the 70's.

Shameless personal plus that can't be verified, but I'm telling it anyway: In late 2002 and early 2003, I wasn't blogging, but I was very active on political message boards. I had been a Republican since college up until then. I began to see how people with a hard right view took the position of "kill em all". I also recognized that Hans Blix, the ultimate authority on WMD, said we were wrong, and our government suddenly decided he had no credibility.

I therefore took a very early stance against what I saw coming. I remember distinctly posting once that all of a sudden Iraq was being talked about by all the radio hacks at once, and they were using the same talking points. I said that it sounded like a PR campaign for an attack and I didn't like it. Soon afterward as the covert spin became overt, I asked how you would ever know you "won" something like that if the Iraqi's didn't "throw flowers" as Bush claimed.

I said that if dark skinned people attacked and occupied our country, I would be a freedom fighter, and I doubted that the dark skinned people felt any different about us occupying them. (I also pointed out that one of the tenets of Southern Republicans was NRA membership and their right to bear arms "in case they had to revolt or defend themselves". These are the very people who call the insurgents
"terrorists" today and seem to not have any clue that they would be the first ones to take to the streets if this happened here.)

Of course, the right wing of the political board I was on hated me. They believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they were responsible for 9/11. Although both of these have been proven false....they probablystill do.

Its classic "don't bother me with the facts" arguing. And I can't stand it. I just wrote about two Democrats below who are accused of taking bribes. If the facts convict them, I want them out of office as badly as I want Cheney out. Ok, not true...but only because Cheney can do MUCH more damage due to his position.

The question is: What will it take to make them listen? And what will it take to get Republicans in Congress to speak up alongside America? The truly amazing thing is that John McCain was named today as the "front runner" for '08, and he appears to be willing to favor the war as long as Bush wants to stay there.

What is winning? Four years later, its the same question.

Why Memphis Will Never Be Nashville or Atlanta

There has always been lots of discussion around the economic surge in Nashville and why Memphis has been mired in stagnation. Many people blame "white flight"...the movement of the upper middle class east of the city, to Germantown and Collierville and south to Desoto County.
But in reality Memphis voters, whoever they are, have held the future of Memphis in their hands for years....and they have chosen to fail.
Today two city councilmen were charged with yet another bribery scandal.
The players?

1)Edmund Ford: Yes, one of those Fords. Brother of Harold, Sr. and defrocked state senator John...and uncle of Harold, Jr. (Sidebar: I believe if you look at the tiny margin of vote difference between Ford and Corker, the "Ford Family" reason for choosing Corker single-handedly beat Harold, Jr. Both of my parents were aghast at my support for Ford, purely on THAT basis. "You would vote for one of the FORDS?" Not fair to Harold, Jr., but dang...gotta admit it continues to look bad.)

2)Rickey Peete: This one is a classic Memphis story. It might remind you of Marion Barry. See Peete's a councilman because he got his voting rights back....see, because he lost them.....see, because he was in jail...for bribery, see? What is this idiot thinking? You'd think he would kinda check out a dude who tried to pay him off. Like maybe have him followed for a MONTH. But no...he allegedly took the twelve grand...and now he's probably screwed.

I can't really make any great contribution to this story, because I am not close enough to the people who consciously choose to elect people like this, as well as our mayor, Willie Herenton. I'm sure they have their reasons, and I'm sure they feel those reasons are sound.

But until I know and understand, I am disappointed and disgusted by these voting decisions. How could it possibly hurt Memphians, black or white, to elect progressive candidates who vote on the basis of moving Memphis forward AND NOT CASH??

Perhaps someone who voted for Peete after he got out of jail the first time will post here and help me understand.

How Republicans Trick Us With Language

A great blogger named Kelly Gorski introduced me to an absolutely incredible piece of writing called "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff.

Give yourself some time to read it...its 36 pages in pdf. It concerns Republican strategies, social theory and framing language (much like this book recommendation I posted previously.

Here is the link: Don't Think Like An Elephant.

(I probably haven't made it sound all that exciting...but if you are a person who continually wonders why people vote for Republicans NO MATTER what they do, you need to read this article!

Free Republic Blogger Arrested for Terrorism

Who is surprised by this?

A 39 year-old self-described conservative, who claims to "worship" Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin, mailed "white powder" to several celebrities and broadcast journalists.

His victims included Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart, David Letterman, and even NANCY PELOSI, about to be third in line for the Presidency.

What is "terrorism"? Many people believe it is simply killing or injuring people. It is more than that. It is, per Wordnet:

the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or
coerce societies or governments

Sending white powder to the most powerful woman in America is an attempt to coerce and intimidate our government. Sending white powder to television personalities who have the ear of the country is an attempt to intimidate and coerce the SOCIETY.

THIS GUY, if he is guilty, is a terrorist. Is the point of this post to pile on a poor conservative? NO. The reason this story is important is because right-wing Americans are posting all over the internet about how "America is finished" and "the terrorists have won" and "We will be speaking Arabic very soon".

This doomsaying nonsense is SO prevalent on the internet that I really don't think its disengenuous partisan bullshit. I think they honestly believe this. Rush and O'Reilly have succeeded in making these people actually believe that people in the middle east could successfully stage a Normany-style invasion of Virginia Beach. And after they pull that off, they somehow have the ability to occupy every corner of America and install a Muslim state.

How ridiculous is this belief? These people are scaring their children, and my children, and they are just plain WRONG. Yes, we have to carefully and expertly manage the nuclear abilities and activities in the world....JUST like we have had to do since the late 40's. This HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE. (Except for the NEW terrorists we have created by invading Iraq, which was no help at all to this task.)

But to believe that somehow radical Islam will "take over America" is stupid...and to further that bullshit IS TERRORISM IN ITSELF.

Where did this worshipper of Coulter and Malkin get his ideas of who "deserved" his white powder? I think we all know the answer. And how often do these folks hawk the war (and the defense industry and the military machine) by painting the picture of Arabs feeding lions with Christians in Texas Stadium?

Well, if you read the message boards of both left and right websites, you know they must paint these pictures VERY OFTEN.

Here's the deal, America. Iraq is a fraction of the size and a fraction of the population of the USA. WE have the strongest military in the world by twenty or thirty times the second place runner up. And yet....the BEST we've been able to do is hold onto a few blocks, called the Green Zone, in the capital city.

We have the BEST MILITARY IN HISTORY, and that is the best we can do. And these wingnuts really, REALLY believe that someone is going to occupy US one day? Folks, the only enemy who should be feared that seriously is the enemy of division here at home. The way things are going, one of these days, a sitting President is going to say, "well, things are too unstable in the world for me to step down. I'm calling off the election". And when that happens, we are changed forever.

And EVEN THEN, our own military could not control us, even if they supported this rouge President. There is no way to control guerrila tactics in a country our size.

In summary...this dude wanted SO BADLY to continue the hysteria of terrorism, that he became a terrorist himself. Chances are, whoever committed the Washington white powder crimes a few years ago was from a very similar vein.

Let's please stop the hysteria. It is good to be prudent. But for 50 years prudence meant relying on our military, CIA and FBI to manage the threat of nuclear holocaust and violent crime from outside our borders. We must continue to fund these sources of our protection. And THEN WE MUST ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT JOB. Hysterical message boarding is no help to anyone....it is simply a form of terrorism.

Sex Is Still All They Got, President Clinton

If you want to know what thrills an old man of 41, I'm about to share it with you:


Click here for video

Unfortunately I don't know how to post a click thru image to YouTube. If anyone knows, please tell me.

Now....go watch that clip.

Here's part of the transcript...but reading it absolutely can't describe the genius of Bill Clinton:

The campaign that has been run against Jim Webb is just the sort of most grotesque example of this formula they're running all around the country. It goes something like this. This is their message, pretend I'm their guy: 'OK, we really messed up. I mean, this Iraq deal didn't work out too good and now we put Afghanistan at risk. And we probably shouldn't have put that horse show association guy in charge of FEMA... And you know, it was embarrassing when our senior White House aide that dealt with Mr. Abramoff had to go to prison. But Karl Rove didn't know him very well, he only had 485 contacts with the White House. And he's shy, Karl Rove, you've got to know him 486 times before he knows you. Yeah, we've got a lot of problems but you've still got to vote for us. 'Cuz my opponent is a slug. And they're going to tax you into the poorhouse. On the way to the poorhouse you'll meet a terrorist on every street corner. And when you try to run away from that terrorist you're going to trip over an illegal immigrant. You can't vote for 'em. I mean, is that it?'

(Credit to lowkell at Daily Kos for the transcript.)

I overstated, right? This doesn't REALLY thrill a man of 41.

Actually it did thrill me. I realize I'm a person watching life from the sidelines if life involves anything outside my children...which is rather sad. But Clinton's words, and more so, his abilities, produce joy and sickness at the same time.

Its a joy to watch a true extemporaneous speaker (a key requirement in my own job) craft his art.

Its sick to realize what we lost in Clinton and what we gained in Bush. And I love comments to my blog, but PLEASE don't leave the tired message, "At least Bush didn't shoot off on a blue dress."

At this point, I would be in favor of allowing Clinton to have "Fireside Jerks" on CSPAN if we could get our war dead back...if we could un-create all the terrorists we have created....if we could help the people of the Gulf Coast...if we could regain our stature as the world's MORAL AND FAIR leader.

Yes, I know Clinton's speech is partisan. That was his job last night. But is he wrong? "My opponent is a slug". That's a campaign?? "The terrorists will get you". HOW? HOW will they get me ANY different if a Democrat is making cash deals to give away control of ports instead of Republicans???

Let's all just wait about five or ten years. At that time, we'll see if Bush will be able to stand on his own two feet and make even an AVERAGE speech without five teleprompters. We'll see in another ten or twenty years how Bush is remembered (Nixonesque?) and how Clinton is remembered (the last person to deal with deficit?).

For now....we must each do all we can, and vote is all we can do. Today I will vote against two Republicans who have no chance of losing. But I go out in the rain for two reasons (other than my own conscience):

1) Because I've never missed a chance since my oldest was four of taking my kids to the polls. And by the way...she is 13 now, and a STAUNCH Republican, although she is beginning to doubt due to Iraq. I don't try to change her mind on that...on the contrary, I am proud I have helped her to be interested and informed. (Alas though, for all my Episcopalian leanings, she is all Baptist.)

2) Because today all across the land, people whose vote MATTERS need desperately to get out in the rain and stand in line and VOTE. I stand with them in my own line, even though my vote is a hoax in Mississippi.

And I must say: If I have a hero alive today, it is William Jefferson Clinton. (And yes...I do happen to like big girls with dark hair. I'd actually take Monica out in public.)

Diebold & Repubs; Arms Length?

The War Room reports on a troubling communication from Ken Mehlman to his flock. I've already reported satirically on my opinion of voting machines, and this seems to reinforce my fears.

Here's the story: Taegan Goddard reports the following:

The RNC just sent out detailed talking points about how unreliable exit polls have been over the past several elections. The key arguments are that exits polls typically have a Democratic bias and have wrongly predicted Democratic victories in recent years.

According to a source, the RNC expects leaked exit polls to show Democratic victories and do not want the news to discourage Republican voters from going to the polls late in the day.

Ok, so let's examine. Some believe that once the winner is obvious, people will just stay home from the polls. I think this is over-stated.

The two Democrats I look most forward to voting for are running against Trent Lott (MS Senate) and Roger Wicker (MS House). I don't even know those Democrats' names, and I DO know they are going to lose. But I can't wait to vote for them.

People who care vote. (Some of them even know the candidate names, unlike me.)

So is there another reason for the "talking points memo"?

Well, remember 2004? Exit polls showed significant victories in Ohio for John Kerry. When the voting machines tallying the "actual" vote count, he lost.

Do exit polls "favor Democrats"? Or do those voting machines favor REPUBLICANS?

How do exit polls favor Democrats, by the way? Is this yet another racist and elitist argument? Sounds like they're implying that "the smarter, whiter Republican voter is smart enough to lie to those librul exit pollers. The poor, dumb, minority libruls are honest."

Yes, honesty is such a Right-Wing Christian trait until libruls ask questions (or until a male prostitute outs you.

Maybe there's another reason that asking people questions "favor" one side or another....but take out pure lying, and I can't figure out what it is.

I'm concerned about this....I really am. Have we seen ANY sign that people are NOT willing to rig an election to hold office? Have we seen ANY sign that other people wouldn't take 20 or 30 million bucks to reprogram a computer program? No to both. And 20 to 30 million is chump change for what's at stake here. (Disclaimer: Yes, Democrats have people willing to cheat, just as much as Republicans. I'm just not sure Dems know any computer literate people. Just kidding.)

Look, Diebold is a company that 1) has an interest in Bush's tax cuts, and they ain't worried about the deficit, just their own stock price, and 2) Most of their bucks come from the banking business historically. Now what party do you think the banks are all for? (Hint: They ain't worried about the deficit either. They need the artificial prop-up in housing prices to stay put for as long as possible.)

Olbermann's Transcript on Kerry Apology

Here it is along with the video at Crooks and Liars.

My reaction to this is so odd. When Keith gets real like this, I'm amazed at how genuinely shocked and nervous I feel...for him...for myself...for America.

And then I think about how Rush and Hannity and Coulter have been ranting freely for years in subjective, one-sided spin zones, calling out Clinton and the libruls.

But it feels different, doesn't it? There's just this overwhelming sense that this government of Cheney, Rummy and Bush won't tolerate Olbermann's courage.

As to the Kerry issue, here's what he said, and without question ALL he did wrong was leave out ONE TWO-LETTER WORD in his statement. You can even see him look down at his notes at this very time, seemingly a bit lost. Now watch what the missing two-letter word does to his speech:

Leading up to the actual sentence, here's what happened, to quote Olbermann:

With bitter humor, he told the students that he had been in Texas the day before, that President Bush used to live in that state, but that now he lives in the state of denial.

So we have Texas, Bush's home state, and he's now in the "state of denial". Then follows the infamous quote:

"if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you can get stuck in Iraq."

Now add the one word: US. US. As in WE. You can get US stuck in Iraq, Mr. President. Alternatively he could have said "America". "If you don't, you can get America stuck in Iraq".

Kerry was talking about a President who has gotten by on anything and everything but studying. On anything and everything but making himself aware of the issues, of the cultural and religious realities of the Middle East. On anything and everything but the history of that region and why it will NEVER be a democracy.

But he left out one word. Now he's been forced to apologize.

Let me ask one question as food for thought:

How many misguided or mistaken quotes do we remember from the Vietnam War? How many politicians are remembered for one sentence they uttered concerning soldiers or marines or sailors or the Presidency during that war? None.

Yet how DOES history remember that war? Remembers it loud and clear.

Even if this quote of Kerry's does keep the Republicans in power, it won't be remembered. It is this war that will be remembered by the next generations. This will be especially true when the next generation of terrorists attempt over and over to strike us again...because perhaps of the parents or siblings they lost in Iraq in the early years of this century.

(If you or a loved one is in the military and you think I am slamming you, I hope you will take my word that you are mistaken. Just as I love the mentors in my life who fought in Vietnam, I will love you. You have done your job as you were trained, professionally and nobly. You have no power over the politics of the cause or the psychology of Islamic freak jobs. Hear this: Just as the "War on Drugs" can't be "won", neither can the "War on Terror". Israel is about as big as a New England state, and if a nutjob wants to strap a bomb on himself and push the button, there's not a damn thing they can do about it. No more than the police can stop every cocaine deal. Only human psychology and education can fight drugs, and the same is true of fundamentalism and violence. As soon as they stop believing in the 50 virgins, and start believing that their real life sex drive is normal, they will stop. We must find a way to further that message.)

Here are my predictions for the elections:

The Democrats will gain no more than 15 seats. In the Senate, the Republicans will definitely keep the majority.

And I say it doesn't matter much either way. The Bush Administration runs this country, and Nancy Pelosi is ill-equipped, if equipped at all, to fight the true problems this administration has created.

In short...it is too late. Our scars from Iraq, our place in the world, our deficit, and our polarization nationwide are all embedded now. We will see no improvement in any of these for at least ten years.

My Dad is 68. He is approaching a stage in his life that is very reflective. Three times now in the past couple of months, he has said, "I don't know what my grandchildren are going to face, but they will not live in the world that I knew. We threw away our super-power status, and they will live in a third-world country."

The thing he is saddest about, I can tell, is that he is powerless to change it, and guilty that he is leaving them behind to face it. He is so focused on this, I think, that each time he doesn't remember that he's already said these things to me out loud.

I feel guilty about it too. I voted for Bush in 2000.

George Allen Hasn't a Novel Idea

How pitiful is George Allen?

First he initiates this make-believe controversy about Webb's novel being Triple-X rated.

Now Anderson Cooper at CNN is reporting that its all Allen is talking about at every opportunity. Apparently this is because Allen is sucking in the demographic of women voters.

Why does this man think women are that weak minded that they would change their vote due to FICTION?

I can see men being that stupid WAY before women. Hell, women love fiction. My own mother, and there is no more conservative, loves her Danielle Steele and Harold Robbins and James Joyce. My mother would never get one of those authors' creativity mixed up with the reality of the people they are.

As a matter of fact I think she would, if she lived in Virginia, be thinking right now...."That's all George Allen has got? This close to the election?"

The interesting thing to me is that the public polls released by the media don't show him to be losing so bad as to panic with this kind of strategy. Either he has polls that we don't know about, or he and his advisors are plumb stupid.

Voting Machines

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but during the last presidential election I began to get suspicious about the Diebold voting machines and how easy it would be to rig an election.

Now there's another angle on this. News broke yesterday that a California company is being investigated for connections to Venezuela and their menacing little dictator.

I wonder if there's been a poll on this? I wonder if Americans favor automating elections to the point that one bright programmer could choose the winner?

Now I've got a strong feeling that people are already screwing with electronic results...or at least fondling or heavy petting them. But won't it be funny when all this comes to fruition in about 2008? Can't you see Diebold "closely watching" the blue states, while Chavez puts it to the reds? Here's Wolf Blitzer on election night: "Well, contrary to our exit polls, it appears that Mississippi has gone for Hillary Clinton and Barrack O'Bama, while New Jersey has solidly gone for Jeb Bush and Bill Frist."

Is this not just another example of our lethargy? What would have to happen in this country to make people say, "hey...wait a minute"? Could Dick Cheney hold a press conference today and say,

"Thank you for joining us today, ladies and gentleman. I won't take any questions, but I want to lay out a few changes we will instigate in future elections, beginning immediately. This will save the taxpayers billions and will allow all of America to openly observe the process, exclusively on Fox.

"On the first Tuesday in November, we will invite a select group of citizens to Rootenpoot, Arkansas. These will be Americans who will go through the same fair and balanced selection process that we use to admit people to appearances by President Bush.

"We will subsequently have Bill O'Reilly as a guest moderator. He will verbally call the name of each candidate, and then say, 'All in favor, say Aye'. Mr. O'Reilly will then respond with 'The Ayes have it', and our great country will have its next generation of leadership.

"If you have any questions about the minor details of the process, tune in to Sean Hannity tonight, and he will tell you why its the only way to go. Thank you and good night."


Many thanks to Mark Rayner and The Carnival of Satire.
To those of you who found BTH in this issue, I hope you'll look around and leave some comments.
C

More White Women in the Senate Race

This time the white woman isn't
an actress pretending to chat up Harold Ford in a racist campaign ad.

This time it is Ford's opponent's daughter in a liplock, featured in her Facebook page.

In case the story becomes subscription only after today, I'll quote the high points written by Wendi Thomas:

But will the conservatives who believe homosexuality to be an abomination be turned off by the same-sex exploration of Corker's college-age daughter?

Will Corker's base question his parenting skills, given that he didn't teach his teenage daughter not to share her kissy-face moments on the Web with the world, especially not when daddy is trying to run a conservative campaign?

Although Junior could get plenty of mileage out of Julia's indiscretion, he's chosen not to. His camp, on the high road alone, won't mention Julia's kiss in any ads.

"Harold Ford is not going to attack Bob Corker's family," Ford campaign adviser Robert Sepucha said Friday.

For its part, Corker's staff says Julia was acting "silly."

The sexual orientation or legal sexual activities of the candidate or his family don't matter -- unless you've been courting the vote of people who oppose same-sex marriage and all things gay and lesbian. Then they do.

It was gutsy of Thomas to cover this story. Some will say it was the liberal media doing the Ford campaign's dirty work for them.

But I don't think so. Read my same sentiments in the Bill O'Reilly story.

This story is the same paradox. People who are going to vote for Corker are just like those who pay O'Reilly to give speeches. These things can easily be rationalized or justified, as long as the candidate promises to legislate morality for OTHER people, or the radio host promises to preach morality to the masses.

Yes, chances are this is a heterosexual girl doing things that turn hetero guys on. But here's what this Facebook photo proves to me:

No matter what the "law" says, these "morals" that make fundies come out and vote for Republicans are behaviors and lifestyles that WILL NOT go away. Just as sure as there's no stopping two blondes from kissing in a bar to get attention...whether its legal or not.

So why not cast your vote on the basis of who will manage our economy, our foreign relations, our security, and other traditional government roles, rather than solely on the basis of gay marriage and abortion?

I just don't understand it.

Broken Government on CNN

CNN is featuring a "Broken Government" special tonight called, "Where the Right Went Wrong" with Jeff Greenfield.

In the program, Jeff features only conservatives, discussing how the Bush Administration, the Senate and the House have "outspent a liberal's wildest dreams". He says they have been "outspending every Administration since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society", including a prescription drug bill that will add TWO TRILLION DOLLARS to our future obligations. Dick Armey also slays Tom Delay, saying he was only out for himself, among other highlights.

So the question remains...How can ANYBODY say that Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh back a "conservative agenda" rather than a blind obligation of the Republican party??

I find it very interesting that this program is the real debut of the '08 Repub Presidential candidates overtly breaking with Bush. Sam Brownback and Mike Pence are two who are placing themselves squarely in the anti-pork group in this special.

These guys run no risk whatsoever with this tactic. The Bush White House is finished...lame ducks. And even if the Republicans do retain control of one or both houses, the pendulum is swinging so fast in the anti-deficit direction that Congressmen may actually turn down pork for a short term out of fear.

O'Reilly in Birmingham

So last night I arrived at my hotel in Birmingham, the Sheraton-Civic Center, and the first thing I see is a poster trumpeting the live appearance of Billy "Loofah" O'Reilly at the hotel.

He was there to speak to the Alabama Business Council, or something like that.

Its really hard for me to imagine a group paying him to appear...for two reasons.

First, his lies are well documented. By Al Franken, George Clooney, Keith Olberman, and many others. NOT just because they "are out to get him"...because they can so easily expose the lies. Its not like these guys like Hannity either, but you can't find pages and pages of flat out lies all over the Internet, because Sean is a little more careful, and a WHOLE lot smarter than Bill.

Second, I thought SEX was the mamma jamma moral no-no to trump all no-no's to the people who would want to pay a right-wing keynote speaker?

I mean, don't most Southern Republicans think Bill Clinton's shot on the blue dress to be thousands of times worse than the WMD in Iraq debacle?

Aren't Mark Foley's CONVERSATIONS food for much more public concern and interest than the much more serious scams of Abramoff, Valerie Plame, and prisoner torture?

So then, why is it that Bill's phone sex advances to a subordinate are totally overlooked by groups like the Bama Business people?

I'm serious. Is sex the ultimate unforgivable nastiness or is it not? Bill was reportedly married when he asked this subordinate to shower with him. Is marriage the ultimate Sanctity, does that only apply to homosexuals?

Sex is really not a political issue for me. Nor is it a phobia, which is the real root of the problem for many. But I really believe more than anything it is a myth that sex and marital sanctity matters to most of these "social conservatives".

My theory is that sex was the only hole the Clinton-haters could find in an otherwise brilliant presidency. Therefore, we still, to this day, hear "at least Bush can keep his pants on", as if that is somehow compensation for this global MESS.

So sex matters for Clinton....for Barney Frank...for Harold Ford, Jr. and white women.

But sex doesn't make a damn when the doer is a shill promoting the hard right's agenda.

If everything has to be a religious and moral debate, let's be consistent, or else be willing to be open to cries of hypocrisy.

Same Sex Classrooms

Here's another big winner for the Bush administration.

Let me get this straight. With all the research about Stem Cell Research, the Administration, thanks to their fundamentalist lobby, says "don't bother me with the research".

But apparently the "abundance" of evidence that boys and girls need to be seperated is much more fundy-friendly. So let's split em up. Maybe then Wall Street and surgery suites and government offices will someday return to a bastion of dark suits and fedoras, with the little women at home cooking. How could a woman VOTE for this party??

I did two Google searches:

Stem Cell Research (three words): 21.6 Million Hits

Same Sex Classroom Research (four words): Only 5.8 Million Hits

But the latter is supposedly a lock for being the more valid, and thus the correct change for moving forward in this country?

Let me put my own spin on this as a professional facilitator. Give me a mixed gender class ANY day. There's something about the presence of the opposite sex in a room that simply brings out more participation from both sexes. Doesn't this seem obvious? A world of all men would lead me quickly to the tallest building for my last flight out.

Fox, Limbaugh, Ford, Corker....

Its getting ugly.

First, it was Rush Limbaugh's ignorant statement about Michael J. Fox.

Now, its a Tennessee senate ad using the "he messes with white women" inuendo. A white woman in a party dress, a hired actress, says she met Ford at the Playboy mansion.

Harold Ford is the victim of this RNC ad, and the head of the RNC says he's powerless to stop it. These people...they lie SO easily nowadays that it just seems automatic.

Now Ford's Repub opponent Bob Corker says he wants the "tacky" ad pulled. Seems the two most influencial people in the Tennessee senate race on the Repub side are totally powerless over the marketing efforts. What a load of crap.

Corker's strategy makes me sick. Here it is: Washington is awful. You should send somebody new to Washington.

Wait. Wait. YOUR crackin' party has been in charge since the early 90's, and you're running on the platform that Washington is awful???

The somebody new needs to be Democrat Harold Ford!

Colbert More Feared Than Geraldo

Check out the LA Times story on legislators who won't appear on his show anymore.

Back when he did the creative editing on the Daily Show, I used to wonder why people would agree to that. But generally speaking, people will sign a release for anything immediately following the phrase, "you wanna be on TV"?

Update on Slut-o-ween

In my post below about the so called "Slutoween", I talk about the current debate about women and girls dressing in sexy costumes.

Well, now I've gotten a last minute assignment to Nashville during Halloween.

I find myself pondering where I should go on Tuesday night to people watch. It sucks being alone on the road sometimes, but I'm used to it.

Since I'm staying at the Doubletree on 4th, I'm in walking distance of all the hottest clubs. Problem is, its always hard to figure out which ones are for 30-somethings vs. the college crowd. I'm not interested in the latter. And places for the "more aged" crowd are much harder to find.

Update; October 31

Well I kidded around a lot about what I was going to do on Halloween while I was in Nashville.

I even had some nice folks post comments and send me emails with some very good suggestions. When it was all said and done, here's what I decided.

First...let me back up. Keep in mind that I had the option of roaming around Nashville alone, with all the freedom to see how the women were dressing (or dressing down) this year. I could have sat at the bar, had some drinks, and glanced around in feigned disinterest at asses of various sizes. However...that's not what I did.

What I did instead was decide at about 11 a.m. I could get all my work done by 5:00 today. So I walked across to the hotel and asked if they would let me check out and cancel for tonight. They did.

So I drove home, and that's where I am now. Of course, I got home too late to see the kids in their costumes. But at least I got to kiss em goodnight.

I think my decision came down to the fact that not once in 41 years have I been alone on Halloween. Not once. And even though I was technically alone during the drive home, which coincided with the peak trick-or-treat times...I was still HEADING to be with loved ones. In my mind that counts.

Perhaps someday I will be alone on Halloween or maybe many other holidays. But why go that route when I have a choice?

My Draft Number

Speaking of the draft, I looked at the Selective Service website to see what my lottery number would have been if I were in the draft in 1971 (thankfully, I was only six years old).

My number? 22.

The 18-to-20 year olds with my birthday (and without a deferment) knew they were going to war the night that drawing was broadcast.

What a scary, scary thought. Read on for some more of my impressions about the draft.

A Prayer for Owen Meany

This book is on my recommended list. I got to thinking about it due to the column I just linked to by Fred Reed. In it, Fred said this:

So many of the Jewish crimes popular on the email circuit don’t stand up to examination. For instance, I hear repeatedly that during Vietnam America won in the field but that Jews stabbed Our Boys in the back by means of the anti-war movement, thus seeking to promote godless atheistic communism.

Not quite. The leadership of the anti-war movement was heavily Jewish. The movement itself was overwhelmingly Christian. At the conservative Southern college I attended, the studentry to a boy wanted no part of the war. It wasn’t because of Jewish anything. It was because they didn’t want to get shot. Their girlfriends didn’t want them to get shot, nor did their parents.

This made me think of the title character of John Irving's classic.

Owen Meany, who ended up volunteering for service in Vietnam, said that anti-war protesters were wrong about one thing: The Draft. He said the draft was the only chance the US had of getting out of Vietnam.

Why? His quote is something like, "Unless Americans are affected with their health or their wallet, they don't care enough about anything to rise up against it."

In other words, without the draft there would have BEEN NO anti-war movement.

How relevant this is for today. Don't you know that college campuses everywhere would be in a MUCH larger uproar over the constantly changing "reasons" for the Iraq war if THEY thought they might have to go?

So would parents of teenagers....middle America across this country. They would be doing more than answering polls negatively about Bush and Congress. They would be in the streets if their sons were being drafted, or about to reach draft age.

I'm convinced this is the reason there hasn't BEEN a draft. Dick Cheney knows this simple fact. Even if the volunteer army is too small to ever win, he can't afford a draft, because then his war would be stopped dead in its tracks.

Every man should read "A Prayer for Owen Meany". And every woman I know who has read it also loved it. At the Episcopal school my parish is associated with, every senior boy is required to read it.


This article was chosen to be a part of the Decline of Democracy, a service of Ken Goldstein and Blog Carnival. Check it out.

Fred Reed

I don't know much about Fred Reed. But I did really enjoy this column about his response to people who want him to blame the Jews instead of referring to "Hollywood and New York" cryptically. (Thanks to Sanity Inspector once again in intro'ing me.)

The other day he quoted Reed, and I definitely disagreed, however. It was a bit of a rant about why women shouldn't be school administrators. (Cause they don't want boys to play football.) Good Lord.

Can we generalize any more in this country?

Anyway....point is, I'm not recommending this guy, but I did enjoy his Jewish column.

Slutoween (Slut-o-ween?)

Good articles and discussions on this topic at Slate's Broadsheet today.
After reading all the comments, I can't really decide where I stand on this one, except that girls shouldn't wear this stuff. Problem is, how do you prevent that, when so many of the college-age and young adult women wear them?

I figure this is causing some terrible brawls between 15 year-olds and their mothers this week.

One comment that really made me shake my head. Here's an anonymous poster responding to other comments:

Actually, many women do dress as slutty as possible because it gets male approval and attention. It's a western version of the taliban telling women to completely cover. Once women hit middle aged, they are expected to fade into the backround and go away. If men had their way, women and girls would walk around completely nude until they were about 30, then put on a burqua. That would be a male dream. If men had their way, women would still not be allowed to vote or drive or attend universities. That way, they could get all the resources for themselves but still get cleaning services and p***y from women.

I remember being encouraged to dress slutty as a young woman by guys and criticized for not partying enough. But I wasn't about to let men waste my time. I'm glad, because once I hit middle age I found myself invisible. I have been laughed at in the face several times by even offering a neighborhood "hello" while walking down the street in broad daylight by men who assumed I was hitting on them. Middle aged women in this country don't have to wear a burqua to be invisible, we already are, which doesn't bother me a bit. But girls at an increasingly younger and younger age are coerced into being sexual way to young, or even if it doesn't match their personality. If you have a personality like say J.Lo that wants to exude sexuality, fine. But many conservative, scholarly sorts are bullied into being what they are not just to be accepted.

Ladies, don't waste your time and energy looking for male approval. Men aren't worth it. Be true to yourself. We should encourage young women to focus their time and energy on themselves, through sports, musical or academic interests. Are boys encouraged to be hypersexualized at 13 to make themselves acceptable for older women? Hell no. Don't abuse females in this manner. There is an overemphasis on sexuality in this culture. So much of it exploitative and coerced.

Bless this woman's heart, as we say in Mississippi. Can you imagine having this drastic worldview and being this unhappy? Can you imagine REALLY believing this perception that men have laughed in her face because she told them "hello" because they thought she was hitting on them? I really hurt for this person.

I'm in airports, hotel lobbies, and restaurant bars every week, and people don't act like this, either in a "laugh in your face" way, or in believing that "hello" means "hitting on". "Hello" is simply a greeting, admittedly not always getting a response, but usually so.

In no way do I believe that in her own neighborhood, therefore, that she has been laughed at overtly on multiple occasions. Is she therefore "lying"? No...that's the pitiful thing...this is her perception...and perceptions can lead to terrible fears, sadness, and even death.

This is why I've always worked to think through and manage my perceptions.

What does this have to do with Slutoween costumes? Perhaps the foundation of this entire issue is perceptions. The perceptions of those who wear the revealing outfits, those who view them, and those who judge them as "slutty".

And one last very important point: The most revealing look into this lady's psyche is her belief that THIRTY is the age of initial irrelevance for women. What a load of crap.

I'm 41, and this 22-to-26 crowd who buys the largest number of these costumes gets nothing from me besides a totally surface glance in appreciation for the female anatomy.

I would be shocked if I were to ever choose a dance partner under the age of 30. Perhaps that group is more ready, willing, and able...I don't know. But in my view, you can't beat the beauty of a WOMAN. Nor can you beat the mind of a woman, and a recent college graduate has not had the experiences to develop that great mind.

And lastly, not to get graphic, but aging has led me to one last observation. Women "learn" what truly pleases them after 30, and in any true intimate experience, that is the ultimate factor in real passion....the pleasure of the woman.

Damn, how did the cat costume get me going on that???

On Edit...Thanks to Chic Mom for sharing DesignHer Gals at her blog. This site is a bit like paper dolls, but with many more options. I was thinking that this could be one proactive answer to the Slinky Cat Suit debate....A site that allows you to play around with a "look" before you go to the Goodwill searching.

10/29/06: This is a featured article in "The Carnival of the Insanities". Thanks to Dr. Sanity for including me.