Christopher at From the Left has penned an article which points out that Republicans have a new reason to be scared.

According to Gallup, party strength by state in 2008 shows a dramatic swing toward the Democrats.

The accompanying map shows party strength by state for 2008, ranging from states that can be considered solidly Democratic (a Democratic advantage in party identification of 10 percentage points or more) to those that can be considered solidly Republican (a Republican advantage in party identification of 10 percentage points or more). States in which the partisan advantage is less than 5 points in either direction are considered "competitive."

As you can see from the map, there are four "solid Republican" states and a lone "leans Republican" state. Twenty-nine states are "solid Democratic" with six "leans Democratic". The remaining ten states are "competitive".

Even if all ten "competitive states" were to swing to the right, that would leave fourteen "Republican states" to twenty-nine "Democratic" states. Not to mention the six that lean Democrat.

Not that Republicans will learn anything from this information.

As President Barack Obama tries to win over reluctant Republicans on his economic stimulus plan, a slim majority of the American public wants to see Congress pass the roughly $800 billion package of new government spending and tax breaks. According to Gallup Poll Daily tracking on Tuesday, 52% of the nation's adults are in favor of Congress passing the plan and 37% are opposed, while 11% have no opinion<.

With 52% of American adults being in favor of the economic stimulus package...not a single Republican congressman voted for it. Not one.

While I have my problems with the Democratic party, I am very happy that more and more American's realize that the Republican party doesn't have their best interests at heart. Regardless of what FOX News claims, the country is now leaning more to the left.

How sad.

The U.S. Army will report Thursday the highest level of suicides among its soldiers since it began tracking the rate 28 years ago

The article goes on to give statistics and whatnot, that I don't really feel like repeating.

This should hopefully be a hint that it is time to leave. War isn't pretty, there is just no getting around that.

They do however mention, that

[m]any of the suicides occur after troops return home.

Perhaps the military is forgetting that in order to condition these young men and women to function in a war zone, they are de-conditioning them to be able to function in a civilian world. While we are blowing all of this money on a war that we aren't winning, maybe they could throw a few thousand bucks into a program to make sure that ALL returning personnel are getting the counseling they could clearly use, and to help them reacclimate themselves to civilian society.

If we're sending them into the bowels of hell, the least we can do is help them on the climb back up.

Having received their taxpayer bailout money, a few companies are now turning around and amassing support to give the middle finger to workers.

Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top legislative priority.

Participants on the October 17 call -- including at least one representative from another bailout recipient, AIG -- were urged to persuade their clients to send "large contributions" to groups working against the Employee Free Trade Act (EFCA), as well as to vulnerable Senate Republicans, who could help block passage of the bill.

It's not just the banks.

Bernie Marcus, the charismatic co-founder of Home Depot, led the call along with Rick Berman, an aggressive EFCA opponent and founder of the Center for Union Facts. Over the course of an hour, the two framed the legislation as an existential threat to American capitalism, or worse.

"This is the demise of a civilization," said Marcus. "This is how a civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I'm watching this happen and I don't believe it."

I never did like Home Depot...now I really don't like Home Depot.* If Bernie Marcus truly believes that allowing workers to unionize is the demise of civilization then he has no firm grasp of reality.

Rome didn't fall because of labor unions. With all due respect Mr. Marcus...you are a fucking idiot.

The Employee Free Choice Act which Mr. Marcus and his capitalist cronies want to block is a simple thing: it will allow workers to form a union either by
a) holding a traditional election
b) having a majority of employees sign written forms

That's it. Civilization will not fall. The world will not implode. A fucking wormhole will not open up and pull us all into a parallel world where Hitler won WWII.

All is means is that it will be that much harder for people like Mr. Marcus to fuck over his employees. Which is why he wants it blocked.





* UPDATE While Bernie Marcus was one of Home Depot's founders back in 1978, he retired from the company in 2000. As such, his comments shouldn't reflect on the company today.

Ted Kefalinos, who runs Lafayette French Pastry on Greenwich Avenue (a bakery that as been featured in InStyle magazine) has created...some cookies. Ostensibly in honor of President Obama.





Wow.

Yep. This guy created these "Drunken Negro Face" cookies for Martin Luther King day.

Kefalinos, who admits he is not a fan of the new president's policies, made about two dozen of the cookies on Monday and sold them all.

He has made other topical treats over the years, including "Dead Geese Bread" after the recent U.S. Airways crash in the Hudson River.

"I'm sorry that people were offended by the cookie," Kefalinos told the News Friday.

"We were just trying to make a large number of people happy, and instead we made a large number of people confused and angry."

The store received several prank calls, including from one person who told him to board up his windows this weekend.

Kefalinos was also informed that some parents who pick their children up from a nearby school, and often stop by to pick up cookies or coffee, plan a boycott.

Well, if you live in New York I know what bakery you shouldn't give your business to.

The Daily Show took the right to task over their views of Obama. As always, it is funny and slightly biting.



Of course, it is amusing when The Daily Show points out rampant hypocrisy. But let's really look at what Rush Limbaugh stated:

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Limbaugh doesn't want liberalism to succeed. It doesn't matter if Obama's policies would make America better. It doesn't matter if the new administration would be able to fix the economy and provide jobs for people. It doesn't matter if a more liberal administration would be able to make American look better in the eyes of the rest of the world by being less imperialistic, ending torture, removing soldiers from Iraq, etc.

Limbaugh wants Obama to fail simply because he hates liberals.

As Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote about Rush:

The irony is that Limbaugh and the other clowns would have you believe they are bedrock defenders of this country, that they love it more than the rest of us, more than anything.

That's a lie. Limbaugh just told us so, emphatically.

What a fucking patriot. Clearly he really loves his country if he is openly rooting for the President of the United States to fail simply based on political ideology.

We on the left didn't dislike Bush's presidency because he was a Republican. It was because the guy got us into two wars, tortured people, spied on American citizens with no court authority and no oversight, and generally made us all slightly fearful of our own leadership.

Limbaugh, however, has no problem with any of that. Because it was the right that did that stuff. Therefore, it's OK.

But those damn liberals and their...doing stuff for others and not torturing and whatnot. Bunch of fuckers. Right, Rush?

Everyone's a pacifist between wars. It's like being a vegetarian between meals. - Colman McCarthy

I do not want the peace that passeth understanding. I want the understanding which bringeth peace. - Helen Keller

You can't shake hands with a clenched fist. - Indira Gandhi

We have all known the long loneliness and we have learned that the only solution is love and that love comes with community - Dorothy Day

We will not build a peaceful world by following a negative path. It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but on the positive affirmation of peace. We must see that peace represents a sweeter music, a cosmic melody, that is far superior to the discords of war. Somehow, we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle from the negative nuclear arms race, which no one can win, to a positive contest to harness humanity's creative genius for the purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all the nations of the world. In short, we must shift the arms race into a peace race. If we have a will - and determination - to mount such a peace offensive, we will unlock hitherto tightly sealed doors of hope and transform our imminent cosmic elegy into a psalm of creative fulfillment. - Martin Luther King

A group called GetToKnowUsFirst.org has been crafting PSAs featuring gay couples and their families as a response to the passage of Proposition 8 in California. During Obama's inauguration the group aired ads in 42 of the state's 56 counties.

One network refused to air the ads. KABC in Los Angeles justified their actions by claiming "many families will be watching"...which is kind of the point.





The press release goes on to say that at the urging of Gloria Allred, Rick Warren had agreed to air the PSAs to his congregation. In a move which should surprise nobody, he changed his mind days before the inauguration and rescinded his agreement to share the PSAs with his church.

GetToKnowUsFirst.org states its mission on its website:

Our goal is to put these images of gay and lesbian families on the air now. Our target audience is the person who voted for Proposition 8, but may not recall how s/he voted. Many people simply have no connection to marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Our ads will put our faces, and those of our children, on the issue. They will plant a seed. Some people will understand immediately. For others, the idea will grow slowly. Ultimately, people will change their minds and support marriage equality after they get to know us.

Currently, they are trying to raise money to run ads during the Super Bowl. If you support same-sex marriage, please think about donating to the cause.

Breaking forcefully with Bush anti-terror policies, President Barack Obama ordered major changes Thursday that he said would halt the torture of suspects, close down the Guantanamo detention center, ban secret CIA prisons overseas and fight terrorism "in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

Thank you.

For years, Americans have heard the horror stories of the less than American standards being upheld at Guantanamo Bay. If you need a reference, just Google "Guantanamo Bay Torture". You get about 125,00 results.

The detention facility is a valuable tool in the fight against terrorism because it provides useful intelligence information and it keeps our enemies off the battlefield," said Glen Gardner.

Isn't that lovely?

Detention facility. Kind of makes you think of being held after school, or that classic movie Boys Town with Spencer Tracy and Mickey Rooney.

Being held without trial is wrong.

They did it in California in the 1940s to Japanese Americans.

They did it from the 1920s to the 1950s in Russia to anyone who disagreed with the Soviet Government.

They did it in German controlled Europe in the 30s and 40s with Jewish people and homosexuals (and pretty much anyone the Reich did not like).

Whether it is a "War Relocation Camp", "Gulag", or "Concentration/Death Camp", they all mean the same thing: Human Rights Violation. These people are, and have been, deprived of the rights that the American Declaration of Independence was based on.

Not only should they shut down the camp, they should burn it down so it can not ever be used again.

Newly sworn-in (two times!) President Barack Obama is meeting with military advisers about removing combat troops in Iraq and moving them over to Afghanistan.

According to The Associated Press and The Washington Post, Obama will receive military advice on his planned troop withdrawals in Iraq and troop increases in Afghanistan from U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus; the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gens. Ray Odierno and David McKiernan, respectively; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen; and Defense Secretary Bob Gates, who’ll be joined for strategic advice by Secretary of State-in-waiting Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This, in my opinion, is a mistake. As I've noted before, violence just begets more violence. Moving from one unpopular war to another isn't what the country needs.

George McGovern was an early and vocal opponent of the Vietnam war even going to far as to openly criticize then-President Lyndon Johnson. McGovern knows war having earned the Distinguished Flying Cross as a pilot during WWII.

Now McGovern has spoken out about Obama's plans.

I have believed for some time that military power is no solution to terrorism. The hatred of U.S. policies in the Middle East -- our occupation of Iraq, our backing for repressive regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, our support of Israel -- that drives the terrorist impulse against us would better be resolved by ending our military presence throughout the arc of conflict. This means a prudent, carefully directed withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and elsewhere. We also need to close down the imposing U.S. military bases in this section of the globe, which do so little to expand our security and so much to stoke local resentment.

We cannot evade this reckoning. The British thought they could extend their control over Iraq even while pulling out their ground forces by creating a string of bases in remote parts of the country, away from the observation of most Iraqis. It didn't work. No people that desires independence and self-determination wishes to have another nation's military bases in its country. In 1776, remember, 13 little colonies drove the mighty British Empire from American soil.

In wars it is rarely about military might and more about will. The U.S. had the numbers and the weapons...but the Vietnamese had the will. We know how that one went down. Now, once again, we are in another country fighting a war to ostensibly liberate people who don't seem to want to be liberated. How many times will we play the role of the father who tell the child he knows what is best for the child...regardless of what the child wants? And how many times will we fail?

Our track record for "liberating" people is less than good:
*Bay of Pigs Invasion
*Ngo Dinh Diem in the American sponsored South Vietnam
*CIA involvement in the assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic
*CIA involvement in the assassination of Gen. René Schneider of Chile
*Operation Ajax against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh

The aftermath of the above:
*Cuba is still in the hands of the Castros
*South Vietnam fell
*the fully democratic post-Trujillo government was overthrown causing President Johnson to send American troops to oversee the instillation of Joaquín Balaguer
*in the wake of Schneider's death, Socialist Salvador Allende is swept into power...the opposite of what America wanted
*Iranian Revolution transformed Iran from a constitutional monarchy into an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

In each and every case, America was supposedly "helping" the people but instead things turned out the exact opposite of what America wanted and in many cases, the plight of the average citizen was worse then before. Face it...we suck at nation building.

I'd like to quote McGovern's final thoughts:

I'm aware that some of my fellow Americans regard me as too idealistic. But sometimes idealism is the best realism. And at a minimum, realism and idealism need not be contradictory. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has not only angered Iraqis who have lost family members, neighbors or homes; it has also increased the level of anger throughout the Muslim world and thrown up obstacles to our political leadership in that deeply important part of the planet.

Like you, Mr. President, I don't oppose all wars. I risked my life in World War II to protect our country against genuine danger. But it is the vivid memory of my fellow airmen being shot out of the sky on all sides of me in a war that I believe we had to fight that makes me cautious about sending our youth into needless conflicts that weaken us at home and abroad, and may even weaken us in the eyes of God.

As you have noted, Mr. President, we take pride in our soldiers who conduct themselves bravely. But as you have also said, some of these soldiers have served two, three and even four tours in dangerous combat. Many of them have come home with enduring brain and nerve damage and without arms and legs. These troops need rest, rehabilitation and reunions with their families.

So let me suggest a truly audacious hope for your administration: How about a five-year time-out on war -- unless, of course, there is a genuine threat to the nation?

During that interval, we could work with the U.N. World Food Program, plus the overseas arms of the churches, synagogues, mosques and other volunteer agencies to provide a nutritious lunch every day for every school-age child in Afghanistan and other poor countries. Such a program is now underway in several countries approved by Congress and the United Nations, under the auspices of the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act. (Forgive the self-serving title.) Although the measure remains painfully underfunded, with the help of other countries, we are reaching millions of children. We could supplement these efforts with nutritional packages for low-income pregnant and nursing mothers and their infants from birth through the age of 5, as is done here at home by WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.

Is this proposal pie-in-the-sky? I don't think so. It's food in the stomachs of hungry kids. It would draw them to school and enable them to learn and grow into better citizens. It would cost a small fraction of warfare's cost, but it might well be a stronger antidote to terrorism. There will always be time for another war. But hunger can't wait.

I don't think Mr. McGovern is too idealistic, nor do I think his proposal is too pie-in-the-sky. I think it is exactly what we need to do.

Since 2003, I've been having conversations with young people who heavily "support the war"...from the convenience and safety of a bar stool thousands of miles away from combat. And they don't see anything contradictory about that.

There is a word for people like that: Chickenhawks. Examples include: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ted Nugent.

To me if you "support" something...you engage. I don't support the idea of helping those in need, I actively give time and money to organizations and people who do this work. I don't claim that I have certain beliefs, but then expect someone else to carry it through on my behalf.





Jason doesn't need to put his money where his mouth is. He's "fighting the battle for ideas". He's fighting "a separate battle." He's fighting "the culture war here" but he also "supports the battle that is raging in Iraq".

Besides, Jason has "many friends who are in Iraq". Which eliminates a need for him to actually actively engage in the actions he claims to support. How convenient.





Another guy with "friends in Iraq"...which somehow negates his need to be there. This is like some weird version of conscription during the American Civil War wherein you could pay someone else to take your place. I guess if you have enough friends doing that thing you support, you don't have to actually do it yourself. What a great theory. Get a friend to donate to a food shelter and then you don't have to do anything for anyone else ever.

I'm sure he thinks he got a real zinger with that "I support the Yankees...doesn't mean I wear their uniform". Here's the thing...that arrogant little prick seriously just compared the War in Iraq to a fucking baseball team.

Of course, the Yankees operating mentality is to throw money at the highest priced free agents in an attempt to build a superteam. And they haven't won a world series since 2000. Maybe we shouldn't be looking to the Yankees for our war strategies. If they haven't won in almost a decade, that doesn't bode well for our success in Iraq.

Sure someone could say "hey J.D., you never served" and I would reply "why the hell would I?" I have made it very clear that I am, and always have been, anti-war. I'm not criticizing people who don't join the military...I am criticizing pro-war people who don't join the military and put their money where their mouths are. Unlike chickenhawks, I stick to and act on my principles and don't ask others to act in my stead.

Nor do I do the barest minimum to support my beliefs. Like claiming to support the war but rather than enlist, just spending a whopping $2 and sticking a magnetic ribbon on a car.

The talented and witty Asylum Street Spankers sum it up quite well:

In my opinion, the most beautiful aspect of Barack Obama’s inauguration was this: he made the American dream true. Our whole lives, every American child has been told that anyone could grow up to be President. Anyone.

And until now...that was largely bullshit.

Now we have the son of an immigrant. A man who experimented with drugs and alcohol in college...and admitted it (No "I did not inhale" horseshit from this guy). A biracial man whose parents divorced when he was three. A man who later made history as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review

This is a man with a less than storybook perfect past. Who has made some bad life choices but then got things back on track. And he is our President.

I know that I have been critical of President Barack Obama. But it isn't because I think he will be a bad President...it is because I believe he has the potential to be a very good President. And I believe that the people need to ensure that he does.

Franklin Roosevelt's example is useful here. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

Maybe he will spend the next four years disappointing me. Maybe. But none of that will alter what his inauguration meant to me. Much like his campaign promise, his inauguration created hope. Hope that we are closer to breaking down the final roadblocks to full equality. That we are that much closer to a female president. Hispanic president. Gay or lesbian president.

That literally any American could grow up to be president.

Thank you Barack Obama.

A St. Louis-area school wanted to open a dialogue about Black History in education. Jackson Park Elementary School in University City, three-quarters of the school's 350 students are black, sent students home with a flier entitled "Why I hate Black History Month"

Some parents, understandably, were pissed.

Organizers say they were trying to emphasize the importance of learning about black history all year long, not just in February.

After the outrage of some parents the organizers reworded the flier.

The revised flier is titled, "Why I LOVE Black History Month."

Which is kind of the complete opposite of the message they were trying to convey.

Which I agree with. Whole-heartedly. I think black history is also American history. It should be taught all year round, not relegated to a single month. The shortest month of the year.

There are twenty schools days this February. With about an hour for history class, that is a mere twenty hours. Twenty hours in an entire school year devoted to black history. That isn't enough time to really delve into anything, let alone a subject as massive as the history of black people in America.

Some examples:

Dr. Charles Richard Drew, an American physician and medical researcher, devised the first system for the long term preservation of blood plasma which allowed storage for future blood transfusions. Ironically, he then was forced to protest government racial segregation of donated blood from donors of different races claiming it lacked scientific foundation. Which it does. Drew later died from injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Contrary to myth, Drew didn't die because white doctors refused him medical help.

In 1914, Garrett Morgan created a gas mask intended for rescuing mine workers. It worked. Really well.

Shortly after receiving his patent, Morgan had a chance to put his invention to the test. In 1916 a tunnel was being constructed under Lake Erie. One night, there was an explosion in the tunnel. Three separate rescue parties entered the tunnel -- and never came out again. In desperation, officials familiar with Morgan and his device summoned him.

Morgan rushed to the scene wearing only pajama bottoms and carrying four of his safety hoods. Police and firefighters, having seen their compatriots descend into the smoky hole never to return, refused to go into the tunnel. Morgan, his brother and two volunteers put on the hoods and went in.

Morgan and his crew went into the tunnel again and again, pulling suffocating workers and rescuers to safety. Morgan even helped save the superintendent of the tunnel project by performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on him.

This prompted the U.S. government to request his work in producing masks for the U.S. Army. Morgan further invented a hair-straightening preparation and patented a type of traffic signal.

Rebecca Lee Crumpler was the first black woman to become a physician in the United States. In 1883 she penned A Book of Medical Discourses. Working with the Freedmen's Bureau, Crumpler gave medical attention to freed slaves who otherwise would have had no access to medical care.

Now granted, it has been a long time since I attending school but I didn't learn about any of this history in school. I learned it from personal study. Just reading book or scouring the internet. And that is kind of sad, really.

This is history. American history. The race of the American shouldn't disqualify the importance or relegate it to a single month of the year.

The The War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada is calling on the Canadian government to allow U.S. war resisters to seek amnesty in Canada. The conservative government, however, continues to deport Americans.

January is a critical month for U.S. war resisters living in Canada. Canadians have made it clear through polls, vigils, letters, petitions, rallies, and many other means, that they want American soldiers who refuse to participate in the Iraq war to be allowed to stay.

The House of Commons passed a motion in June 2008 calling for the government to stop deportation proceedings against war resisters and their families, and to allow war resisters to apply for permanent resident status in Canada.

Yet the Conservative government is continuing to try to deport resisters. In January there are five resisters facing deportation:

January 20 - Chris Teske
January 22 - Cliff Cornell
January 27 -Kimberly Rivera, her husband Mario and three children
January 29 - Patrick Hart, his wife Jill and their son
January 30 - Dean Walcott

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has made it clear that his government intends to go against the will of Parliament and the will of Canadians. He has stated that the refugee claims of war resisters are "bogus" and that he "has no sympathy for them."

The organization is holding a "LET THEM STAY" Week from January 19 - 26, 2009.

If you are Canadian and would be interested in helping the cause, please visit the links above.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind. - John F. Kennedy

I was thinking of that quote by Kennedy when I read Dick Cheney's views on the war in Iraq.

Vice President Cheney says the Iraq war was worth it.

Q: But Mr. Vice President, getting from there to here, 4,500 Americans have died, at least 100,000 Iraqis have died. Has it been worth that?

CHENEY: I think so.

Q: Why?

CHENEY: Because I believed at the time what Saddam Hussein represented was, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, was a terror-sponsoring state so designated by the State Department. … He had produced and used weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological agents. He’d had a nuclear program in the past. … And he did have a relationship with al Qaeda. […]

And so I think given the track record of Saddam Hussein, I think we did exactly the right thing. I think the country is better off for it today.

So, Cheney says the war in Iraq was worth 4,500 dead Americans because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction in the past. Maybe I am just obtuse, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Al-Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Why? Because they felt justified based on past actions of the U.S. Government. Obviously, I don't agree with them and frankly, no one in their right mind should. Terrorism and violence are never justified. But be serious...Cheney is parroting the same philosophy Al-Qaeda uses.

Although, contrary to what the government initially told us, the war in Iraq had exactly dick to do with 9/11. The truth is we got involved over a bunch of lies.

As Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders noted:

"The 9/11 attacks did not lead to the war in Iraq. What President Bush was telling us (before the war) was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was somehow in collusion with Al Qaeda. Those were misstatements of fact, as even President Bush has since acknowledged."

True. Bush's own words:

"You know, not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment... I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but there were things [that] didn't go according to plan."

So how exactly was Hussein's actions in the past worth starting a pre-emptive war that has cost the lives of 4,500 Americans and who knows how many (the statistics are debatable) Iraqis? How exactly was that "worth it"?

And why the hell aren't more people pissed off about this?

As Bush's tenure draws to a close, I see more and more people casually dismiss the war.

...a needless war costing half a trillion dollars and thousands of lives...

...The political capital built up by Blair's work in Northern Ireland was squandered entirely by the needless war in Iraq....

Yes, the war is needless.

Yes, too many people have died or been seriously injured already.

But why are people not more outrages about this?

Let's end it. Let's end the war.

This is a vicious cycle where we fuck with other people and then years later they fuck with us back. Then we have to fuck with them again. And then, of course, they fuck with us right back. And so on.

Meanwhile, thousands die on both sides and people like Cheney claim it was "worth it". No. It isn't worth it. It is never worth it.

Look at the statistics: over 4,000 American soldiers have been killed as well as more than 1,000,000 Iraqis.

All told, an estimate of at least 1,004,500 dead. That's the price tag.

And it's growing every day.

That's not "worth it". Not at all.

Is not Life miserable enough, comes not Death soon enough, without resort to the hideous enginery of War? - Horace Greeley

United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of more than 1400 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building.

While thousands of people are out of work, losing their homes, hungry, cold, having hate crimes committed against them, or dying in Iraq and Afghanistan......

California atheist Michael Newdow sued Chief Justice John Roberts in federal court for an injunction barring the use of those words [so help me, God] in the inaugural oath.

Ok, then. I didn't realize that Mr. Newdow was the one making the inaugural oath. Did I miss something in November? I know that I'm out of touch, but I didn't realize that the American people were going to hog-tie Mr. Newdow and force him to make an oath to a higher being that he doesn't believe in.

Oh, wait.

The oath dictated by the Constitution is 35 words long and reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

What? There is no mention of God in that? Again, I must have missed something.

An oath can be defined as to swear solemnly; vow Just to clarify, a vow is a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment .

Personal commitment. Making a personal promise. Wow, taking the inaugural oath must be a pretty personal thing. Like Mr. Obama's and Mr. Newdow's personal right to believe in a God, a Santa Claus, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing at all.

When Mr. Newdow is elected to the presidency, he can not say "so help me, God", and I won't care. Mr. Newdow can finish his oath "...defend the Constitution of the United States. Now let's party like a rock star", and I still won't care.

Sorry, Mr. Newdow, although I stand 100% behind your right to voice your opinions and beliefs openly, I also stand 100% behind the right of every other American to openly voice theirs, including Mr. Obama. We are not always going to like what others have to say, but we can always disagree, we are fortunate to have that right. That is in the Constitution; that same Constitution that Mr. Obama is going to swear to uphold on January 20th. If you really don't want to hear that last part, don't listen.

Many have noted that openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson's Prayer for the Nation was not aired on HBO. Here is the prayer in video and text.






A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama

By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire

Opening Inaugural Event
Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC
January 18, 2009

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

Back in November, I wrote about personal experiences with glaring racism after the election.

Now CNN has an article about hate crimes experts and law enforcement officials monitoring white supremacists in the days leading up to Obama's inauguration.

Anger, violence and interest in racist ideology did increase in the hours and days after Obama was elected president in November, hate groups experts said.

Three New York men were indicted on charges of conspiracy to interfere with voting rights -- accused of targeting and attacking African-Americans in a brutal crime spree soon after Obama was declared the winner on November 4.

And interest in racist ideology was so high right after the election that computer servers for two White supremacist Web sites crashed, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.

But the violence and interest soon subsided. Leaders within the white supremacist movement are now seeking to capitalize on Obama's presidency by using his election to help grow their organizations.

If you spend any time at all on the internet, I'm sure you've seen it to.

I went to AOL and clicked on the first article under the The Obama Presidency label. The article was Obama Rides Rails to Capital Amid Cheers. Here are some comments:





How droll.





I can't tell what is more bothersome...the he LOLs the death of Lincoln...or that he is subtly saying that the same might happen to Obama? The fact that this is all hi-larious to the poster is disturbing as hell.





Token?





Well, it was only a matter of time before someone made the "ape" comment. The fact that he slid in an anti-Arab comment as well makes him twice the asshole. Well played, Sir.





Ah. One could find a racist connotation to this...but it isn't necessary. The comment is offense on its face. The poster felt that it was witty enough to be posted two times.

And these are from a random article.

Unfortunately, the CNN article mirrors this trend:

While experts said it is difficult to determine how many people belong to hate groups, they do agree with an SPLC estimate that claims there are about 900 operating now, a 40 percent increase from 2000. The vast majority of these groups promote white supremacist beliefs, and range from skinheads living in urban areas to the KKK ,which is based largely in rural settings.

This is the sort of ignorance that we must not turn a blind eye to. I know...we all claim we wouldn't turn a blind eye to it...but that is exactly what happens. A recent study showed that people rarely act in the way they think they will.

They said the study demonstrated that despite saying they would be upset if they saw an act of racism, when non-black people actually witnessed racism against a black person, they showed little emotional distress. Also, they tended to overestimate the extent to which a person making a racist comment would be socially rejected.

Such tolerance of racism leads to its perpetuation, because a number of studies have shown that when people are confronted about the racist remarks they make, they are less likely to repeat them, said co-author John Dovidio, a psychology professor at Yale and expert on prejudice.

Wait. It gets more disturbing:

For the study, Dovidio and colleagues studied 120 non-black volunteers who were waiting for what they thought was the real experiment to begin when were then exposed to racism. One group of participants directly experienced racial incidents where they witnessed a black person, who was posing as one of the volunteer participants, bump into a white person who was also posing as a participant. After the black participant left the room, the white participant either said nothing, or "clumsy n_____," or "I hate it when black people do that".

The other participants either read about the incidents or watched a video of them and were then asked to predict what their responses would be.

All the participants were also asked to say which of the others they would be willing to work with.

The participants who did not actually witness the events first hand were much more likely to say they were upset at the comment the white participant made about the black participant, and to say they would refuse to work with such a person. The participants who actually witnessed the events first hand reported being less distressed and 63 per cent of them were more willing to work with the white participant who made the racist remark as one who did not.

63% were willing to partner with the racist.

Let that sink in.

This behavior cannot continue. Stop turning a blind eye to hatred and intolerance. As they study quoted above noted: a number of studies have shown that when people are confronted about the racist remarks they make, they are less likely to repeat them.

So confront them. Make the hatred stop.

But peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people. So let us not rest all our hopes on parchment and on paper, let us strive to build peace, a desire for peace, a willingness to work for peace in the hearts and minds of all of our people. I believe that we can. I believe the problems of human destiny are not beyond the reach of human beings. - John F. Kennedy

When one sees what happens in the world between the religions, the different religions, killing each other and murdering each other, it's disgusting - Omar Sharif

All who affirm the use of violence admit it is only a means to achieve justice and peace. But peace and justice are nonviolence...the final end of history. Those who abandon nonviolence have no sense of history. Rather they are bypassing history, freezing history, betraying history. - André Trocmé

Choose
The single clenched fist lifted and ready,
Or the open hand held out and waiting.
Choose:
For we meet by one or the other. - Carl Sandburg

Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace. - Gautama Buddha

Peace is the only battle worth waging. - Albert Camus

In March 2006, U.S. Attorney Todd Graves was forced from his job for balking at filing suit against Missouri's secretary of state. The suit claimed that Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan (a Democrat) failed to purge ineligible voters from the voter rolls. Graves' replacement, Bradley J. Schlozman, was more than happy to do the job. Of course, a Federal judge dismissed the whole thing for lacking any evidence of being true. Which is why Graves refused to do it in the first place.

So who is Bradley J. Schlozman? Lucky for you, a new report has been released on Schlozman's behavior.

A former Justice Department official entrusted with enforcing civil rights laws refused to hire lawyers whom he labeled as "commies" and transferred another attorney for allegedly writing in "ebonics" and benefiting from "an affirmative action thing," according to an investigation released yesterday by internal watchdogs.

Yep. Bradley J. Schlozman does not want "commies" and if you use "ebonics", you are gonna get transferred. Go civil rights!

But don't worry. Not everyone suffered under Schlozman. Some were rewarded for their hard work (read "hard work" as "being Republican").

Over three years in which he controlled employment decisions, Schlozman favored young conservatives for entry-level jobs, transferred those he called "right-thinking Americans" into top assignments and instructed colleagues that "adherents of Mao's little red book need not apply," according to e-mails cited in the report. Authorities analyzed 112 career hires during Schlozman's tenure and determined that "virtually all" of the lawyers whose political affiliations were known at the time had ties to Republicans or conservative legal groups.

Seriously. Virtually all of the 112 career hires had ties to Republicans or conservative groups. This was the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice.

How conservative did one have to be to stay employed? Voting for Bush was a good indication of "loyalty".

The report said the official, Bradley Schlozman, placed limits on the assignment of cases to attorneys whom he described as "libs" or "pinkos" in the Department's civil rights division. It said he requested that important cases be handled by conservative attorneys he had hired.

The report said Schlozman expressed concern about whether several career attorneys could "be trusted" because he believed they had not voted for Bush in the 2004 election. He violated the law by weighing political views in hiring decisions, it said.

While that is illegal and unethical, maybe it isn't shocking enough for you. How about a racist email?

Schlozman forwarded to colleagues, with an approving note, an e-mail in which the sender asserted he liked his coffee "Mary Frances Berry style, black and bitter." Berry, who is black, headed the U.S. Commission on Civil rights from 1993 to 2004.

This is my favorite part:

Schlozman resigned in August 2007 and does not face any disciplinary action by the department....

...Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the department had already adopted a number of reforms. "We are confident that the institutional problems identified in today's report no longer exist and will not recur," he said.

Oh. OK. Relax everyone. Everything is fine now.

It's good to know that while maybe some little things happened in George W. Bush's Department of Justice that weren't exactly kosher....no biggie. We fixed it.

In discussing George W. Bush and his presidency, Wendell Goler the White House correspondent for Fox News Channel had the following to say:





25 seconds into the video:

...He inherited the 9/11 attacks. He inherited the recession and he inherited some tough times on Wall Street....

No shit. The President "inherited" something that took place almost nine months into his first term as president. And he "inherited" the recession.

Actually, what Bush inherited was this:

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

What Bush did when the seas started getting choppy was...very little.

As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

Even though Wendell Goler is talking out of his ass because Fox News is a Republican PR firm, the truth is each President inherits things from their predecessors. Bush inherited a budget surplus (which he promptly pissed away). Obama inherits two wars, a rapidly spreading recession, and a whole load of other problems.

The mark of a great President isn't what he inherited or how many problems...it's what he does about it. Bush made things worse for the vast majority of Americans. Period.

They tried lowering recruitment standards.

Then they offered a $40,000 bonus for five years of active duty.

They even recalled Paul Bandel.

But it wasn't enough.

Now...it's video games.

At the Franklin Mills mall here, past the Gap Outlet and the China Buddha Express, is a $13 million video arcade that the Army hopes will become a model for recruitment in urban areas, where the armed services typically have a hard time attracting recruits.

The Army Experience Center is a fitting counterpart to the retail experience: 14,500 square feet of mostly shoot-’em-up video games and three full-scale simulators, including an AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter, an armed Humvee and a Black Hawk copter with M4 carbine assault rifles. For those who want to take the experience deeper, the center has 22 recruiters.

How well is it working?

Not well.

But for the Army Experience Center, the results so far have been less than spectacular. Since it opened, about 35 visitors have enlisted. That is slightly below the previous recruitment rate at the five smaller stations, Sergeant Jennings said, at a time when the slumping economy would be expected to drive more people to enlist.

"We’re not at the point where we can say this is an effective strategy," Major Dillard said...

$13 million for 35 recruits. That math kind of sucks. Beyond the apparent failure of the "Experience Center", others feel it is an unethical recruitment tactic.

Jesse Hamilton, a former Army staff sergeant who served in Iraq and is now a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War has called the center "very deceiving and very far from realistic."

"You can't simulate the loss when you see people getting killed," said Hamilton...

"It's not very likely you are going to get into a firefight," he said. "The only way to simulate the heat is holding a blow dryer to your face."

Even with 60 personal computers loaded with military video games, 19 Xbox 360 video game controllers and a series of interactive screens describing military bases and career options in great detail some aren't fooled.

At another video console, Graceson George, 29, a graduate student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago, led a squad of Army special forces through the battle zones of the game Ghost Recon....

...Mr. George said he did not think the video game accurately conveyed the combat experience.

"In this one, you can die as much as you like, but in real war it’s not possible," he said. "The reality of military service is beyond what you think. Here you can go back and replay, but in real life if you get shot you get shot. So it’s an entertainment, but it makes you think."

No kidding, Mr. George. Life has no reset button.

While many people have been pushing for a Special Prosecutor to investigate possible war crimes in the Bush administration, Obama doesn't appear to be in that camp.

We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. … My orientation is going to be moving foward.

Now Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has stated that regardless of what the Obama administration decides, he feels that Congress should look into the idea.

"I think that there's a lot that remains to look at, and I appreciate that President Obama doesn't want to make it his purpose as a new president, with America in real distress in many directions, to go back and look at all this, but I think we in Congress have an independent responsibility, and I fully intend to discharge that responsibility," Whitehouse said.

Good for Senator Whitehouse.

I have to love the irony of a man named Whitehouse willing to do what the White House is hesitant to do.

State Rep. Jimmy Naifeh has been speaker of the House in Tennessee. From what I gather with a quick google search, he was the longest-serving Speaker of the House in Tennessee history. In the 2008 elections, Republicans took control of the House 50-49. This is the first time since 1971 that the GOP has had control of the House.

Republicans were going to vote state Rep. Jason Mumpower as the new speaker.

But apparently, the Democrats had another idea. They nominated a moderate Republican, Kent Williams, and once they all voted for him...he was almost there. Williams cast the final vote for himself to win the speaker position.

House Democrats explained how this all went down. Talks with Williams started nearly two months ago as a back up plan. Then Monday it became clear Naifeh wasn't going to be speaker anymore.

"And with that, a number of us starting working toward what we thought was a good solution to the problem," Naifeh said.

Here is a local news video showing the vote and the reaction.





Naturally, the Republicans are working on ousting Williams already.

The Tennessee GOP has already started the process of ousting Williams. They claim he broke his signed oath with the party when he voted Tuesday. According to party bylaws that could be enough to kick him out.

The move by Democrats and Williams was positively Machiavellian. While I'm sure Democrats are laughing about this, think of it this way: Williams is the Tennessee State House version of Joe Lieberman. Not so funny now, is it? You can't castigate Lieberman but then turn around and crow about Williams.

The Obama-Biden Plan stated Obama's plan to revoke the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell military policy.

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Back in November, sources close to Obama claimed that he might not act until 2010. Now the word has changed.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Obama now plans to do it sooner, rather than later and that it definitely will happen.

President Obama will end the 15-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has prevented homosexual and bisexual men and women from serving openly within the U.S. military, a spokesman for the president-elect said.

Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team's Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:

"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.'"

Back in November, it was reported that more than 100 retired generals and admirals have called for the repeal of the policy. In July, an ABC News poll showed the same trend with average citizens.

An ABC poll in July found that three-quarters of Americans supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military compared to 44 percent of Americans who expressed the same support in 1993, when President Bill Clinton approved "don't ask, don't tell" as what he called an "honorable compromise" that nevertheless bitterly disappointed his supporters in the gay community.

A day earlier, EqualityMaine announced a bill that would extend civil marriage rights to same-sex couples in the state of Maine.

The bill, titled "An Act to Prevent Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom," is sponsored by Sen. Dennis Damon (D-Hancock). Damon recently sponsored an amendment to extend to domestic partners the protections currently provided in Maine’s Family Medical Leave law.

EqualityMaine and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) convened the Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition to carry out a coordinated plan for education and advocacy on marriage equality. Other coalition partners include the Maine Civil Liberties Union; the Maine Women’s Lobby; the Portland Chapter of the NAACP; Maine People’s Alliance; and the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence.

Coalition supporters include the Maine Children's Alliance; the Maine Bar Association Family Law Section; the Maine Bar Association Elder Law Section; Community Counseling Center; the League of Young Voters; the National Association of Social Workers--Maine chapter; Planned Parenthood of Northern New England; the American Association of University Women; and the Mabel Wadsworth Women's Health Center.

EqualityMaine's website has a great section entitled "Common Questions" which makes clear their goals.

Would marriage for same-sex couples undermine or weaken the institution of marriage?
No. The struggle for marriage equality affirms the importance of marriage in people’s lives and in our communities. By increasing access to marriage for adults in committed relationships, we can strengthen the institution – not weaken it. Marriage will not be weakened by allowing same-sex couples to marry, just as it was not weakened by women’s suffrage or the repeal of interracial marriage bans.

Why do you call it "marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage"?
Because we're not talking about creating a separate institution called "gay marriage." We're talking about providing equal access to the existing institution of civil marriage.

How would marriage equality affect my church?
That’s entirely up to your church. Remember, the issue is civil marriage, not religious marriage ceremonies. Religious institutions are not required to perform civil marriages, and may set their own boundaries for marriage. Some faith leaders will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced, for example, or for people of different religions.

Marriage equality does not challenge the autonomy of religious institutions in any way. Advocates of marriage equality focus strictly on civil marriage, and leave decisions about religious marriage ceremonies to faith leaders.

Indeed.

Hopefully, Obama will stick to his guns and repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell.

Equally, I hope that Maine does the right thing and grants equal rights within civil marriage. If you live in Maine, support EqualityMaine and volunteer to help the project.

The Obama-Biden Plan calls for creating universal health coverage.

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors, and plans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

That promise just came one step closer to fruition.

Making a down payment on President-elect Barack Obama's promise of universal health coverage, the House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to expand government-sponsored insurance to 4 million more children in working families with income too high to qualify for Medicaid.

Between 300,000 and 600,000 of the new enrollees could be non-citizen children of legal immigrants who have been in the country less than five years, a sticking point for some Senate Republicans who also will consider a similar bill.

Obama said he hoped the Senate acts with the "same sense of urgency so that it can be one of the first measures I sign into law when I am president."

Forty Republicans crossed the proverbial aisle to help Democrats pass the bill 289-139.

The cost? A steep increase on the Federal tax on cigarettes. The tax will increase 61 cents to $1 a pack.

As a smoker (yeah...it's bad. I know.) that part kind of sucks for me, but I will take the hit if it will allow a few hundred thousand kids to have health care.

Of course, if a few other things were realigned, maybe raising taxes wouldn't be necessary. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pointed out:

"Forty days in Iraq equals over 10 million children in America insured for one year," Pelosi said. "We certainly can afford to do that."

How about we get to work on that whole "ending the war" thing?

Obama?

Anyone?

Timothy Geithner is Barack Obama's choice to run the Treasury Department. Many feel he is very qualified and will do a fine job.

Of course, not paying taxes isn't the best way to illustrate fiscal responsibility.

He failed to pay self-employment taxes for money he earned while working for IMF from 2001 to 2003, according to materials released by the Senate committee. In 2006, the IRS notified him that he owed $14,847 in self-employment taxes and $1,885 in interest from 2003 and 2004, which he paid after an audit. The IRS waived penalties for those tax years.

Transition officials discovered last fall that Geithner also had not paid the taxes in 2001 or 2002. He paid $25,970 in back taxes and interest for those years several days before Obama announced his choice, the committee documents showed.

This comes on the heels of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) announcing their displeasure with Obama's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson.

Jackson comes under fire from PEER for a variety of other reasons: letting Superfund clean-ups go unfinished (a common New Jersey problem that predates Jackson); waiting three months to inform parents and workers that their Gloucester County day care was vulnerable to mercury vapors because it was built on the site of a former thermometer factory; mistreating a whistleblower; and creating flood hazard controls plagued by loopholes. PEER also alleges that under Jackson and New Jersey's DEP weakened groundwater pollution protections and missed key deadlines for a climate change bill.

I guess Obama is just doing a super job of staffing his new administration.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson says "hi".

While Obama ran his campaign claiming he would tax the wealthy...

Obama said he would pay for this tax plan by closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the wealthiest Americans.

...now it appears that he has changed gears.

Mr. Obama pledged Wednesday to attack surging spending on entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and he promised to lay out specific federal programs to cut when he unveils his first budget blueprint next month.

He further stated:

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare? This is change?

As Mark Weisbrot pointed out in 2007, Social Security is fine and should be left alone.

...there is not the least bit of urgency regarding Social Security, and it would be best to take the issue off the table entirely until we have at least a few years of public education....

...In fact, the first cohort of baby boomers (those born in 1946) will begin retiring in just a couple of months, since many people take their Social Security at age 62 (with a correspondingly reduced benefit). Our Y2K moment is upon us, and nothing will happen - because the baby boomers' retirement has already been financed.

Back in 1983, when Social Security really was running out of money, with just a few months of payments on hand, Congress raised the payroll tax substantially. This was done deliberately in order to pile up a surplus to finance the baby boomers' retirement. And so it did: that accumulated surplus stands at more than two trillion dollars today, and is increasing at a rate of $190 billion annually.

Overlooking the fact that Social Security is doing just fine, what happened to taxing the wealthy to pay for his plans? Why instead has he decided to screw the poor, elderly, and the handicapped?

While Obama has already announced that he won't reverse the Bush tax-cuts to the wealthy, this is taking it a step further.

The man who was supposed to bring "change" is, unfortunately, looking more and more like just another politician.

A conservation group called the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has the mission statement stating: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) fights for strong and effective laws and regulations.

Apparently, sometimes they fight the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, too.

It appears that they are currently suing the EPA to force them to clean up Chesapeake Bay.

A conservation group filed a federal lawsuit Monday to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the law and clean up the polluted Chesapeake Bay, citing 25 years of failure to restore the nation's largest estuary.

The lawsuit asserts that the EPA's failure to meet its obligations "has led to the continued degradation of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay," harming natural resources and the residents who depend on them.

I have never been to Chesapeake Bay so I have no idea how polluted it is, but the article makes it clear that the EPA has seriously dropped the ball when it comes to doing their job.

Foundation attorney Jon Mueller said the lawsuit alleges the EPA's administrator has failed to comply with a congressional mandate to clean up the bay as specified in agreements signed in 1983, 1987 and 2000. The lawsuit also alleges agency actions were "unreasonably withheld," and the EPA has failed to meet established deadlines.

The article goes on to note that both commercial and sports fishing groups are joining in the lawsuit as have former Maryland Governor Harry Hughes. If you are interested in helping the CBF fight the EPA, please check out the CBF website.

Baltimore Mayor Sheila A. Dixon has done some good things for Baltimore. The Democrat was the first female mayor of Baltimore, and during her tenure, she oversaw a a significant decrease in the city's homicide rate, reducing killings to a 20-year low.

Unfortunately, it appears that she stole some stuff, too.

...the Maryland prosecutor's office charged that for four years Ms. Dixon misused holiday gift cards that were intended to be distributed to needy families. Prosecutors say she gave them to members of her staff and used them to buy herself electronics and clothing.

Did she at least buy something good? Nope.

Prosecutors said the gift cards were to be distributed to needy families, but were instead used by Dixon to buy electronics _ including an Xbox, a PlayStation 2 and a camcorder _ clothes and other merchandise and also handed out to members of her staff.

Videogames? It almost makes it shittier that it is just consumer electronics. I assume she could have afforded an X-Box on her salary...I mean, how low could her pay possibly be?

She was investigated for allegedly receiving improper gifts. The ripping-off-the-needy thing was secondary.

The case stems in part from at least $15,348 in gifts Dixon allegedly received from her former boyfriend, prominent city developer Ronald H. Lipscomb, while she was City Council president. She also is accused of using as much as $3,400 in gift cards, some donated to her office for distribution to "needy families," to purchase Best Buy electronics and other items for herself and her staff.

What makes this even shittier is that while the Mayor was screwing needy families, the Maryland Foodbank has announced a shortage of supplies.

Donated product at the Maryland Food Bank is at an all time low comprising less than 50 percent of our current inventory.

Hopefully, Ms. Dixon will go straight to jail.

As for the foodbank, you can help by donating money or donating food.

One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Peace is not something you wish for; It's something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away. - Robert Fulghum

Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures. - John F. Kennedy

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. - Jimi Hendrix

If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace. - John Lennon

Remember Joe the Plumber? While he isn't a licensed plumber and his real name is Samuel...why sweat the details?

Remember when Joe was going to run for office?

Or when he was thinking about becoming a country music star?

I guess he decided to be a political correspondent instead.

Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio plumber who became briefly famous during the US presidential campaign when he tackled Barack Obama on his tax plan, is on his way to Israel to be a war reporter for the conservative website pjtv.com.

Honestly, normally I wouldn't give a shit nor would I bother to take the time to write anything about a guy who is already way past his allotted fifteen minutes. But this next quote kind of pissed me off.

Is he scared that one of the Hamas rockets might have his name on it? Not really. After all, as he explained, he's a Christian so God will keep him safe.

"Being a Christian I'm pretty well protected by God I believe," he said.

Yeah. He actually said that.

I guess ole Joe believes that if you die in Gaza, it's because you just plain didn't love Jesus enough. Otherwise you would have been fine.

Joe the Plumber: he may not be an actual plumber, but he is certainly a dick.

Maybe I need to create a new blog label for "assholes". With Pat Boone making idiotic statements and Bobby Rush spouting off insensitive comments and now Joe the Dick, I would probably have lots of material for that label.

With the various bailout plans being in the media over the past few months, much has been discussed about the disparity in pay between labor and company executives.

In October 2008, a USA TODAY/Gallup survey of 1,019 people found that 63% think setting limits on executive compensation at companies that participate in the bailout is very important.

In September 2008, Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, remarked on CEO pay packages:

"The CEOs of the 500 largest American companies received an average of $15 million each in the year 2006, and that was a 38 percent increase in just one year," Waxman said. "In 1980, CEOs were paid 40 times the average worker; today they are paid 600 times more."

That is a ridiculous divide between the average worker and the CEO. And that is 600 times more than the average worker...how much higher must it be than the lowest paid worker?

This has caused many to float a proposal to cap the pay of company CEOs at 20 times the average worker's salary.

The New York Times disagrees:

So why not limit executive pay? The problem is that although every company wants a talented chief executive, there are only so many to go around. Relative salaries guide job choices. If salaries were capped at, say, $2 million annually, the most talented candidates would have less reason to seek the positions that make best use of their talents.

And I don't buy that argument at all. Let's say there are three companies you could work for. If you are going to be paid the exact same amount regardless of which of the three you choose...wouldn't you naturally gravitate to the one which would best use your talents? Why sit around bored? Why choose to be phoning it in?

People want to enjoy what they do for a living. Many people voluntarily take pay cuts to move to a job that is better for their mental and physical health because that issue is sometimes more important than the paycheck. I don't believe for a second that having a standard pay rate would suddenly cause a CEO to stop giving a shit and cease being proactive in their jobs.

At the end of the day, the workers create the product not the executives. The average executive physically doesn't do shit. He or she is in no way responsible for the product his company sells...so why should that CEO be receiving 600 times more than the average worker? Without the workers, there is nothing to sell and therefore no profit to pay the CEO. Rather than screwing the people who provide the CEOs with their wealth, why not force the CEOs to share that wealth.

Believe me, if there was a law that said a CEO could only make 20 times what the average worker was making...that average worker is gonna see one hell of a pay hike the very next day. No CEO wants to give up the plane, the limo, or the Swiss chalet.