The King can do no wrong. UPDATED

If John Locke were alive and still writing he would probably have been compelled to write a third treatise of government just to address the actions and behaviour of US Vice President, Dick Cheney. Alas, the man who challenged the Divine Right of Kings and the concepts of Sovereign Immunity and Divine Infallibility has been gone these past three hundred and three years and it appears even Henry Waxman is hard pressed to stare down the most powerful and out of control VP in US history.

House Democrats on Thursday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney's idea of abolishing a government office charged with safeguarding national security information _ and criticized him for refusing to cooperate with the agency.

Cheney's office _ over the objections of the National Archives _ has exempted itself from a presidential executive order that seeks to protect national security information generated by the government, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Cheney didn't seek precedence or consent to do this, mind you. He just granted his own office an exemption. And all the while, the imbecile Cheney hired to occupy the the big chair in the eccentric shaped office jerks off to strains of Hail To The Chief while imagining himself the warrior prince.

Once a great country....

Cheney is using the argument that his office is not a part of the Executive Branch of government and therefore not required to comply with a presidential executive order requiring an audit of information classified and declassified by Executive Branch offices. The Information Security Oversight Office of the US National Archives disagrees and has asked, (choke), Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to intervene and rule on the dispute.

Expect to hear the words "quaint" and "arcane" accompanied by something like, "The situation is confusing." Because Cheney has laid out exactly where this is going.

Megan McGinn, a spokeswoman for the vice president, said Cheney's office was not breaking the law, but did not elaborate.

"We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law," she said.

Soak that up. Cheney is not concerned with the effects of his actions on the fabric of democracy. He's grabbing a maximum amount of power by meeting the minimum requirements of a democracy. Ignore any Jeffersonian concepts of equality and government of, by and for the people. Cheney is of a different school and occupies a platform apart. He could easily have replaced Augusto Pinochet.

Once a great country....

In ... parliamentary procedure in the past responsibility rested with the highest officials, who were responsible for carrying out the anonymous wishes of the majorities, and it was they who exercised the authority. In the Leadership Principle we sought to reverse the direction, that is, the authority existed at the top and passed downwards, while the responsibility began at the bottom and passed upwards.

Hermann Goring
March 18, 1946
Trial of Major War Criminals
Nuremburg

Update: Via Greg Sargent, Illinois congressman Rahm Emanuel's office has sent out a chart depicting the branches of the US Government in the 21st Century. (Click to enlarge)

Emanuel issued this statement:

"Today, we discovered that everything we learned in U.S. government class was wrong. Evidently, the Vice President does not consider himself a part of the executive branch, and therefore believes he can obstruct meaningful oversight and avoid being held accountable. If the Vice President truly believes he is not a part of the executive branch, he should return the salary the American taxpayers have been paying him since January 2001, and move out of the home for which they are footing the bill."

Cheney has managed to manipulate the often overlooked office of Vice-President and turn it into the most powerful and least accountable seat in the US Government.

The US Government Policy and Supporting Positions publication, known as the Plum Book, is published after each US presidential election. It contains data on US Federal civil service leadership and support positions in the legislative and executive branches of the US Government that may be subject to non-competitive appointments, including salaries, some description of duties, etc. In all editions up to and including the year 2000, the Office of the Vice President has appeared under the heading Executive Branch, right after the White House Office.

Then came 2004, after Cheney had battled with the General Accounting Office over the workings of his Energy Group.

In the 2004 edition of the Plum Book, the Office of the Vice President no longer appears under the heading Executive Branch. Nor does it appear under the heading Legislative Branch.

Instead, you have to go all the way to the back of the book, page 226 to be exact, to a never before published appendix (appendix 5), which describes the office of the Vice President as follows: (Emphasis mine)

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

This statement was produced by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform, when the Republican controlled Congress. The timing, coincidentally, would be after the US invaded Iraq and during the brewing controversy of the outing of covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame.

It suggests Cheney is neither fish nor fowl, and it is clearly an attempt to divorce himself from oversight - from any office anywhere at any time.

If there was ever any doubt as to who is really running the show in the Bush administration, this example of Cheney separating himself and his office from any accountable part of government should provide the necessary clarity.

Citizen Cheney has made his position omnipotent and untouchable. He believes himself above the law and beyond the reach of scrutiny. He, having achieved office through whatever democratic process, has segregated that office from the workings of a democracy.

What makes everyone think that he will allow elections in 2008? His moral example came to power and altered government in exactly the same way. And he did away with elections.

Dubya: Still more popular than genital warts! (barely)

The latest Newsweek poll shows George W. Bush's is NOT the most unpopular president in U.S. --he is three whole percentage points more popular than Richard Nixon during Watergate.

Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd pesident is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of republicans...In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon’s approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in.

I know what you're thinking -- it's the war. Americans are dying and voters are blaming the president. Well, yes...

The war in Iraq continues to drag Bush down. A record 73 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Bush has done handling Iraq. Despite “the surge” in U.S. forces into Baghdad and Iraq’s western Anbar province, a record-low 23 percent of Americans approve of the president’s actions in Iraq, down 5 points since the end of March.

...And no. Turns out that American voters just aren't that into Dubya anymore.

But the White House cannot pin his rating on the war alone. Bush scores record or near record lows on every major issue: from the economy (34 percent approve,60 percent disapprove) to health care (28 percent approve, 61 percent disapprove) to immigration (23 percent approve, 63 percent disapprove). And—in the worst news, perhaps, for the crowded field of Republicans hoping to succeed Bush in 2008—50 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of terrorism and homeland security. Only 43 percent approve, on an issue that has been the GOP’s trump card in national elections since 9/11.

"But, but, but" I hear the hardcore Bushniks sputter "Voters hate congress more than they hate Bush." True enough...

If there is any good news for Bush and the Republicans in the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, it’s that the Democratic-led Congress fares even worse than the president.Only 25 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.

...But I think the reason people hate congress is that they haven't managed to clip Georgie's wings yet. Thanks to Bush's veto power, Republican obstructionism and general gutlessness about being accused of "not supporting troops" the Democratic congressional majority hasn't done what people want to see them do. They haven't ended the war, done anythng on health care, or gotten rid of Alberto Gonzales. People hate the president and Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table.

At least George can take some joy in knowing that he isn't likely to be impeached. No matter how many people hate him, he's still more popular than his puppetmaster Vice-President Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 18-23, 1,125 adults nationwide. MoE 3%."Is your opinion of Dick Cheney favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Dick Cheney yet to have an opinion?"

Favorable 13%

NotFavorable 39%

Undecided 23%

Haven'tHeard 24%

Refused 1%

(cross-posted at The Woodshed)

On things that boggle the mind

Madison, Wisconsin law professor dabbles in Freudian analysis to provide cover fire for her own narcissistic maneuver. Sets off internet blogging storm when she declares "mission accomplished". Orders of onion rings triple at North American fast-food take-out restaurants while shipments of Kleenex™ to the basements of members of the microchip militia have caught delivery companies completely unawares.

US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, in the spirit of NAFTA, makes a decision which would send even Freud back to the books. Jeez, couldn't she have picked an act that doesn't evoke a continuing stream of apologies from huge segments of the Canadian population? What the hell, wasn't this guy available?! Do you see what you've done?!! Sure. Go for the Canadian angle, but ferchrissakes, go downtown.

Accident? Try again BGen Grant.

Something has been bugging me since I first heard of the IED (roadside bomb) which killed three Canadian troops on June 20th at Ma'Sum Ghar, Afghanistan. The tragedy of three young men being killed is bad enough, but it was a comment made by Brigadier General Tim Grant which set me back. (Emphasis mine)

"So a determined enemy was clearly able to penetrate the defences and the observation in the area to plant this device," Grant said.

Asked whether it was a judgment error to use this vehicle in hostile territory, Grant replied: "No. This is an unfortunate accident."

"The vehicle was appropriate to the task at hand ... It was in terrain that was suited to this vehicle, as opposed to others."

Say, what?!

How in hell is that an "accident"?

Grant admitted that defences had been penetrated and an unobserved enemy planted a mine on, what should have been, a proven roadway or track. How does that get classified an "accident"?

Without the benefit of additional information it looks like an enemy managed to breach security and successfully take out a Canadian vehicle and its troops. That's no "accident". That, it would appear, is precisely what the opposition intended to do.

In my recollection it is the first time I have ever heard of troops being killed due to enemy action referred to as an "accident".

And, as appropriate as a John Deere Gator may have been to the task before perimeter security was breached and an insurgent mine was planted, it isn't anymore. The proof of that is coming home in caskets.

Remember the Rapture? The pastor spells it out.

In keeping with the theme of the lunacy of the rightwing christofascists, Cernig picked up on this telling bit of superstitious crap from MichNews.

Prophecy continues to unfold. The Bible has warned about Middle East turmoil increasing "in the latter times." In Ezekiel 36-39, God speaks of bringing Jews from around the world to Israel, not because they deserve their own land but to vindicate His holy name. They besmirched deity's holy name by repeatedly sinning over centuries; but God will not tolerate His holiness smeared without vindication, hence Jews gravitating to Israel "in the end times." So look to the divine miracle: May 14, 1948, when Israel became a nation for the first time in centuries. Jews from all over the globe went to Israel, their homeland. Ezekiel predicted Israel's flourishing: herds, flocks, fruitage, ruined cities rebuilt. With Israel having settled in, however, biblical predictions go on to state that the enemies surrounding Israel attack Jews mercilessly. Blood flows like rivers. Natural calamities come also upon Israel, convincing Jews and Gentiles alike that God is God and that His holiness must be recognized. At the close of the Church Age — "in the latter days" — Israel will then come under the blessing of the returned Messiah Christ's peace. ...What is particularly interesting is that the Ezekiel Israel-signs are in place — Jews returned to Israel as their own nation, Israeli enemies staged to attack Israel, and threats of global holocaust coming from the chief killing antichrist on the planet — Islam. Put the more generic signs of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 alongside the specific Israel signs of Ezekiel 36-39 and you have the converging of the "latter day" signs.

Now, you may not have heard J. Grant Swank, Jr. There's no reason you should have. Aside from MichNews, Swank writes for the Magic City Morning Star. Yeah, I know, you've never heard of that either. It's an online newspaper, written by volunteers in Millinocket, Maine.

A whole bouquet of Swank's writing can be found here. Within his columns you will find the standard christofascist fare: bigotry, gay-bashing, anti-choice vitriol and a healthy dose of religious hypocrisy.

Swank doesn't spend all his time in Maine. He owns 50 acres in Kennetcook, Nova Scotia which he inherited from his wife's parents. He makes rather a point of thanking his dead father-in-law for the bequest and tells us it's all part of God's master plan. You know, killing off his in-laws so he could enjoy those Bay of Fundy breezes.

Why would Israel want to ally themselves with this mob? Their whole focus is to annihilate the Jews.

H/T Brilliant at Breakfast

At the going down of the Sun, and in the morning...

With respect and condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Stephen Frederick Bouzane, 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry; Sergeant Christos Karigiannis, 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry; and Private Joel Vincent Wiebe, 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry.

Conservapedia makes a splash in LA

Andy Schlafly has made the big-time again with an article written by Stephanie Simon of the LA Times. There is some irony in the fact that coverage of Schlafly's efforts show up in the technology pages.

Andy Schlafly was appalled. He was teaching a history class to home-schooled teens and one student had just turned in an assignment that dated events as "BCE," before the common era — rather than "BC," before Christ. "Where did that come from?" he demanded. Her answer: "Wikipedia." At that, Schlafly knew he had to act. In his mind, the popular online encyclopedia — written and edited by self-appointed experts worldwide — was riddled with liberal bias. Dating events without referring to the New Testament was just one example. How about Wikipedia's entry on golfer Zach Johnson, winner of the 2007 Masters? Not a single word about how Johnson gave credit for his win to Jesus Christ. Thus was born Conservapedia.com — labeled "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust."

So, that's why! It's Zach Johnson's doing. Now it all makes sense.

Schlafly, 46, started small, urging his students to post brief — often one-sentence — entries on ancient history. He went live with the site in November. In the last six months, it's grown explosively, offering what Schlafly describes as fair, scholarly articles. Many have a distinctly religious-right perspective. Take the Pleistocene Epoch. Most scientists know it as the ice age and date it back at least 1.6 million years. But Conservapedia calls it "a theorized period of time" — a theory contradicted, according to the entry, by "multiple lines of evidence" indicating that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, as described in the Book of Genesis. "We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them," Schlafly writes in his mission statement. "Beyond that we welcome the facts." Conservapedia defines environmentalists as "people who profess concern about the environment" and notes that some would want to impose legal limits on the use of toilet paper.

Brief, because we are talking about the attention span of, well, people who actually take a joke by Sheryl Crow and piss their pants over it.

Femininity? The quality of being "childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."

Right. Childlike. Submissive. The attributes expected by the hard-right Christian community. Men are in charge. Women are pretty, gentle, willowy, but most of all, submissive. That, of course would make Andy's mother very happy. That's right, Andy's mom is ultra-conservative, uber-wingnut, anti-feminist, anti-equal rights author and conservative moll, Phyliss Schlafly. High priestess of the religious right-wing, she dislikes Bush and the neocons, but promotes them during an election anyway.

Conservapedia's critics for the most part have no problem with the articles heaping praise on former President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of Britain. But they worry about material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seek to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion. They're also concerned that children who stumble onto the site will assume everything in it is authoritative. Schlafly says students can always follow the footnotes to get more information, but few links connect to dissenting — or even mainstream — views.

Actually, Conservapedia, aside from being utter crap as a research tool, can be pretty funny. While Schlafly boasts around 10,000 contributors, what he doesn't tell you is that over 3,000 of them are permanently banned... me included. Schlafly isn't interested in facts. If it's in the Christian bible, that's all the provenance he needs to support an idea, theory or, as often appears in Conservapedia, pure myth.

It's also written by the lazy. There is little in the way of research and almost nothing in the way of supporting documentation. Even the Conservapedia entry on God is truncated when compared to the same entry in Wikipedia.

The articles change constantly, as most are open to editing by anyone online; on a recent day, a few showed dissenting views. An entry about kangaroo origins, for instance, stated that most scientists believe in evolution. (It was the last line in the entry, after a lengthy discussion about which marsupials Noah may have brought aboard his ark.) In other cases, a glance at the entry's history — which shows editing over time — makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted. Dr. Peter A. Lipson, an internist in Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia's claim that abortion raises a woman's risk. The site's administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate. After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.

And they're fast too. After submitting an entry which was nothing but factual, public information on a blogger in Seattle, the entry was deleted and I was blocked, all within a few minutes. It's not that the information was wrong, but it was about a progressive liberal site.

Rationalwiki.com makes an interesting observation about Conservapedia:

... paying attention to what Conservapedia doesn't say can be just as enlightening as what they do say. For example, various human bodily parts have been permanently banned from having entries on CP, leading to CP having thousands of words about why a woman shouldn't have an abortion, and not one word on the organs involved in getting her pregnant in the first place.

And that would also suit "mommy". The Schlafly's are all about the basic elements of the conservative movement. Phyllis made no secret that her opposition to various groups and progressive activities were to maintain privilege. Her privilege. Part of making that happen is an effort to keep the religious faithful as dumb as possible.

Conservapedia is certainly doing that. Cruising Conservapedia can be a lot of fun for an educated, enlightened person. Watching a wingnut, with a look of seriousness on the face, as they cruise Conservapedia is an absolute riot.

But, before you go, check out RationalWiki.com. You should be armed with facts before you enter Schlafly's deluded world.

Drumroll for the blogroll

Yes... it grows. (There will be a culling of dead links in the near future).

Some of these come from readers, some come from "comments" and some I have on a little scrap of paper and have been meaning to add for some time. More will be coming.

Butterflies and Wheels, which I thought I had added a month ago is now visible on the right sidebar.

Impolitical (pronounced I'm political) finds a spot amongst the letter "I".

Red Jenny is added, even though she should have named this post, Hydraulic Ham.

Taliban makes a direct threat to Canada, US and Europe

This ought to get the "pant-pissing brigade" into a lather.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

Sort of puts a lie to the "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" meme. All of this is apparently being organized by Mansoor Dadullah, brother of Mullah Dadullah, who was killed 12 May, 2007 and had been the Taliban's senior commander.

Before anyone goes off seiously half-cocked however, the Taliban power structure needs to be looked at.

When Mullah Dadullah was killed, Mullah Omar did not appoint Mansoor Dadullah in his place. Instead he appointed the much more experienced Mullah Bakht Mohammed as supreme Taliban commander in the southern region of Afghanistan. There are other veteran commanders in the eastern region who would object to Mansoor Dadullah being placed in a position of command. Mullah Berader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Saifullah Mansoor and the Tora Bora Military Front all have established organizations which will need proof of Mansoor's abilities to raise and lead a military force.

In short, there's a power struggle underway inside the Taliban and this latest announcement looks very much like Mansoor Dadullah posing to make a point with other leaders of the Afghan insurgency. Whether he actually has the wherewithal to move groups of suicide bombers to Europe and North America remains an open question.

The only thing in Dadullah's favour is that he is Taliban and familiar with the southern region of Afghanistan. Other prospects for commanders in the south are not Taliban by precise definition.

In any case, it should be interesting to watch what happens here. US intelligence doesn't seem to be taking it with much seriousness.

U.S. intelligence officials described the event as another example of "an aggressive and sophisticated propaganda campaign."

Maybe so, but counter-terrorism experts like Richard Clarke don't believe Dadullah's threat should be completely dismissed.

"It doesn't take too many who are willing to actually do it and be able to slip through the net and get into the United States or England and cause a lot of damage," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism official.

Maybe, but all that has to happen is to have the pants-pissers go into a panic and Dadullah will have succeeded without so much as giving his credit card number to Expedia.com.

When have these guys ever advertised their intentions?

Photos and video are available at the ABC link. If anybody can identify the landscape it would be helpful.

More religious nuts. This time they're Muslim.

Someone must be sprinkling cashew dust around all the religious nuts these days.

The award of a knighthood to the author Salman Rushdie justifies suicide attacks, a Pakistani government minister said today.

"This is an occasion for the 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, told the Pakistani parliament in Islamabad. "The west is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and withdraws the 'sir' title."

This from a country that calls itself an ally in Bush's War On Terra™.

Before anyone in Pakistan gets too carried away with their own importance they need to be reminded that they created a safe haven for Taliban and al Quada fighters in Warziristan.

This is the same country playing mumbly-peg with nuclear weapons. Never mind Iran. Pakistan is unstable and on the brink of a coup. Now, religious edicts are being issued... by the Pakistani parliament.

All that aside, this looks like an attempt to deflect attention inside Pakistan from the real problems. Pervez Musharraf is on the brink of being toppled. When he dismissed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry in March of this year, the country erupted in violent protest. Musharraf has placed restrictions on the press and news media, only to have to suddenly lift them when it sparked even more ugly demonstrations.

Musharraf, still commands the army while sitting as an unelected president, a near violation of the Pakistani constitution. He hopes to retain power by holding presidential elections before he dissolves parliament and the provincial legislatures in November. He has also said the that none of the exiled opposition leaders will be allowed to return to Pakistan ahead of the elections.

Add to all of that, Pakistan has been suffering from the worst electricity shortage in memory sparking even more riots by large groups of the population.

But they've got nuclear bombs.

Condoleeza Rice enters the picture with a Bush *hearts* Musharraf message.

U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has signalled the Bush administration's steadfast support for Pakistan's struggling leader but also expressed worry about the country's rising violence and called for stronger rights for opposition groups.

Rice's meeting with Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri, yesterday came as Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, faces the biggest political crisis of his eight-year rule, with thousands taking to the streets to demand the President relinquish power.

That won't help Musharraf and should set off a whole new set of riots.

The condemnation of Britain for awarding a knighthood to Salman Rushdie is one of two things: Either the Pakistanis are trying to deflect attention from extreme internal problems or, there is a thought in Karachi that Pakistan can actually lead the Muslim world.

Either way, it highlights the problems of a theocracy. Foreign policy based on religious beliefs. And before any Christian fundamentalists get on their high-horse, don't for a minute think you are any better.

Since Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq has just called for suicide bombings, we can all assume that in the Global War on Terror, he is now on somebody's hit list. Or at least on a no-fly list.

No?

I didn't think so.

H/T Cat

Iraq is number two. Among failed states.

What was it Iraq was supposed to become? A shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East?

The FP Failed State Index tells a completely different story:

To provide a clearer picture of the world’s weakest states, The Fund for Peace, an independent research organization, and FOREIGN POLICY present the third annual Failed States Index. Using 12 social, economic, political, and military indicators, we ranked 177 states in order of their vulnerability to violent internal conflict and societal deterioration. The index scores are based on data from more than 12,000 publicly available sources collected from May to December 2006. The 60 most vulnerable states are listed in the rankings

And, second only to Sudan, Iraq comes near the top of "failed states" in the world. The rankings are here.

Way to go, George! At least you've made Iraq a beacon of something.

Afghanistan is doing swimmingly better. It's eighth from the top of the Failed States Index.

Update: I really like this theory.

Recognition!!

ChristianGovernment.ca has a newsletter!

Cool!

It's a little late, but there it is for all to read. Apparently, because we don't subscribe to the site owner's version of Christianity... or any other organized religion for that matter, we're all a bunch of Marxists.

Umm... no. I'm a democrat. I don't believe anybody's religion has any place in government. And if you don't believe what theocracies do to the people of a country, you only have to read this.

No matter. The newsletter goes on to describe a speaking engagement (the cause of the delay in getting this critical newsletter out) with the Kitchener-Waterloo chapter of the homophobic defendMarriage Canada.

The newsletter takes particular issue with Mike's post. Apparently they don't like the idea that there is a body of people in this country who don't like having "the one true religion" crammed down our fucking throats by a religious freak. (That's not blasphemy because Bloedow's theology is anything but Christian. It is profanity. Get over it.)

Anyway, it seems Mike isn't the only one being identified as dangerous. Bloedow's readers are being cautioned about these posts:

Unrepentant Old Hippie blog (The whole friggin' blog, mind you!);
The Galloping Beaver blog (Thanks! Love the attention!);
Canadian Cynic (You may get a Blogging Tory wound stripe from that);
The Eternal Gaijin's blog (That is a disambiguation from the newsletter);
Rational Reasons blog (Because Mike won't take any shit from him).

If you've come from ChristianGovernment.ca, welcome! Here, there is no true religion. Please observe that elsewhere.

I encourage you to pursue and practice your faith. It has nothing to do with government. And if you try to make your religion a part of my government, I will fucking-well stop you. Dead in your tracks.

Hmmm.... checking the statcounter and I'm getting this uneasy feeling. It's starting to look like ChristianGovernment.ca has one active reader. Aside from those of us listed above I mean.

That's hardly worth the profanity and blasphemy.

Blogroll addition

This goes to the power of "comments". This morning 900 Ft Jesus posted a comment. That's enough to get me looking and I found a great blog attached.

In the House and Senate gets added to the blogroll. The profile is very, very interesting.

Welcome to Blogtopia (yes, yes... that was coined by Skippy)

Screw decorum - I'm pissed off (repost)

Update: I really, really need to screw decorum.

I put this post up the other night and then removed it in the cold harshness of the morning. It’s a rant that I pounded out on the keyboard in the middle of a fit of anger, but the next day I became uncomfortable with it. I prefer not to get overly emotional on a blog (after all, it ain’t real life). Dave was disappointed that I deleted the post, and emails started arriving from people who wanted to know if I was becoming a phantom blogger. Upon reconsideration and in response to the email requests, I have decided to swallow my discomfort and put the post back up. Here it is.

I try to pride myself on being fairly rational and level-headed. But every now and then I lose it. And I lose it big time. And there is no telling what it is that sets me off. This time, I think it was an innocuous, routine daily visit to the BBC news site. Today, I clicked onto the “health” page and was struck by 3 stories. One was about a woman effusing over how “womanly” she feels after her breast enhancement surgery. The second story was about a website, based in the US, where women post pictures and personal details about themselves in the hopes that male readers will donate money to allow them to afford breast surgery. The third story was about a medic in India who specializes in aborting female fetuses. I lost it. I lost it…big time.

In my attempts to keep abreast of world events, to broaden my horizons, to save myself from intellectual laziness, I make a habit of cruising blog and newsites on a daily basis. I am increasingly faced with stories that alternately terrify me and make my blood boil. I encounter so-called Christians (and I refuse to believe that any of these fundy extremists come even close to the true meaning of a Christian) advocate..nay, demand..that their beliefs should be held supreme. And so many of their beliefs centre on the insistence that women hold the same importance as a piece of dogshit.

I am so goddamned sick and tired of being told that, due to my gender (an accident of birth), I am responsible for the downfall/superiority of civilization, the 100% mental wellness of all children and men (excuse me, but when it comes to men and children, is that one category or two?), that I should be willing give up my life to a pile of semi-organized cells medically referred to as a cytoblast, that it is my fault that men are too damn lazy and irresponsible to control their childish impulses, that I have only a narrow, limiting, psychotic inducing, valium-required, degrading little box that I’m allowed to live in.

I’m 50 years old. I’ve have encountered every goddamned form of sexual discrimination there is. I don’t give a shit about pink airlines and whether or not women should shave their legs. I have had my job threatened ( and my ability to put food on the table) if I didn’t have sex with the boss. I have been told, a thousand times, that I don’t have the brains to do a job that a 16 year-old boy is entrusted with. I have been the victim of a brutal sexual assault and told that I had no business opening my door to a stranger. I have been told that I was guilty of uncountable offensives because I was young, female and attractive. And now that I am 50 years old and no longer young and attractive, I am told that I am nothing in this world.

I have one question for you…world. WHEN THE FUCK DID WOMEN AGREE THAT WE WOULD BE THE PUNCHING BAGS OF THE WORLD?

The not-so friendly skies

How long will have to wait for the federal government to start putting peace activists and opposition MPs on new no-fly list, just like their American counterparts?
Barry Prentice, the director of the Transport Institute at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg (quoted in the linked article) has it right:

"We're having a no-fly list because they have a no-fly list.… They want us to have one and we want to open trade with the U.S., so we're getting one."Prentice said the Canadian government should limit the size of its no-fly list and make sure the number of names doesn't get into the thousands."Let's limit it to the size of a hockey team and let's kept it public," he said. "I just think this is overboard."

It isn't like the U.S. list has ever been abused by the authorities. Heaven forbid!

A bit drafty?

Via Skippy, we get this report from The First Post.

The US is considering introducing a limited military draft if it is to keep its present force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon advisers have warned British colleagues. Next month, US forces in Iraq will peak at around 170,000, and GIs in the new units are being told they could be on operations for at least 15 months.

Over Memorial Day weekend, Americans have been faced by the grim statistic that in the year since the last Memorial Day, very nearly 1,000 US military have been killed in Iraq, and many more wounded. These are the worst casualty rates since the coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Interesting, although the report is not sourced and I can't find anything out there to support it.

If it does turn out to be true, let's hope they don't get stupid about it. No deferments, and how about if they start at G in the alphabet.

In any case, if it happens you can bet this lot will find a way to weasel out of it.

And then there's the fact that a draft must be authorized by an Act of Congress. Will that be the next "support the troops" line out of the Bush administration?

Cry PARDON! And wear your cowardice well

Via Carson's Post, we get a Moyer's-eye-view of the Washington neo-con elite circling the GMC Yukons to keep Scooter Libby out of jail.

We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset of Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites -- the people who took us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraq grows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one of their own from going to jail.
[...]
One Beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving -- "weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness" of Libby's sentence.
[...]

None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing "in the nobility of this war," wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a "casualty" -- a fallen soldier the President dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield.

Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks.

A graphic depiction of the neo-con elitist mind at work. The actual carnage is meaningless; the loss of one of their own, who lied to protect other liars, has them running for the cover of the very constitution they conveniently ignored for six years. Incredibly, the same neo-cons who called international treaties quaint but outdated, who defiled the rule of law and who oversaw the destruction of a society thousands of miles away are suddenly waving around legal precedences, howling that the sentence handed to a criminal is too tough.

Too tough. Would that they showed even an ounce of the same compassion for anyone outside their elitist circle. This is the "get tough on crime" crowd suddenly using words which have not appeared in their lexicon for almost a decade: clemency, leniency and pardon.

It goes beyond Libby however. As they lay secure in their beds fretting over the demise of I. Lewis Libby, aircraft fly over head and make their final approach to Dover and Andrews Air Force Bases delivering a cargo of corpses and shattered bodies, hidden from public view in an attempt to conceal the product of neo-con lies. They worry about Libby because they worry about their own exposure.

Libby is a neo-con caricature. But his conviction and sentence are the realities his supporters truly fear. If they can get him; they can get them. Libby's lies were not manufactured to protect himself; they were produced to protect others. He was a water-carrier.

Added to the injury the neo-cons feel is the process by which Libby arrived in his situation. He was pursued by a conservative prosecutor, found guilty by a jury of citizens and then sentenced by a Bush administration appointed judge. And they were not to be swayed by appeals outside the law. They have a passion for the law and the neo-cons can't stand it. The idea of getting tough on crime was meant for everyone but them.

The demands for a pardon for Libby further demonstrate the exclusionist beliefs of the neo-con elitists. They don't fight the wars they start, they don't obey the laws they write and they don't accept punishment for proven felonies. They all seem to ignore that Libby's post put him in a position of great power. He was entrusted to pursue his role within the boundaries of the law. When questioned he was expected to be truthful. His obstruction of justice is not just the felony alone; it is also a breach of the public's trust.

Bush is now caught between the real rock and a hard place. If he doesn't pardon Libby, he violates the exclusionist establishment of the neo-cons by exposing their vulnerability. If he does pardon Libby he illuminates that exclusionist establishment and everything it stands for: an elitist body, completely out of touch with life outside the precincts of the beltway.

Libby's sentence is anything but harsh. Reggie Walton went easy. He should have tossed Libby a kevlar helmet, the same sub-standard body armour US troops are expected to wear in combat and an M4 carbine. Then he should have ordered Libby to perform 3 months of community service in Kirkuk. And if he survived that, he still gets 2 1/2 years in jail, 2 years probation and a fine.

So, let the neo-cons howl for a pardon. It serves to demonstrate that their macho rhetoric was always bluster. Far from the tough-guys they hold themselves out to be, they whine and snivel and throw tantrums like an out of control two-year old. Their weakness is their cowardice and they are wearing it for all to see.

Wanna Get Even More Angry?

Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker on "How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties."

Fair Warning

Rest assured, all of you, Mike would not constitute an army of one.

From what I have read, you intend force your narrow interpretation of Christianity on all Canadians, whether people subscribe to that view or not and whether people want it or not. You preach in nice tones and talk about things like "subsidiarity" and "decentralization" and how strong central government is un-christian (I suggest you let the Vatican know about that one - or the Mormons in Salt Lake or the folks in Westminster Abbey). But you also talk of "secular humanism as a threat that must be suppressed" and that "Christianity is the basis for the rule of law, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and equality before the law." In other words, you are stating that one can only have freedom if one agrees with your religious views otherwise they must be suppressed.

And this is the side most of us are on:

I personally promise you that you will be fought and defeated by any means necessary. I have every right and every intention of defending my family, my property and my liberty from attack. I will defend these things with every peaceable means available, but through violence if necessary. I will not sit back and let you tell my daughter she does not control her own body, or tell my wife she cannot do any job she wishes. I will never be subjugated by those who would condemn me or my friends because we choose not to believe your religious nonsense. I will not stand by while my neighbours are oppressed and forced to convert, or have their personal religions destroyed.

Any questions?

Wiping the pie from my face

Oh... I screwed this one up. In that post I accused John Orman, chairman of the Connecticut For Lieberman Party of something close to hypocrisy for being associated with former Connecticut Democratic Party senator Joe "Let's bomb anything that doesn't love Bush" Lieberman, now sitting in the Senate as an independent.

I saw the irony of a situation and thought it worth spreading.

When I see something like that I usually do some research, to a greater or lesser degree. I like to be in possession of at least conventional knowledge before pushing keys. This time, however, I didn't do that.

My bad.

Luckily reader Joffre in comments put me down the right path and it's only right that I correct the TGB record and apologize to John Orman for suggesting he deserves Lieberman. I will point out my lack of knowledge of Connecticut politics. That, however, is not intended to excuse my lack of diligence in researching the information that was right there, if I'd only looked.

John Orman is no wingnut. In fact, John Orman is a thorn in Joe Lieberman's side, the likes of which gives one cause to cheer. Orman is making Lieberman's life miserable in a very democratic sort of way.

Orman actually ran against Lieberman for the Democratic Party nomination in the 2006 Senate race. By September 2005, however, he had run out of funds and withdrew. From there, Ned Lamont, announcing he was taking over from Orman, upset Lieberman and won the Democratic Party nomination to stand for the Connecticut seat.

Lieberman, who was lucid enough to know that he stood a good chance of being destooled as a Democrat, had a plan in the bushes and, the day after failing to secure the Democratic nomination, filed with Connecticut elections officials to run as a candidate under the Connecticut For Lieberman Party. He accompanied his party registration with 7500 signatures. He went on to win back his Senate seat under that party banner.

John Orman wasn't going to sit back and let Lieberman run amok as usual. Orman considered Lieberman disloyal and dangerous. Where Lieberman is little more than a self-promoting wingnut, Orman is somewhat more shrewd. A professor of politic science at Fairfield University, Orman executed a brilliant maneuver which is best described in his own press release:

Orman Elected New Chair of Connecticut for Lieberman Party

I called the Secretary of State's Office in Connecticut to find out how many people joined the Connecticut for Lieberman Party and I was told that no one had joined, not even Senator Joe Lieberman. I went down to Trumbull town hall and changed my registration to the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. Then I went home and called a meeting of all the registered Connecticut for Lieberman members to reflect on our party's victory in the U.S. Senate race with Senator Joseph Lieberman. Senator Lieberman did not attend the organizational meeting for Connecticut for Lieberman because he no longer wants to be labeled as a member of the party.
In order for the CFL to keep the great ballot spot that Joe Lieberman earned for us, our party had to organize and submit rules to the Secretary of State of Connecticut. Senator Lieberman did not do this when he ran so there was work to be done like platform and rules.

Minutes from first organizational meeting of Connecticut for Lieberman, at John Orman's house in Trumbull, November 15, 2006

At the first meeting I nominated myself to be party chair for Connecticut for Lieberman. I seconded my own nomination and then I voted for myself. I was selected unanimously as Chair of Connecticut for Lieberman on November 15, 2006.

These new rules were adopted:
1. This party is open to every citizen who wants to keep Senator Joseph Lieberman accountable. It is open to critics, opponents, bloggers and everyone else who will work to provide citizen oversight for Lieberman?s actions, words and deeds over the next six years.
2. The chair of the party shall be elected for a period of six years until Lieberman decides to run again.
3. Party history: This party was officially formed the day after Joe Lieberman was defeated in the August Democratic primary in 2006 by Ned Lamont. Lieberman
turned in the required signatures to go with his party organizing committee to declare their intent to form a new political party. Senator Lieberman and his committee did not change their party registration so some suggested that Senator Lieberman may have used the CFL as a gimmick to run twice for the same Senate seat within three months. We who are members of the CFL do not care .
4. We at CFL do care that Senator Lieberman is now turning his back on our party and wants to be called an "Independent Democrat" even though he was not the nominee from the Democratic Party. He was from our party, Connecticut for Lieberman and he should be identified that way.
5. Many citizens complained about our CFL and one citizen (me) asked the Secretary of State and the Elections Enforcement Commission to rule that the CFL was a fake political party contrived to allow Senator Lieberman to be a sore loser and to keep running after he lost. It was argued that Senator Lieberman had no intention of forming the CFL. State officials ruled that Connecticut for Lieberman was not a one man fake party and that it was legitimate.

New Connecticut for Lieberman Rules:

a. If you run under Connecticut for Lieberman, you must actually join our party.
b. The party will nominate people for office who have the last name of Lieberman and/or who are critics and opponents of Senator Lieberman.
c. If any CFL candidate loses our party's nomination in a primary, that candidate must bolt our party, form a new party and work to defeat our party endorsed candidate.
d. We in the CFL intend to run the same candidate for three different jobs at the same time, ie. House, Senate and Governor.

The meeting closed by observing that Senator Lieberman was threatening to caucus with the Republicans. One member said, "How can he turn his back on the CFL? We got him to where he is today."
Another member asked "What if state election officials rule post election that there is no such legal entity as Connecticut for Lieberman and that it is not a legitimate third party since Dr. Orman is the only registered member? What if they rule a party for one is not allowed in our state?" No chance of them going back on their previous rulings for Joe Lieberman, right.
A member asked, "What if election officials won't let us run for three different jobs by one candidate at the same time because we would be making a mockery of the electoral system in Connecticut?" No chance of that happening either.

These are the new rules for my new political party that I am working to keep alive so it will not be some fake gimmick that Senator Lieberman used to get elected. Thank you,

Sincerely

Dr. John Orman Chair, Connecticut for Lieberman

On January 3rd, 2007, Orman's application and rules for the party were accepted by Connecticut Secretary of State, Susan Bysiewicz.

The Connecticut for Lieberman Party, the minor political party created by Sen. Joe Lieberman for his successful independent bid for re-election, has been taken over by a longtime critic of the senator. Fairfield University political science professor John Orman's takeover has been recognized by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz. Orman is the sole member of the party and filed paperwork with Bysiewicz's office naming himself chairman. The state officials accepted Orman's takeover and his bylaws which limit membership to critics of the senator and anyone named Lieberman. "If someone wanted to challenge it, they'd have to go to court," Ted Bromley, a state elections attorney for Bysiewicz's office said Tuesday.

As with all things like this, there is a dispute. Stuart Korchin, a Lieberman supporter, claims to have been the first member of the party and is attempting to declare that he is, in fact, the chairman of the CFL party.

The State of Connecticut appears not to want to get involved, although Korchin has been told by the Secretary of State's office that Orman had already filed rules and they had been accepted.

That brings us to Orman's announcement on June 12th calling for Lieberman's resignation. Orman asked Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell to appoint Connecticut For Lieberman Party secretary Susan Henshaw as Lieberman's replacement.

So, once again, my apologies to Dr. John Orman for the aspersion I cast. And an apology to readers: I left you with an impression which was wholly incorrect.

As an additional bit of interest, Dr. Orman is something of a stand-up comedian. He has also written several books, one of which addressed celebrity politics and which he discussed with Mark Kelly on CBC's Disclosure.