Open thread

I'm totally serious. Let's make tomorrow phone-in day to the Senate. Remember what we did to them over the lynching issue - and we pretty much embarrassed the hell out of them on that one. Let's do it again.

I'm looking for suggestions for embarrassing t-shirts to sell that illustrate how horrible it is what the Republicans are doing. For the lynching issue we had "My Senator went to Washington and all I got was a lousy lynching."

Suggestions for this issue? Read the rest of this post...

54 GOP Senators who hate America

54 Republican US Senators (there are 55 GOP Republicans in the Senate, but the the Louisiana GOP Senator didn't vote) voted against establishing an independent 9/11-style commission to find out what the hell went wrong with the Hurricane Katrine relief effort. 76% of Americans, including 64% of all Republicans, want such a commission established, but every single GOP Senator (save LA) said no. They'd rather we not know what went wrong. They'd rather America be unprepared for a horrendous Al Qaeda chemical, biological, or nuclear attack on one of our cities.

Find out the names of the Dirty Bomb 54 here.

And, as added ammunition, check out the percentage of Americans who WANTS this commission established:

The survey found that 76 percent of the public favors an investigation of federal storm response efforts by an independent commission similar to the one that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The proposal drew strong bipartisan support: 64 percent of all Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats favored creating the independent panel.

Read the rest of this post...

Mr. President, do you think God hates black people?

Mr. President, this comes from "a vocal leader in the pro-family movement." These are your people. Do you agree with this hate-filled garbage they're spewing or not? Because reading between the lines, I'm wondering if this isn't really about the religious right thinking that black people in New Orleans got what they deserved.

From the American Family Association's propaganda organ, AgapePress:

...An Orthodox Jewish rabbi contends Hurricane Katrina may have been an act of God's judgment for rampant sin in America. Rabbi Yehuda Levin of Jews for Morality believes some parallels can be drawn between the flooding of New Orleans and the biblical flood in Noah's day. Levin, a vocal leader in the pro-family movement, asserts that God does not visit significant calamities or punishments on the world in a merely coincidental way. According to Levin, although people may never completely know what God had in mind with Hurricane Katrina, he still judges sin. Also, the rabbi points out that a horrified public saw "in the aftermath of the flood that there was a significant amount of sexual crime, rape going on there. We know the Days of Decadence immorality, homosexual immorality -- they were expecting at least 125,000 people literally at the time that the flood struck. I mean, I don't think it takes a spiritual rocket scientist to make the connection." But while some Jewish leaders have suggested that God may have sent Katrina to punish the U.S. for urging the evacuation of thousands of Jewish settlers from their land in Gaza, Levin is quick to dismiss that notion. Although there were many reports of violence and depravity in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Levin notes, "We can understand that that sort of represents some of the worst attributes -- or aspects, I should say -- of America, and it's definitely something to be very introspective and repentant about."

Read the rest of this post...

How low can he go? Pretty low according to NBC/WSJ poll

Another poll with another new low for Bush. This time it's the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that shows Bush is a failed president:

Rocked by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, record-high gas prices, and the continued debate over Iraq, President George W. Bush’s public standing has sunk to new lows, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.

Bush's approval rating has declined to its lowest level in his presidency. So has his handling of the situation in Iraq. Moreover, fewer than half those surveyed approve of the way in which Bush has dealt with the hurricane, and a whopping three-fourths believe the United States is not prepared for a nuclear, biological or chemical attack.

National security -- keeping us safe -- used to be his strength. That's over. He's got nothing going for him now. Nothing. A look at the actual numbers tells the story:

According to the poll, Bush’s job approval has plummeted to 40 percent, an all-time low for the president. That’s a drop of 6 points from the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in July, and it’s consistent with results from other recent national surveys. The poll also finds that just 37 percent of respondents approve of Bush’s job handling Iraq, compared with 58 percent who disapprove — another all-time low. In addition, 55 percent want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq, while just 36 percent want to maintain the current level there.

He is the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. Read the rest of this post...

Republicans kill independent Katrina commission

What are congressional Republicans trying to hide?

The overwhelming majority of the country wants an independent investigation by a commission like the 9/11 commission. So why are the Republicans thwarting the will of the majority? Who are they trying to protect? Don't Republicans want to be prepared when America gets attacked by Osama? Do they want innocent Americans to die while they protect their own political interests?

Why haven't Republicans learned the lessons of September 11? Read the rest of this post...

More like he needs a time-out

Oh, I hate to follow up a post by a congressman with something like this. But you know, it's so indicative of what we have to deal with in this town.

I kid you not, this is a REAL Reuters photo, taken today, of our wonderful president drafting a note to Condi while attending very important meetings with world leaders at the United Nations. This is REAL, here's the link to Reuters.



You can click here to see a saved copy of the Reuters page.

Kudos to Atrios for catching this. Read the rest of this post...

Hate Crimes Prevention Act Passes House in Historic Vote

I’m John Conyers, Democratic Congressman from Michigan. Something so remarkable happened today that I approached John about sharing this news with you directly.

This afternoon, we were able to secure House passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This historic event marks the first criminal law-based civil rights measure to pass in decades. I introduced this bipartisan bill in May, 2005 with my colleagues Barney Frank, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Tammy Baldwin and Christopher Shays. Our bill passed as an amendment to the Child Safety Act by a vote of 223-199.

30 Republicans crossed over to vote with us on this amendment. Ironically, many of the conservative Republicans that supported the base bill, the Child Safety Act, felt compelled to oppose that bill’s final passage because its amended version included in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. For the year 2003, the most recently available data, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,489 criminal incidents that were motivated by an offender’s irrational antagonism toward some personal attribute associated with the victim. Reporting by law enforcement is voluntary and it is widely believed that hate crimes are seriously under-reported.

Despite the pervasiveness of the problem, current law limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents against protected classes that occur only during the exercise of federally protected activities, such as voting. Further, the statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim’s perceived sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four states have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 states have extremely weak hate crimes laws.

This legislation will make it easier for federal authorities to prosecute bias crimes by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under federal law, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act. In addition, the bill will provide DOJ assistance for prosecutions at the state and local level.

Passage in the House is just the first step. We now must make sure that the Senate follows its past record of supporting this legislation and then move our focus to the President. As it is combined with the underlying Child Safety Act, I believe we have our best chance ever of passing this bill into law.
Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Thread openly and avowedly. Read the rest of this post...

Big marriage win in Massachusetts for gays

From the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, that apparently doesn't include hyperlinks in their press releases, so I'm not gonna link to them.

Really tired of trying to bring these non-profits into the 21st century.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force hailed today's defeat of a proposed Massachusetts constitutional amendment seeking to ban same-sex marriage and create civil unions. The measure was defeated today by a vote of 157 to 39 by the state Legislature meeting in a joint constitutional convention, having passed the body in March, 2004 by a vote of 105-92. Had it passed today, it would have been on the statewide ballot in November, 2006.

Read the rest of this post...

US Intelligence Chief: Insurgency Is As Strong As Ever

Everyone agrees the insurgency in Iraq is stronger than ever -- they're killing more people this year than last year and killed more people last year than the year before. But John Negroponte -- the intelligence czar -- tries to downplay that fact by narrowing his focus to the last few months and putting the least offensive spin on the facts that he can:

"Putting numbers on the size of the insurgency is probably a bit of a speculative business because nobody knows for sure. But I guess I'd say that based on what I've read and on my own knowledge of the situation in Iraq, that over the past several months I don't think the size or nature of the insurgency has changed appreciably."

How many ways can we slice this? Saying the "size or nature" of the insurgency hasn't changed appreciably is another way of saying Bush is completely failing in his attempt to attack and weaken the insurgency. Negroponte could have said the insurgency is as strong as it's ever been, but Bush wouldn't have liked that.

One thing is clear: an intelligence czar who tries to downplay or bland out clear and accurate estimates of threats to a stable Iraq is not one that inspires confidence. Read the rest of this post...

GOP Senate Kills Independent Katrina Panel

Find out what went wrong? Not if the GOP has anything to do with it. Cover it up, that seems to be their plan:

Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled an attempt by Sen. Hillary Clinton to establish an independent, bipartisan panel patterned after the 9/11 Commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina.

The New York Democrat's bid to establish the panel - which would have also made recommendations on how to improve the government's disaster response apparatus - failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to overcome procedural hurdles. Clinton got only 44 votes, all from Democrats and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Fifty-four Republicans all voted no.

What are they afraid of? Didn't Bush say he was responsible? Read the rest of this post...

Federal Judge Declares Pledge Unconstitutional

Let the screaming begin. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Why doesn't anyone from the MSM ask Condi and Cheney and Bush about their vacations during the worst natural disaster in our country's history? Read the rest of this post...

"The Passion Of The Penguins"

If you had any doubts that far right religious radicals are goofy, banish them now. The New York Times reports that "March of the Penguins" -- a documentary about emperor penguins and their mating rituals -- has been embraced by the far right as a paean to monogamy, a stable family, intelligent design, and a Christ-like parable. The movie -- a word-of-mouth hit -- is the second biggest grossing non-large format documentary in history (right behind "Fahrenheit 9-11)."

To Andrew Coffin, writing in the widely circulated Christian publication World Magazine, [the movie] is a winning argument for the theory that life is too complex to have arisen through random selection.

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, told the young conservatives' gathering last month: "You have to check out 'March of the Penguins.' It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. These things - the dedication of these birds is just amazing."

For anyone who hasn't actually seen the film, let me tell you how ludicrously wrong they are. (The filmmakers are politely aghast that anyone could draw these absurd conclusions from it.) Coffin's comments are just bizarrely ill-informed (he's a film critic and not, I assume, a scientist).

Indeed, Coffin misleads about the very few facts the film offers up. The movie states at the very beginning that emperor penguins have lived in the Antarctic for millions of years; Coffin ignores that and says only that they've been coming to this particular breeding ground for "thousands of years."

What's truly hilarious is their assertion that emperor penguins represent a lovely example of monogamy. Here's what you actually see/learn in the film:

*Emperor penguins mate once, guard the egg until the baby is hatched and then -- once the season is over -- never see each other or the child again.

*Emperor penguins stand by and don't raise a flipper when their children are attacked by a predator -- one baby penguin is killed and taken away (survival of the fittest, kiddo!), a scene that makes the movie a tad too graphic for young and sensitive children.

*An emperor penguin who loses her egg is seen trying to steal the egg of another.

*Emperor penguins take a different lover every mating season.

These facts are the central focus of the film. To watch this film and somehow see it as an ode to monogamy is to ignore the entire film. It's sad and funny and ludicrous to imagine these people struggling to pull out a "Christian" message and morality from a nature film. They can do it -- if they ignore 95% of the film and the facts. Saying "March of the Penguins" celebrates monogamy is like saying "Wedding Crashers" celebrates the institution of marriage. Read the rest of this post...

Please consider making a donation to AMERICAblog, if you can

This is another of my from-time-to-time requests and reminders that I'm now working on the blog full-time, it's my main source of income, and thus I'd appreciate folks considering it like any other magazine. If you like AMERICAblog, consider making a donation (buying a subscription?).

And also, keep in mind that this is really more than a magazine. We're akin, in many ways, to a large advocacy non-profit - we do the same work on the same issues and are as effective, if not more, than many of the top groups, in my opinion. And we know folks donate to the large non-profits - a lot of their executive directors make over $200,000 a year (they really do).

Now, I don't have a problem with paying that kind of salary for quality people, in fact I think you get what you pay for, and I'm often a harsh critic of people who complain that non-profit EDs make good salaries. Why shouldn't they? I'd have a hard time placing a minimal value on my civil rights and my country's freedoms. While $200k isn't exactly the salary range I'm shooting for, my point is that folks donate lots of money for the advocacy work of the large groups and I'd ask that you consider doing the same for blog advocacy, and don't forget the work of the other blogs you may read, big and small. A lot of people are donating a lot of time and effort doing some amazing work. They deserve to be well-paid, especially considering the impact they're having.

Ok, enough of the pitch :-) Thanks as always, and feel free to use the donate button at the top of the "make a donation" button at the top of the page to donate, or the address.

Thanks as always, JOHN

PS I don't want folks donating who are strapped for money. I occasionally get incredibly sweet emails from people who are of limited means and want to donate, and that's just not right, in my view. It's sweet and well-intentioned, but I'm just not comfortable with that. Please don't give unless you can, but if you can, well, don't be shy :-) Read the rest of this post...

No one could have imagined using an airplane as a missile

Or not.

And in 1998 and 1999, the commission report said, the F.A.A.'s intelligence unit produced reports about the hijacking threat posed by Al Qaeda, "including the possibility that the terrorist group might try to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark."

Read the rest of this post...

Bush Ignored Blanco, Reached Out To Barbour

USA Today does a rundown of the two governors most affected by Katrina. Blanco was front and center in calling for more aid and expressing displeasure. Barbour seemed in remarkable denial as he insisted on TV that Bush was doing great -- even while reporters were saying Gulfport and Biloxi Mississippi (just to name two) were in desperate need and FEMA was in short supply or not in sight at all. Buried in the article is this telling contrast:

[Blanco] says that two days after Katrina, desperate for help, she couldn't get through to Bush and didn't get a callback; hours later, she tried again, and they talked....

Barbour hasn't had to wait hours to talk to Bush. In fact, Barbour said in an interview with USA TODAY, the president called him three to four times in the wake of Katrina. "I never called him. He always called me," he said.

Mr. President, is it true in the first five days of this disaster that you reached out to the Republican governor of Mississippi and called him three times? Is it true you NEVER called the Democratic governor of Louisiana during the first five days of this national tragedy that had hit her state harder than any other? Read the rest of this post...

More than 152 die in 12+ nearly simultaneous attacks in Baghdad

12 nearly simultaneous attacks, people. This is the gift we've given the world: A training ground for Al Qaeda to recruit and perfect their techniques. Lovely.

But look at the bright side. All you Iraqis may be dead, but at least you have democracy. How's that working for ya? Read the rest of this post...

Mommy made Bush take the blame

I finally watched the video of Bush, supposedly, taking the blame for the Katrina mess. Watch it. He fidgets, he squirms, his body language screams that mommy is twisting his ear behind his back whispering "take the blame."

Wach the video, it's really pretty horrendous. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Now you tell me. Read the rest of this post...

"How many places will be in shambles by the time the Bush crew leaves office?"

That's what Maureen Dowd wants to know. It's frightening to think of the answer, although she gives some insight:

Given that the Bush team has dealt with both gulf crises, Iraq and Katrina, with the same deadly mixture of arrogance and incompetence, and a refusal to face reality, it's frightening to think how it will handle the most demanding act of government domestic investment since the New Deal.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP's Kilgore won't answer abortion question

Love it when the right wingers can't answer a simple question....if their opposition to abortion is based on their morals, and if it's supposed to be such a great issue for the GOP, why do they all duck it?:

But Kilgore faltered under a series of questions by moderator Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press. Asked by Russert whether he would sign a bill to outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade , Kilgore refused to answer, calling the question hypothetical.

Russert, who thrills in catching national politicians in contradictions on his Sunday morning show, followed up quickly by asking whether Kilgore would veto a tax increase. Kilgore fell for the trick question, saying he would.

"That's a hypothetical question!" Russert said, prompting laughter from the luncheon crowd of more than 500 Northern Virginia business executives in the ballroom of the Hilton McLean Tysons Corner.

Why can't Kilgore just answer the question? What's he afraid of? Read the rest of this post...

90 dead and 160+ wounded in Iraq

In that other Bush success story, Iraq, 73 people were killed in a Baghdad car bombing and 17 others were blindfolded, handcuffed and executed in a village north of the city. I guess we can start looking out for the same old tired phrase that will tell us this is an act of desperation, blah, blah, blah and that there are lots of good people over there who are workin' hard for freedom and democracy. Read the rest of this post...

Bankruptcy for Delta and Northwest?

Uh huh, those high oil prices won't impact the economy much at all. Greenspan is really going out in style with yet another great prediction. Just as Greenspan should have voiced concern about the reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, he should have been more honest about the negative impact of this administrations reckless oil policies. His failure to be vocal on conservation rather than gluttony is starting to show a negative impact on the US economy.

Sure the traditional airline industry in the US is bad but with the bad news on Wall Street yesterday from former favorite Best Buy, we might be in for a bumpy ride. Worse yet, Chinese imports of petroleum have been declining for a few months and oil producing countries are at or close to full capacity with drilling and yet prices still continue to rise. Besides conservation, the options are limited. Read the rest of this post...

NYT Pay Per View Articles -- A Terrible Idea

John posted below about the New York Times' decision to start charging for online access to sections of the paper. Here's my two cents.

I think the NYT decision to start charging for certain sections of the paper is a terrible idea -- and not just because they serve a public function and it would be noble, blah blah blah. Billions of dollars are flowing into Internet ads. The New York Times is making money off of that. And what's happening online? Literally millions of blogs are DRIVING TRAFFIC to the websites of the major newspapers. Traffic at the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and more must be through the roof. Literally MILLIONS of people are likely to see a NYT article trumpted by the blogs (or simply accessed by people with internet access overseas) than ever before in history.

The NYT -- without any effort on its part -- is gaining a massive new audience, a ton of eyeballs either going to or being urged to go to its website. If they can't make money off of that, they don't deserve to stay in business. And erecting a wall to keep out all the people you could be exposing to ads and making money off of is just stupid. It makes sense for the Wall Street Journal and its very select, wealthy readership. It makes absolutely no sense for a mainstream newspaper like the NYT.

The notice also mentioned they'll be making their ENTIRE ARCHIVE available...to people who subscribe. Again, old articles are gathering dust on library shelves and anyone can check them out for free. Now the NYT can cleverly leverage that remarkable database and GET MORE READERS to come to its website and make money off that increased traffic via web ads. They make virtually NOTHING off those articles that are decades old but imagine how often they could link to them from current articles or simply make them available and watch bloggers and students and the curious explore that database and get exposed to ads again and again and again. How shortsighted and stupid can the Grey Lady be? Very stupid, apparently. Read the rest of this post...