I knew there was a good reason (besides his cutting Medicaid to hundreds of thousands of poor people) why I didn't like Matt Blunt.

The Republican War on Voting

I'm glad he's decided he can't win if he runs again and won't run for a 2nd term.
And I think this is also why "republicans" always seem to be cutting the education budget. If people aren't educated then I think it's less likely they'll notice or know what to do about people disenfranchising them. Or taking away their other rights.

And combined with McCain's support of Bush's judicial appointees, this makes me fear the future.
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003741.php
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/mccain-criticiz.html

I was going to ask why people do this but I think I know, ruthless pursuit of power and money. What we need today I think is a statesman rather than a politician. :(

"To Our Friends Who Are Still In The Desert"

(I've used this title before it seems.)

This is an old, old French Foreign Legion toast. I tried to look it up on wikipedia with nothing and google it without result. I likely read it in a book on the foreign legion years ago but I can't recall which one now.

I think of this when I read reports of the numbers of soldiers we've lost in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Or recently when one of the bloggers I regularly read told us her sister's national guard unit has been mobilized and will deploy to Iraq. I would find her news ironic since she's a staunch conservative and was a Bush supporter. If it wasn't too serious for that. If I had absolutely no idea of the anguish she's going through now. But I can't. We've disagreed before but she's shown herself to be intelligent and articulate and the facts of an issue will sway her point of view. I used to think that my mother never worried about me while I was stationed in Germany (1982-1986). A few years after I came back she disabused me of this notion. And that tour wasn't nearly as dangerous as current tours in Iraq or Afghanistan (although we did have four deaths in our battalion - 500-600 men - during those four years). I think I can say nothing affects a soldier the same way as those boots with the helmet on top that are set before the podium in the chapel during a memorial service. Or the lone bugle playing Taps afterwards. Especially not an officer.

I can't really say I know how they (deploying soldiers) feel, it's been too long since I've been a soldier. But I can empathize with their desire to "get the job done". If they don't seem to accomplish anything over there then all those deaths (American and Iraqi) would be pointless. And that thought is simply abhorrent. So I can understand that from their point of view we can't leave until the job is done. The problem comes from politicians not defining what "the job" is before sending troops into combat. And the platoon and squad leader or even the grunt on the ground can't really influence this. But since it's an all volunteer Army now, they've chosen to be in the Army and thus have to take it all. Eventually the number of deployments a soldier goes on may wear even this commitment away. That will be a sad day.

But what does this quote mean? I've used it before but I don't really think anyone who heard it understands. It refers to the comrades that Legionnaires have left behind in the desert dead. It links to the Legion motto "March or Die" from their very earliest days in the North African desert. And their indomitable spirit. Get the mission done regardless of cost. If you won't march, you'll die. An American quote I've heard soldiers use is often "To Absent Friends". This is the same.

This I think, is the spirit of our soldiers, sailors and airmen deployed. In that same spirit I can only support our soldiers (but not the people who sent them there with no clear goal) and raise my glass to repeat the toast.

"To Our Friends Who Are Still In The Desert"

the president appointed the supreme court judges he did.

Supreme court won't review Bush domestic spying case

On the one hand they do have a point, proof of injury or involvement. On the other hand since all the information obtained illegally by the warrantless wiretapping is classified, the plaintiff won't have access to or knowledge of it, so it's impossible to prove involvement. Very clever tactic.

It used to be California, the land of "fruits, nuts and flakes". But I submit to you that the new granola state is the District of Columbia, Washington in fact.

EPA Chief Defends Shielding of Global Warming Papers

And Mister Johnson is right, California doesn't need it's own standard. There should be a Federal standard that everyone has to follow. But since "president" bush's government won't enact one, some states see the problem and the urgent need for action and decided to take it on their own. Perhaps hoping to shame the Federal government into action.

And then trying to claim that he needs to keep things secret for court action. Cheers for Representative Boxer for calling bullsh!t on him.

Taxi to the Dark Side

I heard about this on NPR this morning on the way to work. I want to see it, maybe even own it. It sounds truly disturbing and ties in directly with what I've been thinking about posting about for awhile now.

Congress is all up in arms about the CIA's destruction in 2005 of tapes of "harsh" interrogations of suspected terrorists in 2002.

House Panel Criticizes CIA Tape Destruction

I agree that it's deplorable that they've destroyed this sort of thing without getting anyone's permission or anything. However in all the hue and cry I think one serious issue has been overlooked. That these CIA interrogators TORTURED PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE. All while our "president" was telling us (and the world) that "the US doesn't torture people (so we don't need any new rules or laws or anything)".

Just how far down are we going to allow our leaders to let America fall before we do something about it?

that I love irony?

Why Science Can't Save the GOP

Hahahahahahaha

To begin with, this is a man who has Parkinson's. So stem cell research could very well have a significant impact on his life and that of his family. So, while he's not a doctor or medical researcher, he has a vested interest and I think his opinion might be more important than mine (except, perhaps, to me).

And I find another kindred soul in his phrase

"the small but intense minority who believe that a clump of a few dozen cells floating in a petri dish has the same human rights as you or I."

I've posted here before my amazement that the rights of this hypothetical person are more important than the rights of a living, breathing person standing right here in front of you asking this very question.

And he points out that the cause of the creation of all these embryos is the in-vitro fertilization clinics. Which aren't illegal and may be receiving federal monies. And don't seem to be the target of attack for the rabid forced-pregnancy proponents and their anti-research cronies. None of them seem to address the concept that if we stopped these procedures there wouldn't be extra embryos which needed to be protected.

But then, if I recall correctly other reading I've done, logic has little impact on these people ...

If you don't want to do your job then.

Why Diplomats Won't Go to Iraq

I saw this topic come up yesterday and I'm still of the same opinion. I find it amazing that they're given a choice of their assignment in the first place. True you can ask for an assignment in the military but it's a well known fact that you go where you're sent.

If they don't want to go to Iraq then they can resign the Foreign Service. That's very simple. The military doesn't even have that option. Once you sign up your done. You go where you're told when you're told to or you're brought up on charges and face a Courts Martial. Until you're mustering out date. Also very simple.

It very much strikes me as

"WAAAAA Coach, I don't want to wear the pink polka dot shorts!"

To which I respond, "tough".

Let me ask you this, if we're fighting a "War on Terror" and we're allegedly winning it, don't you think the amount of terror in our lives would go down?

How is your terror?

I find mine still alive and well but it doesn't seem to be terrorist that I'm terrified of. Lately I'm terrified of losing my cherished American Freedoms. Having them striped away by my government and then being declared an "enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely without being charged if I speak out.

Ironic, isn't it?

Kind of sounds like what's going on in Burma right now, doesn't it?

So are we winning the war on terror? Is there less terror in the world now? What emotion will they declare war on next? I'll put five dollars on "logic" (yes I know that's not an emotion, also ironic, isn't it?).

When I was a teenager I did what many of them do. I did goofy things in an attempt to be unique, different, me. Mostly with no idea why I wanted to be different (that idea and it's cause wouldn't crystallize for a few years yet).

But one of my "slogans" was "Elect me Democratic Dictator" in an odd attempt at humor. My subtitle was "I'll make the world a better place to live in if I have to kill every man, woman and child to do it!".

I was obviously a big fan of irony at the time. I don't think that particular personality trait as disappeared as I've gotten older. The Irony I appreciate may have gotten more subtle, but there is still a kernel at my core which can perceive and enjoy it.

At least until sad meanings from my teenage slogans come true.

When "Pro-Life" Means "Terrorist"

Now in my old age I've come to realize that choice is key. I can't stop people from being hateful, mean, bigoted assholes. It's their right and I spent about 13 years of my life protecting their right to be asshat fucktards. Simply because the other side of the coin is freedom of choice for important things for everyone else too. For every one mean person I think there are three (or four or five? no idea how many but certainly more than one) good people who want everyone to live in peace and happiness and are willing to help us as a species get there.

Despite no hard sources that I saw, this piece indicates that there have been no pro-life leaders assassinated by pro-choice proponents. While it lists a few pro-choice doctors who have been killed by pro-life protesters.
I would ask these people (if I actually knew any and assuming they actually could communicate in a human fashion) why the life of an unborn baby, a potential, is so screamingly more important than a doctor. Or a nurse. Or a woman of any type. Or anyone who is already alive and breathing. How does the old saying go? "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."?

So is it ironic that one of the construction workers figured out that the building in Aurora was going to be for Planned Parenthood by noticing that the windows ordered for installation were bulletproof glass?

I'm off to finish reading the piece. I signed the petition.

Honorable??

Bush: Gonzales' 'good name dragged through the mud'

---

honorable

adjective
1. not disposed to cheat or defraud; not deceptive or fraudulent; "honest lawyers"; "honest reporting" [syn: honest] [ant: dishonest]
2. worthy of being honored; entitled to honor and respect; "an honorable man"; "led an honorable life"; "honorable service to his country" [ant: dishonorable]
3. adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action" [syn: ethical]
4. deserving of esteem and respect; "all respectable companies give guarantees"; "ruined the family's good name" [syn: estimable]
honorable

---

How exactly can anyone use the word "honorable" to describe what "Mister Torture" has done? If we consider nothing else besides his "legal" justification for torturing people. I won't dispute the talented part. I mean he went to Harvard Law School.

Alberto Gonzales
Hmmm, but he was an enlisted man in the Air Force and even went so far as to enroll in the Air Force Academy. But he bailed before his third year (which would have incurred a service obligation) to transfer out. Almost like say, joining the Air National Guard instead of going to Vietnam. (well that was a bit snide but then I didn't bail on my service commitment)

Whoa. The more I read the scarier it becomes.
Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
He says that while the Constitution says you can't take Habeas Corpus away except under certain circumstances, it does grant that right. A new definition of "double speak"? (note, this is only an opinion piece)

We go back into that place where he believes the president has the lawful right to declare anyone, US citizen or not, an "enemy combatant" and imprison them for as long as he wants, torture them for whatever information he may believe they have and pretty much do anything he wants to them with no recourse for them.