Friday, February 17, 2006

Don't worry when sea levels rise Limbaugh says we can stay in his multi-million dollar high-rise

Glacier Melt Could Signal Faster Rise in Ocean Levels
Greenland's glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed, the result of a warming trend that renders obsolete predictions of how quickly Earth's oceans will rise over the next century, scientists said yesterday.

The new data come from satellite imagery and give fresh urgency to worries about the role of human activity in global warming. The Greenland data are mirrored by findings from Bolivia to the Himalayas, scientists said, noting that rising sea levels threaten widespread flooding and severe storm damage in low-lying areas worldwide.


For some reason this made me think of the right-wing Chistians who keep accusing Democrats of being nilhilists. If America keeps Republicans in power they're actually voting for " rising sea levels threaten widespread flooding and severe storm damage in low-lying areas", which seems pretty nilhilistic to me.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

The Rude Pundit on FEMA or the Federal Agents of Republican Incompetence

"Throw Me Something, FEMA":

The Bush administration and, indeed, the President himself were defended by Homeland Security lackey Frances Townsend, who is leading the White House's own "investigation" into "what went wrong" in the response to the hurricane. After Michael Chertoff spoke to the National Emergency Managemen Association, Townsend bizarrely described the President, who as Katrina was bearing down on and then wrecking the Gulf Coast went to two Medicare prescription drug town "meetings" to canoodle with the worshipful elderly and then a VJ Day Commemoration, as well as famously pluckin' the guitar, as "highly engaged in the preparation and response effort, beginning when Katrina was a tropical storm off the coast of Florida." But, you know, "engaged" here seems to mean "yelling at the President through the shitter door on Air Force One that the big storm's a-comin'" for all the attention he paid.

In the end, the Republican Congress can huff and puff all it wants. It can issue reports 'til the end of the next hurricane season calling the Bush administration a bunch of fuckballs who placed bets on which negro on a roof would drown next, and it won't mean a goddamned thing. It can hold hearings where Norm Coleman can attempt to regain his manhood as he moves further down the ladder on who he can harangue. Yes, yes, we need to know what went wrong, who's to blame, all that nice stuff. But the real question to the Congress is, "Now that you know all of this, what are you going to do about it?" And the answer there is, of course, huff and puff a little more until the next Congressional race is over.

Michelle Malkin's stupid question

Michelle Malkin's stupid question
Readers have been e-mailing all day the question the MSM needs to answer:

Why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons?

We're listening...

Someone needs to check and see if Malkin isn't brain dead. If the reason that the press is not publishing the Islamic cartoons en mass is because newspapers are liberal then someone might want to tell liberals who for the most part don't think that newspaper should be in the business of content manipulation one way or the other. Newspapers, despite claims to be otherwise are organs to generate revenue and are generally adverse to risk taking. The Islamic cartoons are unfortunately seen as a risk to many newspapers that don't want to offend Muslims. Right or wrong thats their decision, not a decision of the center-left. Newspapaers makes decisions everyday about content and offensive material, unlike Michelle, who has become conveniently pro free press, I would lean toward erring on the side of free press/free-expression as a matter of general policy. Rather then Michelle and followers who embrace free expression at their political convenience.
-note to MM and PJ Media, you're supposedly the "new media" and you're published the cartoons on the world wide web, so pardon us we suspect more then a little false outrage.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

In the censorship sucks department and a few words on Hackett and Brown

School editors say they were suspended for running Islamic cartoons
The editor in chief of a student-led newspaper serving the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has been suspended for printing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that, when published in Europe, enraged Muslims and led to violent protests in the Middle East and Asia.

Editor Acton Gorton and his opinions editor, Chuck Prochaska, were relieved of their duties at The Daily Illini on Tuesday while a task force investigates "the internal decision-making and communication" that led to the publishing of the cartoons, according to a statement by the newspaper's publisher and general manager, Mary Cory.

Gorton said he expects to be fired at the conclusion of the investigation, which is expected to take two weeks.

"I pretty much have an idea how this is going to run, and this is a thinly veiled attempt to remove me from my position," said Gorton, a U. of I. senior who took the newspaper's helm Jan. 1. "I am feeling very betrayed, and I feel like the people who I thought were my friends and supporters didn't back me up."

Nearly every major U.S. newspaper, including the Chicago Tribune, has not published the cartoons




Everybody gets hurt or more about Hackett-Brown and the netroots, The Activist Class War Continues
The real reason so many people are upset that Hackett left the race has less to do with ideology than it has to do with the ongoing class war within the world of progressive activists. Online, Hackett's support came primarily from those activists who have very little power within the progressive movement as a whole: the working class within the progressive movement. By contrast, Sherrod Brown's support came from the aristocracy within the progressive movement: those who, like Charles Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel, have a lot of power over the direction of the progressive movement. Class, in this sense and in the world to which I am applying the term, is not determined by income. Rather, it is determined by power and ownership over the progressive movement. The outrage comes from the generally accurate perception among the progressive activist working class that the progressive activist aristocracy used their vastly greater power to remove Hackett from the race in favor of Brown. The outrage comes from the fact that, like in IL-06, they made this decision on behalf of a candidate of their choosing without consulting the progressive activist working class. The outrage comes from the very real fact that the activist working class places the blame for the nation's continued conservative backslide squarely on the progressive activist elite.

and another view of things from kos, Party establishment and primaries
It's true that the establishment lined up behind Sherrod Brown -- he has spent years building up his networks and has a proven record people can embrace. Hackett didn't.

But this isn't the only race in which outsider candidates are running. In Rhode Island, the establishment has rallied around Sheldon Whitehouse. Yet Matt Brown hasn't bowed to pressures to clear the field. In fact, he's fought harder.

In Montana, the DC establishment has rallied around John Morrison, seen as a "more electable" because he has won statewide twice. Still, Jon Tester is refusing to bow to to any such pressures.

In Connecticut, a sitting US Senator, Joe Lieberman, is facing a primary challenge. The establishment would love nothing more than to direct the type of energy and funds we'll be directing at Ned Lamont and use that against endangered Republicans. But is that stopping Ned Lamont?

And what about primary challengers to annointed nominees Maria Cantwell, Bob Casey, and Harold Ford? They haven't quit. [update: nor has Mfume in Maryland.]

I liked Hackett, but it really wouldn't have been fair to brown, who has paid his dues so to speak, to be cast aside for someone that doesn't have the kind of experience needed for the day to day details, paper shuffling, power plays, and compromises that goes into Senate legislation. If hackett would have had a term oir two as a representative it would have been a different matter. I'm just a little clog in the blogosphere , but if it means anything to Mr. Hackett I very much hope he stays in Democratic politics, he'd make great governor material. Best to Brown and Hackett.

Congressional Probe of NSA Spying Is in Doubt, moderate Republicans get case of limp spine

Congressional Probe of NSA Spying Is in Doubt
Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday.


and all this from the South Park prespective, Congress on NSA: "Move Along, People ..."

McClellan Didn't Tell Press Corps About Heart Attack, But Still Joked Anyway

McClellan Didn't Tell Press Corps About Heart Attack, But Still Joked Anyway from the Left Coaster
Jane notes that there may be a reason why Cheney let the ranch owner take the lead in spinning the “everything was done correctly; he was only peppered” mantra. A recent ranch shooting in Texas of a Hispanic immigrant led to a $20 million damage award against the ranch owner for the death of the man. And guess what: Armstrong now admits there was some drinking going on, which may explain why the Secret Service didn’t let the local sheriff interview Cheney the day of the shooting.


Cheney's hunting host lobbied White House
Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the ranch where Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a hunting partner, is a registered lobbyist who has been paid to lobby the White House, according to records.

Armstrong told NBC News in a telephone interview that she has never directly lobbied Cheney as far as she remembers.

"Never!" she said. And she says she does not remember directly lobbying the president himself either.

Armstrong was playing host to Cheney and to attorney Harry Whittington at her 50,000-acre spread 60 miles south of Corpus Christi when Cheney accidentally shot Whittington on Saturday. The White House did not immediately release news of the incident, but Armstrong said she told Cheney on Sunday morning that she was going to inform the local paper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. She said he agreed, and the newspaper reported it on its Web site Sunday afternoon.

Armstrong was paid $160,000 in 2004 by the powerful legal firm Baker Botts to lobby the White House, according to records she filed with the U.S. Senate as required by lobbying disclosure rules. The records indicate she was paid the money after she "communicated with the White House on behalf of Baker Botts clients."

They can't be trusted with a gun, with emergency response to a catastrophe, to secure our ports and nuclear facilities, but they say just trust them on warrantless domestic spying.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Support the moral highground around the cult of Bush and get fired

CIA chief sacked for opposing torture
The CIA’s top counter-terrorism official was fired last week because he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad, sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of torture such as “water boarding”, intelligence sources have claimed.

Robert Grenier, head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre, was relieved of his post after a year in the job. One intelligence official said he was “not quite as aggressive as he might have been” in pursuing Al-Qaeda leaders and networks.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counter-terrorism at the agency, said: “It is not that Grenier wasn’t aggressive enough, it is that he wasn’t ‘with the programme’. He expressed misgivings about the secret prisons in Europe and the rendition of terrorists.”

Grenier also opposed “excessive” interrogation, such as strapping suspects to boards and dunking them in water, according to Cannistraro.


As Bad Attitudes says The mean people are back.

Now, to get to the point. Old Uncle Joe Stalin used to send off folks who didn’t agree with his policies, or write properly, to the concentration camps. And a CIA chief was just let go because he didn’t approve of the government’s policies. How are these two stories connected?

The news from real patriots on Cheney and Plamegate

For those who still think the outing of Valerie Plame was no big deal
And if Valerie Plame was working on tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran, her findings might mean that Iran's potential violations could be presented to the United Nations and make war with Iran unnecessary, right?

And that would make Dick Cheney very upset, right? Especially if he REALLY, REALLY wants to go to war with Iran?


Plame Was Working On Iran
How much more can the White House do before it is considered treason?



Plame Wilson Had worked on Iran Anti-Proliferation
Plame Wilson was outed to the US press by Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney, his staffer Irving Lewis Libby, and George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove.

There has for some time been speculation among bloggers that Cheney et al. wanted to shoot down :-) Plame Wilson for reasons other than that she is the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, who blew the whistle on intelligence failures concerning alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

If she was working specifically on Iran, this theory becomes more plausible. We know that Cheney, the Neocons and other factions in the Bush administration desperately wanted to get up a war against Iran so as to overthrow its government.

If the CIA was successful in a measurable way in preventing proliferation to Iran of technology required for making a nuclear weapon, and could certify as much to Congress, that very success would make it harder to justify a war on Iran.