Have We Reached "Peak Beer"?

Friends, you may want to sit down before you read this. I bring news of a great catastrophe that threatens our lives, our livelihood and all we hold dear.

There is a global shortage of hops and malt. Our beer, that which makes our lives brighter and better, is threatened.

A combination of factors has led to this sad state. A drought in Australia two years ago killed much of thier hops supply. In Europe, too much rain did the same. Many farmers worldwide have abandoned hops (which were a dicey crop to begin with, financially) and began to grow corn, often fueled by a rising demand for ethanol. And with the corn going to ethanol, the malt has often became feed for livestock.

More strongly-flavored brews have suffered most. Some brewers have realized that they are going to have to raise prices to keep up the quality of their product. Some have scrambled to refigure their seasonal menu, using less hops in each batch.

Otter Creek [Brewery in Vermont]'s spring seasonal has traditionally been an extra special bitter — commonly abbreviated ESB — but this year they could not get the specific English hops called for in the recipe and instead made a German-style Kolsch, a lighter beer.

"It was very much a last-minute, pull-it-out-of-your-hat type of thing," he said. "There were some very old hops lying around at triple the price and we weren't willing to do that."

Ray McNeill, owner of McNeill's Brewery in Brattleboro, told a similar story, saying his Imperial Stout and Imperial India Pale Ale will not be available in bottles until next year.

"If I put the Imperial IPA out there, we'll burn up our hops and not be able to make any more beer," he said. "It would be suicide."

In their place, McNeill said he may produce low-hop lagers, Belgian strong beer and Scottish brown ale.

In the face of this tragedy, some heroes are standing together to ensure that we might weather this crisis. One of America's largest craft breweries, Boston Beer Co., makers of the Samuel Adams brand (and headquartered, strangely enough, in Massachusetts) surveyed their supply of hops, notified other, smaller breweries, and held a lottery, selling hops, at cost, to 108 brewers around the country.

About six weeks ago Boston Beer sent out notifications to small brewers that it wanted to help them by making available some of its hops at cost. The company said it received 352 requests totaling about 100,000 pounds, much more than it could give away.

"It shows how great the need is and I felt really bad," said Boston Beer Co. founder Jim Koch. "We even fudged it a little and went over the 20,000 pounds, but we just don't have the capability of filling this hole ourselves."

Koch said the company looked at its supply of hops and decided to live up a long established culture among craft brewers.

"We view each other as colleagues not as competitors," he said.

Even state and local government is doing their best to assist in this time of need: In Columbia, SC, the city is issuing licenses to sell beer and wine on Sundays for the first time since the Prohibition, while in San Francisco, the ban on alcohol has been lifted from this year's North Beach Festival. But not all of America is dealing with this crisis with that same nobility of spirit. Beer-related crimes appear to be on the rise: two Illinois teens beat a homeless man to death over a can of beer; a man stealing a backpack loaded with beer got caught in the straps while scaling a chainlink fence, and choked to death. The Arizona government is exploiting this tragedy as an opportunity to double the state taxes on alcoholic beverages.

As always, politics have entered the arena: beer heiress Cindy McCain has been sharing the stage with her husband John at rallies, while bartenders in Brooklyn are saying that a limited production ale named Hop Obama is their best selling brew ever.

While the struggle rages around them, beer drinkers around the world are left to wonder what the future holds.

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

Dear Ms. Clinton,

Let me preface this by saying that, if you gain the Democratic nomination, I will vote for you. However, if Mr. Obama is the one to make it to the final round, I will vote for him. But to tell the truth, based on your actions in these last few months, I will be happier to pull the lever for Barack Obama than for you.

I believe that you have the potential to be an excellent president. Whichever of you gets elected, I believe that our country will be placed on the road to recovery. Which is why I have to ask you to please stop the negative campaigning against Barack Obama.

When you attack Mr. Obama, you give ammunition to the McCain campaign, if the eventual result is Obama vs. McCain. Are you willing to risk our country's future with your "win at any cost" philosophy?

We have a failed experiment in nation-building, and a civil war that our presence is only inflaming, and we need to back out of that country as soon as possible. We have a collapsing economy that needs a firm hand on the tiller in order to recover. We need to rebuild our status with the rest of the world.

More importantly than that, there will most likely be at least one, and possibly two, openings in the Supreme Court within the next few years. And we need to ensure that another Harriet Miers doesn't end up deciding the future of our country.

Of late, Ms. Clinton, your campaign tactics resemble those used by Karl Rove. Is that a comparison that you enjoy? Is that something you feel you can be proud of?

Do you remember Richard Mellon Scaife? The millionaire who, according to insiders, was the leader of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" you mentioned during your husband's presidency?

Why are you granting interviews with Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, where you show no forgiveness for Rev. Wright, despite (as Donna Brazile, one of the superdelegates who you are pinning your hopes on, points out) the fact that Wright, along with dozens of other religious leaders, was willing to attend the White House Prayer Breakfast on the eve of the Starr Report? Wright may have disapproved of your husband's actions, but he didn't turn his back on you.

The mirror image doesn't hold true, though. You disapprove of some of Wright's words, and in that interview, you turned your back on him. That doesn't sound like the action of a leader; it sounds like the action of a political opportunist.

As I said, either of you has the ability to make an excellent president. But of the two of you, only one is showing the restraint, the dignity, and the party loyalty that you expect out of a nascent president.

And more than that, Mrs Clinton, you also have to look at reality. Barack Obama has done something that you have not been able to do. Something that your husband was almost able to do, but in the end, he failed. Barack Obama is capable of doing something that John Kerry, as smart and principled as he may have been, stood absolutely no chance of doing.

Barack Obama has brought the youth into the electorate. And not just a few. He brought them in droves. He has pulled the disinterested, callow, superficial youths, a group driven only by the latest trends in electronics, in music, in body modification; and he has brought them into the body politic. And he has done this with something that is the polar opposite of every tactic that you have used.

He has done it with a message of hope.

Barack Obama, and his message of "yes, we can" has appealed to a generation and a culture that prides itself on cynicism. Young people who watched every episode of Jackass as if it were the Gospel of Saint Johnny on direct-to-cable release. The callow youths who have made Girls Gone Wild into a multi-billion dollar business. The thugs who buy ridiculously oversized jewelry and brag about drugs and fights and sex.

One out of every nine black men between 19 and 35 is in jail. And Barack Obama has just given black America a better role model than Tupac Shakur and 50 Cent.

And now, you are facing a choice. You can continue to follow the Karl Rove School of Politics, and perhaps beat Barack Obama by using every dirty trick that was ever pulled on you, by brokering back-room deals and compromising every principle that you once thought you had, and guess what you'll do?

You will prove to that newly-integrated voting populace that it is, like they thought, a rigged game. A C-O-N-Spiracy. Brother can't catch a break. The game is rigged, and you might as well not play, because you're going to lose.

You will show those same young people that they were right all along. Would that make you proud, Ms. Clinton?

And you are many things, Ms. Clinton, but very few would say you are "inspiring." By all accounts, you failed even to inspire your staff. (Why is Ms. Solis-Doyle no longer working for you again?)

You keep saying how important your experience is, Ms. Clinton. You say that you know what to do when that Red Phone rings at 3:00 a.m. That you'll be ready from Day One. But let's be honest.

Yes, Barack Obama is a one-term Senator from Illinois, your home state. But you are a two-term Senator from New York. And he, at least, spent three terms in the Illinois State Senate.

And I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, Ms. Clinton, but when you claim that your experience as First Lady prepares you to be President, you are, in essence, saying that the head cheerleader could run a perfect game, because she was there when the plays were being decided.

You claim that you have a better grasp of global politics because you were there when the hard decisions were being made. And you claim that you were under fire in Bosnia... oops. Sorry. I guess Sinbad was right about your memories of that particular trip.

(Oh, yeah, and on top of that, you claim to care about the troops, but you inflicted Sinbad on them? How could you?)

But apparently, Ms. Clinton, you weren't there for every decision that Bill made, were you? It seems like Bill made at least a few of his decisions without your input, didn't he?

Do you own a blue dress, Ms. Clinton?

So, Barack Obama has a similar pool of political experience to draw from, he's more inspiring than you seem capable of being, and he is running a more "honorable" campaign (if that word can be said to mean anything any more) than you.

I am not saying that you need to pull out of the race. Certainly, you have as much right as Mr. Obama to try and be elected President of the United States.

However, for the sake of the American people, for the sake of the Democratic Party, and perhaps for your own peace of mind (assuming that you still have any of those noble ideals that I suspect you held in your youth), I would ask that you stop the divisiveness.

Stop the arguing, the sniping, the insults that are causing such hard feelings among your fellow Democrats. Act for the good of our Party. Act for the good of our country.

There's more at stake here than just your chance at the presidency.

Thank you for your time.

McCain and the Bimbo?

OK, so here's the deal.

The New York Times, which has long been considered the chief bastion of the Liberal Media Establishment, broke a story that McCain was probably hoping nobody would bring up. It seems that he was suspiciously close to a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman during his 2000 presidential bid. So close, in fact, that some of his advisors staged an intervention.

Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself - instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Although the story quotes other people, primarily former aides of McCain, who thought McCain might be bumping uglies with a woman thirty years younger than he is, the story never really pays attention to the fact that they might be having sex.

The story was really about the fact that McCain was the last survivor of the "Keating 5." See, back in the 80's, there was a millionaire financier named Charles Keating, who was blatantly stealing money from the Savings and Loan industry, which had been essentially deregulated by the Reagan administration. Keating went to jail for that little indiscretion, but not before spending well over a million dollars in gifts and donations to five senators (that's why they're called the "Keating 5," ya know).

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, while John Glenn and John McCain had been only minimally involved. The Committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."

All five of the senators involved served out their terms, but only Glenn and McCain were subsequently re-elected.

So McCain tried to reform his image, pushing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms, fighting against earmarks, and claiming to be free of the influence of any lobbyists. In the meantime, though, his campaign is run by lobbyists, and he had a relationship with one that was so close that his aides intervened.

(Oh, yeah. And those McCain-Feingold campaign finance rules? It seems that he can't manage to follow them, either.)

That was the story. It makes sense. It shows that McCain is surrounded by lobbyists, advised by lobbyists, and his campaign is infested by lobbyists, no matter what he says. But, ignoring the fact that this same story was covered last December by that stalwart liar of the right-wing press, Matt Drudge, the McCain campaign has insisted that this is just a puerile attempt by the left-wing media to smear the senator with a sex scandal, and that everything else was a complete fabrication. And the sex is barely part of the story at all.

McCain's campaign immediately threw up a spirited defense. Now, let's ignore the fact that Newsweek showed that McCain's denials were contradicted, in fact, by McCain himself. But this is a fascinating story for a number of reasons. First, consider the timing.

1. People are starting to notice that McCain would be, like, the oldest president ever. And suddenly, he's slipping the wrinkled lizard into some young(ish) blond bimbo. "Hey, maybe he isn't over the hill after all."

But that's a lesser argument.

2. Over on a blog called Blah3, they make an interesting point.

You have to look at the timing of this whole thing. By letting the legal teams hash out the release of the story for three months before acquiescing to its publication, we see the release of the story just as McCain seems poised to take the GOP nomination - but still pretty far out from Election Day. Given that many TV pundits have already decided that this story will only hang around for a couple of days, all McCain needs to do is deny, deny, deny until it dies down, and presto! - he's innoculated! Any revisiting of the story between now and November - whether or not there are new revelations — will be written off by the McCain campaign as 'old news.'

... But it doesn't stop there - not by a shot. Over at Politico, McCain advisor Charlie Black lets slip that after negotiating with the Times over the story for months, now they're going to cash in on it.

First, they fight to keep it under wraps. And now, when it can't hurt him in the primaries or the election, they get to gain conservative points by fighting the libelous smear from the Gray Lady and its evil leftist agenda. And he gets to play the victim card.

Cute, isn't it?

So, do we care that McCain might be mixing Viagra with his Metamucil? Not so much... well, OK, there are probably a few people out there to whom it matters a lot. I'm not one of them. Personally, I like Matthew Yglesias' take on it in The Atlantic:

Obviously, I don't know whether or not McCain had sex with Iseman. I suppose by "what the meaning of the word 'is' is" standards, he didn't even deny having had sex with Iseman. Certainly it'd be a bit rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career. That's well known, I should say, except to the electorate, who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's "character" appeal.

Actually, most of the people to whom this whole "messing around on his wife" thing would matter aren't Democrats. You'll find them primarily on the Republican side of the fence. And that's where the reaction starts to reach the level of slapstick.

Noted Republican tool Bay Buchanan (sister of Pat) went on Anderson Cooper and actually managed to make the following statement without her large intestine, outraged by the inane and frankly ignorant content of her statement, rising out of her throat like an evil-smelling serpent and strangling her.

This is not the Democratic Party, this is a party of values. We assume our candidates have been loyal to their family.

You really don't know how to react to a statement like that. Except maybe to try and get a response from Larry Craig (if you can pull him out of the men's room) or David Vitter (hey, at least his hookers were female, even if he did have a diaper fetish). Or possibly a roundtable discussion between Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich ("So, Rudy, one of your wives found out that your were divorcing her from a press conference. And Newt, you served your first wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital, recovering from cancer surgery. Please explain how important loyalty to your family is to a Republican?")

Let's be honest, OK? The sex angle is secondary in the McCain story. It's the juicy, salacious part of the story, but it isn't the most important part. The important thing to remember is that, despite his big talk about being the only candidate "the special interests don’t give any money to," (and we'll ignore the big lie in the middle of that statement), despite claiming to be untouched by the lobbyists, every aspect of McCain's life right now is shaped by those same special interest groups.

So I guess that, one way or another, it's still about McCain being in bed with the lobbyists.

Torturous Logic

I've already pointed out that I have a problem with John McCain. I liked him earlier in his political career when he was still a moderate. But somewhere along the line, he realized that he wasn't getting younger, and probably didn't have a whole lot of elections left in him. I guess he didn't want to die as "Senator McCain" or something. But he's turned into a red, glowing caricature of a right-wing politician, and I don't see him becoming human again any time soon.

His latest outrage really annoys the crap out of me.

The Senate voted 51 to 45 on Wednesday afternoon to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency against high-level terrorism suspects.

Senate Republicans generally opposed the bill, but several of them also did not want to cast a vote that could be construed as supporting torture, and so were relying on President Bush to make good on a threat to veto legislation limiting C.I.A. interrogation techniques.

The prohibition of harsh interrogation techniques is part of a wider intelligence authorization bill and would restrict all American interrogators to techniques allowed in the Army Field Manual, which bars the use of physical force.

The House approved the bill in December by a vote of 222 to 199, mostly along party lines. Wednesday's vote in the Senate was also along party lines. All the "no" votes were cast by Republicans, except for those of Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. Five Republicans and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, voted "yes."

Anybody want to guess how McCain voted?

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.

OK, so, the man who was held captive in a Vietnamese prison camp is not opposed to the torture of prisoners? Can someone please tell me where this makes any kind of sense?

I mean, let's look at what happened to the man.

McCain's A-4 Skyhawk had its wing blown off by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile while pulling up after dropping its bombs. McCain fractured both arms and a leg in being hit and ejecting from his plane as it went into a vertical inverted spin. He nearly drowned after he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around, spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothes. Others crushed his shoulder with the butt of a rifle and bayoneted him in his left foot and abdominal area; he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Loa Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by American POWs.

Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to give him medical care unless he gave them military information; they beat and interrogated him, but McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth. Soon thinking he was near death, McCain said he would give them more information if taken to the hospital, hoping he could then put them off once he was treated. A prison doctor came and said it was too late, as McCain was about to die anyway. Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care and announce his capture… Interrogation and beatings resumed in the hospital; McCain gave his ship's name, squadron's name, and the attack's intended target. Further coerced to give the names of his squadron members, he supplied the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line.

… Now having lost 50 pounds, in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white, McCain was sent to a prisoner-of-war camp on the outskirts of Hanoi… In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years…

In August of 1968, a program of vigorous torture methods began on McCain, using rope bindings into painful positions, and beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. Teeth and bones were broken again, as was McCain's spirit; the beginning of a suicide attempt was stopped by guards. After four days of this, McCain signed and taped an anti-American propaganda "confession" that said he was a "black criminal" and an "air pirate", although he used stilted Communist jargon and ungrammatical language to signal that the statement was forced. He felt then and always that he had dishonored his country, his family, his comrades and himself by his statement, but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine." His injuries to this day have left him incapable of raising his arms above his head.

And he just voted to allow Americans to torture their own prisoners? How much of his self-respect is John McCain willing to sacrifice to become president?

Some of the torture apologists try to tell us that waterboarding is no worse than swimming. Others unabashedly try to tell us that torture works, and we have to keep it around in case the terrorists try to blow up Los Angeles.

Here's the sad part: like John McCain, everybody has their limits. And when you reach your limit, you're going to say whatever you think your captors want you to say. Whether it's true or not.

That's why, in 1998, Qin Yanhong, a Chinese villager, confessed to the rape and murder of a woman he'd never met. Because he was tortured.

Where has America gone? So now we arrest people and lock them away without a trial, we spy on our citizens, and we torture prisoners? Isn't that one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq? Because Saddam allowed torture?

Maybe it's time for America to invade itself.

Time To Put It Back On The Table

I'm not the biggest blog in the world (heh), but the more people who link to the democrats.com website to promote this, the more it shows up on Google, and the more coverage it gets.

Conyers Says He's on Edge of Starting Impeachment
By David Swanson

On Thursday, Chairman John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee held a hearing at which Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that he would not investigate torture or warrantless spying, he would not enforce contempt citations, and he would treat Justice Department opinions as providing immunity for crimes.

None of this was new, but perhaps it touched something in Conyers that had not been touched before. Following the hearing, he and two staffers met for an hour and 15 minutes with two members of Code Pink to discuss impeachment.

Conyers expressed fear of what might happen following an impeachment, fear of installing a Bush replacement or losing an election. The "corporate power structure", he said, would not allow impeachment without unleashing "blowback." Conyers told Ellen Taylor and Manijeh Saba: "You need to be more than brave and courageous. You need to be smart."

Their response? They are asking people who care about justice to help them let Conyers know that the smart thing right now would be bravery and courage.

On Rosa Parks' birthday last week, Leslie Angeline began a fast for impeachment. Taylor and over 20 other activists have joined the fast. Conyers has agreed to meet with Angeline to discuss impeachment on Tuesday.

The Chairman told Taylor and Saba that he is listening to several advocates for impeachment, including Liz Holtzman and this author, and asked "So how would it look if I allowed two women to push me over the edge?" Conyers leaned out of his chair for dramatic effect.

A number of organizations will be sending their members this alert Monday morning:

Let's push Conyers over the edge by flooding his office with phone calls, faxes, and Emails on Monday and Tuesday. Let him know that only impeachment hearings
1-will make it on TV,
2-will force compliance with subpoenas by eliminating "executive privilege",
3-will hold brazen criminals accountable, and
4-will convince voters that Democrats care about the Constitution.
Call 202-225-5126
Fax 202-225-0072
Email john.conyers@mail.house.gov

Come on, Conyers! You need to be the one to go up to Nancy Pelosi, tell her to hitch up her big girl panties and do the right thing.

I'm Taking My Ball And Bat And Going Home!

This is excerpted from a much longer rant by a member of the Group News Blog named Jesse Wendel. The whole thing is brilliant, and tells a very important message. I couldn't have said it better myself (although I might not have said "fuck" quite as much - but that's just me). Go read the whole thing.

"Do It My Way or Else"

"I won't vote for _____, and neither will (insert social, racial, special interest group or friends here.)"

An Open Letter to the Idiots of the
Democratic Party Circular Firing Squad.

There's been talk lately about how if Obama doesn't get the nomination, some of you will take your ball and your bat and go home. That some of you'll actively work against Clinton in November.

Those of you who are American citizens, that is certainly your right.

Just as it's my right to tell you what total and complete idiots you are. Crybabies. Cowards.

This isn't Little League. It's the Show.

Two campaigns are fighting to be President of the United States, and for all the power which goes with. Do you really think there isn't much either of them won't do to win? Really?

I'm not here to defend Bill Clinton, nor Hillary Clinton. I'm defending the Democratic Party.

If you feel you and people you know or whose blogs you read, want to walk away from the Democratic Party because it won't nominate your preferred candidate, well, with no respect at all, you're an idiot. The Republicans will eat your lunch. (They have since 1980 except when Clinton was president. Or didn't you notice? Oh... you loved him then. Sorry. It's that selective memory you fair-weather Democrats have. Infectious.)

The Republicans right now, are self-destructing over this precise issue. Two-thirds of them hate any given candidate. It is ripping their party apart. Ain't it great?

- snip -

They are, maybe, just maybe, some Republicans, who will be angry enough and thus stupid enough to stay home come November, because they don't like their candidate.

Wow, do I hope so.

Boy are we stupid if we do the same. That's a circular firing squad.

- snip -

If you don't know all the different things the Office of the President controls, I'm not going to take the time to educate you in full. But we don't elect a President just because of Supreme Court nominations, to control the military, veto appropriations bills, or to represent us to other countries. That's the glitz, the Paris Hilton of being President. Small cheese compared to every-day impacts the Presidency has on YOUR life through the Executive Branch. And I do mean, on your life, personally, no matter your ethnic group, your sexual preference, your economic class.

Let me pick a few examples, not at random.

Ronald Reagan is responsible for the death of easily 1 million gay men in the United States, simply for his refusal to allow the CDC to act. The CDC knew what needed to be done. Reagan, the fuck, didn't mention AIDS, refused to allow warning or action. It would have hurt him politically.

This is but one of hundreds of thousands of examples.

Oil prices, and thus, gasoline prices are almost at inflation-adjusted record highs under Bush 43, thanks to both peak-oil and the Iraq war. There have been times when digging into our strategic reserve could have lowered those costs significantly. In almost every case, that is precisely when Bush 43 decided to store more oil in the U.S. strategic reserve, thus decreasing supply, increasing demand, increasing rates. The exception, of course, when it was to his political advantage to do otherwise.

- snip -

Now some fools say they will leave and go their own way if x. It's not fine. It's stupid. It hurts the Party. And just so we're clear, the Democratic Party is going to win this fall, one way or another, with these people or without them. And afterwards, just as the WGA will never forget the scabs, I promise you, the netroots and the Party will never forget or trust any crybabies who walk out now with their balls and bats in hand, because they weren't willing to support whomever the Democratic Party democratically elects as their candidate.

I promise you if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, she will support Barack Obama. And I promise you if Barack Obama loses, he will support Hillary Clinton. Guaranteed.

- snip -

Either Clinton or Obama will win the Democratic nomination. If it's Obama, he is going to get massive support from everyone. If it's Clinton, she is going to get massive support from everyone. We are going to win the Presidency this fall. Too much is at stake to screw around.

And any Democrat who doesn't throw their full support behind the nominee, whoever he or she may be, is a fucking traitor to the Democratic Party, and can kiss my ass.

Why isn't this guy on Fox News?

So we have this guy named Jake Tapper on ABC's "news" blog who wrote a column that started like this:

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

Unfortunately, he followed that up by actually showing the full quote, and when you put it in context, there's an entirely different message there.

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

Normally, when you take somebody out of context to that extent, it's a good idea to hide your blatant lie by not giving the full quote. You have to admire the cojones of the man, to so openly and blatantly expose his own lie right there in the middle of the column.

Then, at the end, he posted the following: "UPDATE 2: The original headline of this post was too definitive, while the larger blog post tried to express that I wasn't sure just what Clinton meant by his statement. So I changed the headline to reflect that. I understand after many, many emails that many folks think I misunderstood what the President was saying."

Unfortunately, the new headline, 'What Did Bill Clinton Mean By "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming?' still shows that he is either ignorant or a political hack.

And since I would presume that someone billed as "ABC News' Senior National Correspondent" would have taken a few journalism classes, "ignorance" probably isn't the answer in this case.

But in the off-chance that he's suffered some debilitating brain injury, let me answer the question his new headline poses, in words short enough that even he might understand. What Clinton meant was, other people might ask that question, but if we did that, countries that weren't trying to stop polluting might surpass us, and that would be a bad thing. Anyone who reads the whole quote could tell that.

Except, apparently, Jake Tapper.

And, to tell you the truth, I doubt that "many folks think I misunderstood what the President was saying." I would hope that most people are aware that Tapper deliberately mischaracterized Clinton's statement. Particularly with his follow-up "Which begs the question -- does (Hillary Clinton) want to slow down the economy?"

Sadly, judging by the reader comments that followed, there are far too many people out there willing to believe whatever they're spoon-fed, even when the lie is so obvious and blatant.

I'm surprised that ABC keeps this guy on staff. How many shoddy journalists with questionable ethics do they need?

888? That's awefully close to 666, isn't it?

Our friends in the House of Representatives are trying to rewrite history again, to include their own personal Christian bias.

This time, they're doing through a non-binding Congressional document, HR 888, which starts with the following paragraph:

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as 'American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

Well, that's really sweet. The rest of the bill is full of paragraphs that twist history to their own ends. I've talked about some of this nonsense before now, and don't feel like repeating myself too often. At the moment, anyway. These guys take a brief look at the document and point out a few problems with it, if you're interested.

What it boils down to, though, is that this document is full of lies and misrepresentations, and we probably don't want this stuff read into the Congressional Record, where somebody might mistake it for fact.

There are seventy-six clauses in the preamble. You get stuff like this:

Whereas the delegates to the Constitutional Convention concluded their work by in effect placing a religious punctuation mark at the end of the Constitution in the Attestation Clause, noting not only that they had completed the work with 'the unanimous consent of the States present' but they had done so 'in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven,'

If you want to look at it historically, "Year of Our Lord" was essentially the formal, legal way to refer to the Gregorian calendar. It wasn't Congress "placing a religious punctuation mark," it was them dating the freaking thing. If you want to pull it out of shape and claim that it was done to build a religious foundation for the work, you're deluding yourself. However, that isn't as much of a misrepresentation as the following:

Whereas beginning in 1904 and continuing for the next half-century, the Federal government printed and distributed The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for the use of Members of Congress because of the important teachings it contained;

Well, that was relatively true. What they aren't saying is that this document was written by (or at least pieced together by) Thomas Jefferson, and was also known as the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson wasn't a Christian but a "dieist" (he believed in a god, but didn't necessarily see Him as the Judeo-Christian dieity – Jefferson was a product of a movement called the "Enlightenment"), and toward the end of his life, Jefferson took the Gospels, chopped them apart, put them back together in roughly chronological order, and then removed anything that referred to Jesus as the Son of God, or was in any way supernatural. By doing that, he told a story of an ordinary guy who was more of a philosopher than a religious figure. It's a very famous document. You should look it up sometime.

The writers of this bill are using the "Chariots of the Gods" strategy – if you pack enough lies into every inch of text, it takes more time to refute the document than it does to write it in the first place.

Here's my thought. We don't have to disprove this pseudo-history – if these congresscritters want this nonsense turned into law, they need to justify every one of their points. Bring in actual historians (and not the teaching staff from Liberty University, either) and prove every historical "fact" that they're claiming.

But that isn't enough, I think. See, it may surprise you, but I like the basic idea behind this document. I just don't think it goes far enough in "affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation." After we've chopped out the lies that they're trying to shoehorn in under the guise of "history," let's add a few.

Whereas less than half of the 102 passengers of the Mayflower were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom,

Whereas the Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts were written in 1648, wherein it stated that Anabaptists were "Incendiaries of Common-wealths & the Infectors of persons," and could be banished. Likewise, Quakers threatened to "undermine & ruine" the colonies, and could not only be banished, but killed if they returned. They also included a death sentence for any child who "will not obey the voice of his Father or the Voice of his Mother,"

Whereas in 1692, nineteen men and women were convicted of witchcraft and hanged, one man (over eighty years old) was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a witch trial, and dozens languished in jail for months without trial,

Whereas a Virginia law from 1699 tried to eliminate "horrid and Atheisticall principles greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God, and...destructive to the peace and wellfaire of this...collony," by making it a crime to deny "the being of God or the holy Trinity...assert or maintaine there are more Gods then one...deny the truth of Christianity..." and more,

Whereas in 1797, the US Senate under John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,"

Whereas in 1851, Princeton's Charles Hodge defended the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 using Christian philosophy and Biblical scholarship, and in 1852, Charles Finney defended it yet again, in an article for the Oberlin Evangelist,

Whereas 1866 brought us the first incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group with a strong Christian identity and a habit of murdering people based strictly on their skin color.

Whereas in 1935, America took up arms to fight the Nazi Party, who probably took some of their philosophy from the 1543 tract by Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies,

Whereas, according to the 2004 John Jay Report, commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States have been accused of sexual abuse of children,

Whereas in the 1990s, the Army of God, a Christian anti-abortion terrorist group was formed,

Whereas the theory in early America was that black skin was the "mark of Cain," slavery was therefore justified, the Southern Baptist church held that there were separate heavens for blacks and whites, and the Mormon church refused to allow blacks to join until 1978,

Whereas, since the First Amendment to the Constitution states explicitly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it seems silly to be considering any kind of legislation establishing anything called 'American Religious History Week,'

See? And those are just a few of the aspects of America's rich spiritual history that they seem to be ignoring. I ignored all kinds of current nonsense - Terri Schiavo, the Kansas school board, and numerous other interesting topics. Feel free to add your own.

Oy. Wasn't there some kind of revolution in Washington?

It seems to me that Glenn Greenwald explained the nonsense in the Senate best.

Harry Reid -- who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster -- went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned "retreat," and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster.

To do so, Reid announced that, unlike for the multiple filibusters from Republican colleagues, he would actually force Dodd and company to engage in a real filibuster. This is what Reid said:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

That is what Democrats have been urging Reid to do to the filibustering Republicans all year -- in order to dramatize their obstructionism -- but he has refused to make them actually filibuster anything, generously agreeing instead that every bill requires 60 votes. Instead, he reserves such punishment only for the members of his own caucus trying to take a stand for the rule of law and the Constitution, those who are trying finally to bring some accountability to this administration.

So, I looked up a guy in Nevada with my name, and sent an email to our Democratic (?) leader. I took the advice of Nicole Belle on Crooks & Liars, and went low-key and polite. Nonetheless, I somehow suspect that I'm going to be ignored again.

Mr Reid,

I'm curious. Why is it that you have consistently and generously allowed the Republicans to pretend to filibuster with a mere 60 votes? It seems to me that forcing them to actually stand up and perform a filibuster would highlight their obstructionism, at a time when they appear to be actively preventing the Democrats from doing anything.

But now, when Democratic Senators are attempting to prevent the White House from giving immunity to the telecom providers who broke the law (thereby forever extinguishing any hope of investigating and obtaining accountability for the President's illegal spying programs), you insist that they actually perform a filibuster, and you have a little skit with McConnell and Leahy about how terrible it would be to work a little longer, and maybe miss their all-important retreat?

These don't seem like the actions of a Democratic leadership interested in bringing long-neglected oversight to an over-stepping White House. Could you please explain to me why you decided that these would be the actions you'd take?

The earliest results are in

Well, the first two caucus results are in (possibly two and a half). In Iowa, a traditionally red state, over twice as many Democrats came out to caucus as Republicans (239,000 Democrats, 118,000 Republicans). And the end result was that, in a state where the population is 2.5% black (just under a fifth of the national average), Barack Obama came out ahead of every single candidate in both parties. And this, despite all the unmentioned "conventional wisdom" telling us that we could never get an African-American elected president.

But in New Hampshire, with a similar overwhelmingly Democratic turnout, the nod went to Hillary Clinton (despite both the rabid anti-Clinton crowd and a similarly unmentioned meme that we could never get a woman elected president).

The Wyoming Republican caucus also went by, relatively unnoticed. The Republican party from the state with less population than most average cities, desperate to look relevant, took a chance and pushed their caucus to Saturday, January 5 (and as a result, the state had its number of national convention delegates slashed by half from 28 to 14 - come on, when you claim to be a Republican, you aren't supposed to mess with tradition). We'll look at their results, too.

Admittedly, this is just the first couple of states, but let's take a look at the results. (All percentage rankings are by party, and are taken from the Des Moines Register, which seems like a reasonable source for news from Iowa. Similarly, the New Hampshire results were pulled from the Concord Monitor. Wyoming results were simply pulled from the AP release, because I'm too lazy to look harder and find something that gives complete votes. So all I've got from there is the number of delegates each candidate earned - but in the end, does it make a difference? It's just Wyoming. One of those square states in the middle that nobody cares about.

Oh, and by the way, the New Hampshire results are going to be recounted: Dennis Kucinich says he wants it because he wants to ensure that everybody's vote is counted. Robert Howard apparently can't believe that only 43 people in the whole state voted for him.

Republicans

Mike Huckabee: In Iowa, the Baptist minister got 34% of the vote. Nothing from Wyoming, where they know that God has deserted them anyway. (I mean, does anybody think that Dick Cheney could come from anyplace that God has been keeping an eye on?) And in New Hampshire, he managed to gain 11% of the vote. This whole Huckabee mess is actually scaring the rank and file in the Republican party: after years of courting the religious right, a candidate finally came from there. It would be cool if he drove the moneychangers from the temple, wouldn't it?

Mitt Romney: Mitt only managed to pull out 25% of the vote from Iowa, but might feel a little better by the fact that he got eight of the twelve delegates from Wyoming. But against all expectations, in New Hampshire he found himself over 12,000 voters behind a revitalized John McCain, only gaining 32% of the Republican vote (which probably caused him to crap his magic underwear).

Fred Thompson: Fred could only muster 13% of the Republicans in Iowa, but he also gained three of the remaining four delegates in Wyoming, where they like old men who fall asleep a lot. (They also have a strong respect for ignorance there - trust me, I lived in Cheyenne for four years.) In New Hampshire, he only appealed to 1% of the GOP, earning almost exactly 2/3 as many votes as some guy named "Total Write-ins." Yes, you read that right. 2,886 people thought that Fred Thompson was a viable candidate, while 4,342 people literally voted for "Anybody except these guys!"

John McCain: While John earned slightly fewer votes in Iowa than Fred "Really, I'm 6 years younger than McCain!" Thompson, he was statistically even with him, at 13%. However, he seriously tore up New Hampshire, where 37% of the people voted for him. (On the other hand, does anybody remember that he won New Hampshire in 2000, too?)

Ron Paul: The contentious (if not batshit insane) no-longer-Libertarian contender managed to pull 10% of the vote in Iowa. He was also excluded from the Fox "News" New Hampshire debate, despite pulling in bigger Iowa numbers than 9iu11iani. (But that's OK. It gave him time to cross the picket lines and appear on The Tonight Show.) And interestingly enough, he then earned roughly two thousand votes less in New Hampshire than 9iu11iani, finding his message resonating with only 8% of the New Hampshire Republicans.

Rudy 9iu11iani: He may have only gained 3% of the vote, but he held to his usual strategy. He may have finished practically dead last among the Republican candidates (he beat out Duncan Hunter, but poor ol' Duncan brought in 0.0% of the vote, so I'm not sure he really counts). Rudy may have earned less than a third of the votes mustered by Ron Paul in Iowa and none of the delegates from Wyoming. But by God, he's going to tie this to 9/11 one way or another.

"None of this worries me - Sept. 11, there were times I was worried," Giuliani said.

Where do you go from there? The man is now officially his own stereotype. Oh, and only 9% of the New Hampshire voters liked him, for that matter.

Duncan Hunter: Like I said, 0% of the vote. He picked up a few votes here and there, but in Iowa, he was statistically irrelevant. On the other hand, he picked up the last remaining delegate in Wyoming and a big 1% of the vote in New Hampshire, so we probably shouldn't just write him off. (I’m going to, but that's just me.)

So, who does that leave? Oh, yeah, there's a whole other party, isn't there? You know, those guys that Fox News wants you to forget about?

Democrats

Barack Obama: 38% of the Democrats went for Barack. And he didn't do it by the traditional method of courting the party favorites: he went after independents, college kids and other new voters. Most pundits are pointing at him as the direct cause of the outstanding voter turnout.

Personally, I think it's about time that America got a black president. Statistically, black men have been around 10-11% of the American population. Since we're on our way to electing our 44th president, we should have had at least four blacks so far. But all we've gotten is rich white men, which might be part of the problem. Perhaps it's time for somebody to notice that, of all of the people who wouldn't vote for a black man, none of them would vote for a Democrat anyway.

John Edwards: Somewhere along the line, people have been ignoring the conventional wisdom. Edwards, traditionally ignored by the mainstream media, pulled 30% of the Democratic vote. Of course, this was ignored in favor of coverage of McCain's triumphant emergence with 13% of the Republican vote (and only half as many Republicans as Democrats are going to the polls - remember?). But in New Hampshire, he was back to running a distant third, with 17% of the vote. Life sucks when you're a rich white guy, doesn't it?

Hillary Clinton: Although she's essentially tied with Edwards, at 30% of the Democratic vote, he's leading in actual votes gained. Also, if you followed my earlier logic regarding black presidents, we should have had 22 or 23 women presidents. However, I've never been a big fan of Hillary, so I'm not sure that it should be her. They didn't agree with me in New Hampshire, though, where 39% of the Democrats wanted her to drive the Big Chair.

Bill Richardson: Got a big 2% of the Iowa vote, and 5% in New Hampshire. Yes, he's my governor. Yes, I think he's actually the most qualified candidate. But Bill, I'm kind of glad you packed it in. There comes a time when you need to realize that you just aren’t going to win.

Joe Biden: With just under 1% of the Democrats voting for him (0.9%, if you really need the decimal places), Joe Biden has pulled out of the race. He seems to feel that his biggest problem is that the press was concentrating on the front three (Clinton, Edwards and Obama), and that might have been true: the only time he could get press was with his quote about Giuliani (that Rudy's message consisted of "a noun, a verb, and 9/11"). But at least he's got that highly-paid Senate job to go back to.

Chris Dodd: Managed to pull in only 0.02% of the Democratic vote. He came in with less than one-fifth of the vote that went to "I dunno." The man made a lot of sense, he talked a good race, but he really couldn't seem to fire up the voters. And you have to admit, it shows a certain amount of dedication to actually move your family to Iowa a couple of weeks back. And he's also got a Senate job to go back to, since he's also pulled out.

Dennis Kucinich: Didn't even score as high as Dodd. Sad. He had a hot wife, too. But he's still in there plugging away, despite the fact that he won't even be on the ballot in Texas.

Mike Gravel: In Iowa, he wasn't even on the radar. In New Hampshire, he did almost twice as well as Chris Dodd. But the difference between Gravel and Dodd is that Gravel doesn't have the good sense to back out gracefully. (His latest trick to woo young voters? He told them that pot was better than booze. I've got to say, it's an interesting strategy.)

There's more primaries coming up, and a lot of the voters aren't behaving like sheep this time around. So, overall, I think that the only conclusion we can draw is that it's going to be a long year.

It's Sunday. Here's your sermon.

You know, it's strange. The Republican party has laid claim on Christianity for around 3 decades now, and nobody has called them on it. I'm definitely not a Biblical scholar, but I have a hard time seeing how they can justify starting a preemptive war, and still claim to follow the guy who said "Turn the other cheek."

(Well, he probably said it in Hebrew, if he said it at all; let's not go there, OK?)

Disclaimer: I'm actually something that our friends on the Far Right like to claim doesn't exist. I have a relatively strong moral code, and I have been an agnostic most of my life. I was actually an athieist for much of my youth, but realized somewhere along the line that absolute denial of the possibility of a higher power was just as much a belief system as Christianity. There's always the "unicorn argument" (prove it never existed), but that can be applied both ways to this question.

Let's look at the current fascination with immigration. Apparently, if you listen to the Republican debates (particularly back when Tancredo was still in the race), not only are the Mexicans going to come in and steal all of our high-paying jobs, but they're going to hold the door open so that the islamofascists can get in, too.

Now, let's look at Exodus 22:21: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."

Or the New Testament. Hebrews 13:2: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (In case you're curious, the New American Standard translates this as " Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it." That's not an exhortation to pole dance for random passersby.)

For that matter, Matthew 25:44-45:

Then shall they also answer him, saying, "Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?"

Then shall he answer them, saying, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

You can also read that one when you're talking about Social Security, welfare, the national healthcare debate, or any of a number of hot-button topics for the Republicans.

The Bush tax cuts? Luke 20:25: "And he said unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

The environment? At the same time that God gave Adam and Eve "dominion over… every living thing that moveth upon the earth," He told them to "replenish the Earth." (Genesis 1:28). In Leviticus 25:23, God says "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me." Sojourner is usually translated as "tenant," by the way. So do you think God's going to renew your lease?

For that matter, try to explain how you can claim to follow a guy who was crucified, and still support capital punishment?

Maybe it's time for the Republicans to decide which god they really want to follow. Because their philosophy is closer to a different philosopher: with their feelings about doing what they want and destroying their enemies, maybe they should look into the works of Anton LaVey.

Should We Heart Huckabee?

What do we know about Mike Huckabee? The man is an enigma wrapped around a cross.

If you go to his website, you can learn a little bit there, He's got the usual selection of right-wing talking points: he says that Roe vs Wade should be repealed; he's strong on marriage; he's pro-gun, pro-veteran, pro-Israel, all the usual issues. He also wants to take the Bush tax cuts even farther, and help the rich get richer than they are now (even in an age where the top 1% of the population control one-third of the money, and 70% of the money is in the hands of the top 10%). And his thoughts on the subject?

I'd like you to join me at the best "Going Out of Business" sale I can imagine - one held by the Internal Revenue Service. Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly. But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment.

He probably isn't going to come out in favor of women's rights any time soon, incidentally.

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: "I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention." What was in the family statement from the SBC? "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The ad wasn't just a blanket, "we support the SBC statement," but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

The man who claims that he wants to "bring this country back together" will more likely be an even more polarizing factor. David Corn dissected Huckabee's 1998 book, Kids who Kill: Confronting our Culture of Violence for Mother Jones and discovered his distaste for… well, for everybody who didn't hold exactly his views.

Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.

Was it those ideas, or people like you who fought against them, that polarized… oh, never mind. That's kind of a circular argument anyway.

A few pages later, we find that he thinks that:

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations — from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

So, you're reading along on that one, and you get to homosexuality (OK, there's all kinds of gay support groups), pedophilia (well, we haven't heard much from NAMBLA lately, but we know that they exist, or at least existed at one point), and apparently most of his audience has dozed off by this point, since organized sadomasochism is hard, though not impossible, to imagine. But "publicly endorsed and institutionally supported necrophilia"? What the hell? How stupid does he think that his audience is?

OK, strike that last question. Among other things, we establish with that sentence that his audience has an attention span of no more than two, maybe two and a half talking points.

We do know that, while he apparently hunts once in a while, he can occasionally become the poster child for the people who believe that guns should be kept out of the hands of some people. It seems that he went hunting recently for the photographers, and then, after joking about Dick Cheney's habit of shooting people in the face, tracked a bird over the heads of some reporters and fired off a round or two. That's part of the reason that the NRA teaches gun safety courses, isn't it?

We also know that he's a Christian. There's that whole bit in the Constitution that says that religion shouldn't matter in a political race, but to some people it does. And for those people, he's constantly bringing up his religion: running ads that are overtly Christian in theme (in fact, coming out and saying that he's a "Christian leader" in one of them), referring to his theological degree during a debate, and even saying that his rise in polls is due to the prayers of the faithful (as opposed to a growing distaste for Rudy 9iu11ani, or Mitt Romney reminding people of a used car salesman).

However, that seems to be the extent of what we know about him. He was a pastor for twelve years at two different Baptist churches before he became a politician, but he refuses to disclose the contents of any of his sermons.

But despite the fact that he won't tell us what he was saying when he was behind the pulpit, he's using that preacher-cred to court some of the worst of the far-right theocrats in America, and they're happily coughing up large amounts of cash for him.

We also don't get to know much about what he did as governor, except for what had already made it into the public record. You see, when he left office, he didn't seem to think that wiping the hard drives of the computers would be enough.

Department of Information Systems Director Claire Bailey said hard drives for 83 computers and four servers were destroyed, or "crushed," after information was downloaded onto backup tapes. Underwood supervised it and delivered the backup tapes to Huckabee Chief of Staff Brenda Turner, who had ordered the hard drives crushed, Bailey said.

She said the computers were located in the state Capitol; the state's Washington, D. C., office; the state police airport hangar; the Governor's Mansion; and the Arkansas State Police drug office.

For some reason, Huck doesn't want us to know exactly what he's done in the course of his life. So what do we know?

We know that our boy Huck has a fairly limited grasp of what life is like in prison.

Asked about Guantanamo, Mike Huckabee said he had visited the facility and said it was "disappointing" that military personnel were eating meals that averaged $1.60 while the detainees were eating Halal meals that cost over $4 each.

"The inmates there were getting a whole lot better treatment than my prisoners in Arkansas. In fact, we left saying, 'I hope our guys don’t see this. They'll all want to be transferred to Guantanamo. If anything, it’s too nice."

Yeah, except for that whole psychological intimidation and occasional waterboarding thing, along with other fascinating examples of abuse. And a bunch of them were kidnapped (sorry, "extraordinarily rendered") instead of arrested. And many of them are kept in solitary confinement. Oh, and the fact that none of these prisoners can seem to get a trial. That's all OK. It's the cost of their meals that's important.

He also used that opportunity to boast about how tough he is, because he used his time as governor to execute 16 prisoners. Does bragging about how many people you had killed sound like any other presidential candidates you can think of? Maybe about seven years ago or so? (Actually, he mentioned the executions because he was fighting back against Mitt Romney's current position that he's soft on crime. I just like the comparison.)

OK, then, what doesn't Huckabee know about? That list seems pretty wide-ranging. He admits that he doesn't know much about global warming or current events: he had no idea that the American intelligence community had said that Iran didn't have a nuclear warhead, in direct opposition to what Bush had been saying about them for months, even after it had been a front-page story for two days.

He doesn't know much about illegal immigrants: he recently said that there were more Pakistani's in America illegally than any nationality "than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border" (he was trying to beat the war drum, and tie the Pakistani unrest into the illegal immigrant "crisis"); he followed that up by saying that 660 Pakistanis have come into the country illegally because of insecure borders. Unfortunately, he got the numbers backward: Homeland security reports that around 600 Pakistani's were turned back or arrested before they entered the country - oh, and no, there aren't more Pakistani's than any other nationality, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

This lack of knowledge extends to geography, as well: "We have seen what happens in the Musharraf government," Huckabee said on MSNBC. "He has told us he does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists." Yeah, Huck. That would be the western border with Afghanistan, right?

(And when former Prime Minister Bhutto was assassinated, he went up on stage in Orlando to express "our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan." The man was a minister for twelve years. Couldn't he channel some of that training and find the word "sympathies" somewhere in his vocabulary? Instead, he provided fodder for pundits and the tinfoil-hat crowd for the next year.)

But staying on the subject of illegal immigrants (well, the GOP does it, why shouldn't I?), he apparently doesn't know much about moving large numbers of people, since he thinks that we can get 11-12 million illegal immigrants to leave the country within 120 days. (And he also doesn't think that the forced expulsion of over 7% of America's workforce all at once would have any effect on the economy, apparently.)

So basically, we don't get to know about his past, and what we find out about in the present is not especially encouraging. He's extremely secretive; he supports the forced incarceration, without trial, of people just because they might be terrorists; and he hunts without regard to the safety of those around him. Does this sound like any Vice Presidents you might know?

Plus, he's a former governor, proud of his death-penalty record, who shows a remarkable lack of knowledge in key fields. It's possible that Mike Huckabee could embody the worst features of both halves of the current administration.

No, not THAT Steven King

OK, so I lied a little bit. I pretended to be somebody I wasn't.

I went into the White Pages, and looked up somebody with my last name, and sent a letter to a congresscritter using that address and my name. And my email address, if it matters. Because he wasn't my congresscritter, but he was so mind-meltingly stupid that I couldn't help myself.

See, Steve King of Idaho introduced a little bill in the House of Representatives called HR 847, “Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.” That was bad enough (you know, that whole “separation of church and state” thing and all). But then he went on the Alan Colmes radio show, and made the following statement:

Colmes: Should they be taught Christianity, should every child learn Christianity?

King: I think they should learn it. If you’re going to learn American history, you cannot teach it without teaching Christianity.

That prompted me to send him the following email.

On the Alan Colmes show, you said that Christianity should be taught in schools, because the only way to teach American history is to teach Christianity. And I'm curious whether you failed both history and social studies in school.

The pilgrims might have been evangelical Christians, but our Founding Fathers were mostly Unitarians and, since this was just after the Enlightenment, many of them weren't Christian at all, simply Deists.

We even signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 where we came out and said (in Article 11) that America is not a Christian nation.

America is a diverse nation of many faiths, and you can't discount any of them.

That's your History lesson. Now let's give you a little Social Studies. (This is actually something that you should already know, by the way. It should be required study for any Congressman.)

We have this little article called "the Constitution." It sets down the rules that the government runs by. And in the First Amendment of that document (which is part of what we call the "Bill of Rights," incidentally), it tells us that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

The schools are a state function, and so the government doesn't try to jam religion into the ears of the children. You leave that to the parents.

Here's a little more history, by the way: the phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

I would really appreciate it if you could learn little things like this if you're going to claim to represent the people of Idaho.

So anyway, I gave him time to answer. I sent it on December 14. Today is the twenty-eighth. Are you telling me that in two weeks, he couldn't come up with some kind of answer?

So my thought is that (1) he called the house where I pretended to live and determined that it was a fake (that's actually got a pretty low possibility, if you think about it), or (2) he checked the voter rolls and noted my absence (you’d think that he’d take into consideration the fact that I could be a new voter), or (3) he just refused to answer.

Me, I favor the third possibility.

No Longer, Dan Fogelberg

Dan Fogelberg, the folk/soft rock singer/songwriter, died in his home on Sunday, December 16, after having been diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004.

Born Daniel Grayling Fogelberg in 1951, his first album, Home Free (1972), was only was not a huge success. But it can be said that it was his sophmore effort that launched his career, 1974's Souvenirs. With musical assistance from most of the Eagles (Joe Walsh - who also produced the album - Glenn Frey, Don Henley and Randy Meisner) and Graham Nash, the album reached number 17 on Billboard's pop albums, and the song Part Of The Plan reached number 31.

He had his weaknesses: he tended to write slightly higher than the actual range of his voice, and some of his songs (Longer or Leader of the Band) were overplayed to the point of pain. But his evocative lyrics and strong melodic talents brought his music to life.

Much of his most successful career was studded with overly-produced songs that receive far more airplay than they deserved. In his live shows (and I had the honor to attend one), he played beautiful, acoustic melodies with minimal orchestration. And he frequently sang in a lower key than what you heard on the album, too.

With 14 studio albums, he was an avid environmentalist, and performed at a number of "No Nukes" concerts for Musicians United for Safe Energy.

A video of one of his performances can be seen here.

I never knew John Kennedy, but Mitt, you're no John Kennedy

Mitt Romney decided to give a speech last week, as he does so often these days. In this case, he was trying to explain how his Mormonism would not affect his ability to lead the country. Forty-seven years ago (plus the odd month or two), John F. Kennedy made a speech with a very similar concept, in regards to his Roman Catholicism. The difference, however, is that Kennedy was much more honest about his agenda.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

(snip)

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

Let's compare that to some of the more interesting statements in Mr. Romney's speech.

Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union . You left us, your children, a free and strong America . It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn.

To defeat the Soviet Union? (Hmm... quick definition of Fascism -- rights of the people stripped away, a government so paranoid it spies on its citizens, people imprisoned without a trial... I could go on, but if you were capable of getting my point, you would have already...)

America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us.

Yeah, but we ignore the leaders, and concern ourselves with the foot soldiers. Osama bin Laden is still at large because we haven't been trying to catch him, and most of the money for these radical movements comes from Saudi Arabia. But do we do anything about that?

Well, yeah. We give them more money. That's always a good move.

An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership.

So you're saying WalMart is the problem? Wow, this is the first time you've said something that I agree with.

Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America 's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

Finally, he's going to talk about being a Mormon. It's about time. I wonder if he'll mention their magic underwear thing? (No, really. Mormons have magic underwear! It's a onesie that they can't just throw away. Honest! Check it out for yourself.)

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Say what? You started your explanation of how your Mormonism isn't a threat by bringing up that tired old "America is a Christian nation" thing?

By the way, do you want to know the best way to tell that the Forefathers didn't think that we were a Christian nation? Go to the Treaty of Tripoli, which we ratified in 1797 (that's about sixteen years after we wrote our Constitution, isn't it?). Article 11 of the treaty start with the words "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

That might be kind of a clue, don't you think?

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.

What?!? What kind of disengenuous, meaning-free statement is that? "Freedom of religion" requires freedom, and different religions require a certain amount of freedom to survive, but in general, how do you mean that "freedom requires religion"?

Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Ah. Philosophy. Gotcha. So let's ask this question: What if all that freedom and window-opening has led someone to the feeling that they agreed with atheism? Or that an atheist is taking a negative position without any more evidence than the theist, and so our hypothetical person felt that agnosticism was the only reasonable faith? Are they ignored completely in Mitt Romney's world?

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

OK, I've got an appropriate question, Mr Romney. Did Christ come to America?

Oh, right. You answered that already, sort of. Let's step away from Romney's speech for a moment, and consider what the real question here is. Why is Romney making this speech?

Christian conservatives often brand the Church of the Latter-Day Saints a cult because the 19th-century "revelations" of the Book of Mormon are given equal status with the New Testament. On Sunday Mr Huckabee, a Baptist minister, pointedly refused to say if his rival was a Christian. "Mitt Romney has to answer that," he said. "It's not for me to determine."
In an interview with The Times earlier this year Mr Romney was asked if he believed the Mormon doctrine that Jesus Christ came to America and will one day return to rule the world from Jackson County, Missouri. "I'm not going to separate myself from my faith,” he replied, "I accept the doctrines of my Church and do my best to live by them."

So there's the question in a nutshell. People think you're some kind of weird cultist. So how do you answer that charge?

In this case, you apparently answer the charge with a long, rambling speech on the importance of religion, and the statement "If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

In this whole speech, Romney only mentioned the word "Mormon" once. He usually referred to it as "my faith" or, in the more abstract statements, "religion." And he tried to calm the fears of the more moderate Christians by saying:

What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history.

Well, yeah. And yours makes you believe that Christ came to America, and thinks that Missouri is a wonderful place to build your base.

OK, two points here. One: I've been to Missouri, and I'd hate to disagree with the Son of God, but... no, not so much. And two: if, in fact, Jackson County, Missouri is God's chosen place, why is the big Mormon temple in Utah?

(Oh, right, after Joseph Smith got kicked out of Ohio and Missouri, he was shot in Illinois. The rest of the church, getting their butts kicked in Illinois, schismed, and the biggest group, led by Brigham Young, went to Utah.)

But let's ignore the whole "Which religion is best?" question, OK? I've known ministers who think that Mormonism is a cult and not a Christian religion. And I've got to admit, the whole story is kind of silly. "The angel Moroni came down to Joseph Smith and told him where to unearth some golden plates, which were inscribed with an ancient Egyptian translation of the Book of Mormon. And after he translated them, the angel took the golden plates away." Why does the angel have an italian name? And why does he (or she - I don't know) take away the only thing that can verify the truth of the Book?

But I mean, let's be real. Is that crazier than the Christian faith? "God made the earth in seven days, to include fossils of dinosaurs that didn't exist to test your faith. Unless the dinosaurs died out when Noah did the ark thing. Oh, and don't forget that whole 'Hell' thing -- God knows everything. Past, present and future. So He knows that you're going to end up going to Hell, and he still allows you to come into existance. Which means that God created a torture chamber in His basement, entirely for His own amusement."

It's odd. Romney spends this entire speech blowing in whatever direction the political winds take him. He's trying to set himself up as a pandering, all-but-evangelical Christian-lite, who believes "just like you do." He can't even agree with himself during this speech. Like where he said "Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree." That's really a nice sentiment, but stands in contrast to Romney's statements that he wouldn't be likely to appoint a Muslim to a cabinet position.

Our boy Mitt's feeble grasp of history kept showing up in his attempts to pander to the Religious Right.

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

OK, Mitt, let's get real. "In God We Trust" was added to the money in 1864 (and only on a two-cent coin that year) because of increased religious sentiment after the Civil War. And "one nation under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 because of rampant fear of "those godless Commies." Trying to conflate these two acts with the Founding Fathers seems a little bit of a stretch, don't you think?

So, really, Mitt didn't bother to justify Mormonism. He just had his handlers write him a speech where he minimized the differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity, for a message of "any religion is a good religion" (ignoring anybody without a religion -- oh, yeah, and those Muslim extremists, they're bad, too). And he continued the Religious Right's noble tradition of rewriting history to fit their agenda.

Once again, this is just another example of Mitt Romney trying to please the most voters possible, and ignoring the truth when it's convenient. I think that Maureen Dowd saw the truth of it.

Mitt was right when he said that "Americans do not respect believers of convenience." Now if he would only admit he’s describing himself.

If Only They'd Just Tased Him, Bro

According to physician Catherine Wilkerson, she made the mistake of attempting to save a man's life, and now might just go to jail for it.

(That link, by the way, is a particularly biased writeup of the story. You might be able to get a more even-handed version from Michigan Live or the Ann Arbor News, but those links tend to die pretty fast.)

The official description of the event is fairly straightforward. Blaine Coleman is a Michigan activist who regularly protests on behalf of the Palestinian cause and against Israel. He was attempting to disrupt a speech at the Michigan League by Georgetown University Prof. Raymond Tanter regarding the American policy in Israel. He was escorted outside to be arrested. While there, he complained he couldn't breathe and appeared to fall unconscious.

According to the report, Wilkerson was "verbally abusive" to the police and paramedics who treated Coleman, and that was why they arrested her. The building manager, Jeffrey Green, said that she was protesting, yelling at the police, and that her behavior was "more of an emotional reaction than a physician's reaction."

Dr Wilkerson's description, widely available on the internet under the title Scenes From A Cop Riot, seems to differ slightly from the official view of her actions.

She wrote that the cop, who was much larger than the protester to begin with, had the man pinned down and was crushing him against the floor with his knee backed by his full body weight. Dr Wilkerson felt that the protester would not be able to inflate his lungs in that position, and when the protester stated that he couldn't breath, she identified herself as a doctor, and instructed the cop to turn him over immediately.

The cop turned him onto his back. I saw that the victim had a wound on his forehead and blood in his nostrils. He was unconscious.

Reiterating numerous times that I was a doctor, I tried to move to where I could assess the victim for breathing and a pulse. The cop shoved me, until finally, after my imploring him to allow me to render medical care to the victim, he allowed me to determine that the victim was alive. But he refused to remove the cuffs despite my requests. A person lying with hands cuffed beneath his body risks nerve damage to the extremities and, moreover, cannot be resuscitated.

The protester remained unconscious, and the paramedics were called in. But Dr Wilkerson didn't feel that the paramedics were any better than the cops.

When the patient didn't respond to a sternal rub, one of the paramedics popped an ammonia inhalant and thrust it beneath the patient's nostrils. If you're interested in what's wrong with that, google Dr. Bryan Bledsoe… and read his article condemning this dangerous practice. That it's "just bad medicine" is sufficient to make the paramedic's actions unacceptable, but what happened next made my blood curdle. He popped a second inhalant and a third, then cupped his hands over the patient's nostrils to heighten the noxious effect. "You don't like that, do you?" he said.

Trying to google the article by Dr Bledsoe she mentions, This Procedure Stinks [Ammonia Inhalant Use], won't do you much good: although you can track it to the March 2003 issue of the Journal of Emergency Medical Services, it doesn't even seem to be available on Dr Bledsoe's own website. However, the basic conclusions are available here.

Although she was forcefully restrained by the police, she was neither handcuffed nor arrested. But two months after the protest, and one week after she filed a police brutality complaint (she claims to require physical therapy for the injury she suffered at the hands of Ann Arbor police officer Kevin Warner) she was charged by the Washtenaw County Prosecutor Brian Mackie's office, at the request of the UM police, with two attempted felonies—one against Officer Warner and one against the EMS personnel.

Although her cause is gaining support on the internet, is this a case of an overly-officious doctor interfering with law enforcement? (After all, this isn't the first time she's had issues with authority.) Is this another example of law enforcement going over the top?

I suspect that the real truth lies somewhere in between.