Men in tight pants holding bats? It don't take Sigmund Freud...

It would almost be romantic, if it wasn't so sad; it might even be the opposite of romantic at this point. Something that rarely happens in real life: two people kissing has started a war. A culture war, at this point.

On May 26, the Seattle Mariners were playing a home game against the Boston Red Sox. Sirbrina Guerrero was on a date, and they were kissing in the bleachers at Safeco Field. An usher asked them to stop, because they were making another fan uncomfortable. The unnamed mother who complained didn't want to explain to her children why two women were kissing.

"I was really just shocked," Guerrero said "Seattle is so gay-friendly. There was a couple like seven rows ahead making out. We were just showing affection."

And this incident shows no sign of going away quietly.

The incident has exploded on local TV, on talk radio and in the blogosphere and has touched off a debate over public displays of affection in generally gay-friendly Seattle.

"Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something," said Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington. "This is one of the challenges of being gay. Everyday things can become sources of trauma."

The Mariners said they have investigated, and their seating staff acted appropriately. Spokeswoman Rebecca Hale said the usher was responding to a complaint of two women "making out" and "groping" in the stands. "We have a strict non-discrimination policy at the Seattle Mariners and at Safeco Field, and when we do enforce the code of conduct it is based on behavior, not on the identity of those involved," Hale explained. The code of conduct is announced before each game, and specifically prohibits public displays of affection that are "not appropriate in a public, family setting." Hale said those standards are based on what a "reasonable person" would find inappropriate.

According to other reports, when Guerrero confronted the usher, he seemed to backtrack, telling her "I'm just the messenger here." So Guerrero and three of her friends sought out a supervisor in Guest Services to file a formal complaint. It does appear that this wasn't a case of an overly-officious stadium employee imposing his own opinion on a situation he disapproved of: an investigation by park staff seems to indicate that the usher was acting on a complaint by another patron, although nobody has turned up the mother in question. Further, Guerrero apparently has acknowledged that the director of Guest Services apologized to her when she complained.

Dan Savage, who writes a syndicated column on sex and "alternative lifestyles" for The Stranger, suggested in his blog that "we need to stage a kiss-in." (Technically, he only suggested it in the title, but he received a great deal of publicity when the Associated Press quoted him.)

The only mention of "Guerrero" that shows up on the Mariners' homepage is the Los Angeles Angels' Vladimir Guerrero, recently sidelined with a sore knee.

One thing that has been pointed out in several forums is Ms. Guerrero's... unusual background. If you followed the links to MTV (the one on her name) you know that she's a "professional mechanical bull rider" (I'd ask if that was really a job, but apparently, there are place where it might just be). Further than that, in the original newspaper article, we find

Since the incident, her job and her past have come under scrutiny. She works at a bar known for scantily clad women and was a contestant on the MTV reality show "A Shot at Love With Tila Tequila," in which women and men compete for the affection of a bisexual Internet celebrity.

"People are saying it's 15 more minutes for my career," Guerrero said of the ballpark furor, "but this is not making me look very good."

Now, here's the thing. Yes, she doesn't seem to have the publicity-shy attitude of the average citizen. But since the park is admitting that the incident happened, and she has witnesses saying that she wasn't dry-humping her girlfriend, I think what went down was this: the park decided to punch down with the dictatorial whack-a-mole hammer, in order to enforce their self-created "rules of behavior", and suddenly, they discovered that they'd come down on somebody who wasn't willing to just roll over.

The average Joe Citizen, told by ushers that he needed to stop groping his girlfriend, even if he just gave her a quick peck between garlic fries, would just hunker down in his seat, muttering "I didn't do nuthin' wrong" and that would be that. But Sirbrina decided to stand up and push back. And the stadium administration wasn't ready for that.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say that Sirbrina was involved in a deep, heavy, tongue-involved snog with this girl-who-doesn't-want-to-be-named. Would that have been OK if it was a man and a woman, instead of a woman and another woman? Actually, it would probably have ended up on the Jumbotron, for the whole audience to cheer them on. So why is it wrong that it's the same scenario, but with a different cast?

Hell, I think it's a good thing, even if Sirbrina had her hand all up in her still-in-the-closet girlfriend's shirt. Test the stupid rules, kick over the rocks and see what comes crawling out.

But that's just me. Maybe I've got the wrong attitude.

It's hard to believe

John McCain has separated himself from the Republican pack in one key issue: Climate change. He opposes it, he'll work to fix it, he'll take substansive action on it. He's even willing to say that it's a national security issue.

But he doesn't seem willing to do anything other than talk in order to combat it. Although he claims that climate change is a central point of his campaign of late, he has no plans to even be in the neighborhood when the Senate votes on a landmark bill to impose mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

In a press conference late Wednesday afternoon, McCain said he did not support the bill sponsored by two of his closest allies, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) because it doesn’t offer enough aid to the nuclear industry, and he would not come to the floor to vote on it.

"I have not been there for a number of votes. The same thing happened in the campaign of 2000," he said. "The people of Arizona understand I’m running for president."

Keep that statement in mind for a moment. "I have not been there for a number of votes." That seems to be his strategy when it comes time to do anything other than simply talk about the environment. He uses the tactic of avoidance whenever he could actually take action to back up his words on hte environment.

"I'm proud of my record on the environment," he said at a news conference Friday at the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City. "As president, I will dedicate myself to addressing the issue of climate change globally."

But an examination of McCain's voting record shows an inconsistent approach to the environment: He champions some "green" causes while casting sometimes contradictory votes on others.

The senator from Arizona has been resolute in his quest to impose a federal limit on greenhouse gas emissions, even when it means challenging his own party. But he has also cast votes against tightening fuel-efficiency standards and resisted requiring public utilities to offer a specific amount of electricity from renewable sources. He has worked to protect public lands in his home state, winning a 2001 award from the National Parks Conservation Association for helping give the National Park Service some say over air tours around the Grand Canyon, work that prompts former interior secretary and Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt to call him "a great friend of the canyon." But he has also pushed to set aside Endangered Species Act protections when they conflict with other priorities, such as the construction of a University of Arizona observatory on Mount Graham.

McCain's lifetime score with the League of Conservation Voters is 26% (compared with 96% for Obama and 90% for Clinton); Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund's conservation report card gave him 38 percent in the 108th Congress and 40 in the 109th, with a 39% lifetime score. But for this session of Congress, McCain managed to miss every single vote in regards to environmental issues, so both groups give him a zero rating - technically, "N/A" for the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund). (By comparison, Obama and Clinton each missed 4 out of 15 key environmental votes.) Overall, McCain's attitude toward the environment is merely a part of his strategy to lure independent voters away from Obama; the difference is, Obama is willing to work toward improving the environment. McCain is only willing to talk about it. That doesn't make him an environment maverick - it makes him a hypocrite.

Given McCain's contradictory attitude on any number of subjects, how many people actually believe that the new green John McCain is something that they can believe in? John McCain seems unable to stop lying. At times, it's passive, like when he urges divestment and sanctions against Iran, despite the fact that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, was lobbying for clients who did extensive business with Iran.

But too often, he's actively lying, like when he states that he supports our veterans, despite rarely voting to help them (to include voting against the Webb/Hagel veteran's benefits bill, because giving veterans too many benefits might make them want to leave the military). Or when he tries to claim, in New Orleans, that he's consistently supported the people of New Orleans - at which point the DNC issues a press release citing specific examples which show how McCain has consistently voted against helping the people of New Orleans.

I cannot think of a single issue that McCain hasn't done a complete turn-around on, in an effort to improve his chances of getting elected. And there are people out there who still think he's honest.

It's hard to believe.

Update (6/6/08): But I suppose there is another viewpoint after all. C & L (one of the all-time great sites) pointed me to a short article+video posted on the Atlantic.com website by Matthew Yglesias, where he points out:

In some ways, I think McCain himself doesn't quite realize how Bush-esque he is. He clearly doesn't like Bush, and has been disliking him for a long time. But that kind of personalized, overblown disdain for Bush-the-man can wind up leading you to overestimate Bush-the-grand-strategist. To McCain, Bush's policies have failed because of Bush. Replace Bush with McCain and shift tactics around the margins, and the same basic ideas should work out fine. It's a nice theory, but I don't think it's a true theory.

So there you go. It's always possible that John McCain isn't a complete liar: perhaps he's just deluded. And his attempts to change his past opinions may not be lying, either: it may just be evidence that he's trying to bring the public record in line with what he wants to remember about himself. Again, deluded. And still not somebody you'd want in the White House.

Bald? Not really.

You know, it's strange. I seem to have started shaving my head.

Now, let me be clear about one thing. I'm not going bald. (Wow. That really sounds like somebody going bald trying to justify their decision, doesn't it?)

But I'm not. I still have a full head of hair. If anything, it grows too well. You see, I normally don't pay attention to my hair. It's that stuff on top of my head that I ignore, for the most part. I wash it in the morning, I brush it, and then I leave it alone.

But now I'm shaving it. Plus, I got an earring. So either I'm not comfortable with my masculinity, or I'm going through a midlife crisis. Which means that next, I've got to buy a sports car and start picking up women in bars.

Christ, I don't want a sports car! Lousy mileage, and I can only imagine how much my insurance would go up.

See, I left the military right after John Kerry admitted defeat. Since then, I think I've gotten two haircuts. My wife, as it turns out, grew up on a college campus in the Sixties and Seventies, and prefers longer hair. So I, being the dutiful husband that I am, let my hair grow out. You might or might not know, but the Air Force insisted that I get it cut roughly every month or so, to keep it from looking shaggy. So I did. I never really thought about it. It was just something I did. Since I left the military and now work in a hospital, I didn't have to get my hair cut every eight weeks, like clockwork. In fact, maybe I let it grow a little too long.

And from what I can tell, I'm the only person who doesn't pay attention to my hair.

So, almost two months ago, one of my co-workers asked a question that would prove to be important. Ericka Acosta, one of our Human Resources ladies, asked "So what's the deal with the hair? Are you protesting something?"

I'd never thought about it like that. I mean, I saw Hair. I've heard the title song from that play (umm... for those of you who didn't work that one out on your own, that would be "Hair," which was a hit for the Cowsills in 1969). I remember at least two versions of the song "Signs," (the original, by the Five Man Electrical Band, and later by Tesla, for their Five Man Acoustical Jam) where the first verse goes:

And the sign said "Long-haired freaky people need not apply"
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said "You look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do"
So I took off my hat, I said "Imagine that. Me! Workin' for you!"

But I never thought of growing my hair as a protest to anything. (Except maybe the price of haircuts. That seems pretty obvious.)

But I filed my retirement papers in early 2004. And I've had a couple of haircuts since then, but in the last two years, I think I've only had one. Not because I didn't need one, but because I just don't think about it. At least, not my own: I'll admire a nice head of hair on somebody else, I'll make fun of a stupid hairstyle, but for the most part, I don't think about the unshorn shrubbery on top of my own skull. It just doesn't interest me that much.

But "are you protesting something?" was exactly the question asked by Ms. Acosta. I hadn't thought about it like that. And it seemed like a good opportunity. So I decided to make a fund-raiser out of it. I set up a quick flyer: the first attempt had a tie-dyed background and read:

Shave the hippie!
Let your inner 1960’s Young Republican run free!
You’ve seen him wandering the halls with his unshorn locks, and you know you want to teach him a lesson!
For every $1 donated, you get one chance to be the one to run the clippers over his patchouli-scented head!
If you don’t want to do it yourself, you can either volunteer another barber, or you can have our handy staff of Chief Administrators do it (and trust me, they’ve been waiting for this moment for far too long).
See ___people__ to buy a chance to run the clippers
The ceremonial shaving will be held at ___time__ on ___date__ in the cafeteria

That didn't go over too well. Basically, we have this doctor who's got fairly long hair, and some concern was expressed that people might think that we were talking about him. So that one went down in flames.

My next choice was more obviously not about Dr Dorf (yes, that's his name). I took pictures of myself, and went with a more self-deprecating attitude. (I won't even try to format the thing - it was a letter-sized poster with the pictures down one side, if you're seriously into layouts.)

No sense of style


No fashion sense


No peripheral vision


You’ve seen him wandering the halls.
You’ve asked "What’s the deal with the hair?"

BUT IF WE CAN RAISE AT LEAST $100 IN THREE DAYS TO HELP BARRETT HOUSE, HE WILL SHAVE HIS HEAD!

For every $1 donated, you get one chance to be the one to run the clippers over his head!

If you don’t want to do it yourself, you can either volunteer another barber, or you can have the handy staff from administration do it (and trust me, they’ve been waiting for this moment for a long time).

See ___people__ to buy a chance to run the clippers (or to admire his fine head of hair for the last time)

The ceremonial shaving will be held in the cafeteria
at 2:30 p.m.
Friday, 16 May

All proceeds will be donated to the Barrett House, providing emergency and short-term shelter to homeless women and children.

At first, that had read "if we can raise $100 in a week" - then it read "less than a week." Finally, when I was starting to think that our CEO preferred the long-haired look, the approval came down. So I changed it to "in three days," and we went with it.

For the first two days, money rolled in relatively well. Along with a lot of people asking, "are you really going to do that?" I pulled in almost $90. And I had a lot of people who made snide little comments like "Hey, I'm going to make sure you're bald by tomorrow." The word "scalp" kept getting used - I'm not sure that everybody had my best interests at heart. But I even went out and bought a pair of clippers (here's one place where I cheated a little - I took $20 from the donations and paid for the clippers that way; hey, I may not be in a minimum-wage job, but I ain't rich, either).

On Friday morning, I sent out an email to all the department managers.

As I’ve been asked this question several times, I suppose an update is in order.

The challenge has been out for two days. At this point, we have not averaged fifty dollars per day. By all appearances, I will be going home tonight with the same amount of hair I came to work with.

Barrett House will still be getting the money. (Here’s a link to the Barrett House website.) And they may get the unopened clippers I bought last night, since I apparently won’t need them.

And perhaps in a month or two, somebody could teach me to braid my hair. That’s not a skill I ever needed before.

That worked moderately well in getting me some donations, but I thought I'd spend a little while drumming up business. I went to every person who'd made some kind of joke at my expense (OK, at the expense of my hair), and said "You know, you talked a lot of trash, but it's strange - there hasn't been a lot of money coming out of your department. I guess you like the long-haired look, don't you?"

This worked even better - I had a lot of people writing me checks on the spot. (OK, technically I had them write the checks to "Barrett House" - that seemed like the right way to deal with it.) And by a little after noon, I had over $300, all given by people hoping to see me go bald by the end of the day. And for every dollar donated, I had a roll of two-part tickets - one half went to the person as kind of a receipt that they couldn't use for their taxes (but we could do a manual recount later of anybody suspected wrongdoing - hey, we aren't Florida), and the other half went into a bowl, so we could draw the name of our lucky barber.

The stunning part happened around one o'clock. One of the anesthetists who works for the hospital (he actually commutes from his home in another state, so he's doing pretty well, I'm thinking) was waiting for me when I came back from lunch. He handed me a check, and said, "I just want to make sure that you get a haircut. I don't really want to cut it myself, though." And he walked away. Leaving me looking at a check for a thousand dollars.

I didn't know what to say. I was stunned. (I was also a little bit thankful that he didn't want tickets, because there weren't a thousand left on the roll.) I spent the next hour almost in shock, getting everything ready for end of the day.

At 2:15, I dialed the number to make an overhead announcement to the entire hospital. "Ladies and gentlemen, the barber will be in, in the smoking area, in fifteen minutes." (Technically, I was supposed to get permission from the boss before I used the overhead - I didn't. Feel free to arrest me. I have to admit, I still wasn't thinking clearly.)



All told, we raised $1,333 for the Barrett House.

Since then, I've had a surprisingly large number of women tell me I look good like this. Unfortunately for them, my wife doesn't like the shaved head look. And I have to admit, I don't think much of it either. I've had 2 weeks now, and still don't like the way it looks. Part of that might be psychological, of course: particularly in the military, most of the people who shaved their heads came in two categories:

1. Men who were going bald and weren't honest enough to admit it, and

2. Closet homosexuals who worked out way too much, flexed whenever they passed a mirror, and were generally setting themselves up to be dragged out of an airport restroom, loudly proclaiming how they just had a "wide stance."

So I'm most likely not going to be continuing to shave my head.

But my CEO, after she announced the final total, said to me, "So, you're going to let it grow back so we can do this again next year?"

Well, two things. First, I'm thinking that it might take two years to get to a length that people will pay to see cut off.

And second, I don't see how I'm ever going to be able to match one-and-a-third thousand dollars.

Update: (June 14, 2008) As it turns out, I left out an important detail - the "after" picture. And my daughter (who, it turns out, also has a blog - although one with significantly less politics, but a lot more pictures) has rectified this issue.



Oh, yeah. By the way: Nix? I notice.

Another loving look at John McCain

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the mainstream press seems unwilling to look at Mr. McCain with anything but long, loving soulful expressions on their faces. Their love affair with him seems to be helped by the fact that he's essentially running unopposed, since, for much of the time, Clinton and Obama only have eyes for each other.

But it's odd, because there's just so much to work with there.

In the last few months, John decided to prove that he really had no idea what was going on in the Middle East. For example, he kept repeating a fascinating viewpoint he’d developed about the ceasefire in Iraq. See, Maliki (the Prime Minister of Iraq) went to Muqtada al Sadr (leader of the primary opposition army), and brokered a ceasefire. Mostly because Maliki and his boys were getting their butts kicked and all, but, you know, the basic point is that Maliki went to Sadr.

So, what does our boy Johnny have to say about this?

It was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki. … With respect, I don’t think Sadr would have declared the ceasefire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history, military engagements, the winning side doesn’t declare the ceasefire. The second point is, overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. … The military is functioning very effectively.

Yeah, John. Very effective. Unless you count the thousand Iraqi soldiers who deserted or refused to fight.

He also tried to use the Middle East to attack Obama, saying that Hamas is rooting for a win by Obama. Well, let's consider that.

Obama's position is that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and "we should not talk to them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence and are willing to abide by previous accords” that Israel has negotiated with its neighbors and with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Because this is the most reasonable thing Hamas has heard from Washington recently, one of their political advisors, Ahmed Yousef, said "We like Mr. Obama., and we hope that he will win the election... I do believe that Mr. Obama is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principles. He has a vision to change America, to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance."

The McCain camp immediately started screaming about a Hamas endorsement of Obama, and implying that Obama is "soft on terrorism."

Of course, since McCain, just two years ago, said that Hamas was a democratically-elected government and we should negotiate with them, doesn't that make McCain look a little hypocritical? Just a little?

And, you know, if we really wanted to look into this situation, consider Pinochet or Idi Amin. For that matter, consider America's attitude toward Saddam Hussain during the Iran-Iraq war, when we were selling him weapons (including those very "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that we made so much noise about five years ago). America has a long tradition of negotiating with thugs and terrorists, when the terrorists also happen to be the legitimate government of a country.

On second thought, let's not get into that. It makes your head hurt.

Domestically, Ol’ Grandpa Johnny has also been busy proving one of two things: either somebody on his staff just wasn’t doing their research, or McCain was trying to singlehandedly wipe the phrase “compassionate conservative” from the playbook. He stood in front of a factory in Youngstown, Ohio, and told people to reject the “siren song of protectionism,” and embrace free trade.

He’d met all of the factory workers shortly before he spoke. It didn’t take long: there were only five of them. A few years ago, there were hundreds. Seems like he could have considered that before starting his remarks.

The hardships are all too real in Youngstown. The city has lost more than 40,000 jobs since its signature steel industry collapsed in the 1970s and '80s. Its population is less than half its peak of 170,000 in the 1950s. About 25 percent of those who remain live below the poverty line.

Because there’s nothing that the unemployed like better than to hear about American jobs being shipped overseas.

McCain’s people also didn’t always consider their remarks very carefully, either. McCain went to a place called Gee’s Bend, Alabama , trying to appeal to black voters. Which is great, but sometimes history conflicts oddly with the past. Like with the unintentional irony from the local RNC spokeperson.

A federal grant allowed the ferry to reopen in 2006 — 44 years after county leaders closed it to keep the black residents of Gee's Bend from crossing the river to the county seat to push for civil rights. Without the ferry, Camden was an 80-mile round trip.

"The ferry he will be riding is very important to that community. It's both a good and terrible symbol. It's good that it now exists, but it's terrible it took so long to build it," said Katie Wright, regional spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.

Did you catch that problem? It's kind of subtle – you see, the ferry was built with congressional earmarks (that would be the "federal grant" they mentioned). And McCain has said that we need to do away with earmarks.

The best stuff that McCain gives us, like with most politicians, is when he contradicts himself. Like last month.

John McCain, on Tuesday:

"I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people -- from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus.... [B]ecause the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy."

John McCain, on Thursday:

"I think psychologically, a lot of our problems today are psychological -- confidence, trust, uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home. [A gas-tax holiday] might give 'em a little psychological boost. Let's have some straight talk: it's not a huge amount of money.... A little psychological boost. That's what I think [a gas-tax holiday] would help."

So, which is it, a seasonal tax cut that will serve as "an immediate economic stimulus," or a gimmick to alleviate our "psychological" problems?

Of course, McCain also says that the best way to keep Americans from getting their homes foreclosed on is by “working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets.” (Easy to say when your outstanding bills are all paid by your millionaire beer-heiress wife. Not that I’m saying he’s elitist or anything…)

Weirdly enough, Hillary jumped on the gas-tax bandwagon, despite the fairly obvious long-term problems: less money to maintain an already-crumbling national infrastructure of roads and bridges; increased use of gas, leading to (guess what?) higher gas prices; you know, the simple stuff that any economist could point out in seconds. But I haven't been impressed with Hillary's behavior lately, anyway.

He also gets all cranky about Obama’s old pastor, the Reverend Wright. Of course, that doesn’t mean that McCain isn’t going to actively seek endorsement by catholic-hating gay bashers like John Hagee.

Of course, Hagee recently wrote a letter apologizing for his many decades of calling the Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and a "false cult system." So I guess that's all right now, right? On the other hand, as ThinkProgress points out,

But anti-Catholic comments are not the only reason Hagee has sparked controversy. Just last month, he reiterated his prior claim that Hurricane Katrina was punishment to New Orleans for hosting a gay pride parade. Though he appeared to back away from the claim after McCain called it "nonsense," he re-embraced it last week on a conference call with religious supporters.

Will Hagee issue a similar letter to the gay community pledging "a greater level of compassion and respect for my gay brothers and sisters in Christ?"

Update: Josh Marshall asks: "Can we now get him to explain the part about God using Muslim terrorists to create bloodbaths in our streets because the US supports a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine?"

Yeah, so an intelligent person might suggest that McCain should probably repudiate Hagee, much like Obama did when Wright proved unstable. But McCain doesn't seem to show any interest in that. Go figure.

Oh, and one more thing. I keep seeing things referring to John McCain as a "war hero." Well, you know something? It's weird, but let's look at the record.

Every two hours, one guard would hold McCain while two others beat him. They kept it up for four days.

Finally, McCain lay on the floor at "The Plantation," a bloody mess, unable to move. His right leg, injured when he was shot down, was horribly swollen. A guard yanked him to his feet and threw him down. His left arm smashed against a bucket and broke again.

"I reached the lowest point of my 5½ years in North Vietnam," McCain would write later. "I was at the point of suicide."

What happened next, in that August of 1968, nearly a year after he was captured, is chronicled in The Nightingale's Song by Robert Timberg:

"(McCain) looked at the louvered cell window high above his head, then at the small stool in the room. He took off his dark blue prison shirt, rolled it like a rope, draped one end over his shoulder near his neck, began feeding the other end through the louvers."

A guard burst into the cell and pulled McCain away from the window. For the next few days, he was on suicide watch.

McCain's will had finally wilted under the beatings. Unable to endure any more, he agreed to sign a confession.

McCain slowly wrote, "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors."

Well, yeah, it's a horrible story. It's horrendous. It also shows two very important points.

First, it shows, very clearly, that a confession taken under torture should not be accepted as fact. With this one anecdote, John McCain has proven why George Bush's policies toward the terrorists should be resisted with every fiber in our being.

And it shows one other thing. One that nobody in the mainstream media seems to be willing to point out. (A few fringe fanatics have noticed it, but they're rarely taken seriously.) In making his statement, John McCain broke the military Code of Conduct. See, that's something that was established in 1955 by Dwight D. Eisenhower, and it states, in part, that "When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give only name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause."

It's pretty simple. John McCain broke the Code of Conduct. And as soon as somebody can convince me that the Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth" would not eviscerate a Democrat who behaved in this manner, I'll be willing to give John McCain a break on this issue. Until then, I'm quite willing to say that, according to the standards set up by his very own Republican Party, John McCain is a coward and a traitor, and not suitable to be the President of the United States.

Personally, I don't believe this to be the truth. I think that it shows that John McCain is a flawed human being, just like the rest of us. But let me emphasize one important phrase in that last paragraph: "according to the standards set up by his very own Republican Party, John McCain is a coward and a traitor, and not suitable to be the President of the United States."

Can someone please explain to me why I might be wrong in this?

Keeping It Real # 7 by Levy Lee Simon

Levy Lee Simon is a playwright in LA (and occasionally New York), who does not blog himself. Instead, he sends out emails which could essentially be blog entries, like the following.

He'd probably like me to mention that his workshop for screenwriters, playwrights and actors will begin in early June and run through August - contact him at jazzlion05 -AT- aol.com.)

________________

(for those of you that don't know me, I am a Black man from Harlem USA)

OK, it's been a while since I wrote my last commentary and many people have wondered why. Besides being extremely busy in the early part of the year with Same Train and The Guest at Central Park West productions in NYC, I have been in a bit of awe at the history happening right before our eyes in the form of the democratic primary.

However, with the recent developments surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it's time I speak out. I for one am appalled by Rev. Wright's actions. Yes, he is a very dynamic person in his own right. He pastored a thriving church in a vital Black community for over thirty years and that is not an easy plight. He has been out-spoken about the condition of the Black community in white America and has not held back on what some have cited as ridiculous claims, but claims none of us can ignore. The possibilities are real in everything he says no matter how outlandish some of his accusations may sound. He is articulate, courageous, fearless, militant, and highly intelligent. He is everything white America fears in a Black person. So why am I appalled?

Why would a man of the cloth, a man with a deep understanding of Black America, a deep understanding of America's attempts to ruin the chances of the first legitimate Black candidate in the tumultuous history of this country? Barack Obama's campaign is beyond historic, it's evolutionary. Barack's candidacy and potential presidency can change the world at a time when the world's perception of its very own identity is in a quagmire. After four hundred years of American slavery and another hundred years of fighting for civil and human rights, we have reached a point where a Black man is winning primaries in places like Idaho, Utah, Iowa and South Carolina. I don't know about any of you, but Barack's candidacy speaks volumes regarding the present state of mind of our country. By no means does his candidacy proclaim that issues of racism and hatred no longer exist, but you have to admit it's a far cry from the days of Rosa Parks, ML King, and Malcolm.

So why would a man of Rev. Wright's understanding take the chance to ruin what promises to be one of the most historic moments in American history? And please, I don't want to hear the bull about how he had to stand up for himself and that his legacy was relegated to a sound bite which he needed to clarify; that is not nearly enough of a reason. That reasoning only points to a self-serving egomaniac.

Rev. Wright has been preaching the same diatribe that most Blacks have heard before. It may have been a shock for certain white conservatives to hear it publicly, but I am sure that the majority of white liberals have heard the claims about the government creation of AIDS, of government responsibility, guilt and influence in the Middle-East situation, and planned genocide of the Black community through educational and judicial means. In today's world many whites and Blacks have developed strong relationships as friends, lovers, and spouses; so no one can make me believe that whites have not heard the claims that Rev. Wright aired in his demonstrative speeches that were deemed so shocking by both conservatives and Hillary Clinton.

Rev. Wright's comments were not that shocking. I know I speak freely among my white friends about my feelings and concerns about the world that definitely includes racism.

It seems that there's certain percentage of the population that will stop at nothing to stop Obama. Hillary Clinton's campaign is that of a desperate person that will stop at nothing to derail Barack. Her accusations that Barack is elitist are laughable. However, her strategy was and is clever. The poor and working class whites in Pennsylvania were not going to vote for Obama anyway. So she used a ploy that people bought into as to why they didn't vote for him by reversing something he said that was very real. People are bitter. And during tough times, people do resort to the Bible or the gun. It's as clear as American history. During slavery when we Blacks had nowhere else to look, we looked to God; and when whites had no where else to look when trying to maintain the system of slavery, they looked to the gun; resulting in a civil war. You can't get more plain than that. It's historical. Yet Hillary cleverly turned it around. The thing is, I feel Obama is holding back. I am not smarter than he is but it's easier for me to point to these realities that it is from him because people are waiting for more stuff to use against him.

Back to Rev. Wright: what did the world gain by Rev. Wright's performances, as Barack so aptly coined them? Barack gained nothing. The only person that may have gained anything from Rev. Wright 's speeches was Rev. Wright. And who cares, other than Rev. Wright? I thought a man of the cloth was supposed to be blessed with insight, knowledge, perseverance, and resiliency. You mean to tell me that he couldn't have waited to make his statements, knowing that his statements would hurt Barack, a man who refused to throw him under the bus initially, and is now being criticized because he didn't? Rev. Wright suffers from a huge ego and what's worse, jealousy and envy. He is the epitome of the crab in the barrel. It's a damn shame but African and African American history is littered with similar cases. Toussaint L'Overture was met with treason from his own backers in 1802, so was Dessalines and Henri Christophe during the Haitian Revolution and Independence. Nat Turner, Gabriel Prossor and Denmark Vessey were all turned in by their own. And let us not forget Malcolm! What is it about us that is to ominously spiteful?

I know there will be many that will disagree with me but look at the facts. Some white liberal wrote "at least Rev. Wright stood up for himself" but where does that get us? He put himself before his congregation, his community and his people. He is a small man who will come to see how small in the very near future. I just hope that Barack's candidacy is not the price we have to pay for him to see how small he is. But then again, people like Rev. Wright really don't care. He could care less than a flying you know what. For all of his parishioners, I sincerely hope you can see the light because if he doesn't care about Barack what in the hell does he care about you getting into heaven? Did you tithe this month? But then again, with the proceeds from his book sales and speaking engagements tithes will get you nowhere with Rev. Wright (who, by the way, is so WRONG).

All of us need to denounce Rev. Jeremiah White. When I say "all," that is what I mean: Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and Asians who do not want to see the evolutionary process dismantled by a crab in a barrel.


~~ Levy Lee Simon

Bummer, man. The Acid Doc checked out.

Albert Hofman, developer of LSD, died Tuesday at his hilltop home near Basel, Switzerland. Unlike what most of his critics would prefer to think, his death was not drug-related. He had a heart attack at the age of 102.

So, apparently, drugs can't always kill you. Take that, Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

Dr. Hofmann first synthesized the compound lysergic acid diethylamide in 1938 but did not discover its psychopharmacological effects until five years later, when he accidentally ingested the substance that became known to the 1960s counterculture as acid.

He then took LSD hundreds of times, but regarded it as a powerful and potentially dangerous psychotropic drug that demanded respect. More important to him than the pleasures of the psychedelic experience was the drug’s value as a revelatory aid for contemplating and understanding what he saw as humanity’s oneness with nature. That perception, of union, which came to Dr. Hofmann as almost a religious epiphany while still a child, directed much of his personal and professional life.

More accurately, while working for Sandoz Laboratories (now Novartis) as a chemical scientist, he began studying the medicinal plant squill and the fungus ergot in order to purify and synthesize active components for use in drugs. Hofmann first synthesized LSD-25 in 1938, and set it aside until April 16, 1943. While re-synthesizing the LSD, he accidentally "ingested" a dose through his fingertips and took the first acid trip. Three days later, Hofmann dropped 250 micrograms of LSD before his bicycle ride home. This was followed by a series of self-experiments conducted by Hofmann and his colleagues. (One can speculate about the scientific validity of these "experiments," but why bother?)

However, despite the passing of its inventor, LSD is set to make a comeback. And legally, this time.

Swiss medical authorities have given a doctor approval to carry out LSD-assisted psychotherapy trials on patients suffering from advanced-stage cancer and other terminal illnesses.

This will be the first government-approved study looking into LSD's therapeutic benefits on humans in over 35 years.

Dr. Hofman (no relation, incidentally, to Abbie Hoffman, the notorious sixties radical) also wrote a book on the subject, LSD, My Problem Child (available in digital form here).

Define "quagmire" for me again?

Many of the experts outside of the White House's influence tell us that the presence of foreign troops only inflames the locals. When you poll the Iraqis, they tell us that they want us the hell out of their country. Most Americans are in agreement with the Iraqis on that point.

And common sense tells us one other thing. If we, as Americans, were to find our country suddenly occupied by a foreign power, and said foreign power were to have no interest in our rights as citizens, and seemed incapable and/or unwilling to protect us from the "lawless" elements, and occasionally killed our citizens for no apparent reason (and never seemed to suffer any consequences for it), what would the reaction of the American citizenry be? Three of the most obvious options would be:

1. Some would try to just get along and make a living.

2. Some (many) would fight back against the invaders, who would be the visible target for their wrath.

3. Some would start killing for little or no reason, and set up their own little fiefdoms, violently removing any opposition.

Does this sound like any country that you can think of?

Every time an American troop shoots an Iraqi, that's one more death to inflame public opinion against us.

Every time American troops break into a house, the neighbors don't say "Oh, that must have been an insurgent." They think "Oh, the American's have broken into another house again. I wonder if anyone was killed." (And, of course, to a certain extent, "I wonder if there's anything in there I need?")

Every time an American convoy runs over a goat, drives through a planted field, or even takes a turn too wide and damages a building/a car/a storefront, the average Iraqi only sees another of the few things of value that they own getting destroyed by the Americans.

And I can't imagine that the American compounds, with their own generators and water supply, make the average Iraqi (who has neither on a regular basis) particularly cheerful.

We do more harm than good by being there. We do considerably more harm than good by doing "peacekeeping" missions.

Pulling out completely may or may not be a good idea. But at the very least, we need to pull all of our forces inside the embassy grounds and seal it up. No shooting unless we are shot at. (I would also recommend a building outside of city limits, so that we can set up an established 100m "dead zone," clearly delineated with concertina wire and signs in Arabic.)

The best thing we can do to improve our image among the Iraqis would be to stop killing the Iraqis!!

Then, having done that, we let the Iraqi government dig itself out of its hole. If they don't have the First Armored Cavalry charging in to blow the crap out of the "enemy," I suspect that they'll have a much easier time seeing the sense in compromise. In finding a diplomatic solution rather than running in, guns blazing.

Or maybe they'll all kill each other, and the survivors will set up a functional government. Either way, they're in the middle of a civil war with overtones of ethnic/religious cleansing, and there isn't a damned thing we can do about that.

Bush's latest excuse for why we can't leave Iraq is that the terrorists would get all the oil. Which probably makes sense in the alternate reality that he lives in, but not here on earth. Once we leave Iraq, the locals won't have a lot of use for al Qaeda, and that organization will disappear faster than it came into being. One way or another.

By the way, those mercenary troops we call "contract security" (remember them? Blackwater? Custer Battles?) — they're only making things worse. We tell every American company to pull up stakes and get the fuck out, because we won't be saving their stupid butts. Anybody who stays is subject to Iraqi law.

Yes, it might be nice if we kept a presence there. A similar presence to what we have in most other countries. We call it an embassy, it's run by the State Department, and its purpose is to provide access to diplomatic channels.

We ask the neighboring countries (you know, the ones the Iraqis don't hate quite as much as us) to try to provide diplomatic solutions. We might set up some system of border security, to keep armed insurgents from other countries (yes, those same other countries mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph) from going in and inflaming the situation. We provide medical supplies and food as aid (preferably without actually delivering the stuff and allowing our forces to get shot at), and we let them settle it. Once we aren't there stirring up bigger problems, they have a much better chance of doing just that.

We also openly announce that we are doing this very thing, and why. We might even consider turning to the United Nations, to see if any of them have any ideas on how to fix the country we broke.

As long as the bull remains in the china shop, things will continue to be broken.

Bitter? Maybe a little...

So, here's what we know.

Hillary Clinton has been pointing her finger at Obama and calling him "out of touch" and "elitist." She says that, because he said that people are bitter, or clinging to religion because they don't have anything else, he doesn't know how the people think any more.

Describing Mr Obama as elitist and out of touch, Mrs Clinton suggested that nominating him would be a way of ensuring a Democratic defeat once again.

"We had two very good men and men of faith run for president in 2000 and 2004. But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life," she said...

At the same event, Mrs Clinton said: "I believe that people don't cling to religion, they value their faith. You don't cling to guns, you enjoy hunting or collecting or sport shooting. I don't think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you."

Wow. You know, if there wasn't any context for Obama's remarks, she might actually have a point. Unfortunately, here's what Barack Obama actually said.

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laughter), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

Why is it that every time Barack Obama talks to America as if they were adults, Hillary Clinton pulls 2 words and three phrases out, and twists them to her own ends?

Maybe it's a trick she learned when she was running from the snipers in Bosnia.

Yeah, I tried to be open-minded, but the stink of desperation around the Klinton Kampaign is starting to get really hard to live with.

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?