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?

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.