I am so disgusted by the lack of courage of the Democrats in standing up to Bush on most of his policies it breaks my heart that most Ameicans have this laissez-faire attitude toward Bush policies many of which are criminal and subvert our Nation's  Constitution. Why have the democrats have signed off and and and not only passed Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping but expanded its powers.

Every American shoud be more affraid of this than another 911 or terrorist act, I can't go into this right now but warrants are one of the backbones of our democracy and when you strip any branch of government of that necessity then you are re-defining democracy and stripping Americans of their civil liberties, liberties that our Founding Fathers thought were so important they added them to our Constitution. I added a Keith Oberman video please take time to view it especially the part with the great constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley  as he put it very eloquently

When nonvoters are asked why they don't participate in politics, the most common answer they give is that they don't think they can have any impact. The system's gamed, they say, broken, and lawmakers are only concerned about the interests of their cronies.

Thankfully, Andrew Bossie, a young grass-roots organizer, never came to believe that ordinary people are powerless. In 2005, Bossie, then a student at the University of Southern Maine, looked around and noticed that a generation of young people was having real problems affording the kind of education that most people see as vital to having a shot at the American dream. "The skyrocketing costs of tuition, books and living expenses was taking its toll not only on me, but also on my siblings, friends and peers," Bossie wrote in an e-mail exchange. "It was not uncommon to see a college dorm vacated mid-semester because a tuition bill couldn't be paid, or to find a seat once occupied by an eager student empty, because they simply could not afford to continue."

Nobody told Andrew Bossie that he couldn't do anything about the bleak post-graduation prospects so many of his fellow students faced, so he decided he would. "I had a crazy, hare-brained idea," Bossie told me in a phone interview. "And I started to have conversations with people who were politically active, and when I did that I saw that it generated a lot of excitement."

The idea was fairly simple: help students pay off their debts if they stay in Maine. Last week, two years later, Bossie's work, along with those of other activists and groups, including the League of Independent Voters, bore fruit when Maine legislators passed the Opportunity Maine Initiative. The measure will give tax credits to help Maine residents pay off their student debt as long as they stay in the state. "Nontraditional" students returning to get their degrees would also be eligible for the credits, as would employers who pay off their workers' student loans as a benefit.

After a two-year campaign, the measure had been on its way to voters in the form of a statewide referendum this November when Maine's legislature stepped in and passed the bill by wide margins -- 142-0 in the State House and 27-8 in the Senate.

It's a small example of good governance in an era when an increasing number of Americans have learned the hard way how rare that is -- it's an example of legislating in the public interest; the antithesis of deals cut in Congress during the dark of night or the federal efforts to clean up after hurricane Katrina.

Young Bossie had been involved in student politics and had gotten a taste of grass-roots organizing when he worked on a campaign to beat back a referendum that would have repealed a state law outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. "I realized, as we worked against a referendum process that would have allowed businesses to fire employees just for being gay -- something I considered very negative -- that it would be just as easy to use the referendum process to do something positive."

Soon, Bossie found himself heading up a coalition of activists called Opportunity Maine. "The greatest challenge," Bossie wrote last week, "was that the group that formed to spearhead this issue was made up almost entirely of novices, with little to no campaign experience, and, for the most part, young people -- we were building the plane and flying it at the same time ... None of us had really ever done anything like this, especially on this level before."

The problem they set out to address is one faced by communities all across America. Maine's once-thriving economy has taken hard hits as towns that relied on textiles, small manufactures and mills became hollowed out by the vaunted New Economy and its relentless pursuit of cheaper labor and ever-greater efficiencies.

With a shrinking number of decent-paying jobs, Maine's college graduates faced daunting prospects. Writing in the Bangor Daily News, Rob Brown, Opportunity Maine's Campaign Director, laid out the problem like this:

A generation ago, student debt was minimal or nonexistent. Today, the average graduate in Maine is starting off, or starting again, with $25,000 in debt, a mortgage on their future that has perverse effects on life and career choices. Rising education costs have dramatically outpaced inflation and, with mounting student debt and continued cuts in federal support, have effectively become a regressive tax for many.

Maine's problems are cyclical: Young graduates have to leave the state in order to find jobs that offer salaries that will allow them to pay off their debts, and, in turn, firms aren't beating down the doors to create new jobs in Maine because it's hard to find educated workers. According to a report by the Brookings Institution, roughly half of Maine's recent college graduates leave the state to find work. According to Brown, the state has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the country, but its workers are a third less likely to have post-secondary degrees than workers in the rest of New England. John Fitzsimmons, president of the Maine Community College System told the New York Times that his office had identified more than 4,000 recent jobs that had gone unfilled or were taken by out-of-state recruits because Maine didn't have enough workers with the required skills.

In stepped Bossie and the coalition he'd helped put together. "The biggest challenge that I personally faced," he told me, "was the hours of standing out in the cold asking for signatures in December and January. Remember, we had to collect more than 70,000 of them in the middle of winter on the streets of Maine to ensure that we would be successful. I could barely hold a pen and clipboard."

I asked Bossie where he got the nerve to think he could pull off something like this, and he paused before answering. "I feel like everyone complains about these systems we have," he said, "but I try to reform them instead. I own them, as a citizen -- they're my systems in the end."

This is a small story about a group of young people in one small state who are trying to sustain good local jobs in a rudderless global economy. It's also a story of grass-roots activism and good governance; of ordinary citizens -- not big-time campaign donors -- who believed that it was possible to address the kinds of problems that causes most career politicians to throw up their hands and say it's impossible for government to smooth the edges of the New Economy.

Despite the walloping defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections that seemed to spell the end of neocon rule in Washington, the clowns are once again spilling out of the Volkswagen.

Call it the Leslie Nielsen effect. Your first attempt at a show-biz career fizzles out and dies, but your failure is so quirky and charming that it wins you a whole second career. Think Robert Goulet, Bill Shatner, even John Travolta. America loves a brave second act, particularly one that doesn't mind doing a take or two with egg still on his face.

What the Zucker brothers did for actors, the neocons are now doing for politics. In the first six years of the Bush presidency the administration's ideological nucleus -- a tribe of humorless conservative revolutionaries led by Dick Cheney and including the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Elliott Abrams -- racked up a startling record in matters of official policy. From their juking of the case for the Iraq War to their Jacobin-esque purges within the government's intelligence apparatus to their paranoid and sometimes criminal fragging of political enemies great and minor, the neoconservatives working for George Bush botched virtually every important move they made in the last six years.

Moreover, each time they used the presidency's bully pulpit to make a prediction, be it about the post-invasion spread of democracy in the Middle East, the utility of Iraqi oil revenues in financing the occupation, or the chilling effect our presence in Iraq would have on Palestinian resolve, more or less exactly the opposite ended up taking place.

And yet, despite the walloping defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections that seemed to spell the end of neocon rule in Washington, the clowns are once again spilling out of the Volkswagen. Lately the neocons seem to be all over the public airwaves, and not as the targets of purgative public flogging or tarring ceremonies, but as the subjects of serious interviews, with respected journalists treating them like real human beings with real opinions. Even worse, a few are still in office, and appear to be cooking up a last-minute encore before the curtain finally comes down in '08.

Richard Perle, the former head of the Defense Policy Board, known in the Beltway as the "Prince of Darkness," has been on TV a lot lately in a much-publicized public spat with former CIA director George Tenet, who recently accused Perle of targeting Iraq days after 9/11. John Bolton, former UN-hating ambassador to the UN, recently won the Bradley Prize for "outstanding intellectual achievement" -- achievement that presumably includes helping make the case for the Iraq disaster and support for a future invasion of Iran. In his acceptance speech, Bolton cheekily credited Tehran, Pyongyang and other rogue nations for his success, thanking them just for "being themselves." And while Scooter Libby crashed at trial, Doug Feith soft-landed into a tenure track at Georgetown, where he will now teach history, a subject he spent the past five years or so violently misinterpreting.

he neocons remain a bold presence in the media for a number of reasons. Number one, they still have real political power. Dick Cheney is still the vice president, and the Pentagon is still guided heavily by the neocon-dominated Office of Special Plans (OSP), where the power is now reportedly concentrated in an office called the Iranian Directorate, charged with helping make the case for war with Iran. Amid all the public hand-wringing about a congressional demand for an Iraq withdrawal timeline, Washington is abuzz with rumors that the neocons are loading up for one last historical Hail Mary, a "long bomb" to throw at Tehran before Bush leaves office. The knowledge that they are crazy enough to try something like that makes people in the capital take them seriously.

But beyond that, there just hasn't been any effort in the media to identify and really make clear the root causes of the Iraq policy failure. In the current Washington mythology -- a mythology reflected in public statements of everyone from John McCain to Hillary Clinton -- the Iraq War blew up in our faces for logistical reasons, because we didn't send enough troops, or have a sound occupation plan, or have an "understanding of the insurgency." It was the right war, wrong execution, wrong defense secretary. The failure had nothing to do with the mistake of placing our bets on a radical revolutionary policy of "pre-emptive invasion," or with the White House's authoritarian efforts to castrate the Pentagon and the CIA and replace them with their own intelligence-gathering and policymaking apparatuses.

The neocons may have been proven wrong in the particulars, and to ordinary people their legacy may turn out to be a nightmarish Middle East bloodbath and decades of debt, but in Washington they're still revered as canny operators who swept two election seasons with a drooling mannequin for a candidate and for years ruled Washington with almost Caligulan abandon. They were idiots in terms of how the world worked, but they understood power in the Beltway better than Nixon, better than Clinton, better really than any White House clan since the Roosevelt years. That's why they'll keep getting top billing on talk shows and invites to all the best Washington parties, even if, as seems likely, they leave office 18 months from now with half the planet in flames.

In Washington there is no shame in being wrong; there's only shame in losing. The neocons were wrong as hell, but they were also winners. That's why no one should expect them to go away now. That's especially true since their only real competition in the intellectual arena is the cynical third-way corporatism of the Democratic party, a tenuous and depressing alliance of business interests and New-Deal interest groups whose most persuasive "idea" is that it is not neo-conservatism. The neocons, wrong and stupid as they might be, at least represent a clearly-articulated dream of unchecked greed, power and big-stick foreign conquest that appeals in an elemental way to the dark side of the American psyche. Until America rejects that dream -- and don't hold your breath for that -- don't count on the Boltons and the Perles disappearing from view, they may rear there ugly heads if the Republicans win in 2008

Demonstrators clashed with police in central Rome on Saturday as U.S. President George W. Bush wound up a visit to Pope Benedict and Italian leaders.

Hours after Bush had discussed Middle East peace with Pope Benedict and was wrapping up meetings with Italian politicians, police in riot gear charged and fired tear gas at demonstrators who had thrown bottles at them in Rome's historic centre.

The protestors, some wearing motorcycle helmets and bandanas to cover their faces, shattered a window of a bank and overturned outdoor dining tables on some of Rome's most famous streets.

Several policemen and demonstrators were injured.

Tear gas wafted into Rome's historic Piazza Navona, which had been the scene of a demonstration that was for the most part peaceful. Anti-American graffiti was spray-painted on some statues and restaurants and shopkeepers lowered their shutters. isn't it amazing wherever Bush goes throught the world he causes riots and disgust and contempt,

Just a side note...when Bush was metting with Pope Bededict XVI our Idiot In Chief was overheard adressing him as "Sir" as opposed to the ccustomary and more dignified "His Holiness"

Remember all the Republican Neocon and media phoney ooutrage over Nancy Pelosi using increased security over the aircraft she used during her visit to the middle east? Well it seems that Well since the 9/11 attacks the beureau has made annual requests to maintain fuel for the $40 million jet runs on, on the grounds that it had a "tremendous impact" on combating terrorism by rapidly deploying FBI agents to "fast moving investigations and crisis situations" in places such as Afganistan. 

The jet originally sold to lawmakers on the premise that it would be an esential tool in combating terrorism. Well guess what? It seems FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III now uses it routinely for "personal use" such as speeches, public appearances, and routine field office visits, with his personal travel time accounting for 25% of his logged travel time. Yes taxpayers are logging the bill for this crapola we can take care of the wealthy fat cats but poor middle class people are left to suffer for lack of funds. Its the hipocrisy of all this, the media and the republicans were all over Nancy Pelosi, but now republican and media tongues remain silent on FBI Director Mueller over his misuse the FBI Gulfstream V Anti Terror Jet, It just makes me sick!

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that home care workers are not entitled to overtime pay under federal law. The unanimous decision upheld a 1975 Labor Department regulation exempting the nation's 1 million home care workers from the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I personally find this an outrage, the decision is another blow to struggling, low-wage women.

Two weeks ago, the court limited workers' ability to sue for pay discrimination, ruling against a Goodyear employee who earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts but waited too long to complain. The overtime case was brought by lawyers for Evelyn Coke, a 73-year-old retiree who spent more than two decades in the home care industry helping the ill and the elderly.

Now in failing health, Coke said her employer never paid her time and a half for all her extra hours on the job. Lawyers for Coke challenged the Labor Department regulation and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City ruled in the workers' favor. The Appeals Court said it was "implausible" that Congress would have wanted the Labor Department to wipe out protection for an entire category of workers. I personally feel the Supreme Court was "wrong about what Congress intended.

In New York City, the annual cost of the Medicaid-funded Personal Care Services Program would rise by at least a quarter of a billion dollars if the Appeals Court decision is allowed to stand The Personal Care Services program pays 90 private companies to send 60,000 home attendants to the homes of low-income elderly and disabled.

Once again the Bush Supreme Court rules in favor of big business and hurts the working poor. Its so sad that that so many citizens in America are going to suffer as a result of Bush, his administration, his appointed Supreme Court and their combined policies. My heart just aches for these suffering people that are victims of his policies, I get angry, I get active and politically involved the best my abilities allow, but we must do it united and together in solidarity. It is imperative that we take a stand and fight, we must take back America from the all too powerful big business elitists before its too late! We must do everything possible to ensure victory over the rebublican neocon globalists in 2008, I know I will, I humbly and respectfully urge all my friends to as well.

As more female reporters cover conflict zones, they face the same hurdles as their male counterparts and then some. In the macho world of overseas journalism, those who face sexual abuse often choose to say nothing at all.

A close friend of mine from college a photographer was a seasoned operator in South Asia. So when she set forth on an assignment in India, she knew how to guard against gropers: dress modestly in jeans secured with a thick belt and take along a male companion. All those preparations failed, however, when an unruly crowd surged and swept away her colleague. She was pushed into a ditch, where several men set upon her, tearing at her clothes and baying for sex. They ripped the buttons off her shirt and set to work on her trousers.

"My first thought was my cameras," recalls the photographer, who asked to remain anonymous. "Then it was, 'Oh my God, I'm going to be raped.' " With her faced pressed into the soil, she couldn't shout for help, and no one would have heard her anyway above the mob's taunts. Suddenly a Good Samaritan in the crowd pulled the photographer by the camera straps several yards to the feet of some policemen who had been watching the scene without intervening. They sneered at her exposed chest but escorted her to safety.

Alone in her hotel room that night, the photographer recalls, she cried, thinking, "What a bloody way to make a living." She didn't inform her editors, however. "I put myself out there equal to the boys. I didn't want to be seen in any way as weaker."

Women have risen to the top of war and foreign reportage. They run bureaus in dodgy places and do jobs that are just as dangerous as those that men do. But there is one area where they differ from the boys -- sexual harassment and rape. Female reporters are targets in lawless places where guns are common and punishment rare. Yet the compulsion to be part of the macho club is so fierce that women often don't tell their bosses. Groping hands and lewd come-ons are stoically accepted as part of the job, especially in places where Western women are viewed as promiscuous. War zones in particular seem to invite unwanted advances, and sometimes the creeps can be the drivers, guards, and even the sources that one depends on to do the job. Often they are drunk. But female journalists tend to grit their teeth and keep on working, unless it gets worse.

Because of the secrecy around sexual assaults, it's hard to judge their frequency. Yet I know of a dozen such assaults, including one suffered by a man. Eight of the cases involve forced intercourse, mostly in combat zones. The perpetrators included hotel employees, support staff, colleagues and the very people who are paid to guarantee safety -- policemen and security guards. None of the victims want to be named. For many women, going public can cause further distress. In the words of an American correspondent who awoke in her Baghdad compound to find her security guard's head in her lap, "I don't want it out there, for people to look at me and think, 'Hmmm. This guy did that to her, yuck.' I don't want to be viewed in my worst vulnerability."

The only attempt to quantify this problem has been a slim survey of female war reporters published two years ago by the International News Safety Institute, based in Brussels. Of the 29 respondents who took part, more than half reported sexual harassment on the job. Two said they had experienced sexual abuse. But even when the abuse is rape, few correspondents tell anyone, even friends. The shame runs so deep, and the fear of being pulled off an assignment, especially in a time of shrinking budgets, is so strong that no one wants intimate violations to resound in a newsroom.

Rodney Pinder, the director of the institute, was struck by how some senior newswomen he approached after the 2005 survey were reluctant to take a stand on rape. "The feedback I got was mainly that women didn't want to be seen as 'special' cases for fear that (a) it affected gender equality and (b) it hindered them getting assignments," he says.

Caroline Neil, who has done safety training with major networks over the past decade, agrees. "The subject has been swept under the carpet. It's something people don't like to talk about."

In the cases that I am familiar with, the journalists did nothing to provoke the attacks; they behaved with utmost propriety, except perhaps for one bikini-clad woman who was raped by a hotel employee while sunbathing on the roof in a conservative Middle Eastern country. The correspondent who was molested by her Iraqi security guard is still puzzling over the fact that he brazenly crept into her room while colleagues slept nearby. "You do everything right, and then something like this happens," she says. "I never wore tight T-shirts or outrageous clothes. But he knew I didn't have a tribe that would go after him."

That guard lost his job, but such punishment is rare. A more typical case is of an award-winning British correspondent who was raped by her translator in Africa. Reporting him to a police force known for committing atrocities seemed like a futile exercise.

Like most foreign correspondents who were assaulted, those women were targets of opportunity. The predators took advantage because they could. Local journalists face the added risk of politically motivated attacks. The Committee to Protect Journalists, for example, cites rape threats against female reporters in Egypt who were seen as government critics. Rebels raped someone I worked with in Angola for her perceived sympathy for the ruling party. In one notorious case in Colombia in 2000, the reporter Jineth Bedoya Lima was kidnapped and gang-raped in what she took as reprisal for her newspaper's suggestion that a paramilitary group ordered some executions. She is the only colleague I know of who has gone on the record about her rape.

The general reluctance to call attention to the problem creates a vicious cycle whereby editors, who are still unfortunately and typically men, are unaware of the dangers because women don't bring them up. Survivors of attacks often suffer in lonely silence, robbed of the usual camaraderie that occurs when people are shot or kidnapped. It was an open secret in our Moscow press corps in the 1990s that a young freelancer had been gang-raped by policemen. But given the sexual nature of her injury, no one but the woman's intimates dared extend sympathies.

Even close calls frequently go unmentioned. In my own case, I never reported to my boss a narrow escape at an airport in 2000. Two drunken policemen pointing AK-47's threatened to march a colleague and me into a shack for "some fun." We got away untouched, so why bring up the matter? I didn't want my boss to think that my gender was a liability, which in retrospect, I now realize was a mistake.

Such lack of public discussion might explain why, amazingly, there are no sections on sexual harassment and assault in the leading handbooks on journalistic safety by the Committee to Protect Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists. When one considers the level of detail over protections against other eventualities -- get vaccinations, pack dummy wallets, etc. -- the oversight is staggering. No one tells women that deodorant can work as well as mace when sprayed in the eyes, for example, or that you can obtain doorknob alarms, or that, in some cultures, you can ward off rapists by claiming to menstruate.

For women seeking security tips, hostile-environment training is the way to go. Yet those short courses also rarely touch upon rape prevention. The BBC, a pioneer in trauma awareness, is the only major news organization that offers special safety instruction for women, taught by women. Naturally here in the USA with anti women neocon republican misogynists dominating the presidency and congress for over a decade we fall short of these goals and the BBC is light years ahead of us. I urge all women here at JH and all female readers of my blog to stand up and fight the good fight, we need to, we must, we owe it to ourselves and to our daughters!

Most women recognize that even the most thorough preparation cannot prevent every eventuality. Yet victims of assault say that some training might have helped them make more informed decisions, or at least live with the outcome more easily. A correspondent for a major U.S. newspaper says that for some time she needlessly blamed herself for her rape by a Russian paramilitary policeman. How, she asked herself, had she not anticipated that he would follow her back to the hotel after an interview and force himself into the room? She believes that training "would have relieved me of the guilt that I had done the wrong thing."

This must end! We need to wake up and get angry and get active, sooner or later it can happen to us, its no longer a news statistic when it hits home. The real guilt is that we could have done something to prevent it and chose not to, we need female solidarity, and yes even those men sympathetic to our cause

It seems like the disgusting neocon nit wit republican trolls are at it again bashing Hillary, and the noncoincidental timing of two books critical of her and her marriage of Bill Clinton it seems that jealousy of Clinton reigns supreme even among journalists that put out these books simply to influence the 2008 presidential elections.

Don't get me wrong , I am no fan of Hillary simply because she does not conform to my political ideology and I feel personally that she tries too hard being all things to all people to advance her own political gain and that she is far too cozy to extremist neocon repulicans and a wide list of other reasons for which I cannot support her at least her primary bid, the general election should she make it to that point I would grudgingly support her over any republican at this point in time.

I can understand why they would resort to bashing Hillary, lets review for a minute who the current favorite in their side is, atleast according to recent polls the one and only Trudy Rudy aka Rudolph Giuliani

When Shown a drag picture of Trudy Rudyby a local news correspondent an intellgent Baboon had this reaction

If you see photo, you ask yourself is this the best candidate their party has to offer? Yes the photo is real Rudy was really dressed in drag in a promo at Bloomingdale's in Manhattan in New York, what the photo does not show is that Donald Trump was actually in the video with his pompador styled head and hair burried in Rudy's fake breasts. If I were a Democratic strategist I'd run that video all over the Bible Belt and plaster adds everywhere with the caption Does this man look like presidential material to you? Is this the man you want with his polished fingernails on the nuclear button?

Is it just me or does he actually resemble Granny Barbara Bush? LOL!

One thing I found extremely interesting is that Philadelphia has finished testing its wireless Internet project, setting the stage for America's biggest citywide Wi-Fi network that will also offer access to low-income households. The city government this week approved results from a 15-square-mile test zone where people can access the Internet for $21.95 a month or $9.95 if they qualify for low-income assistance, I really like that idea, its about time poor were included and able to tke advantage of new technology our country has to offer.

As a proud lberal I am so disgusted that poor, disabled, the elderly or any combination thereof being left out and the only segment of society benefitting are the elitists, and usually if any benefit is given its usually to third world nations, which is all well and good, but lets not forget that charity begins at home, we need to take care of our own, and thanks to Bush and his evil nazi troll republicans in congress we have been doing a a lousy job of taking care of our most vulnerable disenfranchised and too be bluntly honest its soley based on republican bigoty and hatred for the poor. I am sick nd tired of their mentality that being poor is somehow a sin, and if a person is poor its somehow their own fault as the Reggie's of the world would have you believe, suffice to say that I vehemently disagree with that ideology.

Access is free in parks and other outdoor spaces, and for people participating in community programs such as employment training or housing assistance.

By the end of this year, Philadelphia will have wireless Internet access throughout its 135 square miles in a project being watched by many cities throughout the world, said Greg Goldman, chief executive of Wireless Philadelphia, a nonprofit organization set up by the city to implement the plan.
Although other cities have wireless "hotspots," no other U.S. city as large as Philadelphia has total Wi-Fi coverage.

I see this is a major step toward achieving vision of the entire city connected, and hopefully other ities will follw this model, one can only hope. "Low-income families can begin using the powers of the Internet to improve their educational, employment and life opportunities and improve their standards in life.

Wireless Philadelphia aims to provide Internet access for the more than 300,000 households"”about half of the city"”that cannot currently get on the Web, and so are unable to perform basic economic activities such as applying for jobs whose employers only accept online applications.

Philadelphia, with a quarter of its 1.5 million people officially below the federal poverty line, is one of the poorest of ratio wealthy to poor among the larger of U.S. cities.

One other thing I wanted to mention, for 2,000 of the neediest customers, Wireless Philadelphia plans to provide free refurbished laptops, a one-year Wi-Fi account, and educational and technical support in a program that will cost $3 million once funds are raised.

I want to credit and commend Earthlink, which funded, built, and manages it , Earthlink is an Atlanta-based Internet provider, which plans to invest $13.5 million to complete the project. The company will pay revenue-sharing fees to Wireless Philadelphia to support its "digital inclusion" project for low-income users.

Many thanks to Earthlink, for once our nation's poor are being thought of, no thanks to Bush or his administration this was a brainchild and n initiative of the Clinton / Gore administration for E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E including the poor to have high speed internet access not just the wealthy as the King George Monarchy would want...No Bush you are not a king and Laura is not Marie Antiontte!
Just Having to type their names makes me ill!

I Just felt so compelled to blog this and vent my anger and frustration at MSNBC for their reprehensible and disgusting programming in Memorial Day, a day set aside for all our nation's war Vets from our nation's infancy to present. Instead of at least devoting programming to Veterans their service and contributions to America and its citizens and how we could improve V.A. services and the decaying Walter Reed Hospital and other topics devoted to our nations veterans what did they do?

They devoted the whole entire Memorial Day to CRIMINALS! Digusting!

Its just a slap in the face to Americans and a bigger slap in the face to our war vets. They simply did it as a cost saving save money because its far cheaper to run their stupid Doc Block prision and criminl soap operas then to put on live programming. When you reduce this to its lowest common denominator what this simply amounts to is that their greed trumps respect over our nation's vets,that is truly sad and disgusting. Just what did we get in this programming, well lets see...we got knife fights, feces being thown at guards and other inmates, shanking, prision riots, prisioner biographies detiling their most dispicable crimes everything from murder of infants, defenseless women, child rapes and kidnappings, beating of the elderly, killing of parents serial murders on and on. [Ughhhhhhhh]

All this crap is simply glorifying criminals giving them publicity they should not have and to do this on a day set aside for our Veterans is doubly disgusting.

If  Dan Abrams is responsible for this programming he should be fired

If MSNBC wants cost saving moves try starting with the anchor bimbos that have brain dead makeup artists doing their makeup before they go to air. Look if a woman cannot do her own makup she is truly pathetic not to mention lazy. These women are there to deliver the news not to look like over made up beauty queens. I wish they spent mre ime being better and more professional journalists. Many of MSNBC's anchor women come across as immature and silly at times,  unfortunately. I can go on and on but my main point has been made, there are other major issues I have with MSNBC Iwill go into at a later date, right now I have too many other blogs to post

The U.S. FDA is likely going to approve Lybrel, a birth control pill that eliminates monthly menstruation entirely, in the near future.

No extra risks are known to be caused by this form of the pill, but many people are uneasy about the idea.

Some doctors have cautioned that little research has been conducted on potential long-term effects. The subject has caused debate within the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research, which studies medicine and social science relating to menses.

In 2003, the group issued a position statement that more research was needed before women could make an informed decision. Some members have pointed out that the same hormones that work on the menstrual cycles also act on the brain, bones, and skin.

Lybrel is the next step in a growing trend of pills that alter the 28-day menstrual cycle. The first was 2003's Seasonale, which results in four periods each year.

Call me weird but I just see it as unatural, not to mention unhealthy supressing a womam's period and blood flow.

Some doctors have cautioned that little research has been conducted on potential long-term effects. The subject has caused debate within the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research, which studies medicine and social science relating to menses.

In 2003, the group issued a position statement that more research was needed before women could make an informed decision. Some members have pointed out that the same hormones that work on the menstrual cycles also act on the brain, bones, and skin.

Lybrel is the next step in a growing trend of pills that alter the 28-day menstrual cycle. The first was 2003's Seasonale, which results in four periods each year.

The past few months have been punctuated with plenty of news about birth control, from patches to less effective forms of contraception in a pill. Now Lybrel, developed by Wyeth, is set to launch soon, despite reports that oral contraceptives that limit periods aren't performing in the drug marketplace as expected.

However, that hasn't stopped business analysts from making predictions about the market for Lybrel -- $250 million annually [ unfortunately businesses put money before people's health ] -- or Wyeth's announcement last week that nearly two-thirds of the women they surveyed were interested in giving up their periods, I'm sorry but I am just too intelligent to buy that, naturally a businesses sponsor surveys that will be biased in their favor

Of course, the powers that be can't tell you or anyone else how controlling a woman's menstruation with a pill will affect her overall health, due to absolutely no data being available.

So, it is certainly possibly one could use these pills for a few months without major problems -- IF one did not factor in the matter of this manipulation being achieved with ARTIFICIAL hormones that are prescriptions for disaster over the long run.

Oral contraceptives are synthetic hormones that your body is not designed to be exposed to in any way, shape or form. Long-term use will invariably increase the user's risk of developing serious chronic illness, including blood clots and other problems.

Additionally, long-term suppression of periods will minimize blood loss and could contribute to iron overload syndromes that are so pervasive in men. Elevated iron stores are one of the primary risk factors for cancer and heart disease.

Most drugs do have some legitimate purpose on occasion and do provide some benefit in certain situations; but this just isn't the case for lybrel. I really don't believe that there is ever any clinical indication to use it.

Its your best bet is to avoid lybrel like the plague and seek out safer solutions that can be just as effective.

In solidarity to Celtic Lullaby's beautilfully written yet hearbreaking blog motivated me to post my own blog 

Job discrimination. Difficulties with landlords, neighbors. Harassment, up to and including assault and battery. Parents disowning their children; family members turning away. Awkward pauses in conversations. "Why don't you ever come to the office Christmas party?"

Sound familiar? Unfortunately, it does to many people. And each issue listed above is too often faced daily by people of "different" sexual orientations, and "different" religious beliefs.

Like gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered,  Witches and  or Pagans cannot always live their lives openly and honestly because of the fear that surrounds them. Because the issues and goals are similar -- to reduce societal xenophobia until no one needs to hide his or her "difference", whether that be who he loves or who he worships -- when I wanted to start a movement to promote understanding and acceptance of Pagan spiritualities, the phrase "Pagan Pride" came immediately to mind. Far from trying to either steal from or invalidate Gay Pride, Pagan Pride owes a deep debt of gratitude to the Gay Pride movement for its achievements. We hope we can improve attitudes towards earth-based spiritual practices as much as Gay Pride has towards sexual orientations. Through our information resources, public events, and media contacts, we hope to challenge intolerance through education.

We wish not only to reduce discrimination against us, but to present the value that our paths can bring to society, while emphasizing that we do not seek converts but ask that each person honor the Divine in the manner that seems best for him. Major corporations are adding diversity statements and programs to their human resources areas. They aren't just being tolerant - they are learning to value plurality of opinion, background, and viewpoint, especially in an increasingly global community. But there are still people who would never make a racial slur, or discriminate based on gender, but who still discriminate on the basis of religion, because they believe that there is only one valid religion, or because they simply are misinformed about other religion's practices.

All too often I have experienced discrimination, I tend to wear pagan jewelery such as penticles fairies etc.and infrequently I am questioned as to what they are or what they me and I explain honestly and I usually get shocked or dirty looks with the occasional cool. It has cost me at least one job and one promotion but I persevere in despite it all.

Too often valuable contributions are ignored because of misunderstandings - mistaken beliefs that Pagans sacrifice people or animals, that Pagans practice nothing more serious than wild orgies and debauchery, that Pagans are out to steal souls. In fact, members of modern Pagan and NeoPagan religions tend to value ecology as an extension of their view of the Earth as sacred and all life as interconnected; hold a paradigm that embraces plurality, supports civil rights, and advocates personal freedom; hold ethical standards that require personal responsibility; be well-read and interested in learning; focus on self-help, emotional and psychological growth; and be keenly aware of each person's right to believe as he chooses, believing that to impose one's beliefs on another is harmful.

While some people feel that the phrase "Pagan Pride" is too confrontational, the result accomplished through the word "Pride" in the gay/lesbian community states to me that it is an effective phrase to communicate how we feel. We will not hide in the shadows any longer, practicing our spirituality privately because we fear reprisals from members of monotheistic religions. We are not ashamed of the Gods we reverence and the ways we celebrate! We are coming "out of the broom closet". Ours is not a path for everyone; you are encouraged to practice what spirituality you will. But we now claim the right to take pride in what we practice

As the House of Representatives prepared to pass its fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, the White House urged lawmakers to reconsider a host of costly personnel initiatives added by the armed services committee.

Initiatives opposed by the White House included:

Bigger Pay Raises - The House was set to vote for a 3.5 percent basic pay increase for January 2008. That’s .5 percent higher than proposed by the Bush administration. The bill also would continue a string of annual raises set .5 percent higher than private sector wage growth through at least 2012.  

A 3 percent raise next January would be enough to keep military pay competitive, said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget in a "Statement of Administration Policy" on the bill, HR 1585, released May 16.

The "unnecessary" half-percentage point bump would cost taxpayers $265 million in 2008 and $7.3 billion over six years, budget officials complained.

I Hope people can see that Bush and all his disgusting minion followers are lying sacks of shit when they say they support the troops, from this latest White House Behavior it seems all the Bush Whate House wants from its military is slave labor!

Bush is lower than scum to block this pay raise for the military!

No men allowed.

That will be the rule on the the entire 19th floor of a new J.W. Marriott hotel being built in Grand Rapids, Mich.

A lounge at the hotel also will be reserved for women only when the hotel opens in September.

Spokeswoman Andrea Groom said more than half of all business travelers are women.

She told The Grand Rapids Press that they want be able to relax over a drink without getting hit on by guys.

The women-only rooms will have distaff-specific amenities such as special hair dryers, bath products, jewelry holders and chenille throws.

But the businesswomen will have to pay for the privilege. Rooms on the women-only floor will be about $30 more than the usual $229 rate.

Aleady men are bitching that its unfair and unconstitutional, I doubt that ploy will work since the Suprreme Court upheld some all male gentleman's club

I like the concept of all female floors yet I cannot understand the added fee, I'd love to hear the Hotel's excuses for the added fee.

The Texas House passed legislation to raise the cost of a Marriage License from $30.00 to $60.00. To strong-arm couples to submit to an eight-hour class on marriage, the fee is waived for participants! In their eternal concern for the morals of the poor and underclass of Texas, they decreed from their high and lofty moral perches under the dome of the Texas State Capitol that poor couples can apply for scholarships to the class

Yes, the Texas House, which is littered with Representatives, many of whom have been married and divorced multiple times, been caught at strip clubs and many with numerous adulterous affairs passed these bills. They are running from facing hard choices which will give Texas a realistic tax structure to finance public highways from public funds, but have time to invade people's privacy and dictate good marriage practices to the state's citizens.

There were a few voices who spoke against interfering in citizens' lives.  The second bill transfers funds from the State's Temporary Assistance for Needy families program which is grossly under funded in comparison to most other states.  Pat Haggerty (R-El Paso) tried to kill the bill by attaching an amendment requiring lawmakers to "take this silly class every year." He invited members to "take the male or female of your choice to these classes." (That amendment failed. Obviously the House views it more important to dictate and direct others in sound marital practices than they are committed to learning about them themselves!

Dean of Women in the Texas Legislature Rep Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) was a voice of reason. Unfortunately her words which questioned the appropriateness of the members of the Texas Legislature in dictating pro-family premarital education into law "appeared to fall on member's earwax. She states: "If this body loves marriage so much, then why do we have some members of this House that have been married five or six times?"

A better question is: If this body is qualified to prescribe a pre-marital educational program, why have so many of them been divorced multiple times?

I see it as just more crap from Texas politicials to pay off the Evangelical zealots that put them in office

I originally had not intended to do a blog on Jerry Falwell but since the elitest media particularly MSNBC started to kiss up to Falwell and distort what Falwell really was, well then I felt the need the need to chip in my two cents in.

All Day MSNBC referred to Falwell as the engineer of the Moral Majority and a major factor in getting Reagan elected, over and over and over, and a diatribe of supporters of his in on air phone interviews, spare me! I mean what is it, cause he wore a collar he is exempt from critical viewpoints? Are we supposed to be intimidated?

Well fuck that! He was a little fucking hatemonger and racist spewing his goddamn hate. Just a few examples of who he really was...

He was a racist  and a segregationist, he referred to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as "insincere" he supportted segregationist policies of then Gov. Wallace, he supported Aprtheid, [DISGUSTING!] and urged his folloers to buy Kugerands to support it.

He also created the "Clinton Chronicles" accusing Clinton of  murder of Vince Foster, Paying state troopers to testify that they saw Clinton at a particular time when Clinton was not there in Arkansas [i.e. briibes] in relation to Paula Jones debacle Geeeeee Mr. Christian Man have you ever heard of "Not bearing false witness against thy neighbor? Were you jealous that Clinton is one of America's most beloved Presidents? What does the Evangelical Bible say of jealously?  He also stole the PTL Club from Jim And Tammy Faye Bakker and leaked the Jessica Hahn affiair so he could steal it then called Jim Bakker a "homosexual" etc Geeeeee once again Mr Christian Man you ever hear of "Not coveting what is thy neighbors"?

These evangelicals are so fucking corrupt and hypocritical, moreover they have no fucking guilt complex, its all so hypocritical. Falwell was on nothing more than one long fucking hate tour blaming Katrina and 911 on Gays, lesbians, pagans and abortionsts, and how in the fuck could he come up with one of the teletubbies as being gay, I have no clue, and that pleases me to no fucking end, that I don't think like that.

He also had an extreme hate for women that are courageously Pro Abortion, Pro Gay Rights, Pro Feminism, Pagan, and or Witches and or support them. Well, I am a proud Liberal, Mother, Pagan, Witch, Pro Gay Rights, Pro Abortion, Anti Gun Woman and Fucking Proud of it! I will not let any goddamn misogynist hate mongering Christian bigot evangelicals intimidate me. In any event, thats how I feel, but I appreciate your views please feel free to comment, time to step off my soapbox lol

I want to thank Fightingfemale and celticlulabye and all my friends for their comments and visits to my blog, I really appreciate you guys taking time out of your busy schedule to visit and comment on my blog as I know and appreciate how valuable people's time is.
I love and appreciate your well stated, always  intelligent comments. I love JH and what makes it extra special is meeting and making beautiful friends here, like Dawnie, Fightingfemale, Celtic,  Serenity, Florent, Tarrot Lady, Yankee, Dutchboy, Caffienedmom and all on my friend list and others that have made it a joy being here and posting here. All of you welcomed me with open hearts and arms, non judgemental and loving and that means so much to me when I first came here especially Soraya that I really miss she was so sweet. Then I met Dawnie who is like family to me and Fightingfemale were among the first of my friends here. Celtic I have I have special understanding with because of some personal things in life we both had similar experiences and well I just think she is a terrific person. All my friends are, each in their own special unique way.

.

I love the solidarity we share as sisters and women and the support we have for each other, and that you all can count on my support always.

JH is the best blog on the net in my humble opinion its a great tight knit community that I simply love, I love the way its set up and the Homepage at JH. Special praises go to Florrent who does just a fantastic job maintaining this Blog Hosting Community and so understanding of people's needs and problems they encounter  always with a compassionate sympathetic ear and always eager to help resolve the problem in a prompt professional manner.

Its unfortunate Reggie left but I nor my friends will lose any sleep over it, its too bad that Reggie could not see all the beauty and good in all my friends like I can, I guesss its hard when you are always being judgemental all the time, in any event, I love debating, and I was on my college debate team so I loved exposing Reggie's hypocrisy and allowing visitors to see and judge for themselves just how fucking extreme and hypocritical his views really are. We are no longer going to tolerate extremist neocon Christians to cram THEIR morality or values or THEIR goddamn misogynistic anti woman bullshit, or THEIR interpretations of THEIR scripture down our throats. Christians have no monopoly on virtues and morals its shared by all of us be it Witches, Pagans, Budists Muslims, Agnostics or Atheists, I for one and I know many other women share this view. We are sick of their fucking self righteous arrogance!

I totally 110% agree with Fightingfemale this is a great bloghost I love it and i'm honored to be here and I am blessed to have such great friends, thanks love and blessings to each and every one of them!

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Hugs and blessings to all and Happy Mother's Day to the women to Dawnie, Fightingfemale, Celticlulabye, Florent, Dutchboy, Serenity, Yankee,  and all my friends))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I love all you guys with all my heart!
Sincerely, Heather

The fact is the overwhelming majority of these extremist republican neocon ideologues have never picked up a weapon or stood at post, on the contrary, they have made a career of getting deferments using any means to avoid serving in our nation's Armed  Forces Veep Cheney had several , many of Bush's neocon cabal  Iraq war architects, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cambone al et, all had deferments to avoid military service yet they are willing to commint other parent's children to a war thats about nothing more than oil profiteering, certainly not terrorism and 911.

Its fact that Bush has been in bed with the Saudis, and the Saudis aided and abetted or at the very least were enablers to Bin Laden and his cabal, despite that fact its overlooked,  which to me is not suprising.

The republicans love to recite the mantra over and over ad nauseam, that the Democrats do not support the troops yet when a group of republican congressman went to the White House they expressed worry over his Iraq War policy and no no not because they everyday their are American Soldiers dying, not at all, its because they were in mortal terror of losing their seats in congress in 2008, hmmm I wonder what that does for American Soldier's morale in Iraq? 

Of couse Mr Reggie will not or ever address those issues, and Reggie never addressed the question of whether he served in the military or is a combat veteran which if i had to bet my money i'd bet that he never served, but yet he will bash veterans like Sen. Kerry who served our country with honor and decorated for heroism and bravery Where are Bush's or Veep Cheney's medals? or for that matter Mr. Reggie's?

This is an interesting graph I cam across that readers my find interesting in the seven years Bush has been president

From The Executive Editor's Desk
By Heather™ 

Interesting Graph Don't Ya' Think?

Of  couse Reggie and his zealot neocons will refuse to acknowledge these factual statistics which in the long run means that they will lose any credibility, as if they had any to begin with!

Anyway Bon Voyage Reggie I enjoyed debating you, it was as you and your alter ego Marcus call it "a real hoot" 

Mainly because how out of touch you and your neocon zealots are with mainstream America....and reality for that matter.

I will miss exposing you to America so they can see how radical and dangerous your  political and social ideologies really are

Bye Reggie

Bye Marcus

We all know about the oath our doctors take to "do no harm". But, we also know that doctors are human, and humans make mistakes. What you might not know is; Death due to medical mistakes is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. It is estimated that over 100,000 people die each year from preventable medical errors.

Medical errors account for more deaths in America than breast cancer, AIDS or car accidents annually. -- read full article

This is a lot of people. To put this number into perspective; I just did researching on the HPV vaccine, that hopes to prevent 70% of the 3,670 deaths a year associated with cervical cancer. The problem of deaths due to medical mistakes is twenty times greater than the deaths caused by cervical cancer.

My intent is not to scare anyone with these numbers, but just to make people aware. When we are aware of problems, we are in a position to correct them...or at least increase our odds of correcting them. There is actually a campaign going on right now to help us NOT become part of this staggeringly high statistic, and that's what I want to tell you about. Read more about this national campaign to save lives.

Each year, 100,000 people die from medical mistakes. The causes are medical errors by doctors, nurses, pharmacists and technicians. That's why hospitals here in Orlando have signed up to be part of the 100,000 Lives campaign. -- read full article

In a radical and almost unheard of response; Hospitals are actually publicly volunteering information regarding patient errors, in an attempt to reduce deaths from medical mistakes. Wow! Quite frankly...I never thought I would hear that. Has your hospital joined in this campaign to save lives?

"Hospitals across the country are in the process of being transformed," said Dr. Berwick.

A transformation that may end up saving more lives than pills can.If a hospital is part of the 100,000 Lives campaign, it must post how many infections, mistakes and deaths the hospital is responsible for on its website. -- read full article

However, this campaign is 100% voluntary. So, we (the consumer/patient) need to do our homework when it comes to what hospitals we are going to. And not just for emergencies, but also for elective and outpatient procedures.

Patients should become more involved in their own health care. -- read full article

What can we do? We can make it our business to find out what hospitals in our community are participating in this campaign to save lives. Because, if we can choose to go to a hospital that is participating in this campaign to make public their record of mistakes...we will know that we are at a hospital that is putting our quality of care ahead of their own reputation. When you go to a hospital that is committed to admitting when they have made a mistake, you are also going to a hospital committed to learning from these mistakes.

Nothing is full-proof, but given the choice...you may be able to improve the odds in your favor a bit.

Tips From a Surgeon: What Every Patient Should Know Atul Gawande Reveals What Surgeons Often Don’t Say -- read article

Were you aware of the large number of deaths each year due to medical errors? Is your local hospital a part of the 100,000 Lives campaign?

Have you been touched by the loss of a loved one due to a medical mistake? I fortunately I am blessed not having had a, having had a close relative die of a needless medical oversight. No family should have to suffer this type of loss...but sadly, so many do.

Since having a good doctor is also so important.

Early last week, Elana Centor broke the news that research by American Association of University Women indicates that the pay gap is alive and well and thriving in the U.S. On Tuesday, Nordette Adams wrote about the backlash surrounding Leslie Bennett's book that posits that stay-at-home moms suffer serious economic consequences. These facts coupled together should unite women and encourage us raise our voices loudly when it comes to be treated equally, shouldn't it?

April 24 was actually National Pay Equality Day. Did you know that? I didn't. Odd how it didn't garner that much attention. My friend, however, did get the good word and went to a clever event, The Taste of Disparity, in Worcester, MA organized by her veterinarian, Dr. Karen Fine. My daughter enjoyed the free cookies that had a "bite" taken out of them to represent the 23% difference in pay... She had a fantastic time eating cookies and showing off her hair. I tried to explain the event to her, but she just looked at me blankly. Why would there be a difference in the way men and women are paid mommy? Ahhh...the wisdom of youth. If only everyone thought like!

One might argue that the lack of equality in pay is precisely a good reason for moms to leave the workforce. Why battle with work and juggle child care under those terms? Yesterday I was leaving work (I am a part-time consultant to the government agency that oversees the subsidized child care system in New York City), and the elevator had a little infortainment screen in it. I was taken aback by its announcement that the average stay-at-home mom provides $138,000 worth of services/work every year, up three percent from last year. There was no source or methodology cited, so I have no idea where that number came from, but it floored me. Bennets argues that the long term consequences of leaving the workforce that hurt women and children. Is it better to earn 77 cents to every dollar that men earn or get nothing for your work? No matter what we do women tend to get screwed.

As Nordette argued, we should take information like this and use it to advocate for a better world for all women, not launch personal attacks on one another.

May. Brings to mind May flowers and...Mother's Day. For a large portion of the population, Mother's Day is a great day to either celebrate your Mom or be celebrated as a Mom.

When Mother's Day comes around, there are some women who are not among the celebrating masses. There are some women they just don't make a Hallmark card for. I think about them this time of year...every single year.

Basically, there are many people who are not the traditional Moms that will celebrate in the way the card companies and florists would have you believe. Moms come in all shapes and sizes. Married or single. Old or young. Moms of many children or those longing for just one. Women who have lost children or given them away for a better life. People who have no Mom they can celebrate with. Men who live the role of both Mom and Dad.

In today's world there is no cookie cutter version of a "typical" Mom. But I am more than willing to bet that every one of us can think of a person in their life who has been like a mother to them. (Even the man who has stepped in and been both mother and father to his children.) Whether it is a neighbor, an aunt, a friend, a sister, a grandmother etc. I imagine even if you do fall into the category of the "normal" situation, you, too, can think of someone in your life who has been like a mother to you over the years.

As much as the marketing world would like us all to think that there is a standard version of mothers who celebrate Mother's Day, the truth of the matter is there are way too many women who do not fit into this cookie cutter mold that is so convenient. Here are only a few examples

I have close friends who are struggling with fertility problems. They want more than anything to celebrate Mother's Day with a child of their own. To get one of those Hallmark cards like the "Regular Moms." Mothers Day can be a painful day.

There are moms whose children are grown up and moved away. They hope their children remember them this year. They long for the days when their children were little and driving them crazy. They miss the chaos. They would give anything to be with them on Mother's Day.

I have a dear friend whose two-year old son died just after his second birthday, just a month before Mother's Day. She has two other children, but I imagine the pain of the child that was not with her anymore is more than she knows what to do with on this day.

And of course you have the other group of people whose Mother has died and they are lost as to what to do with this holiday that celebrates their Moms. They want more than anything to just be able to talk to their Mom on this day. Or what about the people whose mother is alive and kicking but the relationship is so strained they cannot imagine speaking to them let alone wishing them a Happy Mother's Day.

So, what is the point of all of this?

Here is what I would like you to do as we approach this Mother's Day. Think of a person that you would like to pay tribute to--someone you would like to share with us and tell us how they have been a blessing in your life. Whether it is a person who was "like a mom to you" or a story about your own mom, we want to hear your tributes to these amazing people who have touched your life.

If you have a blog, post a tribute to this person. Tell the rest of us how they have touched your life in a way that has changed you or helped you. Let us know in the comments if you post a tribute on your blog. Now, if you don't have a blog of your own, share with us your story of this person right here.

I have to give kudos to the person who originally made the statement MOTHER IS A VERB. It is brilliant. "Mother" is not necessarily a person. Tell us about the real person in your life who has been like a mother to you, the person who has demonstrated the "verb" mother to you.

Around Mother's Day I will go through your posts and your comments and create a giant round-up entry. Remember that something you may have to share with the rest of us just might be the one thing that another person needs to read.

.

Webkinz pets are lovable plush pets that each come with a unique Secret Code. With it, you enter Webkinz World where you care for your virtual pet, answer trivia, earn KinzCash, and play the best kids games on the net!

Oh no! The dreaded word that people love to hop on and cause fear in the hearts of parents: "On the net!"

Remember when the Tamagotchi craze was the hot thing to do? Tiny electronic pets that kids had to take care of and pay attention to? And then when absolutely every child just had to own a Beanie Baby because they were just so adorable and "Oh, Mom, I will just die if I don't get another one!" phase? Now, combine the two and you have Webkinz.

Webkinz are not the easiest toys to find. (Think Cabbage Patch kids in the 80's.) However, I found one and was interested in learning more about them. This is what the Webkinz site has to say about their product:

What are all the cool things I can do in Webkinz World?

Where do we start? First, you adopt your pet and name it. Then you can custom design a room for it. You can play games in the Arcade, or compete against other players in tournaments. You can answer quizzes in Quizzy's Question Corner and enter contests, too. All of these things earn you KinzCash, which you can use to go shopping for your pet in our W Shop, where you can buy toys, furniture and clothes. There are stories to read and fun daily activities. The best part is that we add things to Webkinz World frequently, so it's always getting bigger and better.

Living in today's home with several computers for families, children became computer savvy rather early. They are familiar with NickJr games, Disney's Toontown and PBSKids. I feel parents should always be around to monitor them and should never have an instance that would cause concern.

I started to search the net to see what others were saying about these Webkinz. It was then that I stumbled upon an article that nearly made my eyes pop out of my head with frustration. The article entitled "Is the Webkinz Craze Bad for Kids?" spoke of how this craze is not good for our children. I was compelled to learn what hidden horrors lay beneath these cute interactive toys. Apparently the biggest complaint is that it causes children to spend too much time in front of a computer. Say what?

Not everyone, however, is caught up in the craze. In Boston, Wessagussett Primary School recently banned the stuffed animals from the premises. And some parents feel conflicted about the newest toy obsession.

"It's one more thing to distract them from going outside or reading a book," Jody Boches said.

Mother Irene Heifetz said her children sit at the computer from the moment they get home from school until she threatens them with restricted computer access if they don't go do their homework.

I could be missing something here, but if a parent is so concerned about how much time their child is on the computer, turn the computer off. It is not the toy or the website that is a problem. The problem comes if a parent does not have the control enough to tell their child NO. The simple solution to all of this worry is setting limits. If you want your child to go outside and play, send them outside to play. If it is time for your child to do his homework, turn off the computer and tell him or her to do their homework. Are the children or the parents in control here?

Now I know that not all parents want their child online at all. Fine. The simple solution: Don't buy these toys. But to say that they are bad for kids is simply ridiculous. What is bad for kids is not setting boundaries where they learn moderation. In my house there are computer rules. Homework first is one of the non-negotiable rules.Parents and children should eat as a family- no computers in the area. There are set time limits when it comes to the computer. I don't have to threaten my daughter to go outside or get off of the computer or toys. She just knows it is expected of her at an early age.

Another concern raised was the community aspect where you can interact with other people. Now, if this was a free type chat, I see the concern. However, these chats are limited to drop down menus with preset phrases. They are called KinzChat Areas.

When using KinzChat, members select pre-constructed messages from chat menus. Members CANNOT type in their own messages. KinzChat is a very safe way to chat, especially for our younger members. Members do not need permission to visit this area.

There is also a KinzChat PLUS Area. This is for more advanced and older users. To enter the KinzChat PLUS area, members need parental permission. If your child requests access to the KinzChat PLUS area, you will receive an email from webkinz.com requesting your consent.

In the KinzChat PLUS area, members may type their own messages. In order to create a safer and more appropriate environment than an open chat room, KinzChat PLUS limits members to using words in our restricted dictionary. In the restricted dictionary, we have eliminated numbers, most common names; many place names and a variety of inappropriate words. If a member tries to use a word that is not in the dictionary, the word will turn red, and the member will not be able to send the message. Also, if words are misspelled, they cannot be sent with KinzChat PLUS.

I have read the FAQ and I have read the concerns and my personal conclusion is basically that like anything your child does, a parent should be involved enough to know what their child is doing, limit their time online and worry less about what he or she is doing on a safe site like this and more on what they are doing on sites that do not have these kinds of safety nets enabled.

The real danger I see in these pets is the horror the parents must endure if they want to actually purchase one of these for their child. Why horror? Because these little boogers are hard to find! Normally they retail at around $12. I saw one online going for $799. Yes, you did read that correctly.

Launched less than two years ago, Webkinz have quietly grown into a phenomenon similar to Cabbage Patch Kids and Beanie Babies in years past "" the type of toy that a parent will drive across the state to snag, or pay four times the selling price for on a Web site such as eBay.

The demand for these toys has sent parents miles from home and separated them from a good amount of cash to obtain them for their children. That is where I see the craze being a problem. Tell me, how many of you know where your Cabbage Patch doll from the 80's is? If you do know, when was the last time you even looked at it? Point made.

So before we worry about whether or not sites like this one (which is causing many other sites to jump into this virtual playground--Hello Barbie and ClubPenguin) are actually a danger to our children, we should be asking ourself if they are worth the danger to our wallets.

"Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
'We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

 

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Do you think that if the United States Congress had more women in it we would be at war? You can see which Congresswomen voted for and against the Iraq War here.

 

The billboard simply states: 'Life's Short. Get a Divorce.' The billboard is sponsored by an all female law firm, Fetman, Garland & Associates, Ltd., that specializes in divorce cases. A lawyer within the firm, Corri Fetman, decided that they would try something different seeing as most divorce advertisements are "boring." This billboard, brainchild of of Corri Fetman, was meant to spice things up and get people to take notice. Oh, it got people to take notice all right. It features the well toned six-pack abs of a male torso (face unseen) and tanned female cleavage nearly bursting out of the barely there black lace bra and barely covered lower "assets" seductively posed.

My personal disgust aside, I am curious as to what the goal here could possibly be. In speaking with ABC News' Law & Justice Unit, creator of the billboard, Corri Fetman states:

"Law firm advertising is boring"¦Everything's always the same. It's lawyers in libraries with a suit on and the law books behind them. They don't say anything. What, I should hire you because you have a law degree? C'mon. So we wanted to try something different."

What am I supposed to walk away from that thinking? "Hey, I should get a divorce because that hunk of beefcake (or half naked woman) will be waiting for me as soon as I do!"

Reactions were not as positive as Ms. Fetman must've hoped for.

"It's grotesque,'' said John Ducanto, past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "It's totally undignified and offensive."

...

Ducanto called on the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee of Supreme Court of Illinois to sanction Fetman. "I don't think they'll just let this pass,'' said Ducanto, who seemed genuinely hurt by the ad. "I have been in practice for 52 years, and I've worked my ass off to change the image of this particular area of the legal practice, and to see some punk try and pervert the whole image in the interest of lucre. "¦ Sure, she's got a lot of attention, but it's like a guy who spits on a table "" you got the attention, sure, but what kind of attention is it?"

Though not everyone has harsh words to say about this billboard.

"I wish I'd thought of it first," said attorney Enrico J. Mirabelli. "When your advertisement generates publicity, you've hit a home run."

Disgusting? A perversion of an event in the life of a couple that already has its share of pain? A brilliant PR move?

Did the billboard go too far or was it just good PR marketing to get the firm noticed? Does it trivialize divorce or was it just another way for a firm to get business in a cut throat area of law? If you were dead set on getting a divorce, is this the law firm you would walk to represent you?

NOTE: It was reported on Tuesday night that the billboard that is the subject of this story was taken down on Tuesday evening by the owners of a parking garage it was attached to.

What  arrogance our idiot President has, its positively disgusting what this President is doing. The neocon zealots claim that our idiot President is protecting us from the phantom terrorists from terrorism in Iraq unfortunately while he is doing that our nation is begining to self destruct from within, with an epidemic of tornadoes especially in Kansas and floods in Oaklahoma the National Guard is stretched so thin it cannot perfom its rescue duties properly to its fullest extent because the majority its men and equipment are deployed in Iraq fighting a losing battle in Iraq

I ask you where is the logic in that if we lack resources to take care of our own because we are too busy fighting a war for oil so Halaburton and Bechtel can grow richer. Americans should be angry!

Furthermore to add salt to the wound Bush never visited Greensburg Ka. he is too busy wining and dining a Queen he is far too busy with the monarchy royal than to visit a U.S. city that was 95% destroyed and if you don't find that repugnant and disgusting, than you simply have no love for your country and deserve the moronic president we have yes he is a moron, he still thinks we are living in 1776.

Fear not he will still have his supporters his neocon zealots like Mr Reggie who will use insults accuse you of not being intelligent simply because you are too intelligent to buy into his psychobabble, well there is a silver lining in 2008 Americal will remember at the polls the injustice by Bush / republican neocon zealots / ReggieNation have done to our country and they will live to see the GOP go down in flames most likely you will not see ReggieNations blog by then because it will be held in contempt for atrocities to America.

Mine will still be around and popular because early on when Bush unfortunately had high ratings I was sounding the alarm ans warning American about a President whom history will judge harshly and be one of America's worst Presidents in themodern era. Even his own Republican Party and supporters are calling him delusional e.g. Mort Zuckerman of U.S. News And World Report, who by the way is to the right of Gengis Khan and himself is a neocon extremist but at least can think rationally unlike Mr Reggie who has gone past extremism into zealotry. My Question is this...If Mort Zuckerman considers Mr Bush "delusional" does that also mean that people that support President Bush like Mr Reggie are equally delusional? Bear in mind its not me or liberals or even the Democrats calling him "delusional" but his own party and supporters

According to online dictionary  the medical definition of "delusional is.... Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

 Is this not grounds for congress to have President Bush psychologically evaluated to at the very least ensure America that he is mentally stable? One would logically think so

So I will withstand the onslaught all of Mr Reggie's insults secure in the knowledge that the overwhelming majority of American citizens support my ideology as opposed to his. Right now his position and viewpoints are about as popular as the Bubonic Plague other than Marcus who really supports his views here at Journal Home? Of course he will not care zealots never do!

Everyone these days wants to hear how young women have lost their way, especially if the author can blame feminism for it. But in reality, feminism has been anything but a tragedy for women.

Laura Sessions Stepp worries about young college women and fears that their much-touted sexual freedoms will damage them in the long run, making them somehow ineligible for marriage and commitment in the future in which I wholeheartedly concurr. In the Valentine's Day issue of the Washington Post, where Stepp hangs her journalist hat, she wrote a long piece intelligently how college women were ruining their chances of attaining decent marriages by putting off the hard work of dating, instead replacing it with low-maintenance "hooking up." The blame for this sorry state of womanhood lay with overt ambition, according to Stepp, who quoted one young woman after another who refused to waste time and energy on romantic entanglements, preferring to concentrate on their studies and extracurricular activities.

Naturally, Stepp's point against the anti-romance attitudes of young women netted her more than a hand-wringing article in the Washington Post. Her concern has erupted into a full-length book, titled "Unhooked." Everyone these days wants to hear how young women have lost their way, especially if the author can blame feminism for it, which Stepp does, pointing to '70s era feminist writings that argue against the compatibility of career and marriage. Hiding anxiety about women's gains behind a story about how independence turns women into sluts is a strategy that never goes out of fashion.

If this sort of anxiety about young women and sex stayed with conservatives, it would be one thing, but the practice of writing about the degraded state of young womanhood has expanded and now has also become part of feminism. The book that opened the season was Ariel Levy's "Female Chauvinist Pigs," which proposed that young women have translated the concept of sexual freedom into embracing the same misogynist version of sexuality that has been the currency in traditional porn and male fantasies

Levy traced what Icall the "Girls Gone Wild" sleaze culture and documented the attempts to repackage sexual exploitation as somehow empowering. While Levy has a point that there's something ridiculous about the sleaze culture promoting itself as "empowering" for women, the alarmist concern that young women are derailing the cause has been criticized by other feminists as overstated.

There's nothing new with the argument that there's something "empowering" about rejecting feminism and peddling yourself to men for use for sex or reproduction. Crack open Susan Faludi's classic on the backlash against feminism in the '80s, and you'll see variations of that argument in every aspect of the backlash pressure. From the fashion industry to the right-wing noise machine's arguments about "natural" gender roles, Faludi detailed how proponents of the backlash endlessly argued that women are supposedly happier being more feminine and helpless, happier at home with babies, and happier without being in the male world of the rat race. The argument that women feel more empowered shaking their ass in lingerie than in drawing that man-sized paycheck in the male-dominated rat race only differs from the '80s backlash on the surface. And yet it gets mistaken for "third wave feminism" all the time.

In her New York Times article "What's Wrong With Cinderella?" Peggy Orenstein conflated the "empowerment" language with actual feminism, when she identified cultural phenomenon like "Porn Star" T-shirts and making out with your girlfriends to impress frat boys with third-wave feminism. It was a dark spot on an otherwise interesting article about the marketing pressure on young girls to play at being princesses.

Liz Funk, another self-identified feminist writer, made a big splash in Internet circles when she wrote an article also identifying young adulthood as a distressing time for women. She characterized the freedom to drink and to go to clubs as damaging and risky for women, particularly in terms of rape. The story left the same impression drawn by Laura Sessions Stepp, that the seeming gains of feminism have actually managed to hurt young women, which I have ambivelent feelings about.

In my humble opinion, feminism has been a mixed blessing but a tragedy for young women. Because of feminist gains, young women now make up more than half of the students in college. The gains are reflected in law and medical schools, which are also half female now. Girls' athletics have grown exponentially since the '70s because of Title IX. The worry over young women and sex is somewhat misplaced as well, especially considering the decline in teenage pregnancies throughout the '90s, a decline that was attributable to increased contraceptive use, a huge feminist goal.

Sadly young women growing up now have more than a few T-shirts proclaiming "Girl Power" to motivate them. Not only do they have their own accomplishments so far as a generation to look upon, but they are growing up in a world where they have an array of poor role models. A young woman in the "Girls Gone Wild" age bracket is going to school in an era where we have a female speaker of the House, and Katie Couric, whom I am no fan of   has managed to break into the authoritative position of night-time anchor. Regretably though all too often their role models are the Britney Spears, Modonna's, Paris Hilton's, and even worse the Jenna Jameson's. What feminism is woefully lacking is the inner core values, feminism without values is worthless  We still have a long way to go in terms of equity in numbers in prestigious positions like this, but young women these days are no longer constrained as much as women in the past by the notion that there are some jobs that are permanently closed off to women.

If young women are doing fine by themselves by picking up the books and working hard and presenting a very real challenge to male dominance, then what should we make of the "Girls Gone Wild" stereotype? The notion that college age women are wasting their potential somehow by acting like nothing more than sex objects is paralleled neatly by the notion that the kindergarten set of girls that are supposedly rejecting their feminist parents in order to embrace the fluffy princess phenomenon, pushed mostly by the Disney company. In fact, the princess marketing has something of a "gotcha" element to it, as if the miles of pink and lace present an irresistible temptation for the inner delicate flowers of young girls. The more likely story is that the relentless drumbeat of marketing the Princess line has made girls feel that they're missing out if they aren't a part of it.

The grown-up version of Disney's Princess line unfortunately is the TV show "The Pussycat Dolls," where the symbol of belonging is not a pink lace princess dress, but a feather boa. Granted, the Pussycat Dolls are highly sexualized, but the marketing push is the same as the Princess line, the story being one about how women and girls find themselves irresistibly drawn away from participation in the real world and towards feminine accoutrements and being on display rather than being active. And these messages are coming, as they always have, from marketers that are more interested in protecting male privilege and making money than everything else. The co-option of words like "empowering" from feminists should be taken for what it is, a backlash wolf in feminist sheep clothing.

In a sad attempt to justify his veto, the president says he is listening to military commanders while Congress plays politics. Here's what top military men who commanded troops in Iraq say.

George Bush, the most ideologically-driven and politically calculating president in American history, wants Americans to believe that he has suddenly discovered a moral high ground from which to make grand declarations about why he must maintain the occupation of Iraq.

After vetoing legislation Tuesday that gave him the money to continue his war but required that he accept loose limits of its ultimate duration, the president told the nation, "I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need."

Bush has made his position clear: Democrats, many of whom rightly argued four years ago that going to war in Iraq would be the huge mistake it has turned out to be, and who have since been far ahead of the White House in identifying the nature of the crisis that has since developed, are now to be dismissed as the players of political games when they advocate for a strategy that would begin bringing US troops home from the conflict on a schedule beginning October 1.

That's a remarkable line of analysis from a president whose inability to recognize the flaws in his own neo-conservative vision has rendered his wrong at every turn, and whose determination to play politics with life-and-death decisions has defined not just his approach to the Iraq war but his tenure as president.

Yet Bush is not giving up on his faith that he can frame the argument about Iraq as a fight between Congressional Democrats who are out to score political points and a presidential administration that is motivated merely by a desire to respond appropriately to practical realities on the ground in Iraq.

"Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need," said Bush in framing his veto message. "Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders."

The problem with Bush's "I'm-so-above-politics" line is that he has been disregarding advice from military commanders since before the war began.

Consider the response to his veto from top military men who commanded troops in Iraq.

"The President vetoed our troops and the American people," says retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste. "His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration."

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton: "This administration and the previously Republican-controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever [it is] apparent only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war -- alone, without their President's support."

Retired military commanders associated with the Washington-based National Security Network have been blunt about their sense that Bush is not just wrong about Iraq but that he is failing the troops he purports to support.

Some make historical comparisons.

Says retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard: "With this veto, the president has doomed us to repeating a terrible history. President Bush's current position is hauntingly reminiscent of March 1968 in Vietnam. At that time, both the Secretary of Defense and the President had recognized that the war could not be won militarily -- just as our military commanders in Iraq have acknowledged. But not wanting to be tainted with losing a war, President Johnson authorized a surge of 25,000 troops. At that point, there had been 24,000 U.S. troops killed in action. Five years later, when the withdrawal of US troops was complete, we had suffered 34,000 additional combat deaths.

Others offer a straightforward assessment of Bush's failure as the commander-in-chief. "By vetoing this bill and failing to initiate an immediate and phased withdrawal, the President has effectively gone AWOL, deserting his duty post, leaving American forces with an impossible mission, suffering wholly unnecessary casualties," argues retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom.

Add the public statements of the retired generals together with the behind-the-scenes expressions of frustration from current commanders and they form the most powerful tool that Congressional Democrats have in what will ultimately be a negotiation not with Bush but with the American people -- a negotiation that, the president well understands, is about the question of which side is playing politics and which side is listening to military commanders and supporting the troops.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should take the message of these retired generals -- along with the anti-war statements of thousands of current and returned Iraq soldiers -- into the fight with Bush. And, to borrow a slightly impolitic phrase from Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden, they should "shove it down his throat."

Today, Mata H offered four stories about religion in the news. In short, the articles report improved health for people with strong religious convictions, secular oppression of a religious blogger in Egypt, the unusually Democratic sensibilities of Hispanic Catholics, and protests by Air Force personnel with regards to browbeating harassment by fundamentalist evangelical Christians.

It may surprise many that hardline communists were also hardline social conservatives on the matters of family and sexuality. It is the nature of extremism to incorporate far out views on these matters into state policy. The answers to this perverse mix of despotism and family values lies in the natures of religion and nationalism. It is not about left versus right because social conservatism can be found in both as tools of the state. Social conservatism, both religious and secular, when wed to nationalism and embraced as state policy, has almost always turned into an enemy of tolerance and liberty. In fact, social conservatives in the USA, led by Christian conservatives, have fought or disagreed with religious diversity, religious equality, abolition of slavery, Suffrage, desegregation, integrating the armed forces, Brown v Board of Education, mixed race marriages, respect and equality for Jews (not in MY country club!), the Civil Rights Act of 1965, gender equality laws, women in authority, working women, reproductive education, family planning, contraception, condoms, gay rights and a host of others. It was predominantly women supported by a few liberal men, both religious, secular and pagan that banded together to win the rights movements of the past.

Recently I've had the chance to see some of the recently re-released (on DVD) documentary series, The World At War. (If you think Ken "pan-and-scan" Burns sets the standard, watch this series and think again. I cannot imagine how his upcoming series can compare with this epic achievement.)

Anyway, The World At War features a LOT of archive film footage from Germany in the years before WW2 started, and the thing that leaps right out of the screen and into the pit of your stomach is how Hitler's political rise was on the wave of a fundamentalist Christian mania. Watch the films of night-time, torch-lit rallies with crosses outnumbering swastikas. Hear the religious songs of purity and righteous glory. why use a perm when this is so scary it can curl your hair!

From The Executive Editor's Desk
By Heather™

Yayyyyy! "Bush Lower In Approval Than Nixon...How Pathetic

Newsweek's latest poll shows Bush's approval rating at 28%, his lowest level ever. And, he's bringing the Republican contenders for 2008 down with him.

This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOPs chances for victory in 08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

I look at this past week's 5-4 Supreme Court vote against "partial birth abortion." Then I hold up the ages of liberal Justices John Paul Stevens (87), and an increasingly feeble Ruth Bader Ginsburg (74) against the actuarial tables.

I just pray these two are able to serve on the Court until that hopefully blessed morning of January 20, 2009.

At Noon on that day, a Democrat will- from my mouse to the Goddess' ears- take the Oath.

I'd love for the oath-taker to be Al Gore, or John Edwards, or Bill Richardson. But if it comes down to saving Roe, I'd settle for Hillary. With more campaign funds than her Democratic opponents, her nomination is likely. I can see where Obama will fade, Edwards may need to drop out, and Gore will stay out.

At this point in time, though, I can see a scenario that causes ideological purists on our side of the fence to do something stupid that will cause Hillary to fall short, and thus, pave the path for another anti-choice, Justice-appointng [sic] Republican to get into the White House.

Despite the fact that Russell Shaw is echoing radical right-wing (as well as Markos Moulitsas) talking points about "ideological purity" -- a Rovian expression if I ever heard one -- I can see his point. Just this morning, I was thinking about how any of the top four -- Obama, Edwards, Richardson or even Clinton -- would get my vote. And while I know not nearly enough to choose any one above the others, at this point, my sense is that one of them would suffice for me come November next year.

Making that decision so much easier is the fact that the Republicans have so far offered up boobs, bigots and bobbies. Given the radical and, yes, misogynist and, yes again, racist and, yes, obviously, homophobic values at the core of the right wing, I don't see myself voting for any Republican for president any time soon. Add in their modern penchant for fascistic governmental control over individuals -- making the phrase "the party of Goldwater" an oxymoronic joke -- and I don't see myself voting Republican in my lifetime.

However, Congress is a different matter. Do we continue to vote for pro-forced-pregnancy Democrats? How do we, as progressives, in good conscience cast our lot with men (yes once more, I'm afraid) who consider women's right to privacy to be non-existent, women's medical choices to be controlled by politicians, women's health to be a distraction, women's lives to be important only when not distracting from other interests, and women's bodies to be, ultimately, Property of the U.S. Government?

I wonder how many Democratic and independent voters even realize that their Democratic Senator(s) and/or Representative is an advocate of forced pregnancy.

The question is pertinent right now, pre-primaries, while we look at what kind of future we want to forge in the can't-come-soon-enough post-Bush America. Now is the time to ask the questions. Now is the time to choose. Now is the time to push for the progressives that will defend privacy and equal rights and civil rights and human rights for everyone, not just the ruling men who look upon the rest of us as "peasants."

It's not an easy thing, when the Democratic Party, whose vague favoring of progressive values stands out like a monument to all things noble and just when compared with the venal depravity that describes the power centers of the GOP, has such a slim and weak hold upon Congress.

It's all the more difficult when you consider that men claiming progressive values have historically dismissed our alarms about the Handmaid trends happening in our politics -- our politics. And it sure as heck doesn't help that ignorance and willful ignorance on the part of ostensibly well-intentioned men when it comes to issues women face continue.

The demographics are with us, though. More GOP seats in the Senate are up for election next year. Americans in general are suspicious of an overly invasive Government. And, while meaningful statistics are lacking (at least from what I can tell), based on anecdotal evidence there are quite a number of so-called "pro-life" Americans who oppose abortion until the issue comes home to roost in their own families, in their own lives.

So what's it going to be, boys? When you throw women's lives into the mix, does women's equality count as "important shit"?

The Hill reports that Senator Leahy has issued a subpoena for Karl Rove’s emails:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) issued a subpoena Wednesday for all e-mails from White House adviser Karl Rove that relate to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

"Attached please find a subpoena compelling the Department by May 15 to produce any and all emails and attachments to emails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove related to the Committee’s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing and decision-making of United States Attorneys, from any (1) White House account, (2) Republican National Committee account, or (3) other account, in the  possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice," Leahy said in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Somewhere, either here or on Iraq, I suspect we will face a major battle between the White House and Congress regarding the power of Congress to obtain information from the Executive Branch. I hope the Democrats in Congress don’t give up on this, having the ultimate power of the purse to deny funds to those who believe that they do not have to submit to Congressional oversight.

If only the Democrats were as good at spin as the Republicans, and had a lap dog press to spread their views. If the situation was reversed, George Bush’s veto of the funding bill today would be called evidence that George Bush hates the troops. Using the BIzzaro World logic of the GOP, he must hate the troops if he is vetoing a bill which provides them with funding. We could also say he hates the troops for his refusal to bring them home.

We see more signs of Bizzaro World logic when Bush says, "This is a prescription for chaos and confusion."  The real prescription for chaos and confusion was going to war based upon lies without a plan.

We must also consider the trend behind Bush’s vetos. Besides today’s veto which shows he hates the troops, George Bush’s first veto of funding for stem cell research shows he hates those with Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and other diseases which might be cured with stem cell research.

I really hate questions such as choosing a favorite book as I’ve read so many, and I certainly don’t keep going back to make a fair comparison between a book I read this year with a great book I might have read twenty years ago. If I was ever a candidate and, and therefore expecting such a question, with a little thought I’m sure I could find a book which gives the right image without adding a negative connotation. For example, if I wanted to make a point of campaigning against the excesses of the Bush administration, I’d pick something like It Can’t Happen Here, by Sinclair Lewis. I fear nobody briefed Mitt Romney on how to answer such a question.

Mitt Romney picked Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard when asked to name his favorite novel. At least he thought to distance himself from scientology. "I’m not in favor of his religion by any means," Mr. Romney, a Mormon, said. "But he wrote a book called "˜Battlefield Earth’ that was a very fun science-fiction book."

I can’t fairly comment on the book as I have never read it, after being warned more than once that it was awful. There are so many great science fiction books, some of which also deliver a message such as Robert Heinlein’s, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (althought aspects of it might be too controversial for a mainstream political campaign). With many people already thinking that Romney belongs to a strange religion, the last thing he needs is something which connects him to Scientology, which really is strange.

How soon until Mitt Romeny starts jumping on Oprah’s sofa?

Condoleezza Rice has a tough time remembering all those warnings she received about bin Laden before 9/11, and every time they come up she claims this is something new to her. Think Progress reports that  Condoleezza Rice, appearing on Face the Nation today, was asked about George Tenet’s recommendations from two months before the 9/11 attack. Tenet had advised, "We need to consider immediate action inside Afghanistan now. We need to the offensive."

Rice replied, "The idea of launching preemptive strikes into Afghanistan in July of 2001, this is a new fact." She subsequently said, "I don’t know what we were supposed to preemptively strike in Afghanistan. Perhaps somebody can ask that."

This isn’t the first time Rice lied about receiving such recommendations. Mahablog provides evidence that Rice had received these warnings from Tenet before, and was caught lying about it. Rice also lied about warnings received from others. In a column in the Washington Post on March 22, 2004, Condoleezza Rice wrote:

The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period "” during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 "” the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.

During the transition, President-elect Bush’s national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration’s efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.

Documents obtained from the National Security Archive previously showed that these statements from Rice were untrue. The documents include a January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and "Tab A December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects," These documents, along with the testimony of Richard Clarke, contradict the claims of Condoleezza Rice that "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Rice was warned about the dangers from al Qaeda by both Tenet and Clark. She admits, "the seriousness of the threat was well understood" but did nothing and pretends that she never received advice to take action.  After ignoring such advice, and failing to continue the policy of the Clinton administration of going after bin Laden, Rice has repeatedly made these false claims that these are new ideas she had never heard of before. Something is seriously wrong with her memory, or her ability to speak the truth.

Being on a number of conservative mailing lists is helpful for background information in writing posts here, but it also means receiving a steady flow of smears of Muslims, as conservatives have attempted to vilify them all after 9/11. Karen Armstrong, a former nun who has written extensively on religion, reviews a book I regularly receive email attempting to sell, The Truth about Muhammad, by Robert Spencer, in Financial Times:

Spencer has studied Islam for 20 years, largely, it seems, to prove that it is an evil, inherently violent religion. He is a hero of the American right and author of the US bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Like any book written in hatred, his new work is a depressing read. Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad’s life. Consequently he makes basic and bad mistakes of fact. Even more damaging, he deliberately manipulates the evidence.

The traditions of any religion are multifarious. It is easy, therefore, to quote so selectively that the main thrust of the faith is distorted. But Spencer is not interested in balance. He picks out only those aspects of Islamic tradition that support his thesis. For example, he cites only passages from the Koran that are hostile to Jews and Christians and does not mention the numerous verses that insist on the continuity of Islam with the People of the Book: "Say to them: We believe what you believe; your God and our God is one."

Islam has as good a record as either Christianity or Judaism of appreciating other faiths. In Muslim Spain, relations between the three religions of Abraham were uniquely harmonious in medieval Europe. The Christian Byzantines had forbidden Jews from residing in Jerusalem, but when Caliph Umar conquered the city in AD 638, he invited them to return and was hailed as the precursor of the Messiah. Spencer doesn’t refer to this. Jewish-Muslim relations certainly have declined as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but this departs from centuries of peaceful and often positive co-existence. When discussing Muhammad’s war with Mecca, Spencer never cites the Koran’s condemnation of all warfare as an "awesome evil", its prohibition of aggression or its insistence that only self-defence justifies armed conflict. He ignores the Koranic emphasis on the primacy of forgiveness and peaceful negotiation: the second the enemy asks for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms and accept any terms offered, however disadvantageous. There is no mention of Muhammad’s non-violent campaign that ended the conflict.

People would be offended by an account of Judaism that dwelled exclusively on Joshua’s massacres and never mentioned Rabbi Hillel’s Golden Rule, or a description of Christianity based on the bellicose Book of Revelation that failed to cite the Sermon on the Mount. But the widespread ignorance about Islam in the west makes many vulnerable to Spencer’s polemic; he is telling them what they are predisposed to hear. His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to "prove" to those Muslims who have been alienated by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith and at the end of the day isn't that just what neocon zealots want, so they can incite hate and fear mongering and link it to terrorism and use it to justify the war in Iraq?

George Tenets book verifies what we believed all along:

White House and Pentagon officials, and particularly Vice President Cheney, were determined to attack Iraq from the first days of the Bush administration, long before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war, according to a new book by former CIA director George J. Tenet.

Although Tenet does not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed or the sincerity of administration beliefs, he recounts numerous efforts by aides to Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to insert "crap" into public justifications for the war. Tenet also describes an ongoing fear within the intelligence community of the administrations willingness to "mischaracterize complex intelligence information."

"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraq threat," Tenet writes in "At the Center of the Storm," to be released Monday by HarperCollins. The debate "was not about imminence but about acting before Saddam did."

The war has seriously harmed the United States, as well as democracy movements around the world, while strengthening al Qaeda and Iran. It is great to see people like Tenet telling the truth now even though its late, they could have served their country far better if they had spoken out before the worst foreign policy blunder in our history.

George Bush’s approval has fallen to a new low of 28% in the lastest Harris Poll. This is down from 32% in February. Dick Cheney’s approval has fallen from 29% in February to 25% in the latest poll. Before conservatives make their usual claim about liberal bias in the polls, this one comes from The Wall Street Journal. The same people that bring you the the Wall Street Journal Report on Faux News aka Bush News Network aka Fox News where they have extremist neocon nutcase journalists all agreeing with each other, that show is laughable but its Rupert Murdoch's and Roger Ailes view of what constitutes "Fair And Balanced"?

The poll also shows decreased approval for government leaders of both parties, with Republicans receiving significantly lower approval than Democrats:

Among other individuals included in the poll, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) saw her approval rating fall to 30% in April from 38% in February, shortly after her swearing-in as the first female House speaker. Approval for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) slipped to 22%, from 23% in February but up from 19% a year ago.

Those polled gave Congress an approval rating of 27%, with the Democrats as a group pulling in 35% approval, compared with 22% for Republicans. Just Further proof that Americans are not buying into this Iraq War mentality and the sacrificing of American soldier's lives for a war for oil and not about terrorism!

The latest Rasmussen Poll  shows that Republican claims that we will die if a Democrat is elected or that the terrorists will follow us here if we leave Iraq are not scaring people. Rasmussen reports, "Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%). The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 35% of voters are opposed to both of these options for ending the war."

Even Republicans are less likely to fall for the claims of the White House. Only 52% of Republicans believe that the surge has made things better, while even fewer Democrats (12%) and Independents (26%) believe this.

It seems this nutty extremist neocon fear mongering psychobable is finally falling on deaf ears people are finally waking up!

These neocon trolls remind me of the movie gremlins you know those little troll like creatures hatching and creating havoc all over the place with Karl "Zieg Heil" Rove as the master troll. Now all the little neocon trolls are losing all their power and one by one being being systematically destroyed  ahhhhhhhh such is life.

Liberals are often accused of doing nothing but Bush-bashing, but it is becoming increasingly clear to all that there has been good reason for this. Weve never had a President who was so incompetent, and who has done so much harm to this country. David Ignatus reports that even Republicans are beginning to understand this, with todays best Bush-bashing line (emphasis mine) coming from a Republican:

If you want to hear despair in Washington these days, talk to Republicans. The Democrats are exulting in their newfound political power and are eager to profit from Bushs difficulties. But Republicans voice the bitterness and frustration of people chained to the hull of a sinking ship.

I spoke with a half-dozen prominent GOP operatives this past week, most of them high-level officials in the Reagan and Bush I and Bush II administrations, and I heard the same devastating critique: This White House is isolated and ineffective; the country has stopped listening to President Bush, just as it once tuned out the hapless Jimmy Carter; the presidents misplaced sense of personal loyalty is hurting his party and the nation.

"This is the most incompetent White House Ive seen since I came to Washington," said one GOP senator. "The White House legislative liaison team is incompetent, pitiful, embarrassing. My colleagues cant even tell you who the White House Senate liaison is. There is rank incompetence throughout the government. Its the weakest Cabinet Ive seen." And remember, this is a Republican talking.

A prominent conservative complains: "With this White House, there is loyalty not to an idea, but to a person. When Republicans talked about someone in the Reagan administration being "˜loyal, they didnt mean to Ronald Reagan but to the conservative movement." Bushs stubborn defense of Gonzales offends these Republicans, who see the president defiantly clinging to an official who has lost public confidence, just as he did for too long with former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It reminds me of the old Mission Impossible series, so easy to make a parody of..."Mr Bush should you are any member of your administration get caught subverting the constitution or people's constitutional rights, you or any member of your administration or party abusing your authority the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions". "This message will self destruct in ten seconds"

Keith Olbermann has presented a special comment on Rudy Guiliani’s fear mongering which I left a comment on MSNBC. Video above and text below the fold.

Keith does an excellent job pointing out Rudy Guiliani’s hypocrisy and lies that simply are not true.These Rebublican nazi neocons are going down in flames. No one buys their lies anymore! They are not the party of morals or God! They have no moral values they are just liars, they use God only to justify their hatred and contempt they have for anyone that opposes their views, when they pray to God its only for vengence never forgiveness. The Republicans have ruined our country with war, scandals, their televangelist leader Ted Haggard, caught taking and dealing drugs, having  gay sex with gay prostitue, their leader in congress Rep. Mark Foley molesting innocent children then they say we are Christians we have morals we are offended you say certain cuss words Ha!  When a certain blogger said that to me, I knew from jump street that this person likely never served in the military, never picked up a weapon and stood at post, never defended a nation yet wants others to go to Iraq and fight this insane bloody war, I wonder did he goto Iraq? Did he engage in combat there? or is he just another neocon that just has a parade of deferments. Oh and can you imagine him whining to a drill sargent not to cuss it offends him? Ummmm I think that Drill Sargent would take him behind the barracks and straighten him out real quick traineee this is the army not a church social! He is a christian, has he done any research if he did it might curl his hair if he knew some of the words Peter The Apostle used, yet Christ knowing full well of this entrusted the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to him. Whats the use? Neocons are set in their ways and there is no changing them. All we can do is neuter them by voting them all out of the very power they were entrusted by the American people with and thouroughly abused!

The biggest hypocrites in the world are pretend drugstore christians that have no clue what Christianity is

Their view of Christianity is rather simple like their minds, God hates fags, God hates lesbians God hates those that had abortions, God hates doctors that performed them. With them Christianity begins  with "God  hates...and ends with Burn in hell fire and damnation" They portray God as an angry God of hate because they themselves are so consummed with hate.

If this doesn't show just how disgusting Republican neocons are I don't know what will! Great Job... Amen Keith!!!!!

David Broder Creates False Equivalence Between Gonzales and Reid

While some in the liberal blogosphere regularly attack newspaper columnists who criticize Democrats as well as Republicans, I do not go along with this "us versus them" mentality and feel it is expected and even desirable for columnists from major newspapers to criticize Democrats when wrong. While columnists such as Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd have come under attack in the blogosphere recently for criticism of the net roots and some Democrats, I have backed them when I have agreed with them. I have even found areas of agreement with David Brooks on those occasions when he can refrain from meaningless bashing of Democrats and stick to the issues. One columnist I can no longer have any respect for is David Broder following his comparison of Harry Reid to Alberto Gonzales in todays column.

We have often seen attempts at developing a false equivalency by partisans on the right, as they try to excuse a major Republican crime by equating it to a far more trivial offense by a Democrat. The same logic (and repetition of Republican talking points) is at work in Broders column as he tries to equate Harry Reid to Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales has supported torture and devised justifications for ignoring the Geneva Convention. He was an early proponent of restricting civil liberties under the Patriot Act. He argued that there is no right to Habeas Corpus, and supported the warrantless wiretaps. He has fought to increase secrecy in government, such as by working to prevent the release of the Dick Cheneys energy task force documents. Most recently Gonzales has been caught changing his stories on the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys, making it very difficult to believe he did not conspire to fire them under the direction of the White House for political reasons. Numerous Republicans, as well as Democrats, have called for the removal of Gonzales.

In the face of all this, Broder argues that Harry Reid is as deserving of Gonzales to be removed. Even if we accept all of Broders claims against Reid, despite some inaccuracies, all we have is some cases where Reid misspoke, or could have expressed things a little better politically. Nothing Reid is accused of comes close to what Gonzales has done and to attempt to equate the two is totally absurd.

It will certainly be difficult to ever take David Broder seriously after this. Harpers summed up what is wrong with Broder recently:

The Washington Posts David Broder is called the "dean" of the Washington punditry. More recently, he seems to sum up everything thats wrong with the class who brought you weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq war and the ever "resurgent" President Bush. He is the vessel of a received wisdom which keeps the war-president in place, cautioning against criticism and validating war- and fear-mongering at every turn. Rather than provide pearls of wisdom based on a lifetime in Washington politics, Broder dishes out naive, uncritical appraisals of Bush which often have a sycophantic twist" by contrast, he strings administration critics with malicious attacks which reflect faulty reasoning and imaginary facts. True, every columnist makes a mistake or two under the pressure of an imminent deadline. But Broders recent streak is a growing embarrassment for the Washington Post.

They proceed to list a number of comments from Broder, leading up to a recent interview in which Broder expressed views on Reid similar to those in todays column, criticizing him for saying the war is lost. Harperss responds:

This is a view Reid shares with Henry Kissinger and any number of generals, doubtless including some of the four who have turned down the albatross of being the White Houses "war czar." Its also the view of a clear majority of the American public according to recent polls (51% in a poll published on April 16 in a newspaper that Broder evidently doesnt read, the Washington Post.) Of course as these comments reflect, Broder has a sense of public opinion that is consistently at odds with reality. He knows, for instance, that Americans love their "heroic" president Bush, and that the Democrats hate the military. Dont bother him with the facts. David Broder is a creature of the alternate universe of inside-the-Beltway punditry.

Broder states that Reid would have to recant this position and suggests he has done so in the past. Greg Sargeant checked to see how many times Reid has been forced to recant his positions, as Broder implies. The answer: zero.

But the most offensive part of this Broder bumbling is its brainlessness. Broder is not exercising independent judgment. Indeed, he hasnt even taken the time to get his basic facts straight. He is joining in with a series of White House talking points. Compare his comments with what was offered up on Sunday by Bill Kristol, for instance.

Clearly David Broder has earned retirement. Its time for him to get to work on a rich set of recollections that will educate us all without doing more damage to the public debate over important issues that Broder is no longer intellectually capable of tracking.

William A. Glaberson in the New York Times today :

It looks like George Bush might have studied these ten simple steps for subverting democracy as, to some degree, his administration has been practicing them.

It is obviously an exaggeration to claim that Bush is turning this into a fascist state, but for those of us concerned with the need to limit the power of government to preserve liberty, many of these actions are alarming. It is especially disappointing that most of the extremist neocon conservatives, who claim to distrust the power of government, but time and recent history has proven them to be hypocrites and lars of the first degree, can safely be predicted to respond to this blog with support for Bush’s policies. The fact that approximately thirty percent of the country continues to approve of George Bush, and so many in the extremist neocon conservative media and blogosphere defend him, shows how precarious democracy is to them. What hypocrites! Ughhhhhhhhh!