Been a long time since I've wandered into my own blog.

Familial joint hypermobility syndrome will do that to you.

Lots has happened since I've been gone. Discovery came home safe, Mel Gibson gave comedians camera fodder for months, Fidel Castro handed power over to his brother and had abdominal surgery, Lebanon got the stuffin' bombed out of it, a man was apprehended in Thailand and escorted back to the US in connection with JonBenet Ramsey's murder ten years ago, and 2500 Marines subject to the Individual Ready Reserve clause have been involuntarily recalled, some of them in their sixties.

Oh, and George Allen, in front of a slew of supporters and cameras, singled out a young man of Indian descent (an American citizen by the way) and called him a macaca. Nothing like using a racial slur at your own campaign rally. And yes, Associated Press, it is a slur, not just a macaque, which is a type of monkey.

So where do I start? I think I'll start at the upcoming anniversary of hurricane Katrina. If you have HBO, be sure to catch Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke: a Requiem in Four Acts". Unfortunately I don't have HBO but from everything I've heard it's a wonderful documentary and one that shouldn't have had to be made. There's fault go around, both before and especially after the hurricane hit. Katrina is an ongoing disaster. If it had hit a predominately white, wealthy, Republican area, I think the recovery effort would be much different.

That being said, I'll be back tomorrow. (Time to put the femur back where it belongs.)

Peace Train Slowly Chugs Ahead

(Yeah, the back problem is still a major pain, so posting is going to be infrequent...)

And now for a pop quiz:

Who said the following: "We must agree on a timed schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq, while at the same time building up the Iraqi forces that will guarantee Iraqi security and this must be supported by a United Nations Security Council decision."

A) Another Democrat, speaking out for Kerry/Feingold resolution?
B) A renegade Republican?
C) Someone seeking to embolden the terrorists and piss off Dick Cheney?
D) None of the above

You'd be wrong if you chose A or B, but I'll give you partial credit for C because I'm sure this is making Cheney stew in his own juices.

It's D, and the quote comes from a draft of the peace package arrived at by "secret talks involving Jalal al-Talabani, the Iraqi President, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, and seven Sunni insurgent groups". This was just so interesting when I read it in the Times Online this morning.

Mr Khalilzad recently told The Times that reconciliation required "a
comprehensive strategy that has political elements, that has security elements,
and that has reintegration elements in it: decommissioning, demobilisation, and
reintegration of these forces."

The draft marks the first time the Iraqi Government has endorsed a fixed timeline for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, a key demand of the Sunni insurgency. the document reads.

That certainly doesn't agree with the Administration view of how things should be done does it? This is what Dick Cheney said during his interview with John King of CNN:

KING: Let me jump in -- that one of these points here is, is it wrong -- you say it's wrong to publicly set a timetable. And I understand the argument for that. You'd cue off -- cue the terrorists to what you're going to do. Has the Iraqi government been told, privately, you need to meet certain benchmarks, training your troops, improving security, by a date certain, because the American people are not going to pay for this forever?

CHENEY: No, I think they know full well that we're expecting them to take on more and more responsibility. It's one of the reasons the president went to Baghdad recently. And all of our conversations with them, they know what we're trying to do and they've stepped up to that task and that responsibility. Fact of the matter is that obviously we've lost a lot of people. Wish we hadn't lost anybody. But the heavy casualties are being taken by the Iraqis. There are a lot more Iraqis being -- becoming casualties in this conflict at present, because they are now in a fight.

Again, I come back to the basic proposition. What happens, in the global war on terror, if United Statesates bails out on Iraq? And that's exactly what withdrawal is. You know, you're going to take your troops before the conflict is over with.

You're not going to complete the mission if we follow the Democrats' advice. And, in fact, we will have set up the situation in which the al Qaeda types can win. They have a plan to establish a caliphate that stretches from Spain all the way around to Indonesia, to kick the Americans out of the Middle East, to destroy Israel, to take down most of those regimes in that part of the world. And they will do anything they can to achieve that objective.

But ultimately, what they're betting on is that we don't have the stomach for the fight, and we can not afford to validate that strategy. We can win -- we are winning -- but we've got to stay at it.

The transcript is posted here.

The administration wanted Iraq to be a democratic government; they got what they wanted. The moral is: be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.

So just how will Bush/Cheney handle this? Stay tuned.

Update: I finally checked Daily Kos and there are a couple of diaries here and here, and I'm sure John Kerry and Russ Feingold are smiling snugly, because this sure does sound like their plan, which you can check out here on Feingold's site. Republicans Lewin and probably are somewhat satisfied too; here's Lewin's site, which links to a PDF , which was really slow to load.

The Way Back Machine Rehashes it all for You, Damian 6/6/6 version

I haven't been posting much due a a back problem, but now with the help of some stratigically placed steriods, I hoping to get back to what passes as normal.

On my afterwood walk amoung the bloggy fields, I came across this. It may be old news for all I know, but my pain addled brain doesn't know better. Link are mine. as are the comments.

Robert Scheer, over at Truthdig has this to say, which edited to save to precious save electrons. You can read the full article here.

Enron Kenny Boy Lay couldn't have fleeced California without Bush help

The Bush family consistently acted to put Enron and its longtime CEO, Ken Lay, into a position to rip off investors and taxpayers. Why are the mass media ignoring that fact now that Lay has been convicted in arguably the most egregious example of white-collar fraud in U.S. history? Until he hooked up with the Bushes, Lay was just
another mid-level energy trader complaining endlessly about being hemmed in by onerous government regulations and those terrible consumer lawyers who prevent free market hustlers from doing their thing. But after he and his company became top supporters of the Bushes -- eventually giving $3 million combined to various Bush electoral campaigns and the Republican Party -- doors opened fothem in a big way.

I'm reminded on Robin Hood right now. While the good King Albert, wrongfully rousted, has gone off to fight for for the glory of home and hearth, some Robber Barrons by the name of Bush have conspired with minor Robbers and Highwaymen to rape and pillage the land all in the name of freedom. To keep the serfs happy, handouts are tossed and troublemakers and sent away with a hardy "fie-on-thee, thou wretched leftist scoundrel!"

In particular, once Bush the father got rid of key energy industry regulations, Lay was a made man and Enron's fortunes soared. This program of corporate welfare led Lay to dub the first President Bush "the energy president" in a column supporting his re-election because "just six months after George Bush became president, he directed ... the development of a new energy strategy," which, in effect, compelled local utility companies to carry Enron electricity on their wires. It was, Lay crowed, "the most ambitious and sweeping energy plan ever proposed." Another huge gift from the first Bush regime came in the form of a ruling by k, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that permitted Enron to trade in energy derivatives, making possible the company's exponential growth.

Hm..41 does all the work, 43 gets all the credit. If you ask me this presidential legacy appointment thing goes a little to far.

Five weeks after that ruling, Gramm resigned and joined the Enron board of directors, serving on its subsequently much criticized audit committee. Six years later, Gramm's husband, U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, further enabled Enron greed by pushing through additional anti-regulation legislation

.

When will people learn - it's not good to be an enabler!
Are You an Enabler? Do You Know Why? Do You Know How to Stop? Please, get help now!

A long list of George H.W. Bush's Cabinet and inner circle, including Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Commerce Secretary Robert A. Mosbacher, went to work for Enron after Bush's 1992 defeat. An even greater number of Enron officials returned the favor by joining the George W. Bush administration in 2001, shortly before the Enron scandal exploded.

Please, for the love of God....NO MORE FAVORS!

The close connections between President Bush and Lay began when they both worked on the 1992 Bush pere presidential re-election campaign. In fact, a long paper trail of their friendly and collaborative correspondence has been made public through Freedom of Information Act requests.

"Dear Ken, one of the sad things about old friends is that they seem to be getting older -- just like you!" wrote then-Texas Gov. Bush in April 1997. "Thank goodness you have such a young beautiful wife."

Because having a beautiful young wife makes it all ok.

After the Enron crash, Bush attempted to distance himself from the "Bush Pioneer" who had sent more than $2 million in Enron funds George W.'s way, as well as supplying him with the Enron company jet on at least eight occasions.

(photo from Paxtonland.com)

"I have not met with him personally," Bush said after the scandal broke. What Bush left out was not only his hundreds of personal encounters with Lay before he assumed the presidency but, more important, Lay's key role in drafting the Bush administration's energy policy, meeting with energy task force chairman Dick Cheney at least six times.

So far, California has recouped some of the billions in taxpayer andpension funds it lost, and several of Enron's top dogs are looking at hard time. Perhaps, after this November, if the opposition party can retake at least one branch of government, the connections between these corporate criminals and their buddy in the White House can be more fully investigated, as well.

And now let's have a sing-a-long to celebrate!
From the Life of Brian:

Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And...

...always look on the bright side
of life...
(Whistle)

Always look on the light side
of life...
(Whistle)

If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle
- that's the thing.
And...always look on the bright
side of life...
(Whistle)

Come on.

Always look on the right side
of life...
(Whistle)

For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain
with a bow
Forget about your sin - give the
audience a grin
Enjoy it - it's your last chance
anyhow.

So always look on the bright side
of death...
(Whistle)

a-Just before you draw your terminal breath...
(Whistle)

Life's a piece of shit, when you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true
You'll see its all a show, keep 'em laughin as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you

And...
Always look on the bright side
of life...
(Whistle)

Always look on the right side
of life...

C'mon Brian, cheer up

Always look on the bright side
of life...

Always look on the bright side
of life...

Worse things happen at sea you know.

I mean - what have you got to lose?
You know, you come from nothing
- you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing.

Always look on the right side
(I mean) of life...

what have you got to lose?
You know, you come from nothing
- you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost?

Always (Nothing.) look on the right side of life...

Nothing will come from nothing ya know what they say?
Cheer up ya old bugga c'mon give us a grin!
There ya go, see!

Always look on the right side of life...
(Cheer up ya old bugga c'mon give us a grin! At same time)

There ya go, see!

Bush speech on immigration tonight

Warning the rant level is RED.

Tonight The Big Empty Head is scheduled to talk about immigration, and sending the National Guard to help. Somehow, my inner skeptical bitch says Photo Op!

Why? Look at this headline and click the link:

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents: President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force

Building a fence, sending National Guard troops (um....who's funding them to do this? Bueller? Bueller? The answer is: I'll let you know after the speech. If he happens to mentions it.)

Also, my inner skeptical bitch says He just want us to really, really like him! His poll numbers don't bother Laura, but they really hurt his feelings!

That and he's desperately trying to keep the Republicans from totally losing control in the next elections. Yeah, right. At this point I don't think anything will help, unless the Democrats really screw up. And the sick feeling in my stomach says that they have several months to find a way.

Message to Howard Dean: Howard, I love you, but what the hell were you thinking when you said this?

"The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says marriage is between a man and
a woman," Dean said May 10 during a "700 Club" program hosted by conservative
Christian leader Pat Robertson on his Christian Broadcasting Network.

Yes, you did redeem yourself:

"I misstated the Democratic Party's platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide," Dean is quoted as saying in the statement.

"The Democratic Party remains committed to equal protection under the law for all Americans. How we achieve that goal continues to be the subject of a contentious debate, but our party continues to oppose constitutional amendments that seek to short circuit the debate on how to achieve equality for all Americans."

This is what I mean by the party finding a way to screw up. We need to get our act together! Now!

See you after the Big Empty Head speaks.

My husband is getting laid off

Yup. Laid off. Made redundant. Given a pink slip. Canned. At the end of the month. At least the company was nice enough to give the unlucky workers notice. His last job, the ubermanager came in at 4:45 and said, "thank you for good work, but at of the end of your shift this entire unit is laid off. Have a great weekend!" (Okay he didn't say just like that, but it was pretty close.)

However, my husband was already job hunting for a real job (IT) and has had interviews with groups in Las Vegas, Reno and Memphis. I wouldn't mind going back to Philadelphia. Actually, would LOVE to go back to Philly.

But we'll have to see what happens.

Now that I've finished my rant about my personal life, you really should go here and read what Molly Ivins wrote. I've been a pest and emailed the link to DFA and the DNC. Molly (as usual) has hit the nail on the head!

As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:

1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.
2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.
3) Single-payer health insurance.

and then there's my personal favorite:

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President.

I like Feingold too. Here's a link to his site, so go find out more. He's from Wisconsin, and refuses to follow the lemmings. I'm hoping (and praying) he runs for president.

And another brief rant - Iran. Is Bushco going to lead us into a war there, just in time for an October surprise? Or am I just being a cynical bitch? Maybe I'm a cynical bitch and that has nothing to do with Iran. Anyway, I'm getting the same bad feeling about Iran that I had before Iraq.

I need pie.

Lawyers, Guns and Money

That just seemed like an appropriate use of Warren Zevon's song title right now, what with the Bush Misadminstration's legal misadventures, Dick Cheney's "quail hunt" (Dick, the birds are the little feathery things, not the big orange adorned homo sapian), and Abramoff, who apparent ties into all three categories. You can't make this stuff up.

I'm disgusted with the whole lot of 'em. And the Democrats need to get a game plan. I am royally pissed about the way Paul Hackett was treated. I hope he can get support to run as an independent - I'd even toss a few bucks his way, and I'm currently as poor as a church mouse.

On Kos, someone posted more recently released Abu Graib pix. How can this misadministation be so evil? If you have the stomach for it, go look at the pictures. If you don't have a strong stomach don't. They are graphic. Those are not actors with special effects make up. They are human beings. Remember, the acts were perpetrated by Americans. Us. The U.S. If they do this to prisoners what happens when they come home to their families? Has anyone ever studied the effects of torturers once a war is over and they return to "normal" life. I don't see how anyone's life can ever be normal a participating in such degrading and horrific events.


I am currently listening to: Pink Floyd Echoes, and Time is playing.

In today's episode, Katrina refuses to leave the room, much to George's chagrin.

Months have passed since Katrina devastated the coastal areas of three states on the Gulf of Mexico. Deaths are in the thousands, damages are in the billions. In a display of unmitigated gall, the Bush misadministration is not allowing their staff to testify about the government's response to the tragedy named Katrina. Why? It seems they are concerned about confidentiality.

According to Trent Duffy, the WH Deputy Press Secretary, "The White House and the administration are cooperating with both the House and Senate...but we have also maintained the president's ability to get advice and have conversations with his top advisers that remain confidential."

That argument is getting old. It was used during the 9/11 committee investigation to try to prevent Condi Rice and others from testifying; it was used in the Plame affair; it was used by Dick Cheney to try prevent release of information about the energy task force committee, and it is now being used in the torture scandal and the Katrina investigation. It will no doubt be used again.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a member of the Senate committee that is investigating the government response to Katrina, says that the departments of Justice and Health and Human Services ''have essentially ignored our document requests for months." The Department of Health and Human Services has not even allowed testimony from those in their department. As for the response of the department of Homeland Security, their response was ''too little, too late."

Sen. Susan Collins, the committee's Republican chair, criticized the lack of Homeland Security cooperation. ''We are entitled to know if someone from the Department of Homeland Security calls someone at the White House during this whole crisis period," Collins said. ''So I think the White House has gone too far in restricting basic information about who called whom on what day." She also says she can respect the WH's executive privilege, which allows the administration to get advice from Bush's aides.

I want to know what the administration's definition of advice is. According to The Free Dictionary it is:

1. Opinion about what could or should be done about a situation or problem; counsel.

2. Information communicated; news. Often used in the plural: advises from an ambassador.

The Bush administration seems very reluctant to release the source of any "advice" which makes me wonder if they have another definition which is along the lines of:

1. Opinion about what could or should be done to further our own interests or cover our collective ass; all such "opinions" are considered secret and are to be withheld everyone not a member of our double super-secret cabal.

2. Information nobody else can have because it would help the Enemies of Freedom.

I can certainly understand the need for confidentiality when the safety and security of the nation is at stake. I think every can. But this administration takes the need for confidentiality to new levels and given the amount of malfeasance the administration is accused of (in just about every aspect of its operation, it seems) such reluctance to be open about advice given comes across as being overly cautionous at best, and paranoid at worst. Their reluctance, on so many fronts, to be candid about advice given makes it seem as if they feel they have hide the reasons for doing what they do because they know it's wrong and don't want to be found out.

This all brings to mind the definition Ambrose Bierce gave in The Devil's Dictionary:

Advice: n. to seek another's approval of a course already decided upon.