GBC's blog

Okay. It's high time for Harry Reid to GO.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that the Senate would not attempt to pass sweeping health care reform until after returning from the August recess.

"We will do what we can to make sure their concerns are not buried," Reid said.

WTG, Harry. Way to hand the Republicans their opportunity to kill health care reform. They don't want reform, Harry. They've told you that they want to "break the President" over this, and you are giving them the sledgehammer to do so. Enjoy the month worth of scary advertisments from the GOP to sink health care reform. Enjoy losing your job and benefits while Congress goes on recess to raise millions from lobbyists to kill health care reform. And make sure you thank Harry Reid for it.

The irony was, as the feckless Senate leader was spewing this filth, I received an email requesting yet more money from me for such spineless leadership. It was titled "Not This Time."

Oh, you are right about THAT one. Not this time. Not ANY time... EVER AGAIN, until you get off your duffs and get health care reform passed.

WE CANNOT WAIT FOR YOU TO HAND US A WATERED-DOWN VERSION THAT DOESN'T HELP REAL AMERICANS who are DYING right now, waiting for you to do something.

Write/Call the DSCC.

Write/Call the DCCC.

Tell them NOT ONE MORE FUCKING DIME UNTIL REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM IS PASSED.

And furthermore, tell them that Harry Has. To. Go.

It's time to give Harry HELL.

Are "journalists" (I use that term for lack of a better one that won't set off anyone's parental control settings) just in it for the game of "Gotchya Politics" now, instead of asking questions the American people really care about in a political debate? (1)

The economy is in the crapper thanks to banking it all on the now crumbling housing market, Prez'nit Smirky has united us in the one fact that 81% believe the country is headed off a cliff with him at the helm; the estimated 3 trillion yes TRILLION dollars that will be spent on the Iraq occupation; health care is in tatters compared to countries we arrogantly still call "third-world..."

...and the tripe BULLSHIT they waste an hour of our time actually discussing? The new swear word "bitter," a pastor's controversial comments (still???), and whether or not Obama wears a flag lapel pin (please, if any of you cared to notice Hillary didn't have one on either, but somehow didn't have that answer that question of "true patriotism"). (2)

Is this really what is on people minds?

If Obama puts on a flag lapel pin, will that suddenly lead us to victory in the biggest foreign policy blunder of our age that is the Iraq war?

If Obama denounces and leaves his congregation (which is Christian and 8,000 people strong) will that stop the rapidly declining dollar value that is unbalancing the market and causing gas prices to hit $4.00 a gallon?

If Obama told you everything is actually alright... and that bitterness and anger you feel in your gut is NOT the result of your manufacturing job getting sent to China; the crumbling infrastructure is NOT the result of tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% in America; and that the tax payer-funded bail out of Wall street is NOT the result of corporate corruption run amuck under this fallacy of a Republican administration we have in Washington...

Am I getting through to you yet? Do you realize what is really important yet?

And Clinton, oh, Mrs. Clinton... what to say about your sad, awful admission tonight that no one else has seemed to catch except me:

Paraphrasing, but this is the gist: "Well, it was the Young College Republicans that first found and distributed the "bitter" comment about Obama, so, it wasn't my campaign that started it."

Great Hillary, you just admitted to smearing Obama using a Republican strategy with Republican base-motivating words like "elitist."

Remember the "elitist" John Kerry, anyone? It's happening all over again... only this time there's a plot twist! Someone within the Democratic party is using Republican smear tactics against her Democratic opponent to try to undermine the fact that he's already in essence clinched the nomination in order to make him look damaged and on the fringe and totally unelectable. That way she can stage a super-delegate coup and call it all in the name of "good politics." Now that's a best seller!

And this is exactly what the media is counting on, outcome be damned. Let's prolong this battle to it's inevitable conclusion, because we need the drama so the American public won't notice their world is falling apart around them. Also, since our bosses (the corporate owners of the six major media conglomerates) want another four years of a Republican administration to further their agendas, we need to help Mrs. Clinton damage the already known Democratic nominee beyond repair. And we'll do it by prolonging a fight within their own party by giving the public the perception that if Hillary can win Pennsylvania, she can win the world! What a fantastic story, eh?

Hillary, whether she knows it or not, is contributing to the eventuality of a McCain presidency by participating in the slow destruction of her democratic opponent. She's been duped by the media that she can still win. But she really can't without destroying her party to get it. (3)

So, do you feel like you've been fucked up the ass with a 2 x 4 yet?

GBC.

(1) Links: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/abc-hosts-heckled-after-d_n_971...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/the-debate-a-shameful-nig_b_...

(2) http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/16/212823/498/172/497159

(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/john-mccain-should-go-o...

So, the dittoheads are now calling on Obama to denounce his church as well as his former pastor. Which he’s already done in respect to certain imflammatory statements, but, that’s just not enough to pacify the fat, white, tub of lard’s that listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News.

So, in the interest of equality and fairness I guess that means they'll be calling on ALL other candidates running for office, like say, Senator or Congressman, to denounce their preachers and churches who are even associated with the following reverends, pastors, or churches:

~-~-~

Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him.

Mitt Romney [is] part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actiavle discriminated against them. He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.

Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.

Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the Euorpean Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when Armegeddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think. John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide."

What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

~-~-~

I'll tell you what it is. America is full of White, Racist Hypocrites.

Do you think Limbaugh and the rest of the mainstream media machine is asking John McCain to denounce his "spiritual guide," and, are they playing any audio clips from these white reverends and pastors in an endless loop on their programs?

Well, of course not.

Freedom of speech is only for white people, stupid!

Category: News and Politics

Found this article over at HuffPost. What has always struck me as ironic is the fact that while, admittedly, Hussein's Iraq had it's many systemic problems (most of which dealt with his treatment of political enemies), the "New & Improved" Iraq has become exactly what American's are supposed to abhor. Muslim extremism runs rampant. Religious persecution of citizens. This is what our soldiers fought and died for? To create another religious extremist state?

But who really cares? After all, they're just gay people. Considering how the religious extremists in America vilify gays, this all sounds right up their alley.

~-~-~

Gays Living in Shadows of New Iraq

By CARA BUCKLEY
Published: December 18, 2007

BAGHDAD — In a city and country where outsiders are viewed with deep suspicion and attracting attention can imperil one's life, Mohammed could never blend in, even if he wanted to.

Mohammed, 37, has been openly gay for much of his adult life. For him, this has meant growing his hair long and taking estrogen. In the past, he said, that held little danger. As is true throughout the Middle East, men have always been publicly affectionate here.

But, at least until recently, Mohammed and many of his gay friends went one step further, slipping into lovers' houses late at night. And, until the American invasion, they said, Iraqi society had quietly accepted them.

But being openly gay is not an option in the new Iraq, where the rise of religious extremism has left Mohammed and his gay friends feeling especially vilified.

In January, a United Nations report described the increased persecution, torture and extrajudicial killing of Iraqi lesbians and gay men. In 2005, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa, or religious decree, calling for gay men and lesbians to be killed in the "worst, most severe way."

He lifted it a year later, but neither that nor the recent ebb in violence has made Mohammed or his friends feel safe. They yearn to leave Iraq, but do not have the money or visas. They agreed to be interviewed on the condition that their last names not be used.

They described an underground existence, eked out behind drawn curtains in a dingy safe house in southwestern Baghdad. Five people share the apartment — four gay men and one woman, who says she is bisexual. They have moved six times in the last three years, just ahead, they say, of neighborhood raids by Shiite and Sunni death squads. Even seemingly benign neighborhood gossip can scare them enough to move.

"We seem suspicious because we look like a cell of terrorists," said Mohammed, nervously fingering the lapel of his shirt. "But we can't tell people what we really are. A cell, yes, but of gays."

His hand drifted to his newly shorn hair. He had lopped it off days earlier. There had been reports of extremists stopping long-haired men, shearing their hair and forcing them to eat it.

It is impossible to say how many gay men and women face persecution in Iraq. According to an Iraqi gay rights group, run by a former disc jockey in Baghdad named Ali Hili who now lives in London, 400 people have been killed in Iraq since 2003 for being gay.

Set against the many thousands of civilians and soldiers killed in the war, the number is small. But for Mr. Hili, and Mohammed and his friends, it is a painful barometer of just how far Iraq has shifted from its secular past.

For a brief, exhilarating time, from the mid-1980s until the early 1990s, they say, gay night life flourished in Iraq. Whereas neighboring Iran turned inward after its Islamic revolution in 1979, Baghdad allowed a measure of liberation after the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

Abu Nawas Boulevard, which hugs the Tigris River opposite what is now the Green Zone, became a promenade known for cruising. Discos opened in the city's best hotels, the Ishtar Sheraton, the Palestine and Saddam Hussein's prized Al-Rasheed Hotel, becoming magnets for gay men. Young men with rouged cheeks and glossed lips paraded the streets of Mansour, an affluent neighborhood in Baghdad.

"There were so many guys, from Kuwait, from Saudi Arabia, guys in the street with makeup," said Mr. Hili, who left Iraq in 2000. "Up until 1991, there was sexual freedom. It was a revolutionary time."

Then came the Persian Gulf war, and afterward Saddam Hussein put an end to nightclubs. Iraq staggered under the yoke of economic sanctions. While antigay laws were increasingly enforced, Mohammed and Mr. Hili said they still felt safe. Homosexuality seemed accepted, as long as it was practiced in private. And even when it was not tolerated, prison time could be evaded with a well-placed bribe.

The American invasion was expected to usher in better times.

"We thought that with the presence of Americans, life would become paradise, that Iraq would be Westernized," Mohammed said. "But unfortunately the way things were before was so much better than where we are now."

More here...

Happy Holidays Everyone!

Current mood: sassy
Category: Life

What to say about 2007? It's been one of the most interesting years I've been through. Somehow I've always kept outdoing myself year after year, perusing the insane to the mundane; the fabulous to the morose, of what life has to offer. Many of you know I've never really been an even-keeled or morally centered person, usually living life from one extreme to the other. Many of you have lived in and relished the insanity with me or stood back and let the fireworks fly, watching from a safe distance. To all of you I give thanks for the part you have played.

But, considering all that has happened to me over the past year, I feel it important to share about the one thing that altered my life as we've known it, so here goes:

My name in Charlie, and I'm an alcoholic. Back on July 29th of this year, I made the decision to quit drinking. (At this time many of you are probably getting back up off the floor after fainting – don't worry, because you are not alone in your shock. It's been the reaction most others who know me well have also experienced.) Yes, I have finally realized that I had absolutely no control over my drinking, that I was powerless over my addictions, and that my life had become completely unmanageable. Why this simple revelation eluded me for so long is beyond me. I did have a hard time accepting what I knew to come next with such an admission. Being that I'd always thought myself a fabulous person who had to drink and party in order to define and remain who he was (I mean honestly, have any of you ever known me to be anything else?), I was at a loss what to do next. And I was alone. That's what led me to AA.

Yes, Alcoholics Anonymous. These being the very people I used to make fun of. The people I swore I'd never allow into my fabulously-alcoholic life because I didn't have a problem like they did. Never have I been more wrong in judgment about a fellowship of good-natured, well-intentioned people as I was with this. I've met wonderful new friends and I've become active in the fellowship, either by chairing meetings or just making coffee. I've simplified my life; to a point I once would've thought boring and anti-climatic. But the truth is I love my life more now in four and a half months of complete sobriety than the entire eighteen-plus years prior to getting sober.

With that admission, I want to share one more thing with you, because this sums up why I've chosen sobriety for myself:

"We should be sensible, tactful, considerate and humble without being servile or scraping. As God's people we stand on our feet; we don't crawl before anyone.

Are these extravagant promises? We think not. They are being fulfilled among us – sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. They will always materialize if we work for them." The Promises – The Big Book

While I am not at this stage in my program, one can see why I look forward to it and why it's called "The Promises."

Is this a permanent change many of you are asking yourselves? Frankly, I don't know. It's just where I've been yesterday and where I'm at today. I don't bother with the future because this program teaches you to live in the present. So who knows? What I do know is that I want serenity. I want peace. My soul had been restless and unsatisfied for far too long that it just became time to seek out something better. Something more. And I think I've found it.

With that, I'll close this letter. Here's wishing you and yours the blessed gifts of serenity and peace this holiday season. I love you all.

Charlie

Current mood: rebellious
Category: News and Politics

That deep-sixes Paul with the fundies, but he didn't court them anyway.

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

Well we now have exactly one Republican candidate for president who is willing to take the public plunge in support of marriage equality, though in a predictably roundabout way -- former Libertarian Ron Paul. It's in the context that the state shouldn't be involved with marriage to begin with, which is at least a sane approach to viewing this issue compared to the rest of the clown car.

He had this exchange on 20/20 with John Stossel:

JS - Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

RP - Sure.

JS - The state says we believe in this...

RP - Sure. They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want; just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else. They can't make me personally accept what they do; gay couples can do whatever they want. I would like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it is a state function; it is a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons, they claimed the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and did health tests and had to get a license to get marriage. I don't agree with that.

~-~-~

So, we agree that government should stay the hell out of religious institutions and vise versa. What I like about his approach to this argument is he's essentially saying that churches are free to wed gay couples or not. Many churches welcome gay couples openly and many don't. It takes the divisiveness out of the issue. Leave the determination to choose whether or not to accept, ordain and marry gay people or not to the religion of your choice. That's freedom of religion.

It's so simple and yet so unattainable in America's current religious environment. If you allow government into your religion, you can reasonably expect your religion to be corrupted by the very establishment you invited in.

...Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. [James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778]

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

Amen, James.

Current mood: sassy
Category: News and Politics

... Shame that they didn't ask for the same when it came to Iraq. A lot of people would still be alive today.

"Senate Republicans are planning to call for a congressional commission to investigate the conclusions of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran as well as the specific intelligence that went into it."

Did I call it right or what? They are using the argument that since the intel on Iraq was so wrong (I'd say fabricated, but whatever), that now our intelligence communities can't be trusted to produce solid intel on Iran. Conclusion? Bomb them anyway.

Honestly, these chickenhawks want WWIII. War is about the only thing keeping our economy going at this point.

h/t DCCCLive

YoU TuBe LiNkIe HeRe

Did you see the showdown between DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Karl Rove on FOX News Sunday?

We told you this weekend about Rove's recent lies, his claims that Congress pushed the President to war in Iraq in a ludicrous attempt to erase the fact that President Bush started this disastrous, failed war.

Republicans know what a mess they have made in Iraq -- we can't let them rewrite history now.

Chairman Van Hollen took him to task and demanded he retract these outrageous statements. While Rove did a verbal tap dance, cherry picking information, the Chairman pulled out his trump card. This quote from Ari Fleischer:

"It was definitely the Bush administration that set it in motion and determined the timing, not the Congress. I think Karl in this instance just has his facts wrong."

Rove looks dumbfounded that someone finally stood up to him and called out his fabrications face-to-face. Watch the video of Chris Van Hollen and contribute to help us continue holding Bush's Rubber Stamp Republicans accountable. Don't let them rewrite history and use their spin to promote their concocted story.

~-~-~

Karl "just has his facts wrong?" Is that the polite way of calling him the "big fucking liar" he's been proven to be? Just wondering why we have to pussyfoot around "The Architect" who brought political mudslinging to an all-time low in this country.

But, it's a start.

US Intelligence Says Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Program in 2003

A new U.S. intelligence estimate says it is not clear that Iran is determined to produce nuclear weapons. The estimate says Iran stopped nuclear weapons development four years ago, but adds that Tehran is keeping its options open. VOA Correspondent Gary Thomas reports from Washington.

A new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear capabilities and intentions says international pressure and scrutiny caused Iran to stop work on nuclear weapons in late 2003, and the work had not resumed as of mid-2007.

But the report adds that Iran appears to be keeping open the option of building a nuclear weapon. It says Iran continues to produce enriched uranium. The estimate says, Iran is not likely to have enough weapons-grade highly enriched uranium for a bomb until late 2009 at the earliest.

The key findings of the estimate, which represent the highest collective judgments of the U.S. intelligence communty, were released Monday.

The new assessment differs sharply in some respects with a 2005 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. In 2005 the intelligence agencies said Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons. The new estimate says it now appears Iran is less determined to produce nuclear weapons than previously believed.

~-~-~

First point: Wingnuts are pointing out that we don't know anything AFTER mid-2007, as if this is somehow ancient history. I don't know what year your'll in but I'm still seeing 2007 on my calendar. Considering the time it takes to enrich uranium, it's fair to say that if nothing has happened since "mid-2007" then Iran is far and away from actually having nuclear weapon capabilities.

Point number two: Wingnuts are also pointing out that the Loonie Left is now touting the intelligence as an accurate assessment and therefore reason not to bomb the Persians back to the stone age. Then they say the NIE report is from the very same "intelligence community" that got it so wrong in Iraq to begin with, so how do we know it's accurate that Iran isn't still persuing the bomb?

Interesting reverse psychology they're playing with that argument, don't you think? Almost Rumsfeldian in it's complicated simplicity; "We know there are known knowns and their are known unknowns and their are unknown unknowns" and all that Neocon-PNAC-thinktank-bullshit that got us stuck in Iraq forever. And at your expense. Are you happy with the war you bought?

Also not unlike Karl Rove, the Devil himself, going on national television recently and saying it was Congress that pushed Prez'nit Smirky to go to war in Iraq sooner rather than later and that Prez'nit Smirky actually wanted more time for the weapons inpsectors to do their job.

Does he honestly think Americans are going to fall for that now?

Wait, don't answer that, I just heard a report on Fox that Britney Spears is actually a post-op transsexual. I'll need to get back to you.