Bush sets up a war room to fight the social safety net with your money.

They have irrefutable evidence that [insert dictator here] is hiding the Social Security crisis and they are gathering intelligence to smoke him out and hunt him down.

...installed!

Try it out. Fall in love with our progress.

Behold: The ACLU skirmish. Folks need to learn the rules of debate. See what happens when you have argumentative anarchy? At CB, we try to ensure a no fallacy zone.

Reading is also important. For instance, it is important to know that public can mean both "government" and "out in the open." Because, if you don't have a good grasp of that, you may believe that the ACLU is on some grand mission to closet religion so that no one gets to see it practiced "out in the open." This guy ToBS seems to believe this, as does Tall Glass of Milk. I have been going for 29 rounds on this very issue. Unbelievable.

Armin Cruz is the first soldier convicted in the Abu Ghraib abuse to return to his hometown. This article takes a look at his case.

This operation could go two ways, smooth or it could all go to shit fast and some of us may die tonight, in a few hours.

I was scared.

Red2Alpha, the soldier from This is Your War has just written part one of a compelling personal account of his first raid in Iraq. This is a very interesting run-down of the challenges facing our soldiers as they are engaged in urban warfare.

His anxiety is based on a number of facts. He saw children in the reconnaissance photos and wondered if they would turn out to be targets. Recalling that every Iraqi family is allowed one AK-47 and a magazine of ammo for self-defense, he thinks about the damage one gun can do in cramped quarters. The target of the raid is a taxi driver suspected of transporting militants. What if he is a bad guy and he is sheltering lots of militants, all armed and ready to defend themselves?

Read his whole account. It is tough as hell over there. We're all pulling for you, R2A.

More from the front lines of Blog War I... My reply to Tired of Liberal BS:

I can't be more direct and clear than this. I am an American. I do not support torture. As an American, I say that loudly and proudly. It is part of who I am and who we are as a people. In fact, it is in the Bill of Rights, one of our founding documents, that our state does not engage in cruel and unusual punishment. It is as fundamental an American principle as free speech and freedom of assembly.

Americans don't rip out fingernails. Americans don't beat mentally ill people. Americans don't beat people until they have brain damage. Americans don't sodomize prisoners against their will. Americans don't force prisoners to sodomize each other. Americans don't kill prisoners.

If you think Americans are supposed to do that, then I would like to hear a reason why.

Americans, in addition, do not define human rights by the same standards by which terrorists, totalitarians, tyrants and thugs define them. We define human rights based on enlightenment principles. One of America's great gifts to the world, in fact, has been the rule of law over the passions of hate.

If you want to let al Zarqawi draw the line on torture at beheading--whereby we can do anything up to beheading and still be moral--then you go right ahead. We live in a great country with great freedoms. It is certainly your right to think that way.

But it is not consistent with American values. And it is not consistent with my values, indeed, as a liberal. And as an American, I would never vote to confirm and promote the architects of a policy allowing torture. I wouldn't do it. I would find out who those people were and I would promptly ask for their resignations.

Finally, as to your questions, I will let Nick Berg's grief-stricken family, particularly his father, speak for the meaning of his death. I couldn't think of anything much more horrible to endure than torture, especially if it happened to one of my own.

Sam Johnson said we should nuke Syria. He says he was joking. Fair enough, but is there any doubt that the extreme right wing agrees? And will Republicans distance themselves from this eliminationist rhetoric?

I'm a firm believer in this idea that the rest of the world should and will rise up and form power blocks to halt American power. All of our threats (because we are bogged down in Iraq)against places like Iran, North Korea, and blasting human rights violations in Russia and China are the acts of a paper tiger.

Here is more proof that the world is striking back not just by building up their military, but by taking "Holier than thou" stances against America's "holier than thou" stance. China just released a report in which it highlights America's human rights abuses. According to this report, America is a racist cauldron where blacks are more likely than whites to be convicted for harsher sentences for the same crimes, our schools are a failing mess of violence, and we have detention camps (Abu Gharib). The report also mentions how America has killed more than 100,000 civilians in Iraq and asks that the world and the US "reflect" on our violence.

This report, coupled with Putin recently skewering Bush over the fact that W. sorta.well..didnt' win the first election, shows that the world can indeed play this tit for tat game. It also sadly shows that we have alot of work to do.

During the Cold War, Stalin and the Soviets always threw the civil rights issue in our faces. Before and during World War II, the Nazis would do the same. The response of the Democrats (and Ike) who controlled our country was to work to restore America's true Constitutional values to prove them wrong. W's response? Time will tell.

(And PS to the new conservative visitors..NO .I would never equate American abuses with Chinese or Russian human rights abuses. We are the greatest country on earth, but we aren't blameless and we damn sure aren't perfect).

(And PSS, yes, I'm saying Democrats had alot to do with the bringing about civil rights in the country. Please see here).

Orrin Hatch and others are moving for a Constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to run for President. Though the pundits and everyone says that its an "obvious" thing that will happen easily, I tend to disagree. I think this amendment will fail not only because lots of Republicans and Democrats (Frist, Santorum, Biden, McCain, etc.,) have a lot to lose by allowing foreign born citizens to run (Arnold and Gov. Granholm of MI) but also because this idea is extremely unpopular among Americans.

A law professor and I got into a "discussion" about this very issue a few weeks ago. He found it hard to believe that Americans would oppose such an "easy" idea. However, I told him that nativist/isolation currents run deep in America and this idea would be a hard sell. This view has now been confirmed in recent polling. According to the Hotline poll, (subscription required), 65% of Americans oppose amending the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to run. This poll is likely not a fluke because in 2004, Gallup did a poll with similiar results (67% oppose to amending the Constitution).

With Democrats slowly moving to the right on immigration and the Republican leadership wanting to win the presidency in 2008 (thus keeping Arnie out), I don't see this amendment happening.

This one courtesy of our newest friend over at California Conservatives for Terrible Arguments. Not only can he not do math:

Nearly 800,000 abortions are performed annually (256 for every 1000 live births or basically 1 in 4 pregnancies) while less than 100 persons are executed.

I searched through the next paragraph trying to decide what part of it I should quote. Eventually I just gave up, because not only are all the tidbits in here independently delusional in their own rite, but they also demonstrate a lack of an ability to make cohesive argumentation. Enjoy!

But is it really exaggerated? The Reporter used the lobbying group the Network for their information. A lobbying group that focuses on distribution of wealth rather than the true moral issues.

Seems that our Bishops would prefer a socialist society. But did they not learn anything from Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pot? I mean really what society has provided more for the poor? Compare socialist/communist Russia to pre-Beijing Hong Kong. One society (Russia) is loaded with poor and helpless souls, while Hong Kong (prior to the Beijing take over) provided jobs for everyone. But the Bishops stand by the belief that capitalism doesn't produce enough richness for everyone. Granted there may be a divide between the poor and rich, but without the rich there is no one to donate to such worthy causes, such as the Catholic Church. I am sure there is a study out there suggesting that any time taxes are increased, donations decrease. Besides, history has shown Socialism as a failure. Not only that, who truly is the party of the rich. When you get down to it Democrats on average are made up of two parties (the rich and the poor). It should have been apparent in the most recent elections when Hollywood and the Elites stood by Kerry (who himself is quite wealthy) and used a tremendous amount of money advertising in inner city communities trying to attract the poor.

This is the man Ump is debating right now, which kinda surprises me. Garemko, are you missing JT Fetter?

I know I missed yesterday. Sorry--midterms. Yikes, now I'm dating myself...

But that's ok, because I've got a double whammy for you today. Actually, the first could probably count as three....courtesy of Bill O'Lie-lly

O'REILLY: This ACLU has no strategy to fight the war on terror at all. Everything the United States government does -- everything -- they oppose. Everything! Nothing they like in defending ourselves against terrorists -- nothing....

Oh, how it gets better

So look, I'm declarin' war on the ACLU. I think they're a terrorist group. They're terrorizin' me and my family. They're terrorizing me. I think they're terrorists. Can I get some lawyers to help me out here? Can we sue 'em? They're puttin' us all in danger.

You go ahead and do that, Billy. And for the double and triple whammy? The analysis by Media Matters:

In the past, O'Reilly has called the ACLU "the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now ... second next to Al Qaeda" and "a fascist organization." He has also said that "Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin."

Oh yeah, just let it soak in...

Just wanted to throw this out there. During the election last year, Dean's Democracy for America sponsored an online fundraising drive called the "Dean Dozen." It raised and distributed money for grassroots candidates to run in elections at various levels. Originally, it was meant to support only 12 candidates, but it soon ballooned into many more.

I got to thinking at my meetup last night. Hey, why not do local Dean Dozen online fundraising drives for non-partisan municipal and school board elections? Many Democrats have agreed that part of turning red states blue is to take back the local debates and spread progressive values. Since these elections are non-partisan, the Democratic Party cannot do this work. Moreover, not much seed money is needed to run a local election. The Dean model was made for decentralization and political entrepreneurship. Let's do the Dean Dozen locally. No need to wait on Burlington.

For those meetup groups that are struggling to find meaning in a post-Howard DFA, support for grassroots progressives should be at the top of the list. Help liberals where the Democratic Party can't--that's what I say.

Ugh. I need new material.

This is just a little reminder that we are a little over 5 percentage points from beating Tom DeLay in 2006. His opponent will be at the top of my contribution list come election year. (Note: if I have a contribution list come election year).

WaPo.

The Ump is debating "Tired of Liberal BS" over at California Conservatives for Truth. CC4T is of course the sister group to the much larger California Conservatives for Lies.

Someone there said I was fishing for traffic by posting at CC4T, but his site is not much bigger than lowly Corked Bats. So I will be the "big, expansive man" in the words of Larry David and direct all of you to his site. Yes, all 20 of you.

Go there.

See? "I'm the man."

Anyway, you might enjoy the torture thread. Or the effigy=terrorism thread.

Yes...I know...

Ump brought up a great point in an earlier post about whether it was good or bad news that the Court struck down that those under 18 years of age could not be executed. You are absolutely right that with the addition of DNA, no kill rules for the mentally ill or retarded, and no kill rules now for 18 year olds, that the Death penalty in essence is becoming more refined.
I personally like this notion and idea. Not only because it screws over "kill em all" Texas, but also because you tighten the screws on this whole brutal practice. Right now in America, the death penalty has broad support. Over the past 30 years since the DP was reinstituted, the numbers have fluctuated and unfortunately in the aftermath of 9/11 American support for the DP shot up slightly.

What's so sad is that the current 30 year support for the DP since is reinstitution in Gregg v. Georgia is the highest level of support its ever had in US history. The death penalty in America had always been a hotly contested battle. Many Americans felt that it was a barbaric practice and indeed, public opinion against the practice began to wane. According to polls, by the mid 1960's, the public was actually split or near split on the issue of the death penalty and the public opposition reached its watershed moment.

Public opinion began a dramatic turn because of the acts of the NAACP and others who pushed hard across the country to get a nationwide moratorium. But alas, with the rise of white fears of crime, violence, and the suburbanization of America, the death penalty came back to America and the people embraced it stronger than ever before.

If there is one lesson though I suppose that could be learned from the NAACP's efforts and other organizations that fought successfully and turned public opinion, its that you gotta take your victories and keep on going until you win.

To me, victory of course is no death penalty. But if we could push the courts to put so many strings on the penalty, and so many limitations that it is virtually unusuable (sorta like the federal death penalty) then I could be comfortable with that. I think that's why moratoriums, and innocence projects are so important. This is an issue that will not be rammed down the throat of the American people, but we can put up enough roadblocks through the legal and legislative process as to make it virtually useless and impossible.

Atrios is pretty happy about this. Great to see that it failed. But it only failed by 1,490 votes when the man leading the charge is literally one of the most hateful men in America?

I would expect this to be 90-10. Seriously--Fred Phelps comes within 1.6 percentage points of an electoral victory now in this country?

But until then, check out this gem from an open thread at Americablog:

Fight in a war == hero
Struggle for peace == traitor
Same shit, different war. Every fucking time.

Far as I'm concerned, anyone in any part of the world who supports the use of military force in anything but self-defence (when Joe Average and Jane Angry would likely pick up guns as well anyway) is a traitor to the biosphere, not that this concept will mean sweet fuck [at] all to nationalist nuts [sic].

His blog is here.

The blogger over at California Conservatives for Truth--obviously implying that there are many California conservatives who are for lies--seems convinced that I am part of the snooty elite.

Check out the comments to this post, this post and one he left at CB here.

Why am I a snooty elitist?

Because I am educated.

No, really. He called me an intellectual, which was meant to be an insult. And he keeps harping on my education. He won't even argue with me even though I brought up specific issues that he could try to refute.

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the exploitation that the Republican leadership has engaged in. It is sick that here in America we have the ruling party dissing education, which is among other things a powerful tool for creating a successful and happy life. As the current season of the Apprentice thus far has proven, college is definitely not needed for success. But curiosity, hard work and logical rigor are absolutely essential for most of us (unless you are, of course, Preznit Arbusto). And most of us require schooling to nurture those skills. That the ruling elite has launched a war on the actual value of education and curiosity istelf is really really sad.

The Supreme Court has overturned the juvenile death penalty. This continues a trend of restricting the death penalty's application since 1976 according to the AP. This is great news because the juvenile death penalty is a horrible practice. Annatopia agrees.

But I am not as ecstatic. It is bad news in another way. The window in which death penalty opposition can argue politically for what is really needed--a full abandonment of the unfair, immoral practice of executions--is slowly closing. As more and more protections/restrictions are put on the death penalty under the radar screen (meaning without high profile politicians publicly agreeing), the public will further solidify its belief that the death penalty is an acceptable institution. Unless the Democrats and liberals make hay while the system is so obviously inequitable and broken, the law will probably settle in favor of a death penalty for a long time as it becomes less "cruel and unusual" through court restrictions and through DNA testing. Every time one of these victories happens without any Democratic framing, it actually makes the death penalty more likely to stay.

I am very glad that we will no longer be executing children. But it is time that the Democrats revived their pro-civilization stance on the death penalty before the illusion that it can be reformed and civilized gives us another hundred years of it.

I will have more on this later...

courtesy of daily pundit.

What Mainstream Liberal Media?

Attack on AARP, Like 'Religious War,' Built on Either/Or Fallacy

As synonyms for the word "vile," my thesaurus offers some of the following: offensive, objectionable, odious, repulsive, repellent, repugnant, revolting, disgusting, sickening, loathsome, foul, nasty, contemptible, despicable and noxious.

Any of those words would aptly describe the advertising attack launched last week against AARP, the largest advocacy group for seniors, by the conservative interest group USA Next.

I imagine it's hate-drenched drivel like this that made Brownstein BJ Clinton's favorite reporter.

That's an op-ed you dimwit. Is this really the best kind of argument the wingnuts have for why the mainstream media is so liberal? Yikes.

But for even more delusional fun, check out the comments.

I am beginning to question seriously the morality of the meat industry based on articles I see like this one. There is more and more evidence suggesting that the animals we slaughter have a lot more going on in their heads than is comfortable for us to admit--especially while waiting in the drive thru line at the local Whataburger.

Republican direct mail smear guru Richard Viguerie on love of country:

Viguerie's formula has changed little over the years: stir conservatives to open their checkbooks using sharp attacks, dire warnings and strong rhetoric. "The only time we win is when there is a sharp ideological difference," he told an interviewer more than a decade ago.

Fun.

Just digging through that calendar a bit. I found this gem.

August 28, 1963 Martin Luther King delivers “I Have a Dream” speech in front of memorial dedicated to Republican President Abraham Lincoln

If only he could have chosen the Strom Thurmond Memorial.

One of the major accomplishments of the modern Republican Party, it is.

More teary-eyed historifyin' here.

Psst, the Ump has a question. If you need a calendar to remind you of your commitment to civil rights, might I suggest that it is obviously not a priority?

"That's dern good evadence. Let me take a look at that thar calendar!"

Hm, maybe this will catch on for a series-each day I'll scour the right wing blogs and sites for their latest absolute departure from reality. Shouldn't take much longer than a quick run to Powerline or townhall.com, but I'll try to be creative.

I just got this idea, so it might be so terrible that I forget about it or just let it slowly fade into obscurity. Or maybe I'll love it and it will become my new reason for living.

Either way, I got the idea while watching Kudlow and Company and realizing just how out of touch with reality, geopolitics, and basic intelligence these guys were. Two nuggets of joy for you to enjoy today. I won't comment on them. Just let them marinate for a good second. From his blog comes a brilliant and indepth analysis dominoes of democracy. Heh.

The dominos of democracy continue to fall in the Middle East. First Afghanistan, then the Palestinian territories, then Iraq. Throw in the Ukraine for good measure. Throw in Egypt, where over the weekend President Mubarak announced the first direct Presidential elections in the nation’s history.

Now add Lebanon, where 10,000 protestors, gathering in Martyr’s Square and defying a government ban on demonstrations, have just forced the collapse of Lebanon’s Syria-dominated prime minister Omar Karami’s government.

This occurs two weeks after the assassination of pro-democracy former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Two weeks before that were the dramatic Iraqi elections, where eight million voters risked their lives in pursuit of freedom and democracy.

Would any of this have happened without President George Bush’s decision to liberate Iraq from the mass-murdering dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? Of course not. Indeed, all this goes back to Bush’s declaration of global war on radical Islamism and their terrorist tactics. And let’s not forget Bush’s visionary inaugural speech, in mid-January, where he laid out the case for freedom and democratization as the backbone of American foreign policy

And then from the show...

The population of Iran is probably more pro-America than any other country in the entire world.

Idiots...

In case you haven't seen it. You must.

Are you?