<!-- Begin meta tags generated by ORblogs --> </meta name="keywords" content="progressive, liberal, politics, government, edit, language, grammar, accuracy, honesty, clarity, world, news, media" /> </> <!-- End meta tags generated by ORblogs -->> Editor at Large: October 2007

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy

Yesterday, in calling for the resignation of Nancy Nord, chair of the Consumer Products Safety Commission, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "Any commission chair who does not, in the face of the facts that are so clear, say we don't need any more authority or any more resources to do our job, does not understand the gravity of the situation."

Which actually means, because of the double negative, that Pelosi thinks Nord should keep her job.

Please, Nancy, don't be a nancy when talking about Nancy. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Former OSU baseballer Ellsbury is "Navajo hero"

It's too bad that Native Americans are respected only when playing European American games.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

America is liberal!

Recently on the Hannity and Colmes show, John McCain said that America is a "right of center" nation.

No, it isn't.

According to Gallup, America is, in fact, significantly left of center:
--Americans are pro-choice (67 percent)
--Americans support the Geneva Conventions with regard to torture (57 percent)
--Americans don't want the government snooping in their bank and Internet records (67 percent)
--Americans want the USA Patriot Act changed or eliminated entirely (81 percent)
--Americans support protecting the environment at the expense of economic growth (55 percent)
--Americans believe that global warming is happening (86 percent)
--Americans believe that it's the government's responsibility to provide health care (69 percent)
--Americans support the decriminalization of marijuana (55 percent) and support the legalization of medical marijuana (78 percent)
--Americans think we've lost the war in Iraq (64 percent)
--Americans are opposed to attacking Iran (68 percent, according to a CNN Poll)
--Americans support labor unions (60 percent)
--Americans want government funding of embryonic stem cell research (56 percent)
--Americans believe that free trade hurts American workers (65 percent)
--Americans believe rich people and corporations aren't paying enough taxes (66 and 71 percent, respectively)
--And overall party affiliation? 54 percent of Americans are Democrats (with leaners) and 39 percent are Republicans (with leaners)

In short, America is a liberal nation.

Now if we could just get Congress to represent us...


Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Apology not accepted

Last Thursday, in a moment of frustration over Bush's veto of S-CHIP, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) pissed off House Republicans when he said to them:

“You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

Predictably, House Republicans responded with a call for censuring Mr. Stark - which went down in flames today in a 196 to 173 vote.

Still, for some reason, Stark felt the need to apologize:

“I want to apologize to, first of all, my colleagues, many of whom I’ve offended; the president, his family; to the troops...I do apologize. I hope that with this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be, and that we can return to the issues that do divide us, but that we can resolve in a better fashion."

But why should Stark be censured, and why should he apologize? All he did was express how he felt - how millions of Americans feel - about the war and about health care for children (which appear to be mutually exclusive, when it comes to funding). Whom, exactly, did he offend?

Sorry, Mr. Stark - apology not accepted. Because it was unnecessary. Get back in there and keep fighting for children's health care, and next time, don't back down.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Oxymoron of the year

President Bush standing in front of a banner that reads "Fiscal Responsibility"?

That's like Dick Cheney with a banner that reads "Gun Safety."

Or Rush Limbaugh with "Intellectual Honesty."

Or Bill O'Reilly with "Moral Integrity."

Or Ann Coulter with "Rational Thinking."

Monday, October 15, 2007

Mrs. Larry Craig finally speaks

In an interview with MSNBC's Matt Lauer, scheduled to run tomorrow night, Senator Larry Craig and his wife, Suzanne, denied that their marriage is a cover for his homosexuality.

"People know me and know that I would never do that," Suzanne Craig said. "That's almost like selling your soul for something."

Mrs. Craig might be telling the truth, and her husband might have been telling the truth when he said, "I am not gay." But the issue isn't whether Larry Craig is gay or not. It's whether he's guilty of soliciting sex from an undercover officer in a men's room - and, if he is, whether that's grounds for resignation from the Senate.

If Craig did, indeed, solicit sex from the undercover cop, he might well have just been looking for a quick, noncommittal blow job. Which doesn't necessarily make him gay; maybe he's just unsatisfied with his sex life? Suzanne doesn't like giving blow jobs, so Larry gets 'em from complete strangers (who happen to be men) instead.

Is Craig always on the receiving end, or does he give blow jobs as well? We have yet to see or hear convincing evidence to that effect, but if he is a giver as well as a receiver, then we would assert that he probably is at least bisexual, if not homosexual.

And if that's the case, is it grounds for resignation? No, but it might be grounds for divorce.

P.S. The whole "wide stance" thing still cracks us up. Just try separating your feet more than a few inches with your pants down around your ankles.

Bush using Laura and Jenna as human shields

With his approval ratings and his credibility both in the toilet, and with his very existence a toxic threat to Republican candidates everywhere, President Bush has apparently decided to send replacements to the front lines: his wife Laura and his daughter Jenna.

Think he'll provide them with adequate body armor?

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Blumenauer and DeFazio sign letter to Bush: No more funds for Iraq war

Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio have joined 85 other members of the House of Representatives in signing a letter to President Bush pledging to vote against additional funding for the war and to vote only for supplementals that fully fund withdrawal.

It's a small step, but at least it's a step in the right direction. And the letter is still being circulated among House members for additional signatures.

Here's what the letter says:

Dear Mr. President:

Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.

More than 3,742 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.


Co-signers: Murphy (CT), Jackson, Brown (FL), Thompson (MS), Watt, Meeks, Loebsack, Weiner, Kucinich, DeFazio, Farr, Waxman, Thompson (CA), Lee, Woolsey, Waters, Watson, Frank, Conyers, Filner, Rush, Towns, Clay, Wynn, Delahunt, Holmes-Norton, Butterfield, Solis, Maloney, Nadler, Honda, Cohen, Hare, Napolitano, Hastings, McGovern, Kaptur, Schakowsky, Carson, Linda Sanchez, Grijalva, Olver, Jackson-Lee, McDermott, Markey, Fattah, Pallone, Hinojosa, Stark, Scott (VA), Moran, McCollum, Oberstar, DeGette, Tauscher, Holt, Hinchey, Pastor, Davis (IL), Hall, Velazquez, Rangel, Hodes, Blumenauer, Lynch, Artur Davis, Johnson (GA), Payne, Cleaver, Lewis, Clarke, Abercrombie, Moore(WI), Ellison, Baldwin, Christensen, Scott (GA), Paul, Gutierrez, Welch, Capps, Rothman, Cummings, Tierney, Doggett, Eshoo, and Tubbs-Jones.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Fair warning from James Dobson

In an op-ed in today's NY Times, James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, wrote:

I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles.

The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. That is not true.

If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008."

So it's a good thing John McCain has been showing evidence of a "recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs," because we tremble at the thought of James Dobson and his minions being in our face any more than they already are.

Dobson, by the way, is also the author of Bringing Up Boys: Practical Advice and Encouragement for Those Shaping the Next Generation of Men. Probably with a forward by Ted Haggard.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Anita Hill sets the record straight - again

Isn't it nice to know we have a pathological liar on the Supreme Court?