Why Do Anti-Abortion Activists Choose To Have Abortions?

Apparently, some anti-abortion advocates are deciding that it is okay for themselves or their family members to have abortions while simultaneously advocating that others should not be able to make the same choice. This is really taking hypocrisy to new heights (from a diary on DailyKos):

Pro-life: their abortions are different, unique.

by ShawnGBR
Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:50:28 PM PDT

[...]But like I say, an anti-choice advocate's opinion is set in stone.

Even on the day she's having an abortion.

As one page chronicles:

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

That's right. For everyone else, it's clear-cut murder. All the hooey about needing the abortion because the child will ruin your life just won't do. Unless it turns out that you need the abortion because the child will ruin your life. Then it's OK.

[...]These aren't the only examples from the link I've provided. Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (Henshaw, S.K. and G. Martire. 1982. Abortion and the Public Opinion Polls: 1. Morality and Legality. Family Planning Perspectives. 14:2, pp 53-60, March/April.) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally."

A 1994/95 survey of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians.

And a previous Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion noted that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic.

The diary offers a couple other examples of women who actively protest abortion clinics, then go to the same clinic for an abortion, and then go back to protesting the same abortion clinic later. Can someone please try to explain the logic behind this hypocrisy? Or is there no logic at all? How do these women arrive at the idea that it is okay for them to have an abortion, but it is wrong for everyone else?

That is crazy. It is one thing to be against abortions, but if you are against them, then you shouldn't choose to have one for yourself (or your underage daughter). I can understand if an anti-abortion activist needed to get an abortion out of medical necessity, rape, or incest, but that doesn't appear to be the case in the examples from the article.

I read a statement once that sums up how I feel about this. I am paraphrazing, but the statement was basically this:

For any right that you claim for yourself, you must also be willing to allow others to claim that right for themselves.

For example, if straight people are going to claim the right to all the legal benefits of marriage, then they should be willing to allow gay people to have the same right. Christians should willingly offer the same rights that they claim for themselves to other religions. No race should have more rights than any other. We should pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

It all comes down to a matter of equal rights whether the issue is race, sex, religion, creed, sexual orientation, et cetera. If anti-abortion activists are going to exercise their right to choose to have an abortion, then they shouldn't be trying to take away that right from others.

John Stossel, Professional Insensitive Hack

Anti-consumer advocate John Stossel did a story on anti-truth network ABC which is owned by anti-people corporation Disney. I did not watch his story because I knew it would be filled with lies and propaganda to promote Stossel's crazy libertarian views and irrational free market religion. This guy has no concept of what a fair market is and couldn't care less if consumers are harmed by the greedy corporations he worships.

His propaganda, this time, was specifically about Michael Moore's documentary SiCKO. I'll give you one guess about whether Stossel agreed with it or not.

From Crooks And Liars:

Wife Of Victim From Michael Moore’s Sicko Responds To Stossel Hit Piece

By: Logan Murphy on Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 at 6:38 AM - PDT

ABC News, the same network that neo-cons use to further their agenda, decided to look at the question of Universal Health Care in the US. Who better to investigate it than John “The Free Market Trumps All” Stossel? As is evident from the promo from last Friday’s Good Morning America, Stossel’s program looks like little more than a way to demonize Michael Moore:

Crooks And Liars then offers a video clip of the bully himself, and then reprints the open letter response on MichaelMoore.com from the woman Stossel mentions in his story:

Open Letter to ABC's John Stossel ... from Julie Pierce, American SiCKO

September 14th, 2007 11:03 pm

Dear John,

My name is Julie Pierce. My husband was Tracy Pierce. I am featured in Michael Moore's documentary 'SiCKO.' In the movie, I share my deceased husband's story — his unsuccessful battle with our insurance company to receive what could have been life-saving treatments for kidney cancer.

I just read your Wall Street Journal article written on Sept. 13, 2007, titled "Sick Sob Stories." You begin by talking about Tracy's role in 'SiCKO,' and claim the bone marrow transplant denied by our insurer would not have saved him. You also accuse me of "sneering" over our situation.

In your 'reporting' of this story, you did not contact me, and you did not contact my husband's doctors. I cannot believe that a publication like the Wall Street Journal would print such an accusation without talking to anyone involved — especially in such a personal matter, which resulted in the death of my 37-year-old husband and the father of my child.

Read the whole letter to get the full picture of what a coward and jerk Stossel really is.

In a recent CBS News Poll (from PollingReport.com), they found that 55% of Americans want a single-payer, government-run, universal health insurance program. A CNN poll (from the same site) finds that 64% of Americans think that "the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." So if this what most Americans want, my question is: Why does John Stossel hate America?

Worst Universal Health Care Plan Ever

Hillary Clinton just lost any chance she had of getting my primary vote with her awful health care plan. It is the same bad idea that Romney pushed for in Massachusetts and that Schwarzenegger is pushing in California:

Clinton Calls for Universal Health Care

By BETH FOUHY – 12 hours ago

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton called for universal health care on Monday, plunging back into the bruising political battle she famously waged and lost as first lady on an issue that looms large in the 2008 presidential race.

[...]The New York senator said her plan would require every American to purchase insurance, either through their jobs or through a program modeled on Medicare or the federal employee health plan. Businesses would be required to offer insurance or contribute to a pool that would expand coverage. Individuals and small businesses would be offered tax credits to make insurance more affordable.

Here's where the corruption comes into play and why we need publicly financed elections to take greedy corporations our of our government. The greedy health care companies want more money. They give some money to Romney, Schwarzenegger, and Clinton. Then Romney, Schwarzenegger, and Clinton push for legislation that forces everyone to buy health insurance from the greedy health care companies. The greedy health care companies get more money. See how easy that is?

Unfortunately, this is the way our government usually works in almost all areas of politics. The corporations pay for the legislation that benefits them, and the American taxpayer gets screwed.

That's why Republicans love this plan. They'll do anything to please their corporate masters.

And most of the Democratic presidential candidates are rushing to get in line to screw us with this awful health care plan. Didn't any of them watch SiCKO?

Yes, the American health care system is awful and broken, but that does not mean we should replace it with something just as awful and broken. It will remain awful and broken as long as private, for-profit health insurance companies are part of the system.

We need socialized medicine. Period.

Just like we need socialized public schools. Or socialized public roads. Or socialized police and fire departments. Or a socialized military.

We need socialized medicine like Germany. Like France. Like the United Kingdom. Like Canada. Like Japan. Like Australia. If it works for them, it will work for us, but our current system does not work.

It is evil to have health care be a for-profit industry. Health care should be a for-health industry, and greedy, private corporations should have no part in it.

And all Americans (and especially Democrats) should only support a presidential candidate who supports that concept.

General Petraeus Did Betray Us

MoveOn.org has been getting a bit attention for their Petraeus ad. Republicans who refuse to listen to the content of the ad have been calling for Democrats to denounce it. Why should they? Why should the denounce an ad for telling the truth?

Gen. Petraeus did betray us. He lied to Congress. He lied to the American people. He lied to save the liar-in-chief George W. Bush.

MoveOn.org told the truth. And I still believe that telling the truth is a good thing, especially when you speak truth to lying power:

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

Iraq Confronts Evil Blackwater

It is one of many sins in the long list of crimes against humanity that Bush has committed in his illegal war. The use of private mercenary forces that have no accountablity for the people they kill or harm is one of the more horrendous aspects of Bush's criminality.

Finally, it looks like Iraq is doing something about groups like Blackwater. It is a sad state of affairs that a country that barely has it together has to do this for us:

What happens to private contractors who kill Iraqis? Maybe nothing

Blackwater USA employees are accused of killing several civilians, but there might not be anyone with the authority to prosecute them.

By Alex Koppelman and Mark Benjamin

An incident this past weekend in which employees of Blackwater USA, a private security firm that has become controversial for its extensive role in the war in Iraq, allegedly opened fire on and killed several Iraqis seems to be the last straw for Iraqi tolerance of the company. Iraqi government officials have promised action, including but not limited to the suspension or outright revocation of the company's license to operate in Iraq.

But pulling Blackwater's license may be all the Iraqis can do. Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq. CPA Order 17 says private contractors working for the U.S. or coalition governments in Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law. Should any attempt be made to prosecute Blackwater in the United States, meanwhile, it's not clear what law, if any, applies.

Of course, not paying for crimes and escaping justice is all part of the Bush plan for himself, Scooter Libby, his administration, and Blackwater. If this world has any sense of justice, all of them will see the inside a jail cell for 20 years or more.

Boehner (R-OH) Thinks Losing Troops' In Iraq Is A 'Small Price'

Many blogs have already run this story, but it is still being ignored by the traditional media. So maybe if the blogs keep the story alive, the TM will pick up on it:

"Small price"

by kos
Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:24:03 AM PDT

Remember how 4,000 dead, tens of thousands of wounded, and half a trillion spent was "a small price to pay" for the mess we've made in Iraq? No?

Well, for House Republican Leader John Boehner, that's a wee nothing:

"The investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids."

Boehner still has yet to apologize.

Democrats Need To Make A Stand

I just want to echo what Kos wrote:

Sort out post

[...]Who cares if Bush vetoes? Let him. Don't worry about 66. Don't even worry about 60. If Republicans want to filibuster, let them. Turn it into a real one -- where Republicans have to hold the podium and read from the phone book for days. Let people see who is filibustering funding for the troops and legislation mandating a withdrawal.

If Bush vetoes? Send it back to him. Again and again. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, at least theoretically. There's no reason to capitulate to Mr. 25% on a war that even fewer want. Show the public that the Democrats have fight in them. Give David Broder the middle finger. Hang up on Joe Klein. And start paying attention to what the masses are demanding outside of D.C.

I couldn't agree more.

The reason why Congress' approval ratings are lower than the historic lows of Bush's approval ratings are because of the Democrats' refusal to stand strong, hold the line, and do what we elected them to do: get us out of Iraq.

If they listened to what the people are saying, we would have a better opinion of them. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, but if our government refuses the even listen to the people, then it has failed to live up to the ideals of a democracy.

Director of National Intelligence Lied To Congress

He the Director of National Intelligence, but I don't think that lying to Congress is a very intelligent idea. Plus, it's against the law.

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report wrote about it:

When the Director of National Intelligence lies to the Senate

On Monday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on recent changes to the FISA law, which the Bush administration has insisted were necessary to keep Americans safe. In defending the law, McConnell seems to have lied to the Senate. Badly.

Steve Benen links to the Newsweek article about McConnell's violation of the law and public trust:

Spy Master Admits Error

In a new embarrassment for the Bush administration top spymaster, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is withdrawing an assertion he made to Congress this week that a recently passed electronic-surveillance law helped U.S. authorities foil a major terror plot in Germany.

Benen also asks some good questions:

[...]At this point, I have a few questions. First, how does anyone expect lawmakers to negotiate policy matters with the White House in good faith when administration officials lie with impunity? Second, will there be any consequences for McConnell in light of these revelations?

And third, isn’t it against the law to lie to Congress?

To answer his last question, yes, it is against the law to lie to Congress. However, there never seems to be any consequences for breaking that law. So there seems to be no reason to stop lying to Congress.

Alberto Gonzales lied just about everytime he spoke before Congress. Gen. Petraeus lied to Congress earlier this week. Karl Rove just skips the whole process by refusing to go in the first place. It doesn't make a difference. The results are the same: no consequences.

Congress needs to start acting like an equal branch of government and put a stop to this. I know it's a cliche, but the Democrats need to grow a spine. (At least, more of them need to grow a spine. There are some tough Democrats like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), et cetera. We need more like them.) Democrats need to stop giving their milk money to the White House bullies, and stand up for our country, our Constitution, and all Americans. That's why we voted them into power. Now, it's time for them to keep their end of the bargain and use that power.

Bush Lies, Petraeus Lies, Traditional Media Doesn't Care

I talked a little about this last week in a post called "Did Bush Escalate So That He Could De-escalate?", and it seems like my theory might prove to be correct (or at least close).

Gen. Petraeus talked about bringing troops home next year when he gave his white-wash of a report to Congress this week. Today, news reports are claiming that Bush will soon announce that he will bring troops home next year per Petraeus's suggestions.

This appears to be all a charade because our military will be stretched to its limits by next year, and Bush will be forced to reduce troop numbers in Iraq regardless.

The clueless traditional media seems so eager to report the future troop reductions that they are overlooking the fact that such reductions will occur not by Bush's choice but because Bush has no other options. In overlooking that fact and not reporting on it, the TM is making it seem like Bush IS choosing to bring troops home because he and Petraeus are claiming that the surge escalation has worked and conditions are improving in Iraq.

Of course they're not improving, the surge escalation hasn't worked, and Bush and Petraeus are lying, but the TM is too lazy or too foolish to report that either. Thank goodness we have Media Matters for America to correct the TM:

Myths and falsehoods about progress in Iraq

Summary: Supporters of the Iraq war -- rather than waiting for testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on the effect of President Bush's troop increase in Iraq -- have engaged in a campaign to convince the media and public that progress is being made in Iraq and that the "surge" is "working." Media Matters has compiled some of the most pervasive myths and falsehoods advanced by opponents of withdrawal in service of the "surge is working" message, which many in the media have been complicit in perpetuating.

[...]On the August 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume said that "evidence mounts that the troop surge is working as planned." An August 16 editorial in Investor's Business Daily was headlined, "A Surge of Success." And on the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, U.S. News & World Report editor-in-chief Mortimer B. Zuckerman asserted: "[T]he fact is that, by far, the consensus is that the surge is working." However, by the administration's own standards, the national political reconciliation that the Bush administration identified as essential for the success of its escalation strategy has not occurred.

[...]an August 25 Associated Press article reported that while violence is down in Baghdad "from peak levels ... the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago." Moreover, McClatchy Newspapers reported on August 15 that while U.S. officials have said civilian casualties have decreased in Baghdad, they have "declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim."

[...]Statistics compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count on its website iCasualties.org, which publishes death count totals provided by the Department of Defense, show that more U.S. troops have died in Iraq during June, July, and August this year than the same three-month period in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006. The website currently lists the total U.S. death count for this period at 264.

Read the whole article for MMfA's list of myths and their debunking of those myths.

The ONLY way to support the troops, at this point, is to bring them home. Period. Not one more should die for Bush's lies.

Salt Water Power?

David Sirota points out this interesting article:

Salt water as fuel? Erie man hopes so

Sunday, September 09, 2007
By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned.

So when an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax.

John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube.

Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies.

His discovery has spawned scientific interest in using the world's most abundant substance as clean fuel, among other uses.

Whether or not salt water could be a viable fuel to replace fossil fuels is yet to be seen. The larger issue here is that there are all kinds of discoveries going on in the scientific world, and we need to support science and research that may lead to green energy and, by doing so, avoiding a global catastrophe from global warming.

To do that, we need to defeat the Republicans in their Global War on Science. Republicans don't support science or green energy (or peace or human rights or privacy, for that matter), and, therefore, they don't support this world. They don't support human life. They don't support you.

So... you know... Don't support Republicans. It's that simple.

2007 September 11

It's six years after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Does your president know where Osama bin Laden is?

Seriously, it's been SIX YEARS!

Why has Bush been unable to capture him? Only a complete and utter failure of a president and human being could have failed to do so. Either that or Bush doesn't want to capture him. It may be that Bush prefers bin Laden to remain free to be a continuous distraction from Bush's horrific presidency and unconstitutional actions.

The victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and our country deserve better.

Arctic Ice Melting Faster

More bad news about global warming for Republicans to ignore or deny while our world falls further into danger because of their ignorance and disdain for truth and science:

NOAA Scientists Say Arctic Ice Is Melting Faster Than Expected

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 7, 2007; Page A06

The Arctic ice cap is melting faster than scientists had expected and will shrink 40 percent by 2050 in most regions, with grim consequences for polar bears, walruses and other marine animals, according to government researchers.

Of course, without all that ice to reflect energy from the sun, the earth will get warmer which will melt more ice which will make the earth warmer which will...

See a pattern? A very destructive pattern?

Net Neutrality = Free Speech

The politicized and discredited Department of Justice has come out against Net Neutraility. They might as well come out against the 1st Amendment also:

Justice Dept. Opposes Network Neutrality

Associated Press
Friday, September 7, 2007; Page D02


The Justice Department said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to charge extra for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to network neutrality, the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

[...]The public-advocacy group Public Knowledge criticized the Justice Department filing. "It is at odds with reality for a Justice Department that approved the largest telecommunications merger in history . . . to now claim that market forces and antitrust enforcement will be able to protect the free and open Internet," the group's president and co-founder Gigi Sohn said in a written statement.

"Perhaps the Department has forgotten that many consumers have little or no choice at all for their high-speed broadband services."

Not One More!

Not one more American should die in Iraq. Not one more soldier or marine should die for Bush's lies. Not one more parent, spouse, or child should lose a loved one in an occupation that never should have been started.

I am sick of all the stupid slogans from the Right that debase the argument and deny the truth. I am sick of "cut and run" and "defeatist." I'm sick of all their lies and propaganda. They want to fight with simple slogans and demogoguery? Fine. Here's my stupid slogan: "Not one more!"

I am tired of Democrats not willing to stand up for what the American people elected them to do. I am tired of Democrats being frightened by a presidential administration with 25%-30% approval ratings with insipid claims that they "support the troops" or "we're winning in Iraq." Democrats act like they don't have the support of 70% of the country and they have nothing to fight back with. Well, Democrats, fight back with this: "Not one more!"

I don't want to have to see any more news like this:

U.S. military reports seven troops killed in Anbar, northern Iraq

BAGHDAD (AP) — Four U.S. marines were killed in fighting in Anbar province, and three were killed by a roadside bomb in northern Iraq, the military said Friday.

Not one more!

I don't want any more capitulation from the Democrats:

Democratically Controlled Congress Stands on the Brink of Irrelevance on Iraq

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted September 6, 2007.

[...]The Democrats are reacting to this charade by conceding the battle before it begins, with Michigan's Carl Levin offering to remove a deadline from the amendment he and Jack Reed, D-R.I., co-sponsored (the deadline was already riddled with loopholes) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offering to "compromise" with Senate Republicans by dropping his already watered-down demand for a spring "withdrawal."

As Dick Durbin, the senate majority whip, told the Chicago Tribune, "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do." He opposes the war, but "felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field."

Not one more!

Not one more American should have to die for Democratic cowardice. Not one more should have to die for Republican deceit. Not one more should have to die for Bush's lies and war crimes:

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Not one more!

I am really far beyond fed up with this. I impatiently waited for Magic September, and the thought of the Democratic-controlled Congress giving more money to allow troops to continue to die in Iraq for lies and more lies has put me over the edge.

Not one more!

Tell your Representatives and Senators: Not one more!

And if they don't support "Not one more!", tell them you will support someone else who does (or run against them yourself).

Tell the presidential candidates: Not one more!

Tell the traditional media: Not one more!

Tell everyone: Not one more!

Repeat it over and over again until it becomes entrenched in the mind of every American like all those stupid slogans from the Right that we have to endure daily.

Repeat it until every American troop is safe at home with their families.

NOT ONE MORE!

Bush Knew Iraq Had No WMDs And Lied To Go To War

This news is huge, but I won't hold my breath while I wait for the traditional media to report on it.

Of course, it isn't really news to those of us on the left who have been saying this all along, but this reinforces our stance that Bush lied us into the war in Iraq. If he had any decency, Bush would resign for this, but since he doesn't, we should impeach him and prosecute him for the war criminal he is.

A diary by Chomskyface called "Bush Knew There Were No WMDs BEFORE Iraq War - New Salon Piece" on DailyKos.com first made me aware of this article on Salon.com:

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

Read the whole article, and tell your friends and family about it. If they aren't outraged, then they aren't paying attention.

Did Bush Escalate So That He Could De-escalate?

I was reading this post "Magical April" by BarbinMD on DailyKos.com when I had a thought.

Did Bush only escalate our involvement in Iraq so that, when he is forced reduce troop levels in April 2008, he could fool people into thinking that he is working to bring our troops home?

In April 2008, our military will be stretched to its limit, and Bush will be forced to reduce the number of troops in Iraq, and he may try to use that to deceive people into believing that he is making a proactive choice to bring some troops home from Iraq so that they will continue to support his failed policies. His defenders will say, "Look, he's not such a bad guy because he's bringing troops home, and that means we're succeeding in Iraq, and this isn't the worst mistake in the history of American foreign policy after all!"

I am not predicting that this is what will happen for certain, but I am putting this out there in case it does.

The End of Oil?

I hate to get my hopes up, but this sounds pretty exciting:

Reclusive green-tech startup whispers a eulogy for the battery

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Millions of inventions pass quietly through the U.S. patent office each year. Patent No. 7,033,406 did, too, until energy insiders spotted six words in the filing that sounded like a death knell for the internal combustion engine.

An Austin-based startup called EEStor promised "technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries," meaning a motorist could plug in a car for five minutes and drive 800 kilometres roundtrip between Dallas and Houston without gasoline.

By contrast, some plug-in hybrids on the horizon would require motorists to charge their cars in a wall outlet overnight and promise only 80 kilometres of gasoline-free commute. And the popular hybrids on the road today still depend heavily on fossil fuels.

This could mean the end of oil and a major step in the fight against global warming. I hope that this is real and that it moves to the market as quickly as possible.

...oh, and I hope that the oil industry doesn't buy them out.

Culture Of Corruption Continues

The 2006 elections didn't end the Republican culture of corruption. The investigations continue:

Doolittle Aides Subpoenaed in Probe

By ERICA WERNER – 17 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two of GOP Rep. John Doolittle's top aides have been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating ties between Doolittle, his wife and jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The grand jury subpoenas from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia were issued to Chief of Staff Ron Rogers and Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Blankenburg. They were announced on the House floor as Congress returned from its August recess Tuesday after the aides informed the House speaker about the subpoenas, as required under House rules.

Doolittle is under investigation. As is Ted Stevens (R-AK):

Contracts, ties to Stevens probed

By Erika Bolstad and Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating the National Science Foundation's award of $170 million in contracts to the oil-field-services company that oversaw renovations on Sen. Ted Stevens' home, an NSF spokesman said Wednesday.

Veco won a five-year NSF contract in 1999 to provide logistics and support for polar research, although it had no previous experience in that field. During the same time period, Veco's top executive managed renovations that doubled the size of the longtime Republican senator's Girdwood, Alaska, home — the scene of a July 30 FBI search.

Then there is Sen. Vitter's (R-LA) ties to the DC Madam, and Sen. Craig's (R-ID) ties to soliciting an undercover police officer for sex. Other GOP Senators are demanding Craig's resignation, but are pretty quiet about Vitter. That hypocrisy is due to the homosexual nature of Craig's crime. Both Vitter and Craig have admitted to doing something illegal, but the GOP wants Craig to resign because of their wanton bigotry and blatant hypocrisy. I can't figure out if they are too stupid to realize this absurd double standard or too amoral to care.

Regardless, there you have it. The culture of corruption continues, and now that the Democrats are in control of Congress they appear to be too spineless to do anything about it... or about our occupation of Iraq... or about global warming... or about illegal, warrant-less wiretapping... or about a presidential administration usurping power and increasing corruption more than any administration before it... or about much of anything.

I'm glad the Democrats are in control because at least they aren't as bad as the Republicans were for the past decade, but the Dems are still allowing too much to slip by in the form of inaction or caving to pressure. That they allowed the Bush FISA bill to pass is unforgivable. That they allowed the Leslie Southwick nomination past the Senate Judiciary committee is horrific and awful.

The culture of corruption continues, and whether the politicians are guilty of being directly involved with it or guilty of inaction toward shutting it down, the fight goes on. It was a big feat getting the Democrats in control of Congress, but it has become clear to me that it was not enough. We need to continue to set goals that improve upon past accomplishments.

Jonathan Singer at MyDD.com set a goal to elect More, Better Democrats. I would like to set a similar goal to elect more liberals and progressives who have the resolve to end the culture of corruption, stand up for their beliefs, counter the neo-con insanity, get our troops out of Iraq, fight global warming, and work toward single-payer universal healthcare for this country.

I had some hope that when the Democrats took control of congress in January 2007, that there would be some relief from the constant barrage of reasons to fight for a better America. I was wrong.

See, We Don't Need To Violate The Constitution To Fight Terrorism

The Germans are fighting terrorism without warrantless wiretapping:

Germany arrests three over 'serious and massive bomb plot'

Mark Tran and agencies
Wednesday September 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Three men have been arrested for allegedly plotting "massive bombings" greater than the explosions in Madrid and London, German officials said today.
Monika Harms, the German federal prosecutor, said the three suspected terrorists had trained at camps in Pakistan and obtained some 680kg (1,500lb) of hydrogen peroxide for making explosives.

[...]The three suspects first came to the attention of authorities because they had been observing a US military facility at the end of 2006, officials said.

All three had undergone training at camps in Pakistan run by the Islamic Jihad Union, and had formed a German cell of the group. The Islamic Jihad Union was described as a Sunni Muslim group based in central Asia that was an offshoot of an extremist group called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

[...]The website of the German news magazine Der Spiegel said investigators made the arrests yesterday afternoon after the men were observed moving chemicals from one storage place to another.