Circus Minimus

"I don't care what Kanye says, I do TOO care about Negroes."

2006-02-06T22:45:00.000-06:00

Today’s Incongruous Headlines:

Bush Lauds Dance Theatre of Harlem

Excerpt:

A White House tribute to Arthur Mitchell's Dance Theatre of Harlem put President Bush and wife Laura in a dancing mood Monday night.

Following a dinner in the State Dining Room toasting 71-year-old school founder Mitchell, the president and first lady took in a performance featuring dancers from the school and some all-star singers — and then showed off some moves of their own.

Bush honored Mitchell at the dinner, saying: "Tonight, I offer a toast to the achievements and continued success of Arthur Mitchell and the Dance Theatre of Harlem."

Full ludicrousness here.

Bush’s $2.5 Trillion Budget Plan Slashes Funding for Arts, Education

Excerpt:

President Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget today eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, environmental protection and business development, while proposing significant increases for the military and international spending, according to White House documents.

About 150 programs in all would be shuttered or radically cut back to help meet Bush's goal of shaving the budget deficit in half by 2009. One out of every three of the targeted programs concerns education.

More immorality here.

If the President says it, it must be true

2006-02-06T20:11:00.000-06:00

Who Would Jesus Starve?

2006-02-02T23:02:00.000-06:00

Bush Sends Congress $440 Billion Defense Budget

Here.

Congress Slashes $39 billion from Medicaid, other social programs

And here.

Today's GOP: Habitat for Inhumanity

2006-02-02T13:25:00.000-06:00

These stories just in:

Congress Passes Budget Bill; Slashes $39 billion from Medicaid, Foster Care, Child Support Enforcement and Student Loans
Here.

Bush to Request $70 Billion More for War Funding
There.

Same shit, different day from the Repugnicans. But then, what else would you expect on Groundhog Day?

Rep. Boehner Elected House Majority Leader

2006-02-02T13:04:00.000-06:00

Boehner Shares Broad Network of Lobbyist Ties With Tom DeLay

Excerpt:

Boehner, 56, who has been in Congress since 1991, has said he and DeLay have had conflicts in the past, and other lawmakers say they are not close. Even so, Boehner has strong connections to lobbyists: He met weekly with leading lobbyists to enlist their support and discuss strategy during his four years as House Republican Conference chairman, from 1995 to 1998.

Sallie Mae

The top donor to Boehner's leadership PAC in 2003-2004 was SLM Corp., the Reston, Virginia-based student-loan company better known as Sallie Mae. SLM contributed $65,170 to Boehner's Freedom Project, more than twice as much as the second-biggest donor, New York-based Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The money came as the House Education and Workforce Committee, which Boehner chairs, prepared to write new legislation governing student loans.

In 1995, Boehner handed out campaign checks from the tobacco industry to members on the House floor at a time when lawmakers were considering eliminating a tobacco subsidy.

Representative Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, said he believes that Boehner is even closer to lobbyists than Roy Blunt. ``The problem John faces is that he's so close to K Street; that's the challenge he's got,'' said Shays, who's backing Blunt.

Full story here.

(P.S. Nice form, Congressman. But you seemed to have whiffed. Need a mulligan?)

George W. Bush: "America is addicted to oil..." Philip Morris: "...but not to nicotine."

2006-02-02T12:44:00.000-06:00

$80 Million Judgment Against Philip Morris Is Upheld

Excerpt:

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a $79.5 million punitive damages award to the family of an Oregon smoker who died of lung cancer, saying the amount isn't excessive given the "reprehensible" conduct of tobacco giant Philip Morris in marketing cigarettes.

"Philip Morris knew that smoking caused serious and sometimes fatal disease, but it nevertheless spread false or misleading information to suggest to the public that doubts remained about the issue," the court said. "It deliberately did so to keep smokers smoking, knowing that it was putting the smokers' health and lives at risk, and it continued to do so for nearly half a century."

The Oregon court upheld a 1999 Multnomah County jury award of $79.5 million in punitive damages to the family of Jesse D. Williams, a janitor who died in 1997 of lung cancer at the age of 67. The man's family also was awarded $500,000 in non-economic damages, to compensate for pain and suffering.

According to testimony in the trial, Williams started smoking in the 1950s when serving in the Army in Korea, and later he smoked three packs of Marlboros a day. Williams' family said he kept smoking because he did not believe a company would sell something that was truly harmful.

Full story here.

I hear there’s uproar on the Internets

2006-02-02T12:25:00.000-06:00

Over this:

Seems that the wingnuttosphere is aghast that Washington Post editorial cartoonist Tom Toles would demean our troops in such a callous way.

It started with a rare and unusual letter to the Post from the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, which read in part:

“We believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds. ... As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered."

That was followed by a great post by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, which included this:

"Now that the Joint Chiefs have addressed the insidious threat cartoons pose to our troops, perhaps they can move on to less pressing issues like getting them their damn body armor."

Which was then followed by the Post’s own defense of the cartoon by Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt:

"While I certainly can understand the strong feelings, I took it to be a cartoon about the state of the Army and not one intended to demean wounded soldiers."

And by Toles himself after recent remarks by Rumsfeld about "battle-hardened" troops

"…what came soon to mind was the catastrophic level of injuries the Army and members of the armed services have sustained . . . I thought my portrayal of it was a fair depiction of the reality of the situation. I certainly never intended it to be in any way a personal attack on, or a derogatory comment on, the service or sacrifice of American soldiers. I think it's a little bit unfair in their (the Joint Chiefs’) reading of the cartoon to imply that is what it's about."

But the wingnuts are all a titter, claiming the cartoon embodies the left’s lack of support for the troops. Aravosis posted some of the hate mail he has received, including this from a man purporting to be a retired Marine :

“In reference to your recent above statement...you have no idea
what the hell you are talking about! Once you wake up from your
stupor and grow in maturity maybe then you will start to gain
some real perspective about what is going on in Iraq/Afghanistan
and how one successfully fights a war. Until then, I strongly
suggest you keep your inane, arrogant comments to yourself!”

I gotta tell ya, it was perfectly clear to me that Toles was being critical not of the soldiers but of Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Somehow that mutated in the minds of the tinfoil-hat crowd as liberals being anti-soldier.

Hey nutjobs: highlighting and criticizing the DOD’s tactics in prosecuting the war in a way that puts soldiers at greater risk – e.g. by not equipping them with enough body armor – is a much more effective way to support the troops than by putting a $2 magnetic ribbon on your pick-up truck.

Someone in Washington Finally Apologizes to Cindy Sheehan

2006-02-01T21:43:00.000-06:00

Too bad the President wont.

Charges against Sheehan dropped

Excerpt:

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”

Gainer added that he was asking the U.S. attorney’s office to drop the charge against Sheehan. The statement also said he apologized to the Youngs and “share the department’s plans for avoiding this in the future.”

“A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan,” Gainer said.

Full story here.

Letterman said it best, to Bill O'Reilly:

"I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ. Honest to Christ."

Badlands

2006-02-01T21:32:00.000-06:00

"Poor man wanna be rich,
Rich man wanna be king,
And the king ain’t satisfied
‘til he rules everything."

- Lyrics: Bruce Springsteen
- Graphic: Bartcop (Tip of the Top Hat, Bart)

Reality bites

2006-02-01T11:16:00.000-06:00

Today's headlines:

Bush tries to ride post-speech momentum

Speech received the lowest level of positive reaction of Bush’s tenure

I don't know what to thimk

2006-02-01T11:01:00.000-06:00

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile."

“I don’t think anybody predicted the levees would fail.”

"I don't think there is anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas' strong showing."

A Million Little Lies

2006-02-01T10:09:00.000-06:00

Literary Agent Drops Disputed Author Frey

Full story here.

This is what should happen when someone blatantly, consistently and unrepentantly lies.

Too bad Oprah is the only media person willing to hold someone accountable for telling them.

Frey lied; nobody died.

Why not these two?

2006-02-01T09:53:00.000-06:00

AFP: Prince Harry could be sent to Iraq

Full story here.

I guess Jen and Babs aren't part of the Coalition of the Willing.

A Public Service Announcement from The Ringmaster

2006-02-01T09:02:00.000-06:00

Think getting telemarketing calls at your home is maddening?

Later this month, all cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start to receive sales calls. Isn't that exciting? Not only that, if you pay for minutes, YOU will pay for these calls.

To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone: 888-382-1222. It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of your time and it blocks your number for five years.

Also…

Cell phone companies typically charge $1.00 or more for 411 / information calls when they don't have to.

When you need to use the 411 / information option, simply dial 1 800 FREE 411 or 1 800 373 3411 without incurring a charge at all (except for the minutes required to make the call.)

Black History Month

2006-02-01T08:29:00.000-06:00

As we begin Black History Month, I couldn’t help but reflect on all the ways the Bush administration is doing their part to make blacks history.

I’m sure Kanye West agrees.

Day is done

2006-01-31T23:27:00.000-06:00

Coretta Scott King passes away in the morning.
Cindy Sheehan is arrested for wearing an antiwar tee-shirt in the evening.

We shall overcome, some day.

Weak POTUS; Weaker SOTU

2006-01-31T21:10:00.000-06:00

Comment: His worst SOTU yet.

Prediction: He not only gets no bounce, he sinks further in the polls

Conclusion #1: He proves again that there are lies, damn lies and State of the Union lies.

Conclusion #2: Bush complaining that America has an addiction to oil is like the CEO of Philip Morris complaining that America has an addiction to nicotine.

Conclusion #3: Bush's has spent his political capital and it's America that's broke.

Let’s Put Together a Party

2006-01-31T21:03:00.000-06:00

Not that kind of party.

Let’s face it, the Democrats’ lackluster attempt to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court was a joke. But it serves as yet another opportunity to assess where the Democratic Party is and where it wants to be, now and in the future. And with so many Democrats voting with the Republican majority to confirm Alito after the filibuster threat evaporated, it is critical to realize that the very attributes that could easily make the Democrats the majority party are the same ones that conspire to place it in jeopardy of becoming a near-permanent minority party. Just as Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist and Rick Santorum would have it.

The Democratic Party is by nature inclusive, a so-called “Big Tent” (and The Ringmaster loves a Big Tent.) It is a tent filled with a loosely-connected coalition of unionists and scientists, ethnic immigrants and racial minorities, entertainers and environmentalists, students, teachers, pro-choice, pro-peace and pro-equality populists – in short, a large majority of Americans. Yet its support seems evanescent, tentative, shallow: a mile wide and an inch deep. There hasn’t been any life in the party since Bill Clinton’s presidency. Hell, Clinton was the party, or at least the life of it. Then, the clock seemingly struck midnight and the party was pretty much over.

Both Al Gore and John Kerry were dreadful candidates – not only because of their own individual limitations, personality quirks and eccentricities but also by the shortcomings of their party. Ironically, Gore - who actually won the 2000 election before he lost it – and Kerry – who got more votes than any other Democratic presidential candidate in history and also lost – could have won their respective elections but both failed. They failed to connect with voters on a personal level, failed to define themselves, failed to neutralize the labels placed on them by the GOP smear merchants and swift-boaters, and failed to enunciate a vision for the country – because each had none. But this doesn’t explain how the Republican Party - especially this ghastly incarnation of it - whose core support is largely limited to conservative business interests and fundamentalist religious and social ideologues, is able to convince people to vote against their own self-interest and win national elections.

So how does this keep happening? Perhaps Shakespeare put it best: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

The same amorphous blob of an alliance that constitutes the Democratic electorate also comprises its elected officials. It is a party so disparate and diffuse in views, it cannot even hold a united front against an illegitimate war, an immoral national budget, a criminally monarchical President or a radical Supreme Court nominee. The party is so unsure of itself that it adopts the slogan, “Together, we can do better”, but can’t define what it does now, let alone what it can do. Better. Together.

As one blogger – Media Girl - noted recently on the website, BlogSheroes:

“What does the Democratic Party stand for, what does it represent, if it can't even put together a coherent message about progressive values, civil rights, human rights and basic equality? What good is a Democratic Party if it won't even stand up to the egregious and offensive push by the now-so-radical Republican Party to regulate one's body and one's bedroom?”

Much will be said and written in the coming months about what the Democrats must do in the 2006 midterm elections to start reversing their recent trend of marginalizing themselves out of power, and I will humbly add my $.02. Paradoxically, however, the way out of the margins is not through the center, but left of it. Just as young students need to master the fundamentals – the ABC’s - and a winning football team has to master the fundamentals - blocking and tackling - so, too, does a political party have to master the fundamentals - appealing and re-appealing to a core group of supporters: its base.

In a post I will put up shortly, I will attempt to remind the Democratic leadership and those empowered to make strategic decisions for the party, about their fundamentals - the ABC’s.

Huh?

2006-01-31T20:08:00.000-06:00

Today's business headlines:

"Wages Up by Smallest Amount in Nine Years"
Story here.

"Consumer Confidence Highest in Three Years"
Story here.

Some things seem to defy explanation.

State of the Union...

2006-01-31T16:20:00.000-06:00

...Wesley Clark-style

"Will we choose to emphasize boastful rhetoric or constructive engagement abroad? Will we lash out in anger with military force, or will we pursue every reasonable avenue to avoid the terrible destruction of war? Will we “fight fire with fire,” relying on the means and techniques of our adversaries, or live and lead by the higher standard of the values we have professed? At home, will we persist in shortsighted partisanship, or will we follow a stronger vision to the deep reforms needed to secure our future? Will it be selfishness or shared sacrifice that is our rallying cry?

These are the choices before us."

Full speech here.

Right now, I'm leaning Wes's way for '08.

Pin the Tale on the Donkey

2006-01-31T15:43:00.000-06:00

Chris Matthews: “Ted Kennedy, the guy that molested Samuel Alito’s wife”

Margaret Carlson: “Democrats who don’t applaud at Bush’s State of the Union speech will look bad.”

Deborah Howell: “Democrats received contributions from Jack Abramoff, too.”

Scott McClellan: “Bill Clinton also approved wiretaps without first obtaining a warrant”

Just some of the recent ones.

It would be a task of which I am not worthy to try and list all of the ways in which Republicans – aided by the so-called liberal media – have created an image of Democrats as a bunch of whining, flip-flopping, obstructionists with no agenda, simply by planting and spreading the same phony memes.

The Dems inability to dispel these images by crafting their own unified message and forwarding their own agenda is a source of never ending amazement to many, and should be an embarrassment to the party’s leadership.

I'll have more thoughts on this in a future post.

Narrowly defeating Camilla Parker-Bowles

2006-01-31T08:51:00.000-06:00

Jack the Ripper chosen 'most evil' Briton

Excerpt:

The top 10

1. Jack the Ripper (19th century)

3. Eadric Streona (died 1017)

= King John (1167-1216)

= Titus Oates (1649-1705)

= Hugh Despenser (the younger)

10. Oswald Mosley (1896-1980)

Jack the Ripper, despite never having been identified, has been chosen in a poll as the "worst" Briton of the past 1,000 years.

The serial killer who preyed on prostitutes in the Whitechapel area of London in 1888 has lost none of his notoriety. Nearly 5,000 people voted for their least favourite figure from a shortlist representing each century over the past millennium in a poll for BBC History Magazine.

Full story here.

We Shall Overcome

2006-01-31T08:02:00.000-06:00

Coretta Scott King
1927 - 2006

Today has not gotten off to a good start.

The State of Our Union is...Nucular

2006-01-30T21:18:00.000-06:00

If you don't like the State of The Union address the Preznit gives tonight, listen to this one.

Hysterical.

And you'll know THEM by their white hoods

2006-01-30T21:00:00.000-06:00

Brownback: 'Fruits' Comment Not Gay Joke

Excerpt:

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), a potential presidential candidate, said Monday he meant no offense to homosexuals when he used the word "fruits" in a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

In a lengthy profile titled "God's Senator," the magazine quotes the Kansas Republican as criticizing countries like Sweden that allow civil unions between same-sex couples.

"You'll know them by their fruits," Brownback said, quoting a biblical passage from Matthew 7:19.

Full story here.