2006 October « Flamingo’s Lake

Archive for October, 2006

Lynne Cheney: Sisters

October 28, 2006 · Filed under Pathetic, TV

This is not from the WhiteHouse.gov site.

Sisters

by Lynne Cheney

Mrs. Cheney has never been easy to watch or listen to - much like her husband and daughter, but she was particularly hostile, hypocritical and condecending during the Wold Blitzer interview yesterday. She was promoting her childrens book - during election season (showing a softer Cheney side?) - so It would be assumed she would be asked about election issues. I have heard she is a highly educated woman, so her defensiveness toward being asked tough questions boggles the mind.

I did record the segment. If I can find the time I will post it or find it on YouTube and link it.

Speaking of books… I cannot wait to read GW’s post presidency tome.

A Tribute to Republicans - Video

October 26, 2006 · Filed under Elected Folks, GOP Lame, GOP Stupid, Goosing Power, Images, Pass it On, Video Clips

Jesus’ General
Thank Yu Republikans

Barney Frank Donates Over $250,000

October 26, 2006 · Filed under Elected Folks

Speaking of Barney Frank earlier this morning…

Nice teamwork! I really hate the fact that money determines winning or losing a political campaign. These people should not have to fund-raise 24/7 - it leaves little time for them to get things done - for the country. Smart people who are not wealthy (or well financed and suported by the party) have little chance to get elected. Campaign finance reform? Anyone? Anyone?

Frank Donates Over $250,000 In New Funds This Month To The Democratic Party And Democratic Candidates (Updated October 24, 2006) | Barney Frank For Congress
Frank Donates Over $250,000 In New Funds This Month To The Democratic Party And Democratic Candidates (Updated October 24, 2006)

In light of the ongoing discussions regarding the importance of financial support from unopposed incumbent Democrats for fellow Democratic candidates, I thought I would give a brief update on my own efforts in this area. I have throughout the current election cycle placed a high priority on providing financial assistance to the party. For example, as of about 10 days ago I had contributed a total of $335,700 directly to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), an amount more than 10 percent above my $300,000 “dues”, and also helped raise over $213,000 for candidates on the “red to Blue” priority list. These totals included direct contributions I made earlier this month of $25,000 for the DCCC and $30,000 to a group of Red to Blue candidates.

NJ Legislature: Their Henchmen?

October 26, 2006 · Filed under Elected Folks, Salvation Show

From Answers.com:
hench·man - (hĕnch‘mən)

A loyal and trusted follower or subordinate.

A person who supports a political figure chiefly out of selfish interests.

A member of a criminal gang.

Boy. It (the email) was waiting for us. Tony Perkins - FRC - is mildly apoplectic.

For your convienience we have highlighted the language designed to inflame, outrage, scare, discriminate, twist the issue, push buttons…and so on.

From the Inbox:

By a 4-3 majority, the New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled today that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as married heterosexuals–but made the legislature their henchmen by ordering the legislature to resolve whether it takes the form of same-sex marriage or civil unions. In other words, the legislature has the non choice of creating same-sex marriage or marriage of same-sex persons called civil unions. This decision is nothing more than an act of veiled judicial activism and is completely out of step with the recent string of court decisions which upheld the basis for traditional marriage in promoting the well-being of children. Today’s decision should give momentum to the eight states with marriage protection amendments on the November ballot. It should be clear to every voter that these elections count! New Jersey is one of five states without a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The legislature should ignore the court’s ruling and follow the lead of 20 other states that have already passed amendments to protect this sacred institution. Otherwise, the legislature will become nothing more than the lackeys of an activist judiciary.

When you get a chance head on over to Andrew Sullivan and catch Barney Frank on HBO with Bill Maher - it’s a YouTube - Barney makes a good point that in MA gay marriage has not effected anyone’s marriage and it has been law I guess for 2+ years.

I’d like to see Barney in a verbal tussle with poor “Victimized” Tony.

Note: If there was not a Bill Maher, a Jon Stewert or a Colbert this country would be in even worse shape than it is. They are some of the real (highly visible / influential) Great Americans of our time. Let us mention Keith Olbermann in that Great American catagory.

Gaining Ground - Gay Marriage in New jersey

October 26, 2006 · Filed under Salvation Show

We are expecting Tony Perkins of FRC to freak out and send us an email immediately. Note to self - Check inbox.

Prediction: Activist Judges bla bla bla…

To New Jersey: You go girl!

The Raw Story | NJ Supreme Court rules that gay couples have same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the state constitution
The majority opinion states “that denying the rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.”

“To comply with the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full 65 rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples,” the ruling said.

“The State can fulfill that constitutional requirement in one of two ways,” the ruling continued. “It can either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallel statutory structure by another name, in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage.”

Only The Faithful Got Invited to WH

October 26, 2006 · Filed under GOP Lame, Government, Media, Pathetic, Radio, TV, Talking Heads

Not surprising. The crowd in the White House seem to only care about 1/3 of the country. Guess they were afraid to have anyone ask them hard questions. Pathetic.

Radio Hosts Get Closer to the White House — if Only Physically - washingtonpost.com
Though a handful of liberals, such as Juan Williams of National Public Radio and Fox News, were allowed in the White House tent, others say they were shut out. Rachel Maddow, an Air America host, said the White House did not return her calls when she sought an invitation.

Arianna on Fearmongering

October 26, 2006 · Filed under Video Clips

Fearmongering
Let’s face it: “The sky is falling” or “the nukes are coming” is a frighteningly effective sales pitch.

Video at Crooks & Liars

Katherine Harris makes the FRCs 100% list

October 24, 2006 · Filed under Salvation Show

Just curious. Would the Family Research Council suport taking young girls accross state lines (without parental notification) to prevent a legal and safe abortion?
From the Inbox::

FRCAction’s scorecard (PDF) is ~~ready to go~~ on-line today. The scorecard, done in conjunction with Focus on the Family Action, looked at a series of family-friendly votes taken this past year in Congress. Included are votes addressing taxpayer funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research, legislation preventing the taking of young girls across state lines for the purpose of procuring an abortion without parental notice, and a vote on and sponsorship of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

The FRC has highlighted all of our elected people who have 100% ratings (scores) for voting with the FRC. Many have an 85% ratings. (not highlighted) Enlightening to say the least.

It looks like seven “family issues” are reported.

No mention of supporting a minimum wage increase, education issues, healthcare availability or any number of other issues that effect a family every day.
Check it out (PDF) It is a handy dandy little guide on who not to vote for. Katherine Harris (R) Florida makes the FRC 100% list - doesn’t that fact tell you everything you need to know?

Bush: Delusions of Grandeur?

October 21, 2006 · Filed under Elected Folks, GOP Lame, Government, Honestly

Delusions or defending oneself? BTW…we are all, “You know … reading a lot of history these days.” And - many of us have given up hoping that this president understands the challenges of “this” time. Sadly, we watch this president fail us and the world. Maybe he was right that the next president would have to fix the mess he and the neocons have gotten us in to. He can’t be wrong all the time, right?

Bush claims Democratic Party’s ‘philosophical shift’ began in Cold War era

PRESIDENT BUSH: It is interesting what’s happened to the Democrat Party. You know, I’m reading a lot of history these days. And, you know, I read about Franklin Roosevelt, who was strong in his confrontation of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. His strength of character, his vision help set the course for victory in World War II. Strong wartime leader.

It was a Democrat president, Harry Truman, who confronted the rise of Soviet communism, and he set the course for victory in — in the Cold War.

John F. Kennedy declared America’s commitment to, in his words, pay any price and bear any burden in the defense of freedom.

These presidents understood the challenges of their time and were willing to confront those challenges with strong leadership. And at the same time, they had great faith in the power of liberty and freedom.

Read the transcript: The Raw Story

Drudge Report Memories

October 21, 2006 · Filed under Blogs and Bloggers, Internet, Mad Digits, Media, Talking Heads

Ya know, back in the day - before the web was sexy and all graphical and stuff - we all hooked up (the second wave of geeks - not the uber creator geeks - but before the “I’ve got Windows or Windows 95″ geeks) to BBSs via land line phones and modems.

Without going into all the excitement of UNIX and navigating through different servers to get to the real Internet IRC or text (RPG) games (Crossroads anyone?) on other BBSs - we got our email via PINE. (PINE is a whole other anchient computer email thing)

That is when I met Matt Drudge. In a cyber non-sexual way, of course.

I loved Drudge. He regularly sent little gossipy items to my PINE inbox along with Earthquake news. I can’t remember for sure now, but I think the occasional hurricane was thrown in for good measure. (His archives only go back to 2001, so I would have to do a major search of my closet to see if I have any old backup files) Don’t hold your breath on my searching for this.

Drudge was funny. So serious about all the bad weather and all the juicy gossip. I loved getting his email. I mentioned it to friends. Drudge was my first online “news” source. It was cool.

Then he stopped emailing me. I lost track of Drudge. I missed him.

I can’t for sure remember when he became famous - I think it was when he claimed the White House was trying to kill him or something…maybe it was they were going to sue him. It was something DRAMATIC. He had “reported” that some big-time DC lawyer (if I remember correctly) had smacked his wife. Or something.

So, my now famous Matt Drudge was all over the tube. Reporters were reporting on him. He was the new “news”. He was the inventor of the new news media. He was on C-Span (I think) discussing new media. He of the rumpled shirt dangling an aging necktie and donning the elderly fedora - postulating profusely with profundity. I think he even had a TV show for a few minutes.

I found the Drudge site eventually on the web. Bold 72pt (it looks like) headlines and the rest — well lets just say I was disappointed. All the guy did was link to every news source a person could think of. He still does this.

Now the other day I heard Joe Scarborough say (I’m pretty sure I am attributing this story accurately) his producer told everyone at some point in the past, (let me paraphrase here) ‘Don’t let Drudge determine your headline for the day.’

To his credit, Drudge had ventured “where no man had gone before” (James T. Kirk - Star Trek intro). He started the train rolling that all bloggers, blogger wannabees and news organization bloggers are hopping on today.

And you know good for him. Mean it.

However, considering the years I have known and read and listened to Drudge (ok, well known of him and his “reporting”) that statement from Scarborough’s producer cracked me up. Drudge is far from a serious voice of investigative news. Drudge is - gasp - a celebrity.

Tony Perkins (FRC)Wants To Discriminate?

October 21, 2006 · Filed under Salvation Show

Let me get this straight. The pharmacist at Target is apparently allowed to send a customer out of the store without her prescription for the morning after pill - if the pharmacist believes it goes against his/her personal moral values.

But, Target cannot discriminate and not hire a pharmacist because a particular pharmacists moral values prevents him/her from doing a pharmacists job - filling prescriptions - including the morning after pill.

However, Tony Perkins apparently believes that Christians should be exempt from using discriminatory hiring practices - in fact it appears he believes the court has “activist judges” who are scheming to prevent Christians from using discriminatory hiring practices.

While religious organizations may teach any number of things, the fact that they employ people of many different belief systems, one would think common sense obligates them to not discriminate in the workplace.

From the inbox:

In a controversial case that has been closely followed by charitable groups, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that religious organizations must provide insurance coverage for contraceptives regardless of moral objections. Richard Barnes of the state’s Catholic Conference said, “We have never challenged employees’ right to use birth control. We have simply maintained that our religious beliefs prevent us from paying for something that we teach is sinful.” Meanwhile, the deeper problem for Christians is the steady erosion of religious exemptions, not only with respect to health coverage, but for other practices such as hiring. This should serve as a serious warning to religious groups that the court is intent on spreading its gospel of secularism to faith-based organizations at all costs. This decision is less about birth control and more about the kind of protection we need from activist judges.

I guess love-able “Christian” Tony just wants it both ways. Only “Christians” get to discriminate. Only “Christians” need protection from the court. Only “Christians” of Tony’s ilk know what is best for the rest of us.

Makes one wish to have been born a Scientologist. These kinds of “Christians” are embarrassing.

Gerry Studds - Inappropriate But Legal

October 19, 2006 · Filed under Elected Folks

Old news, but Hannity has been railing on this guy since the Foley thing broke. Rush was on the blood trail as well. In a weird timing coincidence Mr. Studds died this weekend - weird also because I haven’t heard Hannity or Rush blame the Democrats, Pelosi or Clinton for his death arriving during the mid-terms. You know - so Studds couldn’t be reached for comment…you know their pathology…

Curiosity got the best of me:

Gerry Studds:
Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds’ case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual (which made it legal, in accordance with state law), although very unprofessional of a politician, presenting ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

Adults should know better than to engage - of course. Especially with someone who is subordinate to your position. But, we all know at 17 years old you generally make your own sexual choices…you know, whether to have sex or not.

So maybe there is some commonality between Studds and Foley: both were elected folk messing with pages. Not good. Studds, when confronted, acted like a grown up and faced his censure. Foley on the other hand found rehab and an excuse.

Who is the man?

Tony Perkins - Mean Christian

October 17, 2006 · Filed under Salvation Show, Talking Heads

We are on the email list for the Family Research Council. Yea we know, gag… This little item is freakish and nit-picky.

We wonder about Tony Perkins. Has he ever heard of acceptance of others for who they are? Consideration? Politeness?

Has he never heard of hiring qualified people or is he suggesting that being gay disqualifies people form working?

Why does he use the word “deploy” in referring to Ms. Rice’s use of the term mother-in-law? War language from Tony? “Linguistically (and possibly legally) improper” - what, is he the dictionary police or is he gonna sue someone for speaking illegally?

And - OMG the First Lady heard it! We are curious to know if she has recovered.

In-Law or Out?

The U.S. State Department is in the business of diplomacy and avoiding faux pas, so the turns of phrase recently used by Secretary of State Condi Rice can be assumed to be intentional. Flanked by First Lady Laura Bush, Secretary Rice recently administered the oath of office for new Global AIDS Coordinator Dr. Mark S. Dybul. Dr. Dybul placed his hand on a Bible held by his homosexual partner Jason Claire. First the State Department’s Deputy Chief of Protocol, Raymond Martinez, and then Secretary Rice herself referred to Mr. Claire’s mother as Dr. Dybul’s “mother in law.” Both Martinez and Rice referred to Dr. Dybul’s “family,” which, under the circumstances (Dr. Dybul’s parents were also present), contained enough truth to be generically proper. A photograph of the swearing-in, on October 10, appears on the State Department’s web site. In the world of protocol, verbal miscues are anathema. The question arises, what guidelines do the State Department and White House follow? Neither federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act) nor District of Columbia law recognizes a marriage between Dr. Dybul and his partner, and “mother in law” is therefore both linguistically (and possibly legally) improper and morally provocative. Why did Secretary Rice deploy the term in the presence of the First Lady? We’ve written to ask her, and we’ll let you know what we hear.

Has Hilary White heard that AIDS is transmitted by means other than through gay sex? You know like drug users sharing needles, heterosexual sex…

Bush Appointment of Gay Man to Head US AIDS Program Dismays Social Conservatives
By Hilary White

Christians are asking how appointing a man to be in charge of the US AIDS policy who adheres to the “gay” ideology could achieve anything other than further promotion of acceptance of homosexuality and consequently further spreading of AIDS and other homosexually transmitted diseases.

We are discusted with some of these Christians. Just some of them - the nutty ones.

It’s Marketing Stupid

October 17, 2006 · Filed under GOP Lame, GOP Stupid

Mission Accomplished - again - sorta. Yea, just sayin’.

Pathetic:

Cynical, or Just Forgetful?The White House issued a solemn statement Thursday commemorating the sixth anniversary of the al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole.

The White House has been citing the Cole a lot lately, as part of its narrative that President Clinton, who was in charge back then, was asleep at the switch when it came to terrorism.

I went back to see what the White House statement was like on the fifth anniversary of the attack on the Cole. But there wasn’t one!

And there wasn’t one on the fourth, the third, the second or the first, either.

From: Bush in a Snit - washingtonpost.com

Call me cynical.

Radio Doesn’t Talk - It Hates

October 17, 2006 · Filed under Media, Radio, Talking Heads

See the thing about talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest) is that they don’t really want talk or conversation - they want cheers from the choir or to push their one sided propaganda. It is all about power, all the time.

When Democrats are elected into the majority (and eventually it will happen - hopefully this year) these radio guys who have run on and on about people who disagree with the Republicans as “Bush haters” will suddenly become “haters” themselves - like they are not already.

When Clinton left it seemed Limbaugh would fade into oblivian without his arch enemy Bill to rant about daily. Who knew Rush and his ilk had found such a great “hate” that they would still be talking about him for the next 6 years.

Interesting that these guys cannot really defend their own, they always must create a “hate” wedge . They don’t really care about the country, they care about creating something to argue about.

Inspiration for this thought:

Calling All Wingnuts
“You guys are on complete lockdown over this, huh?”

“What?”

“The Foley thing and why Democrats weren’t informed that their pages were at risk - why it went to the republican re-election committee before it went to ethics or law enforcement.”

“Yeah, well, we’ve been doing that for four days now. We’re a little tired of it.”

“Well, all morning I’ve heard you concocting ways to blame democrats for the republican pervert and the republican cover-up, so you can’t really be that tired of it…”

“It’s our show.”

« Previous entries