Sweet Vindication

Sweet Vindication

I was criticized for boldly saying this in 2004:

Bush is al-Qaeda's choice for American President

I've even voiced my suspicion that this brutal honesty was the reason I was bounced, by the timid and cautious, from the Democrats' convention.



Take a look at what we now know here on July 4th, 2006.

My only sin was being intuitive and prescient. In July, 2004, the final LA Times' analysis of Bounced Bloggers had indicated, A hint: You can go with your gut most -- but not all -- of the time.

I would ask the people who make the decisions about bloggers, come next Democratic Convention, to carefully consider the fact that my "gut" talks sense to me and I consider it to be the blogger's responsibility to say what my friends in the mainstream media never could. Let's also remember that a controversial headline should be no stranger to the editors of the mainstream.

Recommended on the 4th of July

Recommended on the 4th of July

Former President Jimmy Carter believes we must seek amendments to the Freedom of Information Act....

"to be more in line with emerging international standards, such as covering all branches of government; providing an oversight body to monitor compliance; including sanctions for failure to adhere to the law; and establishing an appeal mechanism that is easy to access, speedy and affordable. We cannot take freedom of information for granted. Our democracy depends on it." [Miami Herald]

Understanding the meaning of freedom by George Lakoff, Boston Globe

Freedom is what cognitive scientists call an "essentially contested concept," which means there will always be distinct and disputed versions of freedom that are inconsistent with each other. There is no single, universal, and objectively ``correct" meaning of freedom.

William Rivers Pitt on Ben Franklin


Jefferson's 4th of July by John Nichols, The Nation

On this Fourth of July, we Americans would do well to embrace Jefferson's last words and the American ideals that, though battered by the current tyranny, will outlast the King George of the moment.

Keb Mo singing America the Beautiful on NBC's show West Wing.

America the Beautiful sung by Denyce Graves at the memorial service honoring the victims of 9/11 on September 14, 2001.

The LightMomentCo video version of 1812 overture with fireworks.

The late Ray Charles singing America the Beautiful, video by freeyourmind775 at YouTube, as seen below:

Happy Birthday, America

Happy Birthday, America

We're fighting them in places like Kabul and Baghdad so we don’t have to have them again in Washington and New York.

How many times have you heard that line?


We've known for quite some time, with certainty, that the government of Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attacks. al Qaeda had no stranglehold on Iraq whatsoever before the war.


What the Bush administration and his band of rubber-stamp Republicans are proud of doing, in essence, is to have invited al Qaeda into Iraq's neighborhoods for a mutual killing spree, damned whoever and whatever might get in the way. The Republicans created a war zone and put it squarely on top of the Iraqi citizens' already sanction-starved home base so it wouldn't happen to the nice white people living in their Red State gated suburban enclaves. The country is flattened and untold numbers of citizens have been killed. This week we found out an Iraqi family was murdered to satisfy the sexual urges of a couple of horny soldiers.


This talking point is such an immoral reason for beginning a war in Iraq that I often shake my head in disbelief for the fact that they're crowing about it.


Mitch McConnell used the line last Sunday on Meet the Press:

We're fighting them in places like Kabul and Baghdad so we don’t have to have them again in Washington and New York. I think that’s been a fundamentally sound decision and I think we’re succeeding.

It depends on the meaning of "success," doesn't it? In a list of the top ten errors that have been made in Iraq, Professor Juan Cole grimly assures us that, if al-Qaeda manages to pull off another American operation, it may well give Bush and Cheney an opportunity to destroy the US constitution altogether, finally giving Bin Laden his long-sought revenge on Americans for the way he believes they have forced Palestinians and other Muslims to live under lawless foreign domination or local tyranny.


So we’re fighting them imorally, unjustly, and unnecessarily over there only to create an near-perfect environment for accelerated terrorist recruitment - all the while increasing the risk of the swift destruction of individual rights of citizens on our own American streets. The way they’re fighting this tells us that they have no better ideas.


We're fighting them over there so we can be exposed to future attacks and lose our liberties over here.


Look on the bright side. Santa Claus visited Omaha good and early this year with a big fat Homeland Security Department allocation in his sack while New York City got incredibly shortchanged.

The CIA has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. I can't imagine why. But it's a nice 4th of July gift, isn't it?


Happy Birthday, America.




*tip of the hat to William

Backing Off Bin Laden

Backing Off Bin Laden

Jennifer Millerwise Dyck took a decidedly strange path to her current job as CIA spokewoman. I think it's safe to say that she was directly in the middle of the WMD debate while it was going on, including the bitter war between the 2001 CIA and VP Dick Cheney, which then-CIA director George Tenet, by his cowardly silence in return for remaining in the power-loop, lost. (Although as a consolation prize, Tenet did get a really nice Presidential Medal of Freedom that many think he did not deserve).


It was first reported yesterday that the CIA has closed a unit that for a decade had the sole mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top al-Qaeda lieutenants. In an open source technical environment where propaganda is often King, we can use our own judgement in analyzing one of the possible reasons why we're backing off Bin Laden. To summarize, read this excerpt from NBC6.et:

A woman identified as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's wife claimed that al-Qaida leaders sold out her husband to U.S. intelligence because he had become too powerful.

She claimed Sunni tribes and Jordanian secret services mediated the deal.

The woman told an Italian newspaper that a deal was struck: The United States got al-Zarqawi, and U.S. officials promised to ease up on the hunt for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

"Al-Qaida is currently especially worried with protecting its charismatic leader," she said.

Why does it seem that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are working in some kind of perverted tandem? I know it would never be intentional, but Bush's foreign policy is being proven every bit as insane as the arch nemesis of his (and ex-speechwriter Michael Gerson's) Good vs. Evil scenario. Surely there are more effective ways of crushing bin Laden than giving him more liberty and leeway?


The Freepers' lanky hearthtrob Ann Coulter recently called Osama bin Laden "irrelevant." You'd almost think that the Bush administration agrees. And yet.....


When asked about the break-up of the unit that was solely dedicated to getting Osama, Ms. Millerwise Dyck said:

The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever. This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

Looking back on Ms. Millerwise Dyck's own "focus", as an aide to now-inactive CIA head Porter Goss, assisting Ari Fleischer in creating and maintaining a WMD-related message that fit the Bush administration's policy, and as Deputy Assistant for Communications and Press Secretary to the proven liar Dick Cheney during the fiery WMD debate - - now that we see indications that the Bush administration has traded backing off 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden for al-Zarqawi in a desperate move to regain political popularity on the Iraq war - - I think it's fair for any person with common sense to question that "focus."


We can only speculate as to the motives for the Bush administration's "backing off" of the hunt for the big al-Qaeda cheese. For all we know, Osama bin Laden could be lying prone and lifeless in a freezer somewhere waiting for the uncouth connivers of the party of Karl Rove to spring their "October Surprise" on us.

Shel Holtz on John Edwards and Gnomedex

Shel Holtz on John Edwards and Gnomedex

Shel Holtz, principal of Holtz Communication + Technology, gives his professional opinion on the appearance of Senator John Edwards at the recent Gnomedex conference and the steps he's already taken to use social software to make an invaluable personal connection with those interested in his ideas.

Note: To clarify, Shel commented:

Thanks for the link, Jude. Just to be clear, my commentary was about Chris Pirillo's choice of Edwards to speak and was written before he actually delivered his talk. I wasn't at Gnomedex and so didn't hear the talk, and haven't had a chance to listen to an audio file yet, although by all accounts, he acquitted himself well (despite attempts by some in the audience to turn the talk more political than it inherently was).

Dan Farber at ZDnet has a very interesting interview with Senator Edwards' technology advisor Ryan Montoya.

Rolling Stone Features Al Gore 3.0

Rolling Stone Features Al Gore 3.0

In the headline accompanying his Rolling Stone interview with Al Gore, Will Dana asks: Is his global-warming movie a warm-up for a third run at the White House?

What do you think?

He is asked, "Do you still consider yourself a Democrat," and Mr. Gore is obviously enjoying himself when he replies:

Oh, yeah. I mean, I still consider myself a Baptist too, even though the denomination has tried to run me off with their attitude toward women and so forth! [Laughs] I will continue to play a role as a citizen, not only on global warming but also on eavesdropping and torture and civil liberties and the other vital issues of the day. I've got a full plate right now. Being a candidate for president again is not part of my plan for the next several years. If I can just figure out a way to appear in the pages of Rolling Stone every several months, that will be fulfillment enough.

Rape and Murder in Iraq - A Crime. A Shame.

Rape and Murder in Iraq -
A Crime. A Shame.

What U.S. soldier Steven D. Green is alleged to have done in Iraq is unbelieveable...unimaginably horrific...unforgiveable. Each day the stories of misconduct become worse. This brings dishonor and shame to the US Armed services and crushes our nation's already-slim chances of grabbing the moral upper-hand in Iraq.


Is that a Bruce Springteen shirt or is it Johnny Cash? Either way, rip it off of him. Bruce is singing about bringing the troops home, not raping and killing Iraqi women. Johnny would be pissed off to see such a creep wearing him.

As Independence Day Approaches

As Independence Day Approaches

As Independence Day approaches, take about 8 minutes and watch this emotional Jon Stewart video from his return to the Daily Show after the 9/11/01 attacks in Manhattan. It was almost five years ago - can you believe it?



A tip of the hat to distantimage364 at YouTube

Logo

Gwen Ifill Misleads About Her Role in Edwards/Cheney Debate

Gwen Ifill Misleads About Her Role in Edwards/Cheney Debate
Fingers Senator John Edwards Unfairly

Duncan Black has posted a "gotcha" that exposes an unfairness to Senator John Edwards by public television journalist Gwen Ifill that should be put into the public sphere and exposed for exactly what it is - an UNTRUTH. I'm so glad that Duncan did it. I've always respected Gwen Ifill, but I could never abide by such a slur (and I consider it to be a slur) when it is so very unawarranted. Senator Edwards wasn't responding in a vacuum when asked Dick Cheney, who had used his own family's experience as a context for remarks he made about same-sex unions, to expound on the subject - and then gave Senator Edwards 90 seconds to respond. Yet Ms. Ifill seems to want to make others believe that he was responding in said vacuum - "apropos of nothing" in her slur-words. Perhaps, as a longstanding PBS News Hour interviewer, she is a tad uncomfortable with political incorrectness, but she asked a daring debate question that requires one to cast political incorrectness aside, then blamed the respondent for replying with the same refreshing honesty. That's nothing but horseshit!

4th of July Video

4th of July Video

Don't miss this fantastic Youtube 4th of July video by Larry Dullea.

06 Rubber Stamp Win Could Mean Supreme Court Disaster

06 Rubber Stamp Win Could Mean Supreme Court Disaster

Many Senators and Congressmen are relieved this week to know that the Supreme Court would not abide by George W. Bush's undue power-grab in the Hamdan case. Let's not get too comfortable, though. The winning decision was a narrowly decided one. Robert Parry makes an excellent point:

The narrow margin of the US Supreme Court’s rebuke to George W. Bush on military tribunals highlights the stakes on the table for the November 2006 Congressional elections," writes Robert Parry. "It is a strong possibility that if the Republicans retain control of the US Congress in the November 2006 elections, Bush will get to fill at least one more Supreme Court vacancy.

Hersh: Senior Brass Challenge Bush on Iran

Hersh: Senior Brass Challenge Bush on Iran

Hot off the Press: In the July 10 & 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reports that, inside the Pentagon, senior commanders are increasingly challenging President Bush¹s plans for a bombing campaign in Iran if diplomacy fails to end the current standoff over its nuclear ambitions.

Happy Birthday, Billy Jones!

Happy Birthday, Billy Jones!

It's Billy Jones' birthday today!

He's hit the big 5-0!


Have a blast celebrating the Blogging Poet's Big Day. Click on the photo and you'll go to a place where you can make your own 4th of July.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BILLY!
And best of luck with your flying machine.

Senator John Edwards Speaks at Gnomedex Conference

John Edwards Speaks (and Listens) at Gnomedex Conference

Senator John Edwards appeared at the Gnomedex conference today in Seattle, Washington. This is a brief summary of the comments, suggestions, and questions he received from the Gnomedex conferees, who are influencers, entrepreneurs, and enthusiasts in the world of internet technology.

America's moving fast and furious into the high-tech universe, more so everyday, and Senator Edwards was humble in deferring to the great technical expertise of his captive audience. He told them that he wants internet services and technology to be available to everyone - not just "the few." He stated that he is a strong supporter of net neutrality.

He commented that he believes what the audience is doing is very important - their creativity is necessary to enhance the ability to improve America's capacity for a healthy national democracy. He wished to engage the audience in a conversation. He made it clear that he was there to learn as well as to speak.

He took questions and statements from the audience.

Elizabeth's health is great and the audience was happy to hear it.

An audience member recommended James Surowiecki's book "The Wisdom of Crowds."

A self-described "third generation red diaper baby" (with a Communist connotation) said, in his own inimitable way, that he was looking for some real courage from politicians. Stating that he realized it may be a partisan issue, the bold and passionate "red diaper" child expressed his wish for Senator Edwards to take his fight for net neutrality to the max. Senator Edwards agreed - no more mealy-mouthed equivocations and weasel-words from Democrats. An example:  Universal health care - we should fight for it! We need to show what Democrats are made of.

Another audience member commented that when somneone speaks in a human voice, other human beings recognize it. From Edwards' side of the fence, politicians are so polished and trained that they forget authenticity...and many stay in the safe zone and never try. The result is they say the same things over and over. He says it's not easy to break te politician mold, but he's trying very hard. "Careful and cautious" is all too easy for a politician and he has caught himself many times and consciously come back to realspeak.

A self-described centrist audience member felt the focus should be on local politics and asked how that scene can be made more colorful. Senator Edwards spoke about One Corps, which you can read all about HERE.

On net neutrality and taxation on internet companies: Senator Edwards honestly replied that he has not gven complete consideration to the taxation question just yet. The greatness of the internet is the freedom and democratic voice it has allowed. Bush and 'the gang' monitoring and spying on Americans is disturbing. There are issues, such as online predators and teh danger it poses to our children, that are of genuine concern.

Regarding a war with language: Republicans have used langusage effectively to get the policy they want. Terrorism terms have been employed to make spying on citizens look proper and legal. Democrats need to work on their own language, said an audience member. He commented that even the term "net neutrality" is rather ineffective in getting the average American to understand the issues at hand. Senator Edwards says language does matter, although his own personal focus is talking straight off the cuff and doing his job of deciding and communicating which way he thinks the country should go. He thinks the actual presidential elections are different from Washington D.C.'s everyday national debate when it comes to the use of language. Integrity, character, and trust in leadership are the factors that he believes are important to most people when it comes time to choose a president. More than language, he thinks the Democrats' problem is worrying too much about being "moderate." Language counts, but he believes that voters' belief and trust in the integrity and character of the candidate is what drives presidential elections.

How will Edwards overcome the notion that he's been a "trial lawyer" in days to come? Senator Edwards says there's a battle going on for the soul of the Democratic party. Triangulation and deliberate political maneuvering are being used to try to move the party to some imagined "center" without considering big ideas, which is the only way they can win.

He's proud of having been a trial lawyer.

Comment from audience member: Weblogs have come into their own. Vlogs and texting are the wave of the near future.

Getting Out the Vote: How are we finding new ways and new technologies to move politics into the future? Senator Edwards mentioned the power of technology at the One America Committe blog and other places in the blogosphere. Podcasting has been utilized by Senator Edwards and Mrs. Edwards.

Government spying: Are there ways Senator Edwards can communicate that he does not approve of government having access to the most private aspects of citizens' lives? Senator Edwards says he agrees that our personal liberties are at great risk and danger at this time in our nation's history. A round of firm applause came when Edwards mentioned yesterday's Supreme Court decision. (Hamdan).

A journalist who was the first to use personal media (web video) on Air Force One urged Senator Edwards to give a free seat on his bus to those who would use personal media (from both sides of partisan fence) to communicate and document his campaign, providing that he runs in 2008.

An audience member spoke about the possibility of a Reality TV-type of political campaign broadcasting.

I think it's great advice: "MAKE IT ENTERTAINING"!

Voting Machines: On the ability to track source codes and the operation of voting machines, an audience member asked Senator Edwards to look for a "fix" to this issue. Paper ballots are the best idea.

Distributed Intelligence: There are many ways for politicians to get on the "radar screen." Can there be a forum on how to improve the quality and viral marketing potential of political campaigns? Senator Edwards seemed to love the idea.

"Proving the trial lawyer attitude": An audience member asked: How can you approach the problems of this nation in teh area of technolgy. Would he be willing to use "attack-dog" tactics...taking his experience in supporting people's rights and work vociferously as he did as a trial lawyer to protect individual internet rights? Senator Edwards said anyone who has the capacity to convince others as well as having the ability to present the facts that support the rightness of his or her position has the capacity to win trust and win battles in the public arena. Of course, his trial lawyer skills would be helpful in this area.

Top-down structure: An audience member recommended this: Local governments are the most important place to start to address particular and important issues. Put technology capability into taking technology to the local councils and town and city mayors.

Senator Edwards said he'd like to be looked at, not as a plastic doll, but as who he really is. Technology has helped him to reach that goal. He thanked the audience for supporting a democractizing internet vs. a top-down process.

Shock and Awe is Coming Home

Shock and Awe is Coming Home

"...the most religiously zealous administration in our history is invoking the "divine" power to destroy untold millions in seconds in the happy pursuit and maintenance of global nuclear superiority. The Bush administration is, in fact, strikingly eager to proliferate in its supposed war against nuclear proliferation and so is willing once again to turn Americans into nuclear guinea pigs."

- Tom Engelhardt/TomDispatch
Tomgram: Chip Ward on Pentagon Fireworks

Ostroy Report on Al Gore's Political Potential

Ostroy Report on Al Gore's Political Potential

Andy Ostroy has written a post about Al Gore and his potential as a successful political candidate for 2008. Included is the Ostroy Report's Top 10 reasons why they believe that Gore's the most qualified Democrat for the job. Below is an excerpt of Andy's tough-love comments:

As my readers know, I am a huge Gore supporter and proponent of a 2008 run for the White House. I've been front and center on this, and still believe he's the best candidate for the job. But as we've seen in 2000, Gore's not the best politician. In his televised interviews, he's not being the kind of Al Gore that he must be to win over the hearts and minds of voters. I want passion, fire, animation, personality; a genuine connection. I want a guy who's going to look straight into that camera and not be afraid to say, "This country's a mess, and here's why Bush and the Republican leadership is responsible. And here's what we need to do about it." I want a guy who's going to give a believable answer when asked the inevitable question of "will you run in '08", not some eye-rolling, sighing, long-paused duck as if he's taken aback by such a left-field question. When I want coy, I'll watch Paris Hilton (message to Al: you don't do coy well).

As much as I'm rooting for Al, I can't help but see much of the old nerd making people fall asleep. Forget Bill Clinton. I'd be happy if Al showed the charisma of Hillary, for Pete's sake. Yes, it's indeed true that in private Al's a very funny, charming, affable, laid-back guy. So say his closest friends and colleagues. And it's also true that on the lecture circuit he's amazing. But if he's going to run for president again, which I most certainly think he will, he's going to have to face the camera and learn how to speak in talking points and soundbytes. How to deliver some fiery partisan rhetoric and truly connect with voters. He may never be the guy you want to go grab a beer with, but he certainly shouldn't have the effect of Ambien either.

I, too, have wondered where the fiery orator Al Gore went when I've seen him in recent interviews. I swear it's true that I mentioned the "Ambien effect" (in those very words) to a friend when discussing the recent interviews. He's really going to have to work on his on-camera skills if he's considering a run, and I'm wondering if (and worried that) it's just going to be another media-mocks-Al Gore fest if he does. I deeply respect him and it pissed me off in 2000 whenever a mainstream media prince or princess jumped on the mock-Gore bandwagon. Why do we think that will change if Al Gore's on-camera persona doesn't? I hope Mr. Gore takes Andy's good advice.

Al Gore's Recent Appearance on David Letterman (CBS) Part One



Part Two
Part Three

USAction Poll: Swing Voters Want Change

USAction Poll:
Swing Voters Want Change

Pay close attention, because this is important news. When swing voters articulate, through public polling, a willingness to sacrifice in the form of raised taxes to achieve shared American goals, it sheds tangible light on the change in leadership that voters will likely call for in November. Asked if things in this country are going in the right direction or if they feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track, 73% of swing voters said they believe that the nation's on the wrong track. 66% of swing voters disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his job as president, with 49% strongly disapproving.

What is even more "telling" is that swing voters have expressed, through this poll, the values that are most important to them when it comes to spending, fiscal responsibility, and the issues on which they'd desire our representatives to focus. It should come as no surprise, after seeing what swing-voting Americans express as their most common values, that the majority of them plan to vote for a Democrat in November.

ERobin [at American Street] has passed along a summary and analysis of results:

Swing voters in swing districts and swing states overwhelmingly support a plan to invest more in clean energy, affordable health care for all, and education when it is paid for by rolling back tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. This support will be strongest and best survive attacks when it includes measures to increase government accountability and when the tax cut rollback leaves enough funds to reduce the deficit.

This survey reflects the views of the “swingiest” of voters in the country—the voters likely to decide the outcome of the 2006 election cycle—in a mood demanding fundamental change in the direction of the country. Their current political disposition suggests both intense anger at the ruling class in Washington coupled with, and related to, a broad sense of economic insecurity and inequity.

These voters embrace an agenda of change, an agenda that invests in the future and focuses on improving lives of average people, not subsidizing corporate special interests and the wealthy. The agenda’s focus on improving education (including child development, preschool, public schools and college aid) expanding affordable health care and addressing energy independence drive support for the agenda. These voters support paying for these investments by rolling back the Administration’s tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations.

Importantly, however, these swing voters hold concerns about government, particularly the current size of the deficit and accountability. Thus swing voters’ support of an investment agenda is strongest when it includes measures to increase government accountability and reduce the deficit.

The results of this USAction poll is going to blow Grover Norquists' tax-allergic mind. The conservative agenda that has espoused the oligarchic path to enticing voters with an eternal promise of perpetually lowering taxes is exposed for what it has always been - morally empty. Voters can finally see the empty moral nature of this type of leadership for exactly what it is - an abandonment of low-wage and middle-class American workers and a payback to the richest campaign contributors. Those with the most receive the most while the middle class is eroded and caused to bear the undue economic burden. To me, this poll is an indication that:

- The Republican/Conservative revolution is over. Kaput. Drowned in their own bathtub of greed. The people can only be fooled for so long.

- The DLC has been wrong far too many times. Taking hit after gut-wrenching hit in elections, they've nearly become an irrelevant political organizing force for the 21st Century - by their own design. I'm wondering if it's too late for them to regroup and redeem themselves as a relevant/straight-shooting/convincing force in politics.

- People powered politics is having a real effect on overall politics. Closer attention to and public respect for what is in the hearts of our citizenry is the path to the people-powered political success I'm sure we're going to see - beginning with the 2006 elections.

Supreme Court to Bush: Criminal Behavior Must Stop

Supreme Court to Bush: Criminal Behavior Must Stop

“The Republican Supreme Court determined Bush broke the law and said the president’s criminal behavior must stop.”
A tip of the hat to Kevin Hayden

Will Hamdan have any effect on the Bush Presidency?
- Glen Greenwald

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I'm a person who generally comments on things."

- GW Bush at a press briefing

Watch this decidedly non-eloquent reply to reporters' questions and dumb-as-a-stump-like cluelessness on the legal nature of the subject of the questions. I shudder when I am reminded that this person is the President.

It sounds like he's so accustomed to getting his way (and getting away with it) when he grabs undue Executive power that he is spinning in shock that he failed to get his way this time - and, Heaven forbid the press should ask him questions about it. When he said they were wasted questions, he wasn't just whistlin' Dixie. He is the waste case who had no idea what to say - a deer caught in the criminal headlights.

"We've agreed to take two questions a side. Walking in, I reminded the Prime Minister of one of Elvis's greatest songs, "Don't Be Cruel" -- "

- GW Bush

Ouch. When he says that, he should think about the people who've been held at Guantanamo Bay for years without being charged with a crime or having access to an attorney. He should remember the recent suicides of prisoners there when he says that. Has he forgotten what cruelty is?

Note: Watch for rubber-stamp Rebublicans trying to put a legal face on all of Bush's Guantanamo shenanigans over the course of the next week or so.

We know better.

His criminal behavior must stop.

A special thanks to Raw Story

Falwell Foolwell

Falwell Foolwell

Mel White, who graduated from a seminary with a doctorate in religion, was the ghostwriter for the gay-bashing Rev. Jerry Falwell's autobiography. You may find it delliciously ironic that, as it turned out, Mr. White became settled, after many difficult years and struggles, with the simple truth that he was gay. Over ten years ago, he came out of the closet and continues to quietly support the GLBT community while continuing to attend services with his partner at Falwell's church. Mr. White tells Steve Inskeep at NPR that he loves the music and the inspiration that he derives from the musical services at the church and that he hopes to promote understanding from within.

"I believe Jerry Falwell will change and I believe it'll be in my lifetime," White says. "And if he doesn't change, I'm gonna die trying." [source: NPR]

Mel White's partner admits that he doesn't like the services, and I imagine he must love Mel very much for putting up with such hypocrisy and intolerance from within the Falwell organization.


The intolerant yet reportedly easy-going homophobe Falwell, who blamed 9/11 on gays, lesbians, and Americans who value free choice, was interviewed by Steve Inskeep recently and spoke about the invasion of the Tinky Winkies:

His newspaper suggested that a character in the children's program Teletubbies, was gay, a statement Falwell disowns..."But I've had hundreds of little Tinky Winky dolls mailed to me from all over the world and given to all my grandchildren and their friends, and I've populated Lynchburg with Tinky Winkies," Falwell says. "But that's the only benefit I've gotten from that."

Awwww....isn't that a sweet little anecdote? It warms the cockles of my heart - and that's okay because I'm a gurl and cockles are acceptable for me to talk about as long as I don't touch 'em out of wedlock.