Biffster’s World

Okay, this is just plain creepy! These posters are apparently showing up on the rail line that runs between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Welcome to the world of 1984, alive and well here in 2005.

So what does the Bush administration do when confronted with reports that seem to support the concept of global warming? edit the reports to downplay the tie to global warming, of course! “A White House official who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

“Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal documents.

The White House denied that Cooney had watered down the impact of global warming.”

Why does this surprise me? I should expect stuff like this: it’s only been happening for the past four years. But still, the gall!

I’m sure that everyone has seen this, especially since I’m about a month behind the cut. But this is truly brilliant: a flash demonstration showing why Bush’s Social Security plan is a Bad Thing. A must-see.

This is so baffling to me: apparently, Conservatives are afraid of books. I think this is a major difference between conservatives and the left (liberal/progressive): the left welcomes new ideas, the right fears new ideas. You won’t see liberals or progressives hosting book burnings nor banning books. The right seems to thrive on doing both. The left welcomes free thought, conservatives try to police thought.

The ten books that were voted “most harmful” are an absolutely bizarre mix. There are a few that one can at least semi-understand why the right considers them harmful (such as The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf), but others are just plain baffling (including Sexual Behavior In the Human Male and Democracty and Education).

Why are conservatives so frightened by knowledge?

I’ve always had a love-hate relationship with talk radio. One the one hand, I like listening to what others have to say. On the other hand, the crap that some people are willing to say in public is sometimes shocking to me. Talk radio tends to attract more people who want to talk crap than those who want to engage in intelligent conversation.

Fortunately, I’ve found at least a couple of talk shows that I can stand listen to. Ironically enough, they are both on AM 760, Boulder’s progessive talk station.

Up first is Jay Marvin. Jay works the local morning show, from 6:00am - 10:00am (Mountain time zone). Jay is very interesting and usually intelligent. He brings up a number of timely, important topics, and has a number of good guests (including Colorado Senator Ken Salazar). I listen to Jay while I’m getting ready for work and driving in to work every morning.

Second is Randi Rhodes. Randi is constantly fired up, and is known to go on some delicious rants. Randi’s national, so her topics and guests have more of a national scope. I don’t know what time Randi’s show airs live, but AM760 plays her time-delayed from 4:00pm - 8:00pm. Which works perfectly for me; it allows me to catch the first couple of hours of her show at work, and listen to her on the drive home.

There’s other good progressive talk out there, including Janeane Garafalo’s show, but Jay and Randi are the only two shows that I’ll go out of my way to listen to.

On the heels of the revealling of the Downing Street memo in May, some mainstream media here in the US are finally catching on to the story. And to the realization that President Bush continually lied when he said he had no plans to invade Iraq.

On Memorial Day, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune published an editorial which gave more evidence about the lies and manipulations that led us into war:

“Just four days before Bush’s State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff ‘put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims’ about Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, ‘as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein’s alleged weapons programs.’ But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.”

How can we defend a president that lied to us to take us into a war? A war that has cost the lives of over 1500 American soldiers?

I’ve been reticent to join in on the Impeach Bush bandwagon, but is this not an impeachable offense?

Now this story is just bizarre. And makes me glad that I don’t live in Kentucky. Kentucky District Judge Michael Caperton has taken it upon himself to allow people convicted of drug and/or alcohol offenses to go to church in lieu of jail time. “[Caperton] said there’s no violation of the separation of church and state because he said ‘worship services’ instead of ‘church.’ He also said it’s optional for the offenders.” In my opinion, arguing semantics does not excuse breaking the constitution. As for this being optional for defendants, that makes things even worse!

Or, as an ACLU lawyer puts it, “the judge is letting people who go to services avoid jail, while people who decline have to go to jail. The lawyer said that violates the state’s required ‘neutrality’ toward religion.”

Apparently, some judges don’t take that whole separation of church and state to seriously: “A Wiccan activist and his ex-wife are challenging a court’s order that they must protect their 9-year-old son from what it calls their ‘non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.’

“The Indiana Civil Liberties Union has appealed the stipulation written into the couple’s divorce order, saying it is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define mainstream religion.”

This is abhorrent! Who said that a judge gets to decide whether or not a certain religion is appropriate for a child? Isn’t that a parent’s obligation? And how dare a judge presume to discredit a religion becuase they consider it non-mainstream!

“Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said judges cannot substitute their religious judgment for that of parents in regard to the upbringing of children.

“‘This is an absurd result, because in the eyes of the law being a pagan should be no different from being a Presbyterian,’ he said.”

Apparently, Hillary Clinton isn’t sure what an Iraq exist strategy should be: “Hillary reacted like a vampire being shown a cross or an ABC executive seeing the ratings for their Trump TV movie? then offered up the following head scratcher:

You know, I am not one who feels comfortable setting exit strategies. We don’t know what we’re exiting from. We don’t know what the situation is moving toward?. How do we know where we’re headed, when we don’t know where we are?”

This does clear one thing up for me, though: No Hillary in 2008! Please, dear god, Democrats, please don’t nominate her!

Okay, so I’m out for a couple of days and a couple of major news stories break. Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop drinking!

Anyway, as everyone knows by now, the Senate reached a compromise to avoid the nuclear option. The AP’s short version of the deal: “Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush’s future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.”

Add it all up, and what does it lead to? One big, stinkin’ pile of dung for the Democrats. What, exactly, did the Dems get out of this? The three most controversial judges will be confirmed. The Dems can only filibuster in ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ and there is no guarantee that the nuclear option won’t be re-introduced if the Dems do decide to stage a filibuster. After all, who gets to decide what qualifies as an ‘extraordinary circumstance?’ Don’t buy the Republican’s grumbling about this: this was all a win for the Repubs.

I understand why this was done: the Dems weren’t sure that they had enough votes to withstand a vote on the nuclear option. But if there were ever a time to take a risk, this was it! As it stands, all this did was delayed a vote. And if the Dems didn’t have the votes now, they won’t have them in a couple of months, either. Why not make the stand right here? If you get the votes, then you don’t have to worry about the nuclear option again. If you don’t get the votes, then there’s an excellent chance that the nuclear option could be used to guarantee Democratic gains in the ‘06 elections.

Instead, we get nothing. Theoretically, we still have the ability to filibuster. But watch how quickly that ability is taken away the first time that the Dems try to use it. Bill Frist basically said as much. He is chomping at the bit to break this compromise and re-introduce the nuclear option.

This was a bad call. Bad, bad, bad.