Arovosis Slams Palin Denier-Gate Op-ed as Junk Science

John Aravosis of AmericaBlog takes Palin's Washington Post Op-ed apart bit by bit, yet again making the point the "He-Said She-Said" Journalism isn't about finding the truth, it's about diluting the validity of the truth and facts by giving equal time to Lies!

The Palin Apologist arguing with Aravosis attempts repeatedly to say Palin is equivelent to Al Gore simply because Al Gore was Vice President while Sarah Palin LOST as Vice President, and then quit as Governor of Alaska. It is true that Alaska is the state currently most impacted by Climate Change, but also that Sarah Palin has learned practically ZERO from that experience.

What did Sarah Palin do about the shrinking permafrost and thawing frozen tundra in Alaska that is now spewing methane into the atmosphere?

Nothing.

What did she do in response to the EPA listing Polar Bears as an endangered species? She threatened to Sue to repeal the listing.

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin argued there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

The announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Sarah argues that "Al Gore makes money from Climate Change" - when in fact he doesn't, he donates nearly every cent he's made including proceeds from his Book, his Oscar Winning Film and even his Nobel Prize Money - yet she herself used to be work on Alaska's Energy Commission - before she Quit - and her biggest claim to fame as Alaska's governor is putting through a deal to build a Natural Gas Pipeline across the state Canada, as if she didn't get tons of funds from Energy Lobbyists to make that happen.

Besides I thought getting Rich was a "Good" thing to Republicans? I guess not when the people getting rich try to do something worthwhile with their money like Gore or (The Dreaded) George Soros.

On top of that just last year Sarah Palin claimed that she believed that human activities DID contribute to Global Warming and Climate Change when she spoke with Charlie Gibson during the Presidential Campaign.

PALIN: I believe that man’s activities can certainly be contributing to the issue of global warming and climate change.

So which is the real Sarah?

All of this bogus debate is clearly played out in the Fox News Sunday example where classic Climate Denier Sen James Inhofe goes Mano-a-mano with Rep. Ed Markley:

From Think progress.

WALLACE: The fact is, just this week, the world meteorological organization said that this decade is the warmest on record, and that 2009 is the 5th warmest year on record. Does that mean nothing?

INHOFE: It means very little. Because that was based on the same flawed science — the IPCC science — that we have been looking at.

Fox’s presentation of a “debate” over global warming science is a classic example of the “false balance” that the traditional media often employs to discuss the issue. The media watchdog group, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, observed that the journalistic norm of “balance” has given disproportionate attention to false perspectives: “By giving equal time to opposing views, the major mainstream newspapers significantly downplayed scientific understanding of the role humans play in global warming.”

The “debate” obscures the real impacts of global warming: Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is burning, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, and the world’s glaciers are disappearing. And of course, it’s the hottest decade in history.

The argument that the hacked emails show that Climate Change is a "Hoax" has been completely and total Debunked by Everyone with a shred of credibility on the issue - including the AP who independently reviewed the emails and their content:

LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.

Fact is fact and Fantasy is Fantasy - some day the Wingnuts like Inhofe and Palin will learn the difference - (or stop pretending they don't know the different when their Corporate Sponsors stop paying them to Lie) - Maybe.

Vyan

Best. McCain. Rant. Ever!

And this comes from a former Conservative , now voting this year for Barack Obama - and it's not about Barack, it's about Bush, McCain and Palin.


-----------------------------------------------
When I turned 18, I made my family proud and registered to vote as a Republican. I could not have fathomed the political rollercoaster that awaited me.


Four years ago on election night I jostled for position around the bar in the band room of our fraternity house, it was like watching a road game. Almost all of us voted for Bush, including me, except for one die hard kerry supporter we were sure to mock every time they called a state for our boy dubya. Poor guy. He was the only one not drinking and I'm pretty sure I called him a "fucking pansy" a few times. I've tried to forget the other mindless drivel that shitted itself out of my mouth about Kerry; thank you very much to the winning combination of poor critical thinking skills + televised propaganda.


Two years ago, long after the reality of our foreign policy predicament was depressingly clear, I voted a straight blue ticket. If it were an option, I would've voted a straight "not-red" ticket. I kept my registration checked "Republican," for ideological reasons, namely my advocacy for smaller government, which I still feel is best.


Less than a year ago, I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.


Today, I voted for Barack Obama.


I'm writing this for a purely cathartic, personal reason; because I'm quite sure I'll explode if I don't vent somehow, in someway, about this almost virally infectious political season.


[Rant]

Am I the only one who is locked in some horrifying political Orwellian nightmare? But it isn't just a nightmare, it's a crazy, quantum "what the fuck" circus nightmare of a nightmare. The kind of things nightmares have nightmares about when they're not being nightmares.... I honestly have no idea where to begin, or where I am, for that matter. Let's just pick something at random. How about that horrendous three word noun that has been force-fed to my cerebral cortex.
Did somebody say "Joe the Plumber?"

Sweet Slidin' Jesus on a stripper pole what in the fuck is going on with Joe the Plumber? Truth be told I sent my mother a link to that video Before the debates. I had decided on my vote a few months prior and after seeing the video I sent it to my mom, I felt it showed my candidate practically applying the rhetoric of his campaign to a real world situation, and I wanted her to see it. Maybe she'll mention it to her friends, I thought. "Bulletproof." I felt vindicated about my presumption of his commitment and intelligence, and importantly to me he didn't come across as a politician....and I abhor politicians. Now I'm going to jump ahead here, past my shock at the unpredictable ascendancy of Joe the Plumber in the public eye, and for the sake of argument, just go along with me. Forget the fact that the conversation revealed a depth of understanding by Obama about the application of economic policy, forget that the hypothetical scenario being discussed very likely would end up better for "joe" under Obama's plan than McCain's, forget that Joe's name is Sam, forget that Joe was stretching the truth at the very best and being a schilling-douche at worst (Uncle Keating, was it?)...forget everything. Everything except for the fact that this political tool now has a PUBLICIST and is attempting a COUNTRY RECORD DEAL. This is the point that a casual political observer would glibly offer the cliche pronouncement that, "You can't write this stuff." Well that's just incorrect. YOU CAN ONLY WRITE THIS STUFF. The real question is What the Fuck is it doing in my reality? I mean seriously, how is this happening in the actual universe? The only answer is that we exist in a pocket of space time that is dictated by the whims of an author of political satire writing his brilliant masterpiece, "Thank God We Don't Live There: A Novel about Political Inanity." You think it can't get worse, and then.......

BAM! Sarah Palin!

Everyone together with me now....."What. The. Fuck." I have never been so insulted in my life. You know what made me turn on Bush? No WMDs in Iraq and suspending Habeus Corpus didn't help, sure.... But somewhere along the way, I became convinced that I could do a better job. I'm betting some of you know the feeling well. I wasn't even 21 when I first had that thought, but I was convinced I could be a better President than the man sitting in the oval office, and that realization was devastating. I was just starting to figure the world out and somehow I found myself demonstrably smarter than the man in charge of the free world? Put a different way, this fucking idiot has the launch codes? And just when I thought I couldn't lower the bar any lower for the highest office in the land for the country I'd die for, in comes a tv-anchor/beauty-pageant-winner/crytal-meth-capital-book-banning-mayor gliding in on her helicopter fresh off an aerial hunt for wolves, and all of the sudden George Bush looks like Norman Borlaug, and I'm trying to kill myself with a wooden spoon to the ear. Man walked with dinosaurs, no global warming, witchcraft! Take your pick. Apparently if you believe one crazy thing, the media will harp on it until you're extinct, yet if you believe a hundred crazy things, you somehow become immune to criticism. If, just last year, 365 days ago, you would have asked me to give a list of ideas that would categorically disqualify someone for the office of President of the United States, I swear to God "man walking with dinosaurs" is number 8. The next time you're near a time machine and want to make someone cry, go back to about a year ago and tell me my number 8 is wrong. Matter of fact, if you want to be nice about it, kick me in the balls for 5 hours and then tell me number 8 is wrong, at least then I'd have something to distract me from the pain.


I could go on, but I won't, I'll simply leave you with this. If only because the title of this diary likely leaves you wondering why I voted the way I did, so here goes...

I believe in small government. I believe that our constitution is the greatest achievement in the history of humanity, born our of the spurns of the Enlightenment, a monument to secular rule, civilized dissent, and individual liberty. Yet, when I entered the voting booth today, I didn't base my vote on policy, or ideology, or affiliation. I didn't vote in the hopes of a bigger government, or a more liberal social policy, or for the advancement of a political party. I didn't vote "for" a Democrat or "for" a Republican or "against" the greater of two evils. I didn't vote to change our policy in Iraq, or to get troops into or out of Afghanistan, or to give homosexuals the right to marry or to ban prayer in schools. I didn't vote for experience and I didn't vote for change. I voted for the one thing that has been categorically absent for as long as I can remember noticing: Reason. Anybody can latch on to policies and advance them blindly on faith alone, both sides of the aisle have demonstrated that for decades, but for the first time in my life I feel like I have a leader who would listen to an argument and actually change his position if he were wrong. Naive? Maybe. But what an inspiringly audacious Hope it is.


It may seem small, but after living in this circus for entirely too long, it's everything. Now go vote so we can take this fucking tent down.


[/Rant]

--------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, brother Amen.


Orifinal Version Posted Here

Sarah Palin: Pretty White Victim

As the evidence piles higher and higher that Sen. John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Presidential running mate was a rash decision made in a panic - after the Obama Nomination Acceptance speech, without being vetted by the McCain camp, and without an FBI background check - a narrative is beginning to form which may have been the McCain strategy all along.

Play the "Sarah Palin is the Victim of the Biased Liberal Media" Card:

Steve Schmidt, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) top campaign strategist, yesterday accused the media of being "on a mission to destroy" Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) by displaying "a level of viciousness and scurrilousness" in pursuing questions about her personal life. Schmidt said the McCain campaign feels "under siege" by news inquiries on Palin.

Don't you know America loves a good (and pretty) victim?

More..

Arguing that the media queries are being fueled by "every rumor and smear" posted on left-wing Web sites, Schmidt said mainstream journalists are giving "closer scrutiny" to McCain's little-known running mate than to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Closer scrutiny than Barack Hussein Obama? After months of Reverend Wrong? After all this blather about Rezco and Flag-pins and William Ayers and Pride-gate? Is he kidding?

Apparently not.

The McCain camp has been unusually aggressive in pushing back against the media, and it seems to hope to persuade journalists to back off in their scrutiny of Palin. Obama campaign officials have complained to news organizations that their man has been subjected to considerably more investigative reporting than McCain has, but they have done so in more low-key fashion.

By contrast, Schmidt spoke on the record in denouncing as "an absolute work of fiction" a New York Times account of the process by which the McCain campaign vetted Palin. He also charged that Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman was predicting that the governor might have to step down as McCain's vice presidential choice.

So it doesn't matter what Sarah Barracuda has or hasn't done in her relatively short political career, how she has repeatedly abused her power, thrown elbows for her own gain or participated in cronyism and political vindictiveness - the narrative that you can expect Republicans to bitterly cling to is the idea that the media is just being MEAN TO A GIRL.

I mean, It's already become too many questions to count. It's like a snowstorm of scandals and it's only been a week - so naturally the Repubs are most likely to say and do what comes naturally in this situation, right?

"Why can't they just Leave Govenor Palin ALONE, already?"

From the start you could see the circling of the wagon's with the issue of Palin's opposition to comprehensive sex education, contraception and funding cuts for teen mothers in the midst of her own 17 year-old-daughter pregnancy. We're supposed to not bash the daughter because she's family and a minor - which I think is a good idea - but why not bash the mother whose own policies clearly helped contribute to this situation, not just for her own daughter but tens of thousands of young women (and potential fathers) throughout the state and nation?

Do we question her support of policies that have so utterly failed? No, we leave it alone because it's a "family matter". Pathetic.

We've had the allegations of her abuse of power regarding the firing of Alaska's Top Cop in retaliation for his refusal to carry out her personal vendetta against a state trooper who had allegedly been involved in domestic abuse of her sister. (Although many us might agree that this guy shouldn't be in a position of power, it has to be noted that there are PROPER CHANNELS for addressing these concerns - y'know that thing called the American COURT SYSTEM, hello Restraining Order Much? - which many people who don't have a sibling in the Governor's mansion tend to use on a daily basis)

Palin was directly involved in what appears to have been a scheme to use the dissolution of a state-run diary operation into a cash-cow for farmers in the Wasilla area ultimately leading to tax-payers footing the bill for have milk dumped in the streets.

She has ties to a Secessionist Group, a car wash business she co-owned was shutdown by the state for failing to abide by state fees and regulations while she was Governor, she was flagged by McCain's own Earmark alert system as an pork-barrel hound while Mayor of Wasilla, she's just one step shy of a rabid Book Burner and a borderline anti-Semite.

Democrats are expecting all these scandals and allegations to eventually blow up in Palin and McCain's face like a cherry bomb, but I think we're going to have a longer wait that one might logically expect because that's just not how these guys react to scandals.

No, not even.

They have become the masters of Disaster Politics.

Make a horrific political and/or personal decision lately? No prob, just blame the Media and the Far Left-Wing Blogs for making an Issue out of it.

It's not my fault, those damn hateful bloggers are just Out TA GET ME!. I'm innocent I tell ya, honest and truly I am... really.

I think we all know that tossing Palin under the bus is not how most Republicans, being so steeped in their own ongoing victimhood (for being rich, white, not white but wishing they weren't, not rich but wishing they were, straight, gay hating, gay - but still in the closet and still gay hating, god fearing, Christian - but not that squishy Mormony kind of Christian, Jewish - but still in the closet... and generally afraid of everyone while being really loud about pretending not to be - "Fuck it, We're gonna DO IT LIVE!") are going to react. They're going to rally 'roud ole Pistol Packin' Palin the more she get criticized.

The more the media howls and hounds her, the more the Wingnuts will cheer.

All she has to do is almost accidentally shoot a friend of hers in the face and she'll have proven she has what it takes to be the Veep to the Republican base.

Just consider the fact that Larry ("Wide Stance") Craig is still in the Senate. So is David ("Red Hot Prostitutes") Vitter and Gov Palin's bestest buddy Ted ("Series of Tubes","Bridge to Nowhere") Stevens even while he's under criminal indictment!

Contrary to McCain whom the evangelical wing still doesn't entirely trust, Palin is like a Godsend to them. She's strongly anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-business, anti-global warming, anti-science, and "a Maverick (aka Wild Crazy Horse)" like McCain not to mention the head of the Great Alaska National Guard.

Clearly all these scurrilous and unfounded attacks on her character, judgment, competency, experience, integrity and qualifications are simply the mainstream media trying to sabotage the history making candidacy of the first (Republican) woman to run for vice president.

I mean, isn't it obvious that the "Old boys Club" is simply out to get her?

Poor Palin. Pity she that dares to dream of finally gaining access to the Truly Executive wash room.

Mark my words. Palin will be right there with McCain 'til the bitter and clingy end.

Vyan

Answering the HIV/AIDS Injection Question + Obama throws Wright under the Bus

Over the past weekend Wright has managed to change a lot of hearts and minds, by explaining and displaying that he is not the crazed militant blackified "wackadoddle" that the media has portrayed him as - but not all.

Even though his statement of "God Damn America" - if you listen to all of it - can be understood as stemming from Deuteronomy and the idea that God does not BLESS violence against innocents, and that God does not bless a nation that acts as if it where God Itself. We should not trust in government, any government, we should trust in God.

Even though his statement about "Chickens coming home to roost" can be understood as a quote by Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck, as he spoke on Fox News and that the point he was making is simply that "Violence Begets Violence", and that proper response to 9/11 is to seek God's guidance , not lash out in indiscriminate rage.

But it's not so easy to understand or explain "The Government Lied about the invention of HIV/AIDS as a means of means of genocide against people of color."

(As I type this Barack is throwing Wright under the Bus on MSNBC)

In my last diary I tried to point out how the original report on Wright's sermons by ABC was a deliberate HIT PIECE. Wright was Swiftboated They had gone through all the footage and specifically chose to highlight the most incendiary statements made by the Reverend, while deleting the sections which would have made what he was saying fairly easy to understand.

It's become clear from Wright's appearance on Bill Moyer's that the rest of the news media, simply didn't bother to do any in-depth analysis and simply repeated what ABC reported. They were LAZY and as a result...

We were duped.

But even in that diary, some people just couldn't get over the HIV/AIDs issue.

The hatred and resentment being spewed by that man from the pulpit is a disgrace to every American in this age, of every race. It should be condemned by everyone.

Wright is trying to turn the battle against AIDS into a weapon in his war against white America. It's simply insane to believe such nonsense. And anyone who advocates such policies from the pulpit is simply a disgrace.

That's someone from Dailykos saying that.

Here's the clip, taken from O'Reilly, it appears at the 1:30 mark.

Look, I don't agree with the AIDS comment - I think his facts are wrong - but it's not like the only reason he could have said it is because he's some kind of white-hating racist. He was criticizing the lies of the U.S. Government, not white people.

In that particular segment Wright also criticized the U.S. Government for lying to us about links between Saddam and Al Qeada. Guess what - they did lie.

In order to justify the invasion of Iraq under requirements put forth in the Iraq Authorization of Force, the President was required to issue a document to Congress which explained why further diplomacy would not be effective. Besides the usual claims of WMD, which were mostly based on Secretary Powell's now completely discredited UN Report, and over-stated claims of foot-dragging by the Iraqis over weapons inspections, the report (pdf) says this:

In addition, the Secretary of State’s address to the UN on February 5, 2003 revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties to Iraqi intelligence and activities of al Qaida affiliates in Baghdad. Public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close al Qaida associate. In addition, Iraq has provided training in document forgery and explosives to al Qaida.

Other terrorist groups have been supported by Iraq over past years. Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism, and continues to be a safe haven, transit point, and operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States and our allies.

Those are Lies.

Saddam was not "harboring" Zarqawi who was in the UN controlled northern section of Iraq, he was trying to capture and kill him. It's like saying Bill Clinton "harbored" Ted Kazcinski the Unibomber because he took so long to figure out which shack he was hiding in.

Saddam did not provide "explosives training" to al Qaida, that was a lie which came from Ibn Sheik al-Libi, after he was tortured in Egypt

Our President used a lie - obtained via torture - to justify a War with an unarmed country.

Is this not a considerably worse situation than the AIDS claim?

Wright went on from that to say that the Government Lied to us about WMD's in Iraq. He said that if they don't find WMD's "they'll act like the L.A.P.D. and plant the evidence".

Ok, first of all, he's clearly referring the LAPD Rampart Scandal where a group officers actually committed bank robbery, shot unarmed suspects, stole drugs from the evidence room and Planted Evidence which led to the overturning of nearly 100 convictions.

The proof of what Wright was suggesting, that people in the government would make it up if they couldn't find weapons was proven true by Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Sen. Rick Santorum claimed "We Found the WMD", except that - they didn't.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter,

We have people in Congress today, who actually think Hoekstra was right, people who think Global Warming is nothing more than a kooky hoax and that the internet is a series of tubes - and Rev. Wright is supposed to be the crazy one?

Ok, so what about the AIDS?

Let first just put the Tuskegee Experiment and Reagan's sluggish response to AIDS to the side.

The question is this - did the Government Lie to us about how HIV came about?

Well, even if wasn't invented as a "means of genocide against people of color" - it has Become a means of genocide against people fo color. The AIDS epidemic in Africa has become practically catostrophic. From Time Magazine.

AIDS is taking lives in Sub-Saharan Africa, swallowing families, communities, hopes. So far 17 million have died. At least 25 million may follow.

25 Million People! Y'know what? That's Genocide.

So has the U.S. Government lied to us about it?

Yes, they have.

The U.S. Government claims that their Abstinance initiatives are "working
" in Africa.

Earlier this year, the Bush Administration persuaded Congress to authorize $15 billion over the next five years to fight the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the Caribbean. The U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 is a bold legislative effort.1 About 42 million people worldwide are dying of AIDS or are infected with the HIV virus that causes the disease. Of these individuals, 29 million live in Africa. In addition, Africa is home to a staggering 11 million orphans who have lost their parents to AIDS.

The Bush Administration is basing its AIDS initiative on the success of Uganda, which has experienced the greatest decline in HIV prevalence of any country in the world.2 Studies show that from 1991 to 2001, HIV infection rates in Uganda declined from about 15 percent to 5 percent. Among pregnant women in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, HIV prevalence dropped from a high of approximately 30 percent to 10 percent over the same period.3 How did Uganda do it?

The best evidence suggests that the crucial factor was a national campaign to discourage risky sexual behaviors that contribute to the spread of the disease. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Ugandan government, working closely with community and faith-based organizations, delivered a consistent AIDS prevention message: Abstain from sex until marriage, Be faithful to your partner, or use Condoms if abstinence and fidelity are not practiced.

This sounds all well and good, but the U.S. has place a high priority on abstinence and both in Africa and America implemented a dangerous campaign that Condoms Don't Work.

The religious right has begun whipping up the hysteria, calling the Lantos bill the "Pro-Aborts Emergency Plan for Abstinence Reduction." In fact, the bill would do nothing to alter the long-standing ban on U.S. funding for abortion. What it would do is increase the availability of contraception for poor African women -- and that is desperately overdue.

Religious groups are fixated on the need to stop HIV transmission through premarital and extramarital sex, but what's killing African women by the millions is unprotected sex with their husbands. Yet the United States spends more on promoting abstinence and fidelity programs ($198 million in fiscal 2007) than on promoting condom use ($147 million in 2007). Roughly 10 million African girls under the age of 18 are married each year, many to older men who seek HIV-free brides. To those wedded to HIV-positive men [sic], marriage often means a death sentence. They have little power to control their husbands' condom use or extramarital behavior; they are more likely than young men to contract HIV; and those who know they're infected and do not want to bear children often have no access to contraception.

The fact is that Bush's polices are hurting the the fight against AIDS.

FACT — BUSH’S AIDS POLICIES DIVERT FUNDS TO FAILED ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS: Bush’s policy states that one-third of money allocated for HIV prevention overseas go to abstinence-only programs. "In fact, a full two-thirds of the money for the prevention of the sexual spread of HIV goes to abstinence." [American Prospect, 7/10/07]

FACT — BUSH’S ANTI-CONDOM STANCE ‘DOING DAMAGE TO AFRICA’: The Center for Disease Control states that latex condoms are "highly effective in preventing...sexual transmission of HIV." Yet Bush’s ABC policy — Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms — relegates condom use to a last resort option. In 2005, the UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa said, "There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]. To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa." [CDC, 10/20/06; The Observer, 7/11/04; The Guardian, 8/30/05]

FACT — GLOBAL GAG RULE FORCES ‘A CRUEL CHOICE’ ON FOREIGN NGOS: Bush’s "global gag rule" withholds U.S. aid from any organization that mentions abortion as an option in family planning. The report found that the "the leading providers of family planning" in 13 developing nations are "no longer receiving USAID contraceptives." [Memo for the Administration of United States Agency for International Development, 1/22/01; Global Gag Rule Impact Project]

Not only is there evidence that these wrong-headed policies are proving increasing dangerous for Africa, they are proving dangerous in America where HIV infection within the Black community is rising dangerously.

"After 10 years and $1.5 billion in public funds these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will go down as an ideological boondoggle of historic proportions," said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth.

"The tragedy is not simply the waste of taxpayer dollars, it is the damage done to the young people who have been on the receiving end of distorted, inaccurate information about condoms and birth control. We have been promoting ignorance in the era of AIDS, and that’s not just bad public health policy, its bad ethics".

So the final question is - was HIV/AIDs "invented"?

The answer to that may not be as simple as it might seem. There has been a debate between doctors and scientist about whether or not the early testing of the Oral Polio Vaccine in Africa had anything to do with causing the HIV virus to spread from monkey's to humans.

San Antonio physician Eva Lee Snead was the first person to propose the hypothesis that AIDS could have crossed to humans via an infected polio vaccine.[21] However she also argued, incorrectly, that SV-40 might be a precursor to HIV.[21]

In May 1987, Louis Pascal heard a radio broadcast by Dr. Snead explaining her hypothesis. Based on information in medical journals published in the 1950s and 1960s, and the information about the the first cases of HIV infection, he concluded that Dr. Hilary Koprowski's CHAT Type 1 vaccine administered in Belgian Congo between 1957 and 1960 was a likely source

But the theory has had it's critics.

Journalist Edward Hooper, who had already begun to investigate the origin of AIDS when the OPV hypothesis was first put forward gradually became convinced of its truth. After nine years of investigations, he detailed the hypothesis and evidence in his 1999 book, The River. Hooper further expanded on these allegations in a 2000 meeting in London, at the Royal Society, although these claims were later rebutted in detail by some of the scientists who were present at the meeting.[29] In 2001, Dr. Hilary Koprowski responded by making a detailed rebuttal of the points made in the book, also in a talk to the Royal Society.[30] However in 2004, the Origin of Aids, a TV documentary strongly supportive of the OPV hypothesis, appeared on television stations globally.

Now I'm not particularly convinced on this issue one way or the other. But it looks to me like the detracters of the theory currently have the upper hand. Still, the point is what Wright said about the government LYING, about HIV/AIDS becoming a genocide for black people, particularly in Africa, is true. The "invention" part - not so much. However, even that is not completely out of the question. Not yet.

I admit this is a certain amount of speculation on my part about what Rev. Wright was actually talking about with that statement and as far as I have seen he hasn't been asked about it or given a detailed answer. I may be completely wrong just as much of the media has been totally wrong about Wright, but frankly, has anyone even serious bothered to think about this?

Haven't they all just considered it a "wacky conspiracy theory", just like the idea our government lied to us about WMD's, they lied to us about torture, and they lied to us about domestic spying?

If the wing-nuts had their way - all us this stuff would be just considered wacky left-wing craziness. Bill Keller at the New York times would be up on treason charges for reporting about the CIA's secret prisons, and Scooter Libby - who actually did commit treason - has been unfairly persecuted.

Update Right now Barack is distancing himself completely from Wright, and comments such as these and his performance at the National Press Club (which I haven't seen). Barack sounds personally ticked-off, and he feels that Wright was Grandstanding and that I can understand. He doesn't agree with Wright sure - if you don't really dig under the surface, of course the comments seem inflammatory and offensive - but I wonder if he isn't playing directly into the false media meme's that have been put forward on all of this? On the other hand, I'm finally glad to see Barack being willing to Start A FIGHT!. Good on 'em, even if had to be Wright he started the fight with.

Now he can finally show us some toughness.

Both Wright and Obama have a right to stake their own independent ground I'm staying with Obama, but that doesn't mean we should simply turn a blind-eye to the truth (and even the problematic parts) of what Wright actually has said. Not all of it was wrong, and quite a bit of it was dead-on-target.

Update 2: Wright was asked the AIDS question at the National Press Club.

MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?

WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz’s book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola," whoever wrote that question? Have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You’ve read it?

(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)

WRIGHT: Oh, are you — is that one of the reporters?

MODERATOR: No questions -

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.

"Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola" by Dr. Leonard Horowitz is described by Amazon this way:

Health professionals and those involved in infectious disease research will find Emerging Viruses startling: Harvard researcher Horowitz's studies gather evidence to conclude that AIDS and the Ebola viruses evolved during cancer virus experiments in which monkeys were infected with viral genes from other animals. Certain to spark controversy, this provides quite a different view of virus mutations and evolution.

So we have a Harvard researcher who'se been writing about this. He may be a wackadoddle, but I don't know. H seems to be following a Different theory than the one involving Polio, in this case we're talking about Cancer virus experiments and I admit I know nothing about that subject.

The other book "Medical Aparthied" is about Tuskegee.

Again, I don't know if it's fair to completely blow this off without doing the research - problem is, we can bet that no one in the press will do that.

Vya

Fox Thinks Al Qeada Set the CA Fires

Just like preverbial boogey man of Myth, Fox News sees Al Qeada under every rock. Al Qeada is responsible for the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq. Al Qeada is responsible for Shia Death Squads. Al Qeada in Iraq has been "defeated", except when they haven't. And now, Al Qeada has allegedly set the California Wildfires which have displaced nearly 1 Million people - at least that's what Fox "Newsman" Steve Doocy thinks.

Via Thinkprogress:

This morning on Fox News, hosts of the show Fox and Friends blamed the wildfires in California on a new culprit: al Qaeda. They pointed to a 2003 FBI memo, which raised the possibility that al Qaeda may try to set wildfires around the western United States. They also noted that men in a "hovering helicopter" saw "a guy starting one of these fires."

And, oh yeah, in that reported memo - California wasn't even mentioned.

DOOCY: You’re looking live at pictures from San Diego — Santiago, CA, where the wildfires continue. We were talking earlier in today’s telecast with Adam Housley and apparently police officers in a hovering helicopter saw a guy starting one of these fires. And Allison Allison Camerota, an FBI memo from late in June of this year is popping up this morning and it is ominous.

CAMEROTA: This actually has happened for many years in the past as well. An FBI sent out to local law-enforcement said that an al Qaeda detainee had given them some information that the next wave of terrorism could be in the form of setting wild fires. Adam Housley said lots of people on his block were asking him about it. Obviously this is something the FBI has looked into. They will continue to investigate it.

Oh, a Detainee said so? Well, geez, we know we can certainly take that one to the bank. I mean, Curveball was just so SPOT. ON. with the mobile labs wasn't he?

CARLSON: If they have this person in custody it probably won’t take long to be able to develop a link if there is one.

KILMEADE: A June 25 memo from the FBI’s Denver offices reported three days ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper, they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.

DOOCY: Brian, the plot they say, according to this detainee, and they don’t know if the detainee is telling the truth. The plot was to set three or four wildfires. But they don’t mention California. They mention Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. We do know for a fact that a number of the fires in southern California are of a suspicious nature and they are investigating arson.

It's fair to argue that there has been some evidence of arson in the California Wildires. This has been a situation that has gone back for generations, year in and year out - since as a matter of fact - most of Southern Calfornia is a mild desert! But to state that their might be active al-Qeada cells and sympathizers in HelL-A is going a bit far.

Not that CNN'S Glen Beck hasn't already been circling that block with his claim that it's...

"unfortunate that a handful of people who hate America ... are losing their homes in a forest fire today".

Is it "unfortunate" that they lost their homes or "unfortunate" that the supposedly "Hate America" by becoming successful in the entertainment industry? Which one is it Glen?

Of course now he's claiming that this was just a joke and is now playing the well worn right-wing victim card. Y'see it's all those lefty liberal bloggers who are really the mean people.

BECK: Let me get to your phone calls here in a second. I want to have a -- I want to have a frank and open conversation with you here for a second. Apparently, I have upset a few liberal bloggers. Woe is me. And I need to be extraordinarily clear on one thing. Not with you. And I'll explain in a second.

These people -- they're amazing. They're incredible. They claim that I'm serious when I'm joking and try to cause trouble, and then they say I'm joking when I'm serious and try to cause trouble. There's no way -- if you disagree with any of these people -- there's no way that you can ever win. And here's the interesting thing: Even if you agree with these people, there's no way you can ever win.

If you've listened to me for years, you know wildfires are deeply personal to me. Wildfires make blood shoot out of my eyes. But for the bloggers, it doesn't matter what I really think. It doesn't -- they're not trying to convince you I'm a bad guy. You know. You know who I am. What they're trying to do is convince people who don't watch the TV show, who don't listen to the show. They're trying to convince them that I'm an evil supervillain.

Because those people can be convinced. So let me just -- let me tell you, so you know, so you can tell those who want to make me into an evil supervillain. Who do you have to be to think that it's a good thing that anybody's house burns down? Who do you have to be?

Who do you have to be Glenn? Maybe you have to be a guy That thinks it's FUNNY that people's homes have burned down when you disagree with (some of) them politically??

How could we ever think anyone on the right-wing would stoop so low as to make fun of people who've lost every possession in the worst firestorm in history, after they've been so kind in their responses to people like Graeme Frost, Bethany Wilkerson, The 82nd Air Borne, Capt Jon Soltz, Micheal J. Fox, John Edwards, Cindy Sheehan and the 9-11 Widows?

After they've attacked sick kids, why exactly would anyone think twice about Beck and his ilk attacking the victims of a massive fire?

But not to worry, it was just a joke - minus the funny part.

And who knew that the right-wing hated the rich people who live in expensive houses on the hill so much? Maybe they can get them some fresh juicy new tax cuts to help buy a new house somewhere else as long as it isn't already flooded with the other kinds of people - y'know the middle-class and the poor? And while they're at it how about a few man-made Islands or something for the looming construction boom of new Luxury Condos far away from anyone who can't afford them? That outta be Posh, like totally Paris and Nicole.

One big problem with Glenn's entire view is that so much of these fires have affected Orange County and San Diego, both of whom are giant Red Swaths in an otherwise Blue State. Orange County was so gracious that they've bought us both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan not to mention B-1 Bob Dornan, Dana Rorbacher (sic) and from San Diego we've have had Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis and Darrell Issa.

If you subscribe to the Fixed News view of things on the other hand, the ones who "Hate America" are apparently the enormous enclave of Islamo Fascists who've decided their best weapon against the Imperialism of the West is to Flick a Bic. In that case, trying to burn down John Wayne's house almost makes sense.

And all this time while Fox and Beck are keeping us distracted with their pathological nuttiness - the real issues raised by these fires goes ignored while the White House Censors the head of CDC on the issue of the human impacts of Climate Change.

Today, Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the "Human Impacts of Global Warming." Gerberding told the committee that global warming "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans," but gave few specifics, instead focusing on CDC’s current preparation plans.

CDC officials are now revealing that the White House heavily edited Gerberding’s testimony, which originally was longer and had more "information on health risks":

"It was eviscerated," said a CDC official, familiar with both versions, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process.

The official said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed," with the document cut from its original 14 pages to four. It was six pages as presented to the Senate committee.

The White House’s deletions included "details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels."

I'm thinking right now that one particular risk happens to be trying to breath in a smoke cloud so large you can See it from Space!

So while Fox is chasing phantom al Qeada in the hills of Malibu (just as they've been chasing phantom AQI through the streets of Najaf and Fallujah for four years now) the impacts of gradual and steady planetary warming, which can clearly contribute to the types of dry conditions that help facilitate the tragedy that hit Southern California, remain ignored and forgotten by an Administration that has a long history of denying fact and science.

Vyan

An Inconvenient Controversy: Fox & the Wingnuts vs Peace

Today Al Gore Jr. has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize as co-winner with the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. This being one of the few times in the last decade that an American has won the prize one would expect that nearly all of America would be rejoicing the same way that we tend to obsessively count our Olympic medals like a miser.

Oops... we did just lost five of those last week didn't we?

Anywho, it appears that not everyons is that happy for Albert. Just this morning the Fixed News and the Right-wing have begun their attack not just on Al Gore, but on the entire Nobel Peace Prize process claiming that it's all biased, political and anti-Bush because recent winners have included Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA (who told Bush there we're No Nukes in Iraq and Bush - well - didn't listen) and Jimmy Carter (who has said that for foreign policy Bush is the Worst President Ever because like - He Is!).

For a contest these guys weren't even involved in, they sure are sore losers.

Some Conservatives may be shocked and dismayed to hear it, but it really shouldn't be a surprise that George W. Bush, a man who has advocated and implemented perpetual endless War as the solution to just about every major problem he has faced, has not been seriously considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Y'know that thing with "P.E.A.C.E." right there in it's name?

The idea that former Vice-President and 2000 Presidential L.O.S.E.R. Albert Gore Jr. could actually win something - well, y'know, not counting The Oscar and The Emmy - seems have them going slightly over the edge. Again.

Ok, ok... still!

"Look on the bright side: after Arafat, Carter, and Iranian marionette Mohammed ElBaradei, the award couldn’t possibly be more degraded." - Hot Air’s Allahpundit

"Keeping to the trend of politicized awards, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given jointly to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." - National Review’s Jay Richards

"The Nobel Prize committee has basically surrendered to hysterics, mass exaggerators, and liars, most of who are not even climatologists or even any type of scientist." - William Teach at Pirate’s Cove

"I wasn’t even aware that they had a Nobel Prize for deceptive rhetoric." - Confederate Yankee

"This continues the trend of the Peace Prize being awarded, not for achievements in spreading peace, but to highlight the Committee’s political agenda." - James Joyner at Outside The Beltway.

Fortunately for them though, they have lots of low friends in high places including apparently one judge in Britain who just yesterday (wow, what a coincidence) has ruled that Al Gore's film "An Inconventient Truth" can not be shown in English Schools without "Guidance Notes" also being included.

In response to this Fox and Friend's Steve Doocy (the blonde-haired guy who actually is Steve Doocy at least according to Steven Colbert last night) was practically giddy.

Doocy: You know, I’m not a scientist. I don’t know if any of that stuff is true. I don’t think any of it’s true. I just know that my daughter watched the movie last week. ... [She said Gore] took three shots at George Bush. And my daughter, who’s just 18, was turned off by how it was political. So there you go.

See, their big problem is that it was political? - well don't you know that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"? (That is according to one well known Steve Doocy fan - also named Steve.)

Guy who is still Steve Doocy: That crazy Jimmy Carter even has one (A Nobel Peace Prize)

Yeah, that's right because we know that people who believe in striving for Peace as an alternative to like - what was it again, oh yeah, WAR - have to be just plain Koo Koo! Who could ever prefer life and prosperity to suffering and death?

Way to show respect for our former Presidents there Stevey, do we need sick a Senate condemnation on this guy or what?

Somehow they manage to yet again play their well worn victim card and whine that somebody somewhere dared to Disagree with George W. Bush and that automatically makes them a bunch of Political Haters. Hey man, it's not Al Gore's fault that George W. Bush pissed on the Kyoto Treaty like it was a last piece of uncleared brush on his horseless, cowless Crawford "ranch" after a long afternoon knocking back a six-packs of near-beer during Sunday Football.

Despite Fox's obsessive paranoia - this Peace Prize Isn't a Referendum on George W. Bush.

Anyway - at one point they state that the Judge found 11 falsehoods within the film, and then at another point they say there are 9 errors.

Er, What?

Ok, Here's me not being a climatologist, but I was found a sample of the 11 So-called Errors on - you guessed it - Newsbusters.

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Please notice something here - None of these so-called "errors" happens to be the claim that either Global Warming isn't happening or that it isn't largely A Manmade Phenomenon.

The same is true of the "9 Errors" I found noted on ABCNews.com My non-scientific and mildly snarky comments are italicized.

1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.) And this judge has a scientific degree in what exactly?

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.") Not Yet, but not because they haven't been trying

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future...") True, but it has already been changed by the increase of fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps.

4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.") He simply pointed out tempertates and Co2 have remained in correlation, scientists agree - what's the problem?

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.") It doesn't have to be mainly attributable, only attributable at all!

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.) However, Global Warming is still listed as one possible factor in the lake's shrinkage - see below)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.") But there has been evidence to suggest that we are experiencing a greater percentage of Category 4 and 5 Hurricanes due to warmer gulf waters - and just what is making the water warmer?

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.") Just because that's all this judge found, doesn't mean that all that there is... see below

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.") Difficult, but not impossible!

Here's the real problem with all of this - the film actually didn't make most of these claims, not exactly - much of this is taken out of context - what the film merely does is quote various sources who had already published studies on the issue, which to this day remain the best available data. Certainly as our understanding of these complex issues increase these views will change and have to be constantly updated, as Mr. Gore has constantly updated his slideshow. Quibbling over the small stuff doesn't change the big picture - which is that Climate Change is Real.

Contrary to this judges claims This is what the film says on it's Science Page (I've included links and quotes from each listed source)

• The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. (NOT that Katrina's strength was a "One off event")

  Source Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones.

• Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.

  Source: World Health Organization

• The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.

  Source: American Geophysical Union

• At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
• Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.

  Source: World Health Organization

  Measurement of health effects from climate change can only be very approximate. Nevertheless, a WHO quantitative assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, concluded that the effects of the climate change that has occurred since the mid-1970s may have caused over 150 000 deaths in 2000. It also concluded that these impacts are likely to increase in the future.

• Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
  Source: Source the Wapo

  While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future.

  ...

  The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums.

  ...

  Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (Gulf Stream), a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.

• Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.

  Source: Artic Climate Impact Assesment 2004

• More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
  Via Time Magazine

  Scientists have discovered that quiver trees are starting to die off in parts of their traditional range. The species might be in the early stages of moving southward, trying to escape rising temperatures closer to the equator.

  Twenty-six bird species, including this goose, which breeds in the Arctic, are listed by the World Conservation Union as threatened by global warming. Half are seabirds whose food supplies are diminished because of climate changes. The rest are terrestrial species, including several whose coastal habitats are at risk because of rising sea levels.

Also doing my own highly technical search and analysis (using The Google) I found that it's true that a mass evacutation from various Pacific Islands to New Zealands hasn't yet occured, but not because the water isn't rising and threatening their island, it's because New Zealand won't let them all in.

The leaders of Tuvalu—a tiny island country in the Pacific Ocean midway between Hawaii and Australia—have conceded defeat in their battle with the rising sea, announcing that they will abandon their homeland. After being rebuffed by Australia, the Tuvaluans asked New Zealand to accept its 11,000 citizens, but it has not agreed to do so.

Lake Chad is definately shrinking as these satelite photos show. An although Global Warming is not the only factor involved in it's shrikage, it is a factor.

Via the BBC.

There is no single cause for the disappearance of Lake Chad.

Global warming is one factor blamed and local people say rainfall has been steadily reducing by about five to 10mm a year.

"This lake has to be saved; we know the benefit; we know how people have suffered; we know what we have lost
Wakil Bakar" Lake Chad Basin Commission

Other factors include irrigation and the damming of rivers feeding the lake for hydro-electric schemes, which have all combined to devastating effect.

"Desertification is moving southwards," said William Bata Ndahi, director of the Lake Chad Research Institute.

"The water is moving further and further away. We believe desertification has contributed most to the demise of Lake Chad."

This judge argues that drowning of polar bears in the artic was attributed to a storm (and according to the Wall Street Journal the fact that they had to swim so much further than they used to since the Arctic Ice Cap is Shrinking) however the Artic Climate Impact Assesment (which was only the result of four years of work by over 300 scientist) seems to disagree with that assesment.

Global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them, according to the most comprehensive international assessment ever done of Arctic climate change.

The thinning of sea ice -- which is projected to shrink by at least half by the end of the century and could disappear altogether, according to some computer models -- could determine the fate of many other key Arctic species, said the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the product of four years of work by more than 300 scientists.

"The Arctic is really warming now," said Robert Corell, a senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society who chaired the assessment. "These areas provide a bellwether of what's coming to planet Earth."

In Alaska, western Canada and eastern Russia, average winter temperatures have risen as much as four to seven degrees Fahrenheit within the past 50 years, according to the report and are projected to increase an additional seven to 13 degrees over the next century. Winter temperatures have risen faster than summer temperatures, according to Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for climate change programs at the Washington-based Climate Institute, because thin sea ice releases more energy from the ocean into the atmosphere.

It's not like we have clear and concise evidence that the Artic Ice Pack is shrinking at a rate far faster than Scientist have previously projected. Y'know - like pictures and stuff.

Ok, ok, enough!

I'm not going to try and debunk all nine - or does this one go to eleven? - of these arguements because it's pointless. The goal of wingnuts is to keep us in the midst of an endless debate, to keep us arguing and nitpicking over whether or not global warming is the primary cause, or a secondary cause while ignoring that it's still a Cause - whether it was the storm that killed those polar bears or the extra distance they were swimming, or like Both, and ignore the fact that POLAR BEARS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO DROWN - EVER - and whether or not chart 18b in scene 24 of "an inconvenient truth" is consistent with chart 32c in scene 41 (Oh look, we got him this time...that liar) instead of taking action, instead of doing something - Anything about the issue. It should be obvious that if a poor little non-scientist like me with an 8-year-old PC can poke this many holes in this judges ruling in an hour and half, he stands practically no chance on appeal.

Take that man-who-is Steve Doocy, and your black-haired sidekick too.

If (most) scientists are correct and humans have the potential the impact climate change and we at least try - where's the harm? It's very likely our economies will boom as a result of new alternative fuels and conservation technologies. Win-Win.

If on the other hand they're wrong - we lose nothing and still gain these new markets, technologies and will live in a clearner world. Still half a win.

But if they're right and we do nothing - the planet slowly dies peice by peice. Even if we are only mildly impacted, it's an unneccesary negative consequence.

Which path makes the most sense?

And by the way, Al Gore still has a Nobel Peace Prize and George W. Bush doesn't.

Vyan

Right Wing Attacks Live Earth ... and misses by a Planet

Today I wanted to talk about John Conyers on This Week saying the I-Word out loud in reference to the recent ARG poll indicating that well over 50% of the American people favor the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the fact that the White House has refused to let Sara Taylor testify in the DOJ hearings pushing Congress one step closer to a Contempt Citation.

I wanted to talk about Bill Kriston admitting that the timing fo the Libby commute was engineered to create a debate over the Clinton pardons, a debate which they happen to be losing badly.

But Instead I'm going to focus yet again on Live Earth and just how freaking desperate and deranged it has began to make the Climate Change Deniers Club ™ .

Now I've had my own criticism's of Live Earth's lineup which I posted yesterday, but I'm not going to revise that debate because in many ways it's beside the point.

What I felt while watching Live Earth is that it really isn't about which bands did and didn't play or what they played. It was about reaching out all across the world and lighting a potential spark inside BILLIONS OF PEOPLE which just might change and save this world from itself.

The shear scope of this event has been staggering. It has shown that we can rise to this challenge even though it may seem daunting and enormous. We can each take steps, take responsibility in our own lives to help make this world cleaner, greener and possible last just a little bit longer.

The fact that they've gotten a person like me, someone who'se been an extremely outspoken and acerbic critic of modern music for the past 15 years to finally put that all that aside - just for moment - with a concert this massive is a stunning accomplishment.

Let me tell you Micheal Mustow has nothing on me when it comes to being a brutal and vicious critic of modern music. If you think political debate can be rough-house knock-down drag-out tussle, just try discussing music with musicians sometime.

In fact, I'm certain that over the years there are people who are flat-out afraid to discuss their favorite (fill-in-the-blank emo/neo-punk/cool hair-cut/pop-tart/rough trade) band with me to this very day because as both a music performer, fan and critic for 20 years I'll probably verbally rip that band into tiny peices of confetti, then burn the confetti without batting an eye.

Today though, I think I'd use those ashes in a compost pile just so I could say they'd finally accomplished something worthwhile.

Anywho... instead of debating matters of musical taste and preference let us turn to the den of scum and villany housing the Climate Change Deniers who I think we should rank along side those who continue to deny the Holocaust, those who continue to deny that Saddam was not the Mastermind of 9/11, and the last remaining 26% percent (Newsweek 7/3) of us who continue to deny that the Sock-Puppet Presidency of George W.Bush and his D/s Top Richard B. "Shooter" Cheney is a Fucking Disastrous Blight on This Nation.

Last night on TFucker Carlson, one of these CCD mouth breathers from the oil and gas lobby powered "Competitive" Enterprise Institute actually said that ....

Al Gore has been looking for a world crisis his own life, where he can come through and "save the world" He wants to be a Superhero Action Figure. Basically he makes this stuff up [about global warming]. There is no scientific support for most his claims.

A Superhero? Y'mean like Commander Guy ™ !?

No Scientific Support?

This guy actually went on National TV - while the Live Earth Concerts were taking place - and said there's No Scientific Support for what Al Gore has been saying about Climate Change?

Is that not dumb as rocks stunning?

I mean most of these guys - like say, trusty ole' Fourthbranch - usually argue that the science is "inconclusive" or that the "debate is still ongoing", but this guy, Myron Ebell, just can't seem to contain himself. He's so full of crap it's coming out of eyes, ears, nose and mouth.

Then he changed tactics and began to actually argue in favor of conservation by claiming that the Live Earth concerts were a bad idea because they use too much energy!

Which side of this mental hopscotch game are these guys playing on?

So let me get this one straight - there's "No Scientific Evidence" to support Gore's Climate Change thesis that the emission of CO² gasses into the atmosphere tend to create a greenhouse effect which is gradually warming our planet and threatening to drastically and radically change our eco-system - yet, you really shouldn't use up all that energy cuz it's like bad, mm,kay?

Has anyone ever taught this nitwit 4th Grade Science where they usually mention, even in your basic Neo-Christian Madrossa in the buckle of the bible belt where some seem to think the Sun revolves around the Earth, that Venus the cloud covered planet is actually hotter than Mercury which is closest to the Sun?

Anyone?

Beuller?

Before I get to the really Stupifying stuff, let's point out that the Live Earth organizers went to agonizing lengths to limit the amount of travel that performers would have to make in order to reach the show.

Live Earth strives to operate in as ecofriendly a way as possible: Several staffers are dedicated entirely to helping artists minimize the environmental impact of getting to and playing the shows, and each artist is given a "Green Handbook" of touring tips, such as where to get biodiesel for their trucks and how to offset carbon emissions. And in London, the team has been discussing a deal with Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic Airlines to reduce the carbon footprint for flights

Not only did they suggest that the artist shift to using bio-deisel for their tour vehicles - which Willie Nelson has been doing for years - they even used bio-deisel generators at the venues where possible. Also LED and compact florescent lights were employed for the show, which only use a fraction of the energy required by normal bulbs.

From the AP.

"This is going to be the greenest event of its kind, ever," former Vice President and Live Earth partner Al Gore told The Associated Press. "The carbon offsets and the innovative practices that are being used to make this a green event, I think, will set the standard for years to come."

The point is not to make the everything perfectly green, but simply to make events such as this - and for that matter most of what we do in our own private lives - greener and greener, as carbon neutral as we can get it bit by bit rather than all at once.

On this point Live Earth dramatically unveiled the lie beneath the rightwings more vicious canard. We don't have to live like Geico's favorite political-correction safe whipping boy - the caveman. We shouldn't be thinking that being Eco-friendly means living under a rock with a machette, a bic lighter and a few pairs of birkenstocks. We can LIVE IT UP and have a great big global party - and still be green. Living green isn't going to be bad for the economy and it isn't going to be bad for business. Well, to be fair, it might be really bad for the brown businesses like the ones who fund Myron and his sociopathic ilk, but then they deserve it don't cha think?

And of course, that's exactly what scares Myron - Sugardaddy Warbucks might have to go on a diet. So naturally he lashes out at those damn dirty liberals who are a threat to his meal ticket.

Global warming is a creation of the left, and the left is all about re-distributing income. We have to become an awful lot poorer, and the people in China have to become a little bit poorer to solve this problem according to the Global Warming Alarmists like Al Gore.

Yeah, we're all going to be in the poor house if we adopt cleaner emissions standards. Oh wait, most of us already are in the po' house - so much so we can't even afford to buy another vowel for the rest of the word. So gee, what's there to really lose then, eh?

And speaking of that completely non-existent Scientific Evidence...

On May 26th, James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute Of Space Studies and the top U.S. climate scientist, issued a new warning about the threat of a catastrophic rise in sea levels.

I suggest that a "scientific reticence" is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

And then there's the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change which released three reports.

One on the Science of Global Warming.

In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

One on the Impacts of Global Warming, not only on natural resources but also on our global security.

If the impact of climate change is going to make regions of violence poorer, then they really provide a level of fertility for inciting disaffection, resentment against the prosperous world. That’s an indirect effect that can create the conditions for terrorism. There is also domestic reasons. If higher-intensity hurricanes create a lot of damage, that does in some sense have security-implications as well. There is a whole range of factors. Water scarcity is another one. I’m not saying all this translates into direct threats to the U.S., but conflict anywhere has some implication for security in the U.S. As the most powerful and most prosperous nation on Earth, it is for the U.S. to take a global view of what strategically might minimize the possibility of threats to national security.

And a third on the relatively Modest Cost of implementing Green Friendly measures to combat Climate Change.

Humans must make sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years to keep global warming in check, but it need cost only a tiny fraction of world economic output, a major U.N. report said on Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said keeping the temperature rise within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) would cost only 0.12 percent of annual gross domestic product.

Not that the facts have ever really gotten in the way of chronic deniers like Myron and his pals.

Fox News: "Al Gore’s Global Warming Movie: Could It Destroy Our Economy?"

Rush Limbaugh: "[Liberals] would have us destroy our economy and millions of jobs based on pseudoscience."

James Inhofe: "Global warming is an alarmism. It’s a type of a hoax. The reality is that a cap on carbon is a cap on the economy."

I'm thinking these guys are going to be spending time in the history books being compared to their bestest buddy Ahmadinajad for their incredible level of denial, nigh unto a pathological addiction to bullcrap.

But y'know maybe that's just me.

I'm just saying...

Vyan

In Defense of Impeach and Remove vs Impeach Now

I wasn't planning on writing this diary today. But circumstances have forced my hand.

I'm not complaining mind you because it gives me a chance to further clarify and focus some issues on the Impeachment Front as I respond directly to yesterday's diary by buhdydharma on The Apparently Misunderstood Strategy Behind Impeach 'Now'. who was in turn responding to me (and others) when I said "One Thing We Shouldn't Do - Is Impeach Too Soon."

And just for the record I understand perfectly, I simply disagree tactically with "Impeach Now" particularly if we actually want to have a successful Conviction and Removal in the Senate.

As of now, that's not gonna happen - but it might in the future if we play our cards carefully.

The first issue is "Impeach Who" exactly?

Just for the record, I think we're only a hair's breath away from Impeaching Gonzales. If the IG investigation of his obstruction with Monica Goodling isn't just a white-wash, and Congress doesn't sit on it's hands with his obvious and repeated perjury before various committees - his ass his grass.

Gonzo needs to be taken out first, that's clear. He's the cock-blocker that's keeping us from establish a a Special Counsel to look into all the other wrong-doings of Bush and Co.

But if you're talking about Impeaching either Bush or Cheney - I think that's simply going to have to wait for a few more months, possible even a year or so until after the above (Removing Gonzales, Implementing a Special Counsel) is accomplished.

(I should note however that with Cheney's little "I'm not in the executive branch" speil while trying to avoid reporting requirements for classified information and today's revelations that he spied on White House Staffers, and set up a secret campaign of Global Warming Denial he just might be gone sooner than Gonzo at this rate. You never can predict these things perfectly.)

buhdydharma said:

It is my contention that these comments come from reading PARTS of impeachment diaries...as well as conflating a FEW poorly reasoned and presented impeach arguments with those of the more responsible impeachment advocates.

Speaking entirely for myself, I didn't write my diary yesterday based on "PARTS" of anything. I've written my own share of Impeachment diaries. To Wit.

• The Impeach Team - Winograd (CA-36), McClosky (CA-29) & Coleman (CA-28)
• RNC says Democrats have an Impeachment Agenda - They do?
• Kwiatkowski : Impeach Early and Often!
• Arianna on Huffpo: Impeach Gonzales Now!
• Sign the Impeach Gonzales Petition
• Impeach Gonzales First Movement Creeps Forward one More Step
• Rebutting the Defense Against the Impeachment of George W. Bush
• The Impeachment Case against George W. Bush - Count 4: Criminal Negligence
• The Impeachment Case Against George W. Bush. Count 3 - War Crimes, Torture and Murder
• The Impeachment Case Against George W. Bush. Count 2 - Domestic Espionage
• The Case for the Impeachment of George W. Bush : Count 1 - Intelligence Fraud
• After November 06: A Re-Defining Moment
• Dems find that Bush broke 26 Statutes
• Censure is TOO GOOD for 'em
• What Liberals Want...
• One Consistent Meme for Victory in November
• The Fastest Way to End the Iraq War
• History of Presidential Surveillance vs the Wingbats - Episode III
• DOJ Inspector General looking into Obstruction by Gonzo
• Downing Street II : Nail in the Coffin
• In the last throes of Gone-zales....?
• This Failed Presidency
• White House was warned of possible War Crimes Violations in 2002
• WWDD: What would a DEMOCRAT Do?

The other direct inspiration for my comments yesterday were many of the comments I recieved to my Contempt of Congress Diary from the day before that. Examples:

I'm not optimistic this will acccomplish (28+ / 0-)

anything.

Chairman Conyers needs to start Impeachment hearings.

If he doesn't, the stonewalling will never end.

Futility. (4+ / 0-)

"The process was designed to be slow and deliberate, to prevent its being abused and misused."

How's that working out?

We can't dick around any longer; no more little (0 / 0)

bricks!

We need to start impeachment hearings for BOTH Gonzales AND Cheney NOW!

The clock is ticking!

(This I happen to think is a somewhat fair point, the timetable I suggested yesterday would put Impeachment taking place right after the Presidential Primaries in June of '08 - which could be more than a little bit awkward, but if the case is strong and air-tight enough - ultimately that won't matter.)

We aren't gonna remove anyone, just like (1+ / 0-)

we are not gonna stop this war in this current term.

However, we CAN establish for posterity formal articles of impeachment, which will put on the record the crimes of the Bush admin.

Such will also reinvigorate our own base.

Such will also shake up the Bushie "I can't recall" defense. And the "executive privilege" defense.

And, it will be during the impeachment hearings themselves where we will discover new & interesting things;

Another poster here astutely said, when Rodino & Dash (of Watergate fame) proceeded to formal impeachment hearings, they never knew beforehand that John Dean would flip or that Butterfield would tell us about the WH taping system.

Rodino & Dash proceeded to formal impeachment hearings of NIXON with a lot LESS stuff than Conyers ALREADY has!

Impeachment isn't the real goal, and neither is removal the real goal;

THE FORMAL DISCOVERY AND FORMAL DOCUMENTATION OF BUSH CRIMES is the real goal!

Oh yeah,

THE NIXON TAPES CAME OUT ONLY AS A RESULT OF FORMAL IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS, WHICH HAD TO FIRST BE HELD!!

My diary yesterday was simply an attempt to consolidate and organize my responses to some of the above comments - particularly the last one since I felt it operated under a historical fallacy.

The simple fact is that the Nixon Tapes came out months before formal impeachment hearings began - so that's clearly an invalid justification to "Impeach Now". I was correcting his (or her) misunderstanding.

Next buhdydharma said:

To reiterate one point that somehow has been constantly and I dare say, maliciously ignored....NO responsible Impeach advocate has suggested that impeachment is not reliant on thorough investigations.

EVER.

We can certainly debate the "responsible" issue, but just from the comments I've quoted some people have indeed made that very suggestion, essentially arguing that we either already have everything we need or it's only through Impeachment proceedings that we can peirce the veil of "executive priveledge" as was noted by this commenter.

Sorry, but (21+ / 0-)

Impeachment means starting the investigation.

Conviction only comes after the evidence. My guess is that if you polled Americans on the question, "would you support the removal of the President if he were found to have committed crimes against the country and the constitution?" an overwhelming majority would say yes.

Impeachment, and impeachment alone, can enable those revelations, because only by impeachment can we cut through "executive privilege" stonewalling. That is why it is urgent and necessary.

The "Executive Priviledge" issue may also be a fair point, but there's more than one way to skin a Bush. We still have some time left to let the court battle over that issue resolve itself.

And, in point of fact, a very similar question to the one suggested by that commenter was asked by an LA Times Bloomberg Poll last April.

"If George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant, do you think that is an impeachable offense, or not an impeachable offense?"

• All Adults IS 36% IS NOT 56%
• Democrats IS 53% IS NOT 36%
• Republicans IS 17% IS NOT 80%
• Independants IS 37% IS NOT 53%

"Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?"

• Should 33% Should Not 66%

Not exactly the stunning results one would expect, eh?

The point here is that the case for Impeachment has not even begun to be made yet (and the MSM isn't helping since they've hardly ever bothered to poll on the question since last year!) Congress has yet to find the "smoking gun" that would make the case complete in Bush's case.

Then buhdydharma said:

Point two, and the one that has been highlighted recently....NO ONE expects Nancy Pelosi to read an impeachment diary and suddenly throw up her hands and throw her own assessment, her own read of the politics and her common sense to the wind because of an impeachment diary on Dkos....and immediately start proceedings!

Well, of course not... but - and this is big but - we do have to hope that we, in our own small way, can have an impact on policy. These diaries aren't neccesarily written specifically for legislators - we write them primarily for each other. To help ourselves negotiate and develop activist action plans, build marching orders and implement them.

Nancy Pelosi may not read a specific Impeachment Diary, but many of us will and then get on the phone and call her office at (202) 225-0100...

Or write her a letter at

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Or post on her blog The Gavel and let her know what you think directly.

Secondly, my issue isn't with Speaker Pelosi doing "something against her better judgement" - I personally was more concerned with the level of growing impatience, cynicism and frustration that was clearly evident when Congress failed to override Bush's Veto of the Troop Redeployment plan and choose to Punt Until September, at which point I wrote Don't Panic to point out that despite Kucinich and Edwards' posturing Dems had no more viable options until they were able to gain more Republican support. As Dana Milbank pointed out that evening on Countdown they didn't even have the requisite 60 votes to re-submit the vetoed bill again It was D.O.A. Time for Plan B.

As a result of that fracus - We Lost Cindy Sheehan!

This is what I don't want to see continue. We need to stay in this fight for the long haul, we can't afford to let cynicism and defeatism push us out of the public sphere as an activist force.

I was speaking to US - not them (Congress).

Then buhdydharma said:

Demanding impeachment on Dkos WILL NOT make it happen. To think we don't know that is ridiculous and as I have said, insulting. So instead of thinking all impeachment advocates are idiots, try taking a second to ask what our strategy and thinking actually is!

On this point I actually completely disagree. Demanding that Congress change - via DKOS and other outlets - DID MAKE IT HAPPEN. Oh sure, the Repubs did a lot to help what with the Abramov, The Dukester, The Foley Follies and Maccaca Man. But we helped keep those stories alive and kicking GOP Ass.

It not so much a matter of "demanding" but of making consistent persuasive arguements which gradually change the mind of others progressives, and those people tell two people.. and they tell two people... and eventually you have a groundswell that Congress can't possibly ignore.

BUT... my point remains that although we should absolutely be pushing for Impeachment, since there are literally hundreds of good reasons for it, we Don't have to kick a gift horse like possible Contempt of Congress Charges in the Mouth simply because the issue isn't moving fast enough for our tastes.

Patience is not Appeasement!

There's a huge difference between Impeaching Now... and Impeaching with the intent of Winning in the Senate and Removing Bush (and Cheney) from Office. I know many people don't believe that can be done - but I can tell you one thing, it sure as shit won't get done if we don't even try to visualize it.

To me: Impeachment's Too GOOD For 'em, they need to be Removed.

We may or may not get there, but Removal should be the goal.

There are two primary reasons for this 1) We are not going to end the Iraq Occupation while Bush is still President, he'll go down to the last gasp of his Administration on Jan 19th 2009 still clutching Baghdad in his cold dead fingers and 2) We are not going to send a serious message to all future Presidents that the type of blatant lawlessness and arrogance that this Adminstration has perpetrated Will Not Be Tolerated by this nation or we risk Permenent Damage to The Rule of Law - unless we Impeach, Remove and hopefully Convict!

If we don't reign these fuckers in - and I mean Hard - there is literally nothing to stop it from happening again, and again and again. Just listen to Mitt Romney "I would open Two Guantanemos" - or listen to Guiliani whose practically ready to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Or McCain...

"Bomb bomb bomb.. bomb bomb I..."

This shit has to be stopped cold.

These guys are too irresponsible to be trusted with the family car, let alone the country. The Authoritarian Dickheads who've totally hijacked the GOP have to know that they can't get away with it. Ever.

On every other point made by buhdydharma I completely agree.

I don't think or expect that Nancy Pelosi will become President even if somehow my best case scenario does manage to pan out and both Shooter and Bushie are removed. Most likely we'll wind up with a limp Senate-safe "Ford II" regent to ride out the demise of Bushco. It simply wouldn't be appropriate to make this issue into a partisan coup.

That's not what it's about.

(Although in full disclosure it hasn't stopped me from making a "President Pelosi '07" T-Shirt Design just for the fun of it.)

Anyway....

I stand in solidarity with buhdydharma on the point that we need to address these issues wisely and strategically. We need to be strong, DKOS Strong, learn to handle the setbacks and contain ourselves from lashing out at our own side when they're honestly paddling as fast as they can through the morass of obstruction and that our government was designed to be.

A government that works too quickly, works rashly. Isn't that exactly what we saw under the Republican Congress as they passed bills in the middle of the night and decided to stop doing the entire country's business to invervene in the health decisions of one lone florida woman in a hospice?

I was not intending to shout-down those who feel passionate about Impeachment, or to discourage them from speaking out and letting people know how they feel - rather I sought to re-assure them that "Yes, brother - look at what Conyers is doing - and recognize that It is good"

Yeah, verily.

Contempt of Congress is for Today.

Impeachment (of Gonzales) is for Tommorrow (or in the next fwe weeks)

Cheney and Bush have a few months before it's their turn.

Vyan