Get out the thermal underpants! It's another protest!

Last night I goed to another protest against Kids Helping Kids - a youth "treatment" center that's actually a cult. KHK is the progeny of the money-grubbing abusive facilities founded by Bush crony Mel Sembler. Like the protest in November, I was invited to this protest because it's an issue I take very seriously.

It was bitter cold last night, and I was afraid the event might be called off. But we still managed to get 3 people together (when I was afraid we might have zero due to the weather) to drive out to the east side of Cincinnati to fight KHK's fascism.

When we got there, several things perplexed us so. I can't go into detail yet, because I'm not really sure of exactly what's going on, but after a few minutes it became clear we have KHK on the run. That's a certainty. Suffice it to say, we've had at least some effect on KHK, and we've put at least a dent in their activities. I'm so glad I got to participate in this protest!

I was sure to bundle up in 4 jackets and thermal undies! I dredged up coats I thunk I had thrown in the gar-bahge back in 1993!

The entire event ruled, and afterward we drove around Cincinnati! I even got to show my protesting cohorts the secret bridge that runs under the Waldvogel Viaduct! Then the 3 of us went down to Sawyer Point and traipsed through mud at 4 AM! This defied the Allowed Cloud that barred folks from the park after 11 PM. (For those who insist Cincinnati is dangerous at any hour, we were the only people around. So there.)

'Twas kinda neat!

(More info: http://www.isaccorp.org/kidshelpingkids.asp)

Huckabee spoke to white supremacist group

First, Ron Paul's newsletters (which The Last Word exposed way back in the mid-'90s), and now this.

The Council of Conservative Citizens - the progeny of the old White Citizens' Councils, the "uptown Klan" of the '60s - is a white supremacist organization. Anyone familiar with their crapaganda knows this. The bigotry of modern conservatism is as pronounced as its greed and often goes hand in hand with it: These two elements of right-wing philosophy heavily overlap like a Venn diagram.

Occasionally some conservative politician will be caught with CCC ties. Before the CCC was exposed as a mainstay of racism, a lot of politicians spoke before the group - but some renounced the CCC when they learned of its actual stance. Others, however, have no regrets. Trent Lott, Haley Barbour, and John Ashcroft have been connected to the CCC even in recent times, and Jim Talent used the CCC's mailing list to gain supporters.

Now it turns out that in the '90s, Mike Huckabee cultivated a relationship with the CCC. Huckabee - then Arkansas lieutenant governor - eagerly accepted an invitation to speak at the CCC's 1993 conference and gave a videotaped speech that was well-received by the racists in attendance.

In 1994 the CCC conducted its national conference in Little Rock just to attract Fuckapee. He agreed to speak to the group, but backed out when it was reported that he would share the stage with Kirk Lyons, an activist whose name often appears in connection with racist causes. Huckabee was worried about bad publicity for himself, not about the CCC's extremism. When Fuckapee canceled, he was replaced by former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson - organizer of the mob that rioted against the end of segregation at a Little Rock high school and narrator of Jerry Falwell's debunked 'The Clinton Chronicles'.

Huckabee's CCC links are a few years old, but he's had a seamless political career since. Many political figures' lives zig and zag, and parts of their minds are stripped away and rebuilt - so if they once supported something, there's a chance they may no longer. But Huckabee has never renounced the CCC, and is like many politicians in that his career has coasted along consistently. I think he subscribed to the CCC's views in the '90s, and I think he still does.

(Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_gave_speech_to_white_supremacists_0118.html)

Government slowdown suppresses vote

If an immigrant to the U.S. obeys all the laws, meets all the rules for becoming a naturalized citizen, becomes fluent in the English language, and passes the citizenship test, don't you think it's fair for the government to process their application to become a citizen in a timely manner?

I think so, and you probably think so. But because of incompetence at the Department of Homeland Suckyurity, which includes the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (the bureau that now governs naturalization), it isn't the case.

Not long ago, workers' groups and other folks encouraged hundreds of thousands of newcomers to apply for citizenship - as the law permits them to do. But now the USCIS cries that it can't process all the forms - even though the bureau knew about the citizenship drive over a year ago. Um, with all that money going into the DHS??? How is the DHS spending all that dough anyway??? Is it doing like that one agency in Kentucky did when it hired some Republican donor who then refused to work so they just paid him to do nothing?

The processing time used to be 6 months. Now it's suddenly jumped to 18 months.

It turns out that this delay is making it so these applicants aren't officially granted citizenship until after the election that won't be for another 10 months from now. Thus, they won't be able to vote in it.

Gee, how convenient. And I don't believe for one second that it's accidental.

So now people who played by the rules (some of whom have lived in the U.S. for over 35 years) to be able to vote won't be able to.

The DHS's intentional sloth in processing the citizenship applications is nothing short of election fraud on a huge scale. But with a regime that politicizes every government agency like no administration before it, should we really be surprised?

(Source: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120062241887099569.html)

Sembler firm sued for injuring boy

Mel Sembler is a scumbag who served as the U.S. ambassador to Australia and Nauru under Mad Dog Bush and as the ambassador to Italy under current dictator Bush. For years he's been a big fundraiser in Florida for the Republicans.

Perhaps most controversially, Mel Sembler and his wife Betty are the founders of Straight, Inc., a youth "treatment" program known for years for abusing kids via beatings, sexual assault, and other methods. Following the discovery of this abuse, the Senate called Straight, Inc. "cruel and inhuman behavior modification." When the accounts of this abuse surfaced again years later, Sembler resigned in disgrace as ambassador to Italy.

In more recent times, he's headed the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.

Sembler also founded and headed the Sembler Company, which builds and manages shopping complexes, like one in St. Petersburg, Florida, called BayWalk. A few years ago, demonstrators protested against BayWalk because of racial incidents there. Now the Sembler Company is in trouble again, this time due to negligence at BayWalk that left a small child grievously injured.

Last year, a 3-year-old boy was hurt at BayWalk when a stereo speaker fell 20 feet and landed on his head. The child suffered a broken skull and a major brain injury, and will be severely disabled for the rest of his life. He lost all feeling in his right hand at the age of 3 because of the incident. His father then lost his job, and his family lost their apartment - and they're faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills for 2 hours a day of therapy. Costs will run into the millions.

The speaker, which weighed 40 to 70 pounds, fell after being carelessly perched on a stand in BayWalk's courtyard.

Now the family has filed a lawsuit against the Sembler Company for its reckless disregard for the safety of customers.

If Mel Sembler is still an executive of his shopping center management company, some of the judgment ought to come straight out of his personal bank account.

(Source: http://www.thestraights.com/articles/BayWalkDiversityWeekend.htm;
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/17/Southpinellas/Family_of_boy_injured.shtml)

Year-round school: an idea whose time has gone

Since I started this blog in August, there's one issue I feel very strongly about that I don't think I've mentioned yet: the unacceptable trend in America towards year-round school.

This right-wing idea would have been unthinkable 15 years ago, but there's several school districts in my area that have it now (including the one where I grew up). The idea itself is bad enough - for reasons I'm sure I've mentioned in The Last Word - but what's really bad is how shrill and nasty most of its supporters are. They simply will not take no for an answer. I was run off one message board last year for refusing to support the idea, and I caught hell from the Far Right on at least one BBS for the same, because of their unchecked arrogance.

Year-round school is nothing but a corporate-backed gimmick that has only yielded failure where it's been tried.

This year I hope I can bring you more insight about this scourge. It's an important issue because it's one that rests at the very foundation of a person's life. If Bill Clinton made a national issue out of school uniforms (which are another failed right-wing gimmick), we should make a national issue out of year-round school and insist our lawmakers put a halt to this unseemly power grab.

Chertoff boasts of tougher ID rules

Bush's Real ID scumbaggery is bad enough, but this shit is fucking ridiculous.

Incompetent Homeland Suckyurity Director Michael Chertoff is gloating that - starting a couple weeks from now - a photo ID such as a driver's license won't be enough for Americans to reenter the U.S. at border crossings. Man, I bet Canada and Mexico aren't gonna like that. Jerkoff actually expects other countries to keep U.S. citizens who aren't allowed back in the U.S.?

The rules will also result in longer lines and more inconvenience. But Jerkoff sneers that Americans need to get with the program (him being a programmy guy and all). The hideous asswipe opened up his smarmy yip and sniffed about how "it's time to grow up."

I'm so sick of hearing Jerkoff flap his jaws and that attitude-laden voice of his. Fuck him and his incompetent ideas.

(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/border_security)

Right-wing lawmaker would require bike tax

John Putney is a right-wing Iowa state senator and a complete and utter clod. Although he was only elected in 2002, the Republicans have already made him one of their most powerful idiots in the state legislature. (These days, the worse a lawmaker is, the faster they rise to the top of the party machine.)

Putney wastes the legislature's valuable time on garbage like his resolution that would have established a so-called "Right-To-Work Day." The resolution was an unasked-for propaganda-filled paean to unconstitutional work-for-less laws, which have weakened workers' power.

Now Putney has introduced a bill that would make Iowa the first state to require bicyclists to obtain a license - which is actually a special tax on biking. Unlike the license to drive a car, failing to carry the license at all times results in the revocation of the license and the ability to obtain a license for another year. It applies to all ages, including children who only ride bikes within their neighborhoods (unless the neighborhood is served only by city-owned streets or by roads that have a bike path).

This tax is so clearly an anti-biking bill that there's no use in Putney even trying to hide it (although he tries). We can just picture John Putney hunkering behind a computer screen, logging on to some right-wing message board, and pounding out a semiliterate screed complaining about how, hey, bikes are slow and might someday slow down his SUV for 30 feet until he can get around the bike. He's exactly the sort you'd find in the wingnutosphere.

Folks have an inherent right to freedom of movement and travel. There's also a common law doctrine that says bicycles are entitled to the use of all public roads, the only exception being freeways that lack a companion surface road or path. This tenet cannot be overruled by any statute. Other than freeways, most roads were actually built for bikes, not cars. We should be doing more to encourage biking, not discourage it.

America needs to free up some space for bicycling. One way this should be done would be to regulate SUV's as commercial vehicles.

(Source: http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=2780;
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/13847217.html;
http://www.ketv.com/politics/15064848/detail.html)

Court orders public university to fund religion

This is one from the "huh?" department.

If you were a student at a public university, would you expect the mandatory student fees you have to pay to fund religious activities? I wouldn't. A lot of public campuses have religious organizations, but I'd expect them to be funded only by their members or by outside sources.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison had this very policy. Students there were not compelled to sponsor others' religious activities with their mandatory fees. Almost everyone agreed the policy was sensible. In fact, not having this policy would have been plumb unconstitutional.

But in BushAmerica, activist federal judges believe the exact opposite.

The Roman Catholic Foundation, a Catholic student group at UW, wanted funding from the school from the fees required of all students. The school turned down this request. So the RCF sued UW. UW caved and agreed to fund that particular organization, but the RCF agreed not to seek university funding for Mass or other events presided over by clergy.

But then the organization decided to raise the price of poker by suing UW again, this time demanding UW fund Mass as well as proselytizing activities.

The RCF does not believe in separation of church and state. If it did, it wouldn't be filing these suits. It believes the activities of the Catholic Church should be government-funded, using money paid by the people - Catholic and non-Catholic alike. If the RCF didn't think this, it wouldn't be demanding funding via student fees. The RCF is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a highly untrustworthy right-wing hate group founded by many of the most notorious dimbulbs of social conservatism.

Ironically, the RCF says it violates the First Amendment for the government to fail to fund it. In other words, they think the amendment that prohibits the government from sponsoring religion actually requires the government to sponsor religion.

It's hard to see how any judge could side with the RCF's stance. But one did. U.S. District Judge John Shabaz - a Reagan appointee - has now ruled that the University of Wisconsin-Madison must use compulsory student fees to fund the Roman Catholic Foundation. He says failing to do so violates the RCF's right to free speech.

Say what??? Talk about a ruling that makes absolutely no sense at all.

The RCF already had free speech - but they think free speech means compelling everyone else to pay for it. Can this blog claim its First Amendment rights are being violated just because the government fails to subsidize it? Can I demand that the taxpayers buy me a TV station to promote this blog's views because they'll get better coverage? That's exactly what this is like.

Now, because of this right-wing judge's ruling, there's no longer separation of church and state at UW. Although nominally still a public university, this ruling makes it in effect a Catholic university. The RCF prints Lenten booklets and conducts religious retreats - and now the entire student body is compelled to pay for these projects, along with proselytizing and Mass. While the RCF and the judge claimed it was somehow discriminatory for UW not to fund the RCF, it's actually discriminatory to force students at a public school to fund religions they're not affiliated with.

The judge's preliminary order stands at least until June when the main trial is scheduled to begin.

I remember a case in the '90s in which federal courts ruled that mandatory student fees couldn't be used for political groups. Conservatives hailed this decision, as the suit involved the funding of a liberal group. If compulsory fees can't be used for political groups - whether liberal or conservative - how can they be used for religious organizations? (The fact that the ruling on political organizations was selectively enforced so conservative groups still got funding is another matter entirely.)

If the Alliance Defense Fund can win a case that just so thoroughly fuses religion with government as the Wisconsin case has, it's just more proof we no longer have a Constitution.

(Source: http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/breaking_news/267874;
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/OSH/80117173/1128/OSHnews)

Climate change deniers censor scientist from speaking to high school

From Galileo to Darwin and beyond, the greats of science have always found themselves the targets of skeptics who argue with their findings because they challenge their views.

The science of climate change has faced the same obstacles. Global warming is denied daily by Flat Earthers who trot out the same industry-backed reports over and over in an attempt to counter the reams of scientific evidence that proves climate change is real and created by human activity. Climate change denial is like a religion to them, and they take it to the point of fanaticism.

Steven Running is an ecology professor and is known as a climate change expert. He was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with none other than Al Gore (following Gore's interest in the subject). He helped write that panel's report on global warming.

Running was supposed to speak to high school students in Choteau, Montana. But then the spittle contingent - which is always influenced by corporate Bushiganda - got wind of this and cried that Running's presentation would not include an opposing view.

Maybe the reason the presentation didn't include an opposing view is that it was about facts and science. Once something is proven to be a fact - which climate change has - how do you counter it? Every time a school teaches that 2 plus 2 is 4, is the school supposed to have someone come in and try to "prove" that it's 5?

Climate change is a fact. Period. End of discussion. I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

But conservatives hate facts. So their echo chamber was upset not only at the facts presented by Running not being countered by industry dogma. The rightist noise machine wanted their own side to be the only side presented. As a result, the school superintendent canceled Running's appearance.

You read that right: A leading scientist was barred from speaking to a high school all because conservatives claim his scientific findings are wrong because they don't agree with the conservatives' dogma.

However, most folks in Choteau agree with science and want Steven Running to be allowed to speak there. The Great Falls Tribune published an article by a student supporting the forces of reason, and 7 of the 9 letters to the weekly Choteau Acantha about the matter blasted the school board for censoring Running. Only the town's right-wing Republican Establishment opposes letting Running speak.

It amazes you that a handful of wingnuts can argue with an ecology professor about climate change and the school system just gives in. It's kind of like when some Bush appointee who never got a degree in anything kept fighting with that NASA guy about it.

(Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/17/12817/8556/30/438315;
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/17/america/montana.php)

Canada places U.S. on torture watch list

Following the revelation that a Canadian citizen has been tortured repeatedly at Guantanamo Bay - he has been held there for 5 years, since he was 15 - Canada's CTV has discovered that the Canadian government already has the U.S. on a list of countries with a high risk of torture. Bush's America appears on the list alongside Iran, China, and others.

The story about Gitmo came on the heels of that of a Canadian national who was falsely accused by U.S. authorities of having terrorism links. Although he was innocent, this man was sent to a Syrian prison and tortured for a year.

What? The United States under a member of the Bush crime family practices torture? Tell me something I haven't known for years.

(Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080116/khadr_torture_080116/20080116?hub=TopStories)

Bush regime makes city give up land to build fence

Well, this is a federal land grab and a half.

The Department of Homeland Suckyurity is building a new fence on the Mexican border, supposedly to keep people from coming to the U.S. illegally. Everyone knows it won't work, and it's just going to put lives at risk anyway. And that's why the border town of Eagle Pass, Texas, doesn't want the fence.

(And yes, this is the same fence that the DHS refused to even use American-made steel for, preferring instead to buy the steel from China. So much for the ruling regime's claim of standing up for the good ol' red, white, and blue.)

But the Justice Department told the people of Eagle Pass they had to accept the fence or else. Not only that, but the city had to turn over 233 valuable acres of land so the Bush regime could build the fence. A federal court even sided with Bush by requiring the city to give up its land.

The mayor said Bush's tactics are "sneaky underhanded measures."

The land grab gets worse. Throughout the Southwest, the DHS has filed over 100 lawsuits to seize property from individuals who don't want to give up their land for the miles of useless fencing.

What's the point in even dividing the country up into states, counties, and cities anymore if an overbearing federal government can just come in and make a city give up its land to build a fence people don't even want?

(Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24897.html)

Former GOP congressman charged with aiding Al-Qaeda backer

This ought to be a huge story, but I'm having a hard time finding any coverage of it at all.

Mark Siljander was a right-wing Republican congressman from Michigan for years. After his congressional gig, ol' Rappin' Ronnie Raygun appointed Siljander as an alternate representative to the UN General Assembly. After moving to Virginia, he ran for Congress there and lost. Siljander is also known for his numerous failed business ventures.

Siljander was known for his Pat Robertson-like religious extremism and boasting that his reelection to Congress would "break the back of Satan." Siljander once complained bitterly about the Qur'an being read at a prayer breakfast. He's still considered a luminary in right-wing circles, but now he talks about "common ground between faiths."

I guess what he means is that the most right-wing elements of each religion pretty much grow together by having the same enemies and engaging in the same extreme actions to advance their causes. I've felt for years that America's Religious Right and the Taliban are basically alike, even though they're identified with different religions. This is exactly why conservatives in Washington supported groups that grew into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

But now it's all crashing down for Siljander. Today he was indicted on charges that he's part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent over $130,000 to an Al-Qaeda and Taliban backer who has menaced American military personnel. The 42 federal counts against Siljander include money laundering, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying about lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a "charity" that funded terrorists. The indictment also says the organization paid Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying and that this money was stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Right-wing blogger Debbie Schlussel used to be a staffer and speechwriter for Mark Siljander. Schlussel is known for ripping up newspapers and scanning them in to illustrate her own absurd diatribes and for blaming 'Sesame Street' for violence in Bangladesh. Now she reports being utterly shocked - shocked, I say - that her former boss would be involved in something like laundering money to a terrorist. Schlussel accompanied this expression of alarm with a scan of her old staffer badge, which shows a much younger Schlussel with a hairdo that looks like that of Patty Smyth in her "The Warrior" video. (As another example of rules not applying to conservatives, Schlussel apparently still has her ID even though it clearly states, "This card must be surrendered immediately upon termination of employment.")

Oh, I believe Schlussel is surprised by the news about Siljander. But she shouldn't be, because I've known for years that conservative congresscritters like Siljander support terrorists abroad (and at home). The GOP leadership in Washington helped put the Taliban in power, for crying out loud!

Remember all this when you're deciding who to vote for. If you're seriously considering voting Republican, ask yourself if you really want America to lose a city to terrorism. The threat from the GOP is real. That the Mark Siljander scandal isn't front-page news is simply astounding.

(Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hw36mXsH7fbogLzqW06NU31aQAmgD8U75UU83;
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/447332.html)

The Conservative Fool Of The Day is...Lisa Smith!

Because you did so well a few days ago when we played "Guess The Party Affiliation", let's try it again!

Lisa Smith, a former West Virginia state senator, was sentenced yesterday to 2 years in prison on federal tax and mail fraud charges. She had to pay almost $1,000,000 in restitution.

Smith, who ran 2 in-home health care companies with her husband Mark, failed to pay the IRS money that was withheld for taxes from her employees' paychecks. Mark Smith was convicted of failing to pay employment taxes and was sentenced to 6 months of home confinement, 5 years of probation, and almost $400,000 in restitution.

Let me get this straight: Lisa Smith stole tens of thousands of dollars by pocketing the amount that was withheld from workers for taxes. That's really what happened. Smith also mailed a fake campaign finance statement to state election officials during her Senate campaign.

Can you guess Lisa Smith's party affiliation? Just from the fact that the AP article about her sentencing failed to mention it is a clue. More clues: She's from a suburban county, had funny hair, and was first "elected" as senator in 2002. And she lies and steals money.

You guessed right: another Rethuglican!

Smith won the 2002 "election" in a vote plagued by fraud by Republicans. She defeated a popular Democratic incumbent when officials in Bush's so-called Justice Department blabbed that the incumbent was under investigation for something or other. However, the Democrat was never prosecuted for anything - so they lied. While they baselessly accused the Democrat of campaign finance fraud, Republican Smith was committing this crime all along.

On the issues, Lisa Smith was an extreme conservative. In her Freeper-like complaints, she cried about juries being too generous to malpractice victims. Because Smith hates gays, she attacked the incumbent for supporting laws to protect people from hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation.

However, Smith resigned her seat in 2004, reportedly because of mental issues. If she really did have some sort of clinical illness that rendered her incapable of doing her job, the real conservafools are the corrupt GOP bosses who politicized the U.S. attorney's office with baseless charges against her opponent, lied to the media, rigged the election, and installed Smith in that Senate seat. But Smith evidently was mentally competent enough to go to trial for her scaminous ways, so she's obviously just another right-wing politician who spews venom and commits crimes even though they know better. If she's in good enough health to have been a state senator for 2 years, I have no regrets about exposing her corruption.

The Lisa Smith story is a pattern that's played itself out again and again in recent years: Some right-wing beezweezer lies about a political opponent, gets "elected", then gets exposed as the criminal they are.

(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_on_re_us/ex_lawmaker_sentenced;
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003902.php)

Colleges expel disabled just because

This story is a couple weeks old, but I just now found it: All over America, institutions of higher book-learnin' - both public and private - are making more and more efforts to punish students because they're disabled by conditions like PTSD or eating disorders.

One thing is for certain: When it happens in a public college or university, these penalties violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Period. End of discussion. Of course, it happens anyway, because it ain't like BushAmerica is a nation of laws or anything. I don't know about private schools, but with public schools, there's no question it's illegal.

In fact, the ADA requires public educational institutions to not only avoid discriminating outright but also to make accommodations for disabled students. However, the Chicago Tribune reports that Eastern Illinois University - a public school - inexplicably told a student with PTSD she had to either take medical leave or be expelled. This despite the fact that coping with her condition posed no danger or distraction to other folks or to herself, and at least one of her professors stuck up for her.

Tens of millions of Americans have PTSD. You meet people daily who have it. PTSD is far from rare, so how is it something so taboo that schools feel they can expel students for it without even giving a reason why?

Schools' apparent excuse goes something like this: Courts have ruled that if a student is harmed by a disorder they have, the schools can be held liable. So - instead of making accommodations to prevent such an injury - the schools just wash their hands altogether of these so-called "problem" students. That's the lazy way the schools deal with things. Further proof of this is that students who do face dismissal are barred from the campus even if it is a public facility that's otherwise open to the community.

The practice of expelling students for these medical conditions actually discourages students from seeking help, because they're afraid their school will find out they have a condition.

The problem isn't entirely new, but it's getting worse. An organization representing students who were victims of this discrimination used to get about one call a month - but now, following the fascism wave earlier this decade, it's one a week.

Another EIU student was forced out of school because she had bulimia - and not allowed to return until she signed a contract with the university.

If there aren't some ADA lawsuits over this, I'll just bip. Since when have colleges been allowed to go around punishing people solely because they have disability?

Also, if a student has PTSD, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow them to be excused from class before an attack. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a clarion call for such an accommodation, and if a school won't comply, that's pretty sad.

(Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-kickedout_27dec27,0,242698.story)

Another debate I'm not watching

NBC needs to take its debates and shove them up its ass.

I've been waiting all day for the results of NBC's temper tantrum against Dennis Kucinich, and now the rightists on the Nevada Supreme Court have decided in the network's favor in its decision to bar Kucinich from the MSNBC debate.

MSNBC's own account of the 3 candidates who remain in the debate is biased. MSNBC reports, "The debate lineup included Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois as well as former Sen. John Edwards ..." What? "As well as" Edwards? MSNBC acts like even Edwards is a taboo candidate by prefacing him with "as well as" - but they just haven't been able to find any excuses yet to exclude him (though you know they're trying).

So the media agenda continues against dissent. Is there still any doubt how the media wants this election to turn out?

This is the sort of shit that makes me ever gladder I'm not wasting $30 a month by getting cable.

(Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22656153)

Sheehan conviction overturned

A few days ago, a U.S. appeals court overturned the conviction of antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan for demonstrating without a permit near the White House.

The 3-judge panel ruled that the conviction - for which Sheehan was fined $50 plus a $25 administrative fee - was based on law errors by the magistrate judge. Now a new trial has been ordered. However, the court rejected Sheehan's argument that the National Park Service's rules against demonstrating near the White House are unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

The 2005 protest drew over 200 people to demonstrate against the war.

Bush still hasn't learned, because most stupid people don't learn. But at least the protest helped draw more attention to how hopeless this war is.

(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080111/pl_nm/usa_iraq_sheehan_dc_1)

Dour Huckabee would amend Constitution to meet "God's standards"

You know, I really dig this separation of church and state thing, don't you? Sure is cool how it works!

But Mike Huckabee thinks having a Constitution informed by freedom of religion isn't the way to go. Vying for votes before a friendly Republican crowd in Michigan, an angry-sounding Huckabee said America should change the Constitution "so it's in God's standards."

So he thinks the Constitution should be changed to meet his religious views.

I'm not surprised that's what Huckabee wants to do, because you almost have to have this view to be a serious GOP presidential contender these days. It's surprising though that he'd be so upfront about it with all those cameras rolling.

Mike Huckabee is a dominionist - a person who believes the government and all its policies should be based on a right-wing interpretation of the Bible. Under dominionists' butchering of biblical teachings, every political issue is somehow worked into their philosophy, from social policy to the war to taxation. You name the issue, and the dominionists will not only twist the Bible to meet their view - they'll try to force you to live under this view.

Uh, Mike? I hear the Taliban has some openings.

(Source: http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/198312.asp)

The Conservative Fool Of The Day is...Douglas Bruce!

"She called me Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Bruce...I can hear her calling Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Bruce...I can hear her going Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Bruce...I can hear her (clap clap!)..."

Meet Douglas Bruce - a Colorado Springs Republican (the very phrase sends chills down your spine). The right-wing activist was recently chosen by county Republicans to fill a vacant seat in the Colorado House. (Lovely how in Colorado Springs the party apparatus can just choose who fills a seat instead of having the issue be decided in a multiparty election.)

The get-nothing-done anti-tax crusader breezed into his new job with a bang! First of all, the self-serving maniac waited until the unexpired term was more than halfway over to actually take his seat, so he'll be allowed to serve an extra term before term limits force him out. (Funny how conservatives believe in "term limits for thee, not for me.") Then he insisted on taking his oath of office while the House was in session, just to spite political foes who frowned on his delay in taking his seat. This despite the fact that it's standard practice for lawmakers who fill a vacancy to be sworn in while the House isn't in session. Taking the oath while the House is in session delays House business.

Bruce eventually had to back down on that demand, because the Republicans got tired of not having a legislator and threatened to choose someone else instead. But not getting his way only made him even more unhinged!

The crazed blowhard then kicked a Rocky Mountain News photographer for taking his photo during the morning prayer at the start of the legislature's work day. "Don't do that again!" Bruce scowled as he ground his foot into the photographer's knee. However, House rules permit news photographers to take pictures during prayers and all House activities.

Don't believe he did all this? Well, there's video here, so don't deny it, conservos:

http://cbs4denver.com/video/?id=38064@kcnc.dayport.com

Douglas Bruce then later defended his assault on the photographer. He said taking his picture was "coarse and disgusting." Yeah, Doug, I agree that your picture is "coarse and disgusting." He actually had the gall to demand an apology from the photographer. "He needs to get a lesson in manners and decorum," Bruce said. As if it's good manners to kick a photographer for doing their job?

Why do I get the feeling Douglas Bruce is gonna be the Gary Nodler of 2008?

(Source: http://dailycamera.com/news/2008/jan/14/anti-tax-crusader-sworn-kicks-photographer;
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/01/colo-lawmaker-k.html;
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/rockytalklive/archives/2008/01/doug_bruce_the_gop_bull_in_dem.html)

Kucinich allowed in MSNBC debate

It's a good day for the Kucinich idea engine - and a bad day for DLCers like Harry Reid.

After NBC decided to exclude Dennis Kucinich from tomorrow's MSNBC debate - after initially inviting him - a Las Vegas area judge ruled that the debate must include Kucinich. Otherwise the judge will issue an injunction halting the debate.

So maybe now the debate is going to feature a lot more debating and a lot less kowtowing.

NBC plans to appeal, but time is running short for the network to make a fool of itself again by getting its way.

(Source: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/NEWS19/80114039)

Pat Robertson may buy Norfolk newspaper monopoly

The Virginian-Pilot is the only daily newspaper remaining in Norfolk, Virginia - probably one of the top 50 media markets in America. (This isn't counting nearby cities like Newport News that have a paper just for part of the area.) And now national disgrace Pat Robertson appears to be looking to turn the Virginian-Pilot into his personal conservative mouthpiece.

Multimillionaire Robertson says his attorneys are looking into purchasing the paper after it published articles that he objects to. For instance, a piece in the Virginian-Pilot not long ago reported that the counseling program at Robertson's Regent University has lost almost half its faculty members and that students have been punished for expressing their concerns. Robertson has a history of criticizing the Virginian-Pilot for not being friendly enough to his many projects.

If Robertson has so little tolerance for dissent that his university would punish students for voicing legitimate concerns about the loss of all their teachers, think what a Robertson-run newspaper would be like.

In an e-mail to an assistant, Robertson said that taking over the paper "would be particularly helpful to provide internships for Regent University journalism students." Now I bet journalists who come from that school are damn conservative! The Princeton Review even ranked Regent as the most conservative school in the country. I'm not saying a paper should hire exclusively liberal journalists, but hey, let's try to have some balance here.

If Pat Robertson does indeed buy the Virginian-Pilot, that paper will surely join several other American dailies in a toxic category of advocacy journalism. Papers in my area in recent years have been conservative, but they're nothing like the naked advocates of extremism that Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times, the current incarnation of the New York Sun, or the Oklahoman of Oklahoma City are. (The UPI is in this category after Moon took it over.) As with the Virginian-Pilot, the Oklahoman is a monopoly - in a metropolitan area about the same size as Norfolk.

So don't think bad papers will get competitors. Buying or starting a full-tilt daily paper is costly, and the business is not as lucrative as it was. Like the Oklahoman, an extreme conservative version of the Virginian-Pilot would likely control the entire market share in a major city just because it costs too much to run a competitor. (That is, unless the Newport News paper starts targeting Norfolk. Because that publication had Tony Snow as their opinion page editor, I'm sure they're not exactly a progressive voice either.) A whole city would be influenced by its views.

Imagine if you can a big city where Pat Robertson - who advocated blowing up the State Department with a nuclear bomb - has such sway over the news.

What it really proves is that if you're rich and if a newspaper prints something you don't like, you can just buy 'em up! It's no wonder the media is already so out of step with the people.

(Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/pat-robertson-says-his-attorneys-are-looking-bid-virginianpilot)

Court tosses discrimination verdict against airline

Sometimes it seems like the judiciary is the only branch of government that still, you know, exists. Congress (the legislative branch) is a do-nothing body, and Bush (the executive branch) spends most of his days finger-painting with this brand of barbecue sauce he likes because the guy who makes it is racist.

That's why so many of the articles on this blog are about the judicial branch. The federal judiciary has essentially become an unelected legislature wearing black robes. Because elections are rigged, the GOP-led Congress from 1995 through 2006 was an unelected legislature wearing white robes, but that's another matter completely.

Now the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston has tossed out a $400,000 jury award levied against American Airlines stemming from the airline's discriminatory ways. The airline had been sued after it kicked a man off a flight solely because of his perceived ethnicity. A jury composed of members of the public decided the airline must pay $400,000. But now the Court of Appeals has decided to overrule this verdict.

The Court of Appeals said the Air Transportation Security Act lets airlines turn passengers away as long as these decisions aren't "arbitrary or capricious." Well, isn't removing someone from a flight because of his ethnicity "arbitrary or capricious"? Talk about doublespeak. It almost seems as if the court is saying it's not "arbitrary or capricious" just because an airline wouldn't have done it if it was - circular reasoning at its worst.

If ATSA - which incidentally was one of the laws the Bush regime rammed through the rogue Congress just after 9/11 - does indeed permit American Airlines to do what it did, wouldn't that make that part of ATSA illegal to enforce? The government can't be a party to enforcing discriminatory policies by corporations or other private organizations.

While the other branches of government often seem nonexistent, they do exist. Even if the law stands, the results of the law are enough to show once again how much of an effect Bush has had on the average person. If not for Bush, the airline wouldn't have been able to turn the passenger away. State police even concluded the man was no security risk - but the airline still didn't let him get back on the plane.

But clearly the Court of Appeals put a greater emphasis on ideology than on the rule of law provided by the jury in the lower court. There's a prevailing ideology in today's system called corporatism that puts every action against a corporation at risk. Courts often conform to this dogma almost by reflex. They consider holding a corporation liable for anything to be taboo, for Big Business is considered perfect.

Congress needs to see if they can pass a law to put limits on the ability of corporations who lose a lawsuit to have the judgments against them thrown out by the higher courts that are so eager to second-guess juries. Activist courts have already slashed the judgment against Exxon in the Valdez oil spill case, and vacating the judgment against American Airlines for practicing ethnic profiling is no better.

(Source: http://www.kypost.com/content/wcposhared/story.aspx?content_id=f4380364-c52d-4239-9aa1-b30de3a35405)

FBI refuses to pay phone bills

Welcome to another exciting episode of 'Wingnuts Versus Wingnuts'!

You know how Bush has been illegally spying on people's phone conversations and got caught with his Rainbow Brite Underoos down around his ankles doing so? Well, now phone companies have been cutting off the FBI's phone service it needs to conduct these efforts, because the FBI hasn't been paying its phone bills. Over half of the nearly 1,000 bills at 5 FBI field offices weren't paid on time.

A Justice Department audit also found that the FBI had such weak oversight over the money used for the program that an agent was able to steal $25,000 costly dollars from it.

So now the phone companies aren't letting the Bush regime illegally eavesdrop on domestic phone calls without a warrant anymore, because the government won't even pay its own bills? Oh, the irony!

(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fbi_unpaid_phone_bills)

Kucinich foes continue their idiocy

The Democratic Leadership Council is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. This goal of this "new Coke" of American politics has been to bring the Democrats' positions closer to those of the GOP, claiming that would increase Democratic vote numbers. All this has accomplished, however, has been to ruin the Democrats' chances for a decade and possibly longer - because it led the Democrats to abandon populist positions that distinguished them from the Republicans.

Key among the efforts of the Democratic Losership Clowncil lately has been silencing Dennis Kucinich. I don't think the issue is whether he'll win the nomination (because he's outside the top 3), but whether he'll have the forum for his views that the Hillary Clintons and Bill Richardsons receive automatically. By leaving Kucinich off as many ballots as possible, they try to deny him the votes that win his ideas more and better press. Kucinich himself is far less of a threat to the Establishment than his ideas are.

Recently, the DLC-controlled Texas Democratic Party announced it was keeping Kucinich off the primary ballot because he refused to sign a loyalty oath. The DLC McCarthyists would rather he endorse a pro-war Democrat in November than have the integrity to do otherwise. While the DLC shunned Kucinich for opposing a Republican-backed war, they refused to eschew congressional candidates who endorsed Bush.

That's the DLC's idea of party loyalty?

I figured there was no way in hell the courts would let the DLC's actions stand - but nope! Denied again! U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel (a Bush appointee, of course) ruled against Kucinich.

Some democracy, huh? Dictatorships make candidates sign loyalty oaths. Not democratic republics.

The plot to silence Dennis Kucinich isn't just the work of the corrupt party bosses but also of the media. Just a week after ABC decided to exclude Kucinich from its televised debate, NBC opted to do the same - after initially inviting him.

By leaving out candidates who dissent, what kind of so-called debate is that? I used to think debates we're about people, you know, debating stuff - not slapping each other on the back in agreement about everything. Damn! Guess I was wrong!

The media will give all the time in the world to Democrats who are preoccupied with censoring video games and changing the numbering of US 666 because it offends some dominionists. But Democrats who have real ideas like ending the war and fixing health care are silenced because their stances pose a threat to the corporate global empire.

(Source: http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/politics-2/1200073494172930.xml&storylist=cleveland;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3135360)

AT&T and other ISP's threatening to eavesdrop

Filtering someone's Internet traffic without their consent is just a kind term for censorship. Let's get that straight right now.

Let's also get this straight: For an ISP to sift through customers' traffic to look for stuff to filter is eavesdropping - rather, wiretapping. No other way around it.

Since the Internet became popular, the 'Net has generally been an open range - at least as far as the lack of filtering by ISP's is concerned. But a panel of corporate big shits - from the likes of NBC and AT&T - say it's time for ISP's to start filtering users' traffic at the network level in the name of blocking copyrighted material.

Don't even try it, stupids. It's an issue of 'Net neutrality. FCC rules prohibit ISP's from selectively controlling 'Net traffic flow.

Predictably, America's Toilets & Testes - which itself is in the ISP business - has already been commiserating with MPAA and RIAA representatives to violate these regulations by using filtering at the network level. Who's surprised? AT&T broke the law by conspiring with Bush in his phone spying program, and AT&T is also one of the leading corporate contributors to Republican campaigns. After they signed me up and billed me for phone services I didn't order (bills I refused to pay), I've considered the ToileTestes gang to be one of the most untrustworthy corporations I've ever dealt with. (AT&T's signing people up for services they didn't order is commonly known as phone slamming.)

If the FCC allows this Internet filtering - wait, they don't. They're not supposed to, at least. That's why they call it a regulation.

Congress or the state legislatures should put some sharper teeth into the regulations. If AT&T or other ISP's sound self-assured now, maybe it's because they know their cronies in the ruling party are going to look the other way. Not like I won't pursue penalties against any ISP that tries pulling this shit with me.

(Source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/att-and-other-isps-may-be-getting-ready-to-filter)

Peace bus destroyed by fire

The Yellow Rose of Texas Peace Bus was a bus used by a Texas fellow named Jim Goodnow over the past couple years to protest against Bush's war. The bus was a national sensation, appearing in 28 states. In recent months, it was used to transport Iraq Veterans Against the War.

But this past Friday night, the bus was totally destroyed by a fire as Goodnow was napping in it in southern New Jersey. Goodnow emerged safely, but the whole bus was soon devoured by the flames. The rear of the bus - a part that was conspicuously emblazoned with the words "IMPEACH BUSH" - seems to be where the fire began.

Isn't it a coincidence that the part of the bus that said "IMPEACH BUSH" was the part where the fire started? Yeah, a big coincidence.

This is just so clearly a case of arson by someone attempting to kill Goodnow that anyone who'd doubt it has their head up their ass. Goodnow had seen suspicious activity near the bus 20 minutes before the fire, so it looks highly likely the bus was firebombed.

Supporters of the Iraq War have a history of arson. In 2004 they torched a tent in Washington, D.C., belonging to antiwar protesters who had come there from Delaware. Previously, in 2003, pro-war brownshirts burned down the home of a family in Harrisonburg, Virginia, because they opposed the war.

Pro-war terrorists have practically admitted in comments on other blogs they torched the peace bus, so are they going to deny it now? Talk-shit radio and terrorist websites like Free Republic are full of right-wing hatefests that inspire this type of violence.

The armchair chickenhawks resort to thuggery like this because it's all they have. They don't have facts on their side, so this is what they do.

From what I've read, Jim Goodnow accomplished a lot with his peace bus. Let's try to help him replace it. Suspiciously, the IndyMedia link about this keeps getting blocked, so here's the info on a tax-deductible fund you can donate to, to get him a new bus. Checks can be made out to Veterans For Peace, Chapter 106 (spelled out). Put "BUS FUND" in the memo line. Mail your check to:

Bernie Jezercak
1804 Tree Line Drive
Carrollton, TX 75007

(Source: http://yellowrosepeacebus.blogspot.com/2008/01/yellow-rose-peace-bus-destroyed-by-fire.html;
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/142135/index.php;
http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2021605.html)

Archives bars folks for clothes featuring Constitution

The ironies of BushAmerica never cease to astonish!

According to IndyMedia (the website the FBI raided in 2004 for having the "wrong" views), the National Archives in Washington, D.C., has banned visitors for wearing clothes featuring articles of the Constitution that deal with impeachment. Yes, you read it right: The building where the original copies of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are on permanent display is banning folks for wearing clothes that feature the Constitution!

Another irony is that the Bill of Rights displayed there is the same Bill of Rights that (ostensibly anyway) protects free speech. So people are being denied free speech at the place that contains the document that's supposed to protect free speech.

The people denied entry included about 80 members of an "impeachment march" that began a month ago in Boston. There would have been more except some of the members had already been jailed for daring to protest the Guantanamo Bay death camp.

So now the Bush regime is using the National Archives for political purposes by barring people from entering because they have part of the Constitution on their shirt? That's yet another irony, because he's violating the Constitution he swore to uphold, which itself is impeachable!

The little idiot is really on a roll, isn't he?

(Source: http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/142137/index.php)

The Conservative Fool Of The Day is...Kenneth Myers!

Let's play another game of "Guess The Party Affiliation."

WSYR-TV in Syracuse says Kenneth Myers, who serves as Common Council President in Fulton, New York, is accused of attempting to cover up a New Year's Eve car crash. The 70-year-old Myers allegedly conspired with his 40-year-old son to bribe folks to submit false statements to state police about the wreck. Now both men are charged with obstructing governmental administration, conspiracy, and criminal solicitation.

Can you guess Kenneth Myers's political party? Just guess!

Here's a hint: WSYR-TV didn't report what party Myers is, even though he's a public official. WSYR-TV is also a Clear Channel property, and you know they'd report Myers's party if he was a Democrat.

Well, that kind of narrows it down.

Further research confirmed Kenneth Myers was the candidate of both the Republicans and the Conservative Party of New York. Wow, that's like snagging 2 conservafools for the price of one (not counting the younger Myers, who as far as I know doesn't hold an elected office)!

We call 'em Rethuglicans and conservafools for a reason, people.

(Source: http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=ef02a958-64d3-40a2-b3b1-6678c5109fd5)

Mike Huckabee and Bob from 'Sesame Street': separated at birth?

A few months ago I noticed something funny.

During the scandal in which one of Mike Huckabee's followers prayed for the deaths of people who challenged his church's tax-exempt status, it dawned on me that Huckabee looks a damn lot like actor Bob McGrath, who is best known as Bob from 'Sesame Street'. You may remember him singing the song "The People In Your Neighborhood."

CBS took down the photo of Huckabee that accompanied the article about this outrage, but you still cannot convince me Huckabee doesn't look like Bob!

Huckabee:


Bob:


Who are the people in your neighborhood? Hopefully, Mike Huckabee won't become a person in the neighborhood of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

How to get your ass kicked in 1977

It's time for something a little more lighthearted here at The Online Lunchpail!

A few months ago someone gave me a link to one of the most uproarious entries I've seen on another blog in recent memory:

http://15minutelunch.blogspot.com/2007/10/strap-in-shut-up-and-hold-on-were-going.html

Now that you're doubled over in laughter from reading that entry, that catalog just goes to show the lack of fashion sense of the J.C. Penney Company. I was around in 1977. I lived 1977, I breathed 1977, and I ate 1977. And I guarantee you most of clothing items advertised in the photos on that blog were never to be seen in my home or out in the actual, you know, world. You might see something remotely resembling the plaid suit on a businessman or a school principal, but that's about it. Folks in the real 1977 usually just wore boring t-shirts or jerseys with a giant number on them.

Trust me on that. If you're not an old dude like me, I don't want you to get the wrong impression of my favorite decade.

I'm no fashion expert, but catalogs have been out of step with style in every era I can remember. This has undoubtedly caused much humiliation for the children of parents who think catalogs accurately reflect what young people deem to be fashionable. But does anyone else actually buy what they see in clothing sections of catalogs? How do these catalogs stay in business? Are they still in business?

So the moral of the story is: Unless you're a professional clown, don't buy clothes from catalogs.

Nazis put 4-year-olds on no-fly list

How out of control and unprofessional are the iron-shoed hooligans who the Bush regime has put in charge of our safety?

Recently, at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a 5-year-old boy was roughed up by federal agents because he happened to have a name that was remotely similar to an alias used by someone on the no-fly list. (The no-fly list is considered by Nazis to be their Bible.) The boy was taken into custody and searched thoroughly, and his mother was told he was a national security risk.

If this ordeal isn't cause for a lawsuit, what is?

Were the agents too stupid to see that the 5-year-old was clearly not the person on the no-fly list? I'm assuming the list contains vital information about each person listed, like age and height, so if the agents couldn't read numbers, that's their problem. Maybe they should have had their faces adjusted. I guarantee you that if I was the parent of a 5-year-old who was victimized like this, there would have been hell to pay.

This isn't the only incident like this recently. Another 5-year-old boy endures similar hassles for having the same name as a no-fly list entry. If his parents take him on a trip, they can't check in using the computer terminals, and some government agency has to be called to clear him. The airlines will not even assign him a seat because he's on the list.

He's been on the no-fly list at least since he was 4. Unless this ridiculous list is abolished, he'll face a lifetime of harassment and getting bumped from flights if ever wants to fly. And it's liar Bush's fault - and of the airlines for going along with it.

What's worse is that the Transportation Security Administration lies about children being on the no-fly list. Its so-called Myth Busters webpage claims, "No 8-year-old is on a TSA watch list." This story proves that is an outright lie. Or maybe not, because the kids in this story aren't 8 - they're 4 or 5.

Then again, this is the same TSA that detained a man in Milwaukee because he wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on his bag full of toiletries. The TSA then lied about the man being combative. The sheriff's deputy who was summoned to the scene said he was not combative at all.

If America finally elects a President who's worth a damn, maybe all this corruption, dishonesty, and unprofessionalism will grind to a halt. It's hard to see anyone who's actually likely to be elected not scrapping the preposterous no-fly list for good. With the bad luck America has had in recent presidential elections, however, the possibility of getting another idiot in charge is always there.

(Source: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/09/tsa-searches-detains.html;
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/10/another-fiveyearold.html;
http://www.cbs8.com/story.php?id=66072;
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/idiot.baggie)