So, I think they should have had the Austin Lounge Lizards play the theme song for the Republican agenda last night instead of having Bush blather on about nothing. Here it is:
I know you smoke, I know you drink that brew
I just can’t abide a sinner like you
God can’t either, that’s why I know it to be true that
Jesus loves me–but he can’t stand you
I’m going to heaven, boys, when I die
‘Cause I’ve crossed every “t” and I’ve dotted every “i’
My preacher tell me that I’m God’s kind of guy; that’s why
Jesus loves me–but you’re gonna fry
God loves all his children, by gum
That don’t mean he won’t incinerate some
Can’t you feel those hot flames licking you
Woo woo woo
I’m raising my kids in a righteous way
So don’t be sending your kids over to my house to play
Yours’ll grow up stoned, left-leaning, and gay; I know
Jesus told me on the phone today
Jesus loves me, this I know
And he told me where you’re gonna go
There’s lots of room for your kind down below
Whoa whoa whoa
Jesus loves me but he can’t stand you . . .
Libby’s latest excuse? WashPo
I guess they’ve moved on from the “Everybody else was doing it too” defense?
Google nosedive: NYT
Full article
Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s first female leader, is following through on her campaign promise to create an equal opportunity government by picking 10 women and 10 men for her cabinet.
It’s a sad commentary that it’s unimaginable that anything like this would happening in the U.S.
Gosh, you mean there are l0 women in Chili who are up to the task? Too bad we don’t have that many qualified women in this country, isn’t it?
Now Kansas, I could pick 10 women here on this site that is highly qualified to do the jobs that there are in DC and do it a hell of a lot better than they are doing now..either women or men…:o)
Not news really but a follow up of sorts to our discussions about relationship.
Natalie Bennett at Philobiblon writes a very interesting post on the book “E. Kay Trimberger’s The New Single Woman” and her own choice to live a single life.
I particularly liked this summary of the book and Bennett’s attitude.
That sounds pretty interesting. Funny that the summary brings up the financial importance of marriage for many women…
As long as society places the burden of both childbearing and childrearing almost entirely on women, most women who have children will need financial support to survive and marriage is really the only fully-sanctioned means to do this — by which I mean that society doesn’t really support alternatives that allow women to work and have children and so, as I’m sure you are only too well aware, women who do so are pretty much on their own to make it work while also facing a lot of negative attitudes.
Can I just take a moment and rant about some of that? There’s an assumption that if you are a single mother, you must be floundering along, barely keeping your head above water, financially, emotionally, socially. If your child forgets his homework or has a bad day, the teacher mentally chalks it up to him coming from a “broken home” (this has been more of a problem with the young male teachers my kids have had, so that tells you something). My home isn’t broken; the people who live in it are happy !!!
And another thing that annoys me no end is when people make comments that make it apparent that they think my ex-husband must be footing the bills for my lifestyle, as if I’m not capable of doing anything myself.</rant>
Excellent rant. And really justified. Consider all those studies that like to show how children of single mothers don’t do as well as married families but 1) never look at similarities in environment — are these children doing any worse than those in families in the same socio-economic environment, 2) never study whether these children actually did better when the fathers were around and 3) never study whether the addition of the magic “father” is actually the cure-all they’re claiming. It’s just so easy and apparently guilt-relieving to put all the focus on the mothers and never look at either society or fathers.
There’s an especially subtle discrimination against single women who decide voluntarily to have children without being married. One of my colleagues at work decided to do this and she has an adorable little boy. She’s in her early thirties and it wasn’t an act of desperation (i.e. I’m running out of time so I’d better do this). It was well thought out, planned and she’s very happy with her decision. And fully capable of supporting her child. But the comments that people make are unbelievable. Fortunately she has a lot of support here at work. I have to say that my firm is pretty liberal in its view toward life styles — probably because there are very few Republicans among us! Most of the comments come from people outside the firm (i.e. Republican clients).
planned but it wasn’t a problem for me. I had no intention of marrying her father though. We had been dating but were broke up when I discovered that I was pregnant. If I had wanted to spend eternity with him I wouldn’t have broken up with him now would I? I did eventually agree to “get back together” with him but no promised marriage. I did it mostly for my unborn child because of the funny looks I got around town and all her father did was give me more reasons why he needed to live some other place far away from us. We moved to separate places when she was three months old but my attitude about marriage and children and relationships earned me a lot of notoriety in a small town. In the end I believe that I enjoyed my special place and all the special attention that I got. Some of the local “men” though obviously despised me, like I give a fig though because any one of them who despised me probably thought a good beating would straighten me right out. I don’t think I covet their approval!
When I was pregnant with my older son and unmarried, I did not find anything subtle about the discrimination against me. If anything, I was shocked that people were so direct and open about their hostility.
One of the people I worked with lit into me one day about “what will you tell your child? They’ll figure out that you weren’t married when you had them!” and I just looked at her and said, “I guess I’ll tell him or her that I love them and I’m glad they’re here!” She just couldn’t stop harping, though. Unbelievable.
The funny thing is, he’s seen the pictures from the wedding when he was a year old, and never once has it dawned on him that there’s anything unusual about that.
Ugh. People are ridiculous.
When my colleague got pregnant I got a call from a former male colleague who wanted to know why I hadn’t filled him in on the “scandal” about her. He’s normally a pretty enlightened guy. I just assumed he thought she had gotten pregnant accidentally so I assured him that there was no “scandal” (in the old fashioned sense of the word), that she had done this intentionally. Well, that was the scandal in his mind. She was risking her career. He couldn’t imagine her having to go “admit” this to the senior partner that she worked with all the time. I said that people “admit” to being pregnant all the time — it’s a fact of life. Jeez. I did eventually talk him around to a realistic view of life (I think his wife helped on that).
And can I just say how proud and envious of you I am for doing it all on your own and throwing water all over those who label your home as “broken?’
From the moment I became a mother at 21 my life has been a constant struggle to provide for my kids, and, unlike you, I have relied on first one husband, then another to do it for me. I was never strong enough, or smart enough, or, let’s face it, motivated enough to provide the financial part of things and it was far easier to strike a bargain where I did 99% of the childraising in exchange for, basically, room and board for me and my kids.
I love being a mother and I’m good at it. I don’t love being a wife and have always felt stifled and trapped into playing a role that my heart just wasn’t into. I hate that I have sold out like this, but all I could think about was keeping a roof over our heads and food on the table and that consumed me.
Basically, my home was “broken” when I was married; I left to fix it. Luckily, I happened to have the right education to allow me to walk away with $50 and 2 preschoolers and start over.
I don’t believe for a minute that your choices have anything to do with you not being smart or strong or motivated enough. I think you’re all of those things (smart, strong, motivated). Women just generally aren’t paid enough to even support themselves, let alone a family.
And your kids look and sound like they’ve turned out great. And that counts for a lot.
mentioning that people make certain assumptions about single mothers, that they are all struggling, etc, or if not, that some man must be paying the bills.
Not an excuse for the assumption, but the reason for it, I think is that most single mothers are struggling, but what I was glad to see was another point, that testing on children of single mothers does not make a distinction which in my opinion, is very important: Single mothers by choice, versus single mothers by circumstance.
Single mothers by choice are much more likely to be in better shape economically than single mothers in situations where the father has elected not to participate in the financial aspect of the childrearing process, or to limit participation to a token level.
Some of those mothers, certainly, have the resources and the skills and education to say good riddance and make it just fine, but most do not.
Most single moms thought, at the time that they decided to become mothers, that the child would be part of a two parent family.
And thanks to someone else for pointing out that to raise a child in the US requires considerably more than one “entry level” income, which is not enough to support one person, let alone two.
I should also mention that another group of single mothers, those who became pregnant unintentionally but did not have the money to purchase the appropriate medical treatment, will be growing, as the ailing Roe, already in intensive care with life-threatening TRAP-related complications, expires quietly in its sleep from Alito poisoning.
Get real — after knowing you for only a few short months I can tell you that you are “smart enough”, whatever that means. You’ve simply made choices in your life, as has everyone. Choices aren’t permanent. As your life changes you can make new choices.
I’m glad that you love being a mother and you believe enough in yourself to recognize that you are good at it. The world NEEDS people who are good mothers — otherwise all the kids would grow up to be Jack Abramoffs.
As far as being a wife, I’ve never been one so I can’t offer much help there. But I can listen. and encourage.
Thanks for your support and encouragement. I have made choices in my life, and I own them all. But they were motivated out of fear and I felt trapped into making them. It doesn’t do any good to look back and regret those choices because I wouldn’t have my children if I had done things differently and they have been my purpose in life. I only wish my motivation was less selfish in some of those choices.
Every mother hen/bossy older sister nerve-ending I have has been firing, forcing me to come over here and comment in order to shut them down. You know how well I think of you so I’m going to skip that part and just say “McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing Education, your gateway to the vast resources of NC State University.”
Thanks for this link Andi. As a little girl I always pictured myself as single when I grew up. And I’m perfectly happy with being single. In fact, the only time that I started thinking I SHOULD be married was in my late thirties when my biological clock began to run. But I’m over it now.
It will be good something that tells me I’m not insane.
like me and who recognized it fully as the choice it is have rather large plans for our lives as soon as these snappers cut loose of the apron strings too! My daughter is at a place right now in her growing up where she says that she isn’t having children either, and perhaps she won’t. The nicest thing is that my daughter understands that it is a choice and definitely not a requirement of any kind at all! She says that too many people live on the earth right now and she is probably right.
I’m glad you enjoyed it. It’s a very good blog, btw, and I recommend it for regular reading.
I also always planned on no marriage and no kids. Jim kinda screwed up the first part* but I have no regrets about no kids. I never thought I was mother material and would never accept the idea that I should test whether I was right or wrong on another human being.
* well, really it was our cowardice about saying to the Moms that we were just going to live together.
From Aftenposten
Danish Mohammed cartoons circulate
This story has been going on for some time, but over the last few days it has really caught speed.
Related:
Norwegian Muslims want blasphemy law
I saw that story, but I haven’t seen the cartoons (I want to see what’s so offensive). Do you have a link to them?
Sirocco had a front page story on European Tribune yesterday and BobFunk had a diary entry the day before where some of them are shown. Sirocco posted a link in Bob’s entry to all the images, but when I checked just now – it is exceedingly slow to load.
I haven’t seen ’em yet (not sure I need to) but heard on the radio yesterday that one puports to depict the Prophet, the visual image a sacrilege itself, and another (not sure if it’s of Muhammad or not) where the figure’s turban is a bomb.
Oh, those South American presidents are such radicals, actually serving the people who elected them…
Wow, between this story and the one above about the new Chilean president appointing a cabinet that’s evenly split by gender, a person could almost begin to think that this country could learn something from those countries. Nah. That can’t be right. Because they’re “left.”
I can’t recall which of the rethug senators it was, but during the (sc)Alito hearings (in the last 30 minutes leading up to cloture vote), one of them actually said s.t. like “Alito didn’t too too well in the area of international law, but I think that’s a point in his favor, that he doesn’t know (care?) about how other countries handle things….”
Yathink stuff like this might be what he has in mind?
Or maybe some of the European labor, healthcare, etc. laws?
Sure don’t want people to figure out that there are industrialized nations in which people don’t go into debt just to get an education (because there is no tuition to pay at state universities there) and don’t go bankrupt when they get sick (because there is de facto universal health care). Better to pretend those things don’t happen elsewhere. Better to forget about international law altogether.
Yathink stuff like this might be what he has in mind?
Not really. That’s long been a sub-text in the death penalty abolition debate. DP opponents would like to include European & other foreign views into the discussion of “evolving standards.” Supporters generally don’t want to be reminded of the “civilized” company this counttry keeps on the issue.
Those remarks were probably alos aimed at notions of accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court, as well as upholding standards of International law in areas such as torture, and “aggression.”
Ah, I see.
Still, I do think there’s a general attempt to keep us in the dark about how things work in the rest of the world (esp in the rest of the industrialized world, i.e. Europe).
To this day, when I talk about the conditions under which I first entered the work force, as a recent grad in Germany, I get jaw-drop reactions, esp from young people (in my classes, for example). They just can’t fathom that I was legally entitled to 6 wks paid vacation on an entry level position, straight out of school. Or that my employer basically couldn’t fire me unless I went fucking postal. Or that a (week-long) hospital stay only cost me 10 bucks a day co-pay. That was par for the course in Europe. It was considered “normal” and anything else was virtually unthinkable.
There is very little demand for foreign news here.
This is one of the many, many aspects of society that are degraded when it’s operated too much as a market and too little as a culture.
Our system’s dependence on an educated, informed reasoning electorate is a cultural value. The economy on the other hand depends on an uneducated, uninformed consumer base that’s driven as much as possible by its easily-predicted, easily motivated animal drives.
We operate news on a purely market basis and it’s bound to give the results we see even without purposeful bias.
They try to address every problem by throwing responsibility at it. Sheesh!
Yesterday the US Amb Wilkins proclaimed:
“Our relationship is the envy of the world[,]”.
Today, comes this story:
U.S. troops shoot at Cdn. diplomats’ car in Iraq.
They did label it friendly fire.
Didn’t we accidentally shoot some Canadians in Afghanistan a little while back, too?
It was one of those friendly fire, “unfortunate” incidents. 🙁
U.S.: Friendly fire pilot reported being fired upon
Initial permission to drop bomb was denied, officials say
Well, as long as it’s called friendly fire, it should be fine, right? I’ve always wondered if that term was used to mean the target was first identified as a friend before shooting. It should be formerly friendly fire.
Friendly fire? Is that kinda like “domestic violence” — in the sense that it’s supposed to hurt less by virtue of its domesticity, or what?
Don’t like what you see on TV? Go watch PTV, where the left gets it right.
Pretty much all-environmental today. My apologies for those waiting on the latest string theory revelations – maybe tomorrow…
British researchers have developed a “biobullet” that could help control invasive zebra mussels that have ravaged U.S. waterways for nearly two decades, clogging water pipes, virtually wiping out some native mussels species, and causing billions of dollars in industrial damage. The microcapsules mimic algae particles that zebra mussels feed on. Once ingested, they slowly release small amounts of potassium chloride, a salt poisonous to most freshwater mollusks. Unlike other methods used to eradicate zebra mussels, such as chlorine, “biobullets” pose little or no threat to other marine animals, the researchers say, because they rapidly degrade and disperse in water. Without many natural predators, zebra mussels have rapidly spread and are now found in 21 states including Oklahoma, Louisiana and Vermont, according to the USGS. Unchecked, zebra mussels will likely spread throughout North America.
Qui Custodiet Custodes – Roman proverb (“Who will watch the watchers?”) A French nuclear safety watchdog has given its cautious approval to a technique that would allow the storage of long-term radioactive waste deep underground, according to a statement issued on Tuesday. ANDRA – the National Agency for the Management of Nuclear Waste – has been studying ways of burying waste 490 metres (1,592 feet) below ground in 155-million-year-old clay sediment at Bure, in the northeastern Lorraine region. The campaign group “Get Out of Nuclear”, which represents some 700 French anti-nuclear organisations, issued a statement criticising the IRSN’s decision as “worse than dubious”. “Burying the most dangerous nuclear waste is an absolute crime against future generations,” the group said.
Be afraid, be very, very afraid: The US Academy of Sciences has released a report on “Next-Generation Bioterrorism,” prepared at the request of he US government. The report says the current focus on bacteria is, essentially, “so 20th Century” and ignores newer threats such as release of an aerosol of bioregulators that disrupt the immune, neurological or endocrine systems, or of harmful genes based on recombinant DNA technology. The report also criticizes controls on the free flow of scientific information, saying that leaves the nation more, not less, vulnerable.
Will the current federal regulatory framework effectively oversee the development of nanotechnology and manage any potential negative effects that may arise? New regulations may be needed to close gaps in existing laws.
New England’s fishermen are again facing serious cuts in their time at sea as regulators decide on more restrictions to help struggling fish stocks recover. But in some better news, in an encouraging sign for the black-footed ferret, wildlife officials say the animal is apparently reproducing across the West after nearing extinction less than three decades ago.
My younger son did a report on the black-footed ferret a few months ago. It’s nice to see that the population has been able to come back, with help from conservationists.
My apologies for those waiting on the latest string theory revelations – maybe tomorrow…
Soon please! 🙂
I’m thrilled to see a potential zebra mussel control.
(“Erie” is the Native word for “Lake of the Multi-Tumored Fishies.”)
Here’s yet another example of how the opposition to gay equality is not really about marriage, it’s about bigotry:
As a queer person currently in the process of moving to Ohio, I’m pleased to note that the article reports that the guy was heckled as well as applauded at a forum held to discuss this case.
How much money we talkin’ ’bout?
Wow, that sure doesn’t seem like very much money, especially in context. I mean, what’s this guy’s actual out-of-pocket expense for some lesbian prof’s partner’s dental work? Maybe as much as fifty cents, probably more like half that or less? (I’m not a math guy.) Doesn’t really seem like the kind of cheddar that could set a middle class budget afire. Could there be some other motivation afoot?
Oh look, I found it! He’s just another bigot with an axe to grind against the queers.
I’m always fond of the “I don’t want my tax dollars” going for things I don’t support” principle. I think the GLBT community in Ohio should sue to get back any of their taxes which go toward the salaries of anyone in the Ohio legislature who voted to to put the amendment on the ballot or any other anti-GLBT legislation. Or maybe they should go even further and sue to get all their tax dollars back on the grounds that taxation without representation is tyranny.
Oh, Andi, I dunno. That “no tax dollars for what I don’t support” idea is a slippery slope, no? I mean, turn it around–let’s imagine sometime in the far distant future when there is actually fed subsidized universal health care and some wingnuts come along sueing for any funds that have been applied to any kind of contraception, etc.
taxation w/o representation is a different can of worms, but the business of “no tax dollars for what I don’t support”–I just don’t consider that tenable. There will always be things I don’t support in this country (in fact, I see very little left that I do support, and as a freelancer, I pay some heavyduty taxes, straight from my own acct), b/ I think if I truly believe in ‘equal rights’ (even for people whose interests are anti-thetical to mine), this is a road I can’t go down.
Again, taxation w/o representation is another argument and that works for me, but to blanketly say “no taxes for what I don’t support”….i dunno, don’t think that’s such a good idea.
Sorry, I guess I should use the /sarcasm indicator in the future.
Andi I don’t believe there’s a sarcastic bone in your body ;).
Dangit, you got me. 😉
(sorry, I’m not the sharpest tack in the drawer at the moment. I think the SOTU must have caused one of my front teeth to up and die, which means: root canal. )
Ah, and what a lovely country, where you have to sit here and try to figure out…”gee, well, if I go to Dr. X, I know he’s all hot to trot to get me to have all these teeth pulled so he can put implants in there; now, can I trust him to do a root canal on that one or will he deliberately set it up so that I eventually lose the tooth and, vanity thy name is Stark, will have to come up with another 6-10 grand to leave in his office…”
To my mind, it is sick enough not to have any health insurance whatsoever and to keep pumping dollars into that bottomless pit that IS the dentist chair, but to have to take these non-medical issues into consideration….just stresses me out to the max.
I know, right? This is how that argument always ended between me and my ConservoDad:
Dad: It’s theft, is what it is. The government takes taxes from me with the threat of force and then spends it on things I find abhorrent.
Indy: Well, the government takes taxes from me with the threat of force and then uses it to protect rights for you that it won’t even let me have in the first place. Wanna trade places?
Yes, and I look forward to the day when we make your father very happy by going down the slippery slope so that our tax forms contain a series of check-off boxes where we can pick exactly what programs we will allow our tax dollars to be spent on.
/sarcasm
Well,the other issue is whether we have the right to do chargebacks on illegal activities sponsored by ‘our’ gov, or on ‘failure to deliver services’ (is representation a service?)
bankrupt the U.S. government, you subversive radical? 😉
Doesn’t look to me like they need any help on that score! 😉
Fucking radicals and their goddamned root canals anyway, huh?
He’s become such a typical conservative in his 50s, it’s very disappointing. His response to such a program would probably be to rail about both the cost and the color of the paper the list was printed on, complain that none of the programs he really wants are even on the list, bitch about how when he was younger no one needed a list to “do the right thing” (in an expert level hypocritical move this conveniently ignores that the list is a result of him bitching about having no list), then wrap it up by slamming liberals on general principles and getting himself another beer.
I think it’s time for an All in the Family remake — except they should do it with the new Archie character having once been the Meathead character, but growing into Archie, and the new Gloria character being a lesbian with a transgendered lover.
It seems all those folks supporting Tom DeLay may not have been doing so just because they love, cherish, and admire him. Now that he’s gone from power and not likely to get it back…
Things are looking up… or down, depending on who you are.
As usual, the nut grafs are buried at the bottom. (Though I have to admit that on balance the Chron’s improving… two, three years ago that story would have ended with a fundraising appeal rather than a Public Citizen rebuttal quote.)
(side note: I’ve crossed paths with Brent Perry before, and personally, just as a matter of opinion, I don’t need three other sources to confirm what he says. I need seven. Twelve would be better.)
tell you this morning but during the SOTU last night, when Bush said Coretta Scott King’s name our power here immediately went out and I didn’t hear anything he said after that. Husband and I were in our bedroom sitting on the bed watching. Our son was out in the living room though watching Toons. I hollered, “It’s a sign from God!” and my husband said that I had gone and really lost my mind now and that my son was sitting in the dark in the living room and probably scared. We started for the living room when the lights came back on. My daughter came out of her bedroom and had been talking a friend in Colorado Springs on the phone. She said to me that according to her friend the power went out at the same time in Colorado Springs as it did here in Southeast Alabama. Once again I hollered, “It’s a sign from God!” My husband looked at me kind of sad and shook his head. Well, it must be God because it couldn’t be Enron!
And tell hubby that I really enjoyed that heavy breathing and passionate kiss this morning. 🙂
Because you are intelligent and educated and your own person and woman!
give equal (jail) time to those on the Right.
From Yahoo News:
WASHINGTON – Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, wasn’t the only one ejected from the House gallery during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt with a war-related slogan that violated the rules. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave.
Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”
“Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery,” Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning, holding up the gray shirt.
“Shame, shame,” he scolded.
I suppose that Young will be in line to support Cindy Sheehan at her court date…oops, forgot that if you’re against the war, that’s a bad thing…
Uh uh, Cali. They didn’t arrest Young, they just asked her (politely, I presume) to leave–which of course, was a big disappointment for her (whereas for Sheehan, being allowed to leave was probably more like a “perk”), but Sheehan was arrested and Young was NOT. Big difference and one that people should be milking for all it’s worth.
I found that out later after reading some of the other threads. But the way Mr. Young was talking, it sounded like she was hauled off to jail.
Damn…and I was hoping Sheehan and Young would be bunkmates… 😉
But if we’re going to be upset over the Left being hassled over their apparel, we need to be consistent when it comes to those on the Right.
Maybe the Capitol Police should’ve offered both Sheehan and Young a blanket with the Presidential Seal to cover up their “offensive” T-shirts? (Recall someone being kicked off an airplane for a T-shirt they were wearing; he/she was offered a blanket to cover it up and they refused…)
I agree, the treatment should be equal.
They fucked up when they didn’t arrest Young–from a strategic perspective, that is.
From the sounds of it, Young was asked to leave after Sheehan was brusquely escorted out and arrested. I think it was Ductape who may have suggested that asking Young to leave was a deliberate attempt to look “fair and balanced”. Well, if so, they forgot to put cuffs on Mrs. Young.
Tsk tsk.
Via FDL, a 1997 Bynum v. Capitol Hill Police BD- (the issue was free speech) – that court ruling would render both actions-the escort of Young and the arrest of Sheehan contra freedom of speech.
link: http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_firedoglake_archive.html#113881792695713271
It’s reported late afternoon the charges against Sheehan have been dropped.
I imagine that whoever had the bright idea of “escorting” out the crusade-supporting politician’s wife, as attempted “damage control” after arresting Miss Cindy, has already had a good talking to. 😀
from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Reggie Walton (also hearing Libby’s case) recently ruled that the state secrets privilege applied when dismissing Sibel-Edmonds suit.
How the times a changing. Never thought I’d ever read this:
“GROVER NORQUIST: Bush broke the Law”
Grover is that really your statement?
Gimme a hand, are my eyes seeing what I think am reading? Maybe some have had an epiphany since Abramoff’s plea? Making impeachment doable.
(via thinkprogress)
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/01/grover-norquist-bush-broke-the-law
.
Unwanted publicity, the best you can get after Cindy Sheehan has been active demonstrating during recent weeks in Washington D.C. with little press coverage. Of course, the arrest is covered extensively by Crooks & Liars (apparently were hacked last night before coverage of SOTU).
Cindy Sheehan even got coverage in Dutch news items today, including a short interview where she explained the text of her t-shirt and her recent activities leading the Iraq peace movement. Cindy was invited to demonstrate in The Hague where parliament is about to decide a two-year military mission to Uruzgan province of Afghanistan with EU and NATO partners. It will be a clear majority in Dutch parliament, including the opposition Labor party PvdA of Wouter Bos, to vote for troop deployment.
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
No wonder so many evil people hate America for its freedom.
.
LONDON, Feb. 1 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s early departure from Parliament cost his government dearly when its bill on religious hatred lost by a single vote.
It was actually a miscalculation by the chief whip that led Blair to leave the proceedings in the lower house before the vote on the bill to combat religious hatred, reports The Times of London.
In another blow to Blair, 21 of his Labor rebels voted with the opposition while another 40 more were absent or abstained, the report said.
The defeat means the amended version of the bill will become law. The amendments were included to safeguard freedom of speech.
LONDON (BBC News) Feb. 1 — Tony Blair has insisted he can push through his reform programme despite suffering a surprise double defeat over new religious hate laws. MPs refused to overturn Lords changes which “watered down” the plans.
At prime minister’s questions, Tory leader David Cameron said Mr Blair’s reform plans could only go through if they were right and had Tory support.
Mr Blair joked about his latest defeat but said he could win Labour backing for school, welfare and police reforms.
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY