DISQUS

It may have been a "senior moment" on McCain's part. Although it points out what a lousy knowledge of history Republicans have when it comes to their own issues. Feeble or not, I wouldn't have given Jesse Helms any kind of send off: chuck him into the pine box, put him six feet under and hope he deteriorates quickly.

Seriously, McCain is trying to straddle fences and it's not pretty. Someone should give him a copy of his voting record and have him commit it to memory. If he doesn't, he won't last long on Town Hall meetings or debates.

Notice the answer to question 2. It is not really an answer. McCain just regurgitates what he said in question one. So, he encourages adoption. BFD. The adoption situation in America has become critical: there are very few orphanages any more. Faith-based entities used to have them on an almost regular basis, but ever since the Duplessis Orphans scandal (Quebec), the practice has been to place children in foster homes. The treatment of some children in foster homes is criminal. And the older they get, children become less attractive as adoptees. In essence, what McCain has done in his dodging of the question is say, "Well, I'd rather have the kid in an orphanage or foster care then have them grow up under the care of two queers."

Of course, McCain had no choice about the matter: he's lukewarm for Evangelical voters. If he said he was for gay adoption, he would have cut out a large section of society and said "Fuck You!"

It's too late in the gain to start educating evangelicals about what the APA has found - especially since they think that the APA is in league with the Anti-Christ.

We should be surprised at this? Does America think the Bush family made their money by making toothpicks? The entire family is irrevocably linked to OIL, just like Cheney is linked to HALLIBURTON. After January 20, just many appearances and advisory positions, will be given to both of them - probably in the form of stock options. We knew what would happen 8 years ago! And why weren't people assiduously monitoring them for all those years?

You think THAT'S ironic? It is, but here's one for the books: June 28 (today) marks the 39th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, the country's first encounter with gay liberation. Now, guess who's birthday it is today?

Ted Haggard's
Happy Birthday, Ted.

(PS: I've got it posted on my blog along with a picture of his birthday present standing in front of the Stonewall Inn. http://thedevilanddanvojir.blogspot.com

Thank you so much, Bruce! I'm a BIG fan of yours (waaaay back in Zany Afternoons days about 25 ? years ago!). What Mark Twain said was true: "Man's most effective weapon is laughter." Sorry to disagree, battleax, but if enough people start laughing at Addington and Yoo, Congress might get the point and REALLY go after these guys ... and their superiors. Torture is cruel and insane, but those viewpoints didn't stop Torquemada. Outrage works less and less these days. More people find out about Bush's "mistakes" by watching the monologues of Leno and Letterman than they do from the 6 o'clock news. After a studied analysis, it was revealed that Jon Stewart on the Daily Show was a more relevant newscaster than any of the other mainstream news broadcasts.

To the point: chastizing/torturing the torturers like Addington and Yoo is like fighting a war for peace (which, as someone else put it so well, is like f*cking for virginity."). These men are lawyers first, human beings second. They don't care what Congress thinks, much less the rest of the American public. Better to laugh at them. Berating them is a waste of time.

Thanks again, Bruce.

Dan Vojir
San Francisco
http://thedevilanddanvojir.blogspot.com

P.S.: Did you know that June 28th takes the cake for the most ironic of dates?
It is the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots (the first in the movement of gay liberation) as well as Ted Haggard's birthday! Let's encourage every queen in New York to wish Ted a happy birthday!

I wrote a comment before but didn't know if it went through, so here goes again:

Neither David Addington nor John Yoo answered the questions put to them by the House Judiciary subcommittee. Addinton looked quite arrogant and Yoo looked like a simpleton. The questions wereactually simple "yes" or "no" questions. The framework of all the questions: Does the President have the power to command torture? Both Addinton and Yoo must be so afraid of a perjury charge that their responses leaned more toward "yes" than "no".

America always wants to believe the best of their President, so when no one will answer direct questions, they are extremely disappointed. After all, if these guys won't directly defend their President, why should we?

These men did NOT answer the questions. Besides the House Judiciary subcommittee, The American public needs to know these answers. The are quite simple: what powers does the president have? If they can't answer the questions because they don't know, then they reveal themselves to be incompetent in their fields. If they are not answering the questions because they think the president HAS the power, then they are guilty of contempt of court and subversion of the facts. Does the president have the power is a "yes" or "no" question.

Addington looked arrogant and Yoo looked, well, nervous and stupid. Both testimonies now beg the question: "Did George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney ever order torture or did they O.K. torture of detainees or relatives of detainees? It still comes down to YES or NO. Unfortunately, the American public would like to think NO but assumes YES from lack of testimony. I hope this gets more attention. I hope the answer shocks the public more than Abu Graib.

The naivite of many Americans concerning politicians is astounding! How many years has it been since we were told of WMDs? How many years has it been since it was discovered that Cheney had private discussions with energy producers? How many years has it been since Bush and Cheney refused to allow Rice to testify at the 9/11 hearings, then refused to testify themselves (and reluctantly did so without anyone recording it in any way). These people have been criminals from Day 1. And no impeachment, no reproaches, no apologies. Do you trust a President who has read a PDB stating "Osama Bin Laden Set to Strike in The United States" and does absolutely NOTHING about it? These people have been holding back a lot of things we would have said "NO!" to. The stubborn secrecy of George Bush alone is criminal. And his attempts to silence or wreak vengeance on people like Wilson and Plame are childish and inexcusable. In a way, the Bush administration has made it impossible to believe any politician. A George W. Bush Political Review Law" should be established: The president and all of his subordinates should have a "cheat chip" imbedded in them. The chip would record every move, every discourse. The chip could be turned off, but the person would have to publicly explain why he or she had turned it off. In effect, because of lying predecessors, they would have to pay the maximum price: no privacy whatsoever.

Just a thought

Moveon.org definitely has the balls we need right now. I pride myself in being a "bleeding heart" liberal to the max. Hey, when I'm called that I know it means I HAVE a heart. I just wish they would go after their other enemies (wingnut televangelists with their megachurches - I call them Christofascists). We are all in a war - not the one in Iraq - it's the war right here at home. Some people call it a "culture war" but it's very real. It's the progressives vs. the regressives. The progressives have entities like Moveon.org, the ACLU and HRC. The regressives have as their generals James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Beverly LaHaye. And make no mistake about it, the regressives want BLOOD. They feel they've been betrayed by Bush in the sense that he didn't go as far as they wanted him to. He concentrated on

Has Rice answered yet? Thanks, Mike for this article. True to TWI, this is the first I've read about it. Private ANYTHING is suspect in a crony's world like Bush's and Cheney's. Can a public official be impeached AFTER they leave office? Probably not - and I don't think there's a precedent of anyone trying to impeach a former president or vice-president. What I'm getting at: like Clinton, these two should be scrutinized as to how much they make from being "advisers" and "guest speakers." Unlike Clinton, they should be scrutinized as to who will be giving them those lucrative perks. If those perks can be traced, in any way, to Halliburton or Blackwater or any other "no bid" contracts, I think they should be charged with either treason or conspiracy! They made us pay - we make them pay. Fair enough?

Valuable lesson? I have the sinking feeling that if elected, McCain will have the same trait as Bush - hardheadedness. He might admit a mistake - grudgingly - but he won't completely give in. I certainly do not see him as a president who will listen to the American people FIRST. I don't think he's learned much from his last big scandal involving savings & loans. While he should never have said that he was not good at economics (bad move), he shouldn't attempt any jokes about it either. In fact, he should be very quiet & broad when it comes to economics.

Schweizer? Oh, I thought you wrote Schweitzer. I think HE was a liberal. He was, of course, a humanitarian which should make him non-political.

Anyway, I evolved into a bleeding-heart liberal over the last 40 years. I have never seen the research or the stats Schweizer talks about. I do know one thing, however, conservatives really need to hate something or someone. Every person kept out of their narrow range of thinking is an enemy.

Some 18 years ago, I was privileged to volunteer for a non-profit here in San Francisco called The AIDS Emergency Fund. I was one of the intake volunteers, meaning I saw AIDS victims first, signed them up and saw to it that their bills were paid. Where did these people come from? Some from the Bay Area, but a lot of them were from outside the state. Why? Because they were kicked out of their homes - while they were sick and dying. By whom? By conservative "Christians" taking orders from the Falwells, the Helms's, the Robertsons and the Thurmonds to ostracize them. As I signed in men, women and children, it dawned on me that while people were literally dying in the streets, these uberChristians were DANCING in the streets: God had given them more fuel for hatred. But it also dawned on me that there were a great many people in San Francisco (tens of thousands) and around the country who were giving their time, their energy, their money and, in some case, their very lives to helping PWAs. And those people were more Christian and more human than all the Robertsons, Falwells, etc.

Please take it from one who's been through "the AIDS war" - "Christianity" and conservatives had their chance to shine.

They didn't.

God! For the first time in four months, I wish we had a television (after a move,we've opted for good computers first then satllite). I hope PBS knows what it's getting into. When will be the earliest time I can watch it online?

I hope Obama has seen it and will cobble together a very quick response. I also wonder how the "Surge" is treated.



Thank you again Spencer

Spencer:

Addendum to comment: Michelle Malkin's blog against the IVAW is more vicious than the war itself! Please read it to contradict it. I knew the woman championed WWII Japanese internment camps, but I didn't know she was so bloodthirsty. Of course, her logo says it all: a pen with a knife attached. I'd rather be attacked by Genn Close ala "Fatal Attraction". Why couldn't we satisfy her bloodlust and send HER to Iraq? I'd even give her a white hat, a sabre, a winchester an a palamino horse - Ann Coulter.

Sorry to rant (again) but I've been reading your articles backwards - I commented on your Mar 17th article first. This one partially answers my question about those journalists willing to take risks in reporting about Winter Soldiers. In a way, this piece is just as shocking as your last one. Lots of press. How much came back to us? Although I don't have a TV right now, I follow online news 3-5 times a day. I just can't seem to see any impact. Maybe I'll have to Google until I find something.



Or maybe I'm just being obtuse. Then again, why am I the FIRST to comment on a three-day-old article? dan-vojir@sbcglobal.net

I was hoping NOT to be the first to comment. After all, outrage likes company. "exciting" "romantic" I can feel the insult. Buzz-word Bush struck again. In being placed in Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush, only the most brainwashed and (unfortunately)the most idiotic would find those words uplifting.



Spencer (or anyone else for that matter),do you really think Winter Soldiers' testimonies will be given the full coverage and scrutiny that they deserve? While I don't think it will merit Fox News and its incredibly high Rupert Murdoch standards, coverage should be pushed in front of the face of every American. Abu Graib was exposed by people willing to take the risk of being considered "far left" and "unAmerican" Are there others who(like yourself)are daring to cover Winter Soldiers with any credibility?



I'll take the risk of getting moralizing moron email: dan-vojir@sbcglobal.net (also: http://thedevilanddanvojir.blogspot.com)

This is shocking. But the truly horrible thing is that we should be shocked at all! These are men who have been put into a situation of which they know absolutely nothing. They've been taught that only their own culture matters, that everyone wants to be like them, that the enemy is never considered to be human and so what if they can't tell enemy from foe? Almost a millennia ago during the genocide of the Cathars - a religious sect that did not believe in the Pope - before destroying a city, a military commander asked the papal legate how to tell the difference between Cathars and Christians to which the cleric said "Kill them all. God will take care of His kind!"



These Marines are also told that whatever they do, God is on their side. We must remember that most Nazi soldiers of WWII wore belt buckles with the saying "God Is With Me"



Jon Michael Turner is either very brave or very foolish in regards to his own (and his family's) future life. He'll no doubt receive death threats and be branded a traitor. He will not be considered a Marine.



Welcome to the real world, Jon. Thank you. On my behalf and others like me I salute you.

One more thing: "Siege" is defined as an act of warfare. This military stance by "Christian" ministries is too much: recently, a teen group called "Battlecry" staged an event in San Francisco. Neither the City Board of Supervisors nor the Mayor bought any of it and asked them not to come for next year's rally. They expect us to be tolerant of intolerance.

Too much.

One more thing: "Siege" is defined as an act of warfare. This military stance by "Christian" ministries is too much: recently, a teen group called "Battlecry" staged an event in San Francisco. Neither the City Board of Supervisors nor the Mayor bought any of it and asked them not to come for next year's rally. They expect us to be tolerant of intolerance.

Too much.

Was This a Set-Up? I've been watching this story for several days and there are some things that have eluded me: 1.I can't as yet come up with a response from the Dallas Voice about the homosexual incident and 2. I can't find out a thing about "James Stabile" in the news. Sofar, everything has been from blogs.

Something is definitely not right: a twinky 19 year-old (admittedly drunk) is hopping from bar to bar on his way to his "fiance's" place, gets zapped by the Holy Spirit, then has no more sexual thoughts of men.

And just happens to get videoed.

Nope.

I can't help but want to get to the bottom of all this.

If there's any follow-up, please let me know.

Was This a Set-Up? I've been watching this story for several days and there are some things that have eluded me: 1.I can't as yet come up with a response from the Dallas Voice about the homosexual incident and 2. I can't find out a thing about "James Stabile" in the news. Sofar, everything has been from blogs.

Something is definitely not right: a twinky 19 year-old (admittedly drunk) is hopping from bar to bar on his way to his "fiance's" place, gets zapped by the Holy Spirit, then has no more sexual thoughts of men.

And just happens to get videoed.

Nope.

I can't help but want to get to the bottom of all this.

If there's any follow-up, please let me know.