This week's Senate update

By Carol Gee

Where are they now? The House is out; the Senate is in. Today the Senators will probably cast enough votes to approve Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the United States Supreme Court, and GOP Rep. John McHugh, nominated as Army Secretary. And it is possible that an additional $2 billion will be added to the wildly popular "Cash for Clunkers" program. The Senate can be very pleased that some things are working out well.

On health care reform -- The Senate Finance Committee has not yet reported out a health care reform bill, but Senators are still hard at work on the issues, this week it regards Medicaid. Predictably Politico reports that top Senate Democrats have decided to move ahead in the fall, with or without Republican support. As background we are reminded, according to CQ Politics, that "Nearly four dozen members of Congress have spouses employed in the health care industry—ties that lawmakers acknowledge are influencing their thinking about how the health system should be overhauled." The only big question seems to be how comprehensive the reform will be, not whether something or other will pass and be signed into law this year.

News of select individual lawmakers -- U.S. Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) is officially set to take on Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) in the 2010 election. Reports are that he loves being the underdog. And U.S. Senator William Jefferson of Louisiana was finally convicted of 11 of 16 criminal charges of accepting bribes, racketeering and engaging in money laundering. He could get more than 20 years in prison. He will be appealing and is free on bail.

Recess planned next week -- Town Hall meetings marked by organized Republican disruptions may have people from both the far left and right complaining about health care reform by now, according to CQ Politics and Politico. Legislators might adopt virtual town halls as an alternative. And millions of dollars' worth of paid advertising by stakeholders will saturate the airwaves during the recess. Unless you have something to say to your Senator or Representative, you may as well declare a congressional news blackout until they come back into session. It is going to be just awful out there.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Does it always have to be about "winners" and "losers"?

By Carol Gee

[Image: Wordle.net]

The Scores: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - H.R.1. Conference committee votes: House final vote -- Democrats 246 yes, 0 Republicans ; 183 no, including 7 Democrats. Senate final vote -- Democrats 57 yes, 3 Republicans; 38 no, including 1 senator not voting. All throughout the process, the GOP was misinterpreting bipartisanship with "getting your way."

Winners -- According to the mainstream media, which also misinterpreted the results, congressional winners were the Republicans and Democrats were the losers, writes Kos. To quote:

. . . the lesson hasn't been learned, and we're once again seeing this huge divide between the out-of-touch DC chattering class and, well, everyone else.

It's as if the DC chattering class is going out of its way to prove that it has completely lost touch with the country it's supposedly trying to inform. It's as if they want everyone to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that their bubble is impenetrable to things such as "reality" and "facts" and "truth". It truly is bizarre.

Individual Players --

• Former President Bill Clinton, who stands solidly behind Obama, had a similar experience with Congress back in 1993. Republicans predicted gloom and doom. David Waldman aka Kagro X at Daily Kos, gifted readers with a slew of wonderful quotes from the time, describing:
  

  . . . quotes predicting doom and disaster in the wake of the 1993 Clinton economic stimulus plan, and much of the rhetoric is eerily similar to today's. Of course, that should come as no surprise, since the point of the compilation was in fact to point out that the 1993 rhetoric -- particularly on health care, which was still a live proposition at that time -- was itself eerily similar to Republican doom and disaster rhetoric during the debate on the original Social Security and Medicare legislation.
  

• Gingrich's obstructionism becomes role model for House GOP"# from Think Progress (2/15/09):
  

  In 1993, former Speaker Newt Gingrich notoriously whipped the House GOP into opposing President Clinton’s major initiatives, ranging from the budget to health care reform. The New York Times reports that Gingrich has been advising the GOP leadership to follow the same path with President Obama’s agenda.
  [...]
  As ThinkProgress has noted, despite being out of office, Gingrich still has found a key role in current legislative debates. In September, he “was whipping against” the first TARP package “up until the last minute” and was said to have been largely responsible for the GOP voting against it.

• Talk show host Rush Limbaugh -- Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish (1/16/09) -- "Malkin Award Nominee:"
  

  Rush Limbaugh says, "I want everything he does to fail... I want the stimulus package to fail... I do not want this to succeed."
  

• Rep. Eric Cantor -- Josh Marshall at TPM reveals that Cantor is modeling himself after Winston Churchill as well as Newt Gingrich. Josh urges Cantor to "study harder." Matt Yglesias explains more (2/25/09): "The Gingrich Doctrine and the 21st Century." He concludes that "though Gingrichism was politically successful in the mid-1990s, the record of Cantorism in the 21st century has been much weaker." H/T to Andrew Sullivan. To quote his thesis:
  

  My colleague Satyam Khanna notes some of the broader context for the revelation that Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) is explicitly modeling his tactics on Newt Gingrich’s obstructionism in 1993-94.
  [...]
  Meanwhile, the political contexts of the two eras strike me as different in a number of ways. Bill Clinton’s 43 percent share of the popular vote in the 1992 election made it plausible to believe that the center of public opinion was amenable to the idea that the President’s agenda needed curtailing. What’s more, the Democrats gained zero Senate seats and actually lost nine House seats. Under the circumstances, you can see why conservative felt emboldened. And their political strategy had a clear logic to it—a large number of Democrats in congress were representing constituencies that had pretty consistently been trending to the right in presidential politics since the 1960s. With a Democrat in the White House, the chance existed for a spirit of feisty opposition to force the voters in such constituencies to align their congressional preferences with their presidential ones.
  
  That’s simply not the case this year. Not only did Obama have a more decisive win (obviously the absence of a third-party candidate is important here) but the Democratic caucus is more compact and includes many fewer outlier members whose constituencies are dramatically more conservative than the national electorate that backed Obama in November.
  

• House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) -- is urging Speaker Pelosi to stand up to the Senate, according to Memeorandum and Politico.
  

• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- "Did Reid roll Pelosi?" from Politico (2/11/09), or was it the other way around? Those from the House tell a different story than the one coming out of Senate sources, according to blogger Glenn Thrush:
  

  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid played a little high-stakes chicken with each other at the tail end of Wednesday’s shotgun stimulus talks. It’s not clear who won – or who blinked.
  

• Speaker Nancy Pelosi --"Late night talks yield a deal," by David Rogers from Politico.com (2/11/09) To quote:
  

  The compromise followed an intense 24 hours of Capitol negotiations which stretched through Tuesday night and left staff and members exhausted. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) first announced the deal, only to see continued skirmishing over school modernization funds. But with the blessing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—after a phone call to one of the Senate Republicans—the deal was back on track with the formal House-Senate negotiators meeting Wednesday evening.

The Players from my state of Texas -- In the Eric Holder confirmation hearing to be Attorney General, both Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Sen. John Cornyn voted NO. Results: Confirming 75-21, 3 not voting. My Rep., Kay Granger voted NO against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. The bill passed (290-135, 8 not voting). Granger also voted against the DTV Delay Act; the act passed (264-158, 10 not voting).

With a number of states, including California and Kansas, in fiscal crisis mode, Republican governors are much more supportive of the new stimulus package than were members of Congress. "Cleaning up the mess" after 8 years of Bush administration mismanagement and ineptitude will not be quick of easy. Upcoming issues include fleshing out the bank bailout plan for stabilization, housing mortgage legislation, and hearings about administration wrongdoing, to name just a few.

See also Behind the Links for further info on this subject.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Monday, Monday is the song

By Carol Gee

The meadowlark is the State Bird of Wyoming. The photo is by Karen Hollingsworth.

I am visiting my family of origin in Wyoming. Therefore blog posting has sometimes been sporadic. But I have been tuned in to the web as much as possible, given technology and circumstances. I was "off" the weekend before last, due to Blogger problems, which I was able to remedy. And I returned to posting, revived a bit by an outdoor cookout. The event, hosted by my brother who makes a dynamite potato salad, was complete with his resident meadowlark moving from fence post to fence post.

My time here is dwindling fast. Soon I will be singing the blues because I am leaving my mom and three siblings, these bright blue skies, the clear rushing water, the blue snow-topped mountains, and the town where I was born that I love so much.

Gasoline prices are currently running between $4.12 and $4.22 per gallon. The roads are filled with big hunky motorcycles of all makes and vintages, as singles and couples filter in to Wyoming prior to heading for Sturgis, South Dakota. All the small towns are full of tourists, a surprising number utilizing a recreational vehicle. The alfalfa hay is being cut and baled in the irrigated fields, and the grain crops are getting some height. Perennial flower borders are a signature of this lovely town, along with huge old trees and long hiking and biking paths.

Wyoming politics have been a bit hard to deduce. Phil Roberts at The Wyoming Almanac debunks a few myths, however. My sisters are Democrats; my mom and brother are Republicans. Therefore political discussions vary, depending on the company. My mom worked at elections in years past, and my sisters attended this year's caucuses.

Wednesday I am off to Texas by car. Another day, another $4+ per gallon. Wish me luck.

(Cross-posted earlier at South by Southwest, updated a bit here.)

Electoral politics in Texas

By Carol Gee

Texas Elections Explained (again) -- With 32 U.S. representatives and 2 U.S. senators, the total of 34 electors makes Texas the second largest electoral vote state in the nation (California is first). Texas is the only state that holds a primary that is a combination of precinct elections, followed by caucuses after the polls close. I voted and then attended my caucus. Senator Barack Obama was my pick. For those who do not understand, try Texas Demystified! Delegate Allocation and Caucus Process Flow Chart, via TXSharon. Also, this from the Texas Observer includes great graphs that show how many Republicans voted in the Texas Democratic primary: "Poll "Positions: How McCain Supporters Skewed the Democratic Primary Results" by Leland Beatty (5/30/08). To quote:

In the aftermath of the Democrats’ huge primary . . . speculation about whether the results had been tainted by Republicans encouraged by Rush Limbaugh to vote in the Democratic primary for the candidate they hoped would be weakest in the general election.

. . . First-time primary voters and crossover Republicans (those who had previously voted with the GOP) surveyed by the Observer between May 8 and May 19 preferred Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton by small margins. But John McCain also claimed a significant share, and about one of seven remained undecided.

McCain supporters, our poll revealed, made up 9.4 percent of the total vote in the Texas Democratic primary. Clinton’s margin of victory was only 3.5 percent. (The poll has a margin of error of 2.7 percent.) We can’t say that the McCain ringers in the Democratic primary changed the outcome, because we don’t know for whom they actually voted in March. But it is clearly possible.

Texas Democratic Party Convention Covered -- I did not go to the convention. So Texas Kaos is the site to find all the latest on the state party's convention that took place this past weekend, even "Hillary's Concession Speech," for those who missed it. For more extended coverage, BlueBloggin's "nytexan" has all the latest on "Ann Richards and Ladybird Johnson" (6/7/08), as well as a video that optimistically says Texas will be blue in November. It certainly cannot hurt to dream.

The general election in Texas is the next event -- Isiah Carey's (5/29/08) Insight headlines that "Baseline poll says McCain sixteen points ahead in Texas . . . When matched up with Obama McCain leads 52-36." In "By the Numbers" (5/29/08), DANGER DEMOCRAT says:

. . . Jeremy Barlow used a recent Rasmussen poll . . . Unexpected Close Races: Texas 49 to 43 McCain over Clinton 34 Electoral Votes. Senator Clinton loses a point as compared with Senator Obama v. McCain in Texas, but Texas is still a close race at only 6 points.

Texas Republican running mate? There is considerable talk about the value of McCain choosing Texas Rep. Ron Paul as his Vice President. Conservative blogger Tony Phyrillas suggests (6/5/08) a John McCain-Ron Paul ticket would be a winner.

Senator Obama's chances of winning Texas this fall are not good. But that does not mean we Texas Progressives will give up our fight. There is much about Senator McCain that is worrisome. Here is a small example. There will be more, of course. John McCain's Texas friend, Phil Gramm is one of his five campaign co-chairs. A post by Cliff Schecter, June 3, 2008, for Firedoglake was titled, "McCain Advisor/Lobbyist pushed“ the most macabre investment scheme[s] ever devised by Wall Street” known as “death bonds.” Quoting from his quote:

McCain's campaign is already distancing itself from some of Gramm's other work for UBS: his involvement in attempts to sell financial products known as "death bonds," which BusinessWeek described last summer as one of "the most macabre investment scheme[s] ever devised by Wall Street." Not long after joining UBS, the Houston Chronicle reported, Gramm helped lobby Texas officials, including Gov. Rick Perry, to sign on to a UBS proposal in which revenue would be generated for a state teachers' retirement fund by selling bonds, whose proceeds would in turn be used to buy annuities and life-insurance policies on retired teachers. UBS would advance money to the retirement fund, then repay itself, compensate bondholders and pocket profits when insurance companies paid off on retirees who died.

References to other Texas connections:

• Hagee -- Pastor distances self from McCain
• Former Texas congressman, lobbyist Tom Loeffler

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Totalitarian religion, abusive polygamy, and illiberal Texas

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard:

A Texas appeals court ruled Thursday that state authorities and a lower court judge abused their authority by illegally seizing up to 468 children from their homes at a polygamist ranch in West Texas last month.

*****

According to the court, the state did not establish proper grounds to remove the children from their families, who belong to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or F.L.D.S.

*****

The unanimous ruling by three judges of the Third Court of Appeals in Austin revoked the state’s custody over a large group of the children and by extension almost certainly the rest, for what it called a lack of evidence that they were in immediate danger of sexual or physical abuse.

The appeals court said the record “does not reflect any reasonable effort on the part of the department to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation would have eliminated the risk.” It also said the evidence of danger to the children “was legally and factually insufficient” to justify their removal and it said the lower court “abused its discretion” in failing to return seized children to their families.

It could very well be that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services could have done better in making its case. And, for all I know, there may not have been any "immediate" risk according to the law. Perhaps the evidence was "legally and factually insufficient" according to the law, and perhaps the department did "[abuse] its discretion" according to the law. But, then, the problem is with the law -- or, at least, the law is part of the problem, and, in this case, it seems that the law is at odds with justice.

On this, I agree with Echidne: "I disagree with the way abuse is defined as only physical one, and with the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to groom young girls to accept abuse until the moment of the abuse comes. I also wonder whether it really is true that the sect appeared to have an unusually small number of teenage boys, and if it is true, what happened to the missing boys. I would think abandoning them somewhere would constitute abuse... In general, I'm worried about any children who are brought up in isolation from the rest of the society. They may 'stay safe' that way or 'stay religious' or whatever, but their isolation also means that they cannot learn alternative ways of living and cannot get help if they indeed are abused."

If "immediate" and "abuse" are defined narrowly, as they were by the court, then, yes, the ruling may be the correct one -- the correct legal one, that is.

But from a liberal perspective, one that recognizes the preeminence of the individual, of his or her sovereign and inalienable rights, how is such a ruling in any way correct? Yes, liberalism is related to the rule of law, and, indeed, is inseparable from it. But when the law is wrong? Or when it defines, say, abuse too narrowly?

And we all know -- do we not? -- that this sort of lifestyle, the polygamy of a totalitarian religious cult, is inherently abusive. Indeed, it would not exist without abuse. Abuse is what keeps it going, what enables and supports it.

The women -- that is, the wives -- may defend it, and may say that they are there freely, that it is a choice, but there is a little something called false consciousness. How are these women in any way free? How are they in a position to choose freely? They have lived lives of totalitarian abuse. Their minds have been shaped by that abuse. Everything they say is a reflection of that abuse. They may think they are free and that what they are saying is a reflection of free will, but there is nothing free about them or their lives.

Similarly, the men -- that is, the husbands, including the totalitarian leaders of the cult -- may defend it along lines of religious freedom, but should one or a community ever be free to abuse? Is that what our "liberalism" has become?

Now, I admit, it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish the line between free will and false consciousness. And, obviously, questions persist: Is is possible to enter freely into an abusive relationship? From a legal perspective, should it be allowed to give up one's freedom? In a liberal society, how much liberty is permissible? What "alternative" lifestyles are permitted? What of "alternative" lifestyles or communities that are, in essence, illiberal?

To me, liberalism has lost much of its ability to stand up for itself. It has decayed into libertarianism, into permissiveness of the sort that leads to the inability to combat the forces of illiberalism both internal and external.

But let me be clear: This is not to say that liberalism requires a narrow moral code, a narrow definition of liberty. Rather, it is to say that liberalism must be able to stand up to and against those forces of illiberalism in the name of liberty itself. If it is unable to do so, it is no longer liberalism.

Just as there is illiberalism abroad, so is there illiberalism at home. And much of the illiberalism at home -- and, in this case, I'm talking about the United States -- is religious in nature. The christian fascists of the evangelical right are illiberal, for example -- the most obvious and pernicious example. And so is the totalitarian cult known as the FLDS, an isolated community of abuse.

Texas's Third Court of Appeals may have issued a ruling based on its interpretation of the law, but the law, in this case, allows for the perpetuation of abuse and for the persistence of noxious illiberalism.

Toleration of difference is one of the key aspects of a liberal society, including the United States, but no liberal society worth its name should tolerate the FLDS or anything like it.

California Supreme Court issues historic ruling on same-sex marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Fantastic news from California. Here's the L.A. Times (see also the S.F. Chronicle):

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

I have long been a proponent of the legalization of same-sex marriage and have celebrated recent moves here in Canada and elsewhere to that end. And now, in California, the people, the state's highest court, and even the governor are on board.

There is still much to be done in the U.S., of course -- and the bigoted opposition, much of it on the christianist right, is both organized and powerful -- but there is no doubt that this decision is a major victory for the forces of justice.

Make sure to read Glenn Greenwald on this: "Critically, the Court emphasized at the outset that its ruling had nothing to do with the political views of the judges with regard to gay marriage, but rather, was based solely on its legal analysis of past precedent interpreting the relevant provisions of the state Constitution." Glenn anticipates opposition to the ruling, and refutes it soundly.

And Andrew Sullivan: "[O]n the deeper question, the court is unequivocal in arguing that our modern understanding of sexual orientation -- that it is an orientation, not a choice, an identity and not an act -- makes the equal protection of gay families a core value."

And Melissa McEwan: "[B]ecause California already offers domestic partnership which afford same-sex couples the same legal rights as opposite-sex married couples, it doesn't leave opponents of this decision much wiggle-room: If domestic partnerships already guaranteeing the same legal rights are not good enough, there's not a hell of a lot of space to provide yet another alternative to fully. equal. marriage."

And Digby: "It's fitting that in an election year where we are dealing head on with all these issues of race and sex that we're going to have a showdown on gay marriage in the most populous state in the union. The chances have never been greater to defeat the forces of bigotry and discrimination. It's a risk, but there will probably never be a better time to take it. Bring it on."

(Find more reaction at Memeorandum.)

And just to be clear, Obama supports the ruling, as does Hillary, and McCain doesn't. (Although I wish Obama were a supporter of marriage and not just equal civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Like Pam and Melissa, I think they're wrong to fall back on states' rights and "marriage equality." Couldn't they -- shouldn't they -- be more excited about this historic ruling?) Ben Smith has their statements here.

Texas' turn in about two weeks

By Carol Gee

It will be primary time in Texas on March 4. The Democratic powers that be do not need pundits to tell them that Texas and Ohio will be make-or-break for Senators Clinton and Obama on that big day. This will be the time when Chairman Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy will pay off for all Democrats in the Lone Star state. His efforts at organizing will be very helpful with assuring good party participation as well as taking advantage of what is expected to be a high turnout at the polls.

Former President Bill Clinton is campaigning for his wife in Texas. According to Examiner.com, Friday was East Texas day. Texarkana folks heard about Senator Clinton's health care plan and those in Longview got his "solutions" speech. He was running late to Stephen F. Austin U. in Nacadoches where he focused on contrasting his wife and her opponent there. President Clinton wrapped up at 11:00 PM in Lufkin, emphasizing Hillary's experience and trying to blunt Obama's "Change" argument. Today, Saturday he will travel to Amarillo, Lubbock and Austin. With such distances ans a possible winter storm, he will undoubtedly run late today, too.

Memeorandum carried headlines with differing opinions about how hard Bill Clinton hit against Barack Obama yesterday. Take your pick:

1. "Bill Clinton: Obama ‘Literally Not Part of Any of the Good Things’ From the 1990s" -- from Jake Tapper at ABC News.
2. "Bill Clinton avoids attacks on Obama in East Texas" -- from Bruce Tomaso at The Dallas Morning News.
   

Midweek Senator Hillary "Clinton stumps in South Texas," reported the Bryan/College Station Eagle. Another story from the same source is an excellent analysis of why "Clinton focuses on wooing Texas' Hispanics." To quote:

Clinton. . . and Obama are in a tight race for Texas's 228 delegates. Hispanic support will be critical; Latinos could make up about half of Democratic voters on primary day.Clinton plans to stick to heavily Hispanic venues on her first swing in Texas, campaigning Wednesday in McAllen, Robstown outside Corpus Christi and San Antonio.

And in typically Texan fashion, there is also a bit of controversy, "A Texas Tiff Over the Dems Debate," set for Austin, February 21. It has been closed to the public, and the public is mighty upset. If I lived in Austin I would be among them. To quote:

The cry for tickets went up within minutes of the announcement on February 11, but organizers initially responded that there would be no general admission seats and tickets would be reserved for the University of Texas, the Texas Democratic Party, the Obama and Clinton campaigns, and debate broadcasters CNN and Spanish language network Univision.

The not-so-public debate prompted local media blogs to explode with angry and dismayed postings.

And it will be my turn in two weeks to cast my vote. We have taken all the little choose-your-candidate quizzes. I usually show up as an Edwards fan. I have visited the "where they stand on the issues" websites. There is very little difference between their politics, but Obama is a bit more liberal. I have listened to all the debates. Senator Clinton often sounds better there. I have listened to many of their speeches. Senator Obama is the clear winner there. I have read the opinions of my most trusted blog friends. They are equally divided and equally passionate about their choices. I have cussed and discussed politics with my dear "roommate," my spouse of 50+ years. We agree on the best choice. And it is not for any of the previous reasons. It is the same way most of you vote for your president, from the gut.

I will be voting for Barack Obama. He has the right instincts, the right vision, the right inclusiveness, and the right electability quotient. But if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will very happily support her just as forcefully. I belong to her older women demographic.

References:

• Examiner.com -- excellent AP resource for Texas political news.
• Clinton Rally Press photos.
• "Obama leads" poll; "Clinton has slight lead" poll.
• Texas Almanac -- everything you ever wanted to know about us, and more about politics.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Like NOLA all over again

By Libby Spencer

While the media was focused on the primaries, the devastation in the mid-south got short shrift in coverage and it's a real disaster out there. Monkeyfister is on the scene and has been liveblogging the storms along with the horrible after-effects and has issued a call for help.

A small-blog swarm on that post would be greatly appreciated by more people than just me. I can't describe how wide-spread the damage is down here. It's enormous. The Media, per usual, is only just now waking up to the situation, after their Super-Duper-Let's-All-Wet-Our-Pants-Together- Tuesday Political Hangover. Like NOLA, these are REALLY poor folks down here, and have nothing, and nowhere to go.

A short post about this at YOUR Blog, linking either to my post, above, or directly to the two Orgs mentioned in the post above, would sure be a big help, and would be greatly appreciated by many people who are relying on help. They are all that we have right now.

He also has practical suggestions for what we can do to aid our fellow Americans in their time of need.

Right now, I recommend the:

American Red Cross
Mid-South Chapter
1400 Central Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
901-726-1690

And:

United Way of the Mid-South phone in a donation at (901) 433-4300.

They take DIRECT donations, so you can skip all the National-level waste and delay, AND they serve nearly every community in the effected radius.

At least 52 people are dead and as you can see in the photos, untold thousands that survived have lost everything. Please do what you can to help and check in with Monkeyfister for regular updates.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

War isn't free

By Libby Spencer

Emboldened by the GOP's successful shootdown of any relief for our troops, Bush is about to ask for more war bucks:

The request will total nearly $200 billion to fund the war through 2008, Pentagon officials said. If it is approved, 2008 will be the most expensive year of the Iraq war.

...When costs of CIA operations and embassy expenses are added, the war in Iraq currently costs taxpayers about $12 billion a month, said Winslow T. Wheeler, a former Republican congressional budget aide who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.

So where's all that money going? According to the government:

U.S. war costs have continued to grow because of the additional combat forces sent to Iraq in 2007 and because of efforts to quickly ramp up production of new technology, such as mine- resistant trucks designed to protect troops from roadside bombs. The new trucks can cost three to six times as much as armored Humvees.

The trouble with that strategy is that as we go high tech, they defeat the technology by going lower tech. How much armor do you think it would take to protect against an IED the size of a cement mixer?

A small fraction of the money goes to the men and women fighting and dying in the sand pit. Most of it is going to private corporations for no bid, cost plus contracts that carry no performance stipulations and are virtually unmonitored. So far the Pentagon can't account for $88 billion tax dollars and that's just the fraud they've been forced to admit. You know it has to be bigger.

And as we pour our blood and treasure into a failed state thousands of miles away, we have a failing state at home. It's called Michigan. For what it costs to occupy Iraq for one week, $4 billion, Michigan's budget crisis would not only be over, they would be rolling in dough. Somehow I think that would make the citizens of that state feel more secure than another week of war.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Ratfucking New York

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Republicans are good with the dirty tricks, but something tells me it isn't a good thing to be on Eliot Spitzer's bad side.

If anyone has the balls to crush the ratfuckers, and the Republicans generally, it's Spitzer.

I love Vermont

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I do, seriously. It's a beautiful place. But I also admire the audacity of its senate:

Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions in Iraq and the U.S. "raise serious questions of constitutionality."

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -- all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it. The resolution was the latest, symbolic, effort in the state to impeach Bush. In March, 40 towns in the state known for its liberal leaning voted in favor of similar, non-binding resolutions at their annual meetings. State lawmakers in Wisconsin and Washington have also pushed for similar resolutions.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust."

No, nothing will come of it, and no, I'm not advocating impeachment myself (although there may be a case to be made for it), and yes, Vermont is a liberal state, and yes, its senate is dominated by Democrats, and yes, this was evidently a wholly Democratic effort. I get all that.

Still, symbols are important, and what is clear, impeachment or not, is that Bush is going down as one of the worst presidents in history. He was wildly unpopular among many people and in many parts of the country even after he "won" the 2000 election, but now, after over six years of trampling all over the Constitution and embroiling the country in a horrendous war of his own deliberate choosing, he is only getting what he deserves.

Well, no. This is actually much less than he deserves. But it's a start.