I'm just going to go ahead and reprint this article from yesterday's AmericaBlog in full:

I've had it with the Bush administration. Enough is enough. Now they're charging US soldiers injured in Iraq for their lost body armor. Enough is enough. We liberal folk may disagree with the Bush administration over the reasons for going to war and over how they're fighting this war, but one thing you'd expect no disagreement over would be the treatment of our soldiers. They fight for their country and they deserve some respect in return. And that means not charging them for their body armor because someone blew them up on the battlefield.

That's it.

This soldier had to pay $700 for his armor, and now is out trying to find work. He has friends who have faced the same cruel, ridiculous policy. Let's finally raise some cash for these guys and show the Bush administration how compassion really works.

I'm serious. I've set up a special PayPal donation fund. If you click the button below and donate, it will be earmarked with a special code so I'll know it's for the body armor fund. All the money collected, ALL OF IT, will go the soldier who was forced to pay for his armor, and if we get more than $700, I'll give him that as well to help him get back on his feet (he's now unemployed, and he says he knows other soldiers who have faced the same problem, if he wants, he can reimburse his pals who also had to pay for their armor).

I'm pissed. Please help.

From the Charleston Gazette-News:

The last time 1st Lt. William Eddie Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood.

A field medic tied a tourniquet around Rebrook's right arm to stanch the bleeding from shrapnel wounds. Soldiers yanked off his blood-soaked body armor. He never saw it again.

But last week, Rebrook was forced to pay $700 for that body armor, blown up by a roadside bomb more than a year ago.

He was leaving the Army for good because of his injuries. He turned in his gear at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was informed there was no record that the body armor had been stripped from him in battle.

He was told to pay nearly $700 or face not being discharged for weeks, perhaps months.

Rebrook, 25, scrounged up the cash from his Army buddies and returned home to Charleston last Friday.

"I last saw the [body armor] when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook said. "They took it off me and burned it."

....Rebrook, who graduated with honors from the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., spent more than four years on active duty. He served six months in Iraq.

Now, Rebrook is sending out résumés, trying to find a job. He plans to return to college to take a couple of pre-med classes and apply to medical school. He wants to be a doctor someday.

“From being an infantryman, I know what it’s like to hurt people,” Rebrook said. “But now I’d like to help people.”

The good news is that between when this was posted and when I next looked at the site (a couple of hours) they'd raised more than $5000 for the guy.  The bad news is that he needed it.  I think I said this in a post before, but there's a bumpersticker before Bush that said, "It will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the army holds a bake sale to buy another bomber."  But you know, we meant that it would be great if education were more important than war.  Not that we wanted soldiers to be as screwed by the government as teachers.

Since I keep telling people about this, I figured I'd post it.  AIM has a new marketing slogan, as you may have seen.  I AM text, I AM video, I AM voice chatting, etc.  Just a little play on words.  Now some people have their panties in a bunch, because they're saying that it's blasphemy.   Blasphemy!  Because God is I AM, and they are taking His very name in vain.  And not only will they lose customers, but locusts will come and eat their flesh.

You must immediately change the name of your program," [Ian Miller] told Jonathan Miller, the chief executive officer of America Online, and John Buckley, corporate communications officer for the company, in a pointed letter. I can assure you that you will lose business over this marketing tactic from people who worship the Almighty. But worse, you have offended Him by your actions; whether they are deliberate or ignorant. To treat as common the name of God is wicked. God is patient, but mankind is today making an error of epic proportions by the deliberate actions of mocking the Almighty; particularly in the technologically advanced society. His patience with the mockery of mankind will come to an end."

No word yet on whether or not Ian Miller is aware of Iams pet food.

Boy, do I feel guilty about getting my brother Being and Nothingness for Christmas.  I'd hate to limit the amount of white people there are in the future.  Why didn't Pat Robertson speak up earlier?  You see, what I didn't realize is that Sartre's philosophy makes people not breed.  And since the Europeans read Sartre all the time, it's what's lead to their declining birth rate and the ongoing racial suicide. 

ROBERTSON: Studies that I have read indicate that having babies is a sign of a faith in the future. You know, unless you believe in the future, you're not going to take the trouble of raising a child, educating a child, doing something. If there is no future, why do it? Well, unless you believe in God, there's really no future. And when you go back to the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, the whole idea of this desperate nightmare we are in -- you know, that we are in this prison, and it has no hope, no exit. That kind of philosophy has permeated the intellectual thinking of Europe, and hopefully it doesn't come here. But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate. And they just can't get it together. Why? There's no hope.

So, yesterday Gonazales got in front of congress to answer questions about the electronic surveillance programs.  It was quite odd.  Among other things, he repeated the standard line that we have to listen to al Qaeda.  We're at war, dammit!  Although he neglected to mention which judge would ever refuse a warrant to listen to al Qaeda.  But, that was just standard talking points.  There were better statements if you browse the transcript.  Runner up for best statement:

BIDEN: General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

 The House voted to approve the ironically named "Budget Reconciliation Bill" yesterday, and of course it passed.  Although it was shockingly close- 216-214.  Around $40 billion of cuts to various programs were included in it, including cuts to the administration end of federal student loans and grants (we all know how well those are managed with their current budgets), more general cuts to student loan funding, cuts to medicaid, cuts to welfare, cuts to basically everything.  Interestingly, the bill both raises the work requirements in order to qualify for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, without an exemption for single parents without daycare, and cuts money to enforce child support payments.  So much for being pro-family.  Well, I guess if you can't kill the Violence Against Women Act, this is next best way of ensuring a woman stays with her abusive husband, eh?

The thing about this bill, though... it'd upset me no matter what was in it.  I dislike a policy of first looking to cut money from those who need it most, and I'd imagine several people feel the same way.  But, what makes this even worse is that on the very same day they start negotiating on a bunch of tax cuts that are actually more than what they're saving by cutting these programs.  It almost makes one feel that the effort here isn't as much to save money in the budget, but just a malevolent urge to kick people when they're down and use a hundred dollar bill to light a Cuban cigar in front of them.  The Republicans are trying to sell this as some sort of necessary step towards fiscal responsibility, but it's more like cutting down on your church tithe 'cause you need to make payments on that new 42" plasma you bought.

[W]ith the federal budget deficit expected to rise again this year, to around $360 billion, Republicans implored their members to take what Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) called "this first step toward long-term, fiscal discipline and fiscal health for our government."

The impact of the bill on the deficit is likely to be negligible, slicing less than one-half of 1 percent from the estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. As the House debated the budget-cutting measure, the Senate moved to begin final negotiations with the House on a package of tax cuts and extension of expiring tax cuts that could cost up to $60 billion over five years, more than negating the savings from the budget bill.

"I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending in December to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now turn around a short while later to provide tax cuts that exceed or cancel out the reduction in spending," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said yesterday, as the Senate took up a procedural motion that would allow tax-cut negotiations to begin. "We cannot afford these tax cuts."

From RollCall:

House Republicans are taking a mulligan on the first ballot for Majority Leader. The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting.

Ah, that is the eternal question about the Bush administration, isn't it?

According to the right wingers, we just don't hear about all the good things in Iraq, like the new schools and libraries and other civilian projects that were being used to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.  Well, partly those good deeds have been overshadowed by the torture and the insurgency.  But partly, there just haven't been all the good deeds we'd expected and paid for.  In fact, with the small amount of money and troops we did have, we probably could have had more success in Iraq if we'd run it with a bit more accountability than a post-Soviet Union kleptocracy.

According to a recent US government audit, the occupation authorities wasted millions of dollars in 'undocumented spending and outright fraud.'  It seems to be so bad that the audit suggests that we actually press charges. 

This corruption isn't just confined to Haliburton.  According to the article,

Dryly written audit reports describe the Coalition Provisional Authority's offices in the south-central city of Hillah being awash in bricks of $100 bills taken from a central vault without documentation.

It describes one agent who kept almost $700,000 in cash in an unlocked footlocker and mentions a U.S. soldier who gambled away as much as $60,000 in reconstruction funds in the Philippines.

"Tens of millions of dollars in cash had gone in and out of the South-Central Region vault without any tracking of who deposited or withdrew the money, and why it was taken out," says a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which is in the midst of a series of audits for the Pentagon and State Department.

Much of the first audit reports deal with contracting in south-central Iraq, one of the country's least-hostile regions. Audits have yet to be released for the occupation authority's spending in the rest of Iraq.

The audits offer a window into the chaotic U.S.-led occupation of Iraq of 2003-04, when inexperienced American officials — including workers from President Bush's election campaign — organized a cash-intensive "hearts and minds" mission to rebuild Iraq's devastated economy. 

Examples include:

[T]he auditors [spoke] of U.S. officials in Hillah being unable to account for $97 million of the $120 million in Iraqi oil revenues earmarked for rebuilding projects.

An October 2005 audit found documentation for the spending of just $8 million of that money.

Negligence proved deadly in at least one case. Three Iraqis plummeted to their deaths in an elevator in the Hillah General Hospital that was certified to have been replaced by a contractor who received $662,800.

Also in Hillah, occupation officials spent $108,140 to replace pumps and fix the city's Olympic swimming pool. But the contractor merely polished the old plumbing to make it look new and collected his money.

When the pool was filled, the water came out a murky brown and the pool's reopening had to be canceled. The reports did not identify the contractors involved. ...

Two occupation authority field agents responsible for paying contractors left Iraq without accounting for more than $700,000 each. When auditors confronted their manager and asked where the money was, the manger tried to clear one of the agents through false paperwork.

There's a lot more.  And this is only on one section of Iraq.  The part that had the least conflict.  Can you even imagine how the rest of Iraq must look?  Here we are coming in, the great conquerors, the great leaders.  And all we're doing is stealing money, failing at our projects, and pissing off the citizens.  Not only are we not winning the hearts and minds-we're actually turning them against us.  And one asks again, is it just horrible, mindboggling incompetence?  Or from the start was their never any intention of rebuilding Iraq? 

Either way, the sad thing is, you know next year we'll be reading an article like this about New Orleans.   

So, via Pandagon, I see that a boy in Boston is suing his school because he says that they favor girls and discriminate about boys.  Apparently, there are more girls in the honors' classes and the AP classes, which means that the school discriminates.  Now, the school might, I'm not there.  How do I know?  And, I'm totally about programs to ensure equality in schools.  (Although I'd like to point out that in places where there are more men than women, evolutionary psychology and Lawrence Summers tell us it's 'cause girls just aren't any good at math and science.  Shouldn't we be having an honest discussion about whether women are just far smarter than men?  What, it's not discriminatory.  Just what we have to ask as rational people.)

On a serious note, the fact that men are underperforming at schools is something that needs to be examined.  But, seriously, this lawsuit...  do you want to know how he says that the school discriminates?  And how they can fix it? 

Among Anglin's allegations: Girls face fewer restrictions from teachers, like being able to wander the hallways without passes, and girls are rewarded for abiding by the rules, while boys' more rebellious ways are punished.  ...

'The system is designed to the disadvantage of males," Anglin said. ''From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this." ....

For example, he proposes that the high school give students credit for playing sports, not just for art and drama courses. He also urges that students be allowed to take classes on a pass/fail basis to encourage more boys to enroll in advanced classes without risking their grade point average. He also wants the school to abolish its community service requirement, saying it's another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result.

Excuse me?  Girls are rewarded for following the rules, while when boys break the rules they're punished?  Damn, that's some serious discrimination right there.  And yes, 'they' do say that if you sit down, follow orders and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades.  However, given that this is a system that's been in schools for, well, ever, even when only men were in schools, and given that schools used to be much, much, much more highly regimented than they are now, I'm going to have to ask how that's something that discriminates against men.  Not necessarily a huge fan of the way our schools work, but I hardly think it's something that advantages women.  I mean, come on, there are more men in prisons than women.  Is this because women are rewarded for following the law, while mens' more rebellious ways are punished?

And then... okay.  The sports/arts thing might be a point.  I wonder how many p.e. courses the school offers.  But the rest.... dude.  Suck it up.  Are you saying that boys are underachieving because it's in their nature to be wimps, afraid of hard work or earning a slightly lower grade?  Because if so, you seem to have a dim view of men and I wonder if we want them in all these positions of authority they have.  And the community service requirement?  Okay, how on earth is that discriminatory?  Hey, maybe attendance is burdensome, too.  And homework.  Heck, just give these their diplomas free of work!  'Cause we all know a work ethic goes against the male nature.

Clearly there are some problems in education, and we need to see why boys aren't achieving as well as girls.  Maybe it has to do with the fact that if you're smart or care about facts you're looked at as an elitist.  Maybe it's because our culture more strongly encourages women to respond to and please authority than it does for men.  Maybe it's because after years of hearing that we have to work twice as hard as men to be seen as being half as good, we're working harder and people aren't naturally seeing men as better.  But it's not because boys are just physically incapable of following the rules.   And if it is, I expect we'll have an all-female army soon.

Yeah, I've got to agree with Nancy Goldstein here:

Effective immediately, the Democrats will be known as the lyin'-ass boyfriend party - the perfect date for progressive voters looking to be stood up, bullshitted blind, or left holding the tab.

For five years now it's been "Please baby, baby, baby, please! I'm sorry I was a no-show last time, but hey, that was because I was working overtime to save up to do something extra special for next time, which is the really big event - right, baby?"

Last April, when the Democrats backed away from filibustering extremist appeals court nominees, it was, "Don't you fret, baby. We're not going to go to the mat over small fry like Owen, Pryor, and Brown because we're saving the filibuster for the big one - you know, the Supreme Court, baby." Months later, Democrats folded rather than fight John Roberts,the young-ish yes man with a penchant for executive privilege and a wife who used to head an anti-choice organization. After all, they said, they needed to save their energy, and the filibuster, for the next Supreme Court nominee, who would undoubtedly be worse.

Via </b>americablog, there comes this depressing story:

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.

Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.

Ah, Sen. Feingold... you have a special place in my heart.  You have worked hard to undo the bad you did when you allowed Ashcroft to be approved. 

Today, the Senate blocked a vote on the Patriot Act, meaning so far it hasn't been extended.  The provisions extend on Dec. 31st if they're not voted into lasting longer.  Feingold has been threatening a filibuster, and, of course, he got some help from the recent report stating that Bush authorized the NSA to spy on Americans.  I guess some people felt that was a betrayal of trust.

In other happy news, Bush has backed down and agreed to allow the McCain ammendment banning torture to pass. 

Of course, these are both those happy-depressing things that seem to be so common in our country today.  Happy, upon first glance.   Patriot Act blocked, at least for now!  We're banning torture!  Then you consider that we just had a dialogue in this country, and are still having some disagreement, on whether or not torture is acceptable, and that the Patriot Act passed in the first place, and that at least 47 senators want to extend it.  

I want-no, I need-this t-shirt: http://www.bustedtees.com/shirts/dysentery

Outside of Math Munchers, this was easily my favorite game as a kid.  And it's still in the top 10... they just don't make 'em like they used to.

Washington Post has a nifty graphic up outlining where Abramoff got his money, and to whom the money went. There are 6 Democrats there, and who they are might surprise you a bit- I know they did me. Harry Reid got some money from his PAC, although any powerful Western senator is worth courting to them.

Anyway, it's a helpful little spreadsheet, if for no other reason than to show you just how powerful Abramoff was, and how much reach he had, especially if you're not obsessive about keeping tabs on Abramoff and just want a quickie understanding. However, it would be nice if they had something else on the sheet. The legal donations aren't what are too concerning, although they can probably give a rough approximation of who he was in bed with. What we really want to know is how many times Abramoff met with these people, who he invited to his skybox, and who had staff members who previously worked for Abramoff, or went on to a lucrative job with him. Also, who has done favors for Abramoff.

After all, Ney (also known as "Rep. No. 1" from Scanlon's guilty plea) is only No. 8 on the list. DeLay, who Scanlon worked for before his indictment, is No. 6. The top five are probably all worth looking at (there's been a lot of talk about Burns and Doolittle, in particular), but there are others, further down the list (Brownback and Pombo) who have also had some speculation swirling about them. So far I haven't heard any rumored quid pro quo from the Democrats, but if they're involved, they'd better resign and make their deal now. I'm gonna be pissed if they were in bed with these people, and if they drag us down in '06. In fact, I'm all about the Democrats trying to set up an independent investigation into the corruption in the Senate.

Anyway, that's all for now. Just thought the graph was helpful. Like I said, it shows how powerful one person with deep pockets can be, if nothing else. But if you're bored one day, just google news articles about Abramoff. You'll be amazed.

Our National Dialogue on Torture:

Us: Torture is a horrible, greivous wrong that shames us as a nation and we must guarantee it will never happen under our supervision.

Them: Well, we don't torture. But we can't straightjacket ourselves. We'll do whatever it takes to get information to keep America safe.

Us: But torture doesn't keep America safe. People will say anything to stop the pain; they lie and say what their captors want to hear. Also, it's so wrong that it doesn't matter.

Them: Your discussion of torture is endangering our troops.

But we do torture, and we send people off to other countries that they torture, and we use the information they give us under duress. Apparently, a good deal of our information that Iraq was helping al Qaeda came from such methods:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

Well, that's heartening. We based our intelligence on known spies with axes to grind (Chalabi), forged memos, reports from drunks, and information people gave up to stop being tortured. Makes me proud. What also interests me is what this guy was asked. Because, like I said, people say what their captors want to hear. He had a reason to think the torture would stop if he said Iraq was working with al Qaeda.

What's also interesting, at the end of the article, is that once again, the Bush administration went forth with information that they knew probably wasn't true:

The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons.

Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified.

Did they have reason to believe anything they told us?

Some of the nation's most prominent megachurches have decided not to hold worship services on the Sunday that coincides with Christmas Day, a move that is generating controversy among evangelical Christians at a time when many conservative groups are battling to "put the Christ back in Christmas."

Megachurch leaders say that the decision is in keeping with their innovative and "family friendly" approach and that they are compensating in other ways. Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., always a pacesetter among megachurches, is handing out a DVD it produced for the occasion that features a heartwarming contemporary Christmas tale.

"What we're encouraging people to do is take that DVD and in the comfort of their living room, with friends and family, pop it into the player and hopefully hear a different and more personal and maybe more intimate Christmas message, that God is with us wherever we are," said Cally Parkinson, communications director at Willow Creek, which draws 20,000 people on a typical Sunday.

I'm sure watching a heartwarming DVD is just like going to Church and reflecting on the birth of Jesus Christ. You know, In my liberal, anti-Christian, anti-Christmas household, and the secular churches we attended, missing Church on Christmas Day was so completely not an option. And believe me, the few times Christmas fell on a Sunday, we kids really tried.

I think this speaks volumes. Because if your faith and committment is so weak that you'd skip worship on the second holiest day of the year because it interfered with your other plans, then I'm certain it can't withstand people saying Happy Holidays, or playing Jingle Bells instead of Silent Night.

I just wanted to mention, in relation to my previous post, that the idea that Jews are behind an attack on Christmas is really nothing new. This is from Henry Ford's "The International Jew." 


                                                                                     Attacks on Christianity
Previous to the formation of the Kehillah and the Jewish Committee, this sort of attack on the rights of Americans was sporadic, but since 1906 it has increased in number and insistence. Under cover of the ideal of Liberty we have given the Jews liberty to attack Liberty. What America has been tolerating is intolerance itself. Let us look rapidly down the years and see one phase of that attack. It is the attack upon Christianity. Here are a few items from the record. They are recorded over a period of years following the rise of Jewish power in America:

1899-1900. The Jews attempt to have the word "Christian" removed from the Bill of Rights of the State of Virginia.

1906-1907. The Jews of Oklahoma petition the Constitutional Convention protesting that the acknowledgment of Christ in the new State constitution then being formulated would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

The Jews force "The Merchant of Venice" to be dropped from public schools in Texas, Ohio.

1907-1908. Widespread demand by the Jews for the complete secularization of the public institutions of this country, as a part of the demand of the Jews for their constitutional rights.

Supreme Court Justice Brewer's statement that this is a Christian country widely controverted by Jewish rabbis and publications.

Jews agitate in many cities against Bible reading. Christmas celebrations or carols in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Paul and New York met with strong Jewish opposition.

1908-1909. Protests made to Governor of Arkansas against "Christological expressions" employed by him in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation.

Professor Gotthard Deutsch protests against "Christological prayers" at the high school graduating exercises at Cincinnati.

Jewish community in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania defeats resolutions providing daily Bible reading in schools.

Local Council of Jewish Women of Baltimore petitions school board to prohibit Christmas exercises.

Alright, this "War on Christmas/Christians" thing is getting wayyy too ridiculous. From the horrible site Townhall:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn’t? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear that it will offend?
Schools are being forced to replace “Christmas vacation” with “winter break” in their printed schedules. At Macy’s, the word is verboten even though they’ve made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, “Miracle on 34th Street.” Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.

...

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn’t, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn’t a threat to anyone; it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world’s melting pot was our nickname. It didn’t mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront.

Yes, you read that right.

Now, where to start with this... 1) It's been called "Winter Break" for as long as I can remember. And this is where I grew up. (Scroll down to "Florida Bible Classes".) 2) So.... what does that have to do with the War on Christmas. Jews don't speak English? They're trying to bring in immigrants? 3) Did he really just say that the Jews are trying to destroy Christmas?

He goes on to say that anti-Semitism has been replace by anti-Christianity and adds that, "I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences."

Right. The consequences being.....? Even if you're right, and not just completely insane, are you saying they're going to come into your home and tear down your tree? Then tear off pieces of your flesh with pincers they've just removed from the fire until you deny your faith, just like the Spanish Inquisition? Even if there is a "War," the biggest consequence is there are some non-denominational 'holiday' decorations at the mall.

And as for the anti-Semitism.... well, I think you just proved it still exists. If this "War on Christmas" gets to serious, maybe you and O'Reilly can do a segment on what to do about the Jewish Question.

Via Atrios.

I was perusing Talking Points Memo earlier today (Your One Stop Scandal Shop for everything GOP related) and I saw this:

A name now coming up more and more frequently in Abramoff investigation news is that of Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Resources.

That was prime territory for Jack Abramoff, seeing as the Resources Committee has jurisdiction over Indian tribal affairs, Pacific island territories as well as environment and natural resources -- pretty much one-stop shopping for a guy like Jack.

So I went back through our stack of unpublished Team Abramoff emails to see how often folks from Pombo's office showed up on the Abramoff skybox freebie list.

Pretty often, it turns out.

 

If you go over there and look through they have a list of events where Pombo's staff was in the same skybox as Abramoff. Now, it's possible that there weren't any bribes. It's just possible that someone who wants to sell of our democracy to the highest bidder, and someone who advocated the sale of Roosevelt Island in the district as a way to recap 'government losses' after Katrina could bond on a deep personal level, and always got along, and I'd imagine that goes for all of their staff, too.

But if Abramoff is in the same room as someone, it's more likely there was something illegal going on. Which would make me ever so happy.

Why? Because Pombo is a big friend to mining and logging interests. He's argued that we should start selling of the natural park systems. His biggest goal in the House has been to destroy, or weaken to the point of impotence, the Endangered Species Act.

And now he might be part of the Abramoff investigation, too. Now if we can just get James Inhofe (R-OK) and Ted Stevens (R-AK).... life will be sweet.

So, I'm not a very big computer/video game person, except in terms of what's on MSN Games (I can play alchemy for hours) or old-school games (I heart my Pac Man/Rally X/Dig Dug game box, and old pinball machines, old-school Simpsons and table top Ms. PacMan get me hot.) However, in years of being with a computer game guy, I have picked up on one most excellent game: Civilization. Mostly, Civ III and Civ III Conquests. If you are unfamiliar with them, they are games where you start with a settler, a worker, and sometimes a scout in a simulated map as some previous civilization (I rather like playing as Persia) and then slowly grow and take over the world. You can win diplomatically, technologically, culturally, militarily, through growth, or by default, when the game ends in year 2050. As you might guess, it scores high with the nerds. Although I don't know why I wrote all that, because if you haven't played or seen the game, the review won't make much sense anyway.

But now, there is Civ IV, which I got from two excellent friends. Civ IV has its ups and its downs, although I need to play more to get a feel for it. I only played at the easy level last night because so much had changed. So, here are my thoughts:



( game nerdiness )

A "top Jesuit official"  has been contacting the Vatican and its representatives to protest their upcoming statement saying that gays are unfit for the priesthood.  Supposedly, the letter says that gay people's orientation is "intrinsically disoriented."

This whole idea of denying people to a position that requires you to be celibate, because they are homosexual, completely boggles me.  It also brings up a few questions: 1) How does the Church know these priests are gay?  2) Who cares?  3) Since they are saying that gays are 'intrinsically disoriented' and they can't become ungay, even if they're in a position where there is no sexuality at all (if you follow the rules), are they saying that this is something you're born with that you can't ever change?  4) If the answer to (3) is "yes," are they saying God made these people gay from birth, and the Church is punishing them for something God did? 

Of course, part of this, is that the Vatican is trying to blame all those church abuse scandals on the gay priests, because we all know that pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same.  Except that 20% of the kids molested were girls.  And that the problem in all the cases is that priests were molesting children, not that they were gay.  And that the Church tried to cover it up instead of cleaning up their house.  And they're still not taking responsibility for creating an environment that allowed that sort of thing to happen, but instead trying to not-so-subtly blame it on The Gays.

So, good for you Rev. Chojnacki, standing up to this ridiculous bigotry and asking others to do the same.  I hope your statement makes a difference.