I know that Koko Taylor is supposed to be the queen of the blues, but I was always partial to Ruth Brown, ever since I heard her sing If I Can't Sell It I'll Keep Sittin' On It (Before I Give It Away).

Ruth Brown died yesterday from complications of a stroke and heart attack at the age of 78.

Unfortunately, there's not much recent video out on the Web, so here's a sample:



...and while you're in the rhythm 'n' blues head, why not take an hour break from what you're doing and take in this terrific video of a show recorded at the Apollo Theatre in the 1950's. Ruth Brown appears at the end.

Not to be outdone by People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" issue, Salon has put its own spin on the concept to come up with a thinking woman's version list of sex symbols.

This is not to say that all of People's picks are shallow. Yes, George Clooney seems like an easy choice for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that he's a smart, articulate progressive with a wicked sense of humor who doesn't take himself at all seriously. But for me, the odd thing about Clooney is that he manages to look like a 1930's movie star without being the least bit sexy. And yes, I HAVE seen Out of Sight.

The problem with the People list is that, predictably, it revolves almost solely around looks to the point where they all look alike, and even some of those choices make me scratch my head. I mean sure, Ashton Kutcher gets points for not being hung up on a woman's age, but sexy? I don't think so. Yul Kwon, the hot Korean guy on Survivor this season may participate in challenges with his glasses on, is so far playing a completely honest game, is intelligent and is edited as a genuinely good guy, but I may be the only woman in the world who finds the six-pack abs just a tad off-putting.

I've always had a pretty firm grounding in reality, and really haven't pined over a celebrity male since I was a "Paul girl" devouring magazines devoted to the Beatles when I was nine years old. But even girl geeks have things that they find attractive, and I can get on board with much of Salon's list -- Stephen Colbert, of course, and Alan Rickman. But Sacha Baron Cohen? Yes, a sense of humor is wonderful, but the man is just a tad too scatalogical for my taste. And perhaps a bit too Jewish. For like those Jewish males (Billy Joel, anyone?) who gravitate towards California blondes as the ultimate other, my celebrity crushes have tended towards blue eyes and Englishmen (not mutually exclusive), for all that I married a half-Italian, half-German American guy.

I'm on board with most of Salon's list, though while I respect Philip Seymour Hoffman's body of work, I wouldn't call him sexy; and Bruce Springsteen has never floated my boat. But I would like to make a few additions to the Thinking Girl's Sex Symbol list.

1) Mr. Brilliant. WHY HE'S HOT: He's tall, he's gorgeous, he smells nice, but most importantly, he still makes me laugh after 23 years together. And while his fondness for Mythbusters, programs about geology, and the last three Star Wars movies is a mystery to me, my relentless blogging and passion for politics is equally a mystery to him. But you want to know what's sexy about him? While he has that primal male thing about big-breasted babes like any guy, his idea of a fabulous woman is Emma Thompson. Not only does that show a discerning taste, but hell, I'd fight him for her.

The rest, in no particular order.

Keith Olbermann. WHY HE'S HOT: The words. The voice. Yes, I too read about the ditched babe who says he's a dud in the sack. Ask me if I care. I'm not interested in fucking him, I just want him to come into my home every evening at 8 PM, provide me with a sane spin on the news, and once a week come through with one of those beautifully-written comments that his bosses now expect him to crank out like a V.C. Andrews novel. Olbermann is sort of like David Letterman -- or Max Headroom, for that matter -- in that he appears not to exist outside of his TV show. But if you hear him on radio with Dan Patrick, you realize that this is a real "guy's guy" -- someone you wouldn't really want to know. So just listen to the voice and hear the words, and that's quite enough.

Sam Seder. WHY HE'S HOT. The voice. The passion. The humor. One of the rare good decisions that Air America Radio has made of late is the decision NOT to jettison Sam Seder. Where Al Franken has become ever-more unlistenable on radio with time, Seder has become arguably THE must-listen air personality on the struggling network. Seder manages to have only the best parts of Jewish Intellectual neurosis. He's smart, articulate, passionate, occasionally funny, and his 15-month old daughter, whom he suspects is a budding Republican because she can be bribed (albeit with a cookie, but still...) looks as if she'll provide comedic fodder for years to come. You may be shocked at the absence of Marc Maron from this spot, but I'm still angry with him for the "fat marshal" bit he did on Conan O'Brien's show a few months ago. I'll get over it in time.

John Mayer. WHY HE'S HOT: The voice. (Are you seeing a pattern here?). The talent. Yes, I know you're supposed to hate him -- the floppy hair, the bags under the eyes, the Mark-Ruffalo's-homelier-kid-brother looks, the huge talent he seems to fritter away on love songs and ditties, the preposterous level of success in a tough music industry when he's not even out of his twenties yet, which probably explains Jessica Simpson. Sure he's easy to ridicule -- I mean, look at this soulful poet pose. So what is it about John Mayer. It's the voice, dude. It's that Dave-Matthews-by-way-of-Otis-Redding thing. If you have to ask, you just don't get it.

Naveen Andrews. WHY HE'S HOT: Well, LOOK at him. And he appreciates older women. OK, NOW we get to the English guys. Sure, you know him as the tough, inscrutable, yet oh-so-romantic and sensitive Sayid on Lost. But Naveen Andrews has the irresistable combination of soulfulness and bad-boy -- combined with an on-screen charisma that blows everyone else in the scene to smithereens. Go rent Bride and Prejudice sometime and you'll wonder what the hell Aishwarya Rai saw in that pale idiot. Oh yeah -- and he's been with Barbara Hershey for nine years -- and she's almost two decades older than he is.

Terence Stamp. WHY HE'S HOT: Because he gets better looking every year. The voice. The talent. The ability to poke fun at himself. Terry and I go way back, back to the late 1960's. Stamp is a case of the rare English actor who's actually aged well. He was a gorgeous, if scrawny young man, who becames a gorgeous older man. You don't see him much anymore, and when you do, it's in crap like My Boss' Daughter or Elektra -- which is a shame, because as an actor, he's gotten better with age. If you need an old guy who's mysterious, inscrutable, or creepy, he's your man. What's less known is that he can also be funny and poke fun at his own image, as he did in My Wife is an Actress -- and that he has a line of gluten-free foods marketed in the U.K. If you only know him as General Zod in Superman II, check out his screen debut in Billy Budd, then rent The Limey.

Howard Dean. WHY HE'S HOT. The brains. The savvy. The passion. The confidence. Screw Rahm "tippy toes" Emannuel. For my money, this guy's got what it takes. In 2004, he was completely ahead of his time in opposing the war, indeed in opposing the entire Bush agenda. When he decided to take the helm at the DNC instead of forming a third party, he laid the groundwork for this year's Democratic victories. A man of deadly serious purpose, he too is able to laugh at himself. And when he does, see how nice-looking he is. He's not tall, and he's balding, and he's dumpy, but Dean screams for me.

That's just a few of them. Who are YOUR thinking person's sex symbols?

These "conservative" thoughts are from newly-elected Virginia Senator Jim Webb:

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

[snip]

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.


The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

More here.

Webb outlines above what two decades of largely Republican rule hath wrought -- and when not being run by Republicans, this country has been run by Democratic corporatists owned by the same K Street lobbyists and campaign donors as the Republicans.

I hope that guys like Jim Webb and his populist fellow freshman, Jon Tester, are able to avoid being seduced by the easy money offered by the Sleazebags of Industry and that they remember what they stood for the day they were elected.

This is from Red State, the conservative version of Daily Kos:

"All politics is local", is a phrase all political pundits know by heart. Yet, when Howard Dean revealed his plan to transfer money from the DNC to state and local committees he was said to be wasting valuable resouces. Later, in the final weeks of the campaign when the RNC held a $17.8 million advantage over the DNC, many in Democratic circles were calling for Dean's head.

However, Even though the RNC had a huge financial advantage in the final weeks of the campaign, the RNC failed to stem the tide and put enough Republicans over the top to maintain control of Congress, or at least the Senate. Could Howard Dean's strategy be part of the reason why Republicans lost so badly? An example of his strategy in action is below the fold...

In August, Howard Dean sent $100,000 to lowly Delaware as part of his "50 State Strategy." Delaware is a State that has gone for the Democratic Candidate for the past four Presidential elections. All pundits agree Delaware is a solidly Blue state.

The Delaware Republicans were putting up the most experienced prosecutor, with a 6-1 favorability, as their candidate for attorney general. The Democrats ran Beau Biden, who's never prosecuted a single criminal case in Delaware. In the final weeks of the campaign, the Republican Ferris Wharton, and two Republican state senate (farm team) candidates held leads in the polls. That all changed however, in the final 72 hours of the campaign.

Turns out, the Democrats used the DNC's $100,000 to pay for 2 field representatives who engineered the largest GOTV effort the Democrats had ever put forth in Delaware's history. The state party used that money to rent 36 vans for union workers and paid college students to go door to door and drag Democrats to the polls and pull the blue lever. It provided the difference as Beau Biden won by a few percentage points. Both of the Republicans hoped-for farm team candidates lost badly as well.

While Dean's strategy may have seemed initially to be a poor use of limited resources, it effectively destroyed the Republican Party in Delaware. Even the respected centrist Mike Castle received 10 percentage points less than what he's accustomed to each election day.

Across the country, blue states were able to use the DNC's funds to solidify their ground game. Just look at what happened in Pennsylvania. In the midwest, the DNC was able to finance the state efforts in Indiana and Ohio, which rejected Republicans left and right. In the south, where Dean was criticized wherever he went, The Democrats were able to win a US Senate Seat in Virginia and a house race in North Carolina.

Republicans have criticized him everywhere with "scream contests", and Democrats have disagreed with him internally. Yet the week after the polls closed it wasn't the DNC chair who had to resign and whose replacement was being debated.

Now, Rahm, go sit in the corner like a good boy and shut the fuck up.

Not too well, apparently. First, we had the rehabilitation of Trent Lott, a guy who thinks this country would be a better place had segregationist Strom Thurmond been elected in 1948. Now we have Mitt Romney, an A-list potential candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, hiring a race-baiting advertising consultant.

Alex Castellanos is that wonderful person who brought you the infamous "white hands" ad for fellow race-baiter Jesse Helms in 1990:

Widely considered one of the country's more influential Republican image-makers, Castellanos has produced television spots for President Bush, presidential candidate Bob Dole, and former senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Romney's move to recruit him sends a strong signal that the governor plans to mount a serious national campaign for 2008, political observers say.

"Alex is one of two or three people in the country who you don't run a presidential campaign without," said Dan Schnur, who was communication director for Senator John McCain of Arizona during McCain's run for president in 2000. Schnur added, "You don't hire Alex Castellanos unless you're committed to this."

Castellanos did not return calls seeking his comment yesterday. But in a 1998 PBS documentary on election ads, he made no apologies for his style, arguing that negative messages were the most effective messages in a campaign.

"The truest spots, most factual spots, are the negative and comparative," he said. "They inform the voters much more than a bunch of fluffy positives often do."

Republicans: Making a giant leap forward into the Jim Crow era.

(hat tip: Americablog)

The always-reliable Adam Nagourney:

Flush of Victory Past, Democrats Revert to Finger-Pointing

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: November 16, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 — One would think that after their biggest electoral triumph in about a decade, Democrats would finally break their usual postelection syndrome — a November loss followed by recriminations, finger-pointing and infighting.

Well, think again.

The Democrats are celebrating their big victory of Nov. 7 with recriminations, finger-pointing and infighting, no matter that they won control of the Senate and the House for the first time since 1994.

Now, just so you know I can be fair and balanced, AdNags isn't just pulling this stuff out of his ass. The desperate display of vitriol coming out of the mouths of the Clintonista Hack Squad is pretty repulsive, and it's gotten louder and more shrill since Paul Lukasiak debunked Rahm Emanuel's claim that He and He Alone is responsible for the Democrats' wins last week. Why guys like Emanuel and Carville (and what the fuck is CARVILLE doing weighing in here anyway?) can't share credit with others is a mystery to me. It seems to me that there's plenty of credit to go around, and that if Rahm and Jimmy REALLY had the interests of the Democratic Party at heart, they would shut the fuck up and stop telling a good chunk of the party's foot soldiers to go away. Because if they don't cut it out, we just might do that. THEN we'll see how much sway they and their consultant buddies have.

More from Down With Tyranny (who is also new, and OVERDUE, to the blogroll):

Do you know what a whore is? I'll admit I've hired a few in my day. And one was James Carville. He was a keynote speaker at a convention my company put on-- and what a hack he was even then, way before he turned into the irrevelevent hack he is yoday. Jane and the fdl crew know what a whore is too and Jane's portrait of Carville is worth reading. And Chris Bowers eloquently blows the whistle on Carville's Consultant Con.

You see, Carville's got his bloomers all tied in a bunch over Howard Dean and the 50 state strategy because spending money on building up the Democratic Party means not spending money on Beltway gasbag consultants (whores) who get big bucks and get a cut on advertising and on whatever else they can commission.

And that, my friends, is why Rahm 'n' Jimmy are so upset: because guys like Bob Shrum, who's never met a campaign he can't lose, and who brought us President Kerry, don't get paid based on success; they get paid on how much they spend. Their spending doesn't have to be effective, they just have to spend money. Which I guess makes them just the kind of Democrats that conservatives have always accused them of being.

But I digress:

Since the triumph of Dean's 50 State Strategy, Carville has been bleating all over the media about... getting rid of Dean. No, he's not consciously working for the Republicans as far as I can tell. Although... he is married to one of Cheney's crew. Nah... he's consciously working for Rahm Emanuel, the ballet dancer turned would-be Tom DeLay of the Democrats.

Real live Democrats around the country-- the kind you'll never meet at an Inside-the-Beltway cocktail party-- are laughing are Carville. They know exactly what role Dean and the DNC played in this election-- and they know what role Emanuel and Carville played in nearly losing it for Democrats. (Remember, when the braindead talking head on TV tells you how great Emanuel is, Democrats did better in races that Emanuel didn't touch, from state legislative seats to congressional seats he ignored, than they did in the races he worked on.) Art Torres, who runs the biggest state Democratic Party in the country, California's, sent out a letter today. Here are some thoughts to think about in case you wind up seeing Emanuel or the sniveling Carville spewing their poison and venom on TV:

Governor Dean's "50 state strategy" played a significant role in our victory. In California, early organizing and coordination provided a strategic advantage over a highly financed Republican Party. We built a hard- charging "rapid response" communications team that pushed back every attack thrown at our down ticket constitutional candidates. We outperformed and out-hustled every single GOP operation on the ground. And we did it with less than a quarter of the $20 million spent by the Republicans on their field operation.

Now instead of moving forward to celebrate our victories and reward our organizers and volunteers, individuals in California - motivated by their own self interest - are maneuvering and re-positioning the results for their own self-interest.

Nationally, James Carville has anointed himself as the campaign manager of Harold Ford's DNC "takeover." Such divisive tactics distract us from working together to reconstruct our foreign and domestic policies which have been left in shambles by the moral and ethical hypocrisy of the outgoing Republican Congress.

Let me remind Mr. Carville that the DNC is a MEMBERSHIP organization. We vote for our leaders, not determine them in back rooms.

We came together to support Howard Dean for Chairman through open communications like countless listening tours and forums throughout the nation. In California, candidates came to our state capitol, presented ideas, and took questions from the hundreds of Democratic activists who participated in the democratic election process for DNC Chair.

As the Treasurer of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, I helped Howard Dean receive our endorsement prior to the election because I believed Howard would inject new energy, new enthusiasm, and bring new people to our Party. I believed that he would help state parties which had lingered too long without staff and help to organize their states. He did!

The "50 state strategy" began to emerge within our Association of State Chairs through the leadership of Howard Dean. He saw the importance of that strategy as did we. We were all proven correct when the election returns began coming in from states that had been ignored. These states helped create a Democratic Majority.

As a state and national party, we all have of lot more work to do. It is a team effort, and we should be united as we approach the 2008 election.

Art Torres is right. But "united" doesn't mean that we're going to sit by and watch this bunch of losers -- and yes, they are losers -- snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. These guys are still taking credit for Bill Clinton's victory, as if Clinton weren't arguably the most charismatic person on the face of the earth not named "George Clooney." They still think that triangulation and kowtowing to the worst elements of the right win elections, which is how we end up with candidates like Paul Aronsohn in New Jersey-s Fifth District (and God help us, he's talking about running again in 2008), who's -- you guessed it -- a Clintonista.

Howard Dean is one tough little bastard, and he's not going to go away just because the Gasbags of the Beltway want him to. But I'll tell you this much: If sure-losers like Emanuel and Carville win this battle, and decide that the raison dêtre of the Democratic Party is to shovel cash into the pockets of their Beltway consultants, then as far as I'm concerned, let the whole fucking place fall to the Republicans and the Christofascist zombies. Let's see just how much they can win when progressives Just Say No.

Jane Hamsher and Chris Bowers have more to say on this.

Or at least, if you are an opponent of Bush Administration policy you'd better enjoy your freedom to travel while you have it. Because as of January 14, you may no longer be able to.

The Department of Homeland Security proposed new rules back in July that would fundamentally undermine the right of American citizens to travel abroad. Public carriers--airlines, cruise lines, even fishing boats--will be required to submit the names of all passengers to Homeland Security prior to departure and to obtain permission from Homeland Security to board those passengers. These new rules will take effect January 14, 2007.

Current practices already represent a severe restriction on the right to travel. The "no-fly list" dates back to 1990, but Patriot Act I created a new agency, the Transportation Security Administration, that was charged with creating and maintaining a list of people who were not allowed to board airplanes. The list was reported to have contained around 1,000 names by the end of 2001 of people strictly forbidden to fly plus a second longer list of "selectees" who were to be called out of line and subjected to closer searches and intense questioning before they were allowed to board. Many American politcal activists reported that they were on the "selectee" list. These lists of names were provided to airlines who were charged with the task of separating out listed passengers and notifying authorities. In December, 2005, a Swedish airline leaked that the list had grown from 1,000 to over 80,000.

The new procedure will completely eliminate the opportunity for the public to find out how many people are on the list. No airline or cruise company will ever receive a "no-fly" or "selectee" list. Instead of providing a passenger manifest after departure as now required by the Customs and Border Patrol, airlines, cruise lines and other public carriers will have to provide a provisional pasenger list prior to departure. This list will be checked against a Homeland Security list of citizens approved for international travel, and the carrier will be ordered not to board those who are not approved. This is from the proposed rule itself:

Therefore, CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] has concluded that the prevention of a high-risk passenger from boarding an aircraft is the appropriate level of security in the commercial air travel environment. Manifest data received and vetted prior to passenger boarding will enable CBP to attain this level of security. Further, this vetting of passengers on international flights should eliminate the need for passenger carriers to conduct watch list screening of these passengers, upon publication and implementation of a final rule. Accordingly, with this proposed rule,CBP is proposing two transmission options for air carriers to select from at their discretion: (i) the submission of complete manifests no later than 60minutes prior to departure or (ii)transmitting passenger data asindividual, real-time transactions, i.e.,as each passenger checks in, up to but no later than 15 minutes prior todeparture. Under both options, the carrier will not permit the boarding of a passenger unless the passenger has been cleared by CBP.

Seagoing vessels are required to submit their list 60 minutes prior to departure under the rule.

Who will be on the list? That's a secret. What criteria will determine who is on and who is off the list? That's a secret. How many people will be approved and how many will not? That's a secret. If you're not on the approved list, how can you petition the government to change your status? You can't.

The non-profit Identity Project has filed comments with Homeland Security urging that the rule changes be dropped. They argue that they violate the U. S. Constitution and international law:

The [proposed rule change] would replace a requirement for ex post facto notice to the CBP of information about who is on each vessel (ship or plane) with anunconstitutional system of prior restraint of international travel, entirely unauthorized by statute and inconsistent with the U.S. obligations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights. Under the proposed rules, orders by the CBP [Customs adn Border Patrol] to common carriers not to transport specific persons would not be based on restraining orders (injunctions) issued by competent judicial authorities. Instead,they would be based on an undefined, secret, administrative permission-to-travel ("clearance") procedure subject to none of the procedural or substantive due process required for orders prohibiting or restricting the exercise of protected First Amendment rights. From the authority of law enforcement officers andagencies to enforce certain types of orders, once lawfully issued by competent judicial authorities, the [proposed rule change] would usurp for the CBP the authority to issue those orders on its own.

I remember watching Sound of Music when I was a child and feeling my heart race as the Von Trapp family made its escape from Nazified Austria. I could never have imagined that a day would come when those wanting to leave the United States would be forced to "make a run" for the border to evade a myriad of obstacles placed by an American government in the path of those who wished to exercise their fundamental human right to emigrate.

That day has not yet arrived. But it will on January 14.

And if you think that because your name doesn't include "Muhammad" or "al-"-anything, you're safe, guess again:

Being a comic, Tom Irwin can find humor in almost any situation. But a not-so-funny thing happened, Irwin says, after he began performing a one-man show two years ago about his experiences entertaining U.S. troops.

Shortly after opening his stage show "25 Days in Iraq," the 40-year-old Los Feliz resident and U.S. Army veteran says, airline travel was suddenly a hassle. When he tried to use self-ticketing booths at airports, he was always directed to an agent. When he showed his identification at ticket counters, he was asked to wait while an agent or security official picked up a telephone — or stepped away from the counter — to make inquiries.

The annoying delays continued trip after trip. And they became all the more perplexing this summer when Irwin was cleared to perform his show at the White House for about 120 staffers.

In August, just weeks after that show, Irwin encountered another delay, this time at Reagan National Airport. Exasperated, he said, he asked an Alaska Airlines ticket agent, "Why am I always getting stopped before flights?"

The agent handed him the answer: a form letter from the Transportation Security Administration.

"As part of the security administered at airports," it read, "TSA prepares and maintains watch lists of persons who are known to pose, or are suspected of posing, a threat to civil aviation or national security.

"TSA recognizes that some people have been subjected to frustrating delays at airports as a result of being mistaken for an individual who, in fact, is on a watch list," the letter adds, outlining a procedure to expedite the airport screening process.

When he first received the letter, Irwin recalls, he was surprised and angry. "It was so enigmatic," he said. "It was like saying you are in trouble but not telling you why."

In a recent interview, TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter said she could not address the specifics of Irwin's case or confirm if a person is on the watch list. But those who are allowed to board planes — like Irwin — are clearly not on a "no fly" roster kept by the government, she said.

"We do know there are passengers with name matches or name similarities" to those actually barred from flights, Von Walter said. And just as the form letter indicates, she said, those passengers are encouraged to contact the TSA to clear up the confusion.

To date, Irwin said, he has not done that. But the notion that he could travel with the U.S. military, perform at the White House and yet still be stopped before flying to comedy appearances stuns him, he said. During the last two years, he noted, he has been vetted by the Defense Department and the U.S. Secret Service. Flying to combat zones, he said, he was issued a performer's military ID that is the traveling equivalent of a VIP pass.

This is a veteran of the U.S. Army -- and he's on a watch list. What chance do the rest of us have?

Paul Lukasiak meticulously punctures Rahm Emmanuel's self-aggrandizing balloon at Down with Tyranny:

Despite all the praise being heaped upon Rahm Emanuel for the Democratic Party takeover of the House of Representatives, his strategy was a failure. The simple fact is that Emanuel's plan was to target 21 Republican seats as part of his Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's "Red to Blue" strategy, and as of right now, while Democrats needed to take 15 seats to regain control, only nine of those 21 DCCC picked seats have changed hands (three are still in contention). Most of these candidates were "hand-picked" by Emanuel, based on his perception of their prospects to win election---and most of them failed, often by significant margins-- and at great financial cost.

The real source of the Democratic victory can be attributed to six other factors-- all of them related to progressive politics.

1) National "Netroots" activism which raised funds for, and awareness of, progressive candidates in races being ignored by the DCCC. At least 9 of the Democratic gains can be directly attributed, at least in part, to collective blogger efforts like of DailyKos, MyDD, and The Swing State Project's NetRoots Campaign, and Firedoglake, Down With Tyranny, and Crooks and Liars' BlueAmerica Campaign, and a host of individual bloggers like Duncan Black (Eschaton).
2) The creation of ActBlue, a PAC organized by progressives that made it possible for anyone to raise money for candidates through their own websites, and for progressives to give money to candidates with just a few mouse-clicks.
3) The efforts of progressive politicians like Wesley Clark (WesPac) and Russ Feingold (Progressive Patriots Fund) to support grassroots candidates, and financial contributions of other progressive organizations and their membership, such as People for the American Way, Emily's List, and MoveOn.org. The latter organization deserves special mention for its efforts to encourage progressive grassroots participation, notably its "Call for Change" program
4) Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, which poured money into state party organizations and helped empower grassroots activists.
5) Grassroots (including local "netroots") efforts (encouraged by the Dean strategy, as well as the victory of Ned Lamont in the Connecticut primary) which energized progressive grassroots activists nationwide. Another 10 seats which were ignored by Emanuel, and which did not have significant "national netroots" backing, changed hands.
6) The number of scandals plaguing the GOP this election cycle-- a factor which the progressives identified and attempted to exploit to the hilt (with moderate success) but which the DCCC only attempted to exploit when entrenched Republican congressmen were forced to resign-- or after progressives who had targeted the races had made them competitive.

Read Rahm Emmanuel's failutre by the numbers here.

Gee, I wonder if we can expect Fox News executives to be declared as enemy combatants and subject to the same treatment as other people Bush decides are enemies of the state.

Oh yeah. Right. They're only terrorists if Bush says so, and he's unlikely to say that about his good friends at Fox News.

Even if they DID provide money to terrorists to free their reporters -- money used to smuggle guns into Gaza -- yes, Gaza, that place Fox News says the Israelis should be able to keep in perpetuity.

And you thought things would quiet down once the Democrats won the House and Senate. Not while Fox News is around:

Palestinian terror groups and security organizations in the Gaza Strip received $2 million from a United States source in exchange for the release of Fox News employees Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, who were kidnapped here last summer, a senior leader of one of the groups suspected of the abductions told WND.

The terror leader, from the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, said his organization's share of the money was used to purchase weapons, which he said would be utilized "to hit the Zionists."

He said he expects the payments for Centanni and Wiig's freedom will encourage Palestinian groups to carry out further kidnappings.

Officials associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party and its security organization, the Preventative Security Services, confirmed to WND money was paid for the release of the Fox News reporters.

A senior leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, the declared "military wing" of Fatah, said the group received a small percentage of the $2 million, which all parties interviewed said was transferred in cash.

[snip]

The terror leader said $2 million cash was transferred to the Preventative Security Services, the main Fatah security forces in Gaza, for distribution to various parties.

He said the largest portion of the money was provided to the Committees' Dugmash clan, which Israeli security officials say is heavily involved in the smuggling of weapons and drugs into Gaza and which openly has led anti-Israel terror attacks on behalf of the Popular Resistance Committees. The Committees leader would not provide the exact sum transferred to the clan, but said it exceeded $1 million.

[snip]

A spokeswoman for Fox News Channel told WND she could not provide an official statement about whether Fox was aware of money paid to free its two employees.

A source at Fox told WND many parties were involved with the freedom of Centanni and Wiig, including the U.S. government, and that it was possible money was paid.

A State Department spokesman said his agency did not pay for the release of the Fox News employees.

Just when you think David Gregory, having asked George W. Bush a few tough questions, is going to become an honest journalist, he says that presidential lies *cough* unless they are about sex *cough* don't matter:

Days before the election, President Bush told reporters that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney would “remain with him until the end of his presidency, extending a job guarantee to two of the most-vilified members of his administration.”

The day after the election, Bush announced that Rumsfeld was being replaced. Bush admitted that he had talked to Rumsfeld about resigning and was actively searching for his replacement when he promised Rumsfeld would stay on.

Yesterday, NBC’s David Gregory acknowledged that Bush “deliberately misled those reporters.” Russert asked whether that “hurt his credibility with you and the press corps.” Gregory expressed doubt, saying that Bush “laid out his case for why he did it…so I think people see it different ways.

[...]

Full transcript below:

MR. GREGORY: Right, well, he deliberately misled those reporters, and he said he did it because he didn’t want to inject politics in the campaign. You have to wonder why–how he could–was there a way to, to get around that question in some fashion so he didn’t have to give that ammunition to people who thought the policy was a failure. And that’s what he did right at the end.

Look, Republicans were worried that the president was talking about the war at all within the last couple weeks of the campaign. He’s saying that he was frustrated, that, you know, that we have to adapt. A lot of people thought, A, that that was too late to realize that, and B, he shouldn’t have been injecting that in the last couple of weeks.

MR. RUSSERT: Does that hurt his credibility with you and the press corps?

MR. GREGORY: Well, I–look, you know, you like to get a straight answer out of the president. He laid out his case for, for why he did it, and there’s no question that would’ve injected politics. So I think people see it different ways.

Of course, the minute Nancy Pelosi steps on an ant on the way out to her car, all bets are off.

As anti-science as the Bush Administration and its followers are, it could always be worse:

Gunmen wearing Iraqi police commando uniforms kidnapped up to 150 staff members from a government research institute in downtown Baghdad on Tuesday, the head of the parliamentary education committee said.

Alaa Makki interrupted a parliamentary session to say between 100 and 150 people, both Shiites and Sunnis, had been abducted in the 9:30 a.m. raid. He urged the prime minister and ministers of interior and defense to rapidly respond to what he called a ''national catastrophe.''

Makki said the gunmen had a list of names of those to be taken and claimed to be on a mission from the government's anti-corruption body.

Those kidnapped included the institute's deputy general directors, employees, and visitors, he said.

[snip]

The abductions appeared to be the boldest in a series of killings and other attacks on Iraqi academics that are robbing Iraq of its brain trust and prompting thousands of professors and researchers to flee to neighboring countries.

Recent weeks have seen a university dean and prominent Sunni geologist murdered, bringing the death toll among educators to at least 155 since the war began. The academics apparently were singled out for their relatively high public stature, vulnerability and known views on controversial issues in a climate of deepening Islamic fundamentalism.

Meanwhile, the president's adolescent rebellion against his father, with the lives of a generation of American kids as his weapons, continues:

President Bush spent more than an hour on Monday with the independent panel examining strategic options for Iraq, and cautioned afterward that while he was open to new ideas, it was important for “people making suggestions to recognize that the best military options depend upon conditions on the ground.”

[snip]

Addressing reporters in the Oval Office, Mr. Bush shed little light on the substance of his hour-and-15-minute session with members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman. The president said that they had “a good discussion,” and that he was “looking forward to interesting ideas.”

Morbid, but beautiful:



Somehow I get the sense this song by Death Cab for Cutie is about suicidal teenagers, but when you get to my age, mortality isn't all that distant anymore. I find this song comforting and disturbing at the same time. And the video is gorgeous.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rants and complaints.

Should women or men do what's necessary to look "better"?
This a response to a question posted by Bithch Ph.D:

Am I a horrible, awful, bad person if I have "something" done about the emerging age spots?

Short answer: no.

I used scary quotes in the title because we all have strange, often societal ideas about what "better" is, but that's nothing I want to get into.

Most women I've known have done some or all of the following:
Plucked their eyebrows.
Colored their eyebrows.
Used eye liner.
Worn contact lenses.
Used mascara.
Curled their eyelashes.
Worn false eyelashes.
Used pancake makeup.
Worn wigs.
Colored their hair.
Styled their hair.
Permed their hair.
Had their hair relaxed or straightened.
Shaved or plucked their underarms.
Shaved or used depilatories on their legs
Colored their toenails.
Colored their fingernails.
Worn silk fingernails.
Dieted unmercifully.
Worn braces on their teeth.
Tanned or bleached their skin.
Used handcream.
Worn night masks.
Used astringents.
Pumiced their feet.
Worn thong underware.
Worn high heels.
Worn perfume.

The list goes on forever, but you get the idea.

After all that uncomfortable treatment and time spent to look "better", what is a little plastic surgury, skin peel or lazer treatment? I say, if it makes you think you look better or feel better about yourself, go for it. Its your body.

Remember when Keith Olbermann received a threatening letter in an envelope containing white powder, and the New York Post thought it was a big joke? He spoke about it here:



Well, this is the guy the Post was applauding for threatening a media personality they didn't like:

A California man suspected of mailing threatening letters containing a suspicious white powder to celebrities and U.S. politicians has been arrested and could face federal charges on Monday, the FBI said.

Investigators identified Chad Castagana, 39, of Woodland Hills, California, as the person suspected of sending more than a dozen threatening letters to media outlets and the homes of public figures in various cities, the FBI said in a statement on Sunday evening.

According to a federal search warrant, among those who received threatening letters were Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show;” talk show host David Letterman; Keith Olbermann of MSNBC; Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who is set to become Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, both Democrats.

[snip]

The document, filed on Friday in United States District Court in Los Angeles, said multiple people in various cities, including New York and San Francisco, received letters over the past three months that contained an unknown white powder and various written threats.

In some cases, the threatening letters included expressions such as “Death to Demagogues” and references to Alan Berg, a Jewish talk radio host murdered by white supremacists in Denver in 1984, the document said.

Nice. Nice people at the Post. They blindly support everything Israel does, and then applaud guys who see Zionist conspiracies everywhere who try to shut people up who don't agree with the editorial policy of Rupert Murdoch's rag.

For years, right-wing radio hosts led by Rush Limbaugh have fed these guys. By painting liberals as not just people who disagree, but traitorous and dangerous, guys like Limbaugh have sent out the messages that threatening these dissenting voices is perfectly OK. I would say to these so-called conservatives: Do you really want to be ideological brothers with guys like Chad Castagana?

The problem with going on a really good bender is that when it's over, there's one hell of a hangover. America, welcome to the hangover:

President Bush’s job approval rating has fallen to just 31 percent, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Bill Clinton’s lowest rating during his presidency was 36 percent; Bush’s father’s was 29 percent, and Ronald Reagan’s was 35 percent. Jimmy Carter’s and Richard Nixon’s lows were 28 and 23 percent, respectively. (Just 24 approve of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s job performance, and 31 percent approve of Vice President Dick Cheney’s.)

Worst of all, most Americans are writing off the rest of Bush’s presidency; two thirds (66 percent) believe he will be unable to get much done, up from 56 percent in a mid-October poll; only 32 percent believe he can be effective. That’s unfortunate since 63 percent of Americans say they’re dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country; just 29 percent are satisfied, reports the poll of 1,006 adults conducted Thursday and Friday nights.

Whether that 66 percent believes it's a good thing that he won't be able to get much done is a question Newsweek doesn't seem to have asked.

Inevitably, Newsweek reassures us that Americans don't really like Democrats either:

But the new poll carries sobering news for Democrats, too, still on their postvictory high. Just about everyone believes the Republicans lost the 2006 midterms more than the Democrats won it. Presented with a list of factors that may have contributed to the Democrats’ success, 85 percent of Americans said the “major reason” was disapproval of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, 71 percent said disapproval of Bush’s overall job performance, 67 percent cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled government spending and the deficit, 63 percent said disapproval of the overall performance of Republicans in Congress, 61 percent said Democrats’ ideas and proposals for changing course in Iraq. Tellingly, just 27 percent said a major reason the Democrats won was because they had better candidates.

After all, we can't print anything that indicates people actually WANTED Democrats to win, right? The fact that 61% said they voted Democratic because of their ideas and proposals for changing the course in Iraq is meaningless, I guess. No, it's not about the Democrats at all. We have to stick with the meme that the Democrats' win was some great victory for conservatism.

Contrary to what the pundits in the mainstream media would like you to believe, the Democrats' plan doesn't involve mandatory abortions for all pregnant women, or requiring all married couples to divorce and immediately marry people of the same sex.

So-called "conservative" Jon Tester is an organic farmer who stands for tougher campaign finance laws, reduction in unintended pregnancies through expanded access to contraception, allowing women to make their own decisions about their own bodies, development of clean, renewable energy sources, investment in public education, and oversight of insurance companies to help provide affordable health insurance. But since he supports gun ownership rights, the conservatives want to make him their own.

Jim Webb, who was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, has a well-thought-out strategy for ending our involvement in Iraq. He favors tax and trade policies to help reduce the squeeze on the middle class. He favors actually FUNDING the No Child Left Behind initiative. He favors legislation that puts access to health care above insurance company profits. He favors government investment in infrastructure. These hardly represent the positions of the Republican party.

Americans dealt a sound bitchslapping to the Republican Party last Tuesday -- a bigger bitchslapping than (surprise surprise) the final result indicated:

RAY SUAREZ: Quick question on exit polling. It's gotten a lot of attention in recent cycles and been heavily criticized. Was it roughly a good portrait of the electorate this time?

ANDREW KOHUT: It was handled very well. There were some Democratic biases in the early waves of that exit poll. It was showing a bigger Democratic margin than actually turned out to be the case.

I think the way they controlled the dissemination of this, locking these people who are looking at it up until 5:00, minimized the impact of that overstatement of the Democrats. They did a much better job than they did in '04 in that respect. Looking at the data, it suggests they had still had some problems in overstating Democrats.

I'll leave it to you to determine what the implications are of once again, having an election where there is a sizable discrepancy between the exit polls and the final result after exit polls were an accurate indicator in the pre-DRE voting machine days.

But last week's election was a resounding repudiation of greed and war profiteering and false piety and blind, ugly nationalism masquerading as patriotism.

Instead, we'll get these highly radical, leftist initiatives:

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

What the remaining apologists for the current Republican party don't understand is that politics is no longer about right and left; about labels that no longer apply. Politics is about who we are as Americans and what we stand for; whether we stand for torture and endless war and centralized dictatorship and ever-increasing upward distribution of wealth, or if we stand for that "shining city on a hill" that the conservatives' icon Ronald Reagan talked about; a beacon of hope and freedom for people all over the world. We liberals haven't forgotten what this country is supposed to stand for. We haven't become so blinded by hate and fear in the aftermath of 9/11 that we are willing to destroy our village in order to save it. And enough voters were able to step outside their reptilian brain last Tuesday to realize that they aren't either.

Enough of the Christian Dominionists talk of a "Christian nation' and their sanctimony and their talk about values. Their leaders knew about Ted Haggard for months, but continued to talk about values and spout anti-gay rhetoric:

BREAKING: Haggard's Gay Trysts Covered Up By Dominionist Leaders For Months

by dogemperor

Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 09:54:17 AM PST

I noted as early as my November 5 diary on my thoughts re the Haggard scandal that there was a very real risk that the scandal would spread beyond Haggard to other leaders of the dominionist movement.

As it turns out, this is starting to happen.  Reportedly James Dobson has bailed from the attempts to "de-gay" Haggard, and no less than Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition has now admitted that he--and other dominionist leaders--knew about Haggard's affair with Mike Jones for months before it broke the mainstream news but kept it under the rug.

More below...

Edit: Quote re Coit Tower removed. This will teach me to write a post on four hours of sleep :P

• dogemperor's diary :: ::

The following article from The Jewish Week, as quoted in an an article on Talk to Action, notes:

Then, as if things could not get worse, there was the disgrace of Sheldon's own friend and colleague, Rev. Ted Haggard, the Colorado mega-church leader and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an even bigger pillar of Republican support on the Christian right. Sheldon disclosed that he and "a lot" of others knew about Haggard's homosexuality "for awhile ... but we weren't sure just how to deal with it."

Months before a male prostitute publicly revealed Haggard's secret relationship with him, and the reverend's drug use as well, "Ted and I had a discussion," explained Sheldon, who said Haggard gave him a telltale signal then: "He said homosexuality is genetic. I said, no it isn't. But I just knew he was covering up. They need to say that."

This is a bombshell on multiple levels, folks:

a) This likely explains why Dobson--after agreeing to be on a "dream team" of "reparation therapists" who would try to de-gay Ted Haggard--rather dramatically bailed from the "dream team" recently claiming time constraints.

There has been speculation in the anti-dominionist community that Dobson may have been afraid that personal scandals of his own might be revealed; if Haggard is admitting that "homosexuality is genetic" (which is much closer to the mainstream view held by most scientists than the dominionist view which insists sexual orientation is a "choice"), it could well be that Dobson does not want to risk a very public failure with Haggard's "de-gaying" and having his name linked to it.

b) High level dominionists--very high level dominionists--have been apparently hiding what they knew would be an incredibly explosive scandal and have been desperately attempting damage control for several months now.

For those unfamiliar with the Rev. Louis Sheldon, he's head of the Traditional Values Coalition--an influential dominionist group which is one of the very few dominionist groups organised as a 501(c)4--and also so vociferously anti-gay that the Southern Poverty Law Center formally considers it a hate group on the same ranking as the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazi groups.  The TVC actually got its start from an early California initiative that would ban gay teachers--as it is, the Traditional Values Coalition is one of the few "old guard" dominionist groups still standing.  The TVC is also known as one of the most vociferously anti-gay dominionist groups in the United States--in some respects, even more so than the American Family Association.  (It is of note that Frank Simon--a Kentucky dominionist leader who illegally endorsed Anne Northup and other Republican candidates in past--started his career as one of the most anti-gay dominionist leaders in the US as head of the state branch of the Traditional Values Coalition in the early 80's.)

Sheldon and crew have quite the quotable list of anti-gay speech. People for the American Way document some rather shocking quotes from Sheldon:

Quotes from Louis Sheldon:

"As Homosexuals continue to make inroads into public schools, more children will be molested and indoctrinated into the world of homosexuality. Many of them will die in that world." ("Homosexuals Recruit Public School Children," by Louis Sheldon, special report, Vol. 18, No. 11)

"Americans should understand that their attitudes about homosexuality have been deliberately and deceitfully changed by a masterful propaganda/marketing campaign that rivals that of Adolph Hitler. In fact, many of the strategies used by homosexuals to bring about cultural change in America are taken from Hitler's writings and propaganda welfare manuals." ("Homosexual Propaganda Campaign Based on Hitler's `Big Lie' Technique," by Louis Sheldon, special report, Vol. 18, No. 10)

"Give us a few more years under the belt and we will learn how to replace many of the school board members. Give us more time to understand how the system works, and we'll work the system even better than one could ever imagine." (CNN News, 9/2/90)

"There is a war waging in America. The battle is over values, beliefs and the cultural basis of western civilization.... the elitist avant-garde arts community uses the NEA to advertise and disseminate their political beliefs. The NEA then uses our scarce tax dollars to fund works which are intended to shock Americans into an acceptance of dysfunctional behavioral lifestyles and to destroy the family." (Hearing on the NEA, 4/91)

(Incidentially, that "Nazi" comment above--this is a reference to a very interesting blood-libel promoted in the dominionist community, and originally appearing in the book The Pink Swastika, claiming that not only were gay men not killed in the Holocaust but that gays were the primary architects of the Holocaust and that the majority of the Nazi Party were homosexual men.  There is an annotated version of the book online; the book has surprisingly common currency in the dominionist community, including frank promotion by dominionist groups like AFA-KY.  The "Homosexuals = Nazis" meme is a very common form of blood-libel against LGBT persons in the dominionist community in general.)

Hatecrime.org documents similar stuff from Sheldon, including an interesting new flavour of gay-bashing--literal comparison to the Nazi Party, whilst proposing literal concentration camps for LGBT individuals:

Gays are like Hitler and Gestapo

"The Rev. Lou Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, said the 'hate crime' designation is increasingly going to be applied against those who believe homosexuality is wrong. 'What Hitler began to build against the Jews is now being built against people of faith who believe the Scriptures are valid for today and their injunctions against certain sexual behaviors is correct,' he said. Several years ago, homosexual activists disrupted a similar conference of his in Sacramento, he said, 'but I didn't have the finances to get a lawyer. For a long time we were the target of their wrath. Now other people are surfacing against them, thank God. If you don't agree with [homosexual activists], they use Gestapo tactics to stop you.' - Washington Times, Tuesday, October 27, 1998, Page A2

Sheldon for quarantining AIDS patients

"Reverend Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition has come out in favor of quarantining AIDS patients in what he calls 'cities of refuge.' " - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph,  March 10, 1995.

Gays are amoral extremists

"If the Ameircan people are shocked by all of the same-sex smooching that is on television, wait until they see an American president kissing up to the wealthiest extremists of the amoral left."   Andrea Sheldon, quoted by People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1988, p.9.

That's not all--far from it.  Rainbow Alliance documents some of the other...shall we say...interesting quotables from Traditional Values Coalition.  TVC also happens to be one of the major promoters of the work of discredited "researcher" Paul Cameron.

So, with that background, now you should know just how explosive this could be--the leader of one of the most vociferously anti-gay groups in the country, one which has literally advocated placing LGBT people in concentration camps and compared them to literal Nazis, actively aided, abbetted and protected a dominionist leader who came out as gay to them and even noted disagreement with the prevailing theory of sexual orientation in the dominionist community.

Needless to say, if this gets more exposure in the press, this could well be the end of Sheldon's career...and possibly the careers of other dominionists as well.

Russ Feingold is out of the 2008 race:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

On Sunday, November 12th in Racine, I will hold my 1000th Listening Session with the people of Wisconsin. Before reaching that milestone, I want you to know that I've decided to continue my role as Wisconsin's Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.

Like many Americans, I am excited by the results of the November 7th election. My fourteen years in the Senate have been the greatest privilege of my life and I am extremely pleased with what we have accomplished. During so much of that time, however, we Democrats have not only been in the minority but have often been so deeply mired there that my role has often been to block bad ideas or to simply dissent. That is a very important role but I relish the thought that in this new Congress we can start, not only to undo much of the damage that one-party rule has done to America, we can actually advance progressive solutions to such major issues as guaranteed healthcare, dependence on oil, and our unbalanced trade policies. The Senate of the 110th Congress could also well be a place of greater bi-partisan opportunities for change; something I am very proud to have been effective at in both Republican and Democratic Senates.

I hope all of you know how much I have appreciated the incredible response you have given me and the efforts of our Progressive Patriots Fund since January, 2005. In addition to all of our work in Wisconsin and D.C., I have traveled to seventeen states trying to promote the election of progressive Democrats in all states. At every stop from Birmingham, Alabama to Burlington, Vermont, to Ft. Dodge, Iowa, to Las Vegas, Nevada, people have agreed with my view that we need to stand up for a strong, principled Democratic party that is willing to replace timidity with taking the risks of promoting a platform of bold solutions to our nation's problems. Unfailingly, people responded well to my positions: opposition to the Iraq war; calling for a timeline to redeploy our troops from Iraq so we can focus on those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001; my opposition to the flawed provisions of the USA Patriot Act that threaten the freedoms of law-abiding Americans; my call for accountability for the Administration's arrogant disregard for the law especially with regard to illegal wiretapping; fighting for fiscal responsibility including tough common sense budget rules that will help end the reckless policies that have heaped a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren; as well as my strong belief in guaranteed healthcare for all Americans and substantial investment in alternative energy sources and technologies.

Yet, while I've certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, "Run Russ Run", or "Russ in '08", I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I've taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations. This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured.

I'm sure a campaign for President would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees. Although I have given it a lot of thought, I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for a race for President while I am trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me. And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008.

Most important, I want to continue my work as a Senator from this wonderful State of Wisconsin. Our fourteen year ongoing conversation that has taken place in hundreds of communities in Wisconsin in the form of open Listening Sessions is the principal reason I have been perceived as "ahead of the curve" on many key issues. Simply listening to the reasoning and passions of Wisconsinites remains the best source of good ideas and common sense I've ever encountered.

I love this country very much and am so lucky to be able to serve it in the United States Senate. My heartfelt thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement.

Sincerely,

Russ Feingold
Middleton, Wisconsin