Disappointing

Barack Obama is using his considerable public voice to say these kinds of things about what Democrats should be doing.

His office is in receipt of the following strongly worded letter from yours truly:

Dear Senator Obama

I am an Illinois resident and a contributor to your campaign. I am a big supporter of yours, and I think you are doing a wonderful job representing Illinois in the US Senate.

I am writing, however, to express my concern with your recent comments regarding Democrats' sensitivity to people of faith. I find these comments troubling on a number of levels, most importantly, though, because they are not true.

Democrats, as you well know, come in all stripes, and a great many are people of faith. Our Democratic representatives in Congress, by and large, are very respectful of all types of believers, and our recent Presidential nominee is a lifelong Catholic and former altar boy who contemplated a career in the priesthood. The last 2 Democratic presidents were vocal Southern Baptists, and you yourself have an impressive record of connecting with church goers.

Your words reinforce a dangerous, right-wing-driven faslehood about our party: that we are a party that is hostile to religion. You know this is not true, and I suspect that you have seen first hand how Democratic values can advance the causes of the poor, hungry and marginalized people that mainstream religions work so earnestly to protect. I think it is misguided to state that, just because our party does not appeal to vocal fundamentalists who rail against abortion, homosexuals and birth control, that we are somehow not appealing to people of faith.

Finally, I am very troubled by the constant statements from our party leaders in Congress that always seems to start with the words "Democrats need to do...". If you believe this, Senator, then do it. At a time when our party is engaged in a struggle for the future of this country, we do not need to be critiquing other Democrats. If you believe that Democrats should be doing certain things, then don't talk about it, do them. As an influential member of of the party I would hope that you would work behind the scenes to make your views known, demonstrate those views through actions and restrict your public comments to those that positively promote the ideals of our party.

Thank you.

If you're interested in weighing in, you can do so here.

Self-Loathing

Isn't it interesting how the media gleefully reports stories that demonstrate how the Bush Administration is trying to intimidate them?

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

But why would an unmarried Republican man need viagra?

What's a Wingnut to Do?

Today, the Republican-led US Senate is taking up an issues that is on the mind of every American these days. No, it's not the war in Iraq, or gas prices, or terrorism. It's flag burning.

It's interesting that this issue should come up now, and not just because it's such an obvious ploy to rile up the right-wing faithful when Mr. 36% is dragging the party down. It's interesting because, since I have a tasteful 1776-style American flag hanging in front of my house, my wife was just this weekend reading to me some of the ways that you're supposed to care for the flag. Funny thing is, according to the authority on all thing appropriate, Martha Stewart, do you know how you're supposed to dispose of an American flag? You guessed it.

Repressed Fetishists

Is it just me, or do Republicans and conservatives seem to be more than a little obsessed with sex? They talk about it all the time: homosexuality, contraception, sodomy - I mean were in a war here!!

Along those lines, it seems like Ann Coulter has a bit of an obsession with, um, fisting.

I'm Not Afraid of Terrorists

I've been thinking about something for a long time, but I just haven't been able to figure out a way to say it correctly. It's a commentary on the public discourse these days when any dissenting view on the war brands you as a loser at best and a traitor at worst. Anyway, here goes...

After September 11, 2001, everybody was understandably shaken. It was a tragic event and there's no doubt that it shook this country to the core. Rightly, the way we look at our national security changed - we were forced to pay more attention to protecting ourselves in light of a threat that, while always there, announced itself pretty dramatically that day.

In our government's response to that, though, there was also an element of cowardice that can still be seen in evidence today. The entire republican party, with the help of an inept democratic minority, basically wet its pants in fear after September 11th and decided that what we were facing was so big, bad and scary that there's no way this country, with all of it's freedoms, could stand up to it. This country, with it's freedoms of speech and movement and our right to be secure in our posessions could never defeat the big bad terrorists. They forgot that those are the only things that distinguish us from the big bad terrorists, and they went about systematically undermining them, ironically making us more like the "enemy" we were supposedly fighting. They were so terrified, that they started acting the way scared people normally do - irrationally

At the risk of being Dixie Chicked (sometimes I like to think I'm important enough to be boycotted), isn't it time to call bullshit on this illusory "war on terror"? It is at best a completely misguided response to the risks facing Americans today and at worst a cynical ploy to manipulate us into a constant state of fear so that we will act irrationally by voting for people who clearly don't represent our interests or ideals.

Is fighting Islamic terrorists the most important priority for this nation? Of course not, and let's be honest: it's probably not in the top 5 in terms of its impact on the average American. We lost more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11th; they were innocent bystanders who never saw it coming. Since September 11th, 2001, however, we've lost more than 130,000 of our citizens to gun violence, including almost 15,000 children and teenagers. They likewise never saw it coming. More than 2 million Americans have died of cancer since then, and more than 200,000 have died on our nations roadways. If any one of us could choose whether we'd like to have our lives subject to the odds of getting shot, contracting cancer, getting in a highway accident or getting struck by terrorists, the smart money would go with the odds of being attacked by Al Qaeda.

Even within the realm of terrorism itself, we've gone to extremes against the type of terrorists that are least likely to attack us. As a citizen of the United States, you're probably more at risk from the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Dillon Kliebold, John Lee Malvo, the Unabomber or the Olympic Bomber than Al Qaeda. In fact, a war on American Terrorists would be much more "target rich" than would a war on Islamic terrorists.

So why is it that the average American believes he is at great risk of dying through an Islamic terrorist attack? Surely the graphic and dramatic way that the World Trade Center collapsed fundamentally altered the American psyche. Even more than that, though, the Bush Administration's constant drum beat, with its color codes and boots on the ground and shock and awe and Al Qaeda number 2s and decks of playing cards, is intended to hype this problem far in excess of its actual importance. They're trying to scare the crap out of us so we'll continue to act irrationally.

Well I'm not afraid of terrorism. Really I'm not. Sure I think about it when I get in a plane, but no more than I think about my risk of getting shot when I go into a bad neighborhood, or my chances of dying in a car crash when I see one on the side of the road. And while I'll be angry, sad and vengeful when the next terrorist attack hits, I want my government to weigh its response to that along with all of the other risks we face out there. That would be the couragous way to react.

Jon Stewart

"[President Bush,] you were in Baghdad for six hours. You weren't even in the real Baghdad. You were in the Green Zone. That's like going to the Olive Garden and saying you've been to Italy."

No More Trips to New Orleans...

And it was a Democratic Governor who dit it. For shame.

Somebody Find Ken Starr!!!

Let's see, doesn't this sound like something that prompted a ton of outrage a few years back? I guess there's one big difference: slim made money on his land deal...

Milestone

2,500 troops have died in Iraq as of today, and Bush has finally decided that Congress should debate the Iraq war. I'd love to believe that George is interested in an honest debate, but might this not have more to do with boxing in Democrats before the midterm elections?

Good thing our commander in chief doesn't use American Troops to advance his political agenda...

Stooping to New Lows

Blue Language doesn't want to make a practice of belittling women in general by making superficial comments about female politicians and commentators. But, since the right likes to trot out the few blacks (Alan Keyes), gays (Mary Cheney), and Asians (Michelle Malkin) that actually vote republican as a way of implying that all minorities are republicans, I think it's fair to comment on the affirmative action attributes that got these people where they are.

More to the point, when you pose on the cover of every
one of your books in a slinky black dress and a padded bra, isn't it appropriate to address what seems to be your primary marketing angle?

So, it is with some reservation that I say, isn't Ann Coulter one of the strangest looking people around? I mean look at that hand!! Is this the right's idea of a hot chick? At least we can say that at 42, we're getting deliciously close to the time when she will no longer be a procreation risk...

Brilliant

Garrison Keillor's piece today is brilliant. My favorite excerpt:

I see by the papers that the Republicans want to make an issue of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the congressional races this fall: Would you want a San Francisco woman to be speaker of the House? Will the lectern be repainted in lavender stripes with a disco ball overhead? Will she be borne into the chamber by male dancers with glistening torsos and wearing pink tutus? After all, in the unique worldview of old elephants, San Francisco is a code word for g-a-y, and after assembling a record of government lies, incompetence and disaster, the party in power hopes that the fear of g-a-y-s will pull it through in November.

Running against Pelosi, a woman who comes from a district where there are known gay persons, is a nice trick, but it does draw attention to the large, shambling galoot who is House speaker now, Tom DeLay's enabler for years, a man who, judging by his public mutterances, is about as smart as most high school wrestling coaches. For the past year, Dennis Hastert has been two heartbeats from the presidency. He is a man who seems content just to have a car and driver and three square meals a day. He has succeeded in turning Congress into a branch of the executive branch. If Mr. Hastert becomes the poster boy for the Republican Party, this does not speak well for them as the Party of Ideas.

Theater

I rarely come to the defense of conservative Christians, but isn't it sort of pathetic how these folks get used by Bush and Rove? Seriously, we have seen what Bush does when he REALLY wants to promote something - land on aircraft carriers, tour the country doing faux town-hall meetings, give prime-time televised addresses - why isn't he doing these things to promote this all-important defense of marraige ammendment? Turns out that Bush "doesn't give two shits about it" and has never called a single congressman and urged them to support a gay-marriage ban.

I wonder what would happen if these folks finally realized that if Bush, with a republican congress and right-leaning court systems, really wanted to get rid of abortion and gay marraige, he would ram it down all of our throats like he did the war and his tax cuts.