view from mars

it's still not okay

2006-04-05T09:42:00.000-05:00

News about our boy Virgil has been slim pickins of late, with the exception of the ridiculously widespread AP piece quoting him saying:

"I say if you are here illegally and you want to fly the Mexican flag, go to Mexico and wave the American flag."

Those of us who know anything about Virgil weren't surprised that it was (1) basically nonsense and (2) kind of creepy.

Here's what he actually said, in a correction piece carried by all those same media outlets:

"I say if you are here illegally and you want to fly the Mexican flag, go to Mexico to fly the Mexican flag."

Virgil just loves rallying against "illegals" -- it's one of his busiest legislative areas. He has really done a lot of work trying to get that great-big-wall-on-our-souther-border inserted into one or another bill, and has worked with some real power players of the republican party to draft this legislation. Like Duncan Hunter:

Goode, R-5th, recently joined Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to outline their proposal for a two-layer fence from the Pacific Coast to the Gulf of Mexico. The cost is estimated at $5 billion or $7 billion by different sources.
As Congress gets ready to tackle immigration legislation, the Hunter-Goode bill - even before it is introduced - has drawn praise in some quarters as a means to secure a porous border, and derision in others as being unworkable.
“We need (the fence) to stop the flow of persons just coming into the country illegally, and also to reduce the threat of terrorism,” Goode said.

"To reduce the thread of terrorism"? The 9/11 hijackers flew into this country using an AIRPORT. But good thing Virgil is on top of things instead of worrying about securing silly nuclear reactors or the chemical belt in New Jersey or our ports or holding our administration's feet to the fire for not catching Osama. Priorities, right? Like handing MZM millions of taxpayer dollars...

Last I checked, the Statue of Liberty -- you know, that American symbol-of-symbols welcoming people from all over the world to take part in our experiment in democracy -- said this:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Let's get one thing straight. Big corporations who give tons of money to members of Congress for favorable legislation LOVE cheap labor. The immigration issue has nothing to do with protecting American jobs or terrorism. Think about that next time you eat a burger from McDonald's topped with a tomato picked by illegal hands.

So what's Virgil's deal? Why does he want to reject those "tired...poor..huddled masses" who risk everything to come here? Where are the soundbites blaming the true enablers of our illegal immigration problem? Instead of spending OUR MONEY ON A WALL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREAKING COUNTRY (as if that would really do anything), how come Virgil isn't focusing on forcing corporations to stop hiring cheap labor? I realize they are breaking the law -- that's why they were protesting. So that the law might be CHANGED (though, predictably, the corporate media dropped the ball and the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets were overshadowed by some silly minutiae.) It's funny how republicans are the party of law-and-order when it comes to sending brown people to jail or "back to their own country" but when the president breaks the law by authorizing warantless surveillance of American citizens, it's the law that needs to change.

It's not okay to blame people who come to this country to make things better for their families. It's not okay to say that they can't express their heritage however they want. It's not okay to deny people their freedom of expression or assert the superiority of American national heritage over that of another country. American national heritage IS heterogeneity.

Republicans love to drape themselves in the flag and claim moral superiority in this way. It's not okay. It's racist. And Virgil's made it a crown jewel of his reelection campaign.

paul fain gets pissed

2006-03-23T17:43:00.000-05:00

Paul Fain penned the C-ville Weekly's piece about our boy Virgil's recent ethical indescretions. You can read what I think about his article here or here. I also sent him an e-mail challenging certain crucial assertions of his article, one of which occurs in a timeline as follows:

Undisclosed month, 2003. Goode arranges for an initial federal outlay of $3.6 million for MZM to create an intelligence facility in Virginia’s Southside, also part of his district.
March 2003. At MZM’s Washington, D.C. office, company founder and CEO Mitch-ell J. Wade pays for and collects illegal contributions to Goode’s campaign.

I referenced a USA Today article:

By the time Goode arranged an initial $3.6 million for the center in 2003, MZM's PAC and its employees had given the congressman nearly $33,000 in campaign contributions, making them at that point by far his biggest financial supporter for the 2004 election.

Fain, in the reply:

I think you may have misread part of the timeline. In detailing the initial earmark of $3.6 million for the Martinsville facility I specifically state that the date of the inclusion and approval of this appropriation was unclear. The timeline reads that it was made in "an undisclosed month" in 2003. This was not meant to imply that the earmark came before Wade's March 2003 first documented illegal contribution to Goode's campaign. I'm sorry if this was confusing. I would have liked to have been more specific, but did not find a way to nail down the date of the earmark request in my reporting. Do you have access to that information? I was actually told that it's classified. I realize that the USA Today said the first contribution came before the $3.6 million. I could not independently verify their reporting, although I don't doubt its validity. However, in reporting a story like this I feel it's far better to be safe than sorry. The burden of proof is on the reporter, as always.

But it was confusing, and, because Fain knew about what USA Today found, the other burden of responsible journalism comes into play: presenting a whole story. What the hell do I know about journalism though, I'm just a kid. I would guess the editors couldn't find any fat to trim to add in that little bit, and include "though it could not be independently verified at the time of publishing." Instead, Fain is forced to write responses to inquiring readers like myself, which is surely the only way to explain the bundled panty bitchy tone.

Oh, so it gets way better. After I referenced his response here, Fain came on this site and in the comments clutched pearls even tighter and insulted me:

The author of this blog has now incorrectly trashed both my C-VILLE Weekly article on Rep. Goode and my response to the author's e-mailed complaint. (By the way, he never responded to an e-mail I sent to him. I guess it's more fun to take shots on a blog than to engage someone in an honest exchange.) So for the record, my article/time-line identifies two flurries of illegal campaign donations - collected by Wade and given to Goode in March 2003 and March 2005. It also describes two major appropriations for the Martinsville MZM facility, which Goode helped to arrange. The first outlay, for $3.6 million, was created during an undisclosed month in 2003. I could not independently verify when this money was approved. The USA Today said, vaguely, that it happened after Goode had been given the illegal funds by Wade. That may be true, but the bummer about being a reporter is that you have to PROVE and back up facts. I was able confirm that the second outlay, for $9 million in June 2005, came three months after Goode received more illegal money from Wade. The story/time-line states this clearly. I have no idea what point the author of this blog is trying to prove with this nit-pick. However, it's clear that he would have preferred a strident opinion piece to a fair, fact-heavy news article. Thank goodness for this blog, where the author can take unsubstantiated swipes.

....what?

I'm not a journalist, but I'm a reader. I support lots of businesses that advertise in that newspaper (it's free) so that makes me someone who has an interest in receiving a fair and thorough account when I read it for news. It's not all news because it's a community weekly, but everyone around here reads it -- and this story has received only superficial expositions from a large corporate media outlet.

I didn't "trash" anyone. I called out Fain because I was aware of a fact that he chose to ignore. (He has yet to explain how exactly his investigations turned up utterly fruitless.)

So this is what I get in return:

I think you may have misread part of the timeline.
I'm sorry if this was confusing.
Do you have access to that information? I was actually told that it's classified.
I guess it's more fun to take shots on a blog than to engage someone in an honest exchange.
It's clear that he would have preferred a strident opinion piece to a fair, fact-heavy news article.
Thank goodness for this blog, where the author can take unsubstantiated swipes.

As a reader, I expressed my concern to the author that he was failing to shoulder his responsibility as a journalist. While he wrote, "...despite Goode’s brush with wonkish infamy, it will probably take more than a confusing Capitol Hill imbroglio to take down the entrenched, five-term incumbent," he simultaneously enabled what he called Virgil's "squeaky clean image" by not presenting his readers with the full story, and, as a result, downplaying its severity and the questions that remain unanswered.

The March 2003 contribution is so crucial because, at least as far as we know, it represents a potential beginning of Virgil and Wade's quid pro quo. We already know so much that tells us that this quite possibly might be true, and, if it really were, then Virgil's "squeaky clean image" doesn't look so squeaky anymore. The Martinsville facility has become an important justification for Virgil's claim that he has brought jobs to his district. We need to know whether or not Virgil was thinking more of the people of the 5th, or whether he, after switching parties to help enable the current republican majority in Congress in exchange for a coveted seat on the House Appropriations uber-Committee and proposing that English be made the official language of the United States and proposing a resolution in favor of Christmas in the midst of last year's faux anti-Christmas hilarity and accepting money from Wade "in person" and being an anti-gay bigot, was thinking more of himself.

Maybe it doesn't matter because we readers will just "misread" things. But at least while we're here, let's not piss all over the relationship between reader and news-writer. I'm allowed to say whatever the hell I want to a journalist about their story, because it shouldn't be otherwise. I want the truth -- if I don't feel like I'm getting it in one of my primary sources for local news, then I'm going to let someone know about it.

Mr. Fain, you're a professional journalist. I'm 24 years old. Get a grip, simmer down, and instead of harassing my work e-mail account with multiple messages and comments on my blog, why don't you accept my criticism and do everything you can to verify (or disprove) the evidence you claim is questionable. If you can't independently verify what has previously been reported as fact, then report it, and then say that you can't verify it. Don't write a front-pager and cross your fingers that no one will notice that you flubbed. Give your reader the whole story, and do your damndest to get to the bottom of things. We are counting on people in your profession to DO THEIR JOB and check the secrecy needed to maintain the current rampant corruption taking over our government. Politicians are corrupt because the news media don't do their job and inform people.

I'm not saying you're not doing your job as a journalist, because it's important that people become aware at least that this relationship exists (or that corruption exists at all -- I had a friend today ask me what Halliburton was.)

I am saying that I think your replies to my inquiries are a little unhinged and scary. Accept that your readers are informed and will question your assertions. Stop harassing me. That would be great.

more on mzm

2006-03-18T08:43:00.000-05:00

Wow, MZM was in it deep:

In February 2003, MZM won a two-month contract worth $503,144.70 to provide technical support to the Pentagon's Joint Counter-Intelligence Field Activity, or CIFA. The top-secret agency was created five months earlier primarily to protect U.S. defense personnel and facilities from foreign terrorists.
The job involved advising CIFA on selecting software and technology designed to ferret out commercial and government data that could be used in what's called a Geospatial Information System. A GIS system inserts information about geographic locations, such as buildings, into digital maps produced from satellite photographs.
According to a "statement of work," the data that CIFA was interested in obtaining included "maps, street addresses, lines of communication, critical infrastructure elements, demographic and other pertinent sources that would support geocoding and multi-level analysis."
Geocoding involves assigning latitudes and longitudes to locations, such as street addresses, so they can be displayed as points on maps. Such tools increasingly are being used by U.S. corporations and law enforcement agencies.
MZM was to "assist the government in identifying and procuring data" on maps, as well as "airports, ports, dams, churches/mosques/synagogues, schools (and) power plants," said the statement of work.
"In many cases, the government already owns such data, and for reasons of economy, government-owned data is preferred," said the statement. It isn't clear why U.S. intelligence agencies couldn't do the work themselves.
[snip}
In a March 8 letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a senior Pentagon official said that a review of the Cornerstone database had identified 186 "protest-related reports" containing the names of 43 people that were mistakenly retained in the database.
"These reports have since been removed from the Cornerstone database and refresher training on intelligence oversight and database management is being given to all CI (counter-intelligence) and intelligence personnel," said the letter from Robert W. Rogalski, an acting deputy undersecretary of defense.
The disclosure that CIFA was storing information on anti-war activities added to concerns that the Bush administration may have used its war on terrorism to give government agencies expanded power to monitor Americans' finances, associations, travel and other activities.

Virgil knew Wade personally -- why didn't he ever wonder just where that huge wad of cash was coming from? Why didn't he wonder exactly what kind of government work was being done by the group that contributed the most money by far to his campaign?

It was no secret that the Dukestir was squatting at Mitch's yacht, either.

How stupid does Virgil think we are?

virgil spooked?

2006-03-16T17:16:00.000-05:00

John Nichols in The Nation has this about Virgil:

Last week, the U.S. House voted on a perfunctory measure authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to designate the President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home in Hope, Arkansas, as a National Historic Site and unit of the National Park System. It is notable that, at a time when Republicans are banging away on critics of the Bush administration for not respecting the office of the presidency, the vote was not the unanimous show of approval that might have been expected.

Republican members of the House forced a roll-call vote -- extremely rare on such matters -- and a dozen of them then voted against so honoring Clinton's birthplace.

The "no" votes came from Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn, Florida's Ginny Brown-Waite, Utah's Chris Cannon, California's John Doolittle, Virginia's Virgil Goode, Oklahoma's Ernest Istook, Texan Ron Paul, Pennsylvania's Bill Shuster, Georgia's Lynn Westmoreland and North Carolinians Virginia Foxx, Walter Jones and Patrick McHenry.

[snip]

Goode, along with his friend Duke Cunningham, has been linked to the defense contractor MZM – the company accused of bribing Cunningham with millions of dollars in exchange for defense contracts. Goode recently donated $88,000 in political contributions he had received from MZM and its associates to charity. According to a USA Today investigation: "In more than 30 instances, donations from MZM's political action committee or company employees went to two members of the House Appropriations Committee -- Cunningham and Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. -- in the days surrounding key votes or contract awards that helped MZM grow."

I wrote the C-ville Weekly about this last bit from the USA Today investigation right after their front-pager last week, and the author replied that he wasn't able to independently verify it. So instead, he created a vague timeline that clearly implies that Wade's contributions were not correlated with Virgil's little indiscretions, while failing to mention anywhere else in the article what USA Today (and others) have found. And then he said it was my fault for misreading it.

But back to the point -- why would Virgil take this stand, with only 11 others with him? How desperate he must be to cling to those particularly wingnutty votes that are surely imperiled by the antics of the GOP over the past four years -- that it comes, to this? I can't imagine that there would be any other reason to not support something like this, other than either spite or false-spite. In the latter case, of course the motivation is political.

Virgil wants us to believe that he is a high-grounder who stands up for the office of the presidency that Clinton allegedly tarnished. The jig is up for him and now it's time for him to explain his record and its results. And, like he's shown he's perfectly willing to do, he's playing on these old fires (Clinton-hating, this time, but also gay-hating, brown-people-hating, slut-hating) to trick us into voting against all those bad sinful things.

digby is wrong

2006-03-15T17:42:00.000-05:00

Digby said:

John at Crooks and Liars has the video of Bush congratulating Jason McElwaine the basketball player who has autism. I know that it was a cheap stunt on many levels, but I'm with John --- it was a nice thing for Bush to do on its own merits. And I have to say that Bush actually seemed like a real human when he was talking about it. For the first time in, well ... ever.

Here's the thing. This administration is all talk when it comes to its education policy. We see it cuts in college assistance, the imposition of guidelines that are out of the way of paltry school budgets, and this:

While President Bush has publicly acknowledged his admiration for the young star, his FY07 budget shows an indifference towards autistic children:
- In his proposed budget for next year, Bush has cut all funding for the National Children’s Study, a project that planned to investigate the causes of autism, asthma, and other serious illnesses.

- The President’s budget will eliminate Medicaid reimbursements for schoolchildren with disabilities, denying them “access to medical services they need to fully participate in school and learn to their greatest abilities.”

- The number of children diagnosed with autism and served by schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) increased by more than 500 percent in the last decade, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The President’s FY07 budget, however, will fund IDEA at $6.3 billion below the amount Congress recommended.

Bush’s visit with J-Mac was a great photo-op. But the best way for Bush to show his support is by providing adequate funding for programs to help autistic children.

At my school we host workshops, mainly attended by special ed teachers. The story is always the same: few resources on any level -- incompetent assistance, incompetent administration, disconnected/impoverished families. I work with this every day, and trust me when I say that I've never before imagined a system so decayed and neglected as some of the public school special ed programs I've come to learn about.

I know a family who relies on Medicaid reimbursements for everything -- medical care (medication, examinations, physical therapy, recreational therapy -- the norm in special ed), and, just as vitally, respite care.

So I know what Bush and his cronies don't feel when they sign off on these immoral budget cuts. It's how I know that this was just a repulsive PR stunt at a time of all-time low approval ratings from an administration whose specialty is this sort of thing.

rabble rabble rabble

2006-03-14T20:18:00.000-05:00

Lisa wrote this over the lo(ooooo)ng weekend hiatus I just got over:

While 5^th District bloggers may not be able to have an impact on Virgil stepping down from office, we CAN do some digging and keep putting the information out to local media in letters about his record, campaign contributions and perhaps even his spending patterns (check this site in response to the one sideblogged by Waldo). We can provide data to his opposition after the 5^th District caucuses and convention in April for use during debates with Virgil and publicity pieces.

It's not that I'm convinced Virgil really did use his spot on the Appropriations Committee to funnel money into MZM -- look, we don't have all the facts (probably never will) and a Justice Department that, as far as we can tell, isn't interested in Virgil's alleged acts of impropriety.

After all, when Mitch Wade said he "owned" Virgil, he probably just meant benevolently and liberally observed from afar.

The real issue is, Virgil's just another one of the loser republican House-lings coddled since the bargain sale of his soul to build their majority. "Join us? Get a choice spot on a key committee and an essentially safe seat while we are in power."

Meanwhile, what do we get in return? Lisa points our attention to this Times-Dispatch article re: Danville's-ranking-fifth-on-list-of-worst-job-markets-behind-cities-like-New-Orleans-and-Biloxi:

I was also unaware that, while 2,500 jobs had been created in the last two years, the net loss of jobs in the city is still 1700 (listed on page A13). Bringing jobs to the 5^th District is what Virgil keeps talking about. Who knows, there might actually be an amendment to the bill he introduced in the House about the border fence between America and Mexico that requires 5^th District voters to be given jobs on the project!

Seriously.

And Lisa's right on the money about our local media outlet's complete lack of interest in this story. There are tons of unanswered questions (Did Virgil receive anything else of value from Wade?; Did their relationship operate quid pro quo?; When exactly did the initial $3.6 million request occur/begin to occur?), but our local media have completely dropped the ball.

Virgil has screwed the Fifth District over, and once again the local corporate media have allowed this bigot to slime his way under the radar in the latest disappointment of his career.

c-ville weekly hearts goode

2006-03-08T16:31:00.000-05:00

So the C-ville Weekly threw its $.02 into the MZM/Goode story. It ain't worth much more than that.

I gotta say, I'm really disappointed in their coverage of the story. While this week's cover features a huge head-shot of Goode with the words "Bad times for Virgil Goode?" splashed across the bottom, I was hard pressed to find much criticism of any substance.

This passage seems to be the thesis:

However, Goode’s association with the lurid scandal could hurt his political fortunes. The affable Goode is immensely popular throughout most of the huge Fifth District, which is roughly the size of New Jersey, having won at least 63 percent of the vote in the last two elections. Even the two Democrats who are vying for his seat say the MZM affair will not be enough, by itself, to sway voters away from Goode. But it may have tarnished his squeaky clean image.

This passage seems to be the conclusion:

It’s too early to tell whether Goode’s constituents care about the scandal. Watkins of the Fifth District Republicans says people will view efforts to equate Goode with Cunningham or Wade as nothing but partisan attacks.

Watkins is actually Tucker Watkins, chairman of the Fifth's Republican committee. The author relies quite heavily on Watkins' remarks elsewhere in the piece:

Tucker Watkins, the Fifth District’s Republican chairman, agrees, predicting that the MZM case will have no impact on Goode’s run in Congress. “You’re talking about a guy who’s worked hard to bring jobs into the District,” Watkins says. “I think they’re barking up a real bad tree on this one.”

And here:

In both Richmond and Washington he developed a reputation as a man of the people (despite a net worth of between $1.2 million and $3.3 million). His office in Rocky Mount is rickety and his car has 270,000 miles on it, according to Watkins.

And here:

“Virgil Goode has a 33-year record in public office,” Watkins says. “Almost nobody questions Congressman Goode’s integrity.”

To further justify this storyline that appears throughout the article, the author includes this bit:

James H. Hershman, a professor at Georgetown University and expert in Virginia politics, thinks only revelations that Goode knowingly broke the law could force the popular congressman out of office. After all, he says, many of Goode’s constituents will see his dealings with MZM as being just that of their loyal Congressman trying to bring much-needed jobs to the Southside.
“He’ll probably survive it politically,” Hershman says.

The author relies on Hershman's assessment to make this bold claim:

But despite Goode’s brush with wonkish infamy, it will probably take more than a confusing Capitol Hill imbroglio to take down the entrenched, five-term incumbent.

It's actually not that confusing, and any reader who bothers with the article can see that right away as the majority of the text is spent summarizing the suspicious activity Goode has engaged in. "Expert" criticism is limited to comments made by Al Weed and Bern Ewert.

In the timeline that follows, the author notes that the initial $3.6 million earmark occurred during an "undisclosed month" in 2003 and then correctly identifies Wade's reimbursement of MZM employees to Goode as occurring in "March." From a previous article I cited from USA TODAY we learn the following:

By the time Goode arranged an initial $3.6 million for the center in 2003, MZM's PAC and its employees had given the congressman nearly $33,000 in campaign contributions, making them at that point by far his biggest financial supporter for the 2004 election.

According to USA TODAY at least, contrary to the Weekly's timeline, the contributions occurred before Goode's earmark arrangement. This bit of information is missing completely from the Weekly's timeline, and is even implied that the opposite is true. Wrong, and completely irresponsible.

Nowhere in the Weekly's article does the author note that these contributions were given within a very short time period, and fails to add that none of the contributors had donated prior to this burst.

Here's what I think the thesis statement of the article ought to be:

Goode did not respond to C-VILLE’s questions, faxed at his request, by press time.

If they had waited, maybe they would have been able to point out some of those questions that Goode curiously refused to answer from the Roanoke Times. Instead, we get drek like this:

Rev. Cecil Bridgeforth of Shiloh Baptist Church in Danville told C-VILLE during the 2004 election season that when federal money comes to the Southside, “people think he’s ridden in on this white steed and he’s given us this money.”
Goode was trying to fill precisely this role, at least in his public machinations, through his relationship with MZM.

Nice. What a man of the people.

passage of the moment

2006-03-07T16:33:00.000-05:00

I'm in the middle of reading 1984, one of those books I bought for a class long ago that has since stood unopened on my bookcase. I'm through the first book -- it's become one of those stories that haunts me long after I've put it down, that becomes the framework through which otherwise unremarkable mundanities are illuminated by the powerful symbols and themes that are at the front of my mind, and as a result take on new meaning and cause me to hesitate and ponder. I love that feeling. Here's a particularly powerful passage -- I got chills:

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable -- what then?
...
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall toward the earth's center. With the feeling that he was speaking to O'Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote: Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 1984, George Orwell: Signet Classic (1950) p. 69

oh goode-y

2006-03-06T18:06:00.000-05:00

The Roanoke Times comes through again! Marvel at the lack of bias, bask in the light shining free from the toxic cloud that is Media General!

"At no time have I or, to my knowledge, any member of my staff been contacted by federal authorities," Goode said in a written statement released Sunday.
"I do not have an attorney," he said. "Since I have not done anything wrong, I see no reason to get one."

The statement is the most detailed response the Rocky Mount Republican has made to date about the now-defunct MZM Inc., his largest source of campaign contributions in recent years and a key player in one of the political corruption cases shrouding Capitol Hill.
[snip]
Goode's two-page statement, e-mailed at 5:42 p.m. Sunday, came seven days after his office directed reporters to submit in writing their questions about Wade's guilty plea and the continuing investigation.

Although it was Goode's most detailed account so far, the statement left many questions unanswered.

For example, Goode offered no response to the following question from The Roanoke Times: "Other than campaign contributions, did you ever receive anything of value from either Mitchell Wade or MZM?"
[snip]
No one has publicly accused Goode of taking such gifts.

But there have been questions about the campaign contributions he received from MZM's political action committee, its employees and their family members -- questions that Goode chose not to address in his statement Sunday.
[snip]
At the same time he was receiving more than $90,000 in MZM-linked campaign contributions, Goode requested $3.6 million in defense funding that eventually went to MZM, then worked closely with state and local officials to draw up an economic incentives package that offered unusually generous benefits to the company for locating an operation in Martinsville.

Goode did not respond directly to a question about whether that amounted to a quid pro quo arrangement with MZM.
He did say he has submitted hundreds of funding requests during his tenure on the House Appropriations Committee that would benefit his district.
[snip]
The statement also left unanswered written questions about whether Goode should have realized that something was amiss about the MZM-linked money, given the amounts and the nature of the contributions.
[snip]
Goode -- who gave his MZM-linked money to charity when the scandal became public -- said some of the contributions were mailed to him and others he received in person at fundraising events.

But he did not respond to additional questions about the donations.

Nor did he answer a question about an additional $9 million in defense funding he sought for MZM that is mentioned in court papers related to Wade's case.

Go read the Times-Dispatch for Media General's take on Goode's statement. I won't blockquote it here, but here's a whiff of the stench that is their partisan sludge:

Defenders maintain that the popular Goode, a lawyer, has shown unreproachable integrity over a long career in the state legislature and Congress.

So, here's what we learn from the Times piece:

Goode will not answer whether he received anything of value besides contributions from Wade.
He did not answer whether his little arrangement with MZM/Wade that amounted to, you know, receiving contributions-then-inserting earmarks that would directly benefit his corporation amounted to quid pro quo. I guess it's just how things are done in Washington, is that accurate?
He did not answer whether or not the contributions were suspicious. I'll just let that one speak for itself.
He did not respond to inquiries into a more recent earmark attempt that was almost three times the size of the most suspicious earmark. (Special thanks to the Times for bringing this one up -- I thought I was going a little crazy about it.)

It takes exactly two seconds to tell the truth. Time to put the popcorn in the microwave.

mom, i'm gay

2006-03-05T18:48:00.000-05:00

Raw Story links to this bit from the AP via Washington Post from Saturday:

Parents Complain About Book's Undertones
The Associated Press
Saturday, March 4, 2006; 12:22 PM
SAVANNAH, Mo. -- A children's book about two male penguins that raise a baby penguin has been moved to the nonfiction section of two public library branches after parents complained it had homosexual undertones.
The illustrated book, "And Tango Makes Three," is based on a true story of two male penguins, named Roy and Silo, who adopted an abandoned egg at New York City's Central Park Zoo in the late 1990s.
The book, written by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, was moved from the children's section at two Rolling Hills' Consolidated Library's branches in Savannah and St. Joseph in northwest Missouri.
Two parents had expressed concerns about the book last month.
Barbara Read, the Rolling Hills' director, said experts report that adoptions aren't unusual in the penguin world. However, moving the book to the nonfiction section would decrease the chance that it would "blindside" readers, she said.

Even if it happens in nature, presumably as their intelligent designer intended, but it's a little too gay, whatever you do don't let the children see it.

The poor children! -- they might get the wrong idea, like that not everything in this hugely complicated universe as we know it follows their precious tradition their parents have made damn sure infects their entire worldview.

I know this might come as a shock to the wingnuts out there, but sometimes shit happens. Sometimes you just have to accept what comes, and make the best of it, even if it doesn't happen as you (or your Book) predict.

To me, this is really what they're talking about and what a few others have been talking about lately with the attempts in South Dakota to enact a society that believes forced childbirth is okay. (Read Digby. Now.)

I mean, isn't that what we're really talking about here? Look, I know we're talking about penguins -- but this just seems like such a perfect example of the type of thinking that makes people believe this hateful shit. Look at it like this: at least as far as the penguin scenario, when the mother isn't present because, oh, she was eaten by some sea lion/shark/killer whale/other predator or dies because she gets sick or maybe falls off some ice-cliff and breaks her back, and there's absolutely no individual else left to ensure the survival of the offspring, penguins (and I assume many, many other social creatures) have the capacity to sacrifice the procreation of their species (because two males occupied with child-rearing obviously can't occupy themselves with child-making) to ensure the survival of a sure-thing -- at least as much as they can. Let's not even talk about the broader implications for this type of behavior, like how it might have come to be or why it continues to exist -- they're freaking penguins and they have no capacity for self-reflection as we do; it's all biology and brain chemistry.

What is at the heart of the up-in-arm-ness these particularly batty wingnuts are displaying in Missouri, of all places, really is that they just can't handle that sometimes shit happens. Sometimes you are forced to survive, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it that fits into some perfect preconceived way of How Things Ought to Be.

Imagine these parents' reactions if one of their own children were gay and lived their entire life burdened with the unimaginable guilt/insecurity/self-loathing that would undoubtedly come about as a result of that.

See, before we can even talk about it, the wingnuts have framed it as a choice because surely-God-wouldn't-want-things-to-be-that-way. They've managed to distance themselves so much from reality that this idea of choice fundamentally underlies any of their arguments about it. Being gay is living in sin, living exactly contradictory to What God Wants. He just wouldn't have planned it that way, thank you very much, because that's not how It Should Be.

It's so easy for them to look at the world in this cause-and-effect, black-and-white, sin-or-not way because it eliminates the unpredictability and shittiness (and pain and sadness) that life really is. It's easier to live thinking that if some slutty waitress mother of two gets pregnant, she should have kept her legs shut if she knew what was best for her. That if you get AIDS by having sex with someone who didn't tell you about it, you deserve it because God Said Being a Fag is Wrong anyway.

Well what if that mother of two waitress was impregnated when her husband raped her when she was asleep or drugged. It happens, so STOP telling me that abortion is murder and we need to stick up for those poor babies because their murderous mothers hate them.

This is the same type of fear-based argument wingnuts use all the time to rationalize bad shit in the world, but sometimes bad shit just happens and we have nothing else to do except accept that we're still alive (hopefully) and that we have people who love us and that we can love back (hopefully.) When I walk out of my house and some drunk driver hits me and paralyzes me, what could I have done that would have saved me?

Look, you can always say that if you are a good Christian God will help you out and make sure shit like that doesn't happen. But that's not reality. Shit like that does happen and it happens every day to thousands of people for no reason at all. People who ban gay-penguin books or chastise women who become pregnant when they didn't want to argue the way they do because shit like that hasn't happened to them, yet, or they've managed to alienate the people who come to them for help (e.g. gay children) so much that they can function in perpetual denial, or they've religiocized it enough that it becomes "God's will." Well that's bullshit and no one can deny that bad shit happens to good people.

To bring what I've said here more directly into the argument over whether or not women should be forced, against their will, to have a baby, let's just look at the magnificence that is Digby's writing:

People have sex and lots of it, even when the "consequences" are severe. It's basic. And sometimes birth control fails or people lose their heads in the heat of the moment. Accidents happen. It is so banal and mundane and common that it's a bit bizarre to even have to make that explicit in the argument. Accidental, unwanted pregnancy happens every single day by the millions on this planet. Nature (or perhaps the "intelligent designer") expects women to get pregnant as often as possible and created the human sex drive to make that happen. Women, independent sentient beings that they are, want to control how many children they have. It's a constant battle and often times "nature" wins. It isn't a matter of morality. Sex between consenting people is simply human. And the right to abortion is simply a matter of human liberty --- a woman's right to decide her own fate and a woman's right to be a normal sexual being. Without both of those things, she can never truly be free.

Because sex doesn't always lead directly to pregnancy. In fact, a lot of stuff has to be "check" for a woman to get pregnant -- and often after an egg has been fertilized something will go wrong and the zygote will be flushed out of a womb, NATURALLY. All that aside, wingnuts love to argue that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have been such a whore in the first place. Respectfully, WHAT THE FUCK?! So if a woman is married but she and her husband are in dire straits financially, but holy-shit the condom breaks and she gets pregnant, she should have just kept her slutty legs closed in the first place? Yeah, I think a judge would find extended periods of abstinence in a marriage grounds enough for divorce. So I guess that's the next step for South Dakota -- forced marriage, scheduled procreation, forced sterilization after a certain number of kids? (As if the man doesn't have just the same amount of responsibility for a pregnancy -- where are wingnut calls for forced vascectomy?)

To bring this back to the original intention behind this post, why can't we just understand that shit happens, but change the way that we react to it (and by we, I mean you rightist-Christians out there) -- just accept that your life is unpredictable. Your existence is unpredictable. Shit will happen to you that doesn't fit into your view of how things are or how they ought to be. Innocent people are dying by the MILLIONS around the world RIGHT NOW because of war, famine, poverty, disease, exploitation. Maybe they should have been better Christians so that they wouldn't be born into some shithole country where the government is engaged in genocide (I guess it's different because they're brown and smelly,) or mega-corporations think it's okay to pay their workers next-to-nothing and force their female workers to have abortions because it's hard to make flip-flops when you're pregnant.

Everyone and everything you know will die and there's not a damn thing you or God can do about it. That's what it comes down to.

We're all here -- now -- and none of us know how long we're going to be here. You decide: are you going to use your time here to hate and condemn and judge and make this hatred law? Or are you going to live as Jesus did, and leave the judgment to God. Are you going to Love, or will you choose to hate?

It's pretty clear to me -- the penguins loved when they were faced with adversity. Even if it meant -- gasp! -- looking gay. And they didn't even think about it. They just acted as their Designer intended them to act. What will we tell the children?

this, too

2006-03-05T14:22:00.000-05:00

For more background on my last post, firedoglake and Crooks and Liars has the goods on what David Gergen said on Kurtz' "Reliable Sources":

"I am glad you brought that up. This administration has engaged in secrecy at a level we have not seen in over 30 years. Unfortunately, I have to bring up the name of Richard Nixon, because we haven't seen it since the days of Nixon. And now what they're doing -- and they're using the war on terror to justify -- is they're starting to target journalists who try to pierce the veil of secrecy and find things and put them in the newspapers.
Now, in the past what the government has always done is go after the people who leak, the inside people. That's the way they try to stop leaks. This is the first administration that I can remember, including Nixon's, that said -- and Porter Goss said this to Congress -- that we need to think about a law that would put journalists who print national security things to...bring them up in front of grand juries and put them in jail if they don't -- in effect, if they don't reveal their sources."

He's referring to this front page article in the Washington Post today:

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.
In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases.
[snip]
Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and that they have worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.
"There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors," said New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a statement responding to questions from The Washington Post. "I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad."

I caught this article this morning, and I think it justifies a lot of the points I made in my last post. It's all about controlling the type of information that makes its way into the national consciousness.

They would not be doing this if actions that were legitimate were leaked to reporters. What we are seeing here is an attempt to crack down on those few media outlets that want to get to the bottom of it all (largely, here, we're talking about newspapers which of course are only read by 1-in-10 Americans.) They are doing this because of leaks about warrantless domestic spying, the Plame scandal, prisoner abuse/torture, lies about WMD -- you get the idea.

Redd at FDL says: "Given the stories on the White House efforts to go after leakers who make them look bad or expose illegal activites on the part of the President -- but selectively fail to really take their own selective leaking seriously (hello -- Dick Cheney can declassify whatever the hell he feels like, even though that's not what the law says?) -- I'd say that's certainly a topic worth some serious public discussion...Can someone explain to me how the Bush Administration expects anyone to take them seriously on this matter when Karl Rove still works in the West Wing with his security clearance intact after admitting to discussing Valerie Plame Wilson with two reporters?...When you use the laws to punish your critics -- even to the point of abusing this to try to silence whistleblowers -- yet you fail to punish your allies for illegal behavior that violates national security regulations...well, you don't really expect to have any credibility at all, do you? And to threaten journalists with jail for printing true information on how the Bush Administration may be breaking the law -- well, all I can say is that Stalin would be awfully proud, wouldn't he?"

Love those FDL ladies!

"recent surge in violence"

2006-03-05T11:45:00.000-05:00

EarlG at Democratic Underground has the current top spot in Greatest Threads -- for good reason. He googled the phrase "recent surge in violence" and came up with this:

There are a few notable periods where violence is not reported as a "recent surge," (for example, Nov 2003 - Mar 2004) and there are a few notable periods where the violence is much worse (for example, May 2005).

But overall, it appears that there is a "recent surge in violence" reported in Iraq pretty much every few weeks [since September 2003].

I can't say that I'm shocked or surprised. It's that feeling I get daily when I encounter a new outrage -- those of us who bother to get to the bottom of things have become innoculated against this type of outrage. We come to expect it from the current regime. But I was staggered a bit by Earl's findings because it's been under our noses all along and I don't think anyone else has picked up on it before (well, we all have on some level) and presented it like he has. Go read the original post and see it for yourself.

The storyline the corporate media have been laying down since the war's inception is that the occupation of Iraq has been thorough, well-planned, and effective at containing "terrorists." When we have an administration whose primary goal is to create anarchy for the facilitation of the establishment of 'free-markets," their second goal must be to create an atmosphere in which the average citizen can at least partly justify the deaths of fellow citizens. They accomplish this by, well, lying to us via a complicit media structure.

In order to understand how this has occurred, it's necessary to understand that in today's media -- which is wholly controlled by a few uber-corporations with all sorts of ties to the government, GE (NBC) -- one equation constantly underlies the information that makes its way to us: favorable coverage = access.

If you don't understand how fundamentally this norm has infected our media/power structure, you cannot understand how this administration has accomplished what it has.

Because an alternative media structure has arisen in conjunction with the demise of media-as-pure-information -- this alternative, of course, is the internet -- the distinctions between the information provided by each media framework have become clearer. Truth and, well, something else. Truth influenced by some Other holder of truth. Filtered truth, I suppose. Wait, more accurately -- filtered truth that is again filtered by a media framework concerned with its ability to access filtered truth.

Just go read Amy Goodman's Exception to the Rulers. She does this for a living, okay? (And she's coming to McLeod Hall on March 24th.)

We're chipping away at the Embedded Media framework -- notice how many stories lately have either been broken by bloggers (and I'm not talking about Dan Rather, here, that's totally different) or broadcast through the corporate media because it has made a huge impact in the blogosphere? I mean, can you imagine the type of information we'd receive from the embedded media if not for a real and dynamic alternative venue for dissent? What if we had to keep it all to ourselves? Can you reasonably argue that our corporate media would be in the business of effectively digging into the information the Bush regime has been so concerned with filtering?

In the end, our embedded media represents the mega-corporations that own its components. Favorable coverage = access. Access = ratings. Ratings = advertisements.

It's that simple. And Joe-Blow-republican will tell me to my face today, if I asked him, that the liberal media is only out to get Dear Leader.

If they were doing their jobs they would be. Anything else is propaganda.

And now it's easier to understand the significance of Earl's analysis. To present violence in Iraq as they have (as Earl has found) is to simultaneously imply, over the course of the greater multi-year storyline, that things are largely under control. They portray incidents of violence as sporadic breaks from the general calm, or else they wouldn't be modified by "recent" or "surges." It's undeniable. What Earl's analysis clearly reveals is the emptiness of those modifiers. Violence in Iraq is steady, constant, and fierce. But the embedded media can't frame it in that way -- they are slaves to the storyline. Dissent, or critical analysis, breaks the equation.

Favorable coverage = access. Access = filtered stories. Stories = advertising revenue.

danville register bee has the scoop

2006-03-04T17:08:00.000-05:00

Looks like Virgil is ready to talk:

U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-5th, said Friday he received illegal contributions from former MZM Inc. head Mitchell Wade through the mail, at events and sometimes from Wade personally.
[snip]
Goode accepted $46,000 in donations from the company, Wade and its employees since his relationship with Wade began when they met in Charlottesville "in 2001 or 2002," Goode said Friday. The congressman has since donated the contributions to charity.
"It’s just like any other entity or individual," Goode said of receiving the funds. "Some were (donated) at events, and some were in the mail, and some events (Wade) handed it to me."
Goode has repeatedly denied that he knew the donations were illegal. Political analysts have said it is unlikely that Goode would face charges in the matter.
"I have not been contacted by the (Department of Justice)," he said, adding he was not questioned by the grand jury in the case.
[snip]
When asked if his vote is for sale when it means jobs for the 5th District, Goode replied, "When people come by the office, one thing I always talk to them about is, 'What can you bring for the 5th District?'" I've submitted a whole lot of appropriations for jobs in the 5th District."
Goode answered questions Friday after getting his blood pressure checked at a demonstration at the Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce office for a program called Dr. Chip, which he helped obtain a grant. It was part of a day that included stops at the Institute for Advanced Learning & Research and Galileo Magnet High School, both in Danville.
Goode said he had received questions about his relationship with Wade from the Martinsville Bulletin and the Franklin County News-Post. He said he intends to answer those questions through a single statement.
"You all are getting an advantage over the others, because I hadn’t gotten my answers all the way together," Goode told a Register-Bee reporter.

From reading that, you might think all Goode received from MZM was $46,000. He has, in his career, in fact received over $90,000 (according to opensecrets.org -- Waldo puts it at over $100,000; either way, a hell of a lot of money.) The $46,000 is the amount that was determined to be illegally contributed by Wade when he reimbursed his employees for their contributions.

So I'm curious which contributions exactly were handed to him by Wade himself in person.

Guess we'll find out more when Goode has his "answers all the way together." Lying is like that -- see you have to make up a story first.

liars for goode

2006-03-04T09:11:00.000-05:00

Mark in comments on Waldo's site and Lisa in a post point our attention to this LTE (no permalink available) from State Sen. Frank Ruff (R) in the Farmville Herald:

Rep. Goode Has 'The Highest Character'
Editor, The Herald:
I write in amazement that Congressman Virgil Goode's potential opponents in this fall's election have made the following statements regarding Mitchell Wade and his company:

Al Weed was quoted saying, "there is a strong taint about the whole thing."

Bern Ewert said that he was "very sad about this continuing story" and that he wanted to "bring honest representation to Washington

Let me clearly state what the people of the Fifth Congressional District already understand— that we presently have good and honest representation in Virgil Goode and there is absolutely no "taint" surrounding his name.

I have been privileged to know Virgil Goode for over 30 years. I have always considered Virgil a man of the highest character, integrity and honesty.

Virgil Goode has been working tirelessly to bring jobs and economic opportunity to our communities. Our region has been devastated by the loss of Jobs over the last decade and Congressman Goode is constantly working with local leaders to revitalize the economy in our communities.

I find it truly amazing that anyone would even consider running for any office by attacking an incumbent whose morals are beyond reproach for working to create needed jobs.

Virgil Goode's character is beyond question - his political opponent's motives, in my opinion, are not.

Frank Ruff

Clarksville

And it is through this that one might understand the republican strategy when a fellow Party Member gets caught being naughty -- in our case, accepting suspicious campaign contributions from a defense contractor in a time of war, and then inserting earmarks into a defense appropriations bill that would directly benefit the contributing corporation (aka, war profiteering.)

The Republican's Guide to Skirting the Issue

Step 1: Clutch pearls. ("I write in amazement...")

Step 2: Accuse truth-seekers of playing politics. ("...that Congressman Virgil Goode's potential opponents in this fall's election have made the following statements regarding Mitchell Wade and his company.")

Step 3: Lie. ("[w]e presently have good and honest representation in Virgil Goode and there is absolutely no "taint" surrounding his name.")

Step 4: Mount high horse. ("I have been privileged to know Virgil Goode for over 30 years. I have always considered Virgil a man of the highest character, integrity and honesty.")

Step 5: Smear. ("I find it truly amazing that anyone would even consider running for any office by attacking an incumbent whose morals are beyond reproach for working to create needed jobs. Virgil Goode's character is beyond question - his political opponent's motives, in my opinion, are not.")

Ruff fails to offer any substantive defense of Goode's little arrangement with MZM in that, well, all he offers about Goode are ad hoc personal praise and those lies about "working tirelessly to bring jobs and economic opportunity to our communities."

The hilarity reaches a climax when he writes, "Congressman Goode is constantly working with local leaders to revitalize the economy in our communities," he's referring to the MZM deal in Martinsville that's at the heart of this whole thing.

Hyperboles aside (it's beyond vomit-inducing,) why does Ruff offer absolutely no concrete justification for dismissing suspicion of Goode's insertion of earmarks into bills that would ALMOST CERTAINLY PASS and result in benefits for MZM, and instead immediately pitch a fit about those nasty democrats-who-always-just-want-to-make-people-look-bad?

It's not like Goode has the ability in Congress to basically allocate, without restriction, our money into whatever project he fancies (i.e. whoever has the most influence over him.)

Oh, wait.

goode > harris

2006-03-03T18:45:00.000-05:00

I don't really know what it is about this Goode/Harris/Wade/MZM scandal. Call it my white whale, the light to my moth, the magnet to my paperclip.

What passes for governance on the part of those who represent us in Congress really amounts to corporate welfare sloppily coated over with a layer of, well, lies intended to fool us into believing they are Defenders of Populism and fightin' ta keep Murikans safe.

I'm fucking sick of it. What's more, I'm disgusted by Virgil Goode and his, you know, willingness to accept suspicious campaign contributions from individuals representing a corporation and his resulting actions that benefitted that same corporation.

It doesn't get much more black and white than that.

So I'm really surprised that the blogosphere is abuzz with Katherine Harris' version of Goode-gate without sufficient attention to its counterpart, which I believe is very similar. Maybe it's because Harris is generally despised by democrats because of her integral role as disenfranchiser of thousands in Florida in the 2000 election debacle. I mean just look at her (which okay is laughable and I admit one reason I hate her too but it doesn't amount to anything substantive.) Maybe it's because she's so obviously in bed with the Church Channel crowd while at the same time willing to posture herself in front of the camera to ensure maximum boob-ness. Maybe it's because she's running a truly laughable Senate bid. She's just one of those easy-to-hate airheaded corporatist politicians that so crystallizes what the republican party is about that people find it easy and natural to hate her.

Okay so I agree with them and I hate her too for those reasons, but I still have enough hate left in me to be able to devote much MUCH more of that hate and disgust towards Goode.

So let's get back to the thrust of this post and examine the similarities between Goode/MZM and Harris/MZM.

Both were recipients of substantial donations from MZM/Wade.

These contributions occurred en masse at critical times right before either MZM was awarded taxpayer money (as in the Goode case) or a request to that effect was to be made (as in the Harris case.)

Both were pressured to attach earmarks that would benefit MZM to defense appropriations bills (those bills that are never voted down and resultantly filled with fishy corporate welfare add-ons.)

Here are the critical differences:

Harris sloppily lied about her involvement and has now hired a lawyer which raises eyebrows.
Harris does not sit on an Appropriations Committee.
Goode has not sloppily lied about his involvement.

He has said consistently, from the beginning, that he was "shocked and amazed" that the contributions were illegal.

Goode is a member of the House Appropriations Committee.

When will the blogosphere wake the HELL up and realize that Goode's involvement with the MZM scandal is FAR MORE SUSPICIOUS AND SHADY than Harris'.

Harris just reacted as the ditz she really is. Goode's been smart enough to play dumb since the beginning even though his actions directly led to YOUR money being handed out to MZM projects.

CQ whores it up for Goode

2006-03-02T17:36:00.000-05:00

CQ adds its two cents in an article called "VA 5: Ethics Questions Unlikely to Make Goode Look Bad":

Virginia political veteran Virgil H. Goode Jr. spent 24 years in the state Senate before the 1996 victory that put him in the 5th District House seat he has held ever since. He has won as a conservative Democrat, as an independent, and since his 2002 race as a Republican. And he avoided any serious tinge of ethical controversy along the way.

But last week, Goode found himself mentioned — albeit obliquely — in one of the biggest scandals to hit Congress in years. When Mitchell Wade, former president of the defense contractor MZM Inc., pleaded guilty to bribing California Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, he also admitted to funneling large illegal campaign contributions to Goode and another House Republican, Florida’s Katherine Harris.

Wade skirted campaign finance limits by instructing MZM employees and their spouses to donate funds to Goode and Harris, and then reimbursing them in violation of federal law. The amounts were not paltry: The $93,000 in campaign donations Goode received from MZM associates since 2003, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, made the firm his single biggest contributor.

The eyebrow-raising aspect of the revelations was the fact that Goode, as a member of the House Appropriations Committee, secured an earmark of $3.6 million for an MZM-run project in Martinsville, a small city located in Virginia’s 5th District. The project eventually brought dozens of jobs to the economically hurting region and was praised by Mark Warner, then the Democratic governor of Virginia.

Goode strongly denies any connection between his legislative actions and the campaign contributions he received, and declares himself “shocked and amazed” that the MZM-related donations were illegal. Goode said all amounts his campaign could identify as contributions from MZM’s political action committee and employees were sent to charities and non-profit groups.

How nice. Here's what CQ in all its Brilliant and Astute Political Reasoning relied upon in order to make the claim in the title:

But Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and a well-known political commentator, called Goode’s misfortune only a minor setback.

“This may cut a few points, but he is strong in the southern part of the district,” Sabato said. “People know him well, whether they agree or disagree with him. They know he is not corrupt.”

And in no other place in the article mention another objective viewpoint. Oh, wait:

Democratic activists relish the development, though, seeking to link Goode to a series of ethics controversies that have cast a cloud over several congressional incumbents, most of them Republicans. Lindsey Reynolds, executive director of the Virginia Democratic Party, contended, “When you have culture of corruption of the Republican Party and it hits home, you are always optimistic.”

Lovely. Those damn democrats -- giving a shit about, you know, corruption, bribery, and ethically questionable behavior when handling taxpayer money and having the power to insert any earmark into a bill that is almost certainly guaranteed to pass the House vote. Oh and that bit about the influence to make that earmark coming from ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

So remember how similar the Wade/Goode relationship was with the Wade/Harris relationship? Here's what CQ has to say about Harris:

According to Harris’ statement, the congresswoman’s association with MZM was aimed solely at boosting the economy of southwest Florida’s 13th District, which she has represented for two terms. “Mr. Wade discussed opening a defense plant in Sarasota that would create numerous high-skilled, high-wage jobs in my district,” Harris said.

But that claim spurred one Florida columnist to accuse Harris of lying. Tom Lyons of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune wrote Wednesday, “Harris repeatedly misled journalists and the public about her conversations with defense contractor Mitchell Wade.” He added,“It seems she is so happy to get campaign money that all red flags remain invisible to her.”

Of course this comment is in no way relevant to Mr. Goode's ambivalence to the ethical nature of his respective set of what-would-later-be-discovered-were illegal campaign contributions.

Now, I understand that Harris is running a Senate bid which already seems to be crashing headfirst into the ground. I just wonder why the Goode article seems so, well, shittacularly researched. Why rely on Larry Sabato as their "well-known political commentator" for evidence that would justify the storyline established not only by the title of the piece, but the entire opening passage (and that last bit that basically smears Al Weed and mocks the amount of money he was able to raise, even though that money didn't come from a future felon who illegally contributed about half of Goode's election chest but hey who's counting?)

Let me remind all of you what Mr. Sabato has said in the past -- from Media Matters:

Referring to widely discredited attacks on Senator John Kerry's military service by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, falsely claimed that "major pieces of this story ... are true." Sabato's remarks came during a discussion on the August 30 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume.

Hume asked Sabato about what sort of media coverage a news story had to attract before it could significantly affect a campaign:

HUME: Does it not -- a story have to eventually break into some of the main news organizations for it to really have an impact?

SABATO: Absolutely, it has to, but it also has to be true. And there are at least major pieces of this story -- like Cambodia, like the first Purple Heart, and like the 1971 testimony to the U.S. Senate by Kerry -- that are true.

In fact, all three of the charges by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Sabato referenced have been discredited.

So he has no stake in this whole thing, right?

pen pals

2006-03-01T17:12:00.000-05:00

Precious. I wonder if Justice Alito took his pal James Dobson's advice and showed that little boy his penis.

Sammy and Jimmy have become quite close:

Dear Dr. Dobson:

This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you
and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and
support during the past few challenging months.

I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my
appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who
wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family
during this period.

As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White
House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the
country were a palpable and powerful force.

As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the
trust that has been placed in me.

I hope that we'll have the opportunity to meet personally at
some point in the future.

In the meantime my entire family and I hope that you and the
Focus on the Family staff know how we appreciate all that you have
done.

Sincerely yours,

Samuel Alito

Heartwarming.

Not only is it unprecedented for a Supreme Court justice to send a thank you note to an interest group, it is highly unethical. Alito has admitted that he owes his job to a man who told his listeners today to "please be in prayer that by the time that probition on abortion reaches the Supreme Court, there will be one more conservative justice sitting there." From now on, plaintiffs and defendants in cases dealing with issues from abortion to gay rights to school prayer should demand that Alito recuse himself. Alito is deeply embedded in the pocket of the Christian right and perhaps more compromised than anyone could have imagined.

At least the baby Jesus is smiling.

holy crap!

2006-03-01T13:25:00.000-05:00

LOOK AT THIS!!!!!!

The University of Virginia announced today that the Dave Matthews Band will headline the grand opening of the new John Paul Jones arena in two concerts.
Larry Wilson, general manager of the University of Virginia’s John Paul Jones Arena, that Dave Matthews Band will play for the grand opening event for the 16,000 seat facility. The band will play on Friday, September 22 and Saturday, September 23, 2006.
The concerts will be the first for the Dave Matthews Band since their appearance at Scott Stadium in April 2001.

So this is my first DMB related entry, a little explanation. Been a fan for like 8 years. Started listening when I was like 16. Pretty freaking influential in my formative late teeniness, but of late their shows have been occasions for overpriced-heavy-drinking and one, er, run-in with the law. First time, I swear. I lost count but I've wasted probably like a thousand dollars over the years in tickets.

AND NOW THIS! FUCKING CAN'T WAIT! That new arena is (going to be) be-yootiful.

+ =

more goode-ness

2006-03-01T10:44:00.000-05:00

From the Virginian-Pilot over in Hampton Roads:

Can a congressmen truly believe that multiple employees of Company X are so enchanted with the lawmaker’s performance that they and their spouses spontaneously line up to contribute the maximum amount allowed by law?

Even if such “donations” aren’t reimbursed, it’s a safe bet that many are coerced. And why? Because said congressman can give Company X something it wants.

In Goode’s case, that was a so-called "earmark" (an appropriation for a congressman’s pet project) worth far more than the illegal donations. With Goode’s help, according to The Richmond Times-Dispatch, Congress agreed to spend $3.6 million to set up a center in Goode’s rural Southside district where MZM would do background checks on potential defense suppliers.

The south-central Virginia district, where employment has shrunk precipitously in recent years, benefited through the addition of dozens of MZM jobs. But should U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab for such endeavors on the recommendation of the local congressman alone? And should said congressman get to pad his re-election war chest as a result?

On both counts, no.
After years of cultivating an image as a populist hayseed, Goode may get by with playing the rube on this one. But in the name of Mitchell Wade, earmarks ought to go. And any congressman who claims, as did Goode, to be “shocked and amazed” that some corporations play fast and loose with campaign contributions may be too unsophisticated to work in Washington.

Mmm-hmm.

gazing into katherine harris' crystal ball

2006-03-01T10:15:00.000-05:00

As we have come to learn, Katherine Harris (R-FL) has been identified as "Representative B" mentioned in Mitch Wade's guilty plea.

We learn further from this article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune that Wade had some fairly clear intentions for the benefits he would glean from his illegal contributions to the Honorable Congresswoman from Florida:

Court documents in Wade's criminal case said Wade and Harris, identified as Representative B, discussed funding "in early 2005" for a Navy counterintelligence project and an MZM facility for Sarasota. The documents say the program "was not funded."

Former aides to Harris said she did request funding from the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, but it was not approved.

The amount requested was not clear Tuesday and was not included in a letter to the subcommittee chairman last April, but is believed to be $10 million.Court documents in Wade's case say he made illegal donations to Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., in 2003 and 2005 as well as a funding request of Goode in 2005. The documents said an aide to Goode told Wade a defense bill would include $9 million.

Prior to this article, I had only been aware of this from his plea agreement:

After making the illegal campaign contributions to the other Representative, Wade had a personal dinner with the Representative, in which the two discussed the possibility of MZM's hosting a fundraiser for the Representative later in the year, and the possibility of obtaining funding and approval for a Navy counterintellige nce program. That program was never funded.

Goode, you'll remember, didn't have to request funding from the Appropriations Subcommittee. He was already a member of the House Appropriations Committee, and as a result had direct access to defense bills (which are almost never voted down by the House -- I wonder what that more recent $9 million was for...) This seems to be the only detail (aside from the dates) that are different between what came to be as a result of Wade and Goode's relationship and the similar relationship Wade had with Harris.

But it's a critically important difference. It was in this way that Goode was able to secure millions of federal money for the construction of a new MZM facility in Martinsville back in 2003. Here's the whole story from USA TODAY:

Records from the Pentagon and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) show Goode was behind the creation of a military data collection project the Pentagon never requested. The Pentagon awarded the project to MZM, which put it in Goode's south-central Virginia district.

In 2003, Goode said he added a classified provision to a defense spending bill to create the Foreign Supplier Assessment Center, which he understood would be located in his district.
[snip]
...The center was one of about 50 budget requests he has made in the past several years, most of which involved work in his district, he says.
"The Pentagon never has asked me for any of these requests," Goode said in written answers to questions from USA TODAY.
[snip]
By the time Goode arranged an initial $3.6 million for the center in 2003, MZM's PAC and its employees had given the congressman nearly $33,000 in campaign contributions, making them at that point by far his biggest financial supporter for the 2004 election.

Goode later urged local and state officials to help MZM open the center in Martinsville, a down-on-its-luck former textile center in his district. Records released under Virginia's open-records law show Goode contacted state economic development officials about the plans on Oct. 1, 2003, the first day of the fiscal year in which the FSAC was to be opened.

Goode says the negotiations were between MZM and Martinsville officials. But the records tell a different story.

The state records say Goode acted as a go-between during negotiations between Wade and MZM on one side and Martinsville and Virginia officials on the other.

The congressman was so involved that officials of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership referred to it in e-mails as "Project Goode."
Wade promised Martinsville up to 150 jobs that paid an average $52,000, jobs that Virginia economic development official Johnny Perez called "like gold," according to records released by the state development partnership under the state's freedom of information law.
But MZM drove a hard bargain.

The company refused any direct government assistance, which would have required it to repay the money if the company didn't meet job-creation targets. MZM insisted on paying only $400,000 for a building that cost the city more than $1 million, records show.

And MZM demanded that it be exempt from property taxes for five years.

Throughout the process, Perez wrote in e-mails to his colleagues, Goode backed Wade and MZM, including when their requests fell "outside normal procedures."

This just keeps getting worse and worse for Virgil.

Get this, about Harris:

An aide to Rep. Katherine Harris quit last year to work for a defense contractor who at the time was pressing the Longboat Key Republican to secure federal funding for a counterintelligence project.
[snip]
The move last April by Mona Tate Yost, Harris' former schedule coordinator, to MZM suggests the contractor was more tightly tied to the congresswoman's office than previously known.
Former aides also said Yost contacted Harris' office soon after leaving on matters that included the status of the funding request that Harris and Wade had discussed. Yost denied she made such contacts in a brief interview on Tuesday, but confirmed she left her job with Harris to work at MZM.
Yost remains an employee of the company that bought MZM last year, Athena Innovative Solutions Inc. She is a contract worker for the Defense Security Service, a Pentagon branch that does counterintelligence and security work for the military. Her title is government and public affairs specialist.
Yost would not comment about how she came to work for Wade, with whom she would have had contact in her four months as Harris' scheduler and assistant, beginning on Dec. 23, 2004. Yost said she started at MZM in May 2005.
Representatives for Athena did not return a telephone message.

I wonder if any of Virgil's staffers later found themselves making a hell of a lot more money at MZM.

if it walks like a duck

2006-02-28T17:10:00.000-05:00

Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post breaks it down:

Last week's guilty plea by Cunningham's co-conspirator, defense contractor Mitchell Wade, illuminates the way easy access to earmarks can corrupt even without bribes -- or, to be a bit more blunt, with the legal bribes known as campaign contributions. The plea agreement describes how Wade wanted his company, MZM Inc., to open a facility in the district of Virginia Republican Virgil Goode (Representative A, in the language of the plea). MZM employees contributed $46,000 to Goode's campaign from 2003 to 2005, making the company his single largest source of campaign cash. Unbeknownst to Goode, but also unsurprisingly, Wade illegally reimbursed his employees and their spouses for their contributions.
And then -- surprise -- Wade asked for federal funding for the facility he wanted to build in the district. As described in the matter-of-fact language of the plea agreement, "In June 2005, Representative A's staff confirmed to Wade that an appropriations bill would include $9 million for the facility and a related program. Wade thanked Representative A and his staff for their assistance." You bet he thanked them: a $9 million contract for a mere $46,000 in contributions -- in comparison with Cunningham's prices, a real bargain.
[snip]
Prosecutors said Harris, like Goode, wasn't aware that the $32,000 she received from MZM employees and spouses was secretly underwritten by Wade -- though he turned up with the checks in hand to deliver them to her personally. Did she and Goode think that all these MZM employees from outside their districts had spontaneously come to the realization that they were the best two members of Congress? When someone who has never given campaign donations suddenly decides -- along with a spouse -- to write out checks for the maximum donation, something fishy is up. When you need the cash, though, there's not much incentive to sniff too hard to discern precisely how odoriferous it is.

It's not about being bribed (yet). It's about looking the other way and handing out YOUR MONEY to corporations who have no problem with flat-out bribery.

It's not about bringing jobs to Martinsville, either. Goode allowed himself to be used by MZM who saw him as an easy target for getting a hell of a lot for their money. And Goode saw no problem using his position on the House Appropriations Committee repaying them for their generosity.

Of course, Goode got that spot because he flipped on the democrats, voted to impeach Clinton, and added to DeLay's numbers.

It has nothing to do with the Fifth District or our interests.

mzm and iraq

2006-02-26T16:44:00.000-05:00

Found this, looks to be from 2004ish but I couldn't pin down a date:

On March 21, 2003, MZM received a $1.2 million contract from the Defense Department to send 21 interpreters to Iraq. MZM would not disclose any specific information about the contract. But, according to a copy of the eight-page contract, which the Center for Public Integrity received under the Freedom of Information Act, MZM will provide linguists to serve as interpreters for U.S. government representatives, ministries and other government offices, and during interrogations and investigations. The company will "provide collections of foreign language voice signals" and transcribe recorded voice communications. The contract also calls for MZM to "produce written and/or taped materials to support civil affairs and/or psychological operations (PSYOPS)." There are two amendments to the contract, but the Defense Department redacted descriptions of the modifications, and also blacked out the final, post-modification estimated price and the ceiling price for MZM's services.
[snip]
[Update]The value of MZM's contract to provide interpreters for work in Iraq was increased to $3,640,896, reflecting updated figures released by the CPA.

Why did the Pentagon turn to MZM so quickly after the start of the War (indeed, the day after the war began?) It's not as if MZM was a leader in the field, or used frequently as a contractor by the Pentagon before this:

Government procurement records show that MZM, which Wade started in 1993, did not report any revenue from prime contract awards until 2003. Most of its revenue has come from the agreement the Pentagon just cut off. But over the past three years it was also awarded several contracts, worth more than $600,000, by the Executive Office of the President. They include a $140,000 deal for office furniture in 2002 and several for unspecified "intelligence services."
A White House spokeswoman declined to comment.
One of the company's contracts was to provide linguists to the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the first U.S.-run administrator put in place after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The contract, which expired last year, was initially expected to be worth about $1.2 million but grew to $5 million overall, an Army spokesman said.

Hmm, $3.6 million -- $5 million? Tomato, tomahto.

That's chump change -- MZM raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in defense contract work. Here's where it gets really interesting, and where we can begin to see just how much influence MZM may have had not only on the Honorable Congressman Virgil Goode from Virginia (whose relationship with MZM we'll delve into more deeply later,) but on the uppermost echelons of the Bush administration and its marketing of the need for War in Iraq.

Enter NGIC, the National Ground Intelligence Center -- Charlottesville's very own Pentagon intelligence agency whose mission is to gather "integrated intelligence on foreign ground forces and support combat technologies to ensure that U.S. forces and other decisionmakers will always have a decisive edge on any battlefield."

Kind of like the information that led us up to the invasion of Iraq. Kind of like the ~~bad intelligence~~ lies that were peddled in BushCo's marketing of their war. Kind of like the bit about aluminum tubes being used for that mushroom cloud Condi warned would be coming if we didn't act:

Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte will review changes made at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) to address criticism by a presidential commission in March that found there was "gross failure" in the center's analysis of Iraqi arms in 2002, said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, Negroponte's deputy.
Two NGIC analysts, who since 2002 have received annual performance awards, judged in September 2002 that the aluminum tubes that Iraq was purchasing were "highly unlikely" to be used for rocket motor cases because of their "material and tolerances," according to the report of the president's commission on intelligence. The NGIC finding, which the commission termed "completely wrong," bolstered a CIA contention that the tubes were meant for nuclear centrifuges and were evidence that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program.

You'll recall that BushCo. inserted this bit into the 2003 State of the Union address. From Mother Jones:

"Our intelligence sources tell us," President Bush told to the nation on January 28, "that he [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." The claim, paired with the alleged uranium buy, painted a damning picture of Baghdad's atomic ambitions.
The truth is far less frightening. Saddam did indeed attempt to purchase some highly-refined aluminum tubes. But they were not, as alleged by the Bush administration, to be used in a uranium-enriching centrifuge; rather they were intended to be used in the production of conventional rockets -- at least according to the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency, the closest thing to an impartial authority in this case.
What's more, this was well known at the time Bush delivered his address. Indeed, two weeks before the State of the Union, the IAEA said that the tubes "were not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment. Months earlier, the Department of Energy had reached the same conclusion -- as had intelligence experts at the State Department.

Read the whole article -- just extraordinary. How does it all tie together? How connected were MZM and NGIS? Walter Pincus at the Washingon Post has this:

Two months after MZM Inc. was given its first order in October 2002 to perform services for the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), the company hired the son of the center's senior civilian official, Executive Director William S. Rich Jr., according to present and former intelligence center employees.
MZM's initial task was to perform a seven-week, $194,000 analysis of "FIRES," a computer program concept to collect blueprints of facilities worldwide to create an intelligence database, according to material provided by the Pentagon.
[snip]
Over the past three years, Rich was joined at MZM by at least 15 former intelligence center colleagues -- analysts and administrative personnel hired, in some cases, to work on the same projects they dealt with as government employees, according to present and former NGIC staffers. "After contract awards, many people were hired away from NGIC at a higher salary, only to return to work on the same programs," according to one contract employee working at the NGIC who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to keep his job.
The Ethics in Government Act's standards differ for executives, managers and workers who leave government employment and take up the same work as a private contractor. But agency leaders once engaged in awarding contracts are barred from then seeking contracts from the same agency.

Right. Now, employment ethical shadiness aside, here's my question: how instrumental was MZM in gathering the faulty data (whether or not it was intentional seems far beyond my amateur journalistic skills) upon which those aluminum tube claims were based? Check this out from Laura Rozen at warandpiece.com:

According to the timeline established in the Pincus article, in September 2002, the NGIC determined that the aluminum tubes Iraq was purchasing were "'highly unlikely' to be used for rocket motor cases," e.g. they were likely to be for a nuclear weapons program -- which was "completely wrong" the Silberman-Robb report found. Then in October 2002, MZM got its first orders from the NGIC, to "perform a seven-week, $194,000 analysis of 'FIRES', a computer program concept to collect blueprints of facilities worldwide to create an intelligence database," Pincus reported. Then in December 2002, according to the Pincus report, MZM hired the NGIC executive director's son, William Scott Rich III. Shortly thereafter, "MZM received multimillion-dollar orders to continue work on FIRES and other programs," Pincus reports.
So is this all about conflict of interest, corruption, bribery, contracting improprieties? Or is there something else going on here? It's not clear. But guess what. The CIA hired a contractor in September 2002 (the month before the NGIC gave MZM its first orders) who also claimed the tubes were for a nuclear centrifuge, eRiposte pointed out to me in the email. Who was that contractor? The Senate Select Intelligence report has redacted it. Here's what eRiposte writes:
...I wanted to bring this to your attention because one of the issues I was planning to discuss in my ongoing series on WMDgate related to the deliberate fabrications and/or misrepresentations by CIA/NGIC on the aluminum tubes issue using a mysterious contractor to “bolster” their claims. The Senate (SSCI) report points out that in September 2002 CIA hired a [REDACTED] contractor who conveniently “confirmed” the fraudulent tubes-as-centrifuges story for the CIA (and NGIC).

Here’s the Senate Report on this mysterious contractor:

---------
( ) Contributing to the CIA's analysis for the extensive September intelligence assessment was an analysis performed by an individual from DELETED who were working under contract with the CIA at the time to provide broad-based technical advice DELETED. The CIA WINPAC analyst, DELETED, requested in September 2002 that they perform an analysis of the tubes. SENTENCE DELETED

( )The contractors told Committee staff that the CIA provided them with a stack of intelligence data and analysis on the Iraqi aluminum tube procurements on September 16, 2002. All of the information was provided by the CIA and the contractors told Committee staff that they did not discuss the data with any agencies other than the CIA. They were provided with NGIC's analysis of the tubes, but said they were not briefed by nor did they ask to speak to NGIC or DOE analysts. One contractor said, "This was internal to the agency." One of the contractors said before joining DELETED he had been given a tutorial on 81-mm rockets by a DOE analyst, but said that the conversation was "pretty meaningless to me because the rest of the issue had not bubbled up at that point." A DOE analyst told Committee staff that he also discussed the issue with the contractor in May of 2001. The contractor produced a paper on September 17, 2002, one day after receiving the information, that said the team concluded, "that the tubes are consistent with design requirements of gas centrifuge rotors, but due to the high-strength material and excessively tight tolerances, the tubes seem inconsistent with design requirements of rocket motor casings." The report referenced NGIC's analysis that the material and quantity of the tubes were inconsistent with rocket motor applications. The report said that while the dimensions "possibly" were suitable for rockets, the tolerances were too stringent and the pressure test requirements were too high.
...
It's obviously unproven. But the implications are truly frightening. Could a contractor accused of bribing US government officials have contributed to the corruption of the intelligence by which the US went to war? I don't know who the contractor was, but it would seem this is a subject worthy of investigative scrutiny. What the Wilkes-Wade-Cunningham larger story reveals is the vulnerability of the US government appropriations and contracting process -- even its most sensitive elements - to unscrupulous people, whose chief interests are not necessarily motivated by concern for the well being of the United States, but, in this case, apparently, self-enrichment. It's really the story of a security breach, and how easily penetrated were two of the most national security-sensitive Congressional committees by those who targeted them and others for just that purpose.

Hmm.

Cunningham sat on the House Intelligence Committee, and also on the House Appropriations Committee. Goode also sits on the House Appropriations Committee, and we can all agree that Committee wields considerable clout (did this have anything to do with the Pentagon's $5 million contract with MZM for that interpreter work in Iraq back in 2003?) The Roanoke Times offers some perspective:

In the case of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Wade used cash, a yacht, expensive antiques, cars and other perks to get the California representative to steer defense contracts his way. Cunningham resigned last year after pleading guilty to accepting bribes.

No one has suggested that Goode took such lavish gifts from Wade.

"Virgil is not ostentatious," said Jim Severt, a political consultant and his former chief of staff. "He doesn't need a mansion or a Cadillac, because his life is politics."

But that doesn't make him immune from temptation, Severt added: "I would think that giving him $90,000 in campaign contributions has as much influence on him as giving him a Rolls Royce or a yacht, because politics is all he has."

According to irregulartimes.com:

MZM gave PAC contributions to Goode on the following dates:
9/9/2002 $1,000
3/20/2003 $5,000
3/25/2003 $3,000
3/27/2003 $1,000

$8,000 in PAC contributions by MZM itself, all within a week of that contract being awarded.

Now, it gets better. Waldo does the dirty work, and hunts down this bit from opensecrets.org. Between March 26 and April 7, 2003, Goode had received $29,851 from employees of MZM, including Mitchell Wade and his wife. To put it into perspective, MZM was Goode's top contributor for the last election cycle (2003-2004), contributing $39,551. The next highest contributor gave $12,750.

$29,851 (over 75% of the total money contributed by MZM employees, the biggest group of contributors directly to Goode in 2003-2004 election cycle), and $8,000 from MZM via PAC contributions were given within three weeks following MZM being given a $3.6 million contract for work done in Iraq. Over $37,000 donated by a single corporation, or agents thereof whose contributions were coerced under threat of termination, within three weeks of this contract. It's also notable that excepting two donations, these were the only contributions to Goode or his PAC made by MZM or its employees from 2003-2004. Curiously, the two outliers occurred on March 31, 2004 -- $500 each from two separate individuals employed by MZM, both listed as "Senior Executive Vice President." (As an aside, a similar explosion in contributions by MZM employees occurred in early March 2005, that time totalling over $46,000.)

Shorter last paragraph: Why did MZM donate so much freaking money to Goode or his PAC within three weeks of what appears to be the awarding of its first major Pentagon contract ever? As if such a huge burst of contributions wasn't enough, it occurred right at the time MZM began a long and remarkably lucrative relationship with the Pentagon? Why were these contributions coerced by Wade? Is it just a timely coincidence or is there more to it?

Here's more from irregulartimes.com that more brightly illuminates the relationship that was developing between Goode and MZM in 2003:

On 11/3/2003, the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission announced that, thanks to the intervention of one Rep. Virgil Goode, it was happy to provide $250,000 to be provided to a certain company called MZM as an incentive for MZM to locate a facility in Martinsville, Virginia. In addition, $250,000 in incentives would be provided from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund.

That’s $500,000 total. But wait, there’s more money for MZM involved. According to a 11/3/03 press release from the Governor’s office, MZM also received incentives via a $127,000 grant from the Martinsville-Henry County Chamber’s Partnership for Economic Growth. This press release also notes that “U.S. Congressman Virgil H. Goode, Jr. was instrumental in securing this project for Virginia.”

That’s $627,000 received by MZM –that we know of– in this sweetheart deal.

The Martinsville Bulletin of October 31, 2003 reported, “Goode said Wednesday that he was involved in bringing MZM to Martinsville. ‘I am pleased that I was able to alert a first-class company to the strong work force and other attractive business features in the Martinsville-Henry County area and to get the company to take a serious look at locating an operation here,’ the congressman said in a statement issued Thursday. Efforts to lure MZM to Martinsville have taken place quickly. After Goode provided the initial lead, Harned said, the Martinsville Economic Development Department ‘worked very aggressively with this (project) for a month.’”
Fifteen days later, on 11/18/2003, MZM sent another PAC contribution to Virgil Goode, for $1,000.

And what was the nature of that $600,000 "Executive Order of the President" that occurred apparently before 2003? Did it have anything to do with the work on intelligence regarding aluminum tubes that would later prove so instrumental in BushCo's marketing of the invasion of Iraq?

No...just no way, right? Just what kind of story are we sitting on here in VA-05?

ruh roh

2006-02-25T14:43:00.000-05:00

OMG this is...well, not shocking at all:

Washington defense contractor Mitchell J. Wade admitted yesterday in federal court that he attempted to illegally influence Defense Department contracting officials and tried to curry favor with two House members, in addition to lavishing more than $1 million in cash, cars, a boat, antiques and other bribes on convicted Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).
The new admissions, including details that identify Reps. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.) and Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) as recipients of illegal campaign contributions, are contained in Wade's agreement to plead guilty to four criminal charges stemming from his role in the Cunningham probe. The congressman resigned after pleading guilty in November to taking $2.4 million in bribes from Wade and others in return for steering federal funds and contracts their way.
[snip]
Wade also pleaded guilty to election law fraud for making nearly $80,000 in illegal campaign contributions to "Representatives A and B," who are identifiable as Goode and Harris. He did so, the filings said, in hopes that they, like Cunningham, would "earmark" federal money for MZM. Wade gave the funds for the donations to 19 of his employees and their spouses, who then wrote $2,000 checks to the members, according to the documents.
Goode and Harris have been identified before as recipients of large donations from Wade and other MZM employees, and prosecutors said yesterday that there was no sign either knew the contributions were illegal. Prosecutors said the investigation is continuing but wouldn't say whether Goode and Harris or the MZM employees who made the illegal donations for Wade are subjects of the investigation.
The congressman identifiable as Goode received $46,000 in such disguised contributions in 2003 and 2005, the court papers said. That was part of about $90,000 Wade and his workers contributed to Goode. Wade then asked the member to request appropriations for an MZM facility in his district, the Wade papers said, and a Goode staff member confirmed to Wade that the bill would include $9 million in funding.
Goode's office said it would issue a statement, but The Post had not received one by late yesterday.

Waldo provides some much needed context for just how much money Goode received from MZM:

Things aren’t looking much better for Rep. Virgil Goode, our local man in the scandal. It’s been alleged by top executives at MZM that employees were forced — under penalty of being fired — to donate to Goode, with Goode’s knowledge of this coercion [1, 2], with the resulting torrent of money (over $100,000 to Goode) being enough to cause MZM president Mitchell Wade to brag that he “owns” Virgil Goode . Now, that’s a pretty serious allegation, but it should be pretty easy to disprove, if it’s false.
For example, if the contributions from MZM employees were spread out over the course of months or years, that would certainly point away from an order coming down for everybody to simultaneously contribute. Or if MZM employees had a history of supporting Rep. Goode, that would also indicate that their interests just happened to align. Or MZM employees had given money to a good number of candidates, it would indicate a general political atmosphere out of which support for a candidate friendly to MZM would be likely. All of these factors would point to candidates giving of their own free will, and the charges that Goode knowingly accepted forced contributions could be ignored.
[snip]
To recap: 35 MZM employees had never given any money to a federal candidate before. 37 MZM employees simultaneously contributed to Rep. Virgil Goode on two occasions, in March of 2003 and March of 2005. None of these MZM employees have given any money to any other candidate in the past two years, other than a few who gave money to MZM’s other darling, Katherine Harris. 10 of them also gave to MZM’s PAC.

And more here:

My Lord! MZM has been very generous to Rep. Goode. Why, even Rep. Cunningham only received $13,000 from MZM, a fraction of what Rep. Goode received. Why, MZM only gave out $143k in all of 2004, meaning that Rep. Goode received a stunning 33.8% of all of the donations given by the company’s employees in all of 2003-04! Clearly, Rep. Goode is MZM’s top man in Congress.
Did I mention that Virgil Goode is on the House Appropriations Committee?

What difference does that make, you ask? Only this, from USAToday:

A USA TODAY analysis of MZM-related campaign contributions shows how the company's growth and its political activities became intertwined at key moments. In more than 30 instances, donations from MZM's political action committee or company employees went to two members of the House Appropriations Committee — Cunningham and Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. — in the days surrounding key votes or contract awards that helped MZM grow.
For example, MZM's political action committee gave Cunningham $5,000 in 2003 the day before his appointment to a congressional panel negotiating the final version of the defense budget. Ten days later, the day after the House passed the final Pentagon spending bill, Wade gave Cunningham $2,000.
Both lawmakers sit on the subcommittee overseeing the Pentagon's spending and have acknowledged putting language in bills that created or expanded contracts that went to MZM.
Larry Noble, an independent ethics expert with the Center for Responsive Politics, says the timing of the contributions creates the appearance that the company's political giving helped it get taxpayer-funded business from the Pentagon.
It is not illegal for defense industry political action committees or defense industry workers to make campaign donations, unless they are given with the intent of influencing Pentagon contract awards.
Political donations from military contractors are quite common, but timing those donations around contract decisions is not, said Noble, a former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission.

So far Goode hasn't had very much to say about the whole affair at all. All I can find in my digging seems to be the standard pearl-clutching republicans love to breathlessly offer when they, you know, get caught being bribed:

"I was shocked and amazed to learn the details of the plea agreement concerning former MZM CEO Mitch Wade," Goode said in a statement. "I had no knowledge that any of the contributions by MZM persons to our campaign were illegal."

Oh heavens, color me exasperated. I just had no idea!

MZM (i.e. Wade), you'll remember, provided the Dukestir with his lavish house-yacht everyone knew about.

So naturally, Goode would never have questioned all that money coming his way.

This is going to be so good.

deeds responds

2006-02-25T09:09:00.000-05:00

Wow I've only been blogging for a month now and I've already managed to rile up my DINO coward of a state senator. Sweet.

From RaisingKaine Q&A with Criegh Deeds ("D"):

[My question:]Sen. Deeds, why did you speak out against republican attempts to smear the gay community with a bill that contained broad language banning any type of contractual agreement intended to resemble a marriage, then vote for that very bill after it was cleaned up (to prevent over-generalization that would nullify other types of contractual agreements) which contained exactly that language?
In other words, why did you pander to the gay community by highlighting the bigotry of the Republican Party, then vote with them for the referendum?
[Deeds' response:]
In 2004, the battle was waged over two issues. First, the General Assembly considered a resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to pass a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining a marriage as between a man and a woman. Because marriage is uniquely a matter of state law, I opposed that resolution. The second issue related to HB 751, which was broadly drafted and, in my view, could have some unintended consequences. I did, in fact, speak out against that bill. I thought it was mean-spirited and unnecessary. The bill passed, and the law has not been set aside by the courts.
The last couple of years have seen an effort to amend Virginia’s Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I voted for that amendment this year, as I did last year. Narrowly read, the amendment would put in Virginia’s Constitution that which is already the law. Because I was concerned about the wording of the amendment, I voted this year and last year to strip out the last two sentences of the amendment. I was not successful in those efforts. In addition, I have consistently voted to broaden the ballot question so that people know exactly what they are voting on when the amendment comes up for a vote this fall.
Ultimately, this is a question that will have to be decided by the voters. Statements made at one time or another and votes cast must be viewed in the context in which the statements are made and the votes are cast. My views have been consistent on gay marriage.

Shorter Deeds: Heh, see it's not that I voted against gay marriage. I just voted against it.

First, I'll address the 2004 resolution calling for a US Constitutional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. I agree with him, and I never even brought this issue up -- there is no place in the US Constitution because marriage is wholly overseen by the states. Allowing the federal government to insert itself into this debate is unconstitutional (why we would need an Amendment in the first place.) Even Republicans agree. Take this rare moment of clarity from BushCo Cultist Orrin Hatch of Utah (of all places) in the Boston Globe:

"It's a very troubling matter to me. I don't believe in discrimination in any form, and I certainly don't believe in discrimination against gays," said Senator Orrin Hatch, [former] chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Utah Republican said he would prefer to leave the issue to the states -- even if that meant leaving states the option of allowing gay marriages -- as long as opposing states were not required to acknowledge those unions. But Hatch said he was not certain that idea would pass constitutional muster.

Right on -- a Constitutional amendment would have to include a provision allowing dissenting states to opt out because THE ISSUE COMES DOWN TO DISCRIMINATION. Marriage is a states' rights issue, great -- settled.

Now, on to HB751 passed in 2004. Here's the exact language:

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

Well, while it's true that Deeds may have spoken out against this "mean-spirited" bill, it's also true THAT HE VOTED FOR IT. On March 10, 2004 the following votes were cast:

YEAS--Bell, Blevins, Bolling, Chichester, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Deeds, Devolites, Hanger, Hawkins, Houck, Mims, Newman, Norment, Obenshain, O'Brien, Potts, Puckett, Quayle, Rerras, Reynolds, Ruff, Stolle, Stosch, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins, Williams--28.
NAYS--Edwards, Howell, Lambert, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, Puller, Saslaw, Ticer, Whipple--10.
RULE 36--0.
NOT VOTING--Martin, Miller--2.

Right. So now on to the more recent "effort to amend Virginia’s Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman." Here is the text of the proposed amendment contained within the referendum bill (HB101) as presented to the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee, upon which Deeds sits:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

Now, Deeds deserves some credit here. He fought, albeit unsuccessfully, on the committee to have this text altered to remove the last two sentences because they were unnecessary (though it seems that the entire thing is unnecessary given the already codified § 20-45.3.) But let's just admire his willingness to stand up to those meanie republicans.
Here's the language of the bill that would be codified into Virginia's Constitution if approved in a referendum this November:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

Right so it's the exact same thing the House presented to Deeds' Senate committee. His efforts to re-word the amendment didn't work. But his objection to the wording has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of marriage equality -- he objected to it because it was sloppily crafted and would, like in other states, potentitally nullify existing contractual agreements between individuals not interested in obtaining a marriage but acquiring certain rights granted by a marriage. Nothing to do with equal protection or the bigotry this amendment represents.

So then of course the Senate had to vote on this resolution to allow a referendum. Let's see how that played out:

YEAS--Bell, Blevins, Chichester, Colgan, Cuccinelli, Deeds, Devolites Davis, Edwards, Hanger, Hawkins, Herring, Houck, Howell, Lambert, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, Martin, McDougle, Miller, Newman, Norment, Obenshain, O'Brien, Potts, Puckett, Puller, Quayle, Rerras, Reynolds, Ruff, Saslaw, Stolle, Stosch, Ticer, Wagner, Wampler, Watkins, Whipple, Williams--40.
NAYS--0.
RULE 36--0.
NOT VOTING--0.

How nice. Let's let the people decide. Here's what you'll be voting on this November:

"Question: Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state, in part, that 'only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions' and to add provisions relating to the legal status of other relationships?"
"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships or unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage."?

The bits with the strikethrough are what Deeds talked about in his response to my query -- that language is too broad and I applaud his efforts to change the language of the Question to more clearly inform the voter of the amendment's intention.

But HE AGAIN VOTED FOR IT. Now, I understand that if this is to be a states' rights issue, the only way to address it in this way is to put it to a referendum. That's how states work, and that's why it was so important to keep it off the US Constitution -- because the people would have no say. If he really wanted to be the "consistent [voter] on gay marriage" he wouldn't be trying to mislead us by pulling stunts like this and then appearing at gay rallies like Equality VA's held in Richmond on Valentine's Day. Deeds was there. From the Daily Progress, a day after the rally:

Deeds said gay Virginians have many reasons to lobby and are being treated as political footballs.
"I thought folks had gotten everything they could out of the choice question, so they started whacking on sexual orientation, sexual preference," Deeds said of the conservative forces pushing anti-gay legislative agendas, including bills aimed at banning gay-straight alliance groups in high schools.
"We ought to be about a nurturing environment for all our kids in public schools," Deeds said. "Gay people aren't in four or five closets around Virginia. They are everywhere. They ought to visit their legislators."

And you ought to stand up for a group you claim to defend. You ought to do whatever it takes to stop "mean-spirited and unnecessary" amendments to slime their way onto Virginia's Constitution. You ought to support equal protection and defend all your electorate by actions, not just these tired empty cliches.

Sen. Deeds you are no defender of equal protection. Along with the rest of the democrats in the Senate you are instrumental in allowing discrimination and bigotry to become law in Virginia once again.

liars

2006-02-25T08:34:00.000-05:00

This, from CNN:

The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.
The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.
The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

What Bush also said last month:

A year ago, Bush said, "only a handful" of Iraqis were trained and equipped to fight the insurgent forces. "Today, 125 combat battalions are fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead," he said. "That's progress."

Those of us who actually give a damn knew that he was lying -- he left out the bit about how many were independent. Just really disgusting, and now it's even worse than we thought. Not something I wanted to wake up to this morning, especially feeling newly ill (the life of a teacher of kids with disabilities during the winter is one of near constant illness, grrr.)

WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING. And all you republicans out there who happily eat this shit up without any modicum of critical analysis -- this is all your fault. So I hope you're comfortable with the knowledge that your vote for these lying murderers has directly lead to the installation of incompetent cronies charged with the rebuilding of a country flattened by our own WMD (depleted uranium, white phosphorus, shall I continue?)

Republicans just can't be trusted to do the job. They're too worried about engendering mass chaos, then lying to the voters so that they can continue their murderous ways. It's what makes the baby Jesus happy.

thanks to SusanG at Kos for CNN links

disgusting

2006-02-24T17:00:00.000-05:00

We've always known Fox plays a huge part in manufacturing the lies necessary to maintain the Cult of Bush, I've just never witnessed a moment that crystallizes the necessary relation to the Cult of Death their allegience represents as clearly as this picture.

Of course it's a good thing, if you're a member of BushCo (not the Iraqis we "spread freedom" upon):

The Iraqi government announced another daytime curfew for Saturday in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces of Salaheddin, Babil and Diyala. And the U.S. military said it would carry out additional security patrols for another 48 hours.
Late Friday, two rockets were fired in a village southeast of Baghdad that includes a tomb revered by Shiites. There was no damage to the tomb, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. Two more rockets exploded in the British Embassy compound in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, causing minor injuries to two British workers, the U.S. military reported.
Police found at least 27 bodies Friday in Baghdad and other cities and towns. Many were believed to have been victims of sectarian violence, including five Shiite men killed by gunmen who burst into their home in Latifiyah south of Baghdad.
In Samarra, a roadside bomb killed two policemen, and a husband and wife in a passing vehicle were injured when police opened fire after the attack, police said. An explosion set fire to an oil pipeline south of the city.
In Washington, Bush warned Americans to expect more bloodshed and more political wrangling in Iraq.
"We can expect the coming days will be intense," the president said in a speech to a veterans' group. "But I'm optimistic because the Iraqi people have spoken and make their intentions clear."
"They want their freedom. They want their country to be a democracy," Bush said.

No you lying piece of shit, they want their country to be separated like it was before the British arbitrarily carved it out of the sand in order to maximize oil exploration/production. We've seen (and will continue to see) that they'll go to any length to build nations with the singular sectarian identities that Saddam Hussein never allowed. He knew that giving too much power to religious leaders would marginalize his ability to effectively run a totalitarian regime. So he made himself more important than religion.

Well we can even see in this country when government tries to do that. Just look at South Dakota.

And now? BushCo couldn't be more pleased with the previous state of affairs: allow chaos to reign and let the wholesale plundering begin. Under the CPA, Iraq's resources were sold to the highest bidder in an orgy of neo-liberal corporate giveaways. They thought they could reign it in by sticking to their "they-hate-us-for-our-freedoms" "spreadin' democracy" mantras, but what they didn't realize was because of the disgusting greed and general crookery that was the "rebuilding" of Iraq they managed to forget about the people. One combat-ready battallion. Thousands of defections from the police force. Widespread suffering with no reliable access to water or electricity. The market always balances itself out, right?

This time the joke's on them, and god help us but the joke will be in the form of horrific brutality and the deaths of thousands of innocent people caught up in the whole Mess.

But the oil's safely in their hands, BushCo will be leaving office shortly to return to the upper echelons of the private sector. Cheney's seat at the helm of Halliburton is still warm. And Iraq will be left awash with the blood of her children. Mission accomplished.

south dakota made abortion illegal today

2006-02-23T19:58:00.000-05:00

South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.
The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

Look, I'm a man. From any reasonable bystander's viewpoint, I have no stake in this. I'm not a Christian either, but I'll tell you right now that I value life way more than these sick fucks of the American Taliban who want nothing more than to codify their ideology and let the religious police loose to round up the heathens.

I'm not going to rehash any constitutional argument. Redd at FDL broke it down better than anyone else I've read today. The only two cents I want to throw in here, at least from a tangential legal perspective, is that these pigs made it known loud and clear that they don't give one good god damn about our Constitution and the Settled Law of the Land (at least as our Chief Justice opined during his confirmation.) But we knew that already. The American Taliban hates the freedom our Constitution (viz. the Supreme Court) grants all of us, and this is just the latest and most disgusting blow.

You can read any number of great blogs about this latest assault on the Constitution from the religious right.

Let's turn our attention to Harris Miller, our "Old Testament kind of guy" "democratic" candidate for Senator from Virginia. He said:

"I would have voted no on Sam Alito, because he doesn’t support the Madisonian idea that Congress is a coequal branch."

The question is: would he have voted for cloture on Alito's confirmation or would you have allowed an "uppirdown" vote? Would he have really stood up for his Madisonian idolatry and filibustered Alito?

I'm going to go with what he said here, and that's that he "would have voted no on Sam Alito," not, remarkably, that he "would have done everything possible to stop Sam Alito's confirmation."

Undoubtedly the only reason the Christo-fascists in South Dakota brought this issue up is because they knew that if their law was challenged, the current makeup of the SCOTUS would view the law favorably. That is, because Alito's seat on the Court ensures Roe's overturn when it finally is challenged, the Constitution-hating totalitarian fuckwads who want to insert themselves into your PRIVATE LIFE AND BODY saw their Golden Opportunity.

It's what Jesus wants.

The real question is: Is this also what Harris Miller wants?

If he would have voted for cloture to end debate on Alito's confirmation, then the answer clearly is yes. I'm really curious to know if this "Old Testament kind of guy" is Old Testament-y enough to hang with the cool kids like Little Ricky "I take dead babies home to show my kids" Santorum and James "a father should show his penis to his son and make him talk about it" Dobson.

port security: cronyism at its most horrific

2006-02-21T17:24:00.000-05:00

Today Bush inexplicably said:

"After careful review by our government, I believe the [Dubai Ports World] transaction ought to go forward,"

And threatened Congressional obstruction with a veto -- the first exercise of his veto power of his entire presidency.

Kitty-killer Frist said:

"If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review,"

What could possibly be behind this spat between the good (read: evil sociopathic) doctor from Tennessee and Dear Leader?

Oh, it's so juicy.

It turns out that DPW has been involved in some interesting business activity in the past four years.

Let's start with a press release from DPW itself, from back in December 2004:

Dubai Ports International (“DPI”), one of the world’s leading port operators, announces that it has signed a definitive agreement with CSX Corporation (NYSE: CSX) to acquire the international terminal business conducted by CSX World Terminals (“the Company”) and other related interests for a cash consideration of US$1.15 billion, subject to customary adjustments.
[snip]
Michael Ward, Chairman, CSX Corporation:
”On behalf of CSX, I am delighted to join the announcement of the agreement to sell CSX World Terminals to Dubai Ports International. We have been highly impressed with the quality of DPI’s management and believe it will do an excellent job with this important portfolio of assets and terrific team. We look forward to working with DPI through what we expect will be a brief transition to closing.”

DPI became DPW after a reorganization last September.

Ok, so what right? Check this out, from uber-investment-firm The Carlyle Group from February 2003:

CSX Corporation (NYSE: CSX) and The Carlyle Group, a global private equity firm, announced today that they have completed the conveyance of CSX Lines, LLC, from CSX to a venture formed with The Carlyle Group. CSX received $300 million, consisting of $240 million in cash and $60 million of securities issued by the venture.
As part of the transaction announced December 17, 2002, former CSX Lines President and CEO Charles G. (Chuck) Raymond and his management team will lead the Charlotte, N.C.-based ocean carrier, now named Horizon Lines, LLC. Raymond will also chair the board of directors of the company.
Michael J. Ward, CSX chairman and chief executive officer, said, "This is an excellent transaction for CSX, its employees and shareholders. The completion of this conveyance allows us to further concentrate the company’s efforts on our core-rail business while strengthening the balance sheet. At the same time, we are pleased to have a continuing interest in this well-managed company and expect it will continue to produce solid financial results."
Carlyle Managing Director Greg Ledford said, "CSX Lines, which will be renamed Horizon Lines, is an excellent addition to Carlyle’s transportation portfolio. We look forward to working with Chuck Raymond and his team to grow the company and provide superior service to our customers."

Okay let's keep going. There's this from the Guardian back in 2001:

The offices of the Carlyle Group are on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, midway between the White House and the Capitol building, and within a stone's throw of the headquarters of the FBI and numerous government departments. The address reflects Carlyle's position at the very centre of the Washington establishment, but amid the frenetic politicking that has occupied the higher reaches of that world in recent weeks, few have paid it much attention. Elsewhere, few have even heard of it.
This is exactly the way Carlyle likes it. For 14 years now, with almost no publicity, the company has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians - including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defence firms.
[snip]
But what sets Carlyle apart is the way it has exploited its political contacts. When Carlucci arrived there in 1989, he brought with him a phalanx of former subordinates from the CIA and the Pentagon, and an awareness of the scale of business a company like Carlyle could do in the corridors and steak-houses of Washington. In a decade and a half, the firm has been able to realise a 34% rate of return on its investments, and now claims to be the largest private equity firm in the world. Success brought more investors, including the international financier George Soros and, in 1995, the wealthy Saudi Binladin family, who insist they long ago severed all links with their notorious relative. The first president Bush is understood to have visited the Binladins in Saudi Arabia twice on the firm's behalf.

That's like just the surface of the bigwigs behind this firm.

Get this, it turns out that our current Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, used to be CEO of CSX, but right before it was sold to Carlyle.

Enter Dave Sanborn. RawStory has more from a press release from none other than DPW:

Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.
The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.
Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company.

Down the rabbit hole we go. Let's step back with this New York Times article from March 5, 2001:

"Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration as they can possibly be," said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit public interest group based in Washington. "George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper."

Indeed.

resurrecting Americanism

2006-02-21T09:29:00.000-05:00

Glenn said today:

I have argued many times that a recognition of the dangers of the Bush Administration’s theories of lawlessness and its law-breaking behavior -- both as part of the NSA scandal and beyond -- is not based upon liberal or conservative political beliefs but, instead, is compelled by the most fundamental and defining American principles of government. That is not some "framing" ploy or effort to "triangulate" a partisan political controversy by elevating it above petty partisan disputes. Rather, objections to the Administration's theories of power are grounded in non-ideological premises because what is so offensive about the Administration’s conduct and theories of power is not that they are liberal or conservative -- they are manifestly neither. Instead, both the Administration's law-breaking and its justifications for that law-breaking constitute a profound assault on the core principles of government on which our country was founded and which has governed the country since its inception.

Of course his deconstruction is completely accurate. The reason why BushCo's illegal warrantless surveillances elicit reactions from those-who-care-to-educate-themselves-about-it across the "political spectrum" that are so viscerally distasteful is because we have been imbued with a uniquely American belief system. Our education, our set of symbols/idols, our culture, our language, our history -- everything -- contributes to a shared Americanism, that twinkle in our hearts when we think of our proud shared heritage. The reason none of us could consider defecting to another nation.

In college, I took a class with the brilliant Richard Handler on nationalism (and the places race and multiculturalism have within it.) Anthropologists love to argue about the relativity of it all -- it is their fascination, and this is not to say that their work is not important; indeed, to analyze this issue anthropologically is to deconstruct what it means to possess these deeply held notions of nationality. It is illuminating, and necessary. Humans inherently long towards belongingness, which in my opinion engenders the variety of nationality across geographic areas humans inhabit.

It is because of this longing that philosophers have constructed and nurtured theories of politics and government. In other words it is within this drive-towards-nationhood that verifiable progress (which is not to say that this progress is necessarily dialectic at all) has been made in theories of government and representation within realized political institutions. Democracy, it seems thus far, facilitates the maximization of individual rights -- Locke's pursuit of life, liberty, and property.

Liberals understand this; indeed, we embrace this drive towards maximization-of-individual-rights (which is not to say that democrats are necessarily similarly inclined.) This Liberalism is the stream from which all of the works of great philosophy upon which this republic rests are nurtured. The Founders and the philosophers they analyzed, with all of their writings and arguments, articulated Liberalism in a way that had not been done before in all of human history. They encapsulated Liberalism into a single document -- our Constitution -- and gave birth to a new type of nation.

It is in this way that our nation, and all of our resulting feelings-of-nationality, must necessarily be analyzed in a new way. Professor Handler might disagree, arguing that while other nations (those of Europe, notably) derive their nationality from shared language/race/blood, we inherit nationality in similar ways through shared culture/language/history.

While Professor Handler would be correct that there are many avenues to explore when analyzing where nationality comes from, one cannot deny that partly our nationality stems from this institutionalized Liberalism (indeed, a kind of institutionalization that had, at least up until the writing of our Constitution, had never been conceived in this World.)

I drew the distinction earlier between Liberals and democrats because the two bodies are not mutually exclusive. Because of the revelation of BushCo's illegal warantless surveillance program, the shroud has been lifted and the line has been drawn in the sand.

This is why you see republicans like Snowe and Hagel (and to some extent Graham and Specter, though I have my doubts) attempting to obstruct BushCo's assaults on our Constitution. Liberalism, the philosophy that underlies our nationhood more fundamentally than in any other society in this World presently, is not confinable into divisions between political parties. It is Americanism.

And it is in this way that we can begin to understand the true horrors the modern republican party (specifically, neoconservatives and their ilk) have unleashed on this foundation of our nationality. Glenn didn't explore this, but I think it deserves, indeed requires, some analysis within this framework. By lying, manipulating, smearing, and general crookedness they have successfully clouded the issue so much that many Americans today no longer understand that by virtue of being American they have signed on to an institutionalized adherence to Liberalism as the Founders articulated. They are republican ("patriotic") or democratic ("not patriotic.")

They have memetized the philosophy from which we draw personal identity. Republicans are "patriotic defenders of the Nation"; Democrats are "weak on national security" and "confused" or "leaderless." Republicans are "united"; Democrats "lack vision." They have convinced the polity in the last 40 years that Democrats are socialists or communists, pinko atheists. And of course these smears are cognitively incompatible with Liberalism. One cannot be a socialist and adhere to the philosophy of our Founders at the same time.

Who is responsible for this? Any individual who has spread this meme in any way. Of course these labels are meaningless and unfounded. They are spread by the lie-mongers, the right-wing noise machine that has successfully taken over media (talk radio, corporate news, certain newspapers) and culture (think action movies.) How? That's an entirely different diatribe, but one word is enough to understand adequately: money.

Republicans are dangerous to our Constitution, and we can finally understand why. With the revelation of BushCo's illegal warantless surveillance program, those in the republican party who choose to side with the neoconservatives show that they are willing to allow a unitary executive to act in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with our Founders' conceptions of Liberty.

It has, now, become a struggle for the Liberalism upon which our nationality is formed. There are Liberals, those who understand that the core philosophy that is Americanism is under assault, and there are anti-Constitutionalists, those who believe an executive has the power to sideline the maximization of personal liberty our Founders worked so hard to ensure through our Constitution. The distinction between republicans and democrats, by virtue of this struggle, is obsolete.

miller on voter-verified paper receipts

2006-02-20T11:03:00.000-05:00

Reader steve smith posted in the comments:

I think Harris Miller and ITAA changed their position on this quite awhile ago:

Then provided a link that I couldn't get to work. After about 15 minutes of Googling, I came across this Q&A with Miller from ComputerWorld.com last month:

As the president of the ITAA, which includes electronic voting systems vendors among its members, you said in the past that you opposed verifiable paper trails for such systems. For many people in the country, this is a very important issue because of accuracy issues in several recent elections. What is your stand on this issue as a candidate?
I did oppose verifiable paper trails until about a year and a half ago. I was hearing from local registrars, including in Virginia, that they didn’t want the additional burden for administration and maintenance that the paper trails would produce with printers and other equipment. But voters want it. It has more voter confidence. My argument at the time was that if [a hacker] is smart enough to take over a [voting] machine and register someone’s vote internally for the wrong candidate, that they’re also smart enough to make it look like the paper trail properly says who you voted for. People could get a false sense of security.

Thanks to steve smith for pointing this out. Like I said, I don't know much about Miller, yet, and in the weeks until the primary in June I hope to explore what he's about here on this blog.

For what it's worth, I still have a problem with his coziness with the "election industry" even with this quotation in mind. The problems with e-voting are legion, ranging not only from its susceptibility to hacking on a number of fronts but also from the clearly partisan efforts executed by various state officials in order to get specific corporations' voting machines installed (i.e. Diebold.) The "election industry" has transformed what should be a pure governmental process into a neo-liberal free-for-all. As it happens, the players in this market have their best interests in mind (occupying a dominating space in the market) when they hire lobbyists like ITAA and Miller, which are later codified largely by republican lawmakers. And here one must remember that the leaders of corporations in the "election industry" are themselves partisan, as in the case of former Diebold CEO Wally O'Dell.

Our votes should be converted into representation through as few obstacles as possible. Attempts by ITAA, and Miller, to insert clearly partisan filters into this process dilute the purity of representation our votes symbolize.

The problem is not necessarily just that of the ineffectiveness or "false sense of security" of voter-verified paper receipts after registering a vote on an e-voting machine. The problem is that Miller seems, by his comment above, to accept that some margin of error, or some other general hackery, is possible at all.

As cozy as he was with members of the "election industry" why wasn't Miller vociferous in calling for tighter controls in e-voting machinery and software? Why were corporations like Diebold, whose machines have now been proven to be so unreliable and susceptible to all kinds of mischief, allowed to occupy such a large place in the e-voting market? Why did he lobby state and federal governments on behalf of corporations whose products would later prove to be so, you know, shitty?

more on diebold/miller rottenness

2006-02-20T07:54:00.000-05:00

Brad is my hero:

Kevin Zeese is an independent candidate running for the U.S. Senate in Maryland. His following "Open Letter to the Maryland Media" comes on the heels of Thursday's news of Republican MD Governor Robert Ehrlich's letter announcing, amongst other things, that he "no longer [has] confidence in the State Board of Elections’ ability to conduct fair and accurate elections in 2006." In the letter, Ehrlich expressly singles out Democratic Election Administrator Linda Lamone, charging that she and the SBE have been "working primarily on behalf of partisan legislators and their interests" and questions her claims that Diebold's paperless touch-screen voting machines -- deployed across the state in 2002 as part of Diebold's "showcase" roll-out of their new system -- could not be replaced by voting devices with voter-verified paper trails in time for the 2006 election. Ehrlich called for paper ballots in his letter.

It was also revealed on Thursday, that Lamone had allowed uncertified Diebold voting machines to be used in elections in Maryland in both 2002 and 2004. Diebold's election equipment has since been show to be hackable, prone to massive failure, and has lost votes in recent elections according to a recently released non-partisan GAO Report, a recent "hack test" in Leon County, FL, and scores of other confirmed reports, studies and analysis from around the country. Lamone is also the curent President of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED).

Amazing, especially when you realize Ehrlich himself was elected on these machines in 2002. It was the first time Maryland elected a republican governor in 40 years.

From Mr. Zeese's letter:

Maryland is sitting on a major voting scandal -- a scandal with national implications. TrueVoteMD.org has documents demonstrating a three year history of a consistent partnership between the SBE and Diebold to tell the media and public that all is well when in fact there are consistent serious problems with the Diebold election system. In looking through the non-confidential documents that Linda Schade has received in her litigation it is obvious there have been three years of SBE covering for Diebold. The truth, as far as we know it, is:

Diebold provided uncertified election equipment and the SBE discovered it in December 2003. The equipment was not completely certified until the summer of 2004. (There was a March presidential primary during that time and it may also have been uncertified for the 2002 elections as well.) Using uncertified election systems is illegal under Maryland law. Lamone said nothing to anyone and in fact sung the praises of Diebold. Ms. Schade has in her possession a year's worth of correspondence between Lamone and Diebold discussing this situation, from 12/03 to 12/04.
Uncertified software was used in the March 2004 primary -- described in the RAW Story article and in my article yesterday (links above). We provide links to the evidence. Again, nothing said by Lamone.
People have complained about Senate, State Delegate and school board candidates not being on the ballot to the SBE and to TrueVoteMD -- which we provided to SBE. Yet Lamone said it didn't happen.
Machines have frozen, crashed in mid-vote during elections. Again, Lamone says this does not happen.
Machines have lost votes with blank memory cards and corrupted audit logs -- again Lamone denied anything went wrong.
The machines are insecure -- shown by three studies -- again Lamone denies there are security problems.

Ummm, yeah remember that guy who wants to be the next Senator from the Great Commonwealth of Virginia? He's all up in that shit:

In addition, ITAA has its own political action committee -- the Information Technology Association of America's "NET" PAC. The address, phone number, main contact (Harris Miller), and registered lobbyists for ITAA's "NET" PAC are identical to those of ITAA itself. The ITAA "NET" PAC focuses on computer industry and telecommunications legislative issues, according to Lobbyists.info. ITAA's "NET" PAC spending on political campaigns (a mere $10,000 or less over the 2004, 2002 and 2000 election cycles) does not reflect its political influence, though a vast majority of those funds (87% or higher) went to Republican candidates in 2002 and 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. "Absent campaign [finance] reform, the information technology industry needs to give money to maintain its accessibility, serve as educators, sell its case. No question the industry must take part in the political process," explained Marc Pearl, ITAA Senior Vice-President of Government Relations.

Oh god it gets worse (same source):

The more than 350 member companies listed on ITAA's website include such major computer manufacturers, defense contractors, electronic voting machine manufacturers, internet-based companies and other major corporations as: Accenture Ltd., Amazon.com, AOL Time Warner, AT&T, Boeing Company, ChoicePoint, Dell Inc, Diebold Election Systems, Earthlink Network Inc, eBay Inc, Gateway Inc, Hewlett-Packard Company, IBM (Corporation and Global Services), Intel Corporation, Lockheed Martin (Federal Systems and NE & SS Surface Systems), MCI, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft Corporation, Northrop Grumman IT, Oracle Corporation, PepsiCo, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Raytheon Company, Science Applications International Corporation, Sequoia Voting Systems Inc, TiVo Inc, Verizon, VoteHere Inc and Xerox Corporation.

Cool you guys! We get to vote for a guy who is in bed with every major "election industry" corp, and who at the same time whored it up for major corps that happily supply or make up the military-industrial complex. Miller Miller Miller!

More goodness (same source):

ITAA has also tried to help its electronic voting machine manufacturer members combat an onslaught of negative publicity from technical problems, faulty security measures, concerns raised by computer scientists and security experts, and perceived conflicts of interest of company executives (especially Diebold Election Systems). It drafted a proposed PR plan for e-voting companies to "generate positive public perception.", Draft of PR plan (PDF)
ITAA has opposed one of the more modest demands of e-voting critics -- a paper receipt verifying each vote. ITAA president Harris Miller was quoted in the May 2004 issue of Congressional Quarterly's Governing Magazine: "I think that the paper verification system is kind of giving people a false sense of security... I can give you a receipt, but if I started out the day by stuffing the ballot box with 50 ballots for Bush, I haven't actually done anything to make the system secure." In the same article, the Election Technology Council is identified as a new trade group within ITAA for voting machine manufacturers. This stands in contradiction to Harris' earlier remarks at the December 2003 press conference announcing the launch of the Election Technology Council, the e-voting machine manufacturers' trade group: "The customer is always right. If the state and local election officials want paper ballots, the industry will provide those," he remarked.

Just, yeah. What have we learned today?

Diebold has a nasty habit of courting loony partisan state officials so that they can flood the market with their insecure, hacktacular pieces-of-shit machines.
Maryland is facing a huge scandal, as it was the "showcase" state for Diebold's alleged awesomeness, ease of use, and general future-y image.
ITAA, for which Harris Miller (the guy who wants to be the freshman Senator from Virginia) is tighter with Diebold (and, incidentally every other major election corp and assorted military-industrial conglomerates like Lockheed, Xerox, and MCI among others) than Dick Cheney's arteries.
Miller whored it up for years, spewing falsehoods and bad logic to defend his corporate ass-handlers. Honestly, paper ballot box stuffing? What is this, Iraq? (As if e-voting systems aren't immensely easier to hack, and do so without leaving a trail.)

Curiouser and curiouser.

special thanks to sourcewatch.org for doing all that dirty work

oh, girl

2006-02-19T23:04:00.000-05:00

before:

after:

shrieeeek! Arianna has more beyond obligatory gay backhand. My god.

my debut

2006-02-19T15:19:00.000-05:00

Earlier today, I was a guest on Jay James' morning talk show on WINA. I was invited on in order to give an instructor's perspective in an ongoing conversation focusing on the Virginia Institute of Autism, where I've worked for just over two years.

First, I want to say something about WINA. I hate it. It's a despicable mouthpiece for right-wing propaganda that has smothered the potential of talk radio as a medium for productive and enlightening political discourse. WINA happily hosts slimy fucks like Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Neil Boortz. Visit MediaMatters to learn more about these lying bigots. As one of my heroine's once said, I can feel the chunks start to rise, so I won't say anything more about these shit-spewing Rush-worshipers. Ugh.

Jay is a great guy, though, and is diametrically unaffiliated with the ring-wing-bags-of-pus-and-shit. I've never listened to his show before, but the development director at VIA who booked the interview knows him and made me feel better about gracing the sullied airwaves with my presence.

My spot lasted about 25 minutes, with a few commercial breaks and a couple of airs of VIA's recently-recorded PSA.

For the past week during various moments of spacy introspection, my mind worked to crystallize the past two years of my life into charming fact-filled one liners. I mean, I was pretty anxious about it, but also excited to be able to share with a (large?) audience the effects working at VIA have had on me.

Since this blog is new as hell, and I have no problem with blogging conspicuously here's what I really wanted to say when Jay and I were having our conversation. Clearly the questions are paraphrased, and I've ignored those for which my answers I believe were satisfactory.

How did you get involved in this line of work?
I was holding down a lame-ass job at Barnes & Noble during my last semester at UVA, and the following post-baccalaureate summer. I credit that job with providing me with a critical experience -- by enduring the hell of high-volume retail, I really began my transition into adulthood (I was only 20-21.) I came into contact, albeit momentarily, with literally thousands of people. I saw it all, and I took a lot of shit and experienced a loss of my humanity. I was a servant, and I was to be shat upon. I was a machine, and I was compensated for regularly shutting down my consciousness. Did it pay the bills? I guess. Could other jobs have paid the bills? ...
It was a painful experience. I felt worthless, I felt like an animal whose instincts had been trained into submission to the will of authoritarian slave-drivers. I lived as millions in this country do, except they often do it for a panel of overlords so that they can feed and clothe their children.
I had a friend who worked with me who was a year ahead of me, and we became pretty close (we also lived in the same building.) She was hilarious, and smart and kind, and warm. She started telling me about looking for other jobs, and finding a classified for VIA. She was hired, and one fateful day during the school-day brought her student into the cafe (he's a kid I work very closely with now.) The Universe was laying out my future literally in front of me as I handed the boy a sugar cookie and haphazardly initiated what I would learn to be a social interaction beyond his present level of functioning. It was exhilerating, and from that one experience the tree I have now cultivated to adolescence was covered with the earth of dedication and thoughtful improvisation.
I applied, and was granted an interview. I parked in front of the building, not knowing or realizing the existence of an expansive parking lot in the rear of the school. I entered the school with inexplicable hubris, breezing through a door to one of the classrooms as though it were perfectly familiar. My friend met me on the stairs as I stumbled around, pointing out my error and leading me to the office. Lucky I found her.
My interview was very conversational, and warm. She had been with VIA since its inception, and I would later learn has quite a gift for character judgment. Though the intracacies of the conversation are lost in a cloud of anxiety and exhileration, I will never forget the tour of the school as the networks of my future experiences were first laid in my awareness. I will never forget sitting with one of the students after my interviewer asked, "Would you like to try it out?" The next five minutes would serve as a priming experience for the lack of responsivity and resulting constant requirement for speedy improvisation that has become a hallmark of my career.
I wanted it so badly, and got a call back the next day offering me $22,000 a year for 40 hours of work and a complete change of lifestyle and worldview. I accepted with zeal.

What is it like to work in a typical classroom, essentially guiding your student through the social and academic framework an elementary school contains?
I'm blessed and honored to bear the responsibility of shadowing a kid with autism in a typical like-aged classroom. In the last school year, I was brought aboard as a member of his team for reasons that currently elude me. Two of us split the duties of working in an inclusion setting, alternating days as I deferred to the role of my colleague as chief "programmer" (a term I detest -- more appropriate is "behavior analyst/instructor.") My role was not typical of an instructor secluded within the walls of VIA, one that I had filled for a year previous to my transition. The framework of instruction at VIA rests upon the theories articulated by researchers under the umbrella field "Applied Behavior Analysis," that of intensive one-on-one instruction with strict stimulus control and religious adherence to the tenets codified by Skinner and his disciples in the field of human education who interpreted and elaborated on his work. Researchers found it particularly useful to engender skill acquisition among students with disabilities -- notably, students with autism.
My job as inclusion-analyst/shadow required a different and less practiced approach to ABA. I was faced with the problem of ensuring the maximization of inclusion of a student who possesses a fraction of the skills same-aged peers possess, in all areas. Respecting his anonymity, I won't discuss specific facets of his personality but I think here it will suffice to say that he and I began to form a deep and respectful mentor-student relationship, in spite of it all. He changed me, and continues to change me in ways that I have presently not been able to understand, much less articulate.
Candidates for partial inclusion in a typical environment necessarily possess skills that facilitate that inclusion -- an outwardly apparent easy-goingness, willingness to change or endure change, fundamental skills required to communicate desire or intention. I could go on, but one can imagine an individual who would not be a good candidate for inclusion and then by virtue of exclusion arrive at a conceptualization of factors that would lead to success.

How have you been rewarded by working at VIA?
I have been profoundly and forever changed by my work. I love what I do, and I bask in the glow Fortune has afforded me with this opportunity. I have learned so much, more than at any other point in my life. I have learned about respect, and gratitude. I have learned about the unspeakable beauty of humanity, and the Good Nature of souls. I have learned that to truly effect change, one must be changed by others and be constantly willing to change. I have learned to make mistakes, and to assert my will fearlessly. I will never forget the gifts my students and their families have been willing to grant me merely by allowing me into their lives. I have learned what desperation and hopelessness is, and the pure joy that small miracles can bring when everything else seems black and impending.
If for nothing else, humans live to affect their World; the great unending work set in motion so long ago calls to each of us to accept our role as pure Artisans. We are by our nature communal, social, and loving. It is because of my experiences with the community in which I currently work and live that I can realize the beauty of directing that drive towards healing my brethren. And I am eternally grateful for the path Grace has laid before me.

wtop interviews harris miller

2006-02-19T10:05:00.000-05:00

(special thanks to the folks over at RaisingKaine.com blog who broke it down for me since Quicktime hates me)

You can listen to the whole interview here.

Harris Miller (whose campaign site I would have linked to here, if there was one set up) announced his candidacy last month, with strong support from Democratic "red" state hero Mark Warner and no clear opponent in the primary (now, of course, former Secretary of the Navy republican-turned-democrat James Webb has entered the fray.)

I'll just put it out there. I'm less than enthused about Miller's positions. I wholeheartedly disagree with many of them not because of a feeling, but because I think his views contradict his vociferous idolation of Madisonian limits on the power of the federal government. I think many of his stances are incoherent in this way, and I find his willingness to pander to those who readily work to limit individual rights, frankly, disturbing. In the coming days/weeks, I'll deconstruct the interview to try to get to the bottom of what Miller is really about (because honestly, I need to do more research into his positions anyway.) Please join me on this journey -- frankly I don't know where it will end up.

I suppose I'll start with one area where I'm particularly disturbed -- his ready coziness with the "election industry." Brad Friedman explains more over at BradBlog:

In case you haven't heard of them, the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) is a "trade association" who set up the Electronic Technology Council (ETC) as an "astroturf" group at the behest of Electronic Voting Machine companies. Harris Miller was President of the ITAA and instrumental in convincing the Voting Machine Vendors to band together and give the ITAA money to create the ETC to spread the "good word" about Electronic Voting to Americans and Boards of Elections everywhere. Now Miller is reportedly about to announce his run as a Democratic(!) challenger for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia currently occupied by Republican George Allen.

Miller left ITAA just before announcing his candidacy. While lobbying for the "election industry" (which includes the truly disgusting security conglomerate Diebold,) Miller said, "[w]e oppose the idea of a voter-verified paper trail." Because all those fine upstanding honest folk at Diebold always have the security of the people's votes in mind. From CommonDreams.org:

The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell, you'll remember, recently resigned as CEO amidst scandal (not just in Ohio) and decisions by various state legislatures to use other types of voting systems. BradBlog is a great resource for more info on general rottenness of the 2004 election in Ohio and other places, largely engendered by Diebold and their ilk.

Miller clearly has no problem with: 1) putting the interests of voters (i.e. voter-verified paper ballots) aside in favor of profits for the "election industry"; 2) lobbying on behalf of special interests (he did it); 3) crooked partisan corporations and their attempts to install themselves as a filter between an American's vote and the result of the election. That's majorly fucked up, in my opinion.

Why are voter-verified paper ballots in the best interest of voters? Brad links to a great article from Megan Santosus in CSO, an Australian data-industry magazine, explaining why:

The most serious issue with current e-voting systems, scientists say, is source code that’s riddled with vulnerabilities. Of all the systems out there, Diebold’s AccuVote-TS has received the most scrutiny because some of its source code was accidentally posted on the Internet. “The Hopkins Report” spawned three other studies, each of which found various vulnerabilities. Maryland, which spent $US55 million on 16,000 Diebold machines, commissioned a report from Raba Technologies that simulated use of the machines in a mock election. In addition to software problems, the Raba researchers discovered that the two locked bays on each machine (for the printer tape, and on/off switch and modem) could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys issued — keys that were duplicated at hardware stores.

The folks over at DemocraticUnderground and Brad at BradBlog have done a great job exploring many, many, other reasons to be suspicious of the reliability of e-voting. Do yourself a favor and become familiar with all the research these people have done. Rage-inducing, to say the least.

Next time, the death penalty. Here's a preview of Miller's position:

I support the death penalty. I’m an Old Testament kind of guy. I understand that often the legal representation isn’t what it needs to be…but if somebody killed my wife or killed my kids not only would I wanted to see them executed, I’d flip the switch… Criminals need to be treated for what they are, as criminals. I know a lot of people in the Democratic Party don’t necessarily agree with that…

How nice. You're damn right we don't. Rage rage rage.

i heart glenn greenwald

2006-02-17T20:29:00.000-05:00

What he says. All of it.

terror comes home

2006-02-17T18:53:00.000-05:00

It's only terrorism if they're brown-skinned "ragheads" right Ann?

A fourth Albemarle County boy has been charged in a plot to bomb Albemarle and Western Albemarle high schools.

The suspect, a 13-year-old Jack Jouett Middle School student, was arrested at school at 4:30 p.m. Wednesday and charged with conspiracy to use an explosive device to destroy a schoolhouse and conspiracy to commit murder.
Another 13-year-old Jack Jouett student, a 15-year-old Albemarle student and a 16-year-old Western Albemarle student were arrested two weeks ago.

Last year I was introduced to a new type of safety precaution while working in Albemarle Co. public schools (ok, technically I don't work for the county but that's neither here nor there -- the bottom line is that I witnessed the following crazy shit.) When I was in school (that is, when I actually attended public school,) we, naturally, were drilled monthly on school evacuation in the event of a fire. You hear the fire alarm go off, you stand up, push in your chair, walk silently out the door to the designated area. Blah.

Last year I witnessed an "intruder drill." Yeah. There's no alarm, no walking-single-file-and-be-quiet-dammit. There's some cryptic password broadcasted over the PA system, prompting the teachers to lockdown the room -- close the blinds, turn off the lights, lock the door, and huddle with the class kneeling down in a corner furthest from the windows and the door.

Try coaching a kid with autism through that (incidentally, my student did fine but one can imagine the horrible possibilities.) Once when I was in high school (actually a hell of a lot more than once, but this incident is remarkable in many ways) there was a bomb threat called in, and we students had to cross a four-lane avenue to the grassy area in front of an adjacent development just in case the school actually did blow up and flaming bits of my alma mater were to rain down upon us. The remarkable part is that they let all the kids go home about four hours early because they figured it would take as long to search the school and declare "all-clear" or some such reassurance. It was the most serious in a presently timely rash of bomb threats, and, needless to say, the last time students were allowed to be freed into the community (I went to the mall with my friends -- my parents had no idea.)

The Daily Progress continues:

The teens, believed to be friends, are alleged to have chatted online to strategize, with plans to blow up the schools by the end of the year.

Police seized two shotguns, computers and other evidence from the boys' homes during the first three arrests. Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Camblos declined to say whether evidence had been seized from the fourth suspect's home.

Asked whether he considered the boys' plot a serious threat, Camblos replied, "We don't file charges unless we think it's serious."

Remember in Fahrenheit 9/11 when Michael Moore interviews Virginians who talk about terrorists bombing the local Wal-Mart?

Seriously, what the fucking fuck. Bush and his pack of fear-mongerers have succeeded in forcing people to believe the only way to stay safe IN RURAL VIRGINIA is to vote for republicans, because dangit them islamo-fascists like nuthin' more than eatin' babies and if you ain't afraid like us you can git the hell out.

Meanwhile real plots grow underneath our noses, and we twiddle our thumbs while intra-school communities fester with the anomie and indifference that engenders bullying and ostracision. Indeed, our Dear Leader works diligently to rob our schools of the enriching extra-curriculars that foster a vibrant community. I'm sure in prep school and at Yale he didn't make anybody feel like complete shit.

it's not obstruction of justice if you're a republican

2006-02-17T17:10:00.000-05:00

Momentum for a congressional inquiry into President Bush's domestic spying operation, which had seemed likely two months ago, appears to have dropped dramatically.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans blocked a proposed investigation as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said he had reached an agreement with the White House to pursue legislation establishing clearer rules for the controversial program.

Why does this guy get to determine whether or not the Nation gets to find out about the illegality of the president's authorization of domestic surveillance? (as if there is any doubt about that, go read Glenn)

I like Arianna's take on the guy and his truly birdshit-loony appearance on last week's Meet the Press:

Sen. Pat Roberts, who, I kid you not, tried to make a point about the NSA scandal to his fellow panelists -- former Senator Tom Daschle, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) -- by pulling out a bottle of pills and admonishing the group that "everybody ought to take a memory pill."

(snip)

But while Roberts may have nailed the memory problem, he was not so good on the solution. Because if his own memory is evidence of the powers of his pills, he should demand a memory-pill recall.

Senator Roberts, as you may know, is the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and, as such, was one of the few legislators briefed by the administration on its warrantless spying program. So you might expect him to get at least the most basic facts about the program right. Especially when he bragged early on in the show that he "knew exactly what was going on."

Then why was he still claiming that the program was just about "phone calls from terror cells"? That's simply false. Of the thousands of calls monitored under the warrantless eavesdropping program, fewer than 10 a year have been suspicious enough even to prompt further investigation.

Roberts was also dead wrong about the time constraints following the FISA law would impose on the President, claiming that it takes "five days... eight days..." to obtain a warrant. Is there anybody who has remotely followed this story who by now doesn't know that the FISA law allows the President to begin a wiretap without a warrant and continue it for 72 hours before asking for a retroactive warrant?

This asshole, who is clearly SENILE AS HELL, gets to decide whether or not Dubya gets his ass handed to him and thrown in the slammer where he belongs.

The corporate media, of course, happily annoints republican almost-dissenters as the Saviours and Holy Defenders of Truth and Reason. Fox "News" carries this piece from the AP:

The decision to give Congress more information came as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., announced he was drafting legislation that would require the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the constitutionality of the administration's monitoring of terror-related international communications when one party to the call is in the United States.

It also came as Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., chairwoman of a House intelligence subcommittee that oversees the NSA, broke with the Bush administration and called for a full review of the NSA's program, along with legislative action to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
She and others also wanted the full House Intelligence Committee to be briefed on the program's operational details. Although the White House initially promised only information about the legal rationale for surveillance, administration officials broadened the scope Wednesday to include more sensitive details about how the program works.

And even Raw Story fell for Sensenbrenner's stunt:

The Republican Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has issued 51 questions to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on President Bush's warrantless wiretap program.

The letter, issued to Gonzales today and acquired by RAW STORY, demands answers to myriad legal questions on the program, which involved eavesdropping on Americans' calls overseas. Sensenbrenner has given Gonzales a Mar. 2 deadline to respond.

OMG you guys aren't we so lucky we have such responsible and level-headed republicans inexplicably rescuing us from Dubya's naughty spying program? If I had the motivation, I might explore a little more in depth how the upstanding Congresswoman from New Mexico initially very publicly pledged an investigation into Abu Ghraib, then voted against it. Or I might talk about how Specter refused to put Gonzales under oath when he "testified" in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. You get the idea.

Too bad they're all lying sacks of shit. As BushCo's approval ratings continue to plummet, they just can't help themselves. As their prospects for November seem bleaker and less open to widespread fraud, all they can do is rely upon what's worked so well for the republican party for the past 40 years -- suckle from the teet of the Powers that Be, then lie through their fanged teeth about it or quietly capitulate to the Beast.

Conyers speaks, you listen:

Today, the House Judiciary Committee considered my resolution of inquiry on the domestic spying program. The Resolution was rejected 16 to 21, with all Democrats and one Republican (Congressman Hostetler) voting for it.
A few quick impressions: first, I was surprised at how half hearted the Republican defense of the program was. I would even go further -- while some offered a full throated defense of the program, many of my Republican colleagues seemed almost sheepish about it, and many did not speak about it at all.

Second, Republicans repeatedly asserted that the documents were not needed because Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner has unilaterally submitted 51 questions (pdf) to the Attorney General, and that the Attorney General would testify at a general oversight hearing at some undetermined point in the future. I and the other Democratic Members responded that this was wholly inadequate, and that to fulfill their constitutional oversight role the Committee needed to obtain documents from the Administration and hold separate hearings on the NSA issue.

More to the point, while some news outlets touted the Chairman's letter, his questions are, in my view, inadequate. A close reading of them reveals that the first 38 questions essentially ask the Department whether they think the program is legal. They have already given us their answer on that. The remaining questions are so general, that they can be answered by a google search of what is already in the press.

A few are such softballs it is hard to take them seriously. Take number 18, for example -- "Do you agree that it is debatable as to whether the United States homeland is still a target of al Qaeda?" Wonder what the Justice Department will answer. That sounds like the Fox News question of the day.

Pretty much.

The republican answer? Craft legislation working hand-in-hand with the White House to legalize BushCo's, how to put it, less-than-strict-constructionist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

Continuing from the Courant's piece referenced at the beginning:

White House and congressional officials said the discussions are focusing on DeWine's proposal, which also would create a new subcommittee on the Senate Intelligence Committee solely to monitor the NSA program.

Silly me -- of course it will all be alright if there's a republican-controlled subcommittee overseeing the program. Let's just forget that this program has been going on since 2002, as have the other related programs Gonzales said he couldn't comment on to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let's just forget that god-knows-how-many-poor-assholes have been spied upon by this "terrorist surveillance program" without a warrant and without them ever knowing about it. Let's just forget that for the past four years BushCo has been routinely shitting upon the Fourth Amendment, and are willing, indeed hoping, to continue that tradition. From the Courant:

"To simply exclude communications from the coverage of [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] and allow secret wiretapping without a warrant ... would be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment," said Kate Martin, director for National Security Studies at George Washington University, in an e-mail message.

Lock 'em up. The whole disgusting lot.

i hate these people

2006-02-15T17:46:00.000-05:00

Chertoff called Katrina a storm of "unprecedented magnitude" and "one of the most difficult and traumatic experiences of my life." He said the department must work to improve its communications, particularly between FEMA and the department, and better track movement of recovery supplies.

"I was astonished to see that we don't have the capabilities most 21st century corporations have," he said.

You disgusting pig fucker -- YOU ARE THE PERSON IN CHARGE WHEN THE SHIT HITS THE FAN. I'm sorry you were traumatized when you actually had to face that shit happens. I'm sorry that the sky is falling and all you can do is sit on your hands and wait for Brownie & Co. to decide what to wear on TV before tens of thousands of people get the help they need.

I thought 9/11 changed everything. I thought BushCo was in the business of keepin' Murkins safe. Now we know (again) that they don't give a fuck about you or me or any of the 7,000 people who died/went "missing" in New Orleans that week after the storm.

Chertoff defended some of the department's actions before the storm, emphasizing that a federal emergency was declared in Louisiana ahead of Katrina, one of the few times that had ever been done before a hurricane's landfall.

"We were acutely aware of Katrina and the risk it posed," he said.

These people are in charge of YOUR SAFETY. These people, who lied their asses off and said that no one anticipated the breach of the levees (Bush) and said that they woke up the next morning and read the papers that said New Orleans had dodged a bullet (Chertoff.) Fuck you all -- murderers.

made you look

2006-02-14T16:41:00.000-05:00

I got to thinking today after listening to Stephanie Miller of all people (love her, don't learn much from her.)

This latest almost-scandal no one expected couldn't have come at a more perfect time for BushCo.

For an administration whose only area of expertise is that of PR management, the Cheney hunting "accident" is a down-the-middle, sweet spot, touchdown (mental note: no more sports metaphors..ever) opportunity. To trick you, lie, and deflect -- per usual.

They didn't want you to think about this:

Or this (warning: it's a picture of a dead man at the Superdome.)

Or this:

Or this:

These sick fucks only have one thing in mind when it comes to the American people. And it ain't universal health care.

an open letter to va state sen. creigh deeds (d-25)

2006-02-13T17:45:00.000-05:00

Why did you vote for a referendum on equal protection?

Sen. Deeds,

I respectfully request an explanation for the vote you cast in favor of a referendum on "gay marriage."

While I respect what I believe your answer will be (that is, that the people should decide what their social structure will be like), I am truly saddened at the failure to capitalize on an important opportunity your vote represents.

The issue of "gay marriage" has been irrevocably clouded by the radical Christian right, and has been used as a wedge issue by the republican party (which, of course, we all know relies heavily on the courtship of Christian radicals.) In the 2004 Elections, the issue was put on the ballot in 11 states, and successfully capitalized on by the republican party to scare Christians into going to the polls to stop what they convinced them to be a threat to the institution of marriage.

You and I both know that the radical Christian right and their beholden republican party have made all sorts of disgusting accusations about "gay marriage" in order to shore up suppor87t among the flock. While "gay marriage" may make some people uncomfortable, the epidemic of divorce is a far graver threat to the instution of marriage than the extension of that right to two loving and devoted individuals.

I am deeply disappointed that it seems that you have either fallen for their bamboozlement, or are too afraid of political backlash to stand up for equal protection under the law. I can't believe that I even have to write this to a fellow democrat -- we know better than to fall prey to the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell.

As democrats, we should fight for the maximization of civil rights whenever and however we can. It is our nature, and it is our belief that the maximization of personal privacy and rights are the only ways to ensure a strong and vibrant nation.

By failing to stand up to the radical Christian right, you have shown me that the fight for equal protection for all Americans is not a priority for you.

As a result, I will not vote for you again for any office.

Thank you for your willingness to represent me. But if you don't fight any attempt to obstruct the maximization of personal privacy and equal protection, you don't support the belief that underlies our party and our nation, and, by extension, are working to undermine those very principles.

I am truly baffled and disgusted at this "democrat"'s sleazy attempt to court liberal voters. Originally, Deeds opposed a republican version of the amendment (read: referendum) because, in his lawerly opinion, the language was too broad. From RaisingKaine.com:

On gay rights, Deeds’ position can be classified as a moderately conservative. In May 2004, for instance, Deeds sharply critized Republicans for pushing a “mean-spirited and unnecessary” bill banning gay marriage and legal contracts between unmarried partners.” On the other hand, in February 2005, Deeds voted for SJ 337, a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in Virginia as “between one man and one woman.” In committee, however, Deeds voted against a sentence in the proposed amendment which would also outlaw civil unions or other such measures which would “approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage.” In other words, Deeds holds the majority Democratic view (i.e., almost identical to John Kerry) supporting marriage as between a man and a woman, while also looking favorably upon other arrangements such as “civil unions.”

All that, except for the last part. It's worse. While Deeds may have tried to sideline the broad addition in committee, the language Deeds ultimately voted for contains the provision:

Further, the proposed amendment prohibits the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

Seems pretty f-ing clear to me. From the DailyProgress :

"I thought folks had gotten everything they could out of the choice question, so they started whacking on sexual orientation, sexual preference," Deeds said of the conservative forces pushing anti-gay legislative agendas, including bills aimed at banning gay-straight alliance groups in high schools.

"We ought to be about a nurturing environment for all our kids in public schools," Deeds said. "Gay people aren't in four or five closets around Virginia. They are everywhere. They ought to visit their legislators."

Except we did. And it turns out our legislators are pussy DINOs cowering from the Christian crazies who think statutory discrimination is what Jesus wants.

snowy thoughts

2006-02-12T08:39:00.001-05:00

This morning I read a passage from Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes), that mentioned Paul Krugman's insight about tax cuts during wartime. Paraphrasing, BushCo's "tax cuts" (which of course are really nothing more than an attempt to even out where tax revenue comes from -- rich people pay less and we other folk pay a hell of a lot more) are unprecedented in all of human history.

I guess I had known this from the beginning, but with so many other outrages to keep abreast on, this one fell through the cracks. Let's deconstruct what these "tax cuts" really mean, and how fitting they are as a thesis statement for the past six years of this government.

BushCo's so-called War on Terror has, from the very beginning, been a vehicle for manipulating the public into supporting the various schemes that have been perpetrated in its name. The occupation of Iraq, being the happy centerpiece of the endeavor, illustrates this quite clearly.

The cost, in dollars, of the occupation has far exceeded anything Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz best-estimated (read: lied about) back in early 2003. In BushCo's recent FY2007 budget proposal, which notably included millions for their Social Security privitization scheme, Our Leader proposed an allocation of around $439billion for the Pentagon (not including those timely emergency Congress-please-bail-us-the-hell-out requests every quarter.) And the truth is that less and less of the programs under the umbrella of the Occupation have been directly administered by Shrub and his buddies. The Occupation has been executed in large part by private uber-corporations (google: Halliburton/KBR) with varying degress of success. If by success you mean FUBAR, stealing, lying and general murderousness.

Tax revenue evening out so that we normal folk pay for this shit. Except $9billion can't be accounted for because so many pigs are at the trough no one can figure out which pigs are the piggiest.

So, we normal folk catch the tab, and we do it readily. A few sparkling tidbits from that linked meta-poll:

Half of all those polled favor "major cuts in federal income tax rates" that have been implemented by BushCo. (and the same proportion thinks they should be "extended into the future" -- though 15% were unsure and probably didn't know what the hell this meant.)

70% of those polled think taxes should not be increased as a way to "reduce the budget deficit." (41% think it should be done by "lowering domestic spending" on all those lazy welfare queens.)

The rub is, of course, that we normal folk didn't get no kind of tax cut. Only Bush Pioneers like Jack Abramoff, and Paris Hilton and others set to inherit millions who won't have to pay up their due on their fortunate freebies.

Not only do we not want to pay for this shit (even though we already are -- well, China too,) but BushCo has succeeded in convincing us that someone better damn well pay for this shit or else a bunch of howling ragheads are going to come to our Wal-Marts and eat our babies. Another glimpse, from pollingreport.com:

80% of those polled think the country's top priority should be "defending the country from future terrorist attacks."

SAVE ME FROM THE ISLAMO-FASCISTS (as the ebullient Phil Gingrey termed them on the floor of the People's House), just don't make me pay for it.

And with that, the most disgusting and truly abhorrent new phase in our nation's adolescence -- the "what war?" mentality that engender the aforementioned corporate thieveries. Keep me safe, just don't make me stop driving my big-honkin-SUV. I have a yellow ribbon magnet god dammit!

This funny blip in polling data (because, truly, when else has a country been so disconnected from what it perceives to be as the highest priority for its lawmakers...oh, wait) is the grand sum of the BushCo strategy. Keep 'em scared, and keep 'em stupid. And it's working magnificently.

why republicans disgust me

2006-02-10T20:05:00.000-05:00

In the end, they sign on either directly with this guy, or with others who happily sign on with this guy.

Partly, my humanity dictates my narrow interpretation of the past. History repeats itself because we are handicapped in this regard.

But in the past week, I have been left gaping and stunned at what has really been behind the scandals the Bush administration has left in its wake.

Take, just as a glimpse (bear this in mind -- that there are many equally revolting threads in this quilt) this, yesterday, from Murray Waas:

...I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

And they still, in the face of it all, bypass reason and fact and support those that wish to destroy everything that makes us who we are.

I am an American. But beyond that, I was educated according to the academic architecture that one of our Founders established.

It's part of me, and I strive always to incorporate it into my life.

I hate that my country has been reduced to this. That republicans will support those who collude to destroy our Constitution so that the federal government will cease to be as a competetor in the Market.

And now, it's reaching its summit. With the current administration, the encroachment of the Market into the lives of individuals has triumphed over the interconnectedness amongst our People that is embodied within federal social welfare programs.

We have been actively alienated from one another. We have come to believe that society (humanity) is so vulgar, so brutal, and so hoarding that we must live to secure property in its highest form.

It's Hobbes and the Prince. Extra-extra-extra(!)with God.

Thomas Jefferson said,

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

It's mainly that republicans just don't know what they hell they're talking about. That, or that they deliberately distort the truth in order to foster a specific reaction in their audience. And they perform consistently, thoroughly, and readily.

Of course, the former relies necessarily on the much smaller latter mouthpiece faction. And, it must be mentioned, that those who voluntarily assimilate into the ignorant many justify their membership purely on the dictums of their Truth Tellers. The Others are either liars or destroyers. There is, however, the issue of the the objective truth.

Thomas Jefferson also said,

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

This, of course, is incongruent with the aims of the current administration. Our liberty is not something they care to safeguard and cultivate.

Personal liberty - that is, those rights which necessarily foster the least restrictive environment for all persons - is incongruent with corporate liberty.

Republicans disgust me because they support those who seek to curtail personal liberty in favor of corporate liberty. Whether knowingly or not, those that identify themselves as republican are aligning themselves with those who work to maximize corporate liberty - often in violation of established and settled law.

Presently, Our Democracy is able to survive largely because of the mythology that comprises our collective history. It is rich, and life-giving. It is what I referred to earlier when I mentioned my education. It is the ideal.

But our Democracy is not immortal, and it is dying. The myth survives because of the truth behind the story of personal liberty that forms the essential backbone of our nation. The maximization of personal liberty, or the struggle therein, is the only means by which individuals may fluorish and grow.

Republicans are the majority today because they have usurped this storyline. They have established themselves, whether legitimately or otherwise (this, perhaps, is the most loaded clause in this diatribe,) as the saviors and crusaders of American Liberty. Behind the veil, though, the republican agenda (that is, the agenda of those who are in power) is in line with the maximization of corporate liberty.

And the 62,040,606 (allegedly) Americans who voted for this administration and its cohorts fell for it.

I'm everything this administration works against, which can be crystallized in my tendency to rely on truth as the basis for my worldview.

Thomas Jefferson also said,

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

And with this, the first blow.

2006-02-10T19:33:00.000-05:00

the great work begins