Quote of the Day

Ah, fuck it. Quote of the Year so far. Finally, someone stood up to these sanctimonious Senators and lit into them with the truth. And it had to be a Brit, of course, because no true American will dare to point out the hypocricy and lies inherent in our administration's obsession with figuring out why our oil is underneath Iraq's sand.
Evidently, when Americans are called to testify before or be inquisitioned by Senate committees they tend to be very obsequious and staid. Not so Galloping Galloway. He turned the questioning on its ear and ripped us a new one. The following is only a quote. The entire text is quite enjoyable.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right, and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have paid with their lives, 1600 of them American soldiers, sent to their deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies. If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens, you are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth..." -- George Galloway, 5/17/05

Oh, What The Hey! Dem Leftists Cain't Be All Bad

Published on Monday, May 16, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Buy Your Gas at Citgo: Join the BUY-cott!
by Jeff Cohen

Looking for an easy way to protest Bush foreign policy week after week? And an easy way to help alleviate global poverty? Buy your gasoline at Citgo stations.
And tell your friends.
Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a president who was elected on a platform of using his nation's oil revenue to benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call him "the Anti-Bush."
Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator/StoreLocator.jsp to find one near you.) By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans.
Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does, Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn't have 60 percent of its people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty in Venezuela. That's why large majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to overthrow Chavez.
So this is the opposite of a boycott. Call it a BUYcott. Spread the word.
Of course, if you can take mass transit or bike or walk to your job, you should do so. And we should all work for political changes that move our country toward a cleaner environment based on renewable energy. The BUYcott is for those of us who don't have a practical alternative to filling up our cars.
So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela.
Jeff Cohen is an author and media critic (www.jeffcohen.org)

The Tower Is For Sale; Bids Now Accepted

Well, kiddies, the end may just be near. Last- what?- summer the empty lot across the street from my humble (and I do mean humble) abode suddenly became a swarm of activity as the new buyers (or the old owners) began construction on a two-story fourplex. In the end they did a pretty good job of making it blend into the natural architectural style of the Tower District. Each balcony and porch was made up in the Craftsman style, the roof was done in a faux Spanish style (not in tile, but the asphalt shingles in the same color), the front stairs to the upper floor were hidden, the lawns are gorgeous, the offstreet parking isn't pukey at all. It really does look nice as these things go.
My landlord, who is an insurance agent and multiple property owner, researched and found out that the owner was going to ask for $750,000 for the whole shebang. 5 years ago, we would have hooted and asked if we could have the name of his dealer, 'cuz the shit must be primo. Not any more. We gaped at the asking price, but we never once thought it was not going to be met. We knew someone would jump at the bait. Probably a Bay area person. My landlord, also, informed us that the current owner was planning on calling the units "3 bedroom". That's when I began to gag. My studio apartment on Vassar Ave was as big. Granted, these units were very likely better made and laid out, but it didn't dismiss the fact that they were all about 700-800 square feet at best. And the owner was planning asking for over $1000 in rent.
Well, the 'for sale' sign went up last Saturday. The realty agent came out, took a mess of pictures of the exterior, interior, shots of the views and houses across the streets (though I think she skipped my place because of the delapidated fence situation) and left. So, that was Saturday. Saturday was the first official day of saleability. Today is Tuesday. Today there is a 'sold' sign on the realty sign. That's 4 days at most. The place sold in four days. Four freaking days. It ain't even renting yet. Four days. 3/4 of a million bucks. Snap. Gone. Gobbled. Didn't even see the shark's fin.
Now, the burning question is: local buyer or Bay area buyer? Evidently, the rule of thumb for rental building buyers is that the sum of monthly rent must be at least 1% of the sale price. 1% of $750,000 is $7500. $7500 divided by four equals $1875. Following this code, each '3 bedroom' unit needs to rent for $1875. That comes to (in my estimate) somewhere in the $2.50 per square foot range. A Bay area buyer would not think twice about charging what he or she considers fair market value based on the Bay area. That's how I was forced out of my last apartment. A Santa Cruz realtor bought the place and immediately kicked everyone for renovations with the notice that rent would increase by 50%. The locals who bought it before her and renovated the outside and landscaped it raised the rent by $50 (15%). Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the new owners will keep the same description or make it more sensible and what they will charge for rent.
Until then, I will continue to enjoy watching people stop and look in as I try and assess their probability of being able to afford living there. So far, the stats are running in the negative in terms of viable renters.

This Headache Is Good Enough For Jehova! Ouch!

So much for $5 miracles.

Sittin' there minding my own business, enjoying the pain and along comes Little Rabbit Foo Foo who bops me on the head. Pain goes away. I'm cured. Whoo hoo, etc.

Now I'm dancing and prancing through the forest, sharing love and wet noodles. Now I'm dancing naked with nymphs and goats and sheepherders and wise men and all manner of happy, snappy folk.

I'm Singing in the Rain. I'm a Funny Face. I'm gorgeously Indiscreet. I am Love, Actually. It feels as if my whole body has been Born Free just as the Butterflies Are Free. I am a man in Possession of The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I am...Keanu Reeves.

And just like that, poof. Out go the twinkly lights. Away blows the magic dust. Down goes the house of twigs. Beauty leaves the Beast. The Dwarfs trunch off to their jobs.

All that was ept is now in-. All that was in whack is now out. Gruntle has been dissed, Hansel dismissed.

Yesterday's recovery was but a respite from the storm. A mere lull between cloudbursts. The gentle lufting that announces the eye of the hurricane is watching you. A stall, if you will.

Der kopfschmertz ist returned. Der Third Eyeache hast arisen! No Big Smile, though. Only a grimace and a grunt.

Alms For An Ex-Leper

I know now the feeling one gets upon waking to a new day. I never understood that phrase before. My cynical mind scoffed at the notion that nothing is so bad it can't be seen in a better light merely by closing one's eyes and letting the bliss of slumber wash away some of the evil coating one's soul. It was something a mother tells her child when the child is upset, unhappy, frightened. It is something a lover tells one when the job is lost, the parent is dead, the bombs are falling. It is not something I would ever want to hear while in the midst of a 6 day tension headache that had worsened with each proceeding day. It is not something I would believe as my neck began to slowly cramp on the 5th day and night and I wandered aimlessly through a period of 30 hours with no sleep. But that's what happened.

Yesterday, after the aforementioned lack of conkout, I did get a nap and then drove out to my birth house to help my parents pack their things prior to moving them to Spokane. I needed the contact, I needed the activity (I'd missed 4 days of work while lying on the couch) and I needed to get the hell out of the house. When I came home it began to appear as if last night would be a repeat of the one before with no sleep and a cramping neck, pulsing temples, invisible vise around the head, no relief in sight. Somehow, I fell asleep early this morning.

When I awoke 5 hours later (on the couch, of course with the TV still on and muted) I encountered an immediate sense of something wrong, something amiss...something missing. It took me a moment to gather my bearings before I jumped and ran to the bathroom to start a shower. There was no way I was going back to sleep. No way I was giving this a chance to become a thieving dream. I had no pain whatsoever. It was gone, gone, gone.

I felt cleansed and energized. I felt new. The scales had been lifted from eyes. The crippled was healed.

I went to my local coffee joint and met friends and chatted and laughed until snot blew out my nose and I was asked to leave. I shopped. I cleaved branch from tree for my buddy Marcel. I came home and ate an entire meal. I gardened. It was truly a new day.

And now I look forward to returning to work tomorrow with a smile on my lips, a song in my heart, a hearty well-met for every brother and sister I meet...

Oh fuck I need an aspirin.

Bush Creating Jobs In Iraq

Pleasure marriages' regain popularity in Iraq
Outlawed for years, muta'a a means of income for widows
By Rick JervisUSA TODAY
BAGHDAD — In the days when it could land him in jail, Rahim Al-Zaidi would whisper details of his muta'a only to his closest confidants and the occasional cousin. Never his wife.
Al-Zaidi hopes to soon finalize his third muta'a, or “pleasure marriage,” with a green-eyed neighbor. This time, he talks about it openly and with obvious relish. Even so, he says, he probably still won't tell his wife.
The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a — “ecstasy” in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women.
Pleasure marriages were outlawed under Saddam Hussein but have begun to flourish again. The contracts, lasting anywhere from one hour to 10 years, generally stipulate that the man will pay the woman in exchange for sexual intimacy. Now some Iraqi clerics and women's rights activists are complaining that the contracts have become less a mechanism for taking care of widows than an outlet for male sexual desires.
The renaissance of the pleasure marriage coincides with a revival of other Shiite traditions long suppressed by the former regime. Interest in Shiite customs has accelerated since Shiite parties swept Jan. 30 elections to become the biggest bloc in the new National Assembly.
“Under Saddam, we were very scared,” says Al-Zaidi, 39, a lawyer from Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. “They would punish people. Now, all my friends are doing it.”
A turbaned Shiite cleric who issues wedding permits from a street-side counter in Sadr City says he encourages permanent marriages but gives the OK for pleasure marriages when there are “special reasons.” The cleric, Sayid Kareem As-Sayid Abdullah Al-Mousawi, says he grants licenses for muta'a in cases where the woman is widowed or divorced, or for single women who have approval from their fathers.
“Clerics who blessed them were hounded by security during the previous regime,” he says. “I can assure you, these (muta'a) marriages are flourishing in (Shiite cities) Najaf, Karbala and Kadhamiya in an amazing way. There are a lot of hotels (patronized) by Shiites who approve of such marriages.”
Shiites and Sunnis both permit men to take more than one permanent wife, but the rival branches of Islam are deeply split over pleasure marriages.
Most Shiite scholars today consider it halal, or religiously legal. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest religious authority in Shiite Islam, sets conditions and obligations for muta'a on his website. (“A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband and does not inherit from him …”)
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and other Shiite lawmakers have said they want Iraq's new constitution to use the sharia, or Islamic law, as its basis. That could give muta'a formal legal protection. Sunni Arabs and Kurds, who are mainly Sunni, oppose the idea. But the practice is growing among Sunnis and Shiites alike.
Sunni scholars fear that giving official sanction to pleasure marriages — many of which are only verbal agreements between the couple — are little more than legalized prostitution that could lead to a collapse of moral values, especially among young people.
“We have reports about one-hour pleasure marriages that are flourishing among students,” says Sheik Ali Al-Mashhadani, a Sunni imam at the Ibn Taimiya mosque in Baghdad. “I'm advising parents to watch their sons very carefully, particularly those who are in the colleges and universities.”
Short-term marriages were considered idolatry by Saddam's ruling Baath Party in the 1970s and '80s, says Kamal Hamdul, president of the Iraqi Bar Association. Muta'a were punishable by fines or prison, he says. Couples took the practice underground, meeting in out-of-the-way apartments and hotels — and rarely telling even family members.
Pleasure marriages began to resurface after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. One reason is that Shiites, 60% of Iraq's population, have a greater ability to shape social mores than they did under Saddam, a Sunni Arab whose top aides were also Sunnis.
A woman agreeing to a pleasure marriage that involves a one-time encounter might be able to count on about $100. For a muta'a that runs longer, she might be paid $200 a month, though the amounts vary widely and can depend on whether she has children.
Zeinab Ahmed, 31, lost her husband in a car accident five years ago. She says she has considered entering into a muta'a contract with a man, but the stigma attached has kept her from doing so.
“All my friends who have done this have told me they got married in this way just to meet their sexual desires,” Ahmed says, “but later on they started to love that man, and he does not accept to get married permanently. … Most of the men, at the end of the contract, they feel contempt towards the woman.”
Contracts for pleasure marriage strongly favor men.
Married women can't enter a muta'a, although a married man can. Men can void the contract at any time; women don't have that option unless it's negotiated at the outset. The couple agrees not to have children. A woman who unintentionally gets pregnant can have an abortion but must then pay a fine to a cleric.
Women's rights activists are concerned. Salama Al-Khafaji, a Shiite lawmaker who supports the concept of sharia law but advocates for women's rights, calls the re-emergence of muta'a an “unhealthy phenomenon.”
With the right intentions, she says, muta'a can serve the noble purpose of helping divorced and widowed women. But too many men are using temporary marriages to exploit women for sex, she says. Her solution is to reinforce the importance of permanent marriages with work programs for newlywed couples and education campaigns.
“A woman who practices muta'a does not usually feel comfortable about it,” Al-Khafaji says. “People these days are creating excuses to practice these acts.”
Al-Mousawi, the Shiite cleric, says the practice of pleasure marriages is open to abuse and misinterpretation. He says he is particularly troubled by kiss-and-tell men. “After they've finished with the woman, they've told their friends about her beauty and given a description of her body, which is something absolutely unacceptable in Islam,” he says.
Al-Zaidi, the Sadr City lawyer, says his motivations are spiritual. In 2002, he says he persuaded a Sunni widow to enter into a one-year muta'a with him, even though at first she refused.
To him, pleasure marriages are legitimate in God's eyes. They bring responsibility and formality to what would otherwise be squalid and sinful, he says. “There is a noble goal in this kind of marriage,” says Al-Zaidi, still married to his first wife and has five children. “It's to eradicate moral corruption.”
In the past, some muta'a contracts have been struck when permanent, legal marriages were not possible.
Ayad Muhammed Ali fell in love eight years ago with a woman who walked into his Baghdad tailor shop. She was a widow with two young sons whose husband, a member of an underground group outlawed by Saddam, had been executed by Saddam's men. The woman also was richer than Ali, so her family would never have consented to a legal marriage.
The lovers agreed to a yearlong muta'a in 1993 and have renewed their contract every year since, he says. In the decade after their muta'a, the couple never dared meet in the open. In April 2003, the month U.S. forces swept into the capital, they began meeting in public places for the first time, he says.
“I was always so afraid someone would find out and I'd go to prison,” says Ali, 29. “Now, I'm not afraid. My only fear is her family.”

Stupid Stupid Stupid

just when I thought the government couldn't get any stupider. okay, i know that it can always get stupider. i know that stupid ISN'T as stupid does. stupid is a disease that grows exponentially. if it wasn't for stupid, we'd have no government.
but today i received a letter from the Child Protective Services. to wit:
we have sent a letter to your employer to make sure that your insurance covers your child. if it doesn't we will make it so.
now, i have spent much time in the past arguing with this state agency about back child support that wasn't supposed to exist. i have sent polite and nasty letters telling them to look through their files and correct multiple mistakes concerning my son's case. i have called them and complained about the lack of effort made on their part to provide me with information. when, finally, they informed me of the little box that my son's mother didn't check as she closed out her account, i thought we had a done deal. i knew how much to pay in order to get out from under the financial cloud the agency had fraudulently placed over me. and they promised to never bother me again unless my son's mother reopened the account (which she hasn't).
But today i get this letter. during all of the years of my son's life (almost 18) i was never once approached by the state to ask if i was covering him with my insurance. but when i had insurance i always covered him anyway. now, one month before his 18th birthday, this STUPID agency has decided to enforce something they never had before. and they do so when i am in my intial probationary period with my new company. and they are sending a letter to my new employer, which i find entirely invasive. do these people look at their records? do these people think for themselves? or do they blindly follow instructions and waste tax money, because it's easier to obey than to research their CLOSED cases?
i tried calling the number given in the letter and the phone rang and rang and rang. no answer, no voicemail, no operator to tell me the office is closed for the day. nothing.
this ain't over by a long shot. these people are going to get a lashing. this case closed in 1999. let's get ready to ruuuuuuuumble.

Making Candles...Oh Yes, I Am A Sensitive Guy

Yeah, I've made 'em.
Anybody got a problem with that?
I met a chick. In Seattle. She made 'em. i wanted to be with her.
So, I learned to make 'em.
And make 'em I did. I got pretty damn good at 'em. I even got a job at the place that made and sold all of the equipment.
(The first time I worked in the retail shop. I worked the cash register, answered questions, sold customers on much more than they needed, restocked and got to test any new substance that came in. I spent most of my time answering questions and making test candles in the back. I was fired after a year.
2 years later, I worked in their metal mold shop and sautered (can't remember the sp.) the molds together. I had a benchmate who was congenially insane. But very ept. We became friends and proceeded to make a mockery of any tissue that moved.)
After a while we fell in love. We couldn't be apart for a day. We needed the touch.
It became a physical ache whenever situations separated us. It may be the most intense relationship I've ever had.
Sometimes I wonder what became of whatshername. But I always thank her for the wax.
Especially now as I undertake to make them again.

A Riddle

Below is a secret (no more) memo describing the inevitability of war in Iraq. It discusses the reasons and justifications put forth by the Bush cartel and the Blair sect. See if you can suss the moments within this missive that cement our president as an actual criminal.


The Sunday Times - Britain
May 01, 2005 The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
NI_MPU('middle');
DAVID MANNING From: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Huh?

Does any of this strike you as odd? The defense in this case is saying that she was handicapped from birth, but was accepted into the military and deemed okay for active combat. But, while in the military, was sufficiently below the other soldiers in intelligence quotient to go along with activities that she knew to be wrong. Granting her the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't she be on a short list to sue the government for the very abuses she has been convicted of participating in?


Defense: England Oxygen-Deprived at Birth
By T.A. BADGER
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - Defense lawyers sought leniency for Pfc. Lynndie England at a hearing Tuesday to determine her punishment in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, with a psychologist testifying that the reservist was oxygen-deprived at birth, speech impaired and had trouble learning to read. West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne - the first defense witness - said England's learning disabilities were identified when she was a kindergartner - and though she made progress in school, she continued needing special help. ``I knew I was going to know Lynndie England for the rest of my life,'' West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne said. A military jury of five men and one woman was seated earlier Tuesday to make a sentencing recommendation for England, 22, who pleaded guilty Monday to seven counts of mistreating prisoners. She said she let her comrades talk her into going along with the abuse.
England, from Fort Ashby, W.Va., accepted responsibility for the smiling, thumbs-up poses she struck for photographs taken at Abu Ghraib that made her the face of the prisoner abuse scandal.
In one of the photos, England held a leash looped around the neck of a hooded, naked prisoner. Another showed her next to nude prisoners stacked in a pyramid, while a third depicted England pointing at a prisoner's genitals as a cigarette dangled from her lips.
The charges carry up to 11 years in prison. Prosecutors and the defense reached an agreement that caps the sentence at a lesser punishment; the length was not released. She will get the lesser of the military jury's sentence or the term agreed on in the plea bargain.
Prosecutor Capt. Chris Graveline told jurors in opening statements that England and a half-dozen other soldiers in the 372nd Military Police Company took great pleasure in humiliating the prisoners. The prosecution rested its sentencing case without calling any witnesses.
Graveline said England and Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. - the abuse ringleader and the father of England's child - knew it was wrong to mistreat the detainees and take the photos, ``but they did it anyway for their own amusement.''
Graner is scheduled to testify for the defense Wednesday. He handed out a written statement Tuesday saying that he was unhappy that England opted for a plea deal rather than fight the charges she faced.
``Knowing what happened in Iraq, it was very upsetting to see Lynn plead guilty to her charges,'' wrote Graner. ``I would hope that by doing so she will have a better chance at a good sentence.''
When asked by judge Col. James Pohl whether England knew right from wrong, Denne said she had a compliant personality and tended to listen to authority figures.
On Monday, England told Pohl that she initially resisted taking part in the abuse at the Baghdad prison, but that she succumbed to peer pressure.
``I had a choice, but I chose to do what my friends wanted me to,'' she said.
Rick Hernandez, a defense lawyer, said the pscychologist's testimony helped England by establishing that her ability to reason was lower than that of her comrades.
``She is clearly in a different mental capacity ... than any of the others accused,'' he said.
Graner was convicted in January on abuse charges and is serving a 10-year prison sentence. Four other Abu Ghraib guards and two low-level military intelligence officers have entered guilty pleas in connection with the scandal, with sentences ranging from no time to 8 1/2 years. Spc. Sabrina Harman, a former Abu Ghraib guard, is scheduled to go to trial at Fort Hood next week.
05/03/05 21:39

A Good Weekend All Around

Well, folks, the saga of the overheated pussy is at an end.
This past week started out as an emergency of medical proportions when my cat went into heat. I had been hoping for over a year that she was fixed before I found her and had been rewarded with that much time in which she appeared to be. It seems she was a late bloomer and when she bloomed...ohmygod.
I think that at one point she would have let me do her kitty-style.
She is never much of a talker except when I close the door to the bathroom (she hates being shut out of wherever I am), but last week she became a Supreme chirper. She began rolling all around on the floor and moving her tail out of the way of the servant's door. I couldn't pet her for fear that she would construe it as being, well, petted.
So, Tuesday morning it was to the vet's and in for tubal litigation...or whatever it is that they do. I'll tell you one thing: I never needed to know that I was being charged for bio-waste removal. Can you just picture the poor sanitation worker down in the vet's sewer cleaning that stuff out? Eww...
The upside of it was that I had a week's worth of entertainment as she wore her Elizabethan collar and auditioned for all sorts of Shakespearean characters.
"Romeo, oh Romeo, wherefor art thou- aack!"
"Oh, that this too, too solid flesh- aack!"
"By thee I foreswear- aack!"
"All the world's a stage and all the- aack!- merely players."
So, all in all, I got mine out of it. But the fact remained that I'd had to pay a hefty vet's bill with money I didn't really have. Yes, you guessed it. I paid with fake money. Well, more precisely I paid with theoretical money. To put even a finer point on it, I paid with money never to be printed, but which nevertheless seemed to satisfy the butcher.
And, so, I was caught in a conundrum. I had bequeathed what was essentially a promissory note and was not entirely sure I had the wherewithal to make good on it. What to do? What to do?
And so I had me a yard sale...
Not any yard sale, mind you, where used knickers are up for grabs (so to speak). Where one can find a scis or a betamax. No.
No no. To prove my love to my pussy and my credit report, I placed upon the tables (provided by none other than Lecram) half of my DVD collection, all of my VHS and all of my vinyl records.
Does this not move you to tears? Does this not make you want to reach out and touch me over and over and over and over and over and over and, if you're really good at it, under?
It makes me want to. In fact, hang on a second...thanks for your patience. Now, where was I?
Ah yes. And so I had me a yard sale. And sale I did. It seems that not very many of you have access to quality movies at 50 cents to $2 a pop. it seems that vinyl has not gone out of style at $1 per. It seems that I'm an idiot who could have gotten a lot more than I asked. BUT...not only did I more than recoup for the kitty's cut, I got rid of a lot of things that were hiding a lot of dust bunnies that were multiplying like...Mormons.
So, there you have it. My pussy got hot when I wasn't in the mood. I had her whacked. And I ended up paying for it in the end. A moral play if ever I've heard one.
And now I call her Eunis for obvious reasons.

( i just love writing to the fresno bee. and they just love writing back to me and telling me that i must write a letter that's under 200 words. so, this time i think i managed to keep it under the limit. my problem with 200 words is that the letter must be so simplistic as to ward off any substantiation i feel might be needed in order to make it a comprehensive message. heck, some people can't even say thank you in under 200 words. most can't get past spellcheck anyway, so why am i complaining, right? well, because i can. and my community needs to stop accepting everything our so-called officials call perks on the job. that's our money and they work for us, dammit.)
anyway, the following is my letter to the local paper:

I have to say that I am not in favor of Alan Autry or any elected official using taxpayer money to pad his/her waistline at a gourmet restaurant. Autry's comment about "working my ass off sitting there" falls on tired ears. i work my ass off NOT sitting down to make sure the infrastructure of anything being built will be safe for the public to walk or work or play or drive on, yet I don't have my meals paid for. Autry comes off sounding like everything he does is of such importance compared to my professional endeavors that I owe him that filet mignon and extra comfy hotel suite. Tell you what, Alan, if you'd be willing to sleep in a hotel bed that offers "Magic Fingers" I'd be willing to comp you the quarters so that your "ass" can get some quality relaxation. Remember that you, Bubba, are our public servant and we don't necessarily like having our teats pulled without our permission.

DeSanitized News For Your Veiwing Pleasure

Official: Zarqawi Eluded U.S. in Feb. Raid
1 hour, 44 minutes ago

Top Stories - AP
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - U.S. forces in Iraq believe they just missed capturing most-wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a February raid that netted two of his associates, a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday.
AFP/US ARMY-HO Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq

The official, who discussed the operation on the condition of anonymity, could provide no details on how Zarqawi escaped. U.S. forces recovered a computer belonging to Zarqawi, the official said, although he did not say how it was obtained.
[Later, the official was heard to scream out in frustration, "AND IT WAS STILL WARM!"]
Iraqi officials announced the Feb. 20 raid at the time but did not say Zarqawi was the target.
At a Pentagon news conference, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would only say, "we were close," but declined to elaborate, citing concerns about disclosing operational details.
[Operational details like "We were close, but no cigar, no cigarette, no hookah, no opiates...but some cool rugs that ought to fetch a great price on eBay"]
"I think in general the intelligence is getting better. Having said that, we still don't have Zarqawi," Myers said.
['Zarqawi' being the code name the military has allocated for dog feces. Intelligence getting better meaning Rumsfeld left the country again.]
Questioned about the level of insurgency in Iraq compared to last year, Myers said, "In terms of incidents, it's right about where it was a year ago."
[Reporters immediately jumped to their feet and asked if anyone remembered it sucking so bad for reporters fatality-wise last year, but everyone complained of a fog-like dimming of memory and headed for the hosted bar that is present at every briefing.]
Zarqawi, who has a $25 million bounty on his head, is believed to have orchestrated a relentless wave of car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and beheadings across the country.
[President Bush was reported to have said "With that much weight on him, you'd think it's be easy to find the sonofabitch. I mean, $25 million has got to be pretty heavy, right? I mean, I think I'd see him if he was peramputating down Lincoln sidewalk."]
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of Zarqawi, that "in terms of lethality, I would rank him quite high," but added, "I think he is on the run. Life for a terrorist, extremist is hard."
[After questioning Rumsfeld extensively about the word 'lethality' and whether he thought he should get credit for it the next time Webster's revised its dictionary, reporters then proceeded to wipe the tear from Rummie's eye, because they appreciate just how much he knows about how hard it is being an extremist]
Troops with a covert military unit were reportedly in place to arrest him as he was on his way to Ramadi, but he caught wind of them, ABC News reported late Monday, citing an unidentified senior military official.
[New shower stalls are being rushed to the battlefront to negate this heretofor unknown disadvantage]
The official said that just before the meeting was scheduled, a car was pulled over as it approached a checkpoint. A pickup truck trailing the car then turned and headed in the opposite direction.
[The pickup truck leaving is a classic Iraqi insurgent move known locally as "How did a checkpoint get put here in the middle of Iraq?" ]
Officials believe Zarqawi was in the fleeing truck, but when U.S. teams pulled the vehicle over several miles later, he was not inside, ABC reported. The official told the network that Zarqawi apparently jumped out of the vehicle when it passed beneath an overpass and hid there before escaping.
[Anonymous officials in Washington are said to have asked "Iraq has underpasses?"]
Inside the truck, the official told ABC, U.S. troops found Zarqawi's computer and about $104,000.
NBC, quoting U.S. military sources, reported Tuesday that among the items seized with the laptop were several small plug-in hard drives. Numerous pictures of Zarqawi were found in the computer's "My Pictures" file, the network said.
[Reporters questioned Bill Gates as to how Zarqawi could have come into possession of something as sensitive as "My Pictures". Gates is quoted as saying "As long as a user is not gay we see no legal problem funding any foundation."]
Captured in the Feb. 20 operation was Talib Mikhlif Arsan Walman al-Dulaymi, also known as Abu Qutaybah, an Iraqi government announcement said at the time.
[President Bush was quick to point out the dishonesty inherent in somebody who uses aliases. "Why, I remember back in the day when I'd be talking with Kenny-Boy and Big Dick..."he began right before he was shuttled off to a completely aboveboard Town Council meeting. ]
Qutaybah "filled the role of key lieutenant for the Zarqawi network, arranging safe houses and transportation as well as passing packages and funds" to Zarqawi, the government said.
It said Qutaybah was a known associate of other Zarqawi lieutenants already held by coalition forces, including Abu Ahmed, an al-Qaida-linked insurgent leader in the northern city of Mosul, who was detained Dec. 22.
During the same raid, Iraqi forces captured another Zarqawi aide who "occasionally acted as his driver," the government said. He was identified as Ahmad Khalid Marad Ismail al-Rawi, who also helped arrange meetings for al-Zarqawi. He also is known as Abu Uthman.
[Translated into English, Ahmad Khalid Marad Ismail al-Rawi loosely means The One Who Drives The Bad Man To The Bath House and Gets Him His Towel Thereby Making Himself A Bad Man's Bad Cabana Boy].

I Hate Gamecocks...But Now They're Mine

Wow. Makes you wonder what would happen if this state took up the question of stomping slugs on a dare. Death penalty?
While I can't speak to the problems of legal and technical language, I can speak to the true-to-his-toothpick-of-a-family-tree problem of Rep. Altman.
My brother lives in South Carolina and doesn't have a hell of a lot to say in defense of the normal resident. He says they are very nice and community-minded, but don't have the sense to come in out of the rain when their officials are backtracking them into the 19th century
...or, in many cases, just keeping them there.
But how much can you really say for a state (in general, that is) that blames liberals for the Supreme Conservative Court's repeated decisions to uphold Roe v. Wade, but says it's God's Will when a hurricane slams into them and flattens everything in sight (while running to the feds immediately for a handout so that they can continue living there)? If Terri Schiavo were a gamecock would she still be at the SPCA on life support?
Women are beaten around this "great" nation of ours always, every day, in every state, in every way. Do many of them return to their partners despite that? Yes, they do. One thing the article doesn't touch on as a reason for their returning is that many of these women believe they love the men who beat them. For whatever reason. Plus, they tend to blame themselves for the violence inflicted upon them. All it takes is a suppressed or abusive upbringing and the fear of losing any and all "stability" they feel they need in Society's eyes or their own and we have a recurring theme. Add to that almost non-existent counseling with any muscle in most states and you have the recipe for blamchowder.
Any person who claims that any woman who goes back to the man who beat them is dumb or "not bright" is a moron, pure and simple. This person is a person who most likely doesn't think twice when a friend grabs a woman-not-his-wife at a party, probably thinks 'well, that's what she gets for dressing like that". Don't like it? Then leave or change to suit your husband's needs.
Hey, I have a bill for everyone: all state representatives who think gamecocking is more egregious than domestic abuse should be forced to spend one month in a women's prison with a sign around their neck that reads "I Hate Gamecocks, But I Loooooove Any Other Kind".
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?s=3233130

I was just talking with my mother about this today at lunch. This article presents the truely disturbing possibility I foresee, that a small town pharmacist could actually enforce his/her narrow moral agenda on an entire community and be within his/her legal rights. And the community would then have to travel many miles in order to buy birth control or give up sex without condoms...which is as likely as Keanu Reeves winning an Oscar for Best Actor. Sex will happen, pregnancies will occur more often and teens will not learn anything from a pharmacist (since that is the age category most likely to be affected by this).
http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=13363
And why do some of us think that our morals are righter than others? Everyone has morals or ethics. No one person's ever match up completely with another's. So, why do we insist on pushing ours on others? If a pharmacist is uncomfortable dispensing certain legal drugs...get another type of job. We will defend our friends to the death even though they might be as guilty as sin of a crime (i.e. "he is not that kind of person, she was under a lot of stress, it was a random act that i know will never happen again"), but we will condemn strangers without ever getting to know them. These pharmacists are merely an example of the unthinking cruelty we mete out on a daily basis to people we will never try to know.

p.s. A recent blog about Walmart has a link that evidently does not work. In it is an article describing Walmart's reaction to a Canadian branch that voted to unionize. Walmart shut the store down with no warning within a couple of days. This store was a lifeline for that town.
Also, when a Canadian Walmart meat department decided to unionize, Walmart stopped selling meat from that location.
So, here's my idea: all Walmart employees in North America should now make it their goal to unionize. All of them. At once. Then let's see what the Walton family does. Shut every store down and go under rather than treat humans like humans? Outsource all of it to the sweatshops of the Third World (they do buy from many of them)? I think the opposite would occur. Walmart would be forced to open negotiations with the employees who are simply trying to gain some form of protection in their professional life.
And what a slap in the face it would be to all employers who think they can treat the rest of us like dogshit they just stepped in. I'm personally not a big fan of unions, because my one experience with the Carpenters Local up in Seattle left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth. It seems that the big dawgs of the Trade Show component were making any kind of deal with the Carpenters they could in order to grab a golden parachute. And the big dawgs of the Carpenters had no time for Trade Show builders, because we weren't actual carpenters.
That aside, though, I know many people who swear that without union representation they would not be employed or they would not be able to feed and clothe their families at the pay rates their employers would still be paying them.
Nuff said. I encourage all Walmart employees everywhere to unionize and force the Walton family into a position whereby they cannot squirm away with only minimal damage to their poersonal fortunes. We all deserve a living wage and the chance to enjoy life.

tales of fresno (the blogfogger's second)

i've been watching the making of a two-story fourplex across the street from me with avid interest sinse its inception. the lot had been vacant since i moved in about two years ago. for a while i was not happy about its being vacant and overgrown with weeds. but, after time, i began to appreciate the loneliness of it, the openness of it, the migrating birds that used it as a coffee shop(they could be so raucous and randy at times i thought i was at klein's truck stop on highway 99), the neighboring dogs that could sneak in via their fence and cavort for hours on end, the cyclone fence around my perimeter of it that kept me and everyone else out (but not the animals which made it kind of an urban zoo). i could see anything there: cats, dogs, squirrels, a possum or two, field rats. and birds: crows, blue jays, mockingbirds, sparrows, finches, doves, robins, chickadees (migrating from the foothills of winter to the spring and summer of the valley), hairy woodpeckers (moving to fresno from wherever they flew from), once an egret (non-migratory, but always an egret so what the hell) and hummingbirds. Cranes, gulls, hawks and falcons sometimes fly overhead and drop big poops..
this year i experienced a 'painted lady' butterfly migration that reminded me of the monarch migrations when i was very young.

and then i thought about the stupid volunteer border "agents" who would stop all of them and demand identification. i cry to think of a butterfly at a toll booth telling the man that the last 50,000 women he let through with no ID were "painted ladies" in search of rich husbands.

the monarchs would migrate every spring for a month or two from mexico up to canada. on their way, they would stop in the big redwoods and take a breather. these giant sequoias would be literally covered with them. there were days you could not see bark on 30' diameter trees 100' up. and we never bothered them other than wanting to drive up and see them.
this year, the "ladies" looked askance at me as i was pruning early flowers. i've never before encountered an attitudinal sapsucker that wanted points on the film.

the 'ladies' were everywhere for almost a month on their way to canada. brave dames, especially the ones my grill took out. to them it's probably a war to outwit and outrun the enemy...which is everything. sun and moon they can count on...but sometimes it rains. and sometimes a fly should ignore the chicken about crossing the road.

in my back yard there are, also, insects. my two favorites are preying mantises and dragonflys. you ever wondered what that battle would look like? i once watched a lellowjacket bee and large spider go at it in her web. it was brutal and intriguing. i could see both grappling for position while trying not to give up the high ground. it was an insane battle. the bee was still bigger than the spider. the bee had a stinger it was trying get the spider with. but the spider had web it could run around and a bunch of legs that worked the wire in expert fashion. i left before it was done. i was dealing with another cabin cleaner who wanted to kill me and was wielding a hammer, because i tongued his girl (who had briefly dumped him for 2 hours the night before when we we were all really, really, really not in control of our wits...mostly mine. i was learning how 'briefly' an eternity of hate is). and i had to make plans in case he really came after me. so, i didn't see the end of the fight.

i do wonder who would win between the preying mantis and the dragonfly? one thing about having a garden: i can be the throatcuttiest pirate and a don, because i never once have to get my hands bloodied. and if i'm questioned i can answer " i was pruning the roses".
such immunity, indemnity, disconnection, allocation of innocence...call it what you will. i love it.

i never get a parking tincket in my neighborhood.

so, NASA sends up a satelite that can track and dock with any other satelite. it gets within 300 feet of a pentagon orbiter and goes off course. the "shooters" say the intention was to try out something that could bring supplies to an orbiting satelite. when i read it my first thought was "and what if you attached an expolive device to its tip? could you then knock out any journalistic satelite (such as al jazeera if they managed to get one) or another nation's if said nation posed some sort of "threat"? most satelites have no immediate recourse in the event of an attack. this is something that is just not considered...and if it is it is written off as too expensive or as science fiction that is still not within the realm of credibility. so far, only terra-based missiles have been seen as something to destroy a satelite. but now, a satelite has gotten within 300 feet of another satelite on purpose before fucking up. one ounce of plastique or a mini-nuclear warhead (aka bunkerbuster)protected by a small cone that can perform in space will start a sublunar darwinism.
but what the hey? we're going to mars, right? isn't that what the president said? "back to the moon and beyond", dammit. there's water on that thar mars and i got cattle ta feed.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20050416/1151841323.htm&ewp=ewp_news_nasa

No News Is Good News?

Sobering news, but not highly surprising (neither the underreporting nor the administration's reaction to the corrective actions taken):

"According to Johnson and U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the issue, statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State Department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004.
That compared with 175 such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades.
The statistics didn't include attacks on American troops in Iraq, which President Bush as recently as Tuesday called "a central front in the war on terror."
The intelligence officials requested anonymity because the information is classified and because, they said, they feared White House retribution."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11407689.htm

WalMart: Coming Soon To A Corner Near You

this about says it all for these bastards. they truly are invading every midsized town they can find in the san joaquin valley. most of the towns are giving them a fight. some they win, some the bastards win.

tales of fresno (the first in a series as a blogflogger)

i just had a wee bite off of harmony.
i was standing on my back step, lighting a cigarette, when i saw a car coming down the street with its lights off.
i took my lighter and waved its flame at the car (not even thinking the driver might see it).
as the car neared i could see the driver leaning over and squinting at me.
i felt i looked pretty stupid, so it made sense that the driver would wonder what the hell i was doing.
he swerved a bit, but drove on past.
i went from the step and around the corner of the back gate in about three seconds, because i thought the car was slowing down and i would need to explain to the driver why i was waving the lighter.
but when i caught sight of the car again as it was moving toward van ness i saw its lights were now on.
the driver got my message.
and i felt sure he was thinking wow i can't believe i figured that one out.
i laughed my ass off at the implausibility of both.

Oil Hits New Record

From Netscape News comes this report. I have to ask: what happened to those supercool hydrogen cars that Bush so highly touted in one of his State of the Union speeches. Did they go up in a mushroom cloud like so many of his other promises? According to many, many sources we have in our automakers' hands the technology to build car engines that can get 80-120 miles per gallon of regular gas, hydrogen, electricity or any combination of the three. Why are we not seeing this come to fruition? Could it be because the energy industry was involved in creating current administraion policies? And they would not like it at all if we weaned ourselves off of dependence on foreign oil or began to seriously look at alternative sources of energy (particularly renewable ones)? Help me out here Enron, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Texaco, British Petroleum...et al.
And if the prices to not decrease, expect a draft in the next three years, because that's how long we have until our volunteer army is expended beyond its capabilities and we will definately need to invade another oil-producing country in the name of "freedom". Not that the last two produced any "benefits" for the average person in any country and certainly not for the average SUV driver. No pipeline across Afghanistan yet and no privatised oil producers in Iraq.
Oil Hits New Record
MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Oil prices raced to a new all-time peak on Monday, climbing toward $58 a barrel as OPEC signaled it would discuss a second output rise to try to quell the market's relentless rally. U.S. light crude hit a record $57.79 a barrel, surpassing Friday's high of $57.70, which was triggered by a forecast that prices could spike above $100 due to robust global demand and tight spare capacity. At 10:33 p.m. EDT Sunday, U.S. crude was up 31 cents at $57.58, while London's Brent crude struck an all-time peak at $56.80 a barrel, marking a gain of 29 cents. "I would have thought prices would struggle to go much higher. The market fundamentals suggest lower prices," said Mark Pervan, an analyst with Daiwa Securities in Melbourne.
"I think they will struggle to get over $60 in the next couple of weeks -- that is a big psychological barrier."
OPEC President Sheikh Amhad al-Fahd al-Sabah said on Saturday he would likely start consulting member producers on Sunday over a 500,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) increase to group supplies to cool the market.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries lifted output limits by 500,000 bpd to 27.5 million bpd in mid-March and left room for a second rise before a June ministerial meeting if prices failed to ease below $55.
"We had suspended (consultations) for a period of time because of the decline in prices," Sheikh Ahmad said.
"But now, the reality of prices requires that we once again undertake communications for the purpose of consultations with the fellow OPEC oil ministers ... pertaining to the 500,000-bpd hike."
Nigerian Presidential Adviser on Petroleum Edmund Daukoru said on Sunday the increase could happen within two weeks if prices stayed above $55 for at least the next 10 to 14 days.
U.S. oil prices have surged 33 percent this year, with big-money speculative funds buying heavily on signs that rapid demand growth in Asia's emerging economies and the United States would strain world supply.
Prices have gained more than $3 since Thursday when top energy derivatives trader Goldman Sachs (GS) released a report saying oil markets might have entered a "super-spike" period which could eventually drive them toward $105.
Concerns about the adequacy of U.S. gasoline stocks ahead of the peak summer demand season were also partly behind last week's price jump after a handful of refiners had production problems.
U.S. gasoline futures struck a new all-time high on Monday at $1.7380 a gallon, an increase of 0.007 cents.
© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.
04/03/2005 22:43

Did George Bush Really Sleep With A CENSORED!!!

(started March 30)
Evidently, I don't know how to access the newspapers via the internet. I read today in the Fresno Bee a story entitled "Newspapers Can Be Sued Over Political Figures' Lies". I can't find it now on their website nor can I find it on the LA Times website (where it originated).
But the article talks about how the Supreme Court (couldn't find it there either) "refused to shield the news media from being sued for accurately reporting a politician's false charges against a rival". The politician in question called some other politicians (city council members and a mayor) "liars", "queers" and "child molesters". Evidently, this was either not true or unprovable and the politicians so maligned took umbrage at the accusations being printed. The case does not mention whether the paper in question printed the allegations as fact or not. It merely says (within the confines of the newspaper article) "the law has placed a burden (albeit a minimal one) on the media to refrain from publishing reports that they know to be false".
Is that so? The media needs now to research every quote they get? Every newsbyte they catch must now be double and triplechecked in order to ascertain the veracity of said politician? All of us know that politicians lie as easily as they intake free brunches. So, now reporters must prove that the politicos are being honest. And, evidently, they need to go dooor to door and ask people if it's true they're queer, liars and kiddie touchers. Otherwise, they're not allowed to print what public figures say. So, can I sue the entire country's newspapers for WMD's in Iraq and Iraq's ties to al-qaeda and the "ongoing fight by our government for women's rights in Afghanistan"? Or is this a ruling tied strictly to local pissing contests that involve offended public figures?
The story that has encouraged the Supreme Court to rule that all newspapers must be self-censoring if they don't want to get spanked by the federal government is one "that started ten years ago when the Daily Local News in West Chester, PA printed a story headlined: 'Slurs, insults drag town into controversy'. It reported that the city council in nearby Parkesburg had been torn apart by shouting matches and fistfights." In 2000, the trial judge dropped the newspaper from the case and ordered that the person making the accusations pay the complainants, but it seems the newspaper was put back in last October (though that part of the case has not yet been tried).

(continued April 1)
So, I get printed by the media as stating that George Bush is the nation's worst mass murderer from his stint as Governor of Texas (he put something like 137 people to death), he is responsible for around 1,600 American deaths and around 100,000 Iraqi deaths, he has the morals of a Boy Scout group leader caught with kiddie porn, he's a liar, a drunk and a drug abuser. But I either can't prove these things or it can be said by others that these are merely my opinion and not fact. The newspaper prints what I say, but doesn't endorse it as fact. It prints as fact that I said it and in context of whatever the story is (i.e. I hold a protest vigil outside one of Bush's so-called Town Councils, because I was asked to leave after the GOP people saw an offensive bumpersticker on my car that said "Better Dead Than Red Stater").
The newspaper can be sued for covering what they might see as a story of interest when, in the context of that story, they print my arguments verbatim?
This is censorship at the highest judicial level. This validates Fox News and their pro-Bush rah rahing. This validates going after Dan Rather and company for running a story they did not research deeply enough. This validates embedded journalists who feed us only what they are fed by the military propagandists. And this completely invalidates anyone who wants to print the truth or their version of it if it steps out of line with the established order. In the meantime, Robert Novak is still on the loose even though he is the one who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the world. Interesting, too, because every other journalist who merely followed up on his story have been hit with contempt charges for refusing to give up their sources' names. And Seymour Hersh is being called a traitor and perhaps investigated for exposing our government's attempts to spy on Iran within Irani sovereign soil against all international treaties it's signed.
So, don't print any story about anyone calling your local poobah a poo-poo head unless you have pictures that show him with actual feces in his hair and don't take the administration to task for their illegal activities. But, by all means, ruin a CIA agent's career, because her husband went public to refute an administration lie.
By the way, I did finally find the article on the LA Times website, but they want money from me to even let me see it. And the Fresno Bee didn't seem to archive it. I don't know why. They paid something to reprint it. you'd think the press wanted us to have access to the printed word. Then again, maybe they're taking self-censorship to another level.

Daily kos Says It All

I got nuthin' more to add other than I have been witnessing this through the media for the last 5 years. This crap started as soon as Bush was "elected" the first time and it has gotten progressively worse ever since. Shame on us for staying silent and cowlike.


Suppressing free speechby kos Tue Mar 29th, 2005 at 08:36:51 PST
This is incredible:
Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.
But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.
There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been "ID'ed" and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.
After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a "private event" and were commanded to leave.
More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:
How is the Bush Administration "ID'ing" citizens before presidential events?
Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a "private event" - leading to citizens being kicked out?
Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.
The Secret Service revealed that we were "ID'ed" when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said "No More Blood For Oil." Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)
The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.
After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a "private event" the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt. The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?
Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander YoungDenver residentsI was emailed this account by the people involved, so it's straight from the horse's mouth. The AP did a story on this as well.
"They hadn't done anything wrong. They weren't dressed inappropriately, they didn't say anything inappropriate," Recht said. "They were kicked out of this venue and not allowed to hear what the president had to say based solely on this political bumper sticker.
"The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make," Recht said.So to emphasize -- the White House uses taxpayer dollars to finance these propaganda events. THEN, in order to keep out anyone who might be critical, they "outsource" ticketing and security. That way they can label the events "private" and kick out anyone they want in violation of the First Amendment.
Who in Congress will step up and call for an investigation?

So I Sent Him A Letter!

I had to. Because I like writing letters to famous people who can hurt me in oh so amny ways if they only cared to. Dennis Baxley is the man who created the bill in my last column and I couldn't let this pass by without a thoughtful note to him. So far, I have received a personal response from only one "famous" person that I have written to. It was not Baxley or anyone I have referred to so far on my blog. But here's hoping:

I'm not from your state. I live on the other shore. And I don't expect or even presume to have any say in how you and your fellow politicians run your state. But I was alarmed to read that you wish to impinge on academia's freedom of speech, as it concerns teaching. If i read correctly, you think that students should have the right to sue their teachers if they feel their beliefs are being held in disregard. Do you mean to say that students have the right to sue for their tuition being repaid or at least a portion to cover said class? Or do you believe that any student can sue a teacher for emotional damages and compensation, because the student feels their voice is not being heard in a manner they see fit?If a teacher is talking about evolution in the Darwinian sense and a student wants to argue in favor of Creationism, do you want the student to have the right to sue if the teacher tells that student that Creationism is not what the class is about? Or not what the class is about at that given time? Do you want the student to have the power to shut the course down, because he or she feels they are being dismissed?Having read the text of your proposed bill I can't help but wonder if you are not in favor of the latter. Remember, please, that you are dealing with education and imprinting your moral values on such will only lead to chaos and disfavor. This is the sort of issue that most likely will haunt you in later years. I know that you would say nerts to politicking for future votes. Most politicians would claim that. But you should take the time to think this over in a sober manner and decide slowly whether or not you should proceed further. Shutting down college teachers, because you think they discriminate against those of your philisophical ilk is an open invitation to anyone who has or will curry a grudge against a teacher. You think you will be able to control this if it's passed, but you don't consider the legal system thoroughly. Just as your party claims to hate tort lawyers, so you will open the floodgates for them.Think before you push this bill. Those who complain the loudest in the halls of learning are usually those who have no wish to excel.

The Flouridating of America

ohmigodohmigodohmigod (and when i say 'god' i mean the one not taught about in the classrooms). only in the floridation

Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs
THE LAW COULD LET STUDENTS SUE FOR UNTOLERATED BELIEFS.

By JAMES VANLANDINGHAMAlligator Staff Writer

TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.
The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.
The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.
While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”
The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.
According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.
Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.
“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.
Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened.
Similar suits could be filed by students who don’t believe astronauts landed on the moon, who believe teaching birth control is a sin or even by Shands medical students who refuse to perform blood transfusions and believe prayer is the only way to heal the body, Gelber added.
“This is a horrible step,” he said. “Universities will have to hire lawyers so our curricula can be decided by judges in courtrooms. Professors might have to pay court costs — even if they win — from their own pockets. This is not an innocent piece of legislation.”
The staff analysis also warned the bill may shift responsibility for determining whether a student’s freedom has been infringed from the faculty to the courts.
But Baxley brushed off Gelber’s concerns. “Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don’t want to hear,” he said. “Being a businessman, I found out you can be sued for anything. Besides, if students are being persecuted and ridiculed for their beliefs, I think they should be given standing to sue.”
During the committee hearing, Baxley cast opposition to his bill as “leftists” struggling against “mainstream society.”
“The critics ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty,” he said, adding that he was called a McCarthyist.
Baxley later said he had a list of students who were discriminated against by professors, but refused to reveal names because he felt they would be persecuted.
Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, argued universities and the state Board of Governors already have policies in place to protect academic freedom. Moreover, a state law outlining how professors are supposed to teach would encroach on the board’s authority to manage state schools.
“The big hand of state government is going into the universities telling them how to teach,” she said. “This bill is the antithesis of academic freedom.”
But Baxley compared the state’s universities to children, saying the legislature should not give them money without providing “guidance” to their behavior.
“Professors are accountable for what they say or do,” he said. “They’re accountable to the rest of us in society … All of a sudden the faculty think they can do what they want and shut us out. Why is it so unheard of to say the professor shouldn’t be a dictator and control that room as their totalitarian niche?”
In an interview before the meeting, Baxley said “arrogant, elitist academics are swarming” to oppose the bill, and media reports misrepresented his intentions.
“I expect to be out there on my own pretty far,” he said. “I don’t expect to be part of a team.”
House Bill H-837 can be viewed online at http://www.flsenate.gov/.

An Open Letter To The National Press Club
-->
An Open Letter To The National Press ClubSean-Paul Kelley San Antonio March 28
Members of The National Press Club,
We, the undersigned bloggers, are very concerned about how liberal political bloggers are being systematically under-represented and belittled in the mainstream media, academic settings and media forums. By being intentionally excluded away from these venues, we are effectively pushed out of the discourse of opinion-leaders. The result is that the conventional wisdom about blogging, politics and journalism, as it concerns liberal blogs, becomes a feedback loop framed by the Conservatives and their media allies.
- By Sean Paul in Media Criticism on Mon Mar 28th, 2005 at 01:59:15 PM PDT
Indeed, just a few weeks ago, The Brookings Institution hosted a panel that originally included no liberal political bloggers and yet while including numerous conservative political operatives in the event. We registered our protest and the Brookings Institution's response was simply to invite a few liberal political bloggers to attend, yet not sit on the panel, as we had originally insisted upon.
Today, however, we are faced with an entirely new situation that is more insult than misrepresentation. The discredited conservative media operative Jeff Gannon, nee Guckert has been invited to sit on a panel at the prestigious National Press Club to talk about the scandal surrounding his access to the White House and more generally, the similarities and differences between bloggers and journalists. Guckert's token liberal counterpart will be a gossip blogger and sex comedy blogger. While we have nothing but the greatest respect for Mr. Graff and Ms. Cox we believe that neither represents bloggers who write about hard-nosed politics. And as for Mr. Guckert, he isn't a blogger, he's barely a journalist, and not a single political blogger involved with the Gannon/Guckert scandal, or otherwise, has been invited to sit on the panel to counter Mr. Guckert's arguments.
Therefore, we the undersigned bloggers, respectfully but firmly insist that a serious political blogger such as John Aravosis, of Americablog.org be included on the panel to fairly and accurately represent our industry and us. Mr. Aravosis has agreed to our request that he serve on the panel as our representative and is available should such an invite be forthcoming.
This situation is simply unacceptable. We will push back against the growing bias and sloppiness we see in the mainstream media as it concerns serious political blogging. If we do not we will never achieve any semblance of balance in the media. If we do not, we abdicate our ability to tell our own side of the story. If we do not we leave it to others to define us and defame us.
Please call Julie Shue at the The National Press Club and politely insist that they include John Aravosis of Americablog.org at their event. Here are there numbers: 202-662-7500 or 202-662-7501 or email at tglad@press.org and info@npcpress.org.
Sincerely,
Sean-Paul Kelley, http://www.agonist.org DCMediagirl, http://www.dcmediagirl.com Ezra Klein, http://ezraklein.typepad.com Echidne of the snakes, http://www.echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.comAmanda Marcotte, http://www.pandagon.net Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, http://www.BuzzFlash.comMatt Stoller, http://bopnews.com Democratic Underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/Lindsay Beyerstein http://majikthise.typepad.comShakespeare's Sister, http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com and http://www.bigbrassblog.comBob Brigham, www.SwingStateProject.comDave Johnson, http://www.Seeingtheforest.comMatt Singer, http://www.leftinthewest.comKos, http://www.dailykos.comKari Chisholm, http://www.blueoregon.com Steve Gilliard, http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/Crooks and Liars, http://www.crooksandliars.com/Brian Baltahttp://balta.blogspot.comThat Colored Fellahttp://www.ThatColoredFellasweblog.bloghorn.comAnna Brosovic http://annatopia.com/blog.html skippy the bush kangaroo http://www.xnerg.blogspot.comDavid Neiwert Orcinus http://www.dneiwert.blogspot.comJulien 's List http://www.educatedeclectic.blogspot.com

but what I'm still trying to figure out (even though I like the letter) is why I can't put my name and blog address on there. Is this an elitist blogger thing? Do they not know of the clout I carry with all of my posse? Are they afraid that I will legitimize them in a way they are not ready for? Is blogging only for "them folk"? Am I too enebriated to find the right button? Inquisitive minds want to know.
Seriously, What's His Name from Americablog should be on that panel if they're going to allow Guckert (kind of sounds like what I do after a long Saturday night) that public forum.

Plum Island Redux

Well, here we are at 5:00 PM on a beautiful day after a week of almost solid rain and I'm in front of the computer once more...aided by my ever-diminishing army of Newcastlians. I continue my "research" about Plum Island Animal Disease Research Lab and I find that the Homeland Security Department took it over in 2003. I, also, find that we signed an international treaty in (I think) 1969 to stop developing bioterror organisms, but we continue to "produce' them in order to find out how to stop them. So, we agree to stop, but don't on the grounds of self-defense:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/29/210214.shtml

Also, Grumpy ( a commenter) mentioned that the island may now be involved in "weaponized" anthrax. I had come across this allegation yesterday, but didn't note in my blog. Mainly because I was having too much fun seeing just how adrift from my initial point I could go. But here we have the Island denying any interest in anthrax:
In "The Silence of the Lambs," FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) promises Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) an annual trip to Plum Island in exchange for information on a serial killer. The cannibal seethes: "Anthrax Island?"
The island is still battling that image. "We have no interest in anthrax," Dr. McKenna says, because it is endemic to the U.S.
Anthrax is endemic to the U.S. ? Perhaps natural anthrax is, although I don't know of anthrax in the wild. I've never heard of roving herds of anthrax. I've never heard of hunting permits for anthrax. I do know that it is a naturally occuring substance, much like cannabis. But I have never known it to be anything other than invisible and unattended until somebody started putting it in letters (it should be said, though, that the anthrax put in the letters was not naturally occuring. it was "manipulated" or man-made). So, if anthrax for a terror use is endemic (made in the U.S.), then it seems that we are making it and f**king with it at some level. Maybe not Plum Island level, but a level that cuts out the handyman and/or meth maker.
But what constitutes "weaponized" anthrax? Well, according to the Washington Post, it's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A40896-2001Dec13
"It remains unclear whether Dugway scientists have the technical capacity to make anthrax spores as dangerous as those found in the letters to Daschle (D-S.D.) and Leahy (D-Vt.). The particles in those letters were extremely small and the formulation very pure, with far more spores per gram than the U.S. offensive bioweapons program had achieved at its pinnacle in the late 1960s. Small size and high purity are crucial if infectious quantities are to become airborne and inhaled to cause the most deadly form of anthrax.
William Patrick, who led the Army's offensive biological weapons program at Fort Detrick until the program ended in 1969, said yesterday that it was he who taught Dugway scientists how to dry deadly bacteria into a fine powdery form in 1998. "

Drying the stuff and making it small and pure. Sounds simple to me...except for that little problem of getting my hands on any of it.
But wait one stinkin' minute. Does this article talk of Dugway Proving Ground, 80 miles out of Salt Lake City? And does it talk about commercial animals that were killed downwind of Dugway by nerve gas? It's not Plum Island, but the aria's similar. And it's now proven that we are making weaponized anthrax domestically along with unnamed other "deadly bacteria".
Newsmax (of undefined credibility) states that it was Russia that provided Iraq with the know-how to produce weaponized anthrax and the timing of our government's shipping of "normal" anthrax to Iraq was coincidental:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/140747.shtml
However, as I noted in an earlier column there was an Iraqi scientist at Plum Island doing bio-germ research who went back to Iraq in 1990 or 91, began teaching at Baghdad University and was subsequently killed (some say by the Israelis).
http://www.rense.com/general2/up.htm
So, who's to say which government did the most damage?
Continuing on, however. This blog that I found actually seems rational and well researched:
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/9.htm
and it states that the University of Iowa and Iowa State University both had strains of the weaponized anthrax in their possession for some time. But, somehow, both institutions destroyed all of their samples before any comparison could be made between theirs and that which was mailed.
In a sense, I'm getting closer to Plum Island geographically. I've made it from utah back to the upper Mid-West. And I'm wondering why colleges are being allowed to play with substances that can kill through the smallest exposure. Not that I don't trust the government any more than I would a grad student. I'd never say that. Never.
It's interesting to note how many of the so-called mainstream websites that purport to have educational knowledge of weaponized anthrax insist that the most probable perpetrator od disseminating weaponized anthrax is none other than the former Soviet Union. in the following article, the writer mentions the USSR and downplays any possible U.S. involvement, because (as the writer notes) the U.S. signed a treaty in the 1970's agreeing to stop the cultivation of bio-terrorism germs. But at the end of the article it states that the most likely perpetrator of the mailing of the weaponized anthrax is domestic and that the original Ames strain comes from College Station, Texas. So, our country doesn't produce this stuff any more, but the perpetrator is most likely an American and the strain of anthax used is a domestic product. Did the mailer latch onto it before we signed our treaty and let it sit for 20-30 years? Unlikely.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/bt/bioprep/biofacts/bioterr-overview.html

According to the Washington Post, however, only three countries have the technology to produce an airborne anthrax that can do what the anthrax mailed within our country did: the former Soviet Union, Iraq and us. So, that gives us a 2 out of 3 chance to be the creators of this strain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A47864-2001Oct24&notFound=true

And where in all of this is Plum Island? I still don't know. We have documentation of weaponized anthrax being cultivated in Utah, Iowa and even Arkansas. But Plum Island and the government deny adamantly that the Island ever worked with or on it. And we still have not a single lead as to who might have sent the stuff to anyone. Our government was able to define Iraq as the culprit behind the 9/11 attacks without any corroborating evidence and invade it with no meaningful opposition (other than the one "focus group" comprised of tens of millions of people around the world), but it can't even give us a hint of who might have sent the anthrax or where they got it from almost four years after the fact. This anthrax is a very rare commodity and each batch has unique "fingerprints". It shouldn't take a bio-chemist to figure it out. And, if it does, we've got plenty of them.

By the way, I've got to give thanks to my good friend Erik over at The Generik Brand:
http://generik.blogspot.com/
for egging me into starting a blog. Somehow, he knew that my love for beer, my unlimited home time due to being single and reclusive during my afterhours and my need to blow sputum would either land me on the FBI list (which I do believe I'm already on) or get me elected Governor of California. He wanted neither so he suggested a blog. I thank him even as I curse him.

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays?

Normally, I'd add on my own two cents worth and more, but this speaks for itself.
(do not click on the "links" within the story...they are really links to ads)
http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes#
(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.
Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.