Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000951.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000951.php on line 91
December 11, 2003
Oh, I see.

Kevin Drum answers that puzzling question about the Halliburton gas pricing for me. From his perspective it's profiteering. To me, the story also reads like Halliburton is getting gouged by their own sources, but maybe that's the price you pay for being part of an illegal invasion force, hmmm?

The only thing this makes me think is that I was right all along and that some people don't, in fact, actually understand what we mean when we say, "equality" and that Ralph is one of them. I don't know of anyone who has a real problem with " equality of the starting line and the meritorious result of the finishing line." No one of sense wants to eliminate the rewards of merit. Most actual liberals I know are a lot more concerned with the starting line, nor have I ever heard anyone sensible demand to have the race started over when the results reflected actual merit.

Oh, and for those interested in human rights while they shop, check out Katrina's endorsement of NoSweatShop.

Guest-blogging for Eric Alterman today is Eric Boehlert and he has some good stuff, including a bit about that Army Chaplain, Yee, who is being tried for adultery (!!) and having pr0n on his computer since the government seemed unable to find any, you know, terrorism-related stuff with which to charge someone (illegally) detained on charges of being a terrorist.

I missed this yesterday, but David at Orcinus is arguing that the Right isn't content to wait on marketing research to develop "thought police" (okay, no, he didn't see or connect to the story I referenced earlier), they're creating "thought crimes" already.

All over the 'net, people are debating what the "real" reason is that Gore endorsed Dean. Silly me. I thought it was the reason he gave us. Because, like Dean or not (although he didn't say that), he's the only one who has managed to inspire passion in a significant percentage of liberal voters.

Me, as I've said before, I prefer Kerry for experience and ability. I prefer Kucinich's kind of "liberal" aside from what I see as his mistaken approach to Iraq. But I'm not, by any means, anti-Dean.

Read The Non-Political Side Of Politics, because it's interesting.

If you read StoutDem, you'll see that it's too late for gay marriage to make a mockery of the institution of marriage. "Reality" tv already did that.

And in the, "this has to be a joke" category? How about a member of the Bush family, promoting faith-based prisons? I wonder if he's counting on the unconstitutionality to keep him from having to implement, and pay for, this idea and hoping that the mere suggestion will buy him points with those who vote based on religious parade? (It's not just George, is it? The whole family seems to be opportunistic crackpots.)

And Tom Paine gives us a round-up of acts of secrecy by Congress. Notice especially the slimness of the margin in most instances. One vote. Three votes. Notice even more, that each of these votes happened on a Friday. That, as most of us know, is when the government does things it doesn't want to answer for. And the arm-twisting that's gone on . . . this is a disgrace.

Of course, as Daniel Drezner points out, Australia could give any country a run for their money when it comes to badly behaved politicians and certainly the behavior of the U.K. parliament is . . . shall we say, rather amazing, but those examples seem to be about, you know, personal bad behavior and not the kind of strong-arm, political "machine" tactics our guys on the Right are engaging in.

Quite honestly, I'm still confused by this slash-and-burn approach. Do they have some perception that they'll never be out of power, that they'll never have to face the consequences of this kind of behavior? Do they have some reason to think they won't have to face the questions from their own side of the political fence from those "Republicans" who are beginning to be uncomfortable with their party leadership's approach to policy? (Do they know something the voters don't know?)

Posted by AnneZook at 12:29 PM