Foreign Journalist Being Told They Cannot Take Pictures Of Bodies

I was just listening to a report from NPR's "To The Point." Sounds like foreign journalist (at least), are being told that they can accompany NOLA rescue teams on missions, but if they are caught taking photo of bodies they will be returned and taken out of the area.

Nice to see that a rescue mission will be scuttled because someone took a picture of a body. Now you can really see where priorities lie.

Take a listen for yoursel, four minutes into the "Making News: Receding Waters Yield Corpses in New Orleans" segment:

http://www.kcrw.com/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=tp&air_date=9/8/05&tmplt_type=Show.

Meet your new scapegoat, same as the old scapegoat

The Right has found its scapegoat for Katrina -- drum roll please -- the new strawman is the Bureaucracy.

Just finished watching Scarborough and it was on the lips of every commentator and reporter. Not a person, not the administration, but the Bureaucracy. Much like the bogeyman, the bureaucracy in this case doesn't exist -- it is a convenient cutout that those who created this problem use to distract the nation.

This is the same tactic the Repubs used maybe 7-10 years ago. They wanted to get the average American really angry about taxes but because under Reagan and papa Bush they helped increase taxes, they need to create an enemy that they could focus people on. What did they come up with? The IRS. Blame the IRS for taxes, not the people in Congress who voted for all the taxes laws. No, no, it is the evil IRS.

Lets see how well this holds up...

Nanny Says Pelosi Admitted Killing and Threatened Her

Wow! Right?

Yeah, wrong Pelosi. This is the story of Daniel Pelosi, on trial for murder in Riverhead, Long Island.

Didn't realize that when I saw the healine in the New York Times, which is the same as the title of this post.

Nearly jumped out of my skin in shock and awe.

Giuliani in 2008

After reading my post below, a few people mentioned that they don’t think Giuliani could run for President because he is too moderate, read pro-choice. The religious right would never go for it and they are the reason George got to stay in office.

Overall, I think my readers are right but I offer two counter points because, well, I have a problem admitting I’m wrong.

First is a column by E. J. Dionne, Moderates, Not Moralists. I like E. J., he's a pretty smart guy (that's why he has a column and I have a blog), so you should take a look.

He argues that it was the moderates that won Bush the election. If Bush can sway moderate voters, just think of the damage Giuliani could do. He was a two-term Republican mayor of New York City. He might not need the religious right to win the election.

Second, Bush really, really, really, needed every constituency he had to come out and vote for him. Sadly, the little bastards did.

If Bush manages not to do anything worse than he already has, if things get even marginally better, a new Republican candidate could have a pretty good chance of winning in 2008.

If Bush manages not to screw the pooch this time out, I think a moderate candidate like Giuliani, who has an incredible national profile and could grab a lot of those moderate swingers, wouldn’t need the religious right as much.

I’m not saying a Giuliani run is going to happen, just that I can conceive of a situation where it is possible.

Ding-Dong the witch is dead

1 down, a bunch more to go.

My joy at Ashcroft’s leaving is severely curtailed by two outstanding issues.

1. Just think of how nice it would have been to watch them all go.

2. Who the hell is Bush going to replace him with?

Working off of issue number 2, I've had one friend say, "dunno, but he was so fucking bad, it may not matter."

Now, considering this is a man who lost an election to a dead guy, she might be right; but come on, this is the Bush administration we're talking about.

So who is going to be the next AG? I wouldn't mind Giuliani. Ok, let me rephrase that. In all my nightmare scenarios Giuliani is the least horrifying. At least he's pro-choice.

In truth though, I don't think it’s going to be him. Homeland Security seems like a much better fit. Not that he has any real background to qualify him for the post, but neither does Tom Ridge. (Except that he was Governor of Pennsylvania, and he did as good a job in bring in Pennsylvannia for Bush as he has done as the head of Homeland Security.)

No, Homeland Security is just a better fit for the whole "Hero of September 11th" story line, which I feel the Republican king makers can't wait to use in a 2008 Presidential run.

Hey, at this point, if all Giuliani did was change the name of the Homeland Security Department, I'd vote for him in 2008. Just hearing that name makes me think of people goose-stepping through the Rose Garden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37503-2004Nov9.html?sub=AR

Pretty pathetic

From the NY Times article, 'President Feels Emboldened, Not Accidental, After Victory.'

"Mr. Bush is reveling in winning the popular vote..."

Talk about C-Plus Augustus. What is considered by most people to be a basic necessity for winning the Presidency is a reason to celebrate for this guy. And he only won by 3% percent!

"Hey, ma I passed my social studies test!"

"That's great honey, what did you get?"

"A D! That's a whole three points above an F."

"Oh well, the world needs it's ditch diggers."

Can we move on to Bush continuing his downward spiral? I'm tired of all his peacocks parading.

Falluja, a continuation of major combat operations

Just one of the many articles out there about Falluja. I only post it here as a reminder so that we don't forget about Iraq and our troops and that our being there is this President's responsibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/international/08CND_IRAQ.htm

Why is it that I don't see an end to major combat operations happening for quite sometime?

Onward Christian Soldiers...

Interesting story in The Washington Post on how the Christian right mobilized to GOTV for Bush Cheney.

They are definitely looking for a lot of credit for GWB's win last week. Like I said here , lets give them their due.

The article says:

The rallying cry for many social conservatives was opposition to same-sex marriage. But concern about the Supreme Court, abortion, school prayer and pornography also motivated these "values voters." Same-sex marriage, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was "the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term."

OK, can you holier than thou motherf*ckers stop using same sex marriage as a scare tactic. I mean Jesus, this is a non-issue, how does someone else's marriage affect yours? (Note: when I said Jesus just before, I was not talking directly to him. I was committing blasphemy to make a point.)

Look, if you think God is against gay people marrying, wouldn't your specific god be against any marriage done outside your church? Shouldn't ya stop all those too?

I know it's been said before, but if you want to defend marriage, go make divorce illegal. Let's see how many people across the country back that one. Let's see what happens when you are not demonizing and taking away the rights of a minority.

Bunch of cowards. WWJD my ass.

Update:
Looks like these religious zealots have called for a sacrifice, Arlen Specter. Checkout Josh, over at TalkingPointsMemo, and Atrios.

Commentary on Harry Reid for Senate Minority Leader

Daniel Kreiss, over at Exegesis has a great post looking at Harry Reid's record. If you want to know a little about Reid, I suggest you go take a look:

http://dkreiss.blogspot.com/2004/11/take-good-look-at-harry-reid.html

Dan is pretty pissed about Reid’s awful voting record (you should really take a look - Dan's right). Below I’ve re-posted the comment I left on Dan’s site.

---------------- Re-posted ----------------
For a moment disregard all his past votes; hell, forget the man all together.

From a strategic point of view, why would you choose a Senator from a heavily Republican state? Do we want to be the first and second party to lose a Senate leader in the last 50 years!

In 1998, Daschle won by 62%. In 2004, Reid only won by 61%. Sure Nevada's a little more Democartic than South Dakota, but it ain't safe.

How is he going to lead a fight, let alone run the filibuster necessary when Bush puts up a fundamentalist, born-again for the Supreme Court? How can he be a strong leader when he has to constantly worry about being taken out in 2010? Even a Senator with six years is always running for reelection.

We need a fucking firebrand. Someone with the courage to point out the emperor has no clothes. Someone who will raise the roof, who will call the President a liar and shove the Republican’s hypocrisy back in their faces. And a Senator who will win, not lose, votes for acting this way.

A lot of people talk about Daschle not being a wartime consigliore. I don’t think Reid is in a position to be one either.

A little more on Language

Ok, the more I think about it, the more I like this Ralph Reed Republican thing.

It's a little subversive. It's not an outright insult. Someone tagged with it either has to own it or reject it. They would have to deny a part of what their party stands for or accept everything that Ralph Reed does. Tag it onto the right Republicans and maybe you can force a little crack in party loyalty.

Anyone got any other ideas?
Suggestions on Republicans who would not appreciate this title or other titles welcome.

Ralph Reed Republicans

Thinking a little more on language (see two posts down) and after reading a post by Tom Schaller over on Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/5/163731/178, I move that we start calling all Republicans, "Ralph Reed Republicans."

Reed, you see, wanted to not merely deliver the social conservatives' "values" votes this year, but to ensure that their pivotal role be made noted and respected -- broadcast and trumpeted, loudly and quite publicly. They didn't want to just win; they want credit and plaudits for scoring the decisive touchdown.

Awesome. The fact that this election - the first post-9/11 election, with a war in Iraq abroad and a changing economic situation at home - will be remembered by the we-need-it-simplified media as the "values" election, is Reed's great gift to us.

Why? Because I suspect that right now that the Wall Street wing, and the small business wing, and the defense industry wing, and the tax reform wings of the party are shuddering at the thought that Americans are being told that Bush got to 51 percent based on "values" voting. Would not the better "take-away" storyline from this election be that Bush won because the nation believes in Republicans' fiscal and defense policies, their steadfastness and leadership abilities? I'm meeting a lot Republicans (both conservatives and moderates) who do not want this election to be framed as the Ralph Reed Rout.

Tom makes a pretty good point; there are probably a group of Republicans who don't want to be associated with this guy or what he symbolizes.

I sure don’t want to be called a “Strom Thurmond Democrat.” Hell, for that matter, I wouldn't want to be known as a “Zell Miller Democrat." Oh wait, that’s pretty much the same thing.

Let’s confront these Republicans who don’t agree with their party’s aggressive turn toward religious fundamentalism by forcing them into being associated with it.

They are reaping the benefits, they are riding the movements coattails while the rest of the country slides back into a repressive, close-minded mindset. Time to own up or shut up.

The Republicans made their bed, now let’s make them sleep in it, and with all the skanky whores they brought with them.

And as a bonus, while it might upset some Republicans (great!), it will probably work much better illuminating to undecideds exactly what/who the Republican Party represents.

So there you have it, they are all, now and forever, Ralph Reed Republicans.