Democrats

. . . and weep for the Fourth Amendment:

And people wonder why Congress has an approval rate of 9%.

Sheesh.

UPDATE: FISA passed in the Senate, 69 - 28:

WASHINGTON - The Senate approved and sent to the White House a bill overhauling controversial rules on secret government eavesdropping Wednesday, bowing to President Bush's demand to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

Despite my misgivings about his economic policies, I've pretty much decided I'm going to vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming election. My business partner makes a strong case for McCain, but franky, I'm tired of old, white guys running the country.

But then I read a story like this, and it makes me wonder if there really is any point in voting for anyone.

On the second day of a weeklong tour intended to highlight his values, Mr. Obama traveled to the battleground state of Ohio on Tuesday to present his proposal to get religious charities more involved in government programs.

In his own inimitable way, the Rude Pundit this morning posted about the absurd FISA legislation currently being debated in the Senate. The non-obscene central point:

If Madison or Benjamin Franklin could, they would bitch slap the Democrats in Congress for legalizing the ability of the President to authorize spying on Americans with no oversight, no cause other than whatever whim the President wants to call an emergency. And to the Republicans who pinched each other's nipples in joy at how the Democrats raised their haunches for easy access, the Rude Pundit hopes you trust the hell out of President Obama.

That's the thing that amazes me: the Republicans, almost without exception, are willing to turn this kind of power over to a Democratic president. Who will likely have a solidly Democratic House and Senate behind him.

Have they lost their minds?

Friends, this is what our war has brought:

Mother who defied the killers is gunned down

Five weeks ago Leila Hussein told The Observer the chilling story of how her husband had killed their 17-year-old daughter over her friendship with a British soldier in Basra. Now Leila, who had been in hiding, has been murdered - gunned down in cold blood. Afif Sarhan in Basra and Caroline Davies report on the final act of a brutal tragedy.

Leila Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband - the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse.

What he said:

And to finish:

Jim Downey

Okay, I guess no one thought Sara Silverman's "I'm F'ing Matt Damon" was funny, but I don't care. As a matter of fact, I'm posting a parody of I'm F'ing Matt Damon called I'm F'ing Obama. Sorry, but I still have a 3rd grade sense of humor and think these things are F'ing hilarious!

Most of the time I have nothing but nice things to say about Ellen Johnson. She's an intelligent, brave, proud spokesperson for atheists. I probably agree with her 98% of the time. But, I don't know what the hell she is thinking in this instance.

I couldn't disagree more. Not voting is the best way to make politicians continue to ignore us. I am frustrated by the same things Ellen is. However, it makes no sense at all to forfeit my vote, as a protest. That's the worst idea I've heard in a while. Write in Richard Dawkins' name or something, but don't sit home.

Rather than stating this in the comments of the post, I think a response to Brent's opening paragraphs in his latest review of Vox Day's book warrant a full post.

Brent, unsurprisingly, I agree with you.

Kind of.

Sort of.

Mostly.

Here's what I agree with you about:

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal, rational for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

Here's where our opinions may part:

I have lately (within the last few years) come to believe that the entire social and political "atheist movement", as it nominally exists, is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who organize activist marches, set agendas and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group seem to be lying to themselves. There is no cohesive atheist political movement.

more below the fold

Okay, sorry if I am offending any UFO believers that read UTI, but I think Dennis Kucinich is just as big a kook as Falwell, Robertson or any of the other creation fundies we normally make fun of. I just finished watching the Dem presidential debate on MSNBC and am dumbfounded. Kucinich raised his hand when all candidates were asked if anyone believes in UFO's. (rolls eyes)

The moderators (Tim Russert & Brian Williams) specifically asked Kucinich if he believes in UFO's and Kucinich said "Yes. I believe in UFO's because I have seen one." No kidding. Those were his exact words. I'm disappointed. I like Kucinich, but I can no longer take this guy seriously. This really sucks because Kucinich is the only one with enough balls to stand up and call for the Iraq war to be defunded and for the US to move to a single payer health care system.

And no, this isn't about biology. It's about the idiot democrats who seem poised to cave in yet again to Bush's demands. From today's New York Times:

Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

WTF?!?!?! They are so friggin' afraid that they will be painted as being "soft on terror" that they're perfectly willing to just cut out the 4th Amendment and toss it aside.

Troop withdrawal by 2013 not certain, top Democratic presidential candidates say

From the Kansas City Star:

HANOVER, N.H. | The leading Democratic presidential hopefuls conceded Wednesday that they cannot guarantee to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2013, the end of the next president’s first term.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Swear to god I'd vote for Ron Paul over any of these gutless assholes. (more below)

Via Political Wire:

Quote of the Day
"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."

-- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), quoted by the Des Moines Register.

*Sigh* Another pol who is either talking to God, or willing to make it sound like he is in order to please the faithful.

kos is on it too.

Jim Downey

OK, you may have already heard about this. But if not, it is my pleasure to introduce yet another right-wing nut who is all for chucking out the Constitution, imposing martial law, and declaring George W. Bush to be President for Life because, see, it's all in the interests of Western Civilization.

And no, I'm not kidding. Here's a taste:

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

I've always kinda liked Chris Dodd (Senator from CT). However, his vote to authorize Bush's Iraq war shows a fundamental lack of judgement that is hard to forgive. I hadn't really given his presidential bid much consideration to this point, but I found something interesting:

It's about time a candidate spoke to me/us on this issue. I am so sick of hearing Hillary, Barack and John outfaithing each other to court Xian voters.

Dirk

Coturnix from A Blog Around The Clock interviews Democratic candidate for President John Edwards about his views on science and science education.

[Sen. Edwards] We need to strengthen scientific education in this country. We need to send more kids to college and invest in graduate programs to create a new generation of scientists who will continue to make America stronger and lead the way for the rest of the world.

Check it out.

Obama says he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority."

So, everybody ... still think he's The One?

Barack Obama said something critical of right-wing Christians.

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart.”

But he said it in an address at the 50th anniversary convention of the United Church of Christ.

He also, according to a New York Times story “said that religion has a rightful role to play in American politics, and he praised people of faith ...”

One blogger I read religiously is the brilliant, level-headed, funny Pesky Apostrophe, and she sees these recent statements as a possible reason to support Obama. (See "Losing my religion.")

But I don’t know that I could ever vote for him. He’s just another flavor of christ-tard to me.

Via BoingBoing comes news that Tim Wu has an excellent piece up about the forthcoming auction of wireless spectrum, and how it presents the opportunity to encourage the kind of innovation necessary for continued development of seamless connectivity of electronic appliances and ubiquitous computing. Wu, a leader in the promotion of net neutrality and broadband tech, understands that establishing common standards and then allowing inventors to attach their gadgets to wireless networks will be the critical infrastructure of the future. An excerpt:

The right to attach is a simple concept, and it has worked powerfully in other markets. For example, in the wired telephone world Carterfone rules are what made it possible to market answering machines, fax machines and the modems that sparked the Internet revolution.

Leon Panetta, Chief Of Staff during the Clinton Presidency, commenting on President Bush's trip to Virginia as "Consoler In Chief":

"In many ways, he is our national chaplain."

Obviously, I do not agree with this statement. I think that at times our President likes to act like a national Chaplain. I have observed this sort of self-concious, self-righteous piety first hand many times in my life. Usually from a male family member who is picked to lead a prayer at a family gathering, or say a few words at a funeral. All of a sudden, the happy, secular, hard-drinking, joke-telling crazy Uncle Larry is praying in a rolling baritone voice with "thees" and "thous" thrown in for good measure. The hypocrisy and deception always made me uncomfortable - even as a believer.

It is also interesting to me that Panetta, a Democrat, a Gore supporter, and an outspoken opponent of the Bush Administration, would phrase this the way that he did. "He" is our national Chaplain, not "The President", or "American Presidents". He could have said something along the lines of, "In many ways, American Presidents must act like a national Chaplain during times of great crisis."

But he didn't. Panetta is too damned smart to have misspoken on this.

Is President Bush our "National Chaplain"? And what exactly does that mean for our country?

It's happened again: based on a tip, a local police department used SWAT-team tactics to kick in the door of a private home and invaded with over a dozen heavily armed officers, using smoke bombs and intimidation. The only problem: the tip was wrong, and the person they were looking for wasn't there. This happened in Elgin, IL, two weeks ago. From the Courier News:

Search warrant in hand, perhaps 15 officers with the department's tactical response team burst into the Ann Street home of Frank and Betty Granger about 7:30 a.m., looking for an individual and a weapon. The officers damaged doors and broke windows, scorched a carpet and handcuffed the Grangers, who both are in their early 60s, as well as their son and three high-school-age grandchildren, according to the couple. But the search turned up neither the man nor the gun.