And here's more Sunday funnies (even though it's Monday...)

By the way, sorry been gone for awhile

I'll post a picture of us on spring break as soon as I can remember how...

DeLay: Could we change the subject?

America's Most Wanted Pest Exterminator, floating toward the career equivalent of Niagara Falls, has spent the last few weeks thrashing about for something, anything to distract the American Idol electorate from his numerous ethical dilemmas. Sadly, a woman in a vegetative state came to his rescue, and La Cucaracha Grande latched on to her as if she was a life ring. Of course it took about thirty seconds for his hypocrisy to bubble up again:

ABC News obtained GOP talking points explaining why they should intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that the "pro-life base will be excited", and that it is a 'great political issue .'

-- ABC News

"I don't know where those talking points come from, and I think they're disgusting."

-- Tom DeLay, asked about the talking points.

I know where they come from, Tom. Outta your ass.

Now would be a great time for Howard Dean to remind everyone that the Party of Intrusion has discovered a new portal into your private life.

Death of a thousand cuts

As a result of reading this article and learning that my local energy provider had contributed to La Cucaracha Grande's legal defense fund, I wrote the following e-mail to the directors of investor relations at Reliant Energy, Inc., this morning and thought I'd share it with all of you:

Dear Ms. Slavin and Mr. Barber:

I cancelled my Reliant Energy consumer electric service this morning, and on its quarterly anniversary at the end of this month, I will be trading out of my mutual fund that holds Reliant stock, and I thought it would be important to let you know why I made those decisions.

I learned yesterday that Reliant had made a contribution to Tom DeLay’s legal defense fund. As a customer and stockholder (albeit one of the smallest), and despite your spokesperson Pat Hammond’s comments that new Reliant executive management will be “conducting its business with integrity and putting some of the matters from the past behind”, I find that decision to be untenable as regards continuing my business with your company.

It’s not important that you respond, as my choices have and will be finalised, but you might consider giving my concerns a wider audience with those who will be responsible for making political contributions on behalf of Reliant Energy, Inc. in the future.

Regards,

(me)

And just now I found this:

"If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there," said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers. "The situation is negatively fluid right now for the guy. You start hitting arteries, it only takes a couple." The consultant, who at times has been a DeLay ally, spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he could not be candid otherwise.

That drip, drip, drip you're hearing?

It's blood.

Shine the light

Better late than never to acknowledge today's efforts to advance open government.

Though Texas has some of the toughest open records laws in the nation, there are still those who would prefer to conduct the government's business in the shadows. And though the US is a model for the rest of the world, it bears repeating that the Bush administration and their lickspittles operating the Mighty Wurlitzer would rather have us moving in the wrong direction.

And from a purely bloggist's viewpoint, as long as there are incoherent ramblings, it's a good thing we can bear left to the nearest oasis.

And perhaps sometime in the not-so-distant future, if we're persistent and vigilant, a new day will dawn and Robert Novakula will be caught scrambling too late back into his coffin and spontaneously combust.

Blogging vs. Journalism

Bloggers vs. journalists is over, says Jay Rosen:

And so we know they're journalism-- sometimes. They're even capable, at times, and perhaps only in special circumstances, of beating Big Journalism at its own game. ... The question now isn't whether blogs can be journalism. They can be, sometimes. It isn't whether bloggers "are" journalists. They apparently are, sometimes. We have to ask different questions now because events have moved the story forward. By "events" I mean things on the surface we can see ... and things underneath that we have yet to discern.

I have been an observer and critic of the American press for 19 years. In that stretch there has never been a time so unsettled. More is up for grabs than has ever been up for grabs since I started my watch. ... For this is an exciting time in journalism. Part of the reason is the extension of "the press" to the people we have traditionally called the public.

By the press I mean the public service franchise in journalism, where the writers and do-ers of it actually are. That press has shifted social location. Much of it is still based in The Media (a business) and will be for some time, but some is in nonprofits, and some of the franchise ("the press") is now in public hands because of the Web, the weblog and other forms of citizen media. Naturally our ideas about it are going to change. The franchise is being enlarged.

I was invited to participate in a local discussion of this very topic next week; unfortunately I'll be out of town. But the conversation has been going on, in various contexts, for quite awhile.

About twenty years ago the CEO of a large media company I worked for referred to it as "bypass". He used the word to refer to the ability of advertisers to reach their consumers without going through the middleman; that being the magazines and newspapers his company published and the television stations and media production companies who also relied on advertising for their livelihood. He was -- is -- a prescient man, but he never foresaw the impact of the Web on his newsrooms.

And so as the definition of media transmogrifies -- I selected that word specifically as a tip of the hat to Jeff Gannon and Talon News -- some still have questions about our official uniforms.

That judge needs to be reminded that pajamas are actually the latest in courtroom attire.

Is it still impolite to call it fascism?

The New York Times has a lengthy expose' on the Bush administration's extensive use of taxpayer-financed propaganda to advance its agenda.

As if FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Robert Novak, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Neil Boortz, NewsMax, Townhall, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, and the legions of local talk radio bloviators across the country weren't getting the job done.

Lots to talk about

This is the first of a handful of posts today on the sea changes buffeting our media. The Online Coaliton has written a letter to the Federal Election Commission over possible regulation of blogs and websites. You should read the letter and add your name.

http://www.onlinecoalition.com

HoustonDemocrats.com

That's the new blog started by the Harris County Democratic Party to keep us up-to-date on topics of interest locally. I'll be linking to them often.

Last night at the weekly Drinking Liberally I met the new organizer of that group; congratulations, Adrian. She takes over for Eddie Rodriguez, who's relocating to San Antonio, where I suspect we'll see a new chapter shortly. Eddie's blog needs to be in your bookmarks.

And Bean at Prairie Weather has the skinny on "Blogshine Sunday":

On March 13, 2005, news organizations across America will participate in "Sunshine Sunday" by running stories supporting access to government information. This freedom of information is vital to our democracy. That's why FreeCulture.org has organized "Blogshine Sunday" on the same day: to ensure that government remains accessible to tomorrow's journalists.

We recognize that technology is changing journalism. On Blogshine Sunday, we affirm:

• In an increasingly wired society, government documents need to be digital and online, not just buried in archives.
• "Professional" journalists are not the only people who deserve access to our government -- everyone does.

If these topics mean something to you, please join us on March 13. Write in your blog about how they've affected you.

And here's more:

Have something to say? Want to play a role in Blogshine Sunday? Here’s how.

Pick a topic and your perspective. Do you have a story to tell, or are you just speaking your mind? Remember when you tried to look for property records for that big house on corner to find out how much it’s worth? Or when you found out your Uncle Joe had a CIA file in the ’60s, and wanted to look at it? Or when you wanted to know the phone number for that guy running for the city commission? Or would you rather write from a more philosophical standpoint, about why access to information is important? Maybe there’s something specific you’d like to write about, like the OPEN Government Act?

This will be coupled with your choice of topic: are you writing about the need for digital access to government records, or about the need for equal access for non-traditional journalists?

If you have a blog, then post your column there on Sunday, March 13.

And Gavin posted this there:

Bloggers-as-journalists seems to be gaining acceptance, judging by some recent news:

• On Monday, the New York Times reported that Garrett M. Graff of fishbowlDC “may be the first blogger in the short history of the medium to be granted a daily White House pass.”
  
• On Tuesday, the Online Journalism Review from the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California announced it was making available three tutorials for bloggers without journalism experience. The tutorials are wikis which anyone can edit, and are licensed under a Creative Commons license.
• Sen. John Cornyn’s press secretary told me last week that the OPEN Government Act will likely have its first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committe in mid-March. The act, among other provisions, would charge bloggers and other Internet-based journalists lower fees for information requests, a privilege currently based on institutional affiliation.

Ceci n'est pas un Ambassador

What do you do with a State Department official who says things like "There's no such thing as the United Nations?"

Why, you make him ambassador to the United Nations, of course.

The problem with this isn't that the US will have to get by with fewer friends in the world. Bush has effectively demonized international cooperation anyway, so what does it really matter if he adds another ignorant, arrogant schmuck to the gaggle of fools representing all of us?

No, the problem is that at a time when the United States is fighting a two-front war (and possibly opening a third or fourth front shortly), we have fewer and fewer allies. We have very little significant combat help, very little logistical help, and it's our soldiers that are the ones paying the price. Even staunch partners like Italy, with a few thousand troops in country, are insulted by insinuation -- "she's a communist; she writes for a communist rag" -- after a tragic friendly-fire mistake. (The tragedy of course is that Nicola Calipari, the Italian intelligence officer who freed insurgency hostage and Il Manifesto reporter Giuliana Sgrena, died shielding her from bullets fired by American soldiers. Even if we wanted her dead -- and I'm not certain we did -- we couldn't have wanted him dead. And another thing: "Friendly fire" must be the most rancid oxymoron imaginable.)

Why must this administration make enemies everywhere it goes? Why do they look for new ways every day to piss off virtually everyone in the entire world?

Bush should have nominated a UN ambassador that would be capable of rebuilding burned bridges with alienated allies; someone who could help deliver the international help our troops need.

Instead they give yet another middle finger to the global community.

And while conservatives snicker behind their hand, content in their clever "message" to the world, US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to die. No pullout in sight, despite the singing and cheering and dancing associated with Iraqi election day last month.

John Bolton isn't going to be accomplishing much in the way of international cooperation, and more importantly, he probably contributes indirectly to more of our brave men and women dying in the desert for years to come. What a nice legacy that will be.

Update: I see there is news that his confirmation will be opposed. How vigorously and successfully...well, we'll see.

While we wait...

..for Judge Joe Hart to issue his ruling in the TRMPAC case, let's catch up with what people are saying about "The D.A. and Tom DeLay".

The first block quote below is from the CBS transcript of last Sunday's 6o Minutes piece:

DeLay’s fellow Texan, Republican Rep. John Carter, says whether the law was broken depends on what your definition of “administrative” is. "No court has actually defined clearly what administrative purposes is," says Carter. 60 Minutes showed him TRMPAC's brochure with the statement of how the corporate funds would be spent. "Active candidate evaluation and recruitment. Message development. Market research and issue development," says Stahl. "I mean, how is that administrative?"

"Active candidate evaluation and recruitment, that’s a party of administrative procedure," says Carter. "That’s a party function."

"I thought administration was the running of the office. The Xerox machine. Paying bills," says Stahl.

"This is what the court has to rule on," says Carter. "If they find all these things are administrative, there’ll be no convictions in this case."

And here's Charlie Kuffner's take:

I'd like to propose an alternate explanation to the question of why no court has ever ruled on what constitutes an "administrative purpose". There's no case law because no one has ever come anywhere close to violating this century-old law before, and the reason for that is because anyone with two brain cells to rub together can plainly see that "administrative" means "non-political". When you have a law that is crystal clear, and that draws a very bright line, as this one does, it seems to me that you should expect there to be very little case law because there should be no confusion about what the law says. Nobody's been brazen enough before to claim that confusion was even a plausible explanation. If they get away with it now, then this law never actually meant anything.

Norm Ornstein's clever quip about Mother Teresa getting caught turning right on red in a state that doesn't allow it is spot on. This isn't an honest mistake, it isn't a testing of boundaries, and it isn't a case of the law not keeping up with new technologies. It's shameless pettifoggery, and it deserves to be slapped down.

It's this kind of duplicitous bullshit and slavish toadying performed by footlickers like Carter that makes me despise the Republican party. DeLay ought to be tarred and feathered, and all of his minions in the House know it, and they just don't have the stones to do so, much less speak up about it. They continue to vouch for him, cover for him, run interference, and punish those who dare stand up and speak out.

Tom DeLay is precisely the reason why the GOP invites comparisons to the Nazis.

If they know what's good for them, they'll get rid of him. I ain't counting on the Repubs to take out their own trash, though. And if Joe Hart doesn't oblige, and Ronnie Earl gets derailed, well, there's another opportunity for Richard Morrison in a bit less than two years.

Deal with it, you whiny xenophobes

I'm always bemused by xenophobic conservatives who, when confronted with negative opinions of the United States voiced by those living in other countries, sniff indignantly that they don't care what foreigners think.

Usually they resort to the childish name-calling ("Old Europe", "freedom fries") but mostly it's the hypocrisy exhibited that smells so ripe. These whiners are taking advantage of a technology -- the Web -- that makes the world smaller, yet they complain when they hear a differing viewpoint that might have originated in another language.

We should care what everyone thinks of each other when the world is this small -- and shrinking. And that's why sites like Watching America are so cool.

Watching America translates news stories about the United States from foreign newspaper Web sites into English, and also provides links to the native-language version. For example, a March 2 story that ran in Spain's El Mundo tells of that country's help in alerting the U.S. to al-Qaida plans to attack Grand Central Station in New York. You can read the English translation, the original Spanish version and a machine-translated rendition of El Mundo's home page.

I found WA at Bob Harris' blog, and his comments are worth repeating also:

To those of you not yet in the habit of reading the news as it's written overseas, the selections might seem biased, or even bluntly anti-American. Which, um, is the thing. After reading local papers during my own recent bounces around the planet, I can't say this is particularly unrepresentative. In any case, if you're interested, the bottom of the front page also provides a ton of links to the home pages of media from across the planet, so you can easily do your own digging and think for yourself. Bush really has alienated vast swaths of humanity, and the only place that isn't screamingly obvious is within these very borders.

It's a bit like having to live in an alcoholic household, really. Inside the house, Dad's really a good guy who just needs us to love him a little more and work a little harder and meanwhile the "good" kids are the ones enabling him and the ones who actually see that he's just a selfish f***ing drunk are very, very bad.

I suppose this puts people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh in the enabling-mother role, unable to see the faults in the man they love, no matter how obvious, and willing to lash out at anyone who asks why he's picking fights, not taking care of the house, and running up enormous debts.

Seems about right.