The good it can do.

From CNN's Mark Shields:

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- As the summer of 2005 turns into autumn, each new public opinion poll reports even further hemorrhaging of voters' confidence in the federal government and the Bush administration.

Before we slip into a paralysis of despair, now is a good time to celebrate a few of our collective successes that we have achieved through our federal government.

In the timeless wisdom of one of the greatest of all Republican presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, "The government is us; we are the government, you and I."

Consider the summer of 1862. The Civil War, which would take more American lives than all the nation's other wars, raged.

Yet, a Vermont Republican congressman, Justin Smith Morrill, was able to win passage over the all-out opposition of states' rights conservatives of a radical initiative that provided to all states not in rebellion 30,000 acres of federal land for each senator and congressman the state had -- some 17 million acres in all.

With the proceeds from those land sales, a state was to build a public college that would teach engineering and agriculture, along with the liberal arts and military training. The great universities of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and California were among the 70 land-grant schools eventually built.

What makes this so remarkable is that Justin Morrill and President Abraham Lincoln and their colleagues, in the middle of the nation's most divisive and bloody war fought entirely on American soil and when 98 percent of the population had not so much as set foot on a college campus, had so much confidence in their country and their countrymen's future.

It turned out to be confidence well-placed. From the dedication and work of individuals at these "government" colleges have come the Salk and Sabin vaccines, streptomycin, the digital computer and the first atom-smasher. U.S. land-grant colleges have produced more Nobel Prize winners than all the universities of Europe.

Our federal government has had more recent successes to celebrate. The distinguished scholar Paul Light surveyed academics and compiled an impressive list of government's greatest endeavors since World War II.

The rebuilding of war-torn Europe through President Harry Truman's Marshall Plan, named for General -- and later Secretary of both State and Defense -- George C. Marshall, saved millions of people from death, starvation, domination and terror. All the tax cuts in the world or private sector ingenuity never could have wrought that miracle. It took the U.S. government.

Just as it was only the federal government that could end racial segregation and officially sanctioned discrimination. That's what we did through the civil rights acts of the 1960s, which guaranteed the right to vote, the right to eat in a restaurant, go to a movie and stay in a hotel, and later, the right to buy a home in any neighborhood.

Another strain of discrimination and segregation was overcome by the 1990 disabilities act.

Through the successful efforts of the federal government -- and bipartisan political leadership -- the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe are all cleaner and safer.

President Jimmy Carter perceptively said: "America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense ... human rights invented America."

The government of the United States has made blunders, but it has also profoundly advanced human rights around the world. We prevailed over communism and have reduced the likelihood of nuclear war.

Hunger has been reduced. As a direct consequence of Social Security and Medicare, the poverty rate among the country's elderly is the lowest in history and the life expectancy is the highest.

The feds are far from infallible. Government can still be imperious. But at a time when our national self-confidence is in dangerously short supply, we would do well to celebrate our common successes we have collectively achieved.

T.R. was right: "The government is us; we are the government, you and I."

What other side?

From DailyKos:

...spend as much time trying to understand the rationales for someone else's deeply held opinions as you do being shocked and outraged over the thought that they exist.

From Mark Shields' column:

American voters may be philosophically conservative. They do regularly complain that they want the federal government off their backs, and out of both their pockets and their hair. But these same people are operationally liberal.

When told that just outside Pocatello, Idaho, a single can of tuna fish has been found with a trace of botulism, they have an identical response: "Where the hell was the federal government? I demand a full report on my desk the first thing Monday morning!"

The American people want "...a small, efficient federal government working on their side 24 hours a day ... cheap."

and of course...

Proof that shame is officially dead: Rush Limbaugh attacked Ohio Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett, a Marine who voluntarily spent seven months in Ramadi and Fallujah, of going "to Iraq to pad the resume."

Sigh.

Who's pro-military again??

From Congressional Quarterly:

On March 16, 2005, Rep. Hooley, D-OR introduced a motion to recommit a supplemental appropriations bill to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to add language that would increase funding for military health care by $100 million and for transitional job training for military personnel by $50 million.

Republicans voted against the motion 2-226. Democrats supported increasing funding for military personnel, by a vote of 197-3. Every Southern Democrat voted for the motion, 51-0.

How do Republicans get away with saying they're pro-military and pro-family? This isn't an isolated incidence. I'm seeing it every day at work.

The Democrats introduce something to help people, that if people knew, they'd be all about it. The Republicans kill it, and then walk out saying that they're for whatever the legislation was trying to promote. I'm disliking Republican leadership more and more after I see which way they actually vote.

A "real" conservative.

From the National Review Online:

For what it's worth, this is where I get off the bus. ...even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm's way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace.

Poor kids

From a DailyKos diary:

By having an obsession with low taxes and a poor government, you've taken away your own advantages. You are like a kid stealing dollars out of your mom's wallet to buy candy bars, only to find out that she couldn't sock away enough money to buy you the bicycle that you wanted. Only in this case, what we are talking about is your job.

This really nails it.

This is great...

I'm for gay marriage and gay divorce! Why should we keep them from being just as miserable as the rest of us?

From the article, "...marriage [and parenthood] comes with its benefits, and its responsibilities."

See here...

How loving.

Pat Robertson opened his mouth again. He believes that Islam is evil and teaches forced conversion or death. Because death is a bad thing. People who cause death are evil. But it's ok to kill, according to him. If this is his idea of "Christian love", I'm ready to puke.

Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.

The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said, "It's absolutely chilling to hear a religious leader call for the murder any of political leader."

Hypocrites.

So they are in the "Axis of Evil", or they openly support terrorism, and communism...but:

...the Weiner, D-NY, amendment to HR 2800, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, prohibited direct funding to Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran and Syria. The House rejected the amendment 191-231.

So they are "bad", but it's okay for us to send our tax dollars there? And everyone is ok with this? WTF?

We want them, but then we don't...

From the National Journal:

"The problem is we make it nearly impossible for immigrants to come here legally."

"We give about 5,000 visas for unskilled year-round labor annually. But the economy requires hundreds of thousands of new workers to clean hotel rooms and process food. We need these workers, but we force them underground with our self-delusional immigration policies."

This is somehow American?

Cindy Sheehan's vigil at the Bush ranch in Crawford, TX prompts the craziest people to do the stupidest things.

"A resident was arrested Monday night after authorities say he ran over hundreds of small wooden crosses bearing names of fallen U.S. soldiers."

What's next? Pissing on the crosses in Arlington?

Iraq-Vietnam

Straight from CNN:

Kissinger finds parallels to Vietnam in Iraq

Former diplomat cites 'divisions in the United States'

Monday, August 15, 2005; Posted: 4:51 a.m. EDT (08:51 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An architect of the U.S. war in Vietnam more than 30 years ago said Sunday that he has "a very uneasy feeling" that some of the same factors that damaged support for the conflict there are re-emerging in the 2-year-old war in Iraq.

"For me, the tragedy of Vietnam was the divisions that occurred in the United States that made it, in the end, impossible to achieve an outcome that was compatible with the sacrifices that had been made," former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Support for the war has dropped in recent polls, and criticism of President Bush's handling of the conflict has grown. The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, taken Aug. 5-7, found that 54 percent of those surveyed thought the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

Kissinger said the United States faces a battle to halt the spread of radical Islam in Iraq, and it would be "a catastrophe for the whole world" if it fails.

Kissinger, who served as national security adviser and secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said the United States should remove any troops that are not necessary to the American goal of stabilizing Iraq -- "But we cannot begin with an exit without having first defined what the objective is."

"If a radical government emerges in Baghdad or if any part of Iraq becomes what Afghanistan used to be, a training ground for terrorists, then this will be a catastrophe for the Islamic world and for Europe, much as they may -- reluctant as they may be to admit it -- and eventually for us."

U.S. losses have spiked sharply in August, with 54 Americans killed in Iraq since the beginning of the month. Iraq's transitional government faces a Monday deadline to present a proposed constitution for an October referendum, followed by elections for a permanent government.

President Bush poured cold water on talk of troop withdrawals last week, telling reporters at his Texas ranch that a premature withdrawal would send "a terrible signal to the enemy." He said U.S. troops are needed to train an Iraqi army and police force that can take responsibility for the country's security before they can leave.

But The Washington Post reported Sunday that the Bush administration "is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved" in Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a harsh critic of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he agreed with that report.

"I think that the administration has significantly downgraded their expectations," said Biden, D-Delaware. "They have squandered about every opportunity to get it right."

Rumsfeld, Biden said, "should get his notice on Monday morning" after The New York Times reported that some U.S. troops in Iraq still do not have the body armor they need. If Rumsfeld worked for a corporation instead of the U.S. government, "He'd be fired by now," Biden said.

"It's frustrating, and it makes it hard to support this administration," he said.

Bush and other administration officials said the March 2003 invasion, which toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, was needed to strip of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that it could provide to terrorists. Iraq was later determined to have abandoned its non-conventional weapons programs in the 1990s, though it had concealed some weapons-related research from U.N. inspectors.

The president now says establishing a stable, democratic Iraq will foster reforms in other Middle Eastern countries that will undercut support for terrorism.

More than 1,840 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the invasion. Most have been killed battling a persistent insurgency that followed the collapse of Saddam's regime.

Biden, a likely Democratic presidential candidate, predicted that a democratic Iraq "will not happen in my lifetime." He said he was hoping instead for Iraq to become a secure nation "that's basically a representative government" and poses no threat to its neighbors. But he opposed calls for a quick U.S. withdrawal.

"If we withdraw immediately now, we're going to end up with a haven for terror -- the very thing that didn't exist before, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in the middle of a region that is of vital interest to us," he said.

And Sen. John McCain, a leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the United States needs more troops in Iraq, not fewer.

"The day that I can land at the airport in Baghdad and ride in an unarmed car down the highway to the Green Zone is the day that I'll start considering withdrawals from Iraq," said McCain, R-Arizona, another possible presidential contender in 2008.

Sen. Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said U.S. commanders do not have enough troops to keep insurgents from returning to towns that American forces have cleaned out.

"When the withdrawal occurs, sometimes the insurgents return, and this comes from the fact that we cannot leave forces behind. They are at a premium to find other places," said Lugar, R-Indiana. He said the U.S. attitude has been "to get by with a minimum of force," but that more is needed.

However, he called it "very unlikely" that more U.S. troops will be dispatched to Iraq. Instead, he said, American commanders need to focus on training enough Iraqis to replace U.S. forces.

How right is it?

Harry Knox from Human Rights Campaign:

"How Christian is it to say poor people deserve their state, gay people should be fired from their jobs, wars should be prosecuted based on might over right and women should have no say over what happens to their own bodies? It is not very Christian at all."

Stop. Right. Now.

From Keith Olbermann:

Anyway. We're all sad about Peter Jennings. Me, I feel sad and guilty. But if his death has saddened you, and you smoke, and you want to do something about it, something for him — stop smoking. Or get somebody else to stop.

Break the pipe or throw away the chaw, or flush the butts, or leave the cigar in the cigar store. Buy the gum, buy the patch, get them to tie your arms behind your back until you stop smoking. Do whatever you have to do to stop smoking — now. While it's easier.

So you don't have to stop smoking while you have cancer. Or while you're sitting there, spitting into a garbage can, praying that you don't.

Because there's a liberal media bias, right?

This a great from the Huffington Post...What would Fox News say about Rosa Parks?

Some excerpts:

O’Reilly: “Rosa Parks claims she speaks for all of the African-Americans in the South, but in fact, we have found two African-Americans who say they disagree with her. They say she’s just trying to gain publicity and doesn’t speak for anyone in her race. They would know, they’re black.”

Hannity: “Could Rosa Parks be angling for a Senate run? What does she have to gain from her public stand? Coming up next, the incredible story of how this woman might be deceiving the whole country!”

Drudge: “We have found three members of the Parks family who say that Rosa doesn’t speak for them. That, in fact, they are very happy with the government of the state of Alabama. The uncle, step-brother-in-law and niece three-times removed all agree that the better route is a dignified, respectful silent deference to authority. Developing …”

Limbaugh: “We have just found information that before Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, there were numerous times, she sat in the back of the bus! Ah ha! A flip-flopper!"

Drudge: “More stories on Rosa Parks scandalous history of consistently sitting in the back of the bus before she changed her position and insisted she would only sit in the front of the bus. Developing …”

Malkin: “I think I speak for the entire Parks family, and especially her children, when I say that they are so embarrassed by their mother who is making a public spectacle of herself.”

Hannity: “Rosa Parks has turned this whole so-called civil rights issue into a public circus. We have information that Ted Kennedy might have put her up to this. That amazing story when we come back!”

Colmes: “You’re right, Sean. I’m sorry.”

O’Reilly: “To question the government of Alabama and implicitly the entire United States government by defying the political order like this has to be considered treasonous. Civil disobedience is a code word for I hate America. These people are criminals, simple criminals. It's ridiculous that they think they don't have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.”

Scarborough: “Yeah, whatever they just said on Fox News Channel! Well … I mostly agree with it.”

Kaplan: “Can we hire Shep Smith to cover this? Maybe give him his own show?”

Limbaugh: “What did I tell you folks? These libs like Parks would rather live in France where they can sit anywhere they want on the bus. They hate America. They want special privileges to be able to sit anywhere they want. They hide behind the color of their skin to try to undermine this country.”

Coulter: “Rosa Parks is a dyke!”

Big difference

"There is a stark difference between someone claiming to be Christian, and someone walking with Christ."

Great quote at end of article

From the Institute for Southern Studies blog, Facing South:

Immigration Family Values

Right around the time immigration officials in North Carolina last month were pulling off a deceptive sting -- demanding Latino workers go to a fake "mandatory" health and safety class, which ended up being a deportation trap -- Arkansas was carrying off a controversial immigrant round-up of its own (via Think Progress):

Late last month, federal agents arrested 119 undocumented workers employed at a poultry plant in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. One hundred and fifteen were from Mexico. About 30 of their children — some as young as 3 months old — were abandoned after all but twelve of the workers were deported from the United States.

The raid drew harsh criticism from the town’s sheriff and mayor, and even conservative Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), a Baptist preacher, who objected to the families being unnecessarily divided:

Huckabee said it appears the arrests of 119 workers at the plant were terribly planned and that federal agents gave little thought to the consequences for children of those arrested. … Huckabee has joined Hispanic civil rights leaders to ensure the well-being of the children.

And what does Huckabee get for his trouble? Apparently a bunch of hate calls. Days after the raid, an Arkansas TV station suggested the governor could be “risking his political future by speaking out against a recent immigration raid”, noting that Huckabee “says calls to his office have been ‘about 1,000 to one’ against his position”:

The governor says many of the callers are angry and use profanity. He says immigration is a very emotional issue and people become irrational over it.

Apparently some right-wingers aren’t so concerned with family values when the families are Mexican.

From a MoveOn.org email

1. Loose Lips Deserve Pink Slips. Fire Karl Rove

2. Karl Rove: The Voice of Treason

3. Treason is Not a Family Value

4. Support Homeland Security—Fire Karl Rove

5. Firing Rove: A REAL Patriot Act

6. "Fire Mrs. Rove's Husband."

Never give up.

Paul Hackett garnered 48.2% of the vote in the special election for the 2nd Congressional District of Ohio and did not win.

This is twice the percentage of any Democratic candidate in the last four cycles. Dean says that this is proof that you cannot "concede any region" just because it has traditionally voted Republican, or is considered Red.