Month: July 2008

Good Cartoon, Bad Cartoon

by digby

Now this is funny, and makes the point successfully.

(scroll down a bit to the second cartoon.)

.

Comedy The Entire Blogosphere Can Agree On

by dday

JibJab sucks. And the bobble-headed news anchors who will show a snippet of it coming back from break and giggle to themselves and regale one another with how hysterical it is – and such creativity from the Internet! – they too suck.

There are narratives at work here as well. The traditional media is so slow to relinquish whatever they decide is “hip” and “leading edge” that it reminds me of when I’d visit my grandparents in the middle of Western Pennsylvania in the 1980s and listen to the radio, and hear “that hot new song from these kids that call themselves The Who.”

.

Torture And The Village

by dday

I have a ridiculously long post on torture and some of the revelations we’ve seen this week, in the Jane Mayer book, the Omar Khadr tape, etc. But I wanted to reiterate one part of it here, because it’s indicative of the fundamental rot at the heart of the American system these days, and why we’ll forever be diminished until we cut the rot away.

No matter how many times John Yoo and David Addington try to rewrite the plain reading of the Constitution, what has been done in America’s name violates federal law, international treaties and war crimes statutes. In a just world, as Jerrold Nadler said yesterday, Bush and Cheney would be impeached. But this goes well beyond removal from office. This is about indictment for murder and war crimes, by definition. In case you were wondering, however, here is the official Village pronouncement about what we should do with the fact that our leaders, in a complete breakdown of the rule of law, have tortured, detained without charges, and murdered:

Dark deeds have been conducted in the name of the United States government in recent years: the gruesome, late-night circus at Abu Ghraib, the beating to death of captives in Afghanistan, and the officially sanctioned waterboarding and brutalization of high-value Qaeda prisoners. Now demands are growing for senior administration officials to be held accountable and punished. Congressional liberals, human-rights groups and other activists are urging a criminal investigation into high-level “war crimes,” including the Bush administration’s approval of interrogation methods considered by many to be torture.

It’s a bad idea. In fact, President George W. Bush ought to pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution for interrogation methods approved by administration lawyers.

That’s right. Just shut it down. Those mean old hippies are just too worked up about all of this stuff. We need to just move on and heal the nation’s partisan wounds and forget about all this “accountability” nonsense.

This “Truth Commission” thing is taking hold throughout the Village, and I understand the impulse to an extent. Truth Commissions of this type were very successful in South Africa and Rwanda, and went a long way to healing those nations. But there was a universal acknowledgment on the part of the entire nation that those being investigated, be it the pro-apartheid forces in South Africa or the genocidists in Rwanda, were guilty. It’s not like the parties who would be pardoned in exchange for their testimony have even acknowledged any wrongdoing. They’re still asserting unitary executive powers, and they’re still winning battles in the courts, so why would you instinctively want to pardon people who believe they’ve done nothing wrong?

President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled on Tuesday in a fractured 5-to-4 decision.

The same court ruled that this prisoner has the right to an additional habeas hearing, and additional habeas hearings have been ordered by other judges. But read that above sentence. Indefinite military detentions of civilians captured inside the United States. Why would anyone submit to a Truth Commission when they’re winning?

Of course, the real reason I can’t abide by a Truth Commission any more, not after the slow drip of illegalities over the last few years, is because of the following aspect of the Village mindset. Bradrocket says it best:

“A criminal investigation would only hinder efforts to determine the truth, and preclude any apologies. It would spur those who know the most to take the Fifth. Any prosecutions would also touch off years of partisan warfare.”

And this, my friends, is the absolute nightmare of the Village Mindset: years of partisan warfare. Why do evil people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney feel they can simply break the law with reckless abandon? Because they know that modern American political culture simply does not believe in accountability for its political class. They know that in the end, they’re part of the same Villager club of Special People who are too powerful and too privileged to ever face any consequences for their actions. Prosecute government officials for state-sanctioned torture?? How uncouth!

And that’s the racket in Washington. Accountability is just a word people throw around. As Glenn Greenwald puts it:

This is what a country becomes when it decides that it will not live under the rule of law, when it communicates to its political leaders that they are free to do whatever they want — including breaking our laws — and there will be no consequences. There are two choices and only two choices for every country — live under the rule of law or live under the rule of men. We’ve collectively decided that our most powerful political leaders are not bound by our laws — that when they break the law, there will be no consequences. We’ve thus become a country which lives under the proverbial “rule of men” — that is literally true, with no hyperbole needed — and Mayer’s revelations are nothing more than the inevitable by-product of that choice […]

If the rule of law doesn’t constrain the actions of government officials, then nothing will. Continuous revelations of serious government lawbreaking have led not to investigations or punishment but to retroactive immunity and concealment of the crimes. Judicial findings of illegal government behavior have led to Congressional action to protect the lawbreakers. The Detainee Treatment Act. The Military Commissions Act. The Protect America Act. The FISA Amendments Act. They’re all rooted in the same premise: that our highest government leaders have the power to ignore our laws with impunity, and when they’re caught, they should be immunized and protected, not punished.

And the right banks on this, by the way. At yesterday’s torture hearing with the Stupidest Fucking Guy On The Planet, Doug Feith, Republicans repeatedly brought up the fact that Nancy Pelosi, among other Democrats, were “fully briefed” on the program in secret. Whether or not those briefings were full is questionable, but clearly the very point was to implicate Democrats so that they could never speak out or risk their own prosecution. And Democrats obliged with little resistance. Practically no effort was made on the part of the “Gang of Eight” to stop this madness. Darrell Issa and all the little torture addicts were sure to bring up Pelosi’s name over and over again. They know they have their opponents over a barrel.

There are heroes in this. CREW has labeled 30 of them in a report about “Those Who Dared” to stand up for our country and its ideals. But their courage is tarnished by a Village culture that is self-protective and contemptuous of the rule of law. When the powerful can absolve themselves of blame and the media courtiers serve to defend them, a sense of anarchy and lawlessness sets in. Whether the impulse to immunize is because leaders of both parties are implicated, or just out of a sense of comity, our Establishment wants to pardon themselves by vowing never to bring up the word “indictment” in polite company, so they can all whistle and laugh at Washington cocktail parties at the end of empire.

This comic says it all. And for some reason, Tom Friedman wonders why this country is hated around the world.

.

Getting Out The Message

by digby

So, as expected, Regina Thomas lost her primary challenge against Blue Dog incumbent John Barrow last night. And this morning I’m hearing a lot of the usual talk from those in the know that this is just another example of silly netroots posturing and that we waste our time trying to help these primary challengers. Incumbency is incumbency. Yawn.

Let me repeat this One. More. Time:

The point isn’t that anyone thought they would win these races. Indeed, they didn’t expect to even come close. What they did believe is that activists need to take the opportunity to get into these races, see what they have to learn and educate people in these districts about their representatives. Primary challenges are the institutional vehicle for changing the party apparatus. If you don’t lay the groundwork, nothing will ever happen.

It takes time and it takes money to change the way people think about politics. None of this happens overnight. Nobody’s asking any of the Very Important Political Consultants to put their Very Important Reputations on the line to do this unsatisfying, disappointing work. The Dirty Hippies and their readers have agreed to throw a little bit of money and time toward these races so that long shot progressive candidates in these districts have a chance to get the message into the ether and build a little foundation for tomorrow. It gives the netroots a chance to learn what needs to be done to make these primary challenges more successful in the future.

Matt Stoller wrote about this yesterday:

It’s going to take a long time to turn this ship around, but we’re doing it. The losses are as important, more important perhaps, than the wins, because that is how we learn. Next cycle, Obama’s infrastructure is going to leave a lot of fresh campaign operatives unemployed, and a lot of new talent looking to run for office. There will be people who know how to run a voter file, know how to micro-target, understand field campaigns, and mail, and radio, and TV, and paid media online, and integration with the blogging world. They will have learned this on the Obama campaign, and will be able to deploy these skills elsewhere.

In fact, the energy is clearly there. This cycle, there were primary challenges against John Lewis, Ed Towns, Leonard Boswell, Carolyn Kilpatrick and Dennis Kucinich. Not all those challenges were from the left, but the jostling loose of the incumbent protection racket will in general help progressives. And so it’s important to have test runs with people like Regina Thomas and Ed Fallon

.

There is nothing magical about making the Democratic party more progressive. You have to elect more progressive Democrats and to do that you have to get people who aren’t paying close attention, who vote on name recognition, who are reflexively reactionary to vote for them. That’s hard. It takes organization and money and persuasive political rhetoric. But there is no other way to do it unless you think that in our two party system, the Republicans are going to be more receptive to the progressive agenda. (And if you do, then I think you are deluded.)

The netroots are out here trying to do some things that all the very smart people consider pointless. But then they consider fighting for liberal values in any way to be pointless. What else is new? If we cared what they think we’d be doing something else, wouldn’t we? It’s not like online activism is great resume builder or anything.

Keep the faith, folks. Blue America has backed a bunch of winners since 2006 and they’re going to have more winners in the fall. But primary challenges are always going to be the toughest thing they do, and probably have the highest failure rate. It’s the nature of the beast. But every time they put up a fight and make some noise, the easier it’s going to be for the next progressive challenger to put a little fear into a fat cat politician. We’ll get there.

.

See, We Tried

by dday

Some may be pleasantly surprised by the news that Bush is sending the #3 at the State Department for talks with the Iranians on their nuclear program (Coverage in WaPo and NYT), but I’m not. This looks to me like a fig leaf so the Administration can say “see, we tried to talk to them.” For the moment it validates Obama’s position on negotiation, but the envoy will not be authorized to offer anything to Iran and the upshot will be that they can’t be trusted and Obama is naive to think otherwise.

I mean, look at the early reporting:

The Bush administration will send a senior envoy to international talks this weekend with Iran about its nuclear program, in what U.S. officials described as a “one-time deal,” designed to demonstrate a serious desire to resolve the impasse over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

In a significant departure from longstanding policy, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns will join a scheduled meeting in Geneva between European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and top Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, according to a senior State Department official.

Burns will not negotiate with the Iranians nor hold separate meetings, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced. Instead, he will advance the White House’s position that serious negotiations can only begin after Iran suspends its enrichment of uranium.

That’s no different than the message they’ve been saying through the media for years. That is the opposite of demonstrating a serious desire to end the impasse.

It’ll be fun to watch neocon heads explode for a day or two, because just being in the same room as an Iranian envoy is enough to get them sputtering “Chamberlain! Appeaser! Democracy Whisky Sexy!” But this seems like a setup to me, designed to be the “last straw” before the bomb bay doors open.

.

The War On Fucking

by tristero

There’s something wrong with these people

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control…

In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, the administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate [sic] against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”

That’s right, people. Common methods of birth control are abortion, according to the rightwing nutjobs trying to get their hands on your private parts. Anyone surprised by this rhetorical stunt hasn’t been paying attention. Still, it sparks revulsion and disgust at the sheer priggish stupidity of it all.

And the kicker, a point I’ve driven home in nearly every single post I’ve done on reproductive rights:

“We worry that under the proposal, contraceptive services would become less available to low-income and uninsured women,” Ms. Gallagher said.

Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.

The war on fucking is not merely a war for government control of sexuality, especially women’s. It is also a class war in which poor American women are being singled out by the wealthy to receive substandard healthcare.

Mourning In America

by digby

Jonathan Schwartz reminds me that Jimmy Carter delivered a televised speech on July 15, 1979, 29 years ago today. He spoke of many things, but the most important was about the energy crisis:

…We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.

Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.

In little more than two decades we’ve gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It’s a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade — a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I’m announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel — from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America’s energy security.

Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.

Point four: I’m asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation’s utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense — I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation’s strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.

[…]

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation’s problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to explain further our energy program. Just as the search for solutions to our energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our Nation’s deeper problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.

I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America. You can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980s. I will listen and I will act. We will act together. These were the promises I made three years ago, and I intend to keep them.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources — America’s people, America’s values, and America’s confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy secure nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God’s help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.

Thank you and good night.

What a jackass, huh?

The next year the Republicans scammed the American people (who were more than willing to be scammed) into thinking that their biggest problem was a lack of national pride and soviet communism. But the truth was that national pride is a state of mind and soviet communism had already failed. It was clever though, to portray that speech and those plans as Jimmy Carter being Mr Bringdown trying to harsh everybody’s mellow. Ronnie Reagan said “party on dudes” and that’s exactly what we did for the next thirty years.

Well, our mellow is now officially harshed by some pretty ugly realities like wars in the middle east, climbing energy prices and a serious, perhaps catastrophic, climate crisis.

Heckuva job Republicans. Thanks a lot. But at least nobody has to deal with black kids being bused into their neighborhoods at the moment, so Reagan did do something right.

Funny Business

by digby

That McCain is quite the jokester:

The blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion pulls out a 1986 Tucson Citizen article recounting a joke about rape told by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Speaking to the National League of Cities and Towns in Washington, DC, McCain allegedly said:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?

”

McCain was swiftly criticized by women’s groups. A spokeswoman for NOW in Arizona said the organization’s members were “incensed by his cruel and sexist remark.” McCain said he did not “recall” telling the joke.

Is that really even a joke? Like his Texas fundraiser, Clayton Williams, maybe he just thinks that rape is something all women should enjoy.

McCain didn’t exactly learn his lesson from that earlier flap. He went on to tell that truly crude and stupid “Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno” joke. Just this year he brought out big laughs with another sexist gem:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain took one look at a nursing school’s training mannequin and asked if the dummy’s name was Hillary.

Campaigning Thursday at the University of South Carolina Upstate nursing school, McCain couldn’t resist a swipe at Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“I was very glad to meet the dummy, named ‘Hillary,’” McCain said to laughter after a tour of the school. “Is that the name?”

It wasn’t. The dummy, or human simulator, doesn’t have a name.

I know that this kind of joking is fairly typical of frat houses and locker rooms and other all-male enclaves, but you’d think that a professional politician would understand that it’s unacceptable to make these sorts of jokes in public. Even in 1986, that gorilla joke (even if it were funny) would have been out of line.

But McCain has always been handled with kid gloves by the press and so even when he calls his wife a cunt in front of reporters, they don’t write about it. And I suspect that these sexist bon mots are among the comments the the boys on the Straight Talk Express have admittedly withheld from the voters over the years to protect him. It’s all in good fun, right?

Except what kind of a politician says stuff like this in public in the first place? It’s ridiculous. He’s a 71 year old man who can’t seem to control the things that come out of his mouth half the time. (In 1986 he was a tender 49!) I suppose he’s been coddled by the machismo worshippers for so many years that he honestly doesn’t think he has to. And maybe he doesn’t.

But the Republicans had better keep their traps shut about civility and decency from now on because their standard bearer is a disgusting pig.

.

Serious People

by digby

…making very serious money, guiding our political discourse and determining for us who is allowed to lead our country:

Continuing Fox News’ war of words with MSNBC, “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace accused its rival of being “in the tank” for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, while further pressing the news channel’s case that the mainstream press exhibits a liberal bias.

“I think MSNBC’s coverage went so far over the line that it lost all credibility,” Wallace told reporters Monday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour.

Wallace accused MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann of inappropriately mixing anchor and opinion-making duties, and said Fox News drew a distinction between its reporters and opinion-minded hosts.

“There’s a reason why Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity won’t be anchoring the election night or the conventions,” he said during the sesh at the BevHilton hotel.

Although the session was far from contentious, Fox did receive several questions regarding the propriety and terms of former Bush administration official Karl Rove’s role as a Fox commentator given the ongoing dispute with Congress — he ignored a committee’s subpoena — and his unofficial relationships with advisors to John McCain’s campaign.

“I have not been personally subpoenaed,” explained Rove, before descending into arcane explanations of executive privilege.

After the session, John Moody, Fox News exec VP of editorial, addressed the kerfuffle over the channel’s morning show, “Fox & Friends,” which recently altered the images of two New York Times journos, reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe, and featured them on air as retaliation for a Times article that cited the ratings gains by Fox’s competitors.

“Our news programs are not permitted to do it,” Moody said of the photos, while characterizing “Fox & Friends” as an entertainment show with news. Without directly saying whether the doctored photos violated network policy, he said, “I wish they hadn’t done it.”

The article goes on to say that Fox handed out buttons that said “hugs and kittens” on them at this confab. The so-called serious news operation, that is, not the TV network that broadcasts cartoons.

This is what we’ve come to. The unofficial propaganda arm of the Republican party is sanctimoniously calling out MSNBC for being biased, even as they employ the former political guru of the Bush administration who is avoiding congressional subpoenas pertaining to stories the network is covering. The media are caving in on themselves.

As far as election night coverage is concerned, I think I would rather sit through Waterworld four times in a row than endure another one. It’s always been pretty bad. I recall in 1984 when Dan Rather was doing his usual incomprehensible schtick (like “you can stick a fork in it and call it mommy, but this election is going, going, gone!”) that I realized election night was always going to be something of an ordeal for me. Russert with the tote board in 2000 and 2004 was insufferable and the recent primary coverage was excruciating. It’s all awful, biased or not.

Watching this cable news spat unfold promises to be slightly more entertaining even if it is ultimately dispiriting. Is this the best way for a mature democracy to choose its leaders?

.

Still-President Bush Still Causing Harm

by dday

So the President vetoed the bill stopping cuts to Medicare payments to doctors today, despite the bill receiving more than enough votes to override (in fact, the House has already voted to override it). But this is more than a simple inconvenience for Congress to need to stage an override vote. This will affect people’s lives, as Kagro X explains.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had issued a temporary delay on physician pay cuts until July 15 to allow lawmakers more time to pass the legislation.

Tomorrow’s date, of course, is July 15. This way, Bush assures either that the bureaucrats have to go through an embarrassing scramble again, or that medical care providers actually get hurt by his veto crayon.

The “grown up” in charge, ladies and gentlemen. They can’t get this asshole out of the White House fast enough.

But this thumb in the eye of doctors and medical providers who dared to oppose his cuts to their paychecks is nothing compared to what his Health and Human Services Department has in store:

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The rule defines “abortion” so broadly that it could also apply to birth control pills and emergency contraception. And because the rule would apply to federal health programs, low-income and uninsured women will be most affected.

This is an extension of the “Landmine Project,” to install both personnel and federal rules requirements that would enshrine radical conservative goals inside of government. Check this out, they’re trying to base their redefining of when life begins on polling information.

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that
49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term “abortion.” Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term
“abortion” only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

Since Griswold v. Connecticut restricting birth control has been a central project of the radical right. This proposed ruling would give that project the force of law, at least temporarily.

The guy’s still President, everyone, and there’s plenty of damage he can cause in six months.

UPDATE: The Senate overrode Bush’s veto, and so the cuts to Medicare will stop. What is unknown is whether or not the cuts have already begun for July and if doctors will end up getting stiffed.

.