John McCain’s refusal to admonish a questioner who called Hillary Clinton a “bitch” has received much attention, in the last couple days. Good. It should. But what received much less attention was his own despicable attempt at humor, back in 2000, at the expense of both Janet Reno and Chelsea Clinton.

As reported, at the time, by Salon’s David Corn, McCain said, at a Republican fundraiser:

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

Because her father is Janet Reno.”

Classy, huh?

As Corn pointed out, the media that did report the story actually omitted to report McCain’s actual words! The same media who reported in excruciating detail the private behavior of President Clinton and his girlfriend, excused themselves from reporting the details of McCain’s statement, ostensibly to protect a sensitive public. Or was it to protect John McCain?

As Corn wrote:

McCain’s two-liner conveys some interesting insights into what he considers humorous (lesbianism, a young woman’s physical appearance), particularly since it was delivered to a Republican crowd. Remember, this is the party that champions pro-family values.

McCain’s lapse in judgment — admittedly, not as big a lapse as having a sexual relationship with an intern — may be a significant clue into aspects of his “character,” and thus relevant to the voting public. But many voters have been spared this insight, thanks to the censors in the press.

The media and McCain’s pundit sycophants talk a lot about character. Well, what does it say about a man that he takes cheap shots at a woman because she doesn’t fit his standards of femininity? What does it say about a man that he finds it humorous to take cheap shots at a 20 year old woman’s physical appearance?

Of course, as Molly Ivins reported (quoted in this Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting article), Rush Limbaugh once made a cruel “joke” about Chelsea Clinton’s physical appearance- when she was still only thirteen years old! But Limbaugh isn’t an elected official, and he has never run for public office. He’s also not held out as some sort of crusty straight-talking sage. John McCain is.

What does it say about the corporate media that they wouldn’t report McCain’s actual words? What does it say about them that the story, itself, has been largely forgotten?

As Corn concluded:

But the joke revealed more than a mean streak in a man who would be president. It also exposed how the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times play favorites when reporting the foibles of our leading politicians.

And have the televised pundits even mentioned it, at all?

It gets more and more surreal.

Since the U.S. government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of a conglomerate of defense contractors and the fossil fuels industries, it’s important to find new and better ways for our tax dollars to support those murderous kleptocrats- preferably ways that attract little scrutiny, and play into the warped values so carefully calibrated by our corporate media. We can’t spend money on things that might actually help children, like ensuring that they have safe homes, nutritious food, clean clothes, and quality educations and health care. That would be socialism! But we can try to keep them from having sex! And we can try to keep them off drugs! Homelessness, hunger, and lack of opportunity are of little import, but kids on drugs is bad! And it exists in a vacuum. It has nothing to do with that homelessness, hunger, and lack of opportunity!

So, the Wall Street Journal is reporting today that:

A Defense Department contract involving antidrug training missions may test the durability of the political controversy over Blackwater Worldwide’s security work in Iraq.

The Moyock, N.C., company, which was involved in a September shooting in Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead, is one of five military contractors competing for as much as $15 billion over five years to help fight a narcotics trade that the government says finances terrorist groups.

Also competing for contracts from the Pentagon’s Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office are military-industry giants Raytheon Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp., as well as Arinc Inc., a smaller aerospace and technology contractor.

Of course, the first reaction is to wonder why in hell we’d be considering giving more money to a bloodsucking private army that murders civilians and is run by a fundamentalist religious fanatic. That’s the obvious question, and it will remain unanswered. As our nation is dismantled and sold for scrap, Blackwater is the future. But the bigger question, which is, of course, overlooked by the Journal itself, is why are we looking to spend $15,000,000,000 on the war on drugs?!

(more)

Word came down today that Al Gore joined venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and many of us thought that was further proof that he won’t be running for president. I had already been convinced by his recent interview in Rolling Stone. He will, however, be using the market to help develop green businesses, while continuing the work he’s already been doing, as the world’s greatest champion of the world’s most important cause. But more official word has also now come down.

At Daily Kos, diarist Abraham Running For Congress When I Turn 25 has just posted notice from Karen Wunderman, Chief of Staff of the Volunteer Division of AlGore.com:

We have received a communication from a member of Al Gore’s staff discouraging our efforts to put Al Gore’s name on any primary ballots. This includes California, New York, Massachusetts, and the write-in effort in New Hampshire, as well as any other states that are working to get him on the ballot.  Accordingly, effective immediately, we are recommending that all groups cease their signature collection and related fund-raising activities.

Many have said they would not give up hope until Gore asked that the petition drives be stopped. He has. It’s over.

In the Rolling Stone interview, Gore made clear that he considers himself a young 59 years old, and that there may be another time. He doesn’t think the political climate is yet ripe for what he wants to do. He will continue trying to improve that political climate. He may some day again decide to run. It won’t be next year.

It’s time we all refocused our energy by supporting Al Gore in the way he clearly wants us to: by supporting his cause. Research, write, and publicize about global warming- what it is, why it is, and what we can do to mitigate it. Support Al Gore by helping all Democrats to become better on the issue. The political campaign won’t be happening, but the real campaign will continue.

It’s not often that serial liar Condoleezza Rice says something that merits approval and publicity, but miracles do happen.

According to the Associated Press:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday she does not believe a Senate resolution authorizes President Bush to take military action against Iran.

“There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view. And, clearly, the president has also made very clear that he’s on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus,” Rice said.

The latter part is, of course, what we expect from Rice. The administration’s attempts to drum up support for a war have been blatant and blatantly dishonest; but this statement needs to be publicized and emphasized:

There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view.

Meanwhile, the Guardian, yesterday, had yet more evidence of the insane efforts to find some rationale- any rationale- for attacking Iran:

US military officials are putting huge pressure on interrogators who question Iraqi insurgents to find incriminating evidence pointing to Iran, it was claimed last night.

Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is ‘gold’. The claim comes after Washington imposed sanctions on Iran last month, citing both its nuclear ambitions and its Revolutionary Guards’ alleged support of Shia insurgents in Iraq. Last week the US military freed nine Iranians held in Iraq, including two it had accused of links to the Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force.

Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: ‘They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there’s clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I’ve had, I’d say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.

Needless to say, if the evidence was there, the efforts to find it wouldn’t be quite so obsessive. Clearly, the administration wants war. Just as clearly, there’s an understanding that they’re getting neither the evidence to justify one nor the public support that would make it politically safe to launch one. In fact, a CNN/Opinion Research polll, last week, showed, in addition to record high opposition to the Iraq War:

The public also opposes U.S. military action against Iran. Sixty-three percent oppose air strikes on Iran, while 73 percent oppose using ground troops as well as air strikes in that country.

Does any of this mean the administration won’t launch a war? Of course not. But it does suggest that they do understand that this effort at warmongering is not working. And now, Condoleezza Rice has made clear that Congress did not, in fact, give the administration a green light to attack. Lieberman-Kyl was terrible and asinine, but it was not a war resolution. Condoleezza Rice even says so. We need to keep emphasizing that fact.

Apparently, the problem we are all having with the FISA bill is a simple matter of semantics. We take the concept of privacy to mean privacy. How silly of us. As the Associated Press reports:

As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.

Trust us. We’re Big Brother. Public and private. We own you!

Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that he finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are “perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service provider) who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data.”

See how stupid we are? If we’ll willingly allow immigrints to handle our private data, shouldn’t we be as willing to allow Big Brother? That’s actually an astonishing revelation of Kerr’s xenophobic bigotry: immigrants as the baseline of people who shouldn’t be trusted! Coming from one of this nation’s top intel officials!

Kerr also points out that since young people post private info to MySpace and Facebook, they really don’t care about privacy, anyway; and never mind that those who post to such websites actually choose what gets posted, and who sees it.  

“Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it’s not for us to inflict one size fits all,” said Kerr, 68. “Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that.”

See, that, young people. You just don’t care about your privacy! Isn’t it nice that good Mr. Kerr is there to speak on your behalves? We also need to take another look at that second sentence:

“Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that.”

It particularly can’t be won when the principal deputy director of national intelligence is fighting against it!

(more)

And thank you Illini!!!

As if there had ever been reason for doubt, a new study confirm what we all already knew: abstinence-only doesn’t work.

From the Associated Press:

Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.

“At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners” among teenagers, the study concluded.

The study was released by the non-partisan, reality-based National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having “positive outcomes” including teenagers “delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.”

Pseudo-religious pseudo-morality doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do. Treating people like responsible adults does.

The study debunked the following claims by abstinence-only advocates:

-that sex ed promotes promiscuity

-that sex ed leads to kids trying sex sooner, and participating in it more often

-that it confuses kids

Of course, what really leads kids to try sex is hormones. Teaching them that what their bodies are telling them is bad doesn’t work. Their bodies know better. What does work is teaching them how to approach their sexuality responsibly. Of course, our medievalist government wants to suppress sex at all costs, even if it means promoting policies that are counter-productive.

And speaking of costs, there’s a bill now before Congress that would spend $141,000,000 for community-based, abstinence-only sex education. That’s $4,000,000 more than Bush requested. Because with all the problems in the world, there’s no better way to burn our tax dollars than on ill-conceived attempts at sexual repression.

(more)

A new polll has good news, on two fronts.

On the Iraq War:

Opposition to the war in Iraq has reached an all-time high, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Thursday morning.

Support for the war in Iraq has dropped to 31 percent and the 68 percent who oppose the war is a new record.

Only a quarter of those polled think the U.S. is winning the war. The American people get it. Those with brains, anyway. Now, if only someone would do something about this disaster…

The other result is very encouraging, particularly to those who saw the strange recent Zogby Poll, which concluded that a slight majority of Americans favored an attack on Iran. That poll struck me as an outlier, although we’ll have to see more results, to really know. But the CNN/ORC result shows this:

The public also opposes U.S. military action against Iran. Sixty-three percent oppose air strikes on Iran, while 73 percent oppose using ground troops as well as air strikes in that country.

That sounds more accurate. We’ll see.

The new polls also says 56% say they are dissatisfied with the progress in the “war on terror.” Which begs the questions:

What progress?

What war on terror?

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent, and Pakistan now has a dictatorship. Okay, maybe there is progress. Just not in the right direction.

My very dearest Senator Feinstein,

I feel like we’re old friends. Years ago, when Arianna Huffington was a Republican and you were a moderate Democrat, I sent money to your re-election campaign. A good chunk of money. I was offended that Arianna’s husband was trying to buy your senate seat. I admired your tenacity in fighting him off. I loved the bumperstickers that said: Dianne: Make him spend it all!. Those were the days, huh?

And then began our long correspondence. Okay, I wasn’t so good at writing you back- in fact, I never did- but you kept sending me letters, every month or so, describing all the fine work you were doing in Washington. I was touched that you made the effort. Having once worked for a congressman, I knew how much effort it took. And they were all personally signed by your signing machine! I can’t tell you how much that meant to me. And it went on for years and years. I could tell that you cared!

We were even once almost formally introduced. Well, not quite formally, but you did once almost bowl me over, late one night at a dim sum restaurant, when I was walking past your table, and you suddenly rose to put on your coat. Had your daughter not quickly whisked you out of the way, our introduction might have been more than formal. It might have been almost intimate! But your daughter saved the day- or night- and you were startled, and apologetic, and gracious. It was actually quite human and charming. I almost stopped to tell you how much I appreciated your recent efforts in helping get the assault weapons ban through the Senate, but having known quite a few famous people, I considered it best to not interrupt your private time.

The years went by. We had a falling out. You voted for Bush’s tax cuts. I called your office and said there would be no more money. I admit that I hadn’t actually intended to give you more, anyway, but I thought you needed to understand how disappointed I was. And you did seem to understand. You seemed to understand that relationships sometimes need work. The thoughtful letters kept coming, as if nothing had happened. It was kind of sweet. I understood that you didn’t take me lightly, and that you intended to keep trying to grow the relationship. I did my part, too. When you sponsored a bill to shut down Guantanamo, I wrote a diary on Daily Kos, to praise you. I called your office to thank you. Despite our estrangement, I wanted you to know that when I thought you deserved it, I would still always be there for you.

So, we do have a long history, together. And we have much in common. For example:

You went to Stanford University. I went to Stanford Hospital.

You were mayor of San Francisco, in the 1980s, and worked at City Hall. I went to a lot of concerts at the San Francisco Civic, in the 1980s, and often walked past City Hall.

You live in a famous Pacific Heights mansion. I’ve driven through Pacific Heights.

We both root for the 49ers and Giants. We both suffer for it.

We both know that the best dim sum in San Francisco is not found in Chinatown.

It’s almost like we’re related!

To liberals and libertarians, the question of freedom is not even a question. We take for granted not only the freedoms we have come to expect, but that we have the fundamental right to expect them; indeed, that all people have a fundamental right to personal and political freedom. The American and French Revolutions were liberal and libertarian, and so were the fights against slavery and for suffragism. Liberals and libertarians continue to fight for the freedom of the GBLT community, and for oppressed minorities everywhere. Many of us dream of a world free of warfare, hunger, and deprivation. Many of us dream of a world where everyone has a birthright of peace, justice, opportunity, and the human community’s compassion and support in times of crisis. We dream large because our ideals are large. Those who ridicule us as unrealistic would have also ridiculed those in the Eighteenth Century who dreamed of freedom from despotic monarchies. We take for granted the freedoms we have, and often forget the intrepid efforts of those who had to fight to win them for us.