Wow, I once had a blog...

And then Facecrack happened to me...

My jaw hit the floor last night when I read Dubya's comments regarding his quitting golf to show empathy to the families of the fallen soldiers in Iraq.

"Excuse me?!?! You think not playing golf gives consolation to the grieving mothers and fathers and siblings and grandparents and spouses and children and friends of the fallen?!?!"

Yeah, what Keith says...

MR. PRESIDENT, SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

The new Obama controversy

You be the judge...

At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Hillary's appearance on SNL...

The debate was HILLarious!

What the hell about Gitmo, Mr. President?!?!

"What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs?" Bush asked rhetorically. "What's lost is it'll send the wrong message. It'll send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It'll give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."

What a fucking hypocrite and idiot!

Bush: Obama wrong on talking with enemies
'It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies'

The Associated Press
updated 11:20 a.m. MT, Thurs., Feb. 28, 2008

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with Democratic candidate Barack Obama's expressed willingness to meet the leaders of Iran and Cuba — two U.S. adversaries throughout Bush's presidency. FULL ARTICLE

HI-FRICKIN-LARIOUS!!!

I've not laughed this hard in quite some time! Ya gotta watch 'em in order...

Excellent article! And some good information about tracking down execs of a company...

Customer backlash against bad service
Growing gap between promised and delivered experience

By Jena McGregor
Business Week

updated 5:29 p.m. MT, Tues., Feb. 26, 2008

In the annals of customer service, 2007 will go down as the year fed-up consumers finally dropped the hammer. In August a 76-year-old retired nurse named Mona Shaw smashed up a keyboard and a telephone in a Manassas, Va., Comcast office after she says the cable operator failed to install her service properly. During her first visit to the branch outlet, the AARP secretary says she was left sitting on a bench in the hallway for two hours waiting for a manager. She returned, armed with a hammer, and let loose the rallying cry "Have I got your attention now?" Afterward, she was arrested, fined $345, and became a media sensation, capturing the hearts of frustrated consumers everywhere. (Says Comcast: "We apologize for any customer service issues that Ms. Shaw experienced.")

Three months earlier, in May, Michael Whitford uploaded a video in which he chooses among a golf club, an ax, and a sword before deciding on a sledgehammer as his weapon of choice for bashing his nonfunctioning Macbook to smithereens. In the video, Whitford, a systems engineer from Chandler, Ariz., says that Apple declined to cover the repair under warranty, citing damage from a spilled liquid. More than 340,000 people have viewed the black-and-white smash-up on YouTube. Whitford, whom BusinessWeek was not able to reach for comment, denies in the video that he spilled anything. In early July, he wrote on his blog that Apple had replaced his laptop. "I'm very happy now," he wrote. "Apple has regained my loyalty."

Meet today's consumer vigilantes. Even if they're not all wielding hammers, many are arming themselves with video cameras, computer keyboards, and mobile devices to launch their own personal forms of insurrection. Frustrated by the usual fix-it options — obediently waiting on hold with Bangalore, gamely chatting online with a scripted robot — more consumers are rebelling against company-prescribed service channels. After getting nowhere with the call center, they're sending "e-mail carpet bombs" to the C-suite, cc-ing the top layer of management with their complaints. When all else fails, a plucky few are going straight to the top after uncovering direct numbers to executive customer-service teams not easily found by mere mortals.

And of course, they're filling up the Web with blogs and videos, leaving behind venom-spewed tales of woe. "There's a certain degree of extremism that's popping up, [a sense of] I'm going to get results, whatever means necessary,'" says Pete Blackshaw, executive vice-president of Nielsen Online Strategic Services, which measures consumer-generated media. "Companies can brush these off as being atypical, mutant consumers, or they can say there's a very important insight in [their] emotions."

Behind the guerrilla tactics is a growing disconnect between the experience companies promise and customers' perceptions of what they actually get. Consumers already pushed to the brink by evaporating home equity, job insecurity, and rising prices are more apt to snap when hit with long hold times and impenetrable phone trees. Just ask those who responded to our second annual ranking of the best companies for customer service, which uses data from J.D. Power & Associates. The average service scores for the brands in our study dipped slightly this year, and about two-thirds of the names that were in both years' studies were lower. (Like BusinessWeek, J.D. Power is owned by The McGraw-Hill Companies.)

Empowered customers
A swell of corporate distrust — exacerbated by high executive pay, accounting lapses, and the offshoring of jobs — has people feeling more at odds with companies than ever before. "[That] has a visceral effect on how customers approach more day-to-day transactions," says Scott Broetzmann, president of Alexandria, Va., Customer Care Measurement & Consulting. Meanwhile, he says, companies are responding with tighter return policies and increased focus on potential fraud. "You'd have to go back a long way to see the kind of acrimony that you're seeing now."

Technology is aiding the uprising, empowering consumers to do much more to make themselves heard. Now, with the proliferation of online video, they can be seen as well. "You could only get the point across so much with text," says Blackshaw. "As soon as you start adding sight, sound, and motion, you've got a whole other level of [emotion]." More consumers are equipped with mobile Web devices that can find executive e-mail addresses and phone numbers anytime, from any place. At the same time, customer angst sites are no longer just shouting "YourCompanySucks" into the cyberdarkness, but acting as gathering spots for sharing call-center secrets and trouble-shooting tips. And as the audience for more blogs and social-media sites such as Digg reach critical mass, it's easier than ever for consumers to wallpaper the Web with their customer-service nightmares.

Add a powerful media voice and a provocative site title to a blog, and it can have extraordinary impact. Bob Garfield, an Advertising Age columnist and National Public Radio host, lit up the blogosphere in October with a site cheekily called ComcastMustDie.com, one of the salvos in what he called his "consumer jihad" against the cable company. After repeated delays with his own service, Garfield, who has hosted a podcast on the site (special guest star Mona "The Hammer Lady" Shaw!), suggested that customers post their account numbers on the blog. Activity on the blog has slowed, but not before dozens of customers followed Garfield's suggestion; many report back, he says, that Comcast called them soon after they posted their account numbers and rants. Garfield can't help but point out the irony. "They've outsourced their worst-case customer-service issues to a blog dedicated to wiping them off the face of the earth."

Marcelo Salup credits Garfield's blog for finally getting Comcast to show up on time when his Internet and cable connections failed. Years of dialing the call center for a technician yielded at least eight missed appointments by Comcast, he says, but a post on ComcastMustDie brought a phone call the next morning and, later, a lead technician who showed up on time. Now, Salup says: "Anytime I have a problem, I also post it on the blog."

Other Comcast customers have used blogs, too. Dan Ortiz says he called the cable provider at least 20 times during his first month as a subscriber to fix dropped Web access and screen-image problems. Then the 26-year-old bike messenger logged on to The Consumerist, a blog with more than 2 million unique visitors a month that's part of Gawker Media's digital empire of snark. There he found a consumer vigilante's gold mine: a list of e-mail addresses for more than 75 Comcast executives and employees, along with instructions for launching what the blog calls its "executive e-mail carpet bomb."

Ortiz got lucky. After firing off a note copying all those names the day before Thanksgiving, he quickly had an inbox full of out-of-office replies, complete with contact information containing direct numbers. He called a Chicago manager at home, who put his lead technician on the case. Ortiz says a swarm of eight trucks showed up on his block. "Once you get ahold of [executives], they bend over backward for you," he says. He adds that Comcast sent him a tin of gourmet popcorn for Christmas and more than $700 in credits. Even better, he now has the mobile numbers for the lead technician in his area. "I'm not calling customer service ever again," he says.

The unenviable task of responding to such digital vitriol falls to Rick Germano, Comcast's senior vice-president for customer operations, who took over the role just as Garfield's "revolution" got under way. Germano says reading blogs "is very new, at least to Comcast" and that he's expanding the number of "e-care" representatives to help track and respond to blog comments and e-mails that come in through a new link to his office on Comcast's site. "We're servicing a million customers a day," he says. "An extra hundred doesn't really faze us." A Comcast spokesperson says the company is making efforts to improve customer satisfaction and that it's reacting to other blogs besides Garfield's. Scenarios like Salup and Ortiz's are "not the type of experiences that we want our customers to be having. We're going to respond to our customers wherever and however they have voiced their experiences. Ideally, we'd prefer it to be in the traditional ways."

Going to the top
For consumers who really want gold-plated service, little compares to a resolution from "executive customer service." These "Valhallas of customer service," as Ben Popken, editor of The Consumerist, has called them, are powerful support reps who may sit at corporate headquarters or even in call centers. Typically, they respond to complaints that first come in to executives; these specialists may also respond to high-profile customers who pose legal or P.R. threats. The Consumerist, which instructs customers to try regular support numbers first, has been active in outing such numbers at a couple dozen companies.

Although executive customer service has been around for years, many companies are reluctant to talk about it. "They're usually stealth," says consultant Broetzmann. "Obviously, you don't publish the phone numbers. You don't even tell people they exist." Washington Mutual and Circuit City declined to provide details to BusinessWeek about their executive customer support; Bank of America wouldn't say more "because of operating and security purposes."

Consulting firms that help companies manage call centers and train employees say the online posting of these numbers is having an effect. Baker Communications, a Houston training firm, started up a course 18 months ago to prepare more people for such executive-service teams. More than 25 companies have sent employees, says Baker CEO Walter Rogers.

The biggest challenges in customer service may be dealing with consumers who are hard to mollify. For some, the sting of a bad experience cuts so deep that it transforms them from a merely upset customer into an activist no longer just looking for a refund. Take Justin Callaway, a Portland, Ore., freelance video editor. He started his campaign against the wireless company Cingular — now AT&T — in 2006 after a technical glitch that he believes ruined one of his computer speakers. He had the speakers, which contained an amplifier, turned up full blast. When his cell phone rang, he says the speaker next to it made a loud noise and then went dead.

Callaway didn't call customer service right away. But when he looked into the issue for a grad school project months later, he learned more about GSM networks, which Cingular uses, and radio frequency interference, which he believes caused the damage. "I really felt irked that they didn't disclose [it]." He got some friends together to record a tune about Cingular. One of them helped him animate an angry bandit in the shape of the carrier's orange trademark, complete with an AT&T blue-and-white pirate's bandanna and an eye patch shaped like Apple's logo. (Cingular/AT&T is the only wireless provider that offers the iPhone.) His video, "Feeling Cingular," has been viewed more than 37,000 times on YouTube.

About a month after posting the video, Callaway got an e-mail from Bob Steelhammer, then a vice-president for e-commerce at AT&T. "Justin, in the spirit of goodwill, I would like to replace the $100 computer speakers on your home video-editing system," Steelhammer wrote. "Please let me know what brand and model [they] are." Callaway, who works with video equipment, says that even if there's not damage the phone causes an irritating buzz, and feels AT&T should do more to make consumers aware of the issue. That's why he didn't accept the offer. "It wasn't about the speakers anymore," he says. He's not stopping with the video, either: Callaway is seeking class-action status for a suit against Cingular over subscribers' inability to use their phones in some settings without interference. An AT&T spokesperson says that, due to the proposed litigation, it could not comment, but it works to resolve consumers' issues promptly.

Flight or fight
Most customers, of course, don't have the time or energy to go that far in their service insurgencies. They want an apology, a human being who answers the phone, or simply some bottled water after a few hours sitting on the airport tarmac. But that doesn't mean they aren't above a few digs at executives' expense or a call to a cell phone after hours. That's especially true when a direct line to the CEO is the BlackBerry sitting right there in their laps.

The US Airways plane Ron Dee was on last October had just pulled away from the gate when the pilot came on the loudspeaker to tell the Cleveland-bound passengers that they were 42nd in line for takeoff, Dee recalls. A one- to two-hour delay was expected. Later, thunderstorms delayed the flight even more, prompting another warning: The crew was coming up on its allowable flying time.

Dee, who develops real estate for a restaurant company, flies 100 times a year and is used to delays. That wasn't what upset him so much. "About three hours into the wait on the runway, there's no water left on the plane," he recalls. (A spokesperson for Republic Airways, which operated the regional jet for US Airways, says that records from its vendor show the flight was fully catered and that other beverages would have been available.)

After a quick search on his BlackBerry, Dee found e-mail addresses for Doug Parker, US Airways' CEO; Robert Isom, its COO; and Henri Dawes, its director of customer relations. His first missive, time-stamped 5:59 p.m., fired this shot: "If you get a chance, please call me and we can discuss how we handle customer service in our restaurants. Maybe that would help your company." The next, at 6:40, invoked the JetBlue Airways incident last February, a weather-induced operational snafu that was followed closely by CEO David Neeleman's departure. "What is that CEO's name from JetBlue [who] resigned? I am going to call information and get his home phone number. Maybe he can get us back to the gate." Says Dee, whose flight was delayed more than four hours: "I probably sent an e-mail every 15 minutes or so for the last two and a half hours" he was on the plane.

He had nothing better to do: The flight was brought back to the gate, and Dee spent the night in a Philadelphia hotel he paid for himself. He never spoke to Dawes, but he did get three vouchers totaling $425. Would he use the BlackBerry as a stalking device the next time he's stuck on the runway? "Absolutely," he says. "You guys as a company, regardless of who you are, exist because of me and my fellow paying passengers."

© 2008 MSNBC.com

'I married a gay man"

WOW! An excellent article, and she really gets to the core of the problem: societal & religous judgments (and institutionalized homophobia in the US military) create & perpetuate the problem...

'I married a gay man'
How one woman recovered from a heartbreaking deception

By Anonymous, as told to Jessica Kowal
Self
updated 12:00 p.m. MT, Sun., Feb. 24, 2008

"You have chlamydia," my obstetrician told me as I lay on the examining table, six months pregnant with my fourth child. "You've got to talk to your husband." I was in total disbelief. "This is impossible," I protested. "We're both monogamous." But of course I knew that wasn't really true, and the doctor's words forced me to finally acknowledge what I'd suspected for a long time: My husband was most likely gay.

When I confronted my husband, Chris (not his real name), with my test results that night, he denied he was to blame. "They've got to be wrong, or I must have picked up something in the gym," he insisted. "I haven't done anything wrong." Instead of arguing about how I felt or figuring out how I wanted to handle the larger issue, I focused on what I needed at that moment — to take medicine and get healthy — much as I had throughout our rocky marriage. It took a few more days of wrenching confrontation for our marriage to disintegrate. When Chris spoke to a health official who called to check on me (my case had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta), he realized our baby was at risk for premature birth and newborn pneumonia, and he became hysterical, as though he were having a nervous breakdown.

That evening, after we'd watched our three children play on the lawn of our home in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, he curled into a fetal position on a porch chair and admitted more than I ever wanted to know: He had been having anonymous sex with men. "I don't know how this could have happened," he stammered. "It's nobody that I knew ... it was mostly oral sex ... it just happened...; At gay bars, there are back rooms with holes in the walls..." A wave of nausea swept over me as I listened to his agonized confession. But I kept quiet and thought, I've held up as long as I could. And I am done. With. You.

I was 30 years old when this happened, and Chris and I had been married for 11 years. We looked like the perfect family in our Christmas card portrait. Both of us grew up in the small-town South, and Chris was in the military. Yet I finally understood that our entire married life, except for our children, whom we both loved completely, was built on a falsehood. At that moment, I felt as if I were standing alone in the world, stripped of all dignity, with a big sign on me that read idiot.

The movie "Brokeback Mountain" turned a spotlight on gay men who lead double lives, having sex with other men while they are married to women. But that film only scratched the surface of their wives' miserable experience. When I saw the movie, I started to cry as I watched Ennis, the young cowboy played by Heath Ledger, wed his sweetheart even though he'd been involved with another man. I wanted to scream: "It is such a lie! Don't do it!" My mind flashed back to my own wedding day, when I was the virgin bride standing before family, friends and a minister. I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

This kind of union happens more often than people may think; research done by University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann, Ph.D., estimated that between 1.5 million and 2.9 million American women who have ever been married had a husband who had had sex with another man. That means there are a large number of women who have no idea what their husband does in secret.

We periodically see stories about married men in public life who are gay or have been implicated in homosexual behavior — such as Senator Larry Craig (R–Idaho), who was arrested last summer for allegedly soliciting a male police officer in an airport bathroom, and former New Jersey governor James McGreevey, who proclaimed that he was a "gay American" when he announced his resignation from office. While the media focuses on the men, I watch their wives standing next to them and wonder about the suffering, lies, emotional confusion and rage that they may be living through. Because I've lived it all.

There are so many obvious questions for a wife like me: Didn't I realize he was gay? Did I ignore red flags? And if I had suspicions, why didn't I confront him earlier or divorce him?

I suppose I was always suspicious, but I was in denial. Early in our relationship, Chris told me he'd had homosexual experiences as a teenager but assured me it was youthful curiosity. I didn't think there was anything wrong with being gay — I have an openly gay cousin. And I didn't care what went on behind others' closed doors. But I also didn't believe that a gay man would ever be attracted to a straight woman, and I was naive — too naive to see why a homosexual man would marry and spend years lying to his wife, his friends, his family and himself.


The beginning
I was a 19-year-old college freshman in Kentucky when I met Chris. He was 22, a senior and a talented musician who could sing and play brass, keyboards and woodwinds. I'd never had a boyfriend before, and I felt incredibly flattered when this popular, good-looking guy asked me out. I was also pleased that we had a similar religious upbringing. I grew up going to a Methodist church, and I've always had a strong Christian faith. Chris's father was a Southern Baptist minister who preached fire and brimstone, and Chris was taught that being gay was the ultimate sin — an absolute sentence to hell.

Two unusual things happened on our first date. After we watched the movie "Romancing the Stone," Chris said, "I think I could marry you." I was speechless, wondering if I was living in a romance novel. Then, after he kissed me good-night, he shocked me again, saying, "No matter what you hear, I'm not gay." In fact, I had heard other students say that everyone in his fraternity was gay. But in the world we lived in, people often claimed a guy was gay if he wasn't a jock or really macho, so I didn't want to judge someone because of who his friends were and what he did. I decided to take Chris at his word. Besides, he'd taken a girl — me — out on a date, so how could he be gay?

We immediately started seeing each other exclusively. I thought it was a storybook romance for nine months — until Chris abruptly said, "I can't do this anymore." He refused to explain why; I was distraught and confused. A few weeks later, over the holidays, we met to talk. We obviously still had feelings for each other, and without explaining why he'd split up with me, Chris declared, "If we're going to be together, let's make it official: Will you marry me?" I accepted on the spot. It was a dream come true.

Of course, I could have asked more questions, but I convinced myself that Chris had gotten cold feet because we had become serious so quickly. I also had a stubborn streak, which I practiced as a child and maintained throughout our marriage. I was determined to make our relationship work. I wanted to show Chris that I would stick with him through everything.

I didn't believe in premarital sex, but once we were engaged I went on the Pill and told Chris I thought we should make love. He refused, explaining that he respected me too much and that sex had ruined his previous relationships. Frustrated, I kept reminding myself that, as he said, "We will have the rest of our life together." In premarital counseling, we told the minister that divorce didn't fit with our values. This pronouncement made me feel more secure, but I shouldn't have ignored my nagging intuition that something was seriously wrong. After all, what man wouldn't jump into bed with his fiancé.

I was a 20-year-old virgin on our wedding day and a disappointed bride when Chris couldn't get an erection that night. I retreated to my side of the bed and cried myself to sleep, wondering, Is this what our life together will be like? The next morning, we decided to start our marriage on the right foot — by going to church. We had sex that afternoon. It wasn't as passionate as I'd hoped, but I convinced myself yet again it would all be fine. Chris had won a prestigious position in a military band, and we moved to the Washington, D.C., area to begin his career.

A lonely wife
After Chris's boot camp, we settled in as newlyweds, but we never achieved the "happy couple" life I had envisioned. We rarely spent time alone together because Chris preferred to have dinner parties, go to parties or play cards with friends. I returned to school, and he had rehearsals, and we were with other band members and their wives on most of our weekends. I missed the intimacy I was certain other married couples had.

I also expended a lot of energy trying to keep Chris interested in sex. After we got married, I wanted to have sex every day, but he told me I was a nymphomaniac. I learned to do whatever I had to do to make it happen, because sex reassured me that I was loved and wanted. We probably had sex three or four times a week, and I felt as if I was constantly pressing for it.

In "Brokeback Mountain," there's a scene when Ennis flips his wife over on her stomach when they have sex. I got very emotional when I watched that because it was the position Chris and I often used for intercourse. Even though it wasn't as physically or emotionally satisfying to me, it was as intimate as we were going to get — and I wanted children.

Questions about Chris's sexual preference didn't disappear. At a party with his work friends, I got into an argument with a woman who'd been drinking, and she said, out of the blue, "Well, at least my husband's not gay." I was stunned, and I can't remember what I said in reply. Later that evening, when I told Chris what happened, he reminded me that he'd always been teased about being gay, but he assured me, "It's not true."

I defended him to others, but our marriage was often tense. He toured with the band, and when he came home, he'd sometimes stay out all night without telling me where he'd gone. Assuming he was having an affair with a woman, and feeling insecure and unattractive in the middle of my third pregnancy, I became hyperinterrogatory and angry. It didn't help: Chris became even more distant, and he started drinking heavily.

It's easy to say I should have left him, but the choice wasn't so simple. We had virtually no savings, and I couldn't afford to take the children and raise them on my own. I also still believed that the marriage could weather such trials, in part because he was such a good father. He took us camping, played with the children, planned holiday celebrations and even baked the kids' birthday cakes. Chris was 100 percent better at parenting than my own father, and I got used to the idea that my fulfillment could come from the family rather than the marriage.


My shocking discovery
That thin fantasy crumbled on my oldest son's third birthday, well before my chlamydia diagnosis. That day, I caught Chris hiding cash in a desk drawer. "What are you doing? What is the money for?" I demanded. He became defensive and announced, "I haven't gone to bed with anybody, but I've been going to gay bars." He said he was trying to sort out confusion about his sexuality. As the puzzling pieces of our marriage flashed through my mind — the lack of physical affection, his preferred position for sexual intercourse, his disinterest in spending couple time with me — I started sobbing and asked, "Are we getting a divorce? Are we going to counseling? Is this something you're going to pursue?" He repeated, as before, that he was committed to our family. I desperately wanted to believe him.

He agreed to go to counseling, but we had to pay in cash and keep it quiet because of the U.S. military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. If anyone found out that Chris was gay, he could be fired. As usual, I didn't dwell on my emotions; I focused more on my family's well-being than on what the future held.

You might wonder why Chris couldn't accept his homosexuality, but the sin factor was ingrained in him at an early age. Being gay would not only endanger his job and family life, it could also cost him his relationship with his parents, his church and God. Chris feared that coming out would invalidate him as a human being — and might even send him to hell.

Our therapist doubted the marriage could survive, yet I was dedicated to our union if Chris was determined not to be gay. The therapist told Chris that he'd have to stop going to gay bars, and we tried, again, to start afresh. I was soon pregnant with our fourth child, and we were living as if we were Ward and June Cleaver.

Then came my fateful visit to the obstetrician and Chris's confession. I was officially done with the marriage, but we maintained the facade of a normal family while we waited for our divorce to go through. I took off my wedding ring but blamed it on swelling from pregnancy. I focused my attention on caring for our children, even though I felt as if I were dying inside, questioning my self-worth, my intelligence as well as my existence. I felt like such a chump. In church, the children and I sat in the front row as Chris played the organ. My in-laws, knowing our marriage was troubled without knowing why, even sent us videos about how to improve our relationship. It was the worst time of my life.

The only thing that saved my sanity was the Straight Spouse Network, an international support group founded by another woman who'd been married to a gay man. During my first SSN meeting, I sat in the corner and cried the entire time. At least I knew I wasn't alone. I soon learned that straight spouses typically blame themselves for not being sexy enough to keep their husband from straying. As bad as it is when another woman manages to steal your husband, at least you believe you can compete. When your husband wants another man, it denies your entire being. I also learned that a surprising number of gays in the military are married because marriage is such a useful front. You can't be gay in the military, and if you're married, then of course you're not gay.

Chris was still living with us (sleeping in the spare room) when, through SSN, I met my ultimate soul mate, a father of three who had been married to a lesbian. We soon started dating, which, astonishingly, infuriated Chris. One night, in a rage, he called my parents and told them, "I'm gay and I've been going out with men, but she's screwing around with another guy." I'd always assumed that my family would support me if I needed them, but my parents and older sister saw me as an adulterer and tried to convince me to stay married! In the town I'm from, leaving a homosexual husband was too scandalous. They urged me to stay in the marriage, regardless of what it cost me emotionally. My mother even suggested that I try different things sexually to keep Chris interested and mentioned that Chris could take medication to weaken his libido.

Moving on
I often joke about writing a book called The Girlfriend's Guide to NOT Marrying a Gay Man, because I should have trusted my instincts from the start. I see now that many gay spouses genuinely believe they are doing the right thing by getting married, because they are lying to themselves more than anyone.

My soul mate and I got married the year after our divorces became final, when I was 34. My kids accepted him very quickly, and we later adopted a child together. When we first started dating, my daughter told me, "I love it when he comes over because you're so happy!" And making love with him leaves me feeling like the most gorgeous creature on earth.

My relationship with Chris is as good as it can possibly be, given the circumstances. We do birthday parties and some holidays together, and he and his male partner live in — and have redecorated — our former house, although he continues to hide his private life from the military.

Marrying a gay man completely reshaped my life and altered some dearly held values in ways I'd never planned. I am living proof that you can be religious and conservative yet also care for, and even get along with, a gay former spouse. I now know that you can recover from an experience that shakes your identity to the core. Somehow, I'm an even stronger person because of the pain I endured.

I have marched for gay rights and spoken about my experience to groups of gay fathers, because I believe it was intolerance and the fear of homosexuality that put me and my family through complete hell — and I hope none of that was in vain. Everyone has a fundamental right to be who he is, and I pray that Americans as a whole can become more accepting of homosexuals. Perhaps then, gay people won't feel the need to pretend they're straight and get married as a way to "prove" it to everyone else.

© 2008 MSNBC.com

"Why Hillary? Why not Obama?"

As I'm standing in Starbucks this morning wearing my red, "Hillary Clinton for President," baseball cap, I was asked that question, and without missing a beat, I turned to the inquisitor and responded:

• Because I need more substance than just Southern-Baptist-Preacher style rhetoric regarding "change."
• Because Obama failed to provide a plan for universal healthcare - instead stating, "affordable healthcare for everyone." That's not the same.
• Because from day one when Hillary takes office, you've got a built-in ambassador to the Middle East through the First Gentleman. The President can deploy the former President to negotiate real & lasting peace that will truly make America & Americans safer at home.
• Because I'm not comfortable with the fact that Obama has attended the same church for 20 years with a preacher who is known for his vitriolic rants against the "white man." Just as I left the Southern Baptist Church because I did not believe & support its hate-mongering against homosexuality if Barack Obama did not believe & support his preacher's hate-mongering against the "white man," then he & Michelle would have found another church. I'm not comfortable with the possible implications of their staying in that church.
• And quite frankly & directly, straight men haven't exactly done a bang-up job leading this country the past several decades, so I think it's time for someone with a vahjayjay give it a shot and let us see if testosterone & having the "bigger one" really are a requirement for the office of the president.

After he wiped the dumbfounded look off of his face, he responded, "You make some great arguments, and I'm happy to find an educated voter who knows why he's supporting his candiate."

I smiled and said while turning away, "Oh, I definitely know who I'm supporting & why."

I have to thank my friend Christine who asked me for political advice right before the Arizona primary. Unfortunately, I hadn't really articulated my beliefs prior to her question, so I didn't respond very well. Since her posing that question, I've taken the time to organize the thoughts in my head and thus my being able to successfully articulate them today when put on the spot, as it were.

The Gender versus the Race Card

Quite frankly and directly, I don't care if it's vanilla, mocha, or chocolate, I don't want another person with a penis in the White House come January 20, 2009. Heterosexual men have screwed up this Country for far too long! It's time that we infuse a little estrogen and put someone with a vajayjay as the senior-most leader of the free world.

Also quite frankly and directly, that's why I'm more than a little disappointed in Oprah, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, and countless other women & open-minded folks who are coming out in support of Barack Obama.

At the end of the day regardless of skin color, he's still man who will bring a testosterone-fueled approach to the job.

That's not change. That's status quo.

I had to laugh when I read this headline on MSNBC...

Omaha mall massacre renews security debate
America's choice: Airport-style security or accept chance tragedy can strike

Because, of course, the choice can't be... [wait for it]

GUN CONTROL!

Because, of course, the framers of our Constitution believed that a 19 year old with a history of mental problems and death threats has the right to bear an AK-47 assault rifle!

I'm so sick and gawdamned tired of the NRA and its ilk hiding behind the Constitution because massacres in schools and colleges and department stores and office buildings and homes is NOT what our Founding Fathers sought to protect when they wrote in the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, it's way past time that gun control get added to, "America's choice...."

"Can I get an 'Amen' from the Hallelujah Chorus?!?!"

Gellman: A Letter to a Bigot
What I want to say to a person of prejudice.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Marc Gellman
Newsweek
Updated: 3:12 p.m. MT Oct 12, 2007

Oct. 12, 2007 - I recently received the following question by e-mail: I’m sending you a scan of a clipping from our local newspaper. My question is, How can one respond to a horrifying letter like that? Thanks for your help. —M from Bethlehem, PA

Attached was a letter to the editor from a man who lived in Lower Macungie Township in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. This is what he said: Give me a break. Now these “Jena 6” punks are trying to get off for a crime in Louisiana. Okay, they wanted to sit under the tree that they knew was for white people. Get over it. The white kids claimed it for themselves. The Jena 6 knew their place like all nonwhites. They should get the maximum punishment allowed by law. It’s the South, and that’s how the South will be. White people are tired of all this blame, when all nonwhites are the racists. We don’t owe blacks or any nonwhites special rights. It’s time we whites join together and bring this country back to the way when our forefathers had established it. This is a WHITE CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.

This is my reply:

Dear Sir,

I see you live in Lower Macungie Township in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. The place you live was first settled by the Lenni Lenape tribe of Native Americans. They are the ones who claimed all the trees and sat under all the trees before any white people ever stuck a plow in the good earth of the Lehigh Valley. The name Macungie is derived from one of their words and it means bear swamp, or the place where the bears feed. I guess that means that the bears claimed the trees even before they did. Before you take up the cause of whites claiming trees, you might want to remember that in America no white person was ever the first person to claim a tree.

According to the Macungie Township’s Web site, the first tree claimers who were not bears and not Native Americans were a group of German farmers who settled there in the early 18th century. They were both German and Protestant. They did not even accept the provisions of Pennsylvania’s 1835 Free School Act until 1849 because they feared that the German language would be displaced by English. They did not want non-Germans to feel comfortable sitting under their German—and Protestant—trees. The prejudice reflected in your letter was preceded by a different kind of prejudice (the white-on-white kind). I don’t know who your ancestors were, but it’s hard to believe they weren’t affected by bigotry in one way or another. The great thing about America is that any person of any color and any culture can sit under any public tree. Your view is that America ought to color-code its public trees. I understand that you want America to be just like you, but America is not just like you. Our greatness exists because of our diversity, not in spite of our diversity.

Three hundred and two million Americans have to share their trees; we are bound to run into some problems from time to time. But there is a better way, an American way, a moral way out of the problem of tree claiming. We can agree that the trees belong to all of us, and that any one of our fellow Americans who is seeking shade from the hot sun merits a place beneath one of them. Most grown-up Americans learn this in kindergarten or at home or in houses of worship or unaided through the power of human reason. Sadly, you have not yet learned this lesson. I wonder if you could learn it now.

Perhaps you could learn it from the ancient rabbis of Judaism who taught that at first God made just one person (Adam) so that in the times to come no one could ever say, “My ancestor was greater than yours.”

Perhaps you could learn it from Abraham Lincoln, who demanded that at his cabinet meetings the number of Confederate dead be read along with the tally of Union soldiers who had died. One member of his Cabinet protested, saying, “Who are they to us?” Lincoln answered him this way: “Thank God the world is larger than your heart.”

In the Book of Matthew, the 25th chapter (verses 34-40) we read, “Then the King (Jesus) will say … ‘I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’.”

If you cannot learn from the ancient rabbis, and if you cannot learn from Abraham Lincoln, perhaps you can learn from the One who made the Christianity you use as a weapon and not as a salve. If you cannot learn from Jesus, your Lord and Savior, God help you and God help America.

Yours sincerely from the bear swamp,
Rabbi Marc Gellman

© 2007 MSNBC.com

Again, what Keith said!

Bush just playing us with 'troop withdrawal'
'Revelation' contradicts every other rationale offered in the last 500 days

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
Updated: 6:20 p.m. MT Sept 4, 2007

And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was. But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.

As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home, Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying, is lying and will be lying about Iraq.

He presumably did not know that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper's book “Dead Certain."

“I'm playing for October-November," Mr. Bush said to Draper. That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan, which is “to get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."

Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, “stay... longer."

And there it is. We've caught you. Your goal is not to bring some troops home, maybe, if we let you have your way now. Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal. You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.

Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal: perpetuating this war indefinitely.

War today, war tomorrow, war forever!

And you are playing at it! Playing!

A man with any self respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country! You have no remaining credibility about Iraq.

And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing, and this time, using the second of his two faces.

The president told reporters, “They (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."

And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today. “Bush May Bring Some Troops Home."

While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the president's true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.

But, to a country dying of thirst, the president seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen -- a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.

Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush. Again. But now, we know why.

You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book. And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.

“If you look at my comments over the past eight months," you told reporters, “it's gone from a security situation in the sense that we're either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I'm able to speculate on the hypothetical."

Mr. Bush, the only "hypothetical" here is that you are not now holding our troops hostage. You have no intention of withdrawing them. But that doesn't mean you can't pretend you're thinking about it, does it?

That is your genius as you see it, anyway. You can deduce what we want. We, the people, remember us? And then use it against us.

You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation. And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq, they will get the bullet points: "Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq."

You can fool some of the people all of the time, can't you, Mr. Bush? You are playing us!

And as for the most immediate victims of the president's perfidy and shameless manipulation of those troops -- yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base -- tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death, the president saved, for them, the most egregious "playing" in the entire trip.

“I want to tell you this about the decision, about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground, not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media."

One must compliment Mr. Bush's writer. That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly-crafted phrase of his presidency. For depraved indifference to democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media, for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people nothing could top that.

As if you listened to all the "calm assessments" of our military commanders rather than firing the ones who dared say the emporer has no clothes, and the president, no judgment.

As if your entire presidency was not a “nervous reaction," and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician.

As if “"he media" does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation's future may depend on the airing of dissent.

And as if those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation's agony and the nation's insistence.

But this president has ceased to listen. This president has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us is safety. And this laziest of presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity with soldiers, some of whom will on his orders be killed before the year maybe the month is out.

Just over 500 days remain in this presidency. Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield in these last 500 days.

Consider the singular fraudulence of this president's trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of the Petraeus Report in these last 500 days.

Consider how this president has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream in these last 500 days.

And consider again how this president has spoken to that biographer: that he is “playing for October-November." The goal in Iraq is “to get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence." Consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered in these last 500 days.

In the context of all that now, consider these next 500 days.

Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end. Even if it means your resignation. Even if it means your impeachment. Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term. Even if it means a Democratic Congress and those true patriots among the Republicans standing up and denying you another penny for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.

This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days.

Not while you are playing.

© 2007 MSNBC.com

Who is this Uncle Tom's Log Cabin Republican?!?!

Dear gawd... Someone stick Dubya's dick in Ron Christie's mouth, so he can't continue defending Bush's comments in the newly-released Robert Draper book, "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush."

When asked about what he'll do after his presidency is over, Bush told Draper, “I’ll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol’ coffers. I don’t know what my dad gets — it’s more than 50-75 thousand dollars a speech, and Clinton’s making a lot of money.”

How crass and inappropriate is it that the sitting US president, who sent thousands of US military men & women to their deaths, is sitting around talking about how much money he's going to make after leaving office -- while still trying to execute a failed war plan?!?!

And what utter bullshit to have Ron Christie -- some nelly, African American, Republican, closeted queer -- get on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and attack a decorated war veteran, Jon Soltz (Co-Founder and Chairman of VoteVets.org), after the Iraq war veteran tells Chris Matthews that it's a slap in the face to all Iraq war veterans and those still serving to have their commander in chief talk about making $50,000 - $75,000 per speaking engagement!

This whole administration has NO SHAME!

And now we know why...

... all of you skinny biotches can just eat and eat and eat and eat and never gain a damned ounce...

Born lucky: Scientists discover ‘skinny’ gene
Certain flies, mice and people are just born lucky (except in time of famine)

By Linda Carroll
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 9:00 a.m. MT Sept 4, 2007

Janine Geredes is the kind of person many of us love to hate. No matter how much the Northern California woman eats, she never gets fat.

While the rest of us obsess over every morsel passing through our lips, convinced we’ll pack on the pounds if we let our guard down for just one moment, Geredes worries she’ll become unappealingly bony if she doesn’t eat enough.

“I’ve always had to work to keep weight on,” says Geredes, 43, who is 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighs 118 pounds. “When I was a growing up I was teased for being so thin. But now, people are always saying, ‘I wish I could eat like you. You stay so thin. You must work out a ton.’ I don’t.

“My son and daughter are the same way. I’ve always figured it was genetic.”

As it turns out, Geredes may be right.

Scientists now say they have discovered the “skinny” gene. And they’ve found this lucky batch of DNA in a variety of animals, according to a report published Tuesday in the journal Cell Metabolism.

"This gene is in every organism from worms to humans," says the study’s senior author, Dr. Jonathan Graff, an associate professor of developmental biology and internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. "We all have it. It's very striking."

Graff and his colleagues had been hunting for a gene that might naturally keep people thin. Eventually, they turned up a promising candidate in a gene that controls fat formation.

Svelte flies rediscovered
And in an interesting twist, Graff notes that this gene was originally discovered by a graduate student at Yale University more than 50 years ago. The student, Winifred Doane, was studying fruit flies and noticed that some were particularly fat while others were quite skinny. Doane, now a professor emeritus at Arizona State University, traced the differences in fly fitness to a single gene that she named “adipose.”

But after publication, Doane’s study languished and was forgotten until Graff started searching for more information on the gene that had caught his attention.

Graff borrowed some of the descendents of the skinny fruit flies from Doane to take a closer look at their genetics. Sure enough, fruit flies with efficient copies of the adipose gene were very thin. Those with poorly functioning copies were pudgier.

If there was one good copy and one bad one, the flies were medium weight.

“The gene was more like a volume control rather than an on/off switch,” Graff says.

Graff and his colleagues wondered how good copies of the gene would impact survival in the wild. So they subjected the skinny flies to famine-like conditions. Not surprisingly, they did poorly. From an evolutionary perspective, this gene is the one that helps animals do well in affluent times — very much like the situation in western countries today, says Graff.

“In times of plenty, these super skinny, sleek and fast flies can easily get away from predators,” Graff adds. “But in times of shortage, they don’t make it.”

The Texas scientists next wanted to know whether the gene worked the same way in more complicated animals. After proving that they could make worms fat by deleting the adipose gene, the researchers turned their attention to mammals.

First they experimented with single cells in a test tube. When the gene was deleted from ordinary cells, they transformed themselves into fat cells. The cells actually became plump as they accumulated fat droplets, Graff says.

Mice engineered to have efficient versions of the adipose gene were much sleeker than normal counterparts. In fact, they had one-third the body fat of wild mice, says Graff.

Biology of a supermodel
“That would be a big difference in humans,” he explains. “The average woman has about 25 percent body fat. Reducing that by a third would take her down to about 9 percent. That’s super lean — a supermodel kind of thin.”

Obesity experts say the new results are exciting.

“This is so cool,” says Dr. Louis Aronne, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City.

Theoretically, Aronne says, you might be able to come up with an obesity treatment that mimics what this gene does.

It would be interesting to look at this gene in populations prone to obesity, like the Pima Indians, adds Eric Ravussin, a professor at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La. Earlier research by Ravussin showed that the Pimas, who live in Arizona and Mexico, become obese only when they live in an environment where food is plentiful and exercise lacking.

Like the beginning of any big advance, the research prompts as many questions as it answers, both experts say.

This gene appears in cells all over the body, Ravussin says. This means that scientists will need to carefully look for side effects when they change levels of the gene or the protein it encodes.

Still, Aronne says, the new study “emphasizes how much closer we are to unraveling the mysteries of body weight regulation.”

But that doesn’t mean people should wait for a pill to cure obesity, he adds. That’s a long way off, even with the new research.

Linda Carroll is a health and science writer living in New Jersey. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Newsday, Health magazine and SmartMoney.

© 2007 MSNBC.com

Damned-good question!

"Why aren't more elected officials standing up for our elections?"

Levy: Electronic Voting Machines Aren't Ready for '08

By Steven Levy
Newsweek

Sept. 10, 2007 issue - Next year we'll have the second presidential election since the horribly botched one in 2000. Can we expect better? An answer comes from the highest election official in the most populated state in the Union. Worried about a string of reported vulnerabilities, Debra Bowen, California's secretary of State, had asked computer scientists at the University of California to conduct a "top to bottom" analysis of the thousands of touchscreen electronic voting machines in use in the Golden State. Next year millions of voters will use these systems, manufactured by the industry's largest suppliers, not only in California but in many other states as well.

What did the study reveal? "Things were worse than I thought," says Bowen. "There were far too many ways that people with ill intentions could compromise the voting systems without detection." Some of those security holes could, in theory, allow a dirty trickster with access to a single machine to infiltrate the central vote-counting system and covertly toss an election to the wrong candidate.

It was the most devastating confirmation to date of what security experts have been saying for years: vulnerabilities in election machines are so severe that voters have no way of knowing for sure that the choices they enter into the touchscreens and ballots will actually be counted. "The studies show that these machines are basically poison," says Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins computer-science professor and voting-security expert.

Bowen's response, on Aug. 3, was to take the extreme step of decertifying the voting machines (this to the dismay of those defending the touchscreen vendors, who claimed that the tests did not reflect real-world conditions). Because California voters do need something to vote on, though, she allowed the use of some, mandating a rigorous set of controls (like "hardening" the security protocols) to make sure that the flaws aren't exploited. Now it's up to those in charge of elections in other states to step up and take similar measures for 2008.

One desperately needed measure is a national law to implement what is known as a voting paper trail—the ballot equivalent of a receipt in a cash register. (Voters get to look at a printout of their voting choices and leave the paper behind for recounts and audits.) A "voting integrity" bill introduced by Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, would do just that—if it ever passes. "We just didn't get it to the floor before the August recess," says Holt, who is hoping for what seems like a long shot—that the bill will be quickly voted on, a similar bill in the Senate will also get the hurry-up treatment and that the president will sign it. (The GOP has generally been less active in pushing for this type of reform.) "It's still possible [to get it done in time for '08], but each day it gets a little less possible," he says.

The paper trail is no panacea: the California study shows that even that system can be hacked. And some reformers claim that the Holt bill doesn't go far enough. But Holt insists that a national law is the only solution. "If you leave it to the states, some won't do it," he says.

It's reasonable to ask why the same wizards who can come up with ATMs, predator drones and Google can't produce secure, verifiable ballots. Eventually they will, if we encourage innovation, transparency and accountability in the ballot industry. But we're electing a new president next year, and it's so late in the game that the only measures to stop another mistrusted election are stopgaps. California's secretary of State recognizes that. Plenty of citizens get it, too. Why aren't more elected officials standing up for our elections?

© 2007 MSNBC.com

That crazy Bill Maher...

"When the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was in Iraq, General Peter Pace said that he didn't want any homosexuals in his Army because homosexuality was immoral. Well, you know what, General Peter Pace, maybe that's true, but at least they know when to pull out of a shithole!" -- Bill Maher on HBO's "Bill Maher: The Decider"

My question for Ellen to Hillary...

Hillary is going to appear on Ellen's season premiere next Tuesday (September 4, 2007), and on Ellen's site you can submit a question for Ellen to ask Senator Clinton. Go submit a question and watch Ellen next Tuesday!

Here's my question for Senator Clinton:

Senator Clinton's presidential campaign continues to try to rebrand Hillary as someone whom Middle America can like, and we all know that from Far Left to Far Right, there is a love-hate relationship with Senator Clinton (folks either love her or they hate her). Instead of her campaign trying to mold Hillary into something else, isn't it more obvious to point out to America:

"Hey, you voted for Dubya because he was a good ol' boy and you felt like you could invite him over for pizza, beer, and a little hunting. Well, we all can now see the absolute mess that America is in because someone was elected to the highest office in the land who didn't have the skillset to successfully chew a pretzel -- much less having the ability to manage all of the US government AND a war! So, love me or hate me, isn't it time that you again vote for a president based on the fact that she CAN successfully manage all of the US government. She CAN successfully refocus the military toward the true war on terror -- and out of the Vietnam-esque quarmire that is Iraq. She brings decades of experience to the proverbial table, and for the first time in American history, she brings a former US president back into the White House and through his experience as president can help her to bring peace & stability back to the Middle East -- and remember the state of the economy and the budget surplus at the end of his eight years. If you as Americans are ready for a change and are ready to bring tried & true experience back to the presidency, then I'm your girl! I'm not asking you to like me, but I am asking you to respect that I can get the job done, and I, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, am asking for your vote in the 2008 presidential election."

We are the disheartened American people, and we approve this message!

Hillary is also appearing on David Letterman tonight (Thursday, August 30, 2007).

Isn't it freakin' funny (as in IRONIC)...

... that the fuckwits being caught behaving inappropriately outside the "sanctity of marriage" are GOP Congressmen? Maybe Mark Foley and Larry Craig should hookup online and then meet in an airport bathroom to further demonstrate for public consumption everything that is good & sanctimonious about hetero marriage... BAH HA HA!

Senator admits to disorderly conduct
Craig was held in Minneapolis on charges of lewd conduct in men's room

The Associated Press
Updated: 5:14 p.m. MT Aug 27, 2007

MINNEAPOLIS - Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho pleaded guilty this month to misdemeanor disorderly conduct after being arrested at the Minneapolis airport.

A Hennepin County court docket showed Craig pleading guilty to the disorderly conduct charge Aug. 8, with the court dismissing a charge of gross misdemeanor interference to privacy.

The court docket said the Republican senator paid $575 in fines and fees. He was put on unsupervised probation for a year. A sentence of 10 days in the county workhouse was stayed.

Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, which first reported the case, said on its Web site Monday that Craig was arrested June 11 by a plainclothes officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in a men’s restroom at the airport.

Craig said in a statement issued by his office that he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.

“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions,” he said. “I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”

Craig, 62, is married and in his third term in the Senate. He is up for re-election next year. He was a member of the House for 10 years before winning election to the Senate in 1990.

He has been one of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s top Senate supporters, serving as a Senate liaison for the campaign since February. As word spread of Craig’s guilty plea, a Romney campaign spokesman, Matt Rhoades, said in a statement: “Senator Craig has stepped down from his role with the campaign. He did not want to be a distraction and we accept his decision.”

Sidney Smith, a Craig aide in Boise, said Monday afternoon that the senator was “in the (Boise) area” but was declining to give interviews.

Minneapolis airport police declined to provide a copy of the arrest report after business hours Monday.

Foot signal for lewd conduct
Roll Call, citing the report, said Sgt. Dave Karsnia made the arrest after an encounter in which he was seated in a stall next to a stall occupied by Craig. Karsnia described Craig tapping his foot, which Karsnia said he “recognized as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct.”

"Craig tapped his toes several times and moved his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly," the report states. "The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area."

Roll Call also quoted the Aug. 8 police report as saying that Craig had handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a member of the Senate.

“What do you think about that?” Craig is alleged to have said, according to the report.

Last fall, Craig called allegations from a gay-rights activist that he’s had homosexual relationships “completely ridiculous.”

Mike Rogers, who bills himself as a gay activist blogger, published the allegations on his Web site, http://www.blogactive.com, in October 2006.

Craig hasn’t said if he plans to run for a fourth term in 2008. An announcement was expected this fall. His spokesman, Smith, was uncertain if Craig’s guilty plea would affect his re-election plans.

“It’s too early to talk about anything about that,” Smith told The Associated Press.

J. Kirk Sullivan, chairman of the Idaho Republican Party, declined to comment on the situation, saying he was unaware of the nature of the charges against Craig.

© 2007 MSNBC.com

The terrorists have won...

Give us ALL a fricking break, New Haven! Felony?!?! Restitution?!?! Because some moron in New Haven law enforcement pushed the "Panic" button before having the damned white powder tested? How 'bout the mayor, the mayoral spokesperson, and Barney Fife all get charged with the felonious "first-degree breach of peace." Good grief!

Beer runners' trail a recipe for trouble
Pair arrested after marking a powdery path through IKEA parking lot

The Associated Press
Updated: 6:56 p.m. MT Aug 25, 2007

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Two people who sprinkled flour in a parking lot to mark a trail for their offbeat running club inadvertently caused a bioterrorism scare and now face a felony charge.

The sprinkled powder forced hundreds to evacuate an IKEA furniture store Thursday.

New Haven ophthalmologist Daniel Salchow, 36, and his sister, Dorothee, 31, who is visiting from Hamburg, Germany, were both charged with first-degree breach of peace, a felony.

The siblings set off the scare while organizing a run for a local chapter of the Hash House Harriers, a worldwide group that bills itself as a “drinking club with a running problem.”

“Hares” are given the task of marking a trail to direct runners, throwing in some dead ends and forks as challenges. On Thursday, the Salchows decided to route runners through the massive IKEA parking lot.

Police fielded a call just before 5 p.m. that someone was sprinkling powder on the ground. The store was evacuated and remained closed the rest of the night. The incident prompted a massive response from police in New Haven and surrounding towns.

Flouring the road from coast to coast
Daniel Salchow biked back to IKEA when he heard there was a problem and told officers the powder was just harmless flour, which he said he and his sister have sprinkled everywhere from New York to California without incident.

“Not in my wildest dreams did I ever anticipate anything like that,” he said.

Mayoral spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said the city plans to seek restitution from the Salchows, who are due in court Sept. 14.

“You see powder connected by arrows and chalk, you never know,” she said. “It could be a terrorist, it could be something more serious. We’re thankful it wasn’t, but there were a lot of resources that went into figuring that out.”

© 2007 MSNBC.com

More bullshit Democratic infighting...

Can't we just bend the fricking rules and focus our energy on defeating the damned Republicans?!?! This is bullshit and Howard Dean needs to be taking some folks to task for allowing this to happen AND for allowing it to make national news!

Florida Dems face penalties for early primary
DNC votes to strip state of delegates if it holds vote before Feb. 5, 2008

By Michael Falcone
The New York Times
Updated: 9:56 p.m. MT Aug 25, 2007

The Democratic National Committee took steps today to punish Florida Democrats for deciding to hold the state’s party primary on Jan. 29, 2008 — a week before the first date allowable under D.N.C. rules.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the D.N.C. voted to strip Florida of all of its delegates at the party’s national convention next summer. The D.N.C. gave the Florida Democratic Party 30 days to submit a revised plan, ordering it to push the primary date back.

At the D.N.C. gathering today in Washington, representatives from the Florida Democratic Party asked for “mercy” from national party leaders, and complained that the move amounted to disenfranchising Florida voters.

Democratic party rules stipulate that Feb. 5 is the earliest date most state party organizations can decide to hold nominating contests. Four states — New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada — previously received special D.N.C. approval to hold their primaries before that date. (Both political parties and the wide field of 2008 candidates have been wrestling with primary front-loading, especially the logistical and practical issues revolving around the big “Super-Duper” Tuesday or “Tsunami Tuesday” of Feb. 5. Two dozen or so states have moved their primaries forward to remain competitive and give voters a voice before nominees are chosen.)

The Republican-controlled legislature in the battleground state of Florida went even further this year, passing a bill setting Jan. 29 as the official date for the state’s primary. At today’s meeting, state Democratic party officials asserted that they had tried to fight the move.

“We took all provable positive steps in good faith to prevent the legislative effort that caused the earlier primary,” said Karen L. Thurman, the chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party.

In pleading the state’s case, Ms. Thurman was trying to meet the committee’s threshold for complying with party rules that require evidence that officials mounted a serious effort against the state legislature’s action.

“Florida Democrats did what they could, but in the end we failed to prevent the state of Florida from setting a primary date in violation” of national party rules, Ms. Thurman added. (The state’s Democratic Senator Bill Nelson yesterday vowed to fight any sanctions.)

But most members of the D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee seemed unpersuaded by the Florida Democrats’ arguments, expressing reservations about whether they had done enough to stop the bill before it was signed in May by Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican.

One member of the D.N.C. rules committee, Donna Brazile, said that Florida should not be allowed any “wiggle room” on its primary date.

© 2007 MSNBC.com

What the hell is this?

Just more evidence of a corrupt Department of Justice led by Bush's buddy, Alberto Gonzales!

[Clicking heels together three times]

January 20, 2009... January 20, 2009... January 20, 2009...

Iraq fraud whistleblowers vilified
Cases show fraud exposers have been vilified, fired, or detained for weeks

The Associated Press
Updated: 10:02 a.m. MT Aug 25, 2007

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.

Or worse.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers — all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.

The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.

“It was a Wal-Mart for guns,” he says. “It was all illegal and everyone knew it.”

So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn’t know whom to trust in Iraq.

For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.

Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics “reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.”

No noble outcomes
Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country’s oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Despite this staggering mess, there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

“If you do it, you will be destroyed,” said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

“Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, ‘Should I do this?’ And my answer is no. If they’re married, they’ll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything,” Weaver said.

They have been fired or demoted, shunned by colleagues, and denied government support in whistleblower lawsuits filed against contracting firms.

“The only way we can find out what is going on is for someone to come forward and let us know,” said Beth Daley of the Project on Government Oversight, an independent, nonprofit group that investigates corruption. “But when they do, the weight of the government comes down on them. The message is, ’Don’t blow the whistle or we’ll make your life hell.’

“It’s heartbreaking,” Daley said. “There is an even greater need for whistleblowers now. But they are made into public martyrs. It’s a disgrace. Their lives get ruined.”

One whistleblower demoted
Bunnatine “Bunny” Greenhouse knows this only too well. As the highest-ranking civilian contracting officer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, she testified before a congressional committee in 2005 that she found widespread fraud in multibillion-dollar rebuilding contracts awarded to former Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

Soon after, Greenhouse was demoted. She now sits in a tiny cubicle in a different department with very little to do and no decision-making authority, at the end of an otherwise exemplary 20-year career.

People she has known for years no longer speak to her.

“It’s just amazing how we say we want to remove fraud from our government, then we gag people who are just trying to stand up and do the right thing,” she says.

In her demotion, her supervisors said she was performing poorly. “They just wanted to get rid of me,” she says softly. The Army Corps of Engineers denies her claims.

“You just don’t have happy endings,” said Weaver. “She was a wonderful example of a federal employee. They just completely creamed her. In the end, no one followed up, no one cared.”

No regrets
But Greenhouse regrets nothing. “I have the courage to say what needs to be said. I paid the price,” she says.

Then there is Robert Isakson, who filed a whistleblower suit against contractor Custer Battles in 2004, alleging the company — with which he was briefly associated — bilked the U.S. government out of tens of millions of dollars by filing fake invoices and padding other bills for reconstruction work.
He and his co-plaintiff, William Baldwin, a former employee fired by the firm, doggedly pursued the suit for two years, gathering evidence on their own and flying overseas to obtain more information from witnesses. Eventually, a federal jury agreed with them and awarded a $10 million judgment against the now-defunct firm, which had denied all wrongdoing.

It was the first civil verdict for Iraq reconstruction fraud.

But in 2006, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III overturned the jury award. He said Isakson and Baldwin failed to prove that the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-backed occupier of Iraq for 14 months, was part of the U.S. government.

Not a single Iraq whistleblower suit has gone to trial since.

“It’s a sad, heartbreaking comment on the system,” said Isakson, a former FBI agent who owns an international contracting company based in Alabama. “I tried to help the government, and the government didn’t seem to care.”

U.S. shows little support?
One way to blow the whistle is to file a “qui tam” lawsuit (taken from the Latin phrase “he who sues for the king, as well as for himself”) under the federal False Claims Act.

Signed by Abraham Lincoln in response to military contractors selling defective products to the Union Army, the act allows private citizens to sue on the government’s behalf.

The government has the option to sign on, with all plaintiffs receiving a percentage of monetary damages, which are tripled in these suits.

It can be a straightforward and effective way to recoup federal funds lost to fraud. In the past, the Justice Department has joined several such cases and won. They included instances of Medicare and Medicaid overbilling, and padded invoices from domestic contractors.

But the government has not joined a single quit tam suit alleging Iraq reconstruction abuse, estimated in the tens of millions. At least a dozen have been filed since 2004.

“It taints these cases,” said attorney Alan Grayson, who filed the Custer Battles suit and several others like it. “If the government won’t sign on, then it can’t be a very good case — that’s the effect it has on judges.”

The Justice Department declined comment.

Placed under guard, kept in seclusion
Most of the lawsuits are brought by former employees of giant firms. Some plaintiffs have testified before members of Congress, providing examples of fraud they say they witnessed and the retaliation they experienced after speaking up.

Julie McBride testified last year that as a “morale, welfare and recreation coordinator” at Camp Fallujah, she saw KBR exaggerate costs by double- and triple-counting the number of soldiers who used recreational facilities.

She also said the company took supplies destined for a Super Bowl party for U.S. troops and instead used them to stage a celebration for themselves.

“After I voiced my concerns about what I believed to be accounting fraud, Halliburton placed me under guard and kept me in seclusion,” she told the committee. “My property was searched, and I was specifically told that I was not allowed to speak to any member of the U.S. military. I remained under guard until I was flown out of the country.”

Halliburton and KBR denied her testimony.

She also has filed a whistleblower suit. The Justice Department has said it would not join the action. But last month, a federal judge refused a motion by KBR to dismiss the lawsuit.

'I thought I was among friends'
Donald Vance, the contractor and Navy veteran detained in Iraq after he blew the whistle on his company’s weapons sales, says he has stopped talking to the federal government.

Navy Capt. John Fleming, a spokesman for U.S. detention operations in Iraq, confirmed the detentions but said he could provide no further details because of the lawsuit.

According to their suit, Vance and Ertel gathered photographs and documents, which Vance fed to Chicago FBI agent Travis Carlisle for six months beginning in October 2005. Carlisle, reached by phone at Chicago’s FBI field office, declined comment. An agency spokesman also would not comment.

The Iraqi company has since disbanded, according the suit.

Vance said things went terribly wrong in April 2006, when he and Ertel were stripped of their security passes and confined to the company compound.

Panicking, Vance said, he called the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, where hostage experts got on the phone and told him “you’re about to be kidnapped. Lock yourself in a room with all the weapons you can get your hands on.”’

The military sent a Special Forces team to rescue them, Vance said, and the two men showed the soldiers where the weapons caches were stored. At the embassy, the men were debriefed and allowed to sleep for a few hours. “I thought I was among friends,” Vance said.

An unspoken Baghdad rule
The men said they were cuffed and hooded and driven to Camp Cropper, where Vance was held for nearly three months and his colleague for a little more than a month. Eventually, their jailers said they were being held as security internees because their employer was suspected of selling weapons to terrorists and insurgents, the lawsuit said.

The prisoners said they repeatedly told interrogators to contact Carlisle in Chicago. “One set of interrogators told us that Travis Carlisle doesn’t exist. Then some others would say, ’He says he doesn’t know who you are,”’ Vance said.

Released first was Ertel, who has returned to work in Iraq for a different company. Vance said he has never learned why he was held longer. His own interrogations, he said, seemed focused on why he reported his information to someone outside Iraq.

And then one day, without explanation, he was released.

“They drove me to Baghdad International Airport and dumped me,” he said.

When he got home, he decided to never call the FBI again. He called a lawyer, instead.

“There’s an unspoken rule in Baghdad,” he said. “Don’t snitch on people and don’t burn bridges.”

For doing both, Vance said, he paid with 97 days of his life.

© 2007 MSNBC.com