Special pre-emptive note: Many good and honorable people believe that abortion should be made illegal in America. I disagree with those people and, currently, a clear majority of Americans do as well. The following is not meant as a personal attack on any folks holding the minority view

The forced pregnancy movement inside America has "won" the "partial birth" argument in the U.S. Supreme Court with the appointments of John Roberts and Sam Alito. In that Supreme Court case decided last year, 5 self-proclaimed conservatives agreed that the federal government is the final "decider" concerning medical procedures. 5 conservatives agreed that "Big Brother" entanglements in personal, private matters is the way forward for America.

Now, the lobby is moving to grant social security numbers to fertilized eggs….or something like that.

The Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for an anti-abortion group to collect signatures for a ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person.

The court approved the language of the proposal, rejecting a challenge from abortion-rights supporters who argued it was misleading and dealt with more than one subject in violation of the state constitution.

If approved by voters, the measure would give fertilized eggs the state constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process. Link

Here's the thinking….

"It doesn't outlaw abortion, it doesn't regulate birth control," said Kristi Burton, 20, of Colorado for Equal Rights. "It's just a constitutional principle. We're laying a foundation that every life deserves protection.

Burton said the initiative would simply define a human.

"It's very clearly a single subject," Burton said. "If it's a human being, it's a person, and hey, they deserve equal rights under our law."

Seems a bit like Creationists calling Biblical creation Intelligent Design.

Consider.

Look at how far the forced pregnancy folks will go in their quest to stop giving women the right of choice over their reproductive lives.

The clearest aspect of this dispute, to me, is the undeniable fact that NOT ONE WOMAN has ever been forced or ordered to have an abortion. Government does not tell any woman that she must abort. Because this is true….it is clear that the forced pregnancy lobby is primarily focused on preventing others from exercising choice.

Attempting to define "a human" as a fertilized egg is, transparently, an attempt to stop pregnant women from exercising their choice in the matter….at all. At it's root, that's exactly what the "partial birth" ban was designed to do…limit a woman's choice and replace it with Big Brother's choice. This is all part of the incremental approach , by forced pregnancy advocates, to nullify Roe vs. Wade.

Colorado's forced pregnancy movement is only one of many….

Anti-abortion activists said similar voter-led initiatives or legislative efforts are under way in five other states, including Montana, Georgia, Oregon, Michigan and South Carolina.

This anti-choice movement, mainly populated with Evangelical and conservative Catholic members, is seeking the power of the state once again, rather than relying on the power of their god to change people's lives. However, this time, the power seeking seems rather odd.

If it is true that a fertilized egg is a person who deserves equal treatment under law….is it not also true that the woman in whose body the fertilized egg resides is a person deserving equal treatment under the law? And if that's also true….then isn't the fertilized egg "person", by being inside of the woman against her wishes, violating the woman's rights by being there?

If a pregnancy is unwanted, which is the reason for abortion in the first place, doesn't deeming the fetus as a person create a woman vs. fetus court case? Wouldn't the woman have an argument that her privacy rights are being violated by an unwanted "person" invading her body against her wishes? Will "privacy" also have to be redefined as well?

I'm not trying to be glib here. Many folks take exception to my use of "forced pregnancy" to describe the pro-lifers….but honestly….isn't that what initiatives like this one in Colorado are meant to accomplish? And wouldn't the passage of Colorado's initiative set the stage for just what I've described in the previous partagraph?

Finally, if a fertilized egg is a person deserving equal rights under law….then is it so far fetched to also say that sperm and egg, before fertilization, are "potential" persons and therefore, deserve those same rights? Is it? How long before initiatives defining contraception are introduced because, after all, doesn't contraception prevent a "potential" human from realization?

Lots of questions.

Admittedly, I do not care for Chuck Todd, political director for NBC News. He is such a Knee Pad Media putz hack for the elitist-establishment-right media, it's hard for me to warm up to him…or…anything he says. This matters because what he says and thinks as political director for NBC, even though The Reverend knows it's bullsh*t, is still beamed into millions of U.S. households every day.

Here's a bit of Chuckie's "wisdom" from a Wednesday column bizarrely titled "Hillary vs. Clinton"….

The press has a knee-jerk reaction when they hear Bill Clinton speak: They automatically assume they are being spun. His words aren’t merely reported, they are analyzed.

Todd admits Bill Clinton is treated differently by "the press". The press "assumes" Bill Clinton is not being honest when he speaks. Clinton's words are dealt with differently than, say, words from other political leaders…..like for example Junior Bush. Big Head Todd is eager to tell his readers why this is the case…..

This may read like a member of the media admitting to holding Bill Clinton to a different standard. But Clinton did it to himself. In fact, before 1998, I'd be willing to bet I used the word "parsley" in my every day life more often than "parse." But then we had to decipher the meaning of the word “is”…

The answer? It's all because of the Clenis.

You see….for Big Head Chuck Todd, it wasn't until Bill Clinton disputed the meaning of what sex was in answering questions about a civil lawsuit, later to be dismissed, in which Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky and their consensual sexual activity…..it wasn't until then that the "press" realized that politicians "parsed" words. Before that time, according to NBC's political news director, "journalists", like himself, didn't have to worry their Big Heads about politicians parsing words. You see?….Before 1998 political reporters used the word "parsley" many more times than the word "parse", presumably because before 1998 presidents and political leaders were all candid and entirely truthful, never trying to mislead the press or split political hairs. But in 1998 Bill changed everything. After 1998 politicians could no longer be taken at their word.

This is the kind of thinking that will elevate you to political director of a major news network.

This total stupidity then becomes the basis from which Todd launches off into an even more stupid and, to me at least, dishonest column, attempting to discredit Hillary Clinton. That, of course, is Chuck Todd's larger objective…..and has been for quite awhile.

Ridiculously, NBC's political director, atttempts to persuade readers that, yes, Hillary can make a case that she has experience and will also be an agent of change over against the Bush catastrophe, but that because she's a Clinton, somehow, that is a vulnerability, a weakness.

I've written before that Bill Clinton, no matter how you slice and dice it, is an asset for his wife. How in the bloody hell could it be otherwise? The country will not only benefit from a strong and savvy Hillary as president, but in addition, the country will benefit from having a very popular ex-president by her side.

However, look at how Big Head Todd deals with this subject….

…so far, a majority of voters don't seem to have a problem with Bill Clinton back in the White House. Voters may be picturing Bill as America's host, or some form of a traditional first lady, er, laddy.

But how will voters react if they know Bill Clinton will be in Cabinet meetings? Or be traveling the country to sell Hillary’s policy proposals? Or head to the Hill to twist arms in Congress? Link

In those few lines can be found the reason why I don't care for Big Head Chuck Todd. He couldn't possibly, in my opinion, be more condescending than he is in those lines. He doesn't know why it is that Americans don't have a problem with "Bill…back in the White House", you know, like he does,….. but suggests that it is because Americans, being the unwashed ignorant masses that they are, at least in Big Head's…umm…head, have just not considered yet what it means for Bill to be back. And you see, Big Head Todd has already thought this all out and is just sooooo many light years ahead in his thinking. Those silly unwashed ignorant masses will just have to catch up with the deep insights of this NBC political news director and then…..they'll change their minds.

"..so far..", Chuck says…..implying that " a majority of voters" will eventually come to their senses about Bill Clinton's return to the White House in a Hillary win. As if, "a majority of voters" couldn't possibly have thought out what a Hillary win would mean vis-a-vis her husband. Only the wise sage Big Head Todd is astute enough to have considered the return of Bill…….knee jerk reactive voters?…..they are the little people and they simply respond like plants or single cell life forms because they're not fully formed yet and "in the know", like Big Head.

I can't think of anyone who thinks Bill Clinton, back in the White House, will be "America's host" like an executive branch male version of Martha Stewart. It's just silly. Who the hell thinks like that?

"But how will voters react if they know Bill Clinton will be in Cabinet meetings?"

Umm…Big Head….the voters ARE reacting, knowing that Bill will be totally engaged in all executive branch dealings….and while I know this will make the Big Head sad….most voters are just fine with it. Most voters see it as a plus for America.

And rightfully so.

On September 11th, 2001, 19 radical Islamists killed themselves in a hijack caper that also killed some 3000 Americans and brought down two proud symbols of American capitalism, the Twin Towers. 14 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, not Iran….Saudi Arabia, an alleged partner, like Pakistan, with America in it's proclaimed "war on terror".

It's been over 6 years now…..you decide how it's all working out….

Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials.
…
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006.

…

American officials have accused Iran, the largest Shiite nation in the Middle East, of sending powerful bombs to Iraq and of supporting and financing Shiite militias that attack American troops. They also contend that top Iranian leaders support efforts to arm Shiite fighters.

But whatever aid Iran provides to militias inside Iraq does not seem to extend to supplying actual combatants: Only 11 Iranians are in American detention, United States officials say. Link

While Saudi Arabia, the country that produced 14 hijackers for 9-11, continues to produce more extremists…..and Pakistan, where 9-11 financing came from, continues to harbor Osama's gang, whether willingly or not…..the U.S military, presumably representing America's interests, is busy with an occupation of a country that had no representatives at all in the 9-11 crime, neither producing nor harboring any Islamic extremists and without any dangerous weapons.

The kicker is that knowing all this……the neo-conservatives, who planned the Iraq takeover, are determined, hellbent even, to attack Iran.

Somehow, all these facts have been construed by conservatives as "proof" that resolute and strong Republican leadership has been busy "keeping us safe".

Excuse the hell out of me…..but…….I'm not seeing it.

Today's Thanksgiving Day blog…..

Life is random. Much more random than what we would like to admit at times. Humans take much pride in the choices they make…and rightfully so. Choosing a marriage partner, choosing a job, choosing to get educated, choosing to not use drugs,
choosing to believe in god, choosing a political party…..choosing to be a kind person. Many choices we make….and they are definitely ours to make.

But what of the choices we do not make? That's my focus today. Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, speaks of the randomness of all life. He points out that to be alive as a human being is like hitting the lottery. Of all of the zillions of combinations of genetic material that have been possible over the tens of thousands of years homo sapiens have been around, you and I are most fortunate to have come into existence, given the great odds.

I am thankful today for being lucky enough to have ever lived at all.

Take that great and vast randomness that has brought you and I into actuality and factor in even more randomness. Not only are we alive…..but we are alive in the 21st century. If we were to pick a time for our random existence to play out……how much luckier could we possibly be than to be alive during the 21st century, rather than, say, 6000 BC?

I am thankful today for being lucky enough to have ever lived at all and even more thankful that I live in the 21st century.

And finally…we do not play a part in the randomness that has made us alive in the 21st century….and we also do not play a part in what part of the 21st century world we are born into. American citizens are not only randomly fortunate to have ever existed at all, let alone to live in the 21st century….but we are also randomly fortunate to live in the richest country on the face of this earth.

None of this was our own doing. We had nothing in it.

I am thankful today for being lucky enough to have ever lived at all, even more thankful that I live in the 21st century, and more thankful yet for the random fortune enabling me to live in the United States of America.

In between stuffing the turkey, stuffing ourselves and watching football today….why not reflect for a moment, if only for a moment, on just how monumently and marvelously lucky we really are?

Scott McClellan, former White House communications official for Junior Bush, has a new book coming out next April. In Scott's new book, he implicates Commander Guy in the White House cover up of the Valerie Plame outing.

"I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the seniormost aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby,” McClellan wrote.

“There was one problem. It was not true.”
…

“I had unknowingly passed along false information,” McClellan wrote.

“And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself." Link

Now watch and listen to John Dean explain how the cover-up by the White House could be a felony….(45 seconds)…

As you probably already know, impeachment of the White House gangsta posse is "off the table", despite all Dennis Kucinich's attempts.

I suppose the reason impeachment of sitting White House criminals is "off the table" is because charges of lying about consensual sex are still missing.

Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball and a self titled Sunday news show, is part of the Knee Pad Media of whom I often speak so fondly. Matthews is an elitist insider of the worst order. I say that because he fancies himself as an "in-the-know" guy when what he really is, is "a tool of the right", just as Stephanie Miller of AirAmerica fame told him one evening on Hardball.

In the following video clip from last night's Hardball program, watch as Matthews' turns to authoritarian scolding because Michael Crowley of the New Republic dares to call him out on the media's biased treatment of Democratic presidential candidates in general and Al Gore specifically…..

Matthews is INCORRECT with his version of what Gore said about Love Story, or creating the internet, or any of the rest of it. The media embellished and exaggerated and twisted the words of Gore back then just as they are doing with EVERY word Clinton or Obama utter now.

The Knee Padders were the ones who "knew" who should be president in 2000 and that nest of incestous Villagers purposely took Gore down, just as they "know" now who the next president should be and are currently knee deep in kneecapping the Democratic frontrunners each and every day.

Of course Chrissy Matthews has to act all indignant towards Crowley because Crowley was implicating ol' Chrissy himself in Gore's takedown. Good on The New Republic's Michael Crowley.

Hearing Matthews talk about "truth" in his last line of scoolmarming is a scream all in itself.

If you want proof about the Gore/media stuff, it'a all here and here.

The American occupied territory of Iraq has dropped off the radar screen for the most part, at least as far as the mainstream media is concerned.

Wingers view this as a refusal by the "liberal" media to proclaim the "good news" about Junior's successful "surge" campaign……despite the fact that Iraqi political reconciliation is no closer to realization than before the "surge" started.

Violence is down and, more importantly, U.S. casualties are down. That IS good news. But what about the future inside Iraq? Will U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq permanently? Will Iraq be an American occupied territory, like the West Bank and Gaza are for Israel, for generations to come? And what will all this cost America?

I attended a talk today by Stephen Biddle, a first-rate military strategist who has been working with General Petraeus, about military progress in Iraq (Nora Bensahel of RAND and Lawrence Korb of CAP also spoke)…… Overall, he presented a rosier portrait than I would have, based on his recent ten day visit to Iraq, but he's a serious guy so I take him seriously – though I noticed that he concentrated almost exclusively on the local level progress and hardly mentioned Maliki or the national political level at all. Without getting in to his arguments or my reservations, I just wanted to lay out Biddle's best case scenario as he presented it: if everything goes right and if the US continues to "hit the lottery" with the spread of local ceasefires and none of a dozen different spoilers happens, then a patchwork of local ceasefires between heavily armed, mistrustful communities could possibly hold if and only if the US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in Iraq for the next twenty to thirty years. And that's the best case scenario of one of the current strategy's smartest supporters. Man. Link

Stephen Biddle is only one person, however, apparently he's been "working with ….Petraeus", and of course, General Petraeus is not to be questioned or doubted.

So, are "80,000 to 100,000" U.S. troops inside Iraq for the next 20-30 years a good outcome for our country? Do you think this will be, like, costly?

The larger question, at least to me, is how could a mission intended to eliminate WMD's, that weren't there, a mission intended to end al-Qaeda's relationship with Iraq, that never existed, a mission intended to liberate a people, who can't reconcile….simply be turned into a permanent U.S. military presence with 14 bases which will cost us trillions of tax dollars and endless decades of U.S. casualties?

How could this happen right in front of our eyes……..without any upline repercussions or accountability?

Having said all that…..how can it be that one third plus one in the House of Representatives, all Republicans, can still hold America hostage to such an historic scam of bait and switch?

Exactly 2 years ago Democratic Representative John Murtha declared forcefully that the U.S. needed to remove it's military from Iraq. You might remember how wingnuts villified him and the shameless troll, Jean Schmidt, sadly from Ohio, called Murtha a "coward cut and runner".

Here's what's happened since that time.

From The Gavel….

The following stats are then and now numbers….

U.S. troop deaths 2081 3865

U.S wounded 15,900+ 28,400+

Cost in tax dollars $213.6 B $448.6 B

Cost per month $6.5 B $9.6 B

Crude oil price $49.46 $86.02
per barrel

Gasoline price $2.20 $3.11
per gallon

U.S. debt $8.083 T $9.11 T

All with no Iraqi reconciliation accomplished. And all that while at the same time creating MORE Islamic extremists.

Murtha was correct 2 years ago. The moronic bloodlusters and greedmongers were wrong. Jean Schmidt is still a troll.

Because the Bush/Cheney/1/3 Republican House are holding the nation hostage til at least January 2009…..just think what those numbers will look like by then.

All because Junior's ego cannot be bruised by admitting he was completely and utterly wrong about Iraq. You know, it just wouldn't look very good in the Decider's Presidential Library. Gag me with a spoon.

Helluva way to operate the world's lone superpower.

Operators of free food banks say they are seeing more working people needing assistance. The increased demand is outstripping supplies and forcing many pantries and food banks to cut portions.

Demand is being driven up by rising costs of food, housing, utilities, health care and gasoline, while food manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are finding they have less surplus food to donate and government help has decreased, according to Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks.

"I've been doing this for 20 years, and I can't believe how much worse it gets month after month," she said.

….

"We have food banks in virtually every city in the country, and what we are hearing is that they are all facing severe shortages with demand so high," Ross Fraser, a spokesman for America's Second Harvest — The Nation's Food Bank Network, the nation's largest hunger relief group, said Friday. "One of our food banks in Florida said demand is up 35 percent over this time last year."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual hunger survey released Wednesday showed that more than 35.5 million people in the United States were hungry in 2006. While that number was about the same as the previous year, heads of food banks and pantries say many more people are seeking their assistance. Link

Internal rage is the reason I started blogging a couple of years ago. Venting was therapeutic. It remains that way.

Having read the above….doesn't this information about hunger on the rise in America just piss you off to no end?

Factor in that Selected President, George W. Bush, just vetoed a health and domestic issues funding bill which included a tiny increase for, you know, the sake of Americans….while at the same time he DEMANDS almost $200 billion more to piss away in the sands of Iraq…..and I'm tellin' ya'…..even today's blogging ain't takin' away the rage.

While moronic and detestable teevee pundits bray on about goddamn gotcha questions concerning driver's licenses……Americans suffer. While "serious and wise" media leaders with their stable of brand name "journalist" celebrities review, ad nasuem, the inane and meaningless trivialities they think we need to know about every day…..Americans suffer.

As our nation slips into what looks to be a serious recession…..and these hunger numbers are only one indicator….Republican presidential wannabes insist on cutting even more taxes…..not to help Americans who are suffering, mind you, but to advance the greedy ambitions of the monied class.

Approximately 40 years ago, my closest buddy was struck by a train while in his pick-up on the way to work. He survived without any lasting ailments or permanent damage. At the time, and looking at his truck, it all seemed miraculous.

The U.S. of A., for at least the last 7 years, has been in a collision with Bush/Cheney and Rubber Stamp Republicans in Congress. The collision has been devastating, destroying much of what Americans held to be….well….American. The forensic evidence from this collision is now finally coming in…..even though at a snail's pace.

In a slow motion replay of this collision, 2/3rds of the country have observed unprecedented tax cutting, mainly for the monied class. We've observed imperialistic wars of choice launched on lies and disinformation, mainly for the sake of the monied class. We've observed mortgage scams primarily designed to fill the wallets of the monied class.

AND….we have seen….at the same time….salt-of-the-earth Americans being run over. Losing buying power, losing their jobs, losing their health care, losing their houses, losing their loved ones, and worst of all…..losing hope. Losing hope in a country whose leadership on the federal level has done nothing but betray them and their once great nation.

Will America survive this collision? Or will America become so debilitated from the Bush/Cheney/Republican driven trainwreck that our once great nation will be crippled permanently?

I'm afraid it will take a miracle.

I bought some new stuff to capture and edit video. Consider the following post to be a kind of beta test of what I'll be calling the Rev2Blue News Network…..

Campbell Brown frames her question to Obama by saying this about him, "you supported various benefits for illegal immigrants". Then she goes on to ask the question "what do you say to those Americans who say they are losing out" because illegal immigrants benefitted by "breaking the law'?

"…as president, where do you draw the line?"

This frame by Brown is straight out of the Republican playbook. The fact that Obama was a state representative when he "supported various benefits" doesn't enter into Campbell's equation.

State officials have little or no part in policing undocumented workers…..they have to deal with the failure of the federal government…..and that's exactly what Obama did in Illinois.

Brown does her best to blur the distinction of state and federal responsibility for undocumented immigrants in a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question to Obama.

Let's move on to Wolfie Blitzer….

"…apparently tripped up Senator Clinton earlier"…..is nothing but opinion. "I take it(speaking directly to Obama) you support giving driver's licenses to….". "Assuming there is not going to be comprehensive immigration reform…." is a purely hypothetical framing of yet another "gotcha" attempt to bolster the Republican talking point regarding immigration.

Look at ol' Wolfganger trying to force Obama into responding the way he wants him to……resorting to a combative stance and a smart mouthing of Obama with his demand for a yes or no answer.

These two CNN "journalist's" questions, specifically about immigration, were just a tip of the Republican talking points iceberg questions heard throughout Thursday night's "debate".

There is no question that giving driver's licenses to undocumented workers is NOT a pressing issue throughout America. Yet because the Republican Party has nothing left of their credibility on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, keeping us safe, moral values, tolerance, etc…..the only talking point they wish to repeat is about undocumented immigrants…..a wingnut intolerance favorite.

And CNN is johnny-on-the-spot to make sure to frame questions of Democratic candidates around that one GOP issue. Just as NBC, through Russert, did a couple of weeks ago.

Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer join Timmy Russert as willing tools for the establishment right. With the Democratic Party clearly ahead in national polls, expect more framing of issues favorable to the GOP from those who are continuously mislabeled as part of the "liberal" media.