Some Pictures from April,'05

Frank tries on some hats...This first is too feminine.
Slightly more macho, cool colors but lets keep looking.
Somewhere between Erol Flynn and a lampshade.
Now we're talking, he can wear that in his throne room.
Yours truly on the fabled intersection!
Lighthouse at Alcatraz.
Looking South toward Golden Gate Bridge.
Frank And Patty in a Redwood tree.
On the California coast where the Russian River meets the Pacfic.

Bush Salutes Those Who Disagree With Him

A presidential salute.
To those who disbelieve in his being God's choice for us.




Returning the salute.












Hail to the Chief.

The douchebag for liberty

“Also murky is the role of Novak, who first publicly identified Plame in a syndicated column published July 14, 2003.”

It looks to me like Novak played a pivotal role in all of this. And he’s still free to spew his venom while a reporter who refused to play a role in the conspiracy sits in jail. That, in and of itself says a lot about who’s guilty and who isn’t; and brings to mind the old cliché “No good deed goes unpunished.”

“Lawyers have confirmed that Novak discussed Plame with White House senior adviser Karl Rove four or more days before the column identifying her ran. But the identity of another "administration" source (Elliot Abrams, Ari Fleisher, Karl Rove, Andy Card, take your pick) cited in the column is still unknown. Rove's attorney has said Rove did not identify Plame to Novak."

Was it the ninth or the tenth (the same day that Wilson was finally able to talk to Novak after learning of the “outing” of his wife)? A phone log will probably reveal the truth. But the Special Prosecutor needs to determine whether Novak uses the terms “administration source” and “CIA source” interchangeably because he was using both as sources when he was trying to get confirmation. Novak can argue that the CIA is part of the administration, thereby using the same false source to spread the rumor. In this scenario it’s possible to get Rove off the hook and place the blame at Harlow’s feet, unless Harlow recorded his conversations with Novak.

“In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said that he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and that they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said that he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a ‘CIA source.’”

Is this the deus ex machina that will tip the scales in favor of impeachment? This says a lot about the lengths to which the evil one was willing to go to help his pals in the Republican Party exact retribution. Was Novak using Harlow as the “CIA source” that told him Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent? If so, and if Harlow is telling the truth, then Novak lied to Wilson in his effort to get the info he wanted. Still, it seems that somebody fed Novak the info in the first place.

“Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said.”

The next two paragraphs describe the evolution of the CIA man’s response to Novak’s queries. His initial denial re the authorization of Joe Wilson’s trip was apparently dismissed by the evil one. Harlow must have been somewhat tentative or seemed unsure. The fact that he felt compelled to verify his facts after talking to Novak lends credence to that impression. It seems highly unlikely that Novak was referring to Harlow when he told the total stranger that a CIA source told him of Wilson’s wife. Unless he was just flat out lying.
The time line seems to start on the day that Novak blabbed to Wilson’s friend (July 8th, 2003.) Was it Novak’s frustration with Harlow’s denials that set his gums to flapping with what he thought were malevolent lies? Or did someone else at the CIA really pass on classified info to the douchebag for liberty?

“Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

“Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.”

This is where Novak starts to look truly evil. Harlow calls him back after confirming her status and lies to him about Mrs. Wilson’s status in a last ditch attempt to stop the “douchebag for liberty” from blowing her cover. The evil one lamely claims that the “difficulties” Mrs. Wilson might suffer were not enough to deter him; “endangerment” is another story. At what point do difficulties pass through the threshold into endangerment?

“In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to ‘asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name.’”

If the CIA official had suggested that people’s lives would be endangered, that would have been a confirmation of her covert status – and that was classified information. Novak is a savvy old scumbag; he knew that but he chose to publish the information anyway. Another thing is that when Novak said “…saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad.” he is being too cute by half and purposefully vague. Did Mr. Harlow tell him that she would not be given an overseas assignment if her cover were blown? Or did he mean that she wouldn’t be going overseas but don’t publish her name anyway? Another question is who inserted the word “probably” into the dialogue. Novak didn’t attribute a direct quote to Harlow, and the use of the vague qualifier makes him look like a man with an axe to grind.

...the effort to discredit Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy

“Using background conversations with at least three journalists and other means, Bush officials attacked Wilson's credibility. They said that his 2002 trip to Niger was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, but CIA officials say that is incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame's role is that she had arranged a trip for him to Niger three years earlier on an unrelated matter, CIA officials told The Washington Post.”

So much for one of the Republican talking points. I almost feel sorry for RNC Chairman Mehlman who spent an entire weekend making the rounds of the talk show circuit calling Mr. Wilson a liar. This was one point that he pounded again and again. Who’s the liar now?

“(Former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow) said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.”

This shoots down another of Mehlman’s points. The Rove apologists tried to cast doubt on whether a crime had been committed in the first place by claiming that it wasn’t clear whether she was undercover or not. Clearly, it was classified information that Novak published in his column; and he knew it at the time it was published.

“In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to “asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name.’”

Mr. Novak should not be considered part of the media; he is a Republican "operative." My 16-year-old daughter was about 8 years old the first time she saw him on Crossfire. "That man is evil." was her reaction. I'm sure that he was instrumental in the conspiracy of dunces that keeps conspiring to fool most of the people most of the time.

“Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked, people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy.”

This "larger campaign" was carried out by a number of administration officials who used outside operatives to do something that is demonstrably illegal. Isn't that the description of a criminal conspiracy?

Things you have to believe to be a Neo-con

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's links to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means that the Supreme Court was correct in saying that federal law trumps state law even if there is no interstate commerce involved, as in the California medicinal marijuana case.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

I still can’t decide whether he’s truly stupid or a brilliant actor.

At a brief news conference almost two weeks ago, following a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Bush said:
"We have a serious ongoing investigation here, and it's being played out in the press. I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. ... I would like this to end as quickly as possible. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

We have a brand new Bushism: “I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions.” Once the investigation is complete then it wouldn’t be jumping to conclusions, if I understand the idiomatic phrase correctly. An example of a conclusion that’s jumped to would be the one that the Prevaricator in Chief voiced about Mr. Rove’s innocence over a year ago, when the investigation had just begun.
Mr. Bush is also trying to change the pledge that he made regarding the consequences of leaking classified information. Now he’s saying that anyone who “committed a crime…will no longer work in my administration.” Did he really think we wouldn't notice?
When I first read the above quote I was struck by the sly duplicity of the statement. Then I saw him deliver the lines on CNN videotape and was once again struck by the inarticulate stammering that makes him sound stupid. I still can’t decide whether he’s truly stupid or a brilliant actor.

The Bush administration is in danger of being subject to prosecution under RICO statutes.

“WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of a CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.
The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.
Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.”

If true, this would seem to indicate that Novak used Rove to confirm what he had heard from another source. Who is that other source? Elliot Abrams (of Iran-Contra fame) and “Scooter” Libby (Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff) have been named as other possible sources. My bias leads me to Abrams who has a track record of having a skewed sense of loyalty. During the Reagan years he showed us that his allegiance is to his ideology, not to the Constitution of the United States.
What’s more important is the disregard for the rule of law that continues to be shown by “The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity.”
A reporter sits in jail because she refused to rat on an anonymous source; now someone is committing a crime by anonymously revealing accounts of secret grand jury testimony that appears to exonerate Rove. Who could that source “who works in the legal profession” possibly be? The brazenness of Rove’s legal team is of epic proportions.
The thing is that the leak exonerates Rove only to those who want to believe. For the rest of us it serves as a reminder that rats like Rove seldom work alone. The Reagan years taught us the wisdom of building plausible deniability into the plan. How difficult is it to set up a scenario in which Abrams, Libby or some other hack leaks the information to reporters, along with a list of names of those in the know? The diligent reporter then calls one or two of those on the list for confirmation. What you have is a plausibly deniable leak, a perfect leak.
I hate to use the “C” word but when two or more people act in concert to break the law, that’s a criminal conspiracy. When they then act in concert to cover up the aforementioned criminal activity, that’s another criminal conspiracy. The Bush administration is in danger of being subject to prosecution under RICO (Racketeer Influenced Criminal Organization) statutes.

Old Time Religion (A song in two voices)

OLD TIME RELIGION

Two thousand years!

Killing in the name of the Lord.

A couple millennia!

Loathing the rest of the world.

Religion!

Weapons for the wrath of God.

Inquisitions!

Blood lust in the name of the Lord.

Holy Wars!

Mysterious is the Lord.

Christian soldiers!

Conquering for the Lord.

Love your neighbor!

Kill infidels for the lord.

Pacifism!

Goddam hippie cults.

Make love not war!

Disgusting heathen tripe.

Turn the other cheek!

Do to them before they do to you.

Swords into plough shares!

We’ve got guns thanks to the lord.

God is love!

Flip the coin and you’ve got hate.

How Christian is that?

When asked what one must do to follow him, Jesus told the rich young man that he was to give his riches to the poor and live like the rest of His followers. In the Acts of the Apostles we learn that they lived a communal lifestyle. The early Christians gave their belongings to the community that then shared the communal goods with each individual according to need. The example being set was to avoid greed. The ugly truth that the holier-than-thou crowd refuses to face is the fact that today’s “Christians” would ridicule Jesus’ teachings as communist crap. Today’s spiritual leaders preach a gospel of greed. Mr. Bush, he of the forked tongue, makes much of his faith in the teachings of Jesus. Somehow he sees no irony in referring to his people as the “haves and have mores”
How Christian is it to force the loss of services to the poor by giving tax breaks to the mega-wealthy? Yes, government services are socialist programs, but they are also Christ-like services. Unlike today’s pseudo Christians who get all worked up about the need for chastity, Jesus preferred to focus on charity. When asked what to do about the woman who was caught committing adultery, Jesus told those who were anxious to follow the letter of the law and stone the woman that he who is without sin should throw the first stone.

Poll: Americans say World War III likely

Poll: Americans say World War III likely
The headline above caught my eye after I closed my online e-mail service. The article is mildly interesting. To read it follow the link.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-23-war-poll_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

Fools, I smirked, the world war has been going on for years now. The thing is that the Prez has called it a “Global War on Terrorism” and the geniuses in the media think that there’s a difference between global war and world war. And the idiots who elected George Bush are unable to think for themselves and recognize that the terms are synonymous; the world is a globe! (Picture Lewis Black delivering that last sentence.)
Recent events in London and Egypt, as well as the ongoing strife in Asia make it clear to anyone with eyes and a brain that the people who are hostile to American imperialism can strike anywhere on the planet (another synonym for world). If Mr. Bush weren’t so clumsy in his linguistic abilities he might feel inspired to call his war a planetary war; that sounds good and pretentious.
The truth is that the smirk is my defense mechanism which was activated by the pain that comes with the ugly truth - that the Prevaricator in Chief has been able to fool most of the people most of the time.

Picture this...

Elemental Sculpture.
Elemental Sculpture with a twist!













Altered digital photograph of crested Saguaro in Tohono Chul Park in Tucson.




Aforementioned saguaro in an unaltered state. Some say Arizona is an altered state.

What’s the point in having Freedom of the Press?

"KANSAS CITY, Missouri (AP) -- It may be President Bush's nickname for key political adviser Karl Rove, but some editors don't think it (Turd Blossom) belongs in their newspapers.

… The Kansas City Star, removed the (Doonesbury) strip entirely, replacing it with an older one.
'We thought it was in bad taste and probably unclear to a lot of people why we would be using the term,' said Steve Shirk, the Star's managing editor/news."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/07/27/doonesbury.language.ap/index.html

What’s the point in having Freedom of the Press if the corporate media choose self-censorship for the sake of political correctness?
As is often the case, the name cited In a news story seems to fit the theme of the story; the Star’s managing editor Shirked his journalistic duty for fear of offending a few shitheads who deserve to be offended. If the citizens of Kansas City are so ill informed that they haven’t heard of Bush’s pet name for his “brain,” then it’s the journalists' job to inform them; isn’t that the point of journalism? The main question that needs to be asked is what’s so offensive about a Turd Blossom? It’s true that “turd” is a four letter word but this is absurd.