Wednesday, July 16, 2008

I want one of those

No, really.

and one of those...

and one of those...

and one of those...

and one of those...

and one of those...

and one of those...

Thursday, July 10, 2008

[from the inbox... ]

Dear [hipparchia],

Capitol Hill is buzzing today with major developments regarding our campaign for impeachment hearings for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Just today, in what could be described as a perfect impeachment storm: 

• Karl Rove once again thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people by brazenly ignoring a lawful congressional subpoena to testify before the House of Representatives; 

• Judiciary Chairman John Conyers indicated his willingness to use the power of inherent contempt against Rove if necessary;

• Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced another article of impeachment on Bush's lies regarding the Iraq war; and

• Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted today saying that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Kucinich raises in the House Judiciary Committee.

After years of work by so many of you, the time appears ripe to finally hold Bush and Cheney accountable.

Conyers Opens Door to Inherent Contempt for Rove

Karl Rove has simply refused to appear, as he is legally required to do. His actions, endorsed by the Bush/Cheney Administration, are a challenge to our system of checks and balances and Congress must respond to this type of outrageous behavior with appropriate severity. 

Today, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers courageously stated today that inherent contempt will remain an option for the House of Representatives so long as Rove and this Administration refuses to abide by the law.

We must now bring Mr. Rove (and other renegade Bush officials) in compliance with the law. 

This is a defining moment for Congress: Will we continue to allow legislative power to be eroded by an out of control executive branch that ignores the rule of law - or will we finally put an end to this congressional capitulation and properly force Administration officials to testify in full view of the American people?

It is time for Congress to hold Karl Rove in inherent contempt. I congratulate Chairman Conyers' positive move in this direction, and we must work to move other Members of Congress in support of the use of inherent contempt. Inherent contempt properly enables the House Sergeant of Arms to physically take custody of Mr. Rove and bring him to the House of Representatives to testify. 

How do you think a state or federal judge would react to a witness refusing to comply with a legal subpoena? The wayward witness would be arrested.  

Should the Congress of the United States be shown any less respect than any courtroom in the nation? 
Should the Congress react any differently than how any American judge would react? Absolutely not. 

We are long past the time for threats and negotiation. We must bring Mr. Rove in front of the full Judiciary Committee, under oath. No administration official - not even the President - is above the law. They cannot be allowed to redefine it at will. We must all appear when called or suffer the consequences.

Speaker Pelosi's Shift on Hearings and Rep. Kucinich's New Article of Impeachment

After stating unequivocally that impeachment "is off the table," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated to CBS News today that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Rep. Kucinich's has raised in his impeachment resolution.

Pelosi's words provide genuine hope for our cause of accountability for this Administration. We must use Speaker Pelosi's openness to new hearings in the Judiciary Committee to pursue aggressively the serious allegations against Bush and Cheney relating to lies about the Iraq War, the illegal use of torture, the improper disclosure of the identity of a covert agent, the political firing of US attorneys, and on and on.

I again congratulate Congressman Kucinich on his continued leadership and work on behalf of this vital cause.

This issue now reaches far beyond the substance of the Judiciary Committee's original inquiry regarding the firing of US Attorneys for political purposes. The crisis at hand relates to our most fundamental laws and of our Constitution. It is, in many ways, more serious than the Constitutional crisis surrounding Watergate – yet the national media ignores the facts and ramifications of this renegade Executive.

Congress has a duty to protect the balance of powers. Mr. Rove, Mr. Bolten, and Ms. Miers have taken actions that severely undermine these powers, and we should not rely on a federal court alone.

The political tide begins to be turning and that is why I feel so strongly that we should aggressively push for inherent contempt for Karl Rove and impeachment hearings for President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Thanks you for your work and your commitment to our constitution.

- Congressman Robert Wexler

Monday, July 07, 2008

That's it, right there

Someone once asked me what depression looked like, because for me, black dogs are all happy totems.

photo from the NYT's really good article on suicide


A vicarious trip to Turkey.

I am soooo jealous.

Proposed Constitutional amendment

A person is defined solely as a human being. The definition of person does not include any corporate or other fictitious entity.


Eggheads Unite!

Just discovered: Carnival of the Elitist Bastards.

Hmmm... I think I could qualify for that one....

Wednesday, July 02, 2008


When I put together what I knew of the beginnings of PUMA, I looked for the original comment that set it all off, but no luck. Not to worry, myiq2xu [was there ever a better nic than that one?] has it.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

On the internet, nobody knows you're a PUMA

So, hipparchia, what do you think? Are the PUMAs primarily a GOP front org, as it appears?

--- SB, the YDS

It's a fair question to ask about an issue as potentially important as electing the next president, so I'll answer it: I dunno.

What I do know...

The PUMA un-party appears to have arisen spontaneously, on or about the 1st of June, out of a conversation here, at the pro-Hillary blog The Confluence. The Confluence was started by riverdaughter, who was goldberry, apparently after getting thrown out of dkos, which isn't terribly difficult to accomplish. I've had one of my sock puppets banned at dkos [concern troll!] and if I can do it, anybody can.

While I've only lurked very occasionally at The Confluence --- some of the commenters do seem to be terminally suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome, which is just tiring to read --- and only in recent weeks, riverdaughter and her blog both appear to be genuinely pro-Hillary and liberal [though not nearly so cool as my readers!] and have been for some time now. Additionally, I've run into Confluence contributor ronkseattle in various venues around cyberspace over the past 3 or 4 years, and he has always been reliably liberal.

Very shortly after that, murphy started Puma PAC, and Will Bower started P.U.M.A. At that point, being a bit on the solitary side myself, like many a real-life Florida panther, I mostly lost interest in actually following these people around the internet. I have, though, been quite partial to the idea, and have been spending a fair amount of time hanging out with the [mostly] uber-liberals at Corrente, keeping up especially with vastleft's blog and Sarah's manifestos there.

So, yes, Virginia, there are PUMAs and they are real and they are real liberals.

What I don't know is how much of the newly viral PUMA phenomenon is being hijacked and propagated by Republican operatives who see this as one possible means-to-an-end to sink Obama.

Certainly there are people declaring themselves Hillary suppporters who vow they was will vote for McCain before they'll ever, ever, ever vote for Obama, and unfortunately, a noticeable number of them do seem to be rather, ah, bigoted. It's quite possible they are Republicans who were, genuinely or not, crossing party lines and supporting Hillary Clinton. I mean, c'mon, look at what their own party has given them as candidates this year.

As for Darragh Murphy's assertion that that $500 contribution to McCain's primary campaign in 2000 [the one that Pandagon, and ilk, is all in an uproar about] was one of those strategic moves that politically active people try, supporting the opposition of the candidate they hate most, I find this entirely plausible. But even if Murphy really is a registered Republican, why shouldn't she, and others like her, be allowed to want Hillary for President?

But, yeah, the very virulent racism displayed by some of the self-proclaimed PUMAs is the main reason why I haven't formally joined them or endorsed them, even as I approve of their rebellious mood and actions.

Update, 7-3-2008: Darragh Murphy has been donating money to Hillary Clinton's campaign, $50 and $100 at a time [scroll down here], since March.

Old age and tyranny

will overcome youth and beauty any day of the week.