In case you couldn't tell, I like Hillary Clinton.  I always have, from the moment she brazenly suggested that first ladies could be more than window dressing, to the moment she acknowledged the "vast right-wing conspiracy" anyone with half a (left) eye had already seen, to the moment she decided "standing by your man," could be the better part of valor, to the moment she announced her candidacy for this nation's highest office.  I have sent contributions; I have written letters.  I genuinely like the woman.  I even like Bill.  I wouldn't want to be married to him, but he was a good president, if not a good husband, and based on his politics, I like him.

Which is why this is difficult to say.

The two biggest problems with the Senator's campaign have been her husband and her staff.  Bill's re-dust-up over the South Carolina comments do his wife no favors.  He's not actually running for president, mind you, but it is difficult for the population at large to separate the two.  And he is larger than life; he throws a long shadow.  I would hope the former president would start being as careful of his wife's campaign as he was of his own - if not for her sake, or ours, at least for the sake of his own legacy, which has admittedly been tarnished of late.

And then there is Hillary's staff.  Whoever suggested she use the word "obliterate" on air should be fired.  The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction worked during the Cold War, and the idea of preemptive threat (as opposed to preemptive war) is well-established as both acceptable and tenable.  Couching it in such, forgive the pun, explosive terms, however, is not. 

Senator Clinton went on, of course, to explain her position in detail (via TalkLeft, with worthy commentary), but the detailed, cogent, viable explanation doesn't make for the headlines "obliterated" does.  This is campaign 101 - don't let the soundbite overpower the actual message.  It should enhance and entrance, not smash and grab.

I still hope to be able to vote for Hillary in the general, but such mistakes make this more difficult than it ever needed to be, particularly given the proclivity of certain segments of our population to always assume the worst of any Clinton, irrespective of anything as niggling as facts.

Tony Snow, former Fox and White House talking head, has now spent more than enough time with his family and will join CNN's political team.  Some readers at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution proclaim he will bring a much-needed je ne sais quoi to the ultra-leftist network that offers a home to notorious moonbats Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck.

They don't use the French, of course; French is only for elitist liberals who like puff pastry and read too much.  Unless they're not voting for Obama, in which case they drink beer and don't read good at all.  But it doesn't matter because everybody knows that only the idiot French and John Kerry speak French.

Anyway, some people say this is good, and some people say it's more of the same, and at least one suggests that Spongebob would also make an excellent addition to "the best political team on television."   Personally, I find that last a bit extreme.  Patrick is clearly the better choice. 

The Bush White House doesn't believe ordinary Americans are entitled to much, if any, privacy: they flag library books for government inquiry into those who read them, they tap wires without warrants, they reserve the right to read our mail and pruriently wonder at what goes on in our bedrooms.  And none of this even comes close to touching the ongoing outrage of suspending habeas corpus and actively promoting torture.

The pattern has become such that one wonders what, if anything, this White House would hold as off-limits.

In terms of off-limits to their own insatiable hunger for absolute power, the answer is obviously "nothing."  Yet the AP reports that, while average citizens are entitled to exceedingly little personal space free from unreasonable search, seizure and subjugation, the White House does believe something sacrosanct - the Secret Service White House visitor logs.   The American people, it seems, are not entitled to know who sees our president, on company-time, in the building which we have generously provided.  Apparently such knowledge would grossly impair the president's ability to "gather advice."  Evidently, public knowledge of the President's visitors would be so damaging to the President that he could no longer have the kinds of visitors he likes to have without people getting all nosy and up-in-his-business and snotty about having stupid things like "rights."

Meh.  Stupid people, wanting to know things like who has direct, personal access to the leader of our country.  Don't they know that's not important?  Not really.  Not as important as anything really important - like muppets.  Or pop-tarts.

Senator Clinton has come out with a new NC Ask Me ad in North Carolina.  I like the premise - eschewing all of the punditocracy and blogospheric hype and getting down to brass tacks, as it were:

So, how do you think Clinton Rules will apply here?  Does she actually say something evil if you play the video backwards in a tornado while sucking on a pudding pop?

I do believe I have fallen through the looking glass.  Up is down, down is up, frogs rain down and bark at me with their beady little ears.

Funny, I don't recall dropping acid.

So many sites I once thought of as bastions of sanity, lost to me; covered in the ash of a needless, senseless, useless implosion.  Stop, people, just stop.

A year ago it was only the conservatives who vilified Hillary Clinton as a baby-eating, do-anything-to-win, non-cookie-baking, stand-by-your-man, lying, frigid whore.  Now everyone’s jumped on the blinder bandwagon.

Enough. 

Enough with the piling on.  Enough with the Clinton Rules.  Enough with the automatic assumption that Hillary is the Bride of Satan and that everyone who doesn’t hate her is a traitor.  We had 8 long, terrible years of that under Bush, and I have had more than my fill – particularly from my own side of the political equation.  Do we really need to stoop so low to prove we are no different from those we once claimed to despise?

I know I’m just one tiny, tiny blogger back in the fray after a very long absence; Iam nobody, and I know it’s extremely unlikely anyone’s paying attention – but I hope somewhere, someone hears my plea – because I'm really tired of seeing us eat our own with such utter joy and total, reckless abandon, and I really cannot imagine that I am as alone as I feel.

"Think Tank Will Promote Thinking," read the headline in WaPo's politics section this morning - on the Federal Page, no less.

Wow, thought I, that's kind of an oxymoron.  Let me click on that and read more.  So I bypassed a handful of articles detailing how Nancy Pelosi screwed up by writing that letter supporting Murtha, even if she didn't mean it to be taken literally and secretly wants Hoyer to win, and clicked through to read about this strange new species - the think tank that wants people to think.

Scientists, the really good ones, have long been noted for their quasi-detachment from the world.  A shining attribute in scientific study, dispassionate observation does not usually lend itself well to political activism unless that activism is somehow triggered by certain stimuli such as progressive  and unrelenting encroachment, spearing, or repeated facemasking.  Which is to say, it can take a little something to get them to notice that the other team is trying to take the ball, stab 40 holes in it, set it on fire, and bury it in a nuclear waste dump.  Well, some scientists have finally both noticed that "science" has come to be acquainted with "evil," (which is a ridiculous comparison both on its face and under its hood), and decided to do something about it.  They've formed a Washington think tank to attempt to influence public policy regarding the principles of separation of church and state (SOCAS): the Center for Inquiry-Transnational.

Since our arrival on these shores, religion has always attempted to interfere in our public policy.  Though a constant undercurrent even at its weakest points, religion's success in informing said policy, relative to the percentage of widely accepted initiatives grounded in secular human and civil rights as opposed to those founded upon the religious imperatives of the nationally dominant genre (i.e., Christianity) irrespective of empirical data or socioeconomic impact, can be viewed in waves, many of them tied to conflict and political and national uncertainty.  Among other items - in 1864, after an upsurge of religious feeling during the Civil War, Congress approved the addition of "In God We Trust" to coins.  It appeared there on and off until 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) approved a Congressional joint resolution declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the US.  Eisenhower also signed the 1954 law adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance - the campaign for which was spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal group.  Government-sponsored prayer in public schools, ruled against between the 1850s and 1948, saw a resurgence during the Eisenhower years before being ended again by the Supreme Court's 1962 decision in Engel v. Vitale.  Not coincidentally, Eisenhower's presidency also saw the height of McCarthyism, the Korean War, the Suez conflict, the entrenchment of the Cold War and the beginning of intervention in Vietnam.  Religious influence on public policy relative to perceived security could be a dissertation in and of itself.

While the wave of the 50s briefly abated during the 60s and 70s, it began to rise again in the 1980s concurrent with the ascendance of Reagan conservatism and has since faced little orchestrated opposition from the scientific community.  Though scientists thought it a disease of national import, AIDS research failed to obtain early funding because it was a "gay disease," according to (uninformed) public perception.  "Gay" was evil, and therefore did not merit study or cure the way, say, measles (primarily a "kid" disease) did, even though it was exponentially more fatal.   

The push has become greater since fundamentalist George W. Bush became president, and entered its ascendancy post 9/11 as economic pressures, national instability and concerns over daily security increased.  As though presenting Marshall Applewhite as on equal footing with Einstein, the media, in their over-earnest attempts at "balance," will promote the dissent of 1% of the scientific community on any given issue as on par with the agreement of the significantly larger 99%.  Movements to add the newfangled creationism euphemistically referred to as "Intelligent Design" were largely ignored until a spate of them achieved national notoriety just within the last 5 years.  In the latest developments to come to light the public has discovered that FDA, environmental and health policies have been subject to Christian review and religious affirmation.

The last item is, no doubt, the proverbial straw on the complacent camel's back.

It is high time scientists joined with other SOCAS supporters in providing basis and impetus for pushing back the rising tide of religious fundamentalism undermining a nation founded on secular freedoms.  Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of civil rights infringed upon by religious zealotry, it is reprehensible that this administration has thus far been permitted to either ignore or hide science where it disagrees (as it frequently does) with their theocratic agenda on matters of basic earth science or public health.  And, if we pick civil rights up again, we find the religion extremists no better - attempting to codify discrimination and legislate morality, absent logical reasoning, based entirely upon their interpretations of a collection of stories they deem as "holy" while rejecting any conflicting data - including but not limited to proven science, basic human decency, and anyone else's concept of "holy."

While even the extremists have a right to believe and live their personal lives as they see fit, their religious fervor should give them no additional standing in a country predicated upon equality.  To be balanced and to live up to the egalitarian ideals upon which we claim foundation, health and environmental policies, as well as human and civil rights, must be grounded in the secular and based on facts.  To do otherwise is to grant both political and personal ascendancy to one collection of mythology over all others, even though all have equal basis for belief, nullifying the rights of every citizen.  Because, even though the Christian fundamentalists have found themselves with the power thus far, other faiths in the US are growing and may well one decide to usurp that power for themselves.  Better for all of us, even the fundamentalists, to leaves religion out of government, lest we one day find ourselves subject to a religion not our own.

I look forward to the Center's efforts and seeing the results thereof.  The passion of the dispassionate may yet be something to behold.

From CNN:

Ed Bradley, the longtime "60 Minutes" correspondent who reported on subjects ranging from jazz musicians to the Columbine school shootings, has died. He was 65.

Bradley died Thursday at New York's Mount Sinai Hospital of leukemia, according to staff members at the CBS program.

Bradley joined "60 Minutes" during the 1981-82 season after two years as White House correspondent for CBS News and three years at "CBS Reports." His reporting over the years won him a Peabody Award, 19 Emmys and a Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award, among many others.

Mr. Bradley's "reporting over the years" included more than the 26 years he spent at 60 Minutes.  He covered the war in Vietnam and Cambodia, where he was injured by a mortar round.  Mr. Bradley's reporting there earned him the George Polk Award in journalism, among the first of the awards he would receive throughout his long career.  His June 2000, hour-long Death by Denial, documenting the AIDS epidemic in Africa, won a Peabody award and helped convince drug companies to donate AIDS drugs to the region.   The Robert F. Kennedy Journalism grand prize was awarded after his January 1995 piece, CBS Reports: In the Killing Fields of America.  He joined the company of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite when he received the Paul White Award in 2000.

In 2004, Mr. Bradley grilled then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice on her refusal to testify before the 9/11 Commission, asking her at one point during the interview, "Will the families of those people who were killed hear an apology from you?"  Dr. Rice avoided answering the question.  Later that same year, Bradley put together a report for CBS news which outlined the complete lack of WMDs in Iraq, and followed up with the absence of a nuclear program.  As elections were coming up, and CBS was still reeling from Rathergate, CBS News president Andrew Hayward pulled the story before it ran.

Mr. Bradley, a respected journalist, dedicated reporter, and a good man, will be missed.

Bill O'Reilly has your medical records and isn't afraid to use them (Mercury News).  At least, if you had an abortion at a medical clinic in Kansas since 2003, he may.  And he feels no compunction about mentioning them on air.

Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General, a vocal abortion opponent who has no trouble allowing his personal religious agenda to interfere with his responsibility to the public, began a fishing expedition in 2004.  Ostensibly looking for evidence of underage rape or illegally performed late-term abortions, Kline subpoenaed records from 2 abortion clinics.  He told the public he was only looking for the records of minors, but according to the Wichita Eagle:

However, a 2006 Kansas Supreme Court opinion said Kline "subpoenaed the entire, unredacted patient files of 90 women and girls who obtained abortions at petitioners' clinics in 2003

Originally, Kline requested all patient information, including sexual history, birth control use, psychological profile - you know, all of those questions you answer about yourself and your personal life when you go to the doctor.

The court refused to give Kline the full records, ordering that the clinics release redacted records to the AG.  Kline received the records on Wednesday, November 1, 2006.

On Friday, November 3, 2006, just two days later, right-wing jackboot Bill O'Reilly told a national audience that his show "had evidence" regarding the clinic's failure to report possible rape of a minor.  This "evidence" stems from those records, which are supposed to be at least semi-private, and which I am sure the patients never released to asinine Bill O'Reilly for use on his national sewer drain TV show.

The courts, clinics doctors, and reasonable people everywhere saw red flags in Kline's pursuit of these records.  His camp did nothing but pooh-pooh as conspiracy-theorists and tinfoil space cadets those who suggested his fishing expedition might have adverse consequences if not nefarious motives.  Yet Bill O'Reilly sees those records and announces it to his fawning audience just two days after they were released.

On Monday, Dr. George Tiller, a doctor at one of the affected clinics, will formally request an investigation into O'Reilly and whether he broke any laws in obtaining the records.  The investigation must be independent of the Kansas Attorney General's office, as Phill Kline obviously cannot be trusted to keep private medical records under wraps for 72 hours, let alone investigate his own office's culpability in their release.

Since July, Kline's Democratic challenger Morrison has raised twice the money Kline has, and Kline's supporters are getting desperate enough to make anonymous calls berating voters favoring Morrison.

On November 7, Kansans will go to the polls to determine if Kline gets to keep his nice, cushy fishing job or if they will elect Morrison to the post.  If the election goes as I hope, that means Kline gets one more day to enjoy his office than he gave 90 women and girls to enjoy their privacy.

The People's Channel for the Dissemination of Newspeak, otherwise known as the Department of Defense PR campaign.  Per the Houston Chronicle:

In a memo obtained by the Associated Press, Dorrance Smith, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said new teams of people will "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and "correct the record."

Lucky us, we get to have our very own state-run news (again - Armstrong Williams, etc), just like our best friends China, North Korea and certain other countries where those in power spoon-feed their people with the "news" they want them to hear.

According to Rumsfeld, the media reporting bad news out of Iraq is "the thing that keeps [him] up at night."  It's not the fact that he is responsible for the failure, or that people are dying, or even that North Korea has tested one bomb and is likely to test another.  No, Rumsfeld is up at night because the media insist on broadcasting the realities of war rather than focusing on whatever rainbows and puppies the administration can cobble together in the green zone.

I imagine this propaganda campaign will help Rumsfeld sleep, which is unfortunate.  A man responsible for so many deaths should be up at night trying to figure out how to staunch the flow of blood, not the flow of information.

Michael J. Fox, the actor who endeared himself to millions in TV (Family Ties) and film (Back to the Future franchise), and who announced his semi-retirement a few years ago due to the inexorable progression of the Parkinson's disease from which he suffers, appeared in a campaign commercial for Claire McCaskill, the Democratic challenger for a Missouri Senate seat.  McCaskill supports stem cell research, whereas the incumbent Jim Talent (R-MO) does not.  Given the hope stem cells hold for those suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, paralysis, and other disabilities, Fox's interest in pursuing the science, and endorsement of a candidate who supports it, is completely understandable.

Given that Michael J. Fox suffers from Parkinson's himself, and has done for some time, his physical appearance in the commercial - jerky and unsteady (as described in a WaPo article) - is also understandable to anyone who has seen the disease in action.  WaPo notes that Fox's speech is clear.  The note is inserted as if this is unusual.  It is not.  Parkinson's medication usually permits speech.

Parkinson's is a neurological disease which involves the death of the brain cells responsible for producing dopamine, a neurotransmitter responsible for communicating with the parts of the brain that control movement and coordination.  As these cells die, the muscles lose their direction and either jerk uncontrollably (on medication) or move haltingly, if at all (off medication, victims can suffer a kind of paralysis).  Even though medication is available to ease some of the worst of the symptoms, or possibly slow progression of the disease, that medication is neither a cure nor a panacea.  The sufferer still suffers, and his condition continues to degenerate.

When the WaPo notes, therefore, that Fox's appearance "shows a noticeable degree of decline not widely seen in previous public appearances" it is a non-issue.  Parkinson's is a degenerative disease - by definition, it gets worse over time.

Most rational people are capable of grasping this concept.

Rush Limbaugh, however, is not rational.  Nor does he actually qualify as "human."  Mr. Limbaugh insisted on his show today that Michael J. Fox was, essentially, faking it for the camera, amplifying his physical symptoms in order to win sympathy.  The paragon of addlepated excrement that is Limbaugh accused Fox of either deliberately going off his meds, or flat out acting.  His basis for the accusation?  Fox was able to speak clearly and keep his eyes on the camera.  And he didn't used to look this bad.  Limbaugh called Fox's appearance "shameless."

Again, Parkinson's: degenerative neurological disorder affecting movement and coordination primarily which, by definition, gets worse over time.  Disagree with Michael J. Fox on supporting stem cell research all you like, but don't take pot shots at a man for being too diseased (or is that not diseased enough)?

Granted, suffering resolutely, and honorably, through a terrible disease acquired through no fault of one's own doesn't really qualify a person for sainthood.  But I'd say it comes a heck of a lot closer than Mr. Limbaugh's gross hypocrisy regarding drugs and addiction.

There will be another article later regarding stem cell research itself, but for now, I'll say that Michael J. Fox does not come off as the "shameless" one here.  I'd call "shame on Rush Limbaugh," but he'd have to have a sense of honor for that to matter, and Rush is obviously lacking in the conscience department.  Stem cells might or might not one day cure Parkinson's, but I don't know if God himself could create a conscience for the self-important blowhard that is Rush Limbaugh.

Update: Apparently at least some of Rush's listeners are capable of thoughts not implanted by The Master.  WaPo reports a follow up piece, with the following quote from Mr. Limbaugh (emphasis mine):

"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."

Wow.  That's some kind of big, huge apology.  What a magnanimous soul Mr. Limbaugh has, if I am wrong in characterizing this backhanded non-apology as a crock.

Update 2:  The GOP has reportedly recruited actor Jim "Jesus" Caviezel to appear in spots opposing the Fox commercials.  I think they've misunderstood the basis for the power of Fox's spots - it's not because he's Michael J. Fox, actor and all-around nice guy whom nobody but Rush Limbaugh has ever said a bad word about, although that helps.  No, the ads derive their emotional punch from the fact that the nice man on the screen actually has Parkinson's, and would like to find some way to cure or at least ameliorate the symptoms of that terrible disease.

Last I checked, Jim Caviezel, while also an actor, was not actually Jesus, even if he does deliver his lines in Aramaic.