* * political doodle * *

LUCILLE: Why Americans are (red, white &) Blue

Over and above the obvious - the cost of gas and food, the loss of millions of homes, the first time incomes have not grown for Americans - there are a few other things making us blue:

No bid oil contracts

Yes, once again the FOB (friends of Bush) get a leg up in Iraq. First in 2007 Hunt Oil secured an oil deal with the Kurds with the help of the State Department - which denied it until email messages were uncovered by a Congressional Committee. That pesky Congressional Committees! Just think how much easier it would be for  Cheney's buddies at Halliburton to make a profit without them. And now American companies are getting no-bid contracts that will give them an extreme advantage in future oil drilling awards. Who says we didn't go there for oil? Not the Iraqis.

• Political hiring/firing by the Justice Department

This time it was the Justice Department's own inspector general who uncovered the scandal that the Department had illegally used "political or idealogical" factors in recruiting and hiring, weeding out candidates they considered "leftists" or - heaven forbid - for social justice. Even Attorney General Mukasey said that using politics in hiring career lawyers was "impermissible and unacceptable". For example, in 2002 all 7 honors applicants who were members of a liberal group, the American Constitution Society (sounds like a group we should be really scared of, right?) were rejected white 27 of 29 members of the conservative Federalist Society were hired.

• Ignoring the Bill of Rights

Yes, I realize the Bill of Rights is so unimportant to Americans - the right of free speech and so on. But some of us draw the line at letting the President and his cabal spy on us, unfettered by a court order. George Bush always had the right to spy on us, as long as he got a search warrant from the FISA court - he could even get it after the fact. But that's just not good enough for him. He wants to listen to your phone calls and read your email whenever he damn well pleases. Sort of like the way my father described what Russia did, as in "if you don't like this country (the Viet Nam war, the draft, segregation, etc.), you can move to Russia." Well, now we don't have to!

Pop quiz: what group's charter is to protect the Bill of Rights?

• The un-Progress in Iraq

Yeah, I know that the violence is down, which is great. But it's still a pretty dangerous place to be.  The level of violence is still as bad as it was in 2003.

That said, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office released a report last month claiming that the measures that the Bush Administration is using to demonstrate progress in Iraq are either incorrect or more  mixed than they are admitting.

For example, the President - in his strategy called "The New Way Forward" - set out a plan that would take 12 to 18 months to enact a law to regulate Iraq's oil industry and handing over all of the provinces to Iraqi control.  That was in January 2007. Now, almost 18 months later, only half of the 18 provinces  have been handed over to Iraqi control and the oil law is still not enacted.
"The New Way Forward" only covered the period through July 2008. What is the strategy for next month?

The Pentagon says that 70%  of Iraqi units are in the lead in counterinsurgency operations. But an analysis  based on a study of Iraqi Army battalions done by the GAO finds that only 10% are capable of operating independently.

The Iraqi Parliament enacted a law reforming the Baathist purge; but no members have been named to the commission to carry out this law.

So, though violence is down, it's still higher than it was pre-attack and the political measures are much worse than the Bush Administration will admit

• The White House can deny knowing about greenhouse gases - because it simply refused to open the e-mail from the EPA

Really. Not kidding.  The EPA sent an email in  December 2007  with the conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, and  the White House told agency officials that that document would not be opened, said seniior EPA officials in late June.
Really. Not kidding.

• Talking with the enemy

Won't do it. It's unAmerican. Except Nixon spoke to Brezhnev, met with  Mao,  negotiated in secret with North Vietnam; Reagan met with Gorbachev, as did George HW Bush. Israel is meeting with Syria. Note to George: you don't gain anything by only negotiating with your friends.

• The Manchurian President

This is my favorite. Do you know where we got those "highly effective" interrogation techniques that we use in Guantanamo? You got it - from the Chinese!  They've been using the same interrogation techniques that were used on American P.O.W.s in Korea by Chinese captors. They took a 1957 chart describing death threats, degradation, sleep deprivation and worse and made it a part of their handbook for interrogators at Gitmo.

You can't make this stuff up.

But here''s the best part: the original author, Albert Biderman, wrote that the Communists techniques mainly served to "extort false confessions", that the techniques were the same that "inquisitors had employed for centuries" and that "inflicting physical pain is not a necessary nor particularly effective method" to persuade P.O.W.s. I guess that's why American P.O.W.s made false statements themselves.

So, we're (red, white &) blue this July 4 weekend. But - hopefully - not for long.

Pop quiz answer: The group whose charter is to protect the Bill of Rights is none other than the American Civil Liberties Union - the ACLU. So, if you support the bill of rights, you too must be a Commie left wing pablum puking liberal. Or not.

LUCILLE: Slippery when Desperate

Okay, how about some real straight talk, say, about offshore drilling.

First of all, there are about 68 million-plus acres of federal land  being leased by the big oil companies right now that are not being drilled.   So, why do they need to drill offshore before they drill in these already-available sites? Well, one reason might be that, once Bush and Cheney - their oil buddies - are out of office, it won't be quite so simple to take advantage of the American people. They'd simply like to stockpile all those millions of acres of public land before there are responsible adults running the country.

Secondly, with all the talk about the available oil offshore, no one can honestly say how much oil is there. There could be a lot  - or not. It's all a big unknown. But, lets say there is a ton of oil out there. How long before we could be pumping away and getting the price of oil out of the stratosphere?

Conservative estimates say it will be from 8 - 14 years before that oil is pumped out, if we approved offshore drilling right now. Can you wait?

The Energy Information Administration says even with drilling on both coasts, pricing wouldn't begin to drop before 2030. Don't hold your breath.

But let me shatter the biggest, slimiest lie: that pumping oil in the US will bring down US oil prices. There is no such thing as a discreet US oil market. Get real. It's a global market, a world market. Which is one of the reasons why so much of the oil drilled in the US now goes overseas. The world uses about 1 billion barrels a day. At best, the oil they could drill offshore would increase world supplies by 1%. . . certainly not a dramatic change.

By the way, last year we exported 268 million barrels of oil - about the same amount we imported from Iraq in 2001. Did I say exported?? Yes, indeed. And anything we might decide to pump in Alaska would most likely go to Asia.

 

What about speculators? Some say that if futures speculators know that within several years the price of oil will go down, they'll stop speculating and the price will drop. The truth of the matter is that oil speculators don't look even 3 years into the future; in fact, they don't look beyond 6 months in most cases.

By the way, there was a loophole passed - affectionately called the Enron Loophole, since Ken Lay was the brainchild behind it - that allows commodities brokers to speculate on the future price of oil (which, by the way, they can't do with coal, for example). And who was the force in the Senate that got this through? None other than Phil Graham - who is currently John McCain's chief  economic adviser.

That means that even if we did drill and we did find lots of oil (in 2015 or 2020), that 7% or so increase in the world's oil won't affect the prices here in the U.S.- just the profits of the oil companies.

So, are these guys pushing for offshore drilling to help their big oil buddies?

What do you think?

Here's a special John McCain Update:

"Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial," the senator said during a town-hall meeting in Fresno.

Instead of calling for higher CAFE standards that would have forced car manufacturers to increase mileage or suggesting that Bush release some of the oil reserves, John McCain wants to give Americans the "psychological impact" of knowing that sometime, in the distant future, drilling offshore just might bring in more oil.

Now, doesn't that make you feel better?

LUCILLE: Back to the Future

Now the going it going to get hot. . . as though it hasn't been for the last several months. But now you're going to see some sharp differences between the two major candidates who - despite what you may hear - are at very different ends of the spectrum.

You can only guess who my choice for President is. . . okay, you know it's Barack Obama. I tried not to tip my hat during the primaries, but he has been my choice almost from the beginning, based on his ability to create consensus in a  terribly divided country. . . you know, a uniter, not a divider (I opine that he'll do a better job than you-know-who; who couldn't?). Obama is also eloquent, and since the strongest power the President has is his/her ability to influence, this skill is not to be taken lightly.
Even with a majority Democratic Congress, which we will no doubt have, a consensus builder will be needed now more than ever, and this is Obama's forte.

Do I doubt his ability to fight? Hey, this is a guy that worked all the parties in Chicago, and that is a tough town, even by NJ standards. This guy is no shrinking violet.
Why else do I think he's the man? Hey, he beat the giant, the Clinton machine; no mean feat.

So, the campaign will take front and center - but not all. Have subjects you want me to broach? Email me at lucille@politicaldoodle.com. I write about what irks me, what surprises me and what engages me.

Stay tuned.

LUCILLE: We Won!

I think you all know that this war has been long, hard and tough. And it has meant enormous sacrifice on the part of Americans in blood and treasure. But after four years of a badly mismanaged war, our new strategy is succeeding and we are now winning in Iraq.
-John McCain, May 30, 2008

Did you realize we were winning in Iraq? Wow! I guess I missed the speech where John McCain actually described what victory in Iraq would look like. It's a compelling argument, if only he would tell us the difference between winning and losing this war.

Just a little side note: notice how, suddenly, John McCain - like Scott McClellan - is finding fault with just about everything Bush did the last 7 years? I wonder why it's just now that he's started mentioning it?

Is he suggesting that we're winning because there are less soldiers dying? I don't know about John, but I'm going to guess that the frightening increase in G.I. suicides probably serves to invalidate that measurement.

Why don't we look at the word "victory". . . it's defined as "an act of defeating an enemy."

Who was our enemy when we attacked Iraq? Who is our enemy now? Does he even know (e.g. the difference between Sunni and Shia?)

Are we any closer to defeating them - or even identifying them - then we were in 2003?

Why are we paying millions of US dollars to Sunni's - the people who attacked and killed our soldiers earlier in the war - "our enemy"  - and how does paying them not to kill our soldiers anymore help us "win" in Iraq?

Andy why does John McCain think that once our soldiers aren't dying anymore (yes, that's how he said we would know that we were victorious), that we've won? Since when is the goal of a war simply to stop your soldiers from dying?

One final question: John McCain, along with his "identical cousin" George Bush, have both called anyone who has suggested a timetable for withdrawing our troops a "cut and runner". So, what does that make John McCain, who "envisions" no more troops in Iraq by the end of his first term?

Sounds like a timetable to me.

Or maybe he just visited Ronald Reagan's old fortune teller and got his tea leaves read.

LUCILLE: Let's Hear What John McCain has to say. . .

LUCILLE: GI John Goes to War

I guess if someone asked you what Presidential contender was the most pro-G.I. you might say John McCain. After all we all know about his military experience, his stint as a POW and so on and so on. Right? So, why would I say he's going to war. . . against the very soldiers he so blithely wants to continue sending to Iraq?

Senators on both sides of the aisle agree that the sacrifices made by our service people entitle them to at the very least a better future - a revamped G.I. Bill which would pay for state college for those kids. Don't they deserve at least that? Many of them have been back in a dangerous combat zone multiple times - probably more dangerous than the majority of troops during WWII. And WWII vets had their educations paid for. It was a great investment. It gave them a real future. And every dollar spent produced $7 of in  additional taxes from those vets. Nowadays what our vets get pales in comparison.

Guess who doesn't support this bill. Mr. Mission Accomplished himself, George Bush . "Too generous" he says. The nerve. He's willing to give Halliburton and other contractors millions upon millions to do a pretty shoddy job in Iraq, yet he doesn't want to give these brave men and women a chance for a real future. He's just wiling to suck the life out of them, then spit them out.

He's willing to spend hundreds of billions on the war , but not $2 - $4 billion on the vets.

He says it will hurt retention rates. In reality, it will draw in more talented individuals.

And John McCain? He's all talk about supporting our men and women in uniform. But instead he's  walking in lock step with Bush in opposing this bill and instead introducing a weak imitation bill of his own. 

Hypocrite.

LUCILLE: George W Bush has approved this message of Torture

This is absolutely incredible to me. George Bush's top advisors - Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney,  Condi Rice - not only approved torture but choreographed exactly what could be done to whom, how often. They decided who should be physically hurt, who should be waterboarded, who should be attacked by trained dogs.

But that's not the worst.

George Bush told ABC News that he personally approved of the approval of torture by his top advisers. Our President personally approved torture. Have you heard about it in the news? Only if you're watching  The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or Countdown. No front page stories. No replaying the news clip, over and over on Fox News. Not a peep from most of the media.

Well, it makes me sick. And maybe these pictures will make you sick, too. Now that we know - because he admitted it himself - that torture in Iraq wasn't the work of a "few rogue soldiers" but approved and choreographed by the sickos inhabiting the White House - I want you to look at these pictures - a chronology of one night of torture in Iraq approved by George W Bush - and tell me that this is your America.  

Abu Ghraib prison, Baghdad Iraq
December 12, 2003 10:47:25 PM





December 12, 2003 10:47:30 PM




WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PICTURES ARE GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING



 

December 12, 2003 10:48:03 PM





 

December 12, 2003 10:48:09 PM











December 12, 2003 10:48:13 PM








December 12, 2003 10:51:44 PM






December 12, 2003 10:52:45 PM








December 12, 2003 10:55:47 PM













December 12, 2003 10:59:08 PM






 

LUCILLE: Let's Not Talk About Iraq

We need to stop talking about Iraq. It's not really an issue in this presidential campaign. We need to talk about everything but Iraq. Why? Because  Republicans know that they have to take that issue off the table if they have  prayer in hell of winning this fall.

But I'd like to talk about someone who took unilateral military action with virtually no strategic planning, using way too few troops resulting in an embarrassing failure. Not  George Bush (fooled you). I'm talking about Iraqi Prime Minister, Maliki who planned (if I can loosely use that word) a failed assault on the Shi'ite militia in Basra late last month which left Sadr more secure in his position of power than before.

Maliki is like Bush's twin; arrogant, divisive and none too smart. His little romp down in  southern Iraq  has absolutely weakened him and, by association, weakened the US. Of course, George Bush praised him. After all, it's what he would have done.

The most amazing thing is that while Bush is calling it a "defining moment in the history of a free Iraq" GOP presidential nominee John McCain seems to be unaware of what is happening.

So, was it really a debacle? Consider this: There were huge casualties. American and British forces and air power had to come to the rescue. About 1000 Iraqi soldiers either defected or just went home in the midst of the fight. And Mr Maliki's boys sought a cease fire. 

By Bush standards, that was a victory.

Everyone is discussing whether or not Obama has the wherewithal to operate on the big stage, whether Hillary is "more experienced." My friend Monty wants to put the Iraq War on the back burner and talk about the economy and free trade and probably gay marriage.

But what I (and millions of Americans) want to know, with George Bush on the way out,  is how does McCain - Mr Experience himself - see the war?

I'll tell you how he sees it - through rose colored glasses.

LUCILLE: Quote of the Week - John McCain

"People are living their normal lives" (in Iraq)

            - John McCain, March 20, 2008

LUCILLE: Osama Bin WHO?

Notwithstanding the "success" of the surge (almost as successful as my attempt to regain my virginity), I found myself arguing with a co-worker about the original decision to go into Iraq. He gave the usual reasons - Saddam was a terrible person, we thought they had WMD (don't even go there); and, then he brought up 9/11. My former brother-in-law (my niece's father and a friend of mine), Rod Coppola was in the WTC on that day and was one of the victims. It was a terrible, tragic event and a  very sad time for all of us. It hit me and my family personally.

But what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

And, why can't my co-worker - and so many of you - remember who attacked us on that day?

It was the Saudi, Osama Bin Laden, with the help of mostly Egyptian co-conspirators, calling themselves Al Qaeda and working in tandem with the Taliban. . . centered in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Where the real "war on terror" is being fought? And where the violence is growing at an exponential rate. . .  like the amount of money spent in Iraq? And where Osama is quite close to, in the border region of Pakistan (according to military intelligence experts)?

LUCILLE: Welfare Kings Rule!

Let me see if I understand: Bear Sterns employed lax lending practices and ended up with about $46 billion in risky mortgages and related securities. And it lost billions for its clients last summer when two hedge funds that invested heavily in mortgage securities crumbled. Do I have it right so far? Last Monday Bear put out a press release claiming, "there is absolutely no truth to the rumors of liquidity problems that circulated today in the market." Three days later, the Welfare Kings had their hands out for one of the biggest welfare payouts in history, a $30 billion dollar bailout. . . from your tax dollars.

LUCILLE: George Bush's "Romantic Adventure" and other True Stories

Here's one for the books. George Bush actually called the war in Afghanistan a "romantic adventure" when speaking to troops there last Thursday. He even claimed he was "a little envious" of them.  I have an idea; why doesn't he have his own adventure and finish his military service (cut short to help Daddy get elected) and join the troops over there? It's interesting how the loudest supporters of war - Iraq as well as Viet Nam - feel it unecessary to actually fight them. By contrast, even Prince Harry made it to Afghanistan to fight - by choice. George Bush's choices have all been a little more self centered.

Speaking of choices, who in God's name is choosing his words for him? Or have they just given up and let him speak for himself? He was absolutely giggly over the economy, calling the news on the US's economic meltdown "a interesting moment." (My high school English teacher, Dan Flynn, must be apoplectic over that interesting grammar.)

Any economist will tell you that the price of a currency reflects the country's overall economic health. And our has been diving for so long that pretty soon we'll be lucky if we can afford to even buy stuff made in China. Oil has gone up to over $110 a barrel, the Dow has been hovering under 12,000 and retail sales fell by 6/10ths of a percent last month.

"I'm coming to you as an optimistic fellow" was what Bush had to say to the Economic Club of New York just this past Friday, while acknowledging that we poor folks "are concerned about making their bills." Can he have fallen off the wagon or is he just trying to act like Herbert Hoover after the crash in 1929?

LUCILLE: Emily Litella is McCain's New PR Director

Remember Emily Litella? She was one of Gilda Radner's amusing characters; the old woman who gave angry and misinformed editorial replies on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" on topics such as "violins on television," and "protecting endangered feces." Once she realized her error, Litella would end her segment with a polite "Never mind".

That's what John McCain is saying to the Federal Election Commission. Back when he couldn't rip a dime from a sleeping two year olds hands, he went begging to the FEC for public financing. Then he used that promise of tax payers' money to get a bank loan. Yes, he promised the public financing money that the FEC was giving him was the collateral for a bank loan for his campaign  (he also had to get an insurance policy because they thought his advanced age made him a poor risk - more on that later!). Think about it: when you offer a bank something as collateral, it means it's something you have, right? Not something you might possibly get. . .  maybe. . .  if you really need it.

Not according to John McCain. After desperately clinging to public financing for months, now he's saying he doesn't want it anymore. The FEC just didn't understand - he just wanted to know if they would give him the money if, just maybe he needed it. Now that he can dig into the deep pockets of the GOP base, he doesn't need it and they can have it back. Not that he ever really took it. . .

It's kind of like ordering something in a restaurant, smelling it, pushing it around the plate, then realizing you can eat your friend's french fries instead, and calling the waitress to take it back, because you decided you didn't need it.

John McCain. The Champion of campaign finance reform. What's that? The Champion of campaign finagling reform?

Never mind.

LUCILLE: Mr. Clean Needs to Get Out of the Kitchen

John McCain likes to pose as the anti-lobbyist, outside the Beltway reformer; Mr. Clean with hair. When The New York Times and Washington Post came out with stories about his questionable relationship with Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist for Paxson,  he immediately began defending his honor, claiming to never have had a romantic relationship with "that woman."

Okay; he didn't say "that woman".  But his intent was clear: take the focus away from the question of his relationships with lobbyists - who, by the way, make up virtually his entire campaign team - and throw it against the straw dog of marital infidelity. And it almost worked. Attacking the Times for impugning his honor, McCain was able to rally the right wing-nuts to his defense. But that was bound to happen eventually anyway. Do you really believe Rush and his partners in prattle would stand back and forgo attacking the Democratic candidate for the months leading up to the election?

But, here's the problem facing McClean; not only did he show incredibly bad judgment in hanging out with Ms Iseman (and taking multiple corporate jet rides with her), he apparently wrote a few letters to the FCC on behalf of her employer, Paxson. According to the AP:

In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson's chief executive, Lowell W. "Bud" Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign.

McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company's jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.

But that's not all. McCain, in a news conference on Friday, February 22 said he had never done any favors for any lobbyist and his campaign insisted that McCain had never spoken to Ms. Iseman or anyone from  Paxson prior to writing to the FCC.

Except he did. In a deposition in 2002, McCain acknowledged he sent those letters after meeting Mr. Paxson.

LUCILLE: MY State of the Union

It's time for a REAL State of the Union address, from someone who not only has been paying attention, but will tell you the truth for a change.

The Economy
Let me ask you the same question the GOP demi god Ronald Reagan asked when he was running for President: are you better off than you were 8 years ago? Believe it or not, the GOP candidates (except Huckabee and Paul) actually tried to claim you are. But let's look at the facts:

• George Bush was bragging in his speech about "a 52 month streak of uninterrupted job growth". . . Well, the new jobs report shows a 17,000 decline in jobs in January. Oh, and that was coupled with the  Commerce Department's report of infinitesimal growth of the economy of .006%. The long term unemployed (unemployed at least 6 months) are up 16.2% from a year ago. And, yet, Bush doesn't feel the need to extend unemployment benefits as part of his "stimulus" package. I guess it's more important to make that Paris Hilton tax cut permanent.

LUCILLE: Let's Get to the Meat

 

Everyone is focused on the primaries but one subject that is strangely absent from the Republican debates is the one most Americans agree on: the war in Iraq. The Bush Administration - and many of my right-wing friends - insist that things are so much better now, since the surge began. But what exactly has the surge accomplished and how does it compare to what we were promised a year ago by President Bush when he asked us all to be patient and allow his "New Way Forward" to work? At the time, he said "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people and it is unacceptable to me." Let's see just how acceptable it is now.

In his speech one year ago, President Bush outlined a new strategy for Iraq, unveiling the "surge" in U.S. troops — and more American economic aid. Bush said the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged to do more to heal his country's divisions.

In January 2007, when Bush made his "New Way Forward" speech, violence in Iraq was rising, especially in Baghdad and there were car bombs exploding, shootings taking place and ethnic cleansing. This is what he promised the surge would accomplish:

1. The Iraqis would boost their own troop levels
2. Sectarianism would  "not be tolerated"
3. Iraqis would take control of their streets
4. Iraqis would pass an oil law that allowed revenue sharing among the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis
5. Provincial elections would be held in 2007
6. Reform de-Baathification laws
7. Iraq would spend more of its own money
8. The United States would hold the Iraqis to certain benchmarks
9. Decrease in violence
   

Since then, some of what Bush envisioned has been accomplished - but not much.

LUCILLE: The Economy of Limitless Government Contracts

Does anything surprise you about the Right? Read this excerpt from "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein:

The news racing around the [New Orleans] shelter that day was that the Republican Congressman Richard Baker had told a group of lobbyists, "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." Joseph Canizaro, one of New Orleans' wealthiest developers, had just expressed a similar sentiment: "I think we have a clean sheet to start again. And with that clean sheet we have some very big opportunities." All that week Baton Rouge had been crawling with corporate lobbyists helping to lock in those big opportunities: lower taxes, fewer regulations, cheaper workers and a "smaller, safer city" - which in practice meant plans to level the public housing projects. Hearing all the talk of "fresh starts" and "clean sheets", you could almost forget the toxic stew of rubble, chemical outflows and human remains just a few miles do.

Disaster capitalism. It's what all those private companies love - companies like Halliburton and Blackwater USA. And it didn't start in New Orleans. It started, probably, with the late Milton Friedman. And it's going strong in Iraq.

LUCILLE: Safe Sex in the GOP

Guiliani taps his way to the White House

I'm perplexed. Larry Craig, one of Idaho's Repub Senators, was arrested for tapping his foot under a bathroom stall, a gesture widely recognized as a homosexual come-on. When he tapped, the undercover cop in the next stall tapped back. Without that tapping, Larry Craig would have gone on his merry way, no more guilty than a straight man winking at a woman and getting the cold shoulder.

What makes this so amazing - and perplexing - is not that the self-righteous Right jumped on their once fair-haired boy's back, beating him to a pulp for the crime of . . . being gay. I suppose that shouldn't surprise me. Lordy, what's worse than being gay? (Being a Democrat?)