I’ve added a link to ProgressiveDepot.com over there on the left side. According to the “About Us” page, “The more people [who] shop through Progressive Depot, the more money we give back toward positive change. We start at 10% of profits each year and graduate up to 50% as profits grow. All you have to do is shop online where you would shop already.”
Looks like a good deal to me. Plus they were nice enough to include a link to yours truly. Go forth and purchase.
As if anyone actually reads this blog anymore … but I do need to explain that the silence of the last few days … well, the weekend, anyway … is due to the death of my father-in-law early Saturday morning. I was in Virginia for a couple of meetings and cut the trip short to be with the family. Everyone seems to be doing well under the circumstances. My father-in-law had been sick for several weeks, after being diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis. We knew it was terminal, but we thought we had more time, more like a year or two rather than a month or two …
I will be back online soon. Thanks for understanding.
I haven’t had a lot of time (nor, to be honest, motivation) to blog lately, but the latest Tom DeLay idiocy forces me into action.
DeLay is railing against those dastardly “activist judges” yet again. But this time, his vitriol is directed towards the U.S. Supreme Court:
“We’ve got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That’s just outrageous,” DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. “And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous.”
Well, I’ll give credit to DeLay for knowing that there is only one Internet (in active usage, anyway), but come on! He’s criticizing Justice Kennedy for doing research on the Internet? Maybe the Bug Man would prefer that the Justices restrict themselves to getting their news and information exclusively from their advisors, like one of Tom’s best pals.
Our friends at Democracy for America are buying billboards in Texas’ 22nd Congressional District, which is responsible for inflicting Tom DeLay on America. They are encouraging the submission of slogans, so head on over and try your hand.
Here’s mine, for inspiration (or criticism):
As promised, here’s a dose of Democratic celebrities.
You might want to take the “alleged Democrats” list with a grain of salt. Ozzy Osbourne? Is he even a U.S. citizen? Same with Salma Hayek (although she can be on my team any day). System of a Down? (Yes, I’ve heard of them, but still …) If nothing else, the Good Guys seem to have the rap world sewn up.
Never let it be said that Blast Off! is not fair and balanced.
So I was doing some mindless surfing last night (I tried to post this last night … $@#%& Blogger!), and I came across a list of celebrities who support the Republican Party. Most of them came as no surprise (Jessica Simpson, Ben Stein, Brooks & Dunn, Charlton Heston, Curt Schilling, Britney Spears), while others were a little bit more puzzling (Kurt Russell, Ric Flair, Scott Baio, Stephen Baldwin, and Dennis Hopper … Dennis Hopper?!?).
My favorite, though, has to be Alice Cooper. I guess I knew he was a Republican, but I didn’t realize he considered Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, and others treasonous because they played an anti-Bush concert series:
In the eyes of Alice Cooper, all the rock stars campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry are guilty of one thing: treason. The shock-rock legend, a staunch Republican who attends NBA games in Phoenix with Arizona Senator John McCain, was disgusted when he learned of plans by Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, R.E.M. and other bands to hold a series of concerts aimed at unseating U.S. President George W. Bush.
“To me, that’s treason. I call it treason against rock ‘n’ roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics,” says the 56-year-old Cooper ….
I guess rock has as much place in politics as, say, religion, right, Alice?
Stay tuned later for equal time …
Could it be that Democrats in Washington finally have some balls?
I direct your attention to the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev.), whose strong statements of late give me hope that under his leadership and that of Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, the Democratic Party finally might be emerging from the days of rolling over and acquiescing to the unadulterated crap the Republicans pull.1
The latest Reid broadside, delivered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, just arrived in my e-mail. An excerpt:
The Republicans are arrogant with power. If they don’t like the rules, they break them. If they don’t like someone standing in their way, they attack them. We have some Republicans in the Senate that are considering throwing out 200 years of Senate history in order to pack the courts with right wing judges. And we have a Republican Leader in the House of Representatives who attacks judges who don’t agree with him and corrupts our government by running roughshod over the ethics committee.
It’s a complete abuse of power by the Republicans and if they can get away with this on judges, they will get away with this on legislation like Social Security too. There is no distinction.
Give ‘em hell, Harry.
1 Disclaimer: Said emergence emphatically excludes Sen. Joseph Lieberman (DINO-Conn.).
Mark Morford, a columnist on SFGate.com out of San Francisco, has a unique outlook on things to be sure. Occasionally he can be shrill and over-the-top, and I tend to read his work sparingly. However, he has struck a chord with me today, especially in light of my essay on faith from Easter Sunday. Morford asks, quite aptly, “Where are the good Christians?“
This deserves an admittedly-lengthy excerpt:
[The "good Christians" are] not radical. They’re not rabid. They’re not full of venom and Rapture and they read books other than the childish Left Behind series and they don’t loathe sex or despise other religions or hate their genitalia like Tom DeLay loathes congressional law, and they know full well that Mel Gibson is a rather insane misogynistic blood fetishist who knowingly swiped an illiterate 18th-century stigmatic nun’s bizarre and ultraviolent hallucination to use as some sort of dangerous literal truth. Amen.
They are, in short, those who understand the deep irony that, when it comes to religion, the ones who scream and stomp and whine the loudest are often the ones who understand their faith the least.
But there is a reason these calm and moderate and private Christians don’t make the news, why, despite their enormous numbers, they are not setting the cultural agenda like some sort of sanctimonious meth-addled monkey (hi, Sen. Santorum!) right now.
It’s because they are not organized. They are not a club. They do not have a unified attack agenda. They do not have pamphlets or advertising budgets or congressional lobbyists or the complaint line of every TV network and program except Fox News and “The 700 Club” on speed dial.
They do not call themselves the Parent’s Television Council or the Right to Life Marauders or the Family Values Coalition or some other dumbly misleading and patently bogus moniker. They are not attempting to cram already gutted public school textbooks with imbecilic “Intelligent Design” BS, nor are they writing uptight letters to the FCC en masse or ranting about nipples or dildos or low-cut jeans on teenage girls while at the same exact moment repressing their own gay fantasies and kiddie-porn collections.
Unfortunately, my area in Florida is infested with the sanctimonious, self-righteous variety of Christian, the kind who would vote for pandering gasbags like Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney and, oh yeah, a couple of Bushes. It’s important to remember, though, as Morford reminds us, that there are those among us who treat religion as the intensely personal – as in singular – experience that it ought to be, wholly separate from government and politics. Not all Christians behave – or believe – like many of the most vocal (and hypocritical) ones.
Just when you think it’s safe to come out from the Schiavo-related loony bin that is Florida, here comes another masterpiece of wingnuttery:
People in Florida will be allowed to kill in self-defense on the street without trying to flee under a new law passed by state politicians on Tuesday that critics say will bring a Wild West mentality and innocent deaths.
The Florida House of Representatives, citing the need to allow people to “stand their ground,” voted 94-20 to codify and expand court rulings that already allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes without first trying to escape.
The new bill goes further by allowing citizens to use deadly force in a public place if they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. It applies to all means of force that may result in death, although the legislative debate focused on guns.
Yes, folks, all it takes is a “reasonable belief” that there is danger – you got that, then fire away. Incidentally, there are 36 Democrats in the House … and if you think that’s bad, well, the Senate passed it unanimously.
Finally, guess who the sponsor was in the House? (You’re not going to believe this …) Yep, it’s our old friend, Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Out There), whom you may recall was the sponsor of the bill to stamp out academic freedom so none o’ them librul ideas get spread around.
Baxley may be the single most frightening legislator in America right now – including certain ones named DeLay, Cornyn and Santorum. Which of course means he’ll probably be running for governor soon.
(Tip o’ the Blast Off! hat to GreatScat! for the referral.)
UPDATE (4:56 pm 4/5/05): Just to clarify, Florida law already permitted the use of deadly force to defend one’s self in one’s home and, in fact, even one’s car or workplace. This law dangerously lowers the legal standard for self-defense anywhere, though:
Outside the home, however, courts have ruled that most victims must at least attempt to escape before using deadly force, a provision gun advocates say puts victims at greater risk. The proposal removes that requirement if a person has a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
From Kos comes some very revealing poll numbers showing where Georgie really stands in terms of popularity.
Gallup compared the approval ratings of presidents in the March following their re-election:
Truman, 1949: 57%.
Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.
Johnson, 1965: 69%.
Nixon, 1973: 57%.
Reagan, 1985: 56%.
Clinton, 1997: 59% .
Bush, 2005: 45% .
Yep, Georgie is not only the low man on the totem pole, he’s a full 11 percentage points behind the next least popular president at the same point in his term (Reagan). So, enough with how popular the guy is.
The American people are starting to wake up. Pity it’s about, oh, five months too late.
