Fox News: Still Shameless

This is the image on Fox News' online front page right now:


You want to know what else is in danger in that area?

People. Lots of people.

I'm just amazed that anyone in this country thinks this "news" channel, and the Republican Party that it serves as mouthpiece for, gives a damn about them. Hosting a headline like this, just two days away from the 3rd anniversary of Katrina... it just can't get more obvious.

Russia vs. Georgia: Why Are they Fighting?

If you are anything like me, last Friday was the first time that you heard that the country of Russia had a beef with the country of Georgia. In fact, it may have been the first time you heard of the country of the Georgia.

Therefore, it must have been a bit confusing to hear that all the war mongers like Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol are calling for us to get involved in this new war.

I wanted to know two things:

Why are Russia and Georgia fighting?

What business does the United States have in this one?

I didn't know where to look for this information, however, because the television media is only offering opinions, as opposed to explanations, and the AP is basically just giving violence-as-sport updates on the fighting.

So I turned to Rachel Maddow and, as expected, she explained what is going on. My plan was to summarize what she said but the geniuses on her staff posted the clip on her blog. God bless Dr. Rachel Maddow! Here you go:



Basic gist: Georgia started it. Georgia tried to gobble up two independent states. They expected us to back them up because Bush promised to. Bush promised Georgia back up because Georgia sent "their military" to Iraq. Russia is pissed at Georgia because Georgia wants to join NATO. Russia hates NATO. Russia took Georgia's attempt-to-gobble as a cue to kick the crap out of Georgia. Russia wants us to mind our own damn business but isn't opposed to a do-over of the cold war.

And that is where we stand.

6th Severed Foot Washes Up on West Coast

Warning: this story is even more disturbing than the Bush administration.

Over the past year, five severed feet (4 right feet and one left foot) have washed up on the shores of Canada's west coast. Last week, a sixth severed (right) foot washed up on the shore near Port Angeles in Washington.

Since I'm a big fan of watching video as opposed to reading, here is the background of the first 5 feet:



The DNA of the first right foot has been matched to a "depressed man" who went missing last year. The 3rd foot (a right foot) and the 5th foot (a left foot) were determined to have belonged to the same person. Neither person's name nor their causes of burial at sea have been identified by the press.

In June, a 6th right foot was thought to have been found in Canada but it turned out to be someone's sick idea of a joke. A legit 6th right foot has now been found on the shores of the good 'ole USA.

All feet were found still wearing their sneakers.

The reports that I've read all seem to indicate that there is no need to worry about the fact that random feet have washed up on Pacific Northwest beaches. The reason is that the feet "separated from the [bodies] by natural means, rather than by weapons or tools". Apparently, this means that whole bodies are in the water and natural decomposition is what has separated the feet from their bodies (as opposed to some evil villain running around hacking at people's ankles and chucking their feet in the ocean). The theory is that the sneaker protects the foot from decomposition so as the body breaks up at the ankle, the bouyant shoe floats up to the surface with the "protected" foot still inside.

This doesn't comfort me for two reasons:

1. This means there are whole bodies floating around in the ocean!
   
   
2. The police seem to think that full body human floaters is a lesser cause for concern than live people who have been removed from their feet.

I don't know why I've felt compelled to share this disturbing story with my readers. I guess it's just to make sure that there are other people whose thoughts are going to be haunted by this tale from the crypt.

You're welcome.

"Religulous" Trailer

The other movie I can't wait to see:

Congressional Subpeona Defied Again

On Thursday, July 31 the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee (the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs) held an oversight hearing on sexual assault in the military.

One of the witnesses subpoenaed to testify was Dr. Kaye Whitley. She is the Director of Sexual Assault and Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), a branch of the Department of Defense.

She didn't show up.

Apparently, her commanding officer, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Micheal Dominguez, was told by his commanding officers to order her not to show up. We don't know why.

Watch this video for more details on the hearing, including video of Micheal Dominguez's piss poor reason for ordering someone to break the law.

Steve Johnson - Another No Show

Meet Steve Johnson. Steve Johnson should be in jail. Steve Johnson refused to show up to testify last week in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

A little background on Steve Johnson.

Steve Johnson is currently the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He was nominated to the position on March 4, 2005 by George W. Bush. In order to be confirmed to the position, his appointment had to be approved by the Senate. Steve Johnson's appointment was not a smooth one because of a pesky issue: He was refusing to cancel a planned and paid for study to test pesticides on babies.

The study was called The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, nicknamed CHEERS. The idea behind the study was to find out the effects that certain residential pesticides have on young children, but in order to study the effects, the EPA needed volunteers. They distributed fliers. According to the New York Times:

A recruiting flier for the program... offered $970, a free camcorder, a bib and a T-shirt to parents whose infants or babies were exposed to pesticides if the parents completed the two-year study. The requirements for participation were living in Duval County, Fla., having a baby under 3 months old or 9 to 12 months old, and "spraying pesticides inside your home routinely.

Sam Malone would not endorse this CHEERS.



But Steve Johnson did. During his April 6, 2005 confirmation hearing, Senator Barbara Boxer of California grilled Steve Johnson about this study asking him why such a clearly morally reprehensible study was still being planned by Steve Johnson's EPA (at the time Steve Johnson was already the acting Administrator even though he had not been confirmed for the position). Steve Johnson defended the idea behind the study, which was partially funded by the chemical industry, and refused to promise to cancel the study (watch the questioning here). It was only after three Senators threatened to block his confirmation in the following days that he finally canceled the CHEERS study on April 8th.

So that's the kind of guy we're dealing with.

Fast forward to the present.

The state of California has been trying since December 2005 to raise the emissions and mpg standards for the cars sold in its state beyond the pathetically inadequate standards proposed by the Bush administration. They applied for a waiver from the EPA which would allow them to do so. In the past, these types of waivers have always been granted to the states by the EPA because they only help the environment. But this is George W. Bush's America. Reason and common sense have nothing to do with legislation.

Steve Johnson's EPA dragged its feet on the waiver, refusing to say yes or no to California for 2 years before finally rejecting the waiver in December 2007.

It is believed by many members of Congress who are not on Team Republican that the reason Steve Johnson denied the waiver was because the White House ordered him to do so. From the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform website:

New documents and testimony obtained by the Committee show that EPA career staff unanimously supported granting California’s request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson also supported granting the petition, at least in part, until he communicated with the White House.

The White House then used a claim of executive privilege to stonewall Congress's attempts to confirm their suspicions. But I'll let Henry Waxman tell you about that:



It has been recently discovered that not only is the White House refusing to cooperate with Congress, but Steve Johnson has apparently taken an extra step and ordered the entire EPA to join in on the fun. From The Guardian

In response to the California controversy, the EPA told employees not to talk to internal auditors, Congress or the media, according to a leaked email released yesterday by green campaigners.

In the June 16 email, obtained by the campaign group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer), the EPA told its officials not to answer questions on pollution enforcement - even those from the agency's in-house auditors.

"If you are contacted directly by the [auditors'] office or [congressional investigators] requesting information of any kind … please do not respond to questions or make any statements," the email said.

In response to this information, on Tuesday, July 29th four Democratic Senators made a plea to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into Steve Johnson for perjury and obstruction of Congress. Knowing that Attorney General Micheal Mukasey, chief stonewaller for the Bush administration, would not grant the request for such an investigation (since he has announced that he will block any attempt to prosecute Bush officials for contempt of Congress), the Senators also issued a request for Steve Johnson's resignation.

Apparently, Steve Johnson is not too scared of Congress. The very next day, on July 30th, the Senate Judiciary Committee canceled their hearing titled, "Is the White House Interfering with EPA and Impeding Congressional Oversight?" because of "Administrator Johnson's refusal to attend".

Another F.U. to from a loyal Bushie to Congress. Will they do anything about it?


Have they done anything to Harriet Miers, Josh Bolton, or Karl Rove?