Investments I wish I had made
Oh, how I wish I had invested my retirement in hard liquor and Ibuprophen stocks. According to a new Harris poll, Bush has hit 29 percent. If even a fraction of the lefty bloggers go on a bender tonight, who promised to do so, I would be a rich man by tomorrow. Oh well, I suppose there is still time to invest for the Rove indictment.

Time to pee in the cup
I try not to comment too often on the noise that comes out of O'Reilly, Coulter, and Limbaugh (the larger or the lesser). Usually, what they say is intended to provoke and, in rising to the bait, we merely confirm their delusions that their opinions matter. But, every so often, one of them says something so monumentally dangerous or stupid that it's impossible for me to ignore it. The war on Christmas is one of those things. This nonsense from the larger Limbaugh is another.

On the May 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush contained "Democratic talking points," and "even some liberal Hollywood Jewish people talking point."

The letter covers a list of grievances that have made Bush deeply unpopular among Muslims: The Iraq war, the U.S. support for Israel, and the treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo Bay."

Once again, it's the Democratic talking points, other than Israel, and even there -- yeah, it's [anti-war activist] Cindy Sheehan talking -- it is, you're right. It's Cindy. It's even some liberal Hollywood Jewish people talking point.

Let's take a quick look at Ahmadinejad's record: Islamic fundamentalist, head of a Muslim Middle Eastern state, hates and fears corrupt Western culture, Holocaust denier. Of course he's going to go to liberal Hollywood Jews for his talking points. That makes perfect sense.

I thought one of terms of Rush's sweetheart plea bargain was that he stay off drugs for a year. If I was the DA, I'd have him in for a urine test after a claim like that.

Jackson patronage update
According to ThinkProgress, HUD Inspector General Kenneth M. Donohue, Sr. has opened an investigation into Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson’s possible illegal patronage scheme. Jackson and his people are denying that he ever cancelled a contract like he told a group of realtors he had. I'll get to the denials in bit, but first let's round up some of the interesting points that other bloggers and commenters have brought up.

For quick reference, here's what Jackson told the Dallas Real Estate Executive Council on April 28:

According to the Dallas Business Journal, Mr. Jackson was talking about contract opportunities when he told the audience about a potential advertising contractor who had sought a deal with the Housing and Urban Development department for 10 years.

"He made a heck of a proposal ... so we selected him," Mr. Jackson said. But then, he said, the man told him, "I don't like President Bush."

"He didn't get the contract," Mr. Jackson reportedly said. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

First, why is he telling this story to this audience. The Real Estate Executive Council is a national trade group for minority real estate professionals--business men and women who might conceivable be interested in getting government contracts in the future. He seems to believe that funds given in contracts will be used for political campaigning. Put together, it sounds like he is warning the room full of potential contractors that they had better reinvest that money in supporting the Republican party or the contracts will dry up. Whether or not that message was his intention, how many of those realtors do you think heard that message?

Some people have mentioned the oddness of a cabinet-level secretary involving himself in the minutiae of the contracting process. Others have mentioned how odd it sounded for the contractor to have volunteered the information about disliking Bush. TPM Reader PHB suggests a context that answers both of those problems.

There is only one circumstance I can think of where that reply would come up in a sales call - IF THE CEO WAS ASKED FOR A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.

I certainly would never bring up politics with any customer unless I knew what their politics were in advance and that they were compatible.

The politics issue has to have come from Jackson.

That is why he is making this peculiar statement, what he is really doing here is repeating his internalized self-justification for demanding a bribe and being rebuffed.

Late yesterday, the denials began. Twice in the last week, Jackson's spokeswoman, Dustee Tucker answered questions by Texas newspapers by giving additional details about the cancelled contract. Yesterday afternoon, she suddenly denied that the incident had ever happened. "It’s not a true story. It’s a made-up story," she told the Dallas Morning News, essentially branding her boss a liar. The story was "anecdotal" she told the Dallas Business Journal.

Today, Dustee Tucker is nowhere to be found. Callers at HUD are told she went on vacation and can't be reached. Jackson has taken over his own defense, but it's no different than Tucker's.

I deeply regret the anecdotal remarks I made at a recent Texas small business forum and would like to reassure the public that all HUD contracts are awarded solely on a stringent merit-based process. During my tenure, no contract has ever been awarded, rejected, or rescinded due to the personal or political beliefs of the recipient.

I wonder, is "anecdotal" really the word that Jackson and Tucker intended to use? An anecdotal story is a true story; it's just not necessarily indicative of a pattern. But whether the story is true or not, what would be the point of telling it except to pressure potential contractors into supporting the Republican machine? Of course, that would be nothing more than business as usual for the modern Republican Party.

Bush government values
Ever since Newt Gingrich's revolutionaries took control of Congress in 1994, the face of the Republican party has been one of shameless partisanship and cronyism. As time has gone by, their agenda has been less and less about any kind of values or philosophy and more and more about rewarding their supporters, punishing their opponents, and staying in power. The main difference that the Bush people brought is that they are more open about it, more willing to actually break laws and subvert the constitution, and they have had the convenient cudgel of the war on terrorism to use in silencing critics.

This is hardly a new revelation or an original thought of mine. Hundreds of bloggers write about this every day, a few brave reporters and pundits dare say what's really going on, and one or two office-holding Democrats occasionally make a timid reference to it. When we do we are loudly denounced as far left, conspiracy mongers, pathological Bush haters, elites (which shouldn't be a derogatory term), and traitors.

When caught at their game, the Republican standard defense is that things have always been this way and that the Democrats are just as bad. The professional new media supports this ahistorical lie with their "fair and balanced" and "he said, she said" method of reporting. While the Democrats have produced plenty of their own crooks and fools over the years, the truth is that ours are rank amateurs compared to the current crop of Republicans. This level of patronage and fire-sale looting of the government to enrich supporters hasn't existed at the federal level since the Civil Service reforms of the 1880s.

The Washington pundit caste and the general American public are living in a dangerous state of denial when they embrace the "it's always been this way" apologetics. Most people believe that the American Republic is far more resilient that it really is. They believe that the republic will last forever and that some law of nature guarantees that the pendulum will swing the other direction before any group extremists can do permanent damage to out institutions. Nothing lasts forever and the most likely way the American Republic will end is not through a massive frontal assault by foreign enemies. It will die of neglect. America is not a set of lines on the map or a group of people; it is a set of institutions and values firmly rooted in the Enlightenment. As we allow our leaders to dismantle and undermine those institutions and values, we destroy America. When those institutions and values and values are gone, it won't matter is a piece of territory called the United States remains, America will be gone.

If your friends, relatives, and coworkers, need evidence that "they" really will "do that" and aren't convinced by wiretapping and presidential signing statements, then show them the latest example of fire-sale corruption.

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," [HUD Secretary] Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something … he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don’t like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect — the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don’t tell the secretary.'

"He didn’t get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn’t like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don’t get the contract. That’s the way I believe."

The kind of political test that Jackson is admitting to administering is completely illegal. So far, only two congressmen and a handful of far-left, conspiracy mongering, America-hating, elitist bloggers have complained.

A new level of something
President Bush talking to German reporters. I'm sure that makes some of his handlers very nervous. So far most of Left Blogistan has been talking about his fish story, but my head is ready to explode over this little bit of information:

President Bush said he would like to close the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay — a step urged by several U.S. allies — but was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on how suspects held there might be tried.

For four and a half years the administration has been claiming that the courts have no jurisdiction over their "enemy combatant" prisoners. The whole reason for making up a new category of prisoner and for locating their prison camp outside of US territory was to try and avoid the jurisdiction of US law and US courts. For four and a half years, the administration has tried to say that they can do anything they feel like to and with their prisoners and no court can tell them otherwise. Now, all of the sudden, Bush would love to give all of the prisoners fair trials and close the camp, but the big, bad Supreme Court won't let him.

Aaaarrrrrrrgh!!!

Have I mentioned lately that I really hate this administration?

Need more information
Porter Goss, director ofthe CIA has quit, effective immediately!

Josh Marshall and his team have the first intelligent comment:

[T]he talking heads on CNN were speculating whether Goss's departure might be part of Josh Bolten's 'new blood' shake up in the Bush administration. I don't suppose it anything to do with the fact that Goss is neck deep in the Wilkes-Corruption-and-Hookers story that's been burbling in the background all week. We don't know definitely why Goss pulled the plug yet. But the CIA Director doesn't march over to the White House and resign, effective immediately, unless something very big is up.

I'm with Josh. Heads of government agencies don't just get up one morning and say, "I'd like to spend more time with the kids right now." Something very big is going on. And it's hard not to notice (unless you work for CNN) that this announcement has come only one week after the Hookers-for-votes story--with links to the top of the CIA--was announced. For the most part, the national media has ignored that story all week, prefering to take pictures of gas station price signs. Maybe this will wake them up.

Take a chicken to lunch
According to Granny Insanity, today is International Respect for Chickens Day. Granny has a list of suggestions about how you, as a concerned citizen, can get involved in your community. The Farmer has even more suggestions here.

In the spirit of this august occasion, Let me offer some important chicken triva:

• There are no chickens in the Old Testament.
  
• Chickens are believed to be descended from wild Indian and Southeast Asian Red Junglefowl.
  
• Evolutionists believe the egg came first.
  
• Creationists believe the chicken came first.
  
• Chickens out number people four-to-one on this planet.

Night of the voting dead
Actually, getting the dead to vote is an old Democratic tradition. Maybe we should start some outreach programs for this neglected constituency.

About 100 undead lurched from the Sydney Town Hall to the Opera House today as part of the city's inaugural Zombie Lurch.

Carrying banners that read 'I crave the flesh of the living, and I vote' and 'What do we want? Brains!', the ghouls shambled through the city, watched by police and wary onlookers, to raise awareness of zombie rights.

Another botched execution
Yesterday, the Ohio Department of Corrections attempted to execute Joseph Clark. They eventually succeeded in killing him, but only after trying for 90 minutes.

Spokeswoman Andrea Dean said the execution was delayed about 90 minutes because technicians had trouble initially finding a site in Clark's arm for the intravenous line carrying the chemicals.

Then shortly after the poisons were supposed to have been pumping into his body, she said, he sat up saying, "It's not working. It's not working."

Officials determined that a vein had collapsed. Curtains were closed to block witnesses' view until technicians found a vein in his other arm. They were then parted to reveal him dying, witnesses said.

Most states that execute use the lethal injection method because it has the appearance of being more humane than the old methods of hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, and electric chair. It is not more humane, but it is less messy, and that's what allows them to keep up the all important appearance of humaneness.

For lethal injection, the prisoner is set up with an IV and three chemicals are pumped into them in sequence. The first chemical is supposed to knock the prisoner unconscious. This is the first key to the illusion of humaneness: if the prisoner is asleep, we think they won't feel anything. The death is supposed to be like freezing to death: the victim grows tired and numb, falls asleep, and never wakes up. More importantly for the illusion, an unconscious victim doesn't make noise or show pain the way a conscious one would. In the execution of Joseph Clark this part of the humane execution failed.

The second chemical induces paralysis in all the muscles of the body except the heart. If nothing else is done, the prisoner will slowly and painfully suffocate when their chest muscles stop working. If the prisoner is not completely asleep, they feel that pain. The main purpose of paralysis is to keep the condemned from flopping around and upsetting the witnesses. Many states have laws against using these drugs to kill unwanted animals, but we still use them to kill unwanted humans.

The third chemical induces a heart attack. Heart attacks can be very painful, but they are not always fatal. Once again, if the prisoner is not completely asleep, they feel that pain. And, if the first heart attack isn't fatal, they lie there suffocating while the medical technician prepares a second heart attack.

There simply is no humane or civilized way to kill people. As long as we continue to kill, we will not be a humane or civilized society.

Poll watching
Two new presidential approval polls have come out this week (CBS and Gallup). Both put Bush at all time lows for their poll. I think most major polls now have him at or below 35 percent and still falling. This raises a couple of important questions:

• Do you think the current slate of crises, with gas prices being the most irksome to the public at large, will be enough to push him into the twenties?
  
• If not, which budding crisis or scandal do you think will push him below thirty?
  
• How do you plan to celebrate when he hits 29?
  
• What date did you pick in the pool for 29?
  
• What kind of stunt do you think Karl is planning to bring his boss' numbers up?
  
• Do you think it will work?
  
• What date did you pick in the pool for the stunt?