No secret is it that the republicans want to have a country that is something akin to what they seem to believe the idyllic world of Wally and the Beav lived in was like.

They want to go back to the 50s. Or the 40s. Some of them have never left. Like Vern Ehlers, repubican of Michigan.

Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R-MI]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It always amazes me how the Lord manages to turn evil to good. And this is a good example of that; how under the terrible abuse and sin of slavery came the beautiful spirituals that we are honoring in this particular resolution. It is a real national treasure. It is something that I grew up with.

I recall my family, in which we had a number of musicians. Very frequently we were singing Negro spirituals, and in groups at church we would sing Negro spirituals, and yet look where this music came from, out of the terrible black mark on the history of this country when we had slavery over half the Nation. And yet the human response guided by God came out of these people and produced this beautiful, beautiful music. It is a heritage we all have, it is a heritage we must enjoy and, above all, a heritage that we must honor, as we are honoring in this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I'm guessing that he probably did not walk back to his seat in the chamber and don his white hood; he likely waited until he left for the day.

In sort of fairness to Mr. Ehlers another Member used the same phrase, "Negro Spirituals" but not in the same Step-n-Fetchit way that triggers such fond memories for the Honorable Mr. Ehlers:

Growing up in the rural South in the 1950s, we grew up on what was then called the Negro spiritual, and many of these songs, of course, had great meaning, especially the lyrics. I remember, "Follow the Old Man" that is "Coming to Carry Me to Freedom" if you "Follow the Drinking Gourd." Well, gourds supposedly grew northward, and if you followed the direction of the gourd, you would get out of the slave South back during slavery and the abolitionist period, and you would be headed north. And so not only did these songs sound good, not only were they spiritually uplifting as one that I heard on this past Sunday at the Second Baptist Church in Maywood, Illinois, but they also were didactic; they were teaching and inspirational.

It sort of reminds me of that famous scene in "Blazing Saddles" where the railroad bosses led by Burton Gilliam's character ("Lyle"), try to get the workers to sing one of them "... Work songs". Exactly which group came off looking like the idiots there? Oh, the republicans railroad bosses.

I get no kick from Champagne. But this strikes me as sort of grimly amusing, in that I love to watch a fascist make a fool of themselves way.

Would that (something) be Bullshit? Listen to the Media Notes Golden Ho', Howard K:

Pelosi may be right on the substance, but the symbolism is awful. She insists she didn't ask for the plane, but if a military flight is needed, she wants a nonstop to San Francisco. The average voter will be left wth an image of her flying around on a jumbo jet in the lap of luxury.

Gee, does anyone remember how well the Big Cry-Baby Newt "I am the future of the republican party" Gingrich did after he was "slighted" by The Big Dog? Seems that he left town just ahead of the torches and pitchforks, and that was just the republican torch-and-pitchfork brigade. The Manufactured Outrage machine goes on.

I suggest Mrs. Pelosi and her hubby buy fractional ownership in a really nice Gulfstream, and write it all off as a non-reimbursed business expense. Hell, they can afford it. But that's not really the question here. If the republicans had maintained control of the House, would anyone be bitching if David Drier had become Speaker (unlikely, that) and asked for a bigger plane to fly coast-to-coast. No. Any Democrat who could even get floor time to talk about it would be branded "unpatriotic America-haters" for wishing the Speaker ill.

So, why do the republicans hate America anyhow?

Just noticed, after reading a post over at skippy that DemVet is getting dumped by other bloggers. After four-plus years, I guess it was bound to happen. My posting is less frequent because my new job involves shift work (they never told me that happened to MBAs) and my visits have gone from around 500/day a year or so ago to under 200.

So ________ and _________ have dumped me ("A" listers). I've often wondered if this quote from Jon Swift was true to some extent (via skippy, of course):

a couple of years ago new york magazine examined who linked to whom in the blogosphere and they discovered that a-list blogs tend to link mostly to other a-list blogs. this elitism strikes me as strangely un-liberal and un-democratic. ironically, major conservative bloggers are on average more inclusive of smaller blogs than major liberal bloggers. although i haven't made a scientific survey, i have noticed that for the most part the blogrolls on the top conservative blogs tend to be bigger than the blogrolls on top liberal blogs. glenn reynolds of instapundit has more than 250 links. michelle malkin has 137. captain's quarters has a whopping 374. compared with them, the blogrolls at the major liberal blogs look downright stingy. they also tend to link to a wider variety of blogs in their posts. that being said both liberals and conservatives tend to link mostly to their own ideological bedfellows.

i think that perhaps the liberal blogosphere could learn something from the conservative blogosphere. for example, there are a number of conservative communities that blogs can join which give their members numerous crosslinks. this tends to raise their profile in technorati rankings, truth laid bear rankings and in google page rank. in his recent post on blogrolling markos said, "a blogroll link isn't a major source of traffic," which may indeed be the case for his blog but not necessarily for those who get a few million fewer hits than he does. he also doesn't take into account the fact that the more links a blog has, the higher it appears in search engines. according to new york magazine, the number of links a blog has tends to correspond with how much traffic it gets.

limiting blogrolls to a few elite blogs, also reduces the diversity. apparently, affirmative action is good for universities, but doesn't apply to blogs. although i am opposed to quotas and am completely colorblind, i would not be surprised if my blogroll is in fact more diverse than those of many major liberal blogs. some bloggers of color have even learned at their peril not to rock the boat too much or risk getting delinked.

I don't think I'll stop blogging just yet, but it is disappointing to see that the "A-listers" are consolidating their lists to each other alone. Their blogrolls belong to them, and they can do with them whatever the fuck they want, but carrying on conversations with the same folks is what led to a certain bubbl-ishous Preznit we all know and loathe. I suspect that Atrios is probably correct to revise his links based on "hmmmm...where's that blog again", I don't know about others who have "cleaned house".

I guess maybe it's a learned behaviour. The more famous/powerful/self-important you are, the less your shit doesn't stink. To you.

Yah, so what's the biggest debate that's raging right now in the Congress? How to stand up to Commander Bunnypants? Nah... it's how to not let the republican smear machine paint the Democrats as wusses and hang the "loss" of the Iraq War on them.

We all know that they will distort the truth no matter what we do to suit their own ends. So here's my suggestion, as someone who served first under Jimmy Carter and finally under Bill Clinton: Don't let 'em.

Simplistic. Why yes, Gladys it is. Glad you pointed that out. But here's how, and Russ Feingold said tonight on Countdown what I have been thinking for a long time.

Point out that troops at home will not be getting blown up by Iraqi's of every creed who hate them. Keep pointing that out. It's no longer a matter of "winning" that misbegotten adventure. After all, how many Bush children are serving in The Noble Cause. Exactly. None.

So to show that we support our troops and not the bat-shit crazy insane assholes (and Joe Lieberman) who want to keep sending young men and women on patrols in a useless effort to prop up the vanity of Preznit Caligula Nero Bushus here's my humble proposal.

(1) No RIF. Bring the troops home, and put them to work retraining, rearming and rebuilding the Armed Forces. Some attrition will happen, but recruiting and planning can take care of that. RIFFING is bad for morale, and right now bad morale will be blamed on the Democrats. This is not a republican "business-model HR/Management excercise", but the lives of our soldiers willing to lay it all down for us.

(2) Guaranteed Improved GI Bill. Toss that Montgomery GI Bill into the shitter; come up with a plan like what was available after WWII, keep any parts of the current system that are popular, but get rid of the rest and make the bills benefits available for life to honorably discharged Iraq and Afghan vets, retroactive to 9/12/01.

(3) Legislate parity between Guard/Reserve and Active duty units that have served in the Gulf. The guard and reserves have played a vital role in these missions; and they are second class citizens in many ways in terms of benefits and retirement. That ought to change. Now.

(4) Improved VA health care for vets; the VA system has been systematically raped by the republicans for years. It's time to upgrade it, and to build it into a first-class medical care system for all vets.

You know, all this costs money. But so does keeping folks not named Bush on the ground in Iraq. It seems that money spent on keeping our soldiers at home, and doing all the things I mentioned will be dollars well spent as opposed to pissed away on George and Dick's favorite contractors du jour and al-Maliki's Swiss bank account. Oh, and arming Sadr so he can kill more American men and women.

Note: updated this morning to add some additional points.

Ah, the ghost of the old Nixon Imperial Prez coming rattling its chains, long since thought buried along with the mouldering corpse of Tricky Dicky. I speak, of course, of the TAPES of Scooter at the Grand Jury. Apparently, Scooter was quite the talker, and it seems he might have implicated his boss Spiro Cheney in some rather unsavory goings-on.

You know, the crowd who loves national security except when those pesky political considerations get in the way. Alas, the adults who allegedly "came back" to the White House seem to be more like teenagers intent on cleaning out dear old dad's likker cabn't and then lying about it.

On the tapes, Libby said that Cheney did not tell him Plame's CIA identity was "super-super-secret" and that he used a "curious" tone unlike his regular voice, which "was much more matter-of-fact and straight."

Fucking assholes. They'll classify anything to avoid embarassing themselves, but dump reams of classified material into the their sewer of discourse to further pollute the atmosphere they've fouled by their politically-motivated actions.

The 1600 Crew truly is an example of the best government money can buy... and it's not very good, is it?

1. Livin' in the 50's
   
2. When it's all (something), and not a drop of substance...
   
3. The blogroll mass-acree?
   
4. The Debate
   
5. A crook is just a crook...