:: We Should Not Vote for Obama

If we do something, things still might stay the same.
If we do nothing, we KNOW they will stay the same.

I didn't think I could get any more disgusted. But here we go again.

This is tonight's edition of the New York Times' Opinionator, written by Chris Suellentrop. Here's the link, but I'm going to quote the whole thing here.

Emphasis added:

Maybe it was her night after all: Hillary Clinton decided not to withdraw from the presidential campaign tonight, and the liberals in blogville are not happy about it, to put it mildly.

Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic begins his blog post on Clinton’s speech by writing, “I probably shouldn’t write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I’ve found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different.”

He continues, "I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who’ve been enabling her behavior, I’d say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain’s most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton’s payroll."

At The American Prospect’s Tapped blog, Dana Goldstein calls Clinton’s speech “troublesome.” “The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary’s entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters — instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama,” Goldstein writes. “Yes, there’s a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made ‘invisible?’ Who’s supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over. Hillary tonight was a woman standing down more than half her party’s supporters and practically the entire Democratic establishment.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait uses even tougher language. “I’d say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama,” he writes at The Plank, TNR’s staff blog. Chait also writes of the speech:

“Incredible. She justifies her continuing the campaign by saying that she finished the campaign. She doesn’t concede that Obama has a majority of delegates, let alone that he’s won. She repeats her bogus popular vote argument. She congratulates Obama’s campaign on its “achievements,” but barely musters a single good word about him.”

Chait’s colleagues at The New Republic are almost as exercised. Isaac Chotiner, also writing at The Plank, calls the speech “combative and petty” and headlines his post, “A Total Disgrace.” He concludes, “If Clinton wants people to believe that she cares more about the Democratic Party than her own career, she is failing badly.” Noam Scheiber says the speech was “outrageous,” “delusional,” and “inflammatory.” Scheiber writes at The Stump, TNR’s campaign blog:

“What good could possibly come of this? With Hillary proclaiming herself the legitimate winner, they’re clearly going to say “keep going.” If she actually does keep going, that’s a disaster for the Democratic Party. And if she doesn’t, you’ve just drawn a ton of attention to the fact that a large chunk of the party doesn’t accept Obama as the legimiate nominee. No, worse: you’ve encouraged them to think that, then drawn attention to it. What a disaster.”

End quote.

So, according to these geniuses, the number one priority is healing the rift in the party and bringing Hillary's supporters over to Obama. So say Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam.

In fact, they criticize Hillary for being "petty," "combative," and "inflammatory."

And yet it's Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam who go out of their way to insult Hillary, her staff and her supporters. They cannot muster one gracious word. They can't stifle one petty, combative, inflammatory comment. Apparently they just can't help it. Their nastiness - their hatred just brims over.

And that angry, angry Bill Clinton! Why, Obama's bully boys would never show anger! No, Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam are the very picture of cool and conciliatory thinking.

And they wonder why we don't want to join them.

Can they not hear themselves?

Are they stupid?

Or are they still so high off the past six months of proclaiming how much more intelligent, more ethical, more strategic, more educated and more wealthy they are than those lowly Clinton supporters that they've burnt out a critical mass of brain cells?

Are they addicted to the ego boost?

Is Obamamania the political equivalent of crack? And are these guys too far gone to be saved?

The answer to all those questions is "yes," especially #3.

These guys have breathed in - and out - the fumes from so many self-congratulatory Obama homages and ego-boosting anti-Clinton bromides that they have lost their critical faculties.

Political crackheads. That's what we're left with.

Well, I'm not having it and I don't think you should either.

As the video I posted earlier says, we loathe Ronald Reagan for having tacitly allowed the so-called Southern Strategy to drum up racist support for his 1980 campaign.

Barack Obama has tacitly allowed a - what shall we call it? Testosterone strategy? That doesn't even do it justice. Its an insult to testosterone. What do you call it when a candidate walks on stage to Jay-Z's "[I've got] 99 Problems [but a bitch ain't one]"? A Prick Strategy? Well, that will have to do.

To get elected, Reagan benefited from the racist Southern Strategy. He never denounced the racism drummed up on his behalf.

To get elected, Obama benefited from the sexist, misogynist Prick Strategy. He's never denounced the sexism and misogyny slung on his behalf.

And I doubt he ever will.

Look, we don't need to agonize over this. Obama and his supporters don't want support from feminists. They don't respect us. This is not a hard decision.

In November, I will vote down-ballot. But I won't vote for President. (Forget doing a write-in, no one counts them). And then I will look for the total numbers of votes cast, and the total numbers of votes cast for President. Subtract the total number of votes cast for President from the total number of votes cast for a down-ballot item. The remainder is the protest vote.

Say No in November.

We can do it!


Read more!

:: All right I've had just about enough of you people

Seriously. If I have to watch yet another dumb-ass Democratic political male tearfully apologize for something he knew was wrong while he'd been doing it for years, I'm going to join the Southern Baptist Convention. And if I have to read yet another 3rd wave feminist screed about how all the second wave feminists are thoughtless bigots, I am just going to vote for McCain. And finally, if I have to read again about how a Clinton supporter has made an idiotic or misguided comment, I'm going to vote for Ralph Nader. Happily, I don't have to respond to any of these because since everyone must have something to say in response to somebody's article or blog, someone has already responded for me. But still, I'm about to declare myself an election-free zone. Wake me when we've got a nominee.

Instead, I choose to meditate on issues like whether baby koalas can hold their own eucalyptus leaves.
Tiny Baby Koala


Ahhh...that's better....
Read more!

:: "The Daily Dish" (of hot, steaming crap)

Andrew Sullivan stars in his own horrorshow: "I Am Moron."

Who would have thought that celebrity gay blogger Andrew Sullivan would ever find a point of agreement with Saudi fundamentalists on a social issue?

Long story short: Sullivan's latest column argues that Hillary's candidacy violates the spirit and intent of the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. That's the one that limits a President to two terms of office:

We also confront the issue of the 22nd amendment. I don't like it, but it's there. In fact, we may have the 22nd Amendment to thank for our current predicament. Bill Clinton should have been able to run for a third term in the full light of day under traditional democratic rules. Instead, we now have to grapple with re-electing him to a third (and even fourth) term via his wife. Yes, they narrowly fit the letter of the Constitution, but they sure do violate its spirit and intent.

Because, as the Saudis know so well, wives are not individual people. They are simply an extension of their husbands (or fathers, or oldest male relative). Legal rights apply to the man of the house; the little lady falls under his jurisdiction. Women don't need identity cards or passports, because it would be redundant - they are already listed as part of the nearest male's collection of chattel. And running for office? If you have a husband / father / brother in office, its redundant as well. You belong to him; he's an office-holder; therefore if you were elected to office it would mean your owner is occupying two political seats. And that just wouldn't be fair now, would it?

But maybe Sullivan has a point with regard to Constitutional intent. The 22nd amendment was added in the 20th century, but if you think about the Framers' Intent (cue dramatic music) you'll remember that they saw no reason for women, or slaves, to have the right to vote. Why bother, when they would only be reflecting their master's will? To allow a man's property to vote would be to violate the principle of 'one man, one vote.'

And so, in America's greatest throwdown on the role of women in society in the last thirty years, Sullivan enters the fray riding an enormous pig - a sexist pig.

Bareback, of course.

*photo, left: Andy and the pig he rode in on

Read more!

:: There's Conservative, and Then There's Just Plain Dumb, and Then There is Evil - and Sometimes All Three"

Zippy’s post below "There’s conservative, and then there’s just plain dumb" describes Mike Huckabees weird-ass answer to a softball question about the Global Fund for AIDS, Malaria and TB.

[And really, who doesn’t support the Global Fund? No one, that’s who. The Global Fund has so much support that they're richer than many countries; hell, they're probably richer than Jesus. Of course you say you support the Global Fund, you nitwit, and then talk about the great work they are doing to prevent malaria and tuberculosis. Or you say you support the Global Fund, and add something about how America needs to use its moral influence to ensure their policies don’t do harm along with good. For the love of Rhoda, is it that hard?]

Not surprisingly, I had what you might call “a reaction” of my own to the news about Huckabee. It seems that not only did he support quarantines back in the day -- he continues to support them now. (Yes. Still. Now. I’m not making this up. To paraphrase the best line in Blair Witch Project– I’m not that fucking creative.) That Huckabee doesn't do the obvious thing and say "yeah, changed my mind about the whole quarantine thing - a bit too Castro, IMHO" is really just so fucking typical of these people. (And by “these people” I mean our homegrown corn-fed proto-fascists).

Huckabee refuses to recant his position, but has indicated he would like to lie about it now.

As a Senate candidate in 1992, Huckabee told the AP in a questionnaire that "we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague" if the federal government was going to deal with the spread of the disease effectively. "It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents," he said then.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Huckabee denied that those words were a call to quarantine the AIDS population, although he did not explain how else isolation would be achieved. "I didn't say we should quarantine," he said. The idea was not to "lock people up."

Huckabee acknowledged the prevailing scientific view then, and since, that the virus that causes AIDS is not spread through casual contact, but said that was not certain.

"I still believe this today," Huckabee said Sunday, that "we were acting more out of political correctness" in responding to the AIDS crisis. "I don't run from it, I don't recant it," he said of his position in 1992. Yet he said he would state his view differently in retrospect.

Huckabee also stated in 1992 that HIV/AIDS research was receiving too much federal funding.

Now, even the most obtuse moral relativist – someone who would just as soon see male hairdressers and florists burnt at the stake so long as it was approved by a local majority vote - could see how Huckabee’s ideological take on this issue ran counter to our interest in public health. If a quarantine were justified because AIDS, like “plague,” could be spread by casual contact, thereby causing mass fatalities – wouldn’t you want to spend more on research, not less? I mean, who says “we have an epidemic of deadly plague sweeping through America’s cities, and we’re spending way too much on stopping it”? That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. For real – you only say that if you have no problem with the impact of the plague on the afflicted population. Or if you are a moron. Or if you are a complete sociopath.

From the sound of things, Huckabee may well be all three. So I guess that’s my answer to your question, Zippy.

The Washington Post has a good editorial about Huck and the plague, thereby illustrating the “broken clock is right twice a day” principle. Shockingly, its worth a read.

My prediction – which I shared with Scientist-at-Large before I saw this article, thank you very much –is Huckabee will meet with Ryan White's mom for a mushy photo op and it will be "no harm, no foul" according to the MSM. (And if Mom White says something negative about Huck, or refuses to meet with him at all, watch for the obligatory “Cindy Sheehan” hatchet job). Meanwhile the base will get the message, sub rosa, that should the opportunity arise he’ll be first in line to stick it to the homos.

Read more!

:: Amnesty, Aguilera and the Birth of a Hoax

An anti-choice group has duped the press into promoting a hoax

to hurt Amnesty International

This is how a hoax is born. Today’s topic: Christina Aguilera, Amnesty International and the Vatican-sponsored boycott of Amnesty.

[For more about this intensely solipsistic boycott, see Zippy’s post "Oh, I forgot that human rights were only for boys" and "Irish Times Column on Amnesty and Abortion"].

On June 19, 2007, a sad little group called Rock for Life sent out a press release called “Musical heavyweights duped in the name of Darfur; CD raises cash for pro-abortion Amnesty International.”

Washington, D.C. — "The human suffering going on right now in Darfur is horrific," said Erik Whittington, American Life League's youth outreach director and director of Rock for Life. "To add insult to injury, however, using this tragic abuse of human rights to raise money for a pro-abortion organization is hypocritical and beyond belief."

“Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur,” a double-disc CD whose proceeds will support Amnesty International, hit record stores on June 12. Featuring covers of John Lennon tunes, the CD is loaded with music heavyweights including U2, Christina Aguilera, Avril Lavigne, Green Day and many more. As part of the fundraiser, Yoko Ono donated the rights and publishing royalties from Lennon’s songs to Amnesty International as well.

We will be educating not only the youth of America on Amnesty International’s pro-abortion policies,” said Whittington, “but the artists as well. We intend to send information on Amnesty International and its support for abortion to all of the artists participating in this project. Hopefully, they will stop supporting Amnesty International and its advocacy of the greatest human rights abuse of all time – abortion.

The press release appears to serve the dual purpose of threatening Amnesty with repercussions and rewarding them by promoting their fundraising CD. No small feat, that, but despite the creative messaging the story got no traction until Monday, when the Times (UK) ran an article called “Pro-life Rockers Clash with Amnesty.”

The second paragraph of this article is:

The group [Amnesty] has been accused of “duping” the singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion and are among contributors to an Amnesty CD released to raise money for survivors of the atrocities in Darfur.

Hmmm. It would appear that Rock for Life’s effort has paid off – two of the artists on Amnesty’s CD are pro-life and now feel betrayed because they were tricked into raising money for a pro-abort group. Wow - good work, kids!

But wait a sec – what’s this? Rock for Life’s own website lists Aguilera as “pro abortion” with the mysterious notation “March for Women’s Lives.” So who is right – Rock for Life, or Rock for Life?

Here’s what I think: a reporter asked Rock for Life’s Erik Whittington if any of the musicians on the CD actually felt duped, and Whittington threw out two names. Either he didn't bother to check his own website first, or he gambled on the reporters being too lazy to do any fact-checking. If so, that was a good bet because the reporters didn't check the facts. Way down in paragraphs 11 and 12, we read:

The views of singers who have contributed to the album - who also include George Harrison’s son Dhani - on Amnesty’s change of heart are not yet clear.

But Aguilera, 26, is a devout American Catholic. She is reportedly expecting her first child and has taken part in a television show in which she interviewed a teenager who had kept her baby rather than have an abortion.

The “evidence” that Aguilera is offended is based not on any she has said - instead, it is inferred from the information that she is (1) a "devout" Catholic, (2) a mother, and (3) once talked to teenager who had a baby.

Of course, the reporters don't tell us that:

1. Aguilera participated in the 2004 March for Women’s Lives;
2. Aguilera’s videos are not the work of a “devout Catholic” [no link; you know what I'm talking about], nor is there any evidence that she has called herself that; and
3. Aguilera interviewed the baby-bearing teenager, among others, as part of an MTV special on sexual and reproductive health and rights in advance of the 2004 elections (and you know what a bastion of conservative thinking MTV is, especially on the topic of sex).

The Times interweaves its bit of myth-making with the unfounded claim that Amnesty will face serious repercussions because its policy change has offended the Catholic church. It exaggerates the influence of the church’s directives on ordinary Catholics and, by doing so, actively contributes to the pressure campaign to punish Amnesty. And it allows Rock for Life to claim a wildly popular celebrity as an ally without any evidence and against all probability.

And then, the step that is essential to mythmaking takes place: subsequent news stories quote the incorrect original article, and repeat its claims as if they are factual. Hey, if you attribute a claim to its source, you don’t need to do fact-checking, right? No, you’re off the hook because you’re not reporting on facts; you are reporting on what another reporter said!

The following day WorldNetDaily ran with “Pro-life rock stars 'duped' by Amnesty: Anti-torture group's new support for abortion called betrayal of musicians on fundraising CD.”

The article includes a pic of Aguilera and states:

Amnesty International, which formally announced two weeks ago a new worldwide policy backing women's right to abortion in some cases, is being charged with having "duped" pro-life pop stars who contributed their time and talents to a CD released to raise money by the anti-torture group for victims of violence in Darfur.

"The human suffering going on right now in Darfur is horrific," said Erik Whittington, American Life League's youth outreach director and director of Rock for Life, an organization of anti-abortion musicians.

"To add insult to injury, however, using this tragic abuse of human rights to raise money for a pro-abortion organization is hypocritical and beyond belief," he said.

In particular, Whittington accused Amnesty of deceiving singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion, according to the London Sunday Times.”

As you can see, the first paragraph uses the passive voice to make it sound as if the singers themselves are angry with Amnesty, and doesn't clarify the matter until paragraph four. And Aguilera's appearance on the MTV special in which she talked to a former teen mother has morphed into "made statements against abortion."

And Rock for Life doesn't need to another thing, because the celebrity factor of the story sells itself. The word is out: organizations that support the right to choose will face serious consequences.

By now the WorldNetDaily story has been picked up by a slew of online publications, and I doubt any of them will do their own fact checking. The claims will be repeated until they become “true” and voila! instant celebrity support for the Amnesty boycott. In fact, I just received my first email from an Aguilera fan (yes, I know an Aguilera fan) who was disappointed that she has taken such a reactionary stand on Amnesty, and I've seen a few blog entries / comments deriding her as a hypocrite for calling herself "devout" when she so manifestly (again, the videos) is not.

I really hope Aguilera is offended by this misuse of her name and makes a statement of support for Amnesty. And I hope she commits to doing a special fundraiser for them, because it would be great if Rock for Life's adventures in mythmaking resulted in more, not less funding for Amnesty - not to mention sending the message to these liars that yes, the truth actually matters.

Epilogue

I was just catching up with The Daily Howler and saw this paragraph, which I think bears repeating given that I ascribe bias to the reporters from the Times and WorldNetDaily.

We’re all accustomed to analyzing the press corps’ work in terms of bias. That’s an important type of discussion, but it sometimes obscures the astounding incompetence of this least-capable cohort. And let’s be clear: The mainstream press can survive such blunders because they alone, among American professions, control what is written about themselves. In other professions, clownish incompetence gets discussed in the press. But when the press corps bumbles in its time-honored ways, nary a word is spoken.

Indeed.

Epilogue II

I just contacted the good people at the official Christina Aguilera website - http://www.christinaaguilera.com/ - and asked whether Aguilera has said anything about abortion, Amnesty, etc. So far the replies I have gotten indicate that she hasn't said anything about being anti-abortion, about being displeased with Amnesty, or even about being a devout Catholic. Some of the fans say she even went through a phase where she took to calling herself "Xtina" to emphasize, oh, well, you get the picture. And yes, I had to join the fan club to get access to their fan forums. This is what my life has become.

Epilogue III

Several hours later, a growing number of conservative, pro-life and even completely neutral sites have picked up the Times story and running it as if Aguilera and Lavigne were the ones who said they feel duped by Amnesty. They are also repeating the bit about Aguilera having made anti-abortion statements. And no one is doing their own fact-checking. Of course. These are links to some of the stories.

• "Christina and friends blast Amnesty International"
  
• "Rockers may abandon Amnesty International"
• "Unexpected Pro-Life Activism: Artists Slam Amnesty's Abortion Shift"
• "Pro-life Bloggers Clash with Amnesty" - and this is on an important Sudan activism hub website, with no fact-checking, no clarifications and no way to comment. Nice.
• "Amnesty and Abortion"
• "Pro-Life Rockers CLASH with Amnesty"
• "Well It Wasn't a Joint Statement" ("You know it is an odd day when the USCCB and Christina Aguilera both issue statements against Amnesty International for their change on abortion.")
• "Pro-life Rockers Clash with Amnesty's New Abortion Policy"
  
• "Pro-life Activism from Unexpected Quarters: Artists Slam Amnesty's Abortion Shift"
• "Cardinal Resigns from Amnesty Over Abortion Row"

Read more!

:: Oh, what a beautiful MORRRRRNING!

I don't know where to begin. I had tears in my eyes. I ran around in circles. I was 8 in the morning and I just didn't know who to call. Was it the first sonogram of my niece/nephew to be? No, it was not. It was the news of AG Gonzalez' resignation. It was like a gift. I couldn't believe it.

I had hoped and dreamed this day would come (actually, my real dream was that he would be indicted, but as this White House has shown again and again that they are not troubled by such small concepts as "the law" or "ethics").

I also couldn't believe that they released the news first thing Monday morning, allowing evening news broadcasts plenty of time to build their stories.

I realize that there's not much to say here that hasn't already been said. But please. Hold forth. Say it anyway. Read more!

:: Mean Streets

Walking home the other day I got the feeling I was being followed. I am almost always wrong about this, but not this time. My evasive maneuvers succeeded in keeping a reasonable distance between me and this fellow, who had the classic crackhead appearance (i.e. he looked like Flavor Flav, bless his heart) and was drinking with wicked abandon from a paper bag-clad forty. Unfortunately, while I kept out of range of grabbing, I was not out of range of hearing. So when my future new acquaintance asked me a question, I had to choose whether to ignore him or engage.

I have no problem ignoring people, but the question seemed innocuous and I felt physically secure. “No,” I responded, “this is not the natural color of my hair.”

What ensued was a very disjointed discussion of how long hair dye lasts (“because I can see yours is already growing out”), what products do the job best, and whether or not my now new acquaintance should color all of his hair or just the bit above the ears where grey was showing.

“How much grey do you have?” he asked. Plenty, I replied. “See, I’m 38 and I have just this much. How old are you?” he countered. I gave him a look that indicated he had reached the outer border of my tolerance. “Let me guess,” he said, “ummm… 40?”

40? 40 !? 40 !?!!!??!!!!!!?!!!!!??!!!!!!!!?

I am many things, but 40 is not one of them. I suddenly remembered the old Margaret Cho bit about the pros and cons of having a gay male fanbase. Yes, its great to be sent a fabulous salon product as a token of appreciation - but less so when you realize it is recommended for dry, brittle, listless hair.

It was at that juncture that I parted company with this evil, drunken queen, who headed vaguely in the direction of CVS. I headed home for an appointment with my bathroom mirror, a pair of tweezers, and some doomed newly-sprouted grays. I wasn’t mugged, but I think my hair was. In one of the gayest zip codes in the country, the streets are just not safe for hair. Read more!

:: Oh, I forgot that human rights were only for boys

Ok, I can't hold back any longer. I have resisted talking about the Catholic flap over Amnesty International's long overdue decision to recognize that punishing women who have had an abortion, or refusing to treat women with injuries from an unsafe abortion, or refusing to provide an abortion to a woman whose life or health would be threatened by a pregnancy, or forcing a woman whose been raped to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, is a violation of human rights.

Now, I could go on about how long it took for Amnesty to take a friggin' position on FORCED PREGNANCY. For several years now they've had a project on preventing violence against women, but never came out and addressed whether access to safe and legal abortion was a human rights issue. However, after two years of debate among the national chapters, the international organization finally developed an opinion -- and frankly a darn good one.

But instead I'd like to go on about the fixation of the Vatican on their position. Oh. My. God. (And I do mean mine, because clearly mine is different from theirs.) The only next step I see for the Vatican is to say openly and plainly that a fetus is worth more than the woman who carries it, and that women really do deserve to be punished.

As it is, the Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Bertone, comes pretty darn close:

"Even the life that is the result of violence should be saved," said the cardinal in an interview today with Vatican Radio.

"Even though they are persons in gestation, they are persons, they are human subjects, with all the dignity of a human being," he added.

Why don't people get this?? It's simple people. You can whine about how yucky abortion is, about how all the pro-choicers talk about is "Our body, our right," as if there were noone else involved. Ok, I get that one chant can oversimplify an issue, but let's try this one on for size:

THE VATICAN, THE GOP, ANTI-CHOICE EVANGELICAL CONSERVATIVES DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN. They will sacrifice your life in a snap in order to save a fetus. They will jail you. You can be raped, you can be dying, it doesn't matter. You are worth more to them as a dead martyr than a living member of society. In fact, I'm not even sure about that -- there was a time when women who died in childbirth were not allowed to be buried in the church graveyard. Anyone know if that's still true?

Sigh...

I'm sorry for the outburst, but every morning I read the news coming from the Vatican and I just get ticked off. Those self-righteous, mysogynist $&*#s. Read more!

:: Happy Trails to Turd Blossom

First of all, I thought Ciccina was commenting on the resignation of Karl Rove in her earlier post, not rubbing our faces in your vacation snaps! I see your sunset over Stromboli, and raise you a day on the beach in Ipanema!

Now, back to the topic at hand: Karl Rove. Turd Blossom. Author of Evil. He's resigned, to "spend more time with his family." Um...his boy's in college now. I think the time to correct misdeeds is over. But gosh, is it perhaps harder to avoid a congressional subpoena in the middle of Texas than suburban DC? Or will he now be able to manipulate more elections and make more money doing it in the private sector?

Only the shadow knows. Or perhaps my Fierce and Fair Fellow Bloggeresses... Read more!

:: Get Back Under Your Rock, Goddammit!

Update: Yesterday Wolfie blew off a meeting with the WB board, and the WB board decided to start an "urgent" investigation into whether the WB should blow off Wolfie, with a decision expected the week of 23 April.

* * *

This is the latest on the World Bank's "other" scandal - no, not the girlfriend one... this is the one I wrote about here. But just to recap: one of Wolfie's deputies, a likely Opus Dei minion, oversaw a revision of the Bank's country strategy paper for Madagascar that removed the references to family planning, contraception, etc. Activists kicked up a fuss, European government ministers got chuffed, and now we hear from said deputy (Juan Jose Daboub) that it was all a misunderstanding... this is from a leaked internal WB memo written by Daboub:

“Regarding the Madagascar CAS, none of the editorial changes that were made at my direction changed, or intended to change, the Bank Group's program in the area of family planning. These changes were simply intended to clarify what I understood to be the Bank's role in this area, given the roles of other donors… I am here to carry out professionally and faithfully the Bank's policies. The policy on Reproductive Health is clear, had been endorsed by the Board and in place for many years; it has been followed by the President, the Staff and me, as reflected in projects and programs brought and to be brought to the Board. We understand and respect our partner countries' decision on this subject.”

Oddly, Daboub's statement contradicts real life, at least according to WB staff and a Government Accountability Project investigation. As reported by the LA Times:

Yet internal e-mails obtained by the Government Accountability Project appear to indicate otherwise. Referring to Daboub as the "MD," an acronym for his title as managing director, Madagascar country programcoordinator Lilia Burunciuc wrote to colleagues on March 8, 2007: "One of the requests received from the MD was to take out all references to family planning. We did that."Burunciuc added that this is "a potential problem for us" because Madagascar had made a "strong request for help" on family planning in the document, which serves as a three-to four-year plan for the goals a country wants to achieve with the bank's help. Madagascar identified improved family planning as one of its national commitments.

Yet a copy of the report includes edits and deletions, which a bank staffer said were made by Daboub's office, showing that specific targets to boost contraceptive use were cut and broader aims were rewritten. In one graphic, the words "improved quality of health services to ensure easy access, affordability and reliability" were inserted in place of "improved access and provision of contraceptives."

For a good analysis of how this situation reflects on Wolfie, read this op-ed by the Guardian’s Sara Bosley. Sample:

If [Daboub's] conscience prevented him from carrying out bank policy, he should quit. If he does not quit, he should be sacked... What this episode suggests is chaotic management. How could Mr Daboub unilaterally change the bank's reproductive health policies? Perhaps because his boss is not concentrating. The answer, surely, is for the pair of them to pack their bags.

Wolfie’s situation has only gotten more precarious, and his resignation is expected as soon as today. The main scandal – or the only scandal, in the world according to WaPo – has only gotten worse. More from the Guardian:

In recent days evidence has emerged that a contractor for the US government working in Iraq said in 2003 that it was ordered to hire Ms Riza as a consultant on governance issues. The order was issued by Douglas Feith, then undersecretary of defence. Mr Wolfowitz was deputy secretary at the Pentagon at the time, and Mr Feith's boss.

Apparently, outside of the Bush administration, people are held accountable for their misdeeds and mistakes. Of course, if that were Bush administration policy, the only people left in the White House would be the blue and pink collar workers. Read more!