Friday, January 06, 2006

Is violence ever a bad sign in Iraq?

Via Kos:

A military spokesman addressed the deaths of 11 more U.S. soldiers with the following explanation of how it's actually a good sign:

A spokesman for the U.S. military said insurgents are becoming more desperate as a democratic process increasingly takes hold -- "and desperate people are dangerous people."

I have a question for the spokesman, for Scotty McC and for the Pentagon as a whole: how much violence would be a bad sign? If 100 soldiers died in one day, would that mean that the insurgency was catastrophically detonating in a massive, desperate supernova?

CA-24: three candidates in the primary!

I am back in L.A. after having attended a forum hosted by the Camarillo Democratic Club for the candidates vying to unseat Elton Gallegly in CA-24. The candidates in the race are Mary Pallant, Jill Martinez and Brett Wagner (who was the 2004 nominee and got 34% in the previous election cycle). The mere fact that we have three candidates running for this seat is amazing--it is the first time the Democrats have had a contested primary in this district.

As is obvious from my ActBlue section on this blog, I am a supporter of Mary Pallant. I believe that she has by far the most energy and enthusiasm--as well as ideas for putting the Republicans on the defensive--and will be best at reaching out to the more conservative demographics of the district. Simply put, when compared to the other two candidates, it seemed obvious that Mary has the most potential to give Elton a serious run for his money.

In the interests of full disclosure: I am on Mary Pallant's official campaign staff, although I receive no compensation of any kind, monetary or otherwise.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Systematic corruption

Delay, Abramoff and sham children's charities. How low can you really go?

This is one of the most disgusting things I've seen--and if Delay gets out of his legal bind with TRMPAC and Earle, he should be headed right back into court for this.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Iraq Retribution Roll Call

This diary by David Swanson over at Kos provides an excellent summary of the major players who suffered retribution from the administration in one form or another for their criticism of the royal decision to invade Iraq.

The fact that a list like this could even be compiled shows the degree to which the administration spits on the very principles of democracy and free speech. And the worst part? Every single person in this list was only guilty of saying what we now all know to be the truth--except for the 24% of the population that still believes the 9/11 hi-jackers were Iraqi.