Thursday, September 28, 2006

From the usually not so politcal Wil Wheaton dot Net.

Lots of people are saying alot of things that shouldn't ever have to be said tonight, and it's nice to know I'm not alone, that not everyone in the world is so cynical that even something as fundamental as the idea that you shouldn't torture people can pass into the void as just another thing those government people are doing that doesn't matter. I've been told I am naive many times this week, for thinking that the US government had enough strength to oppose things like torture. Apparently, they were all right. I think American cynicism is in large part the enabler for things like this happening. Americans think that is probably going to happen anyway, that they can't stop it, so they don't care. WE CAN STOP IT, but only if we actually try. It's far simpler to say you can't and let it go, but it's also wrong. Not only CAN we stop things like this from happening, we must. VOTE, tell your friends, family, coworkers, strangers, to vote. Don't live politely, talk about politics. It's worth it. Some discomfort in the short run must surely be worth it for the freedom we talk so much about in the long run.
From WWdN:

Shame on President Bush. Shame on his Republican allies in congress, and shame on the spineless, cowardly Democrats who did not stand up to them. Shame on them all, and shame on all of us if we do not turn out by the millions in the next election to put men and women into congress who will have the courage to do their constitutional duty, and defend the Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic

This crap must be stopped. What is the point of you Senators who pass torture legislation anyway?
From Eschaton:

Remarks of Senator Dodd 9/28/06, as prepared:

Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, America was attacked by ruthless enemies of this country. It is my strong belief that those responsible for orchestrating this plot, and anyone else who seeks to do harm to our nation and our citizens, must be brought to justice, and punished severely.

These are extraordinary times, and we must act in a way that fully safeguards America’s national security. That is why I support the concept of military commissions -- to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In my view, as we develop such means, we must also ensure that our actions are not counter-productive to our overall efforts to protect America at all levels.

As you know Mr. President, 430 detainees are being held in Guantanamo Bay facilities as so called “enemy combatants.” The President has claimed the authority to detain prisoners indefinitely without formally charging them with a crime, to use questionable interrogation practices which some experts say violate international law banning torture, and to set up secret tribunals in which some detainees could be convicted without ever seeing the evidence against them, while others receive no trials at all. The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld this activity is unconstitutional. But the groundwork for this decision was laid in the Supreme court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, two years ago, in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared “A state of war is not a blank check for the President."

Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. This canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle.
I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution.

Our founding fathers established the legal framework of our country on the premise that those in government are not infallible. America’s leaders knew this sixty years ago, when they determined how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of horrendous crimes. There were strong and persuasive voices, at the time, crying out for the execution of these men who had commanded with ruthless efficiency the slaughter of six million innocent Jews and five million other innocent men, women, and children. After World War II, our country was forced to decide if the accused criminals deserved a trial or execution.

This history is particularly personal to me. My father, Thomas Dodd, worked alongside Justice Robert Jackson in prosecuting these trials at Nuremberg. He viewed Nuremberg as one of the most pivotal moments in our history – where America chose to uphold the rule of law rather than succumb to rule of the mob. Let me be clear: these enemies of the United States were not given the opportunity to walk away from their crimes. Rather, they were given the right to face their accuser, the right to confront evidence against them, and the right to a fair trial. Underlying that decision was the conviction that this nation must not tailor its most fundamental principles to the conflict of the moment -- and the recognition that if we did, we would be walking in the very footsteps of the enemies we despised.

As we approach the 60th anniversary of the first verdict of the Nuremburg trials this Saturday, it is important to reflect on the implications of the past as we face new challenges, new enemies, and new decisions. Much as our actions in the post-war period affected our nation’s standing in the world, so too do our actions in the post 9-11 era.

The Administration’s initial legislative proposal reinstated secret tribunals and redefined Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Senators on both sides of the aisle and dozens of retired members of the military opposed this proposal.

The Armed Services Committee decided not to rubber-stamp the Administration’s legislation, working in a bipartisan way to craft a more narrowly tailored approach. Unfortunately the bill that we are discussing today is not the one which passed through the Committee process.

The bill before us was worked out between several of my Republican colleagues and the White House and does contain some improvements over the Bush Administration’s original proposal. However, I remain concerned about several provisions in the pending legislation. The bill would strip detainees of their habeas corpus rights – a very troublesome provision. There is a strong belief among Senators on both sides of the aisle that this provision is not only inadvisable, it is flatly unconstitutional.

The Armed Services Committee bill prohibited the use of all evidence that was coerced through illegal methods. The bill before us today only prohibits “cruel, unusual, or inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” obtained after December 30, 2005. The Administration claims that they need to employ interrogation techniques whose methods are questionable both morally and practicably. As you know Mr. President, this notion has been dispelled handily by one of our colleagues who has first hand experience as a prisoner of war. In a Newsweek op-ed dated November 21, 2005, our colleague Senator McCain wrote, “The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering.”

Mr. President, I will take a backseat to no one in supporting the use of whatever tools are available to keep America safe. But the use of waterboarding and extreme sleep deprivation, to name just a few, undermines America’s moral authority and provides dubious results. This arbitrary deadline makes a mockery of the principle underlying the prohibition and seems to run counter to the view’s expressed in Senator McCain’s op-ed.

I applaud the fact that this bill drops the language in which the United States would seek to redefine its commitments under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. However, I am deeply troubled that this legislation allows the President to define our commitments under the Geneva Conventions through regulation rather than legislation. In doing so, Congress is shirking its oversight responsibilities. We undermine the separation of powers, a guiding doctrine of our Constitution, in allowing the Executive branch to unilaterally decree what interrogation techniques are permitted without legislative review.

We must do everything in our power to protect our country from threats to our national security but it is also incumbent upon every one of us to protect the very foundation upon which our nation was established. This legislation will not achieve these aims.

I support the efforts of our colleagues, Senators Levin, Specter, Kennedy, Rockefeller and Byrd to correct the serious defects with the pending legislation. It now appears doubtful that any of these amendments are likely to be adopted by the Senate. Therefore, in good conscience I will vote no on final passage when that occurs later today.

As Justice Jackson said at Nuremberg, “we must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well.” Mr. President, to rubber-stamp the Administration’s bill would poison one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy. I urge my colleagues not to allow that to happen.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Just saw Pervez Musharraf on the Daily Show, and while I had previously been somewhat impressed with that guy, I was pretty dubious about a guy who became leader of his country through a Coup d'état. After watching him on the Daily Show tonight, I must say I was super impressed. In addition to being from India, then growing up in Turkey, and then being able to rise to the top of the Pakistani military organization, he was also able to easily hold his own with John Stewart, who seemed to get harder on him as he realized Musharraf was rolling with the punches. The highpoint of the interview was when Jon Stewart asked him who would win an election in Pakistan between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden and he responded they would both lose horribly. Funny.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Tunnel Light

THANK YOU! One tiny piece of good news today.  It looks like the legislation approving Bush's warrantless wiretapping is unlikely to pass.  Something less than REALLY TERRIBLE had to happen today.  I don't understand why the peeps aren't out in the street with rakes and pitchforks tearing down the capital yet.  I guess this is the same America that still has Bush '04 stickers on their H2's.  Come on peeps, holler at your reps!  I'm writing to Doggett, but I know my man Doggett is on the case.  Sadly, my Senators are worth less than a 3 dollar bill.  I'll call em and take up their time nonetheless.  CALL PEOPLE! GET STUFF DONE!

This is an interesting article from Ars Technica about how technology is affecting the family structure. 
I was thinking the other day that it was likely that many extended families are much closer knit these days than they might have been in the past as a result of cell phones and computers.  We talk to each other waaaaaaay more often than would have been able to manage reasonably in years past.  Something to think about anyway. 

Why Not Kinky?

Sorry Sydney

What in the Hezmana good are Democrats who can't even be counted on to oppose legislation legalizing wiretaps without warrants on American Citizens, torture, and an effective workaround for those who are disinterested in habeas corpus?  When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands...

Right on Atrios

I was really excited by Obama's speech at the Democratic convention back in 2004.  This man was a fantastic speaker, and he really seemed like someone who could lead the Dem's out of their no fight, go along with anything funk.  Since that time he hasn't done much to rally the troops.  The republicans are consistently more and more frightening.  In the meantime the democrats are more and more... invisible.  WHERE ARE YOU?! WHAT'S THE POINT OF TAKING THE HOUSE IF YOU PEOPLE DON'T TALK OR DO ANYTHING?! I guess it's at least a stopgap measure, but we are way too far gone to just stop the tide of destruction.  Some building needs to be done shortly. 

Espionage Act of 2006

Please, someone tell me I am just too dumb to understand what I am reading.  Tell me they aren't passing legislation that says that a tiny group of people can decide who is an enemy of the country and detain them without cause or recourse.  What's the point of being "free" if you're only free to do exactly what a very small group of people want you to do?

Monday, September 25, 2006

I'm reading the book Snowcrash, after being told to do so approximately 4985749857490578 times, and it is already too funny for me to handle. I had to share this quote which will probably be, too bad for you truebelievers, the first of many:


It does not look like a serious fire. The Deliverator saw a real fire once, at the Farms of Merryvale, and you couldn't see anything for the smoke. That's all it was: smoke, burbling out of nowhere, occasional flashes of orange light down at the bottom, like heat lightning in tall clouds. This is not that kind of fire. It is the kind of fire that just barely puts out enough smoke to detonate the smoke alarms. And he is losing time for this shit.

The Deliverator holds the horn button down.


This book is going to be awesome.


Scroll down on the left side and look at the covers of newsweek by geographical region. Surely this must be the best of all possible worlds.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Anyone besides Paul and probably Thierry following the Montana Senate race? This was an AWESOME quote from the Democratic challenger Tester from a debate between him and incumbent republican Senator Conrad Burns this weekend:


"I don't want to weaken the Patriot Act, I want to repeal it. What it does, it takes away your freedom ... and when you take away our freedoms, the terrorists have won," Tester said.


OK, so maybe a little over the top with the terrorist winning business(I think of Braveheart every single time I hear that line), but the comment about the Patriot Act is fantastic, and I can't wait to hear it again. "I don't want to weaken the Patriot Act, I want to repeal it."

Letter from Lamont to Lieberman, far and away the most impressive statements from Lamont I've seen yet. It does not, however, include Lamont saying anything that he'd like to do instead of what Lieberman has been doing. Mostly the appeal of Lamont seems to be the same as the leading democrat in the 2004 presidential primaries, "any unnamed democrat." Any unnamed democrat polled higher than any of the named ones ever did, and usually higher than Bush. Sadly, once you tie a name to one of them, they get less votes. Hopefully Lamont is going to start saying more stuff soon instead of just opposing Lieberman. In the mean time it's funny to hear someone quote lines like:

“Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he’s completely lost the plot or he knows he’s spinning a line.”

Methinks he knows.
Sadly, I agree with the final point in this TPM article. I think if the republicans maintain control of both houses we will be going to Iran. After all, we have always been at war with Eurasia, right? Or was it Eastasia? Or Iraq? Or Afganistan?
Holy melted glaciers Batman!
Gore is the current Presidential Nominee from the Andy Swan organization.

The above is a link to a recent speech Al Gore gave at NYU. More and more I think that he really is the best candidate of the people currently being discussed. I was not pro-Gore when he ran in 2000, and in fact I voted for Ralph Nader. In the years since Al Gore won the 2000 election he has been spending his time correcting alot of the things I didn't like about his 2000 campaign. His 2000 campaign was very much a Clinton machine Democratic Leadership Council campaign, running right past the middle and helping shift the right further right. By 2004 Gore had distanced himself from that group and in fact endorsed my man Howard Dean. I think Gore's progressive and enviornmentalist side, which was always his strong point anyway, being allowed to speak and being out front and center will not only be more to my liking, but will really be a much stronger position to run from. For YEARS the Democrats have been running as little Republicans. Give it up, I wouldn't vote for a republican pretending to be a democrat, why would republicans vote for democrats pretending to be republicans? GIVE US A CLEAR CHOICE! WE WILL PICK YOU! I think Al's got that now, and I really hope he runs so I can watch him beat the republicans to death with it.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Avast, I must comment on a more serious note me harty's, that bein the stunnin debut of Cap'n Sorkin's new program, the overlongedly named, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." I watched it last night and let me just say, our favorite crack addict produced, a spectacular opening. I was really excited when I heard Matthew Perry was going to be on this show because I thought he was really good on the "West Wing," but he was on near the end of when I watched the program (anything after season 4 is West Wing fan fic as far as I'm concerned). He and Bradley Whitford are a convincing pair right away. I really liked how much they had their friendship laid out really bare right away. You don't see alot of things that are that emotional and still convincing very often, especially outside of love scenes. In addition to the cast and writing(did I mention the writing was good? It's hardly necessary, I already said it was Aaron Sorkin) they went ahead and slammed things you don't hear anyone outside of lefty bloggers and the Stewart/Colbert presidential ticket touch these days. He went ahead and yelled at the top of his lungs about Network/Cable news and George Bush being a bunch of crazy liars right away in the first episode. w000w000. Anyway, if you didn't see this show you should find someone who has it tivo'd and watch it as soon as possible. Looks like good TV just came back to prime time. Thanks Cap'n Sorkin. (and First Mate Schlamme!)
Let me just say first, YARRR!!!

Instructional Video from Paul's Blog

Monday, September 18, 2006

AGAIN! What is up with Scarborough? Someone is going to take away his evil talking head license if he isn't careful.


How exactly does one convince the teeming masses that Republicans deserve to stay in power despite botching a war, doubling the national debt, keeping company with Jack Abramoff, fumbling the response to Hurricane Katrina, expanding the government at record rates, raising cronyism to an art form, playing poker with Duke Cunningham, isolating America and repeatedly electing Tom DeLay as their House majority leader?

How does a God-fearing Reagan Republican explain all that away?

Easy. Blame George W. Bush....

Even when the administration would not give generals the troops they needed to win the war in Iraq, Republican leaders did nothing. When the president refused to veto a single spending bill while the deficit spiraled upward, Republican leaders looked away. And when chaos was reigning in the streets of New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast in Katrina's horrific aftermath, Republican leaders remained mute.

That silence -- proof that it is better to be feared than loved in politics -- has had devastating results. The United States is more divided than ever, our leaders are despised around the world, our fiscal situation is catastrophic and congressional approval ratings are the lowest ever. Since nothing sharpens the mind like a political hanging, Republican leaders in the Senate and House are finally considering doing what effete newspaper editorialists have suggested for years: throwing Bush overboard.


Who is this man masquerading as Scarborogouh?

CRAZYNESS! I just read this page written by a guy who yanked 20,000 passwords from some myspace password phishing site. It's a pretty interesting article all in all about the kinds of passwords used, the craziest thing about it I saw was the number one password. Of 20,000 passwords, the most used was only used 13 times, which I also thought was crazy, and it was cookie123. What an odd password! When I was working for TNI and I saw jillions of customers email passwords all the time I think the most common passwords were jesus, christ, hisname, stuff like that. The most common non-religious password from when I was at TNI? tigger. Odd eh? I used to see it all the time though. That was mostly older people in East Texas. I think that increased the number of Jesuses. Anyway, interesting.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

This is some bad commentary that,for me, makes it very hard to take the person seriously. First the full text of the original post from Daily Kos:

Exporting Incompetence
by georgia10
Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 10:17:07 AM PDT

From the Washington Post:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What they needed to be was a member of the Republican Party.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Garbage in, garbage out:

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

This is what happens when you put the Republican Party in charge. Whether its the United States or the Iraq, Republicans simply can't govern, can't manage, and can't produce results. They have the Midas touch of mistake, transforming any minor crisis into catastrophe. They ignore any calls to rectify their wrongs, choosing instead to stand on piles of debris and death, pointing out just how damn glad we should be that they're in charge.

So this is your liberated Iraq, America, in shambles and in shame, brought to you by the GOP.

Party above country. Any country.

Party above any logic. Party above any need.


And to hell with the results, no matter how bloody they may be.

The problem of people being placed by political affiliation is definitely a rampant disaster in this administration. In addition, you will not find me saying that the way Republicans do things is the way I think things should be done. Saying that "This is what happens when you put the Republican Party in charge" I think is an unfair statement that doesn't really help any kind of discourse. The Bush administration has done this kind of thing for years, starting right after they came in to office with all the regulatory agencies and eventually spreading throughout anything they could get their hands on. There are, however, plenty of honest republicans who just have very bad ideas, but still believe that a qualified person should execute their very bad ideas. This is a huge issue that I've read about happening in Iraq in a different capacity, in the Iraqi government. In that case it's the Shiite majority replacing competent Sunnis with Shiites whether they happen to be competent or not. Pretty much the same thing as the Bush administration is doing, just a different flavor of religious zealotry. I think it's important to distinguish the Bush administration and the current gang of radicals from regular republicans though. Even Republicans don't deserve to be automatically grouped with this gang of thieves.
Current Events(since friday morning):
Friday night poker was fairly well attended despite ACL festivities. I finally got my cable and internet service back on, w00w000. The guy who came out and cabled up my house was fantastic, ran cables up the wall and into upstairs bedrooms and put several jacks in the livingroom as well all by himself, quick as can be. EXCELLENT SERVICE! In dorkier news, Saturday morning saw my return to the World of Warcraft. I'm playing on a pansy server(Garona) as an elf no less. Arborius rides again! In even DORKIER news, I started playing a new pen and paper role playing game on Saturday based on the D20 modern system, set in the story background of the Knights of the Old Republic Star Wars game. Pretty fun, I'm playing a huge blue guy who carries a sword. Go me! Brian is a Jedi again, but his character is going to take a while to get going I think. Orman(which I'm probably misspelling) is playing a RIDICULOUS rabbit person who rides inside a giant robot. Absurdity abounds! Anyway, yeah. That's the weekend update.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Ann Richards Dies at 73.

Definitely the best Governor Texas has had in my memory. She was a very entertaining character with a Twain-like wit. She filmed a short for the Alamo Drafthouse warning people not to talk during the movie that is just about the best don't talk during the movie in movie history. That I am aware of. She will be missed.
Funny video

This guy is great, kinda scary if you think how little of his speech had to be made up though, half of what he said is straight out of Bush speeches.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

This is a pretty awesome letter. The Democratic leadership in the Senate appears to be threatening ABC with actually enforcing the clause requiring ABC to act in the public's interest. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone that actually thought the networks were acting in the public interest, but maybe they have finally gone far enough in their violation of the public trust that someone will finally open their mouth. Here's the actual letter to Disney's CEO and President Robert Iger:

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.


Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
I can't find any news on the story as to how Joe Lieberman's team of expert hackers brought down TPM Muckraker yesterday, but I feel quite certain it is the ONLY explanation for the outage I experienced trying to read the site last night. Clearly. I am forced to have my own blog due to the developing issue that there are some news articles on the web that do not have a comment section on them. gah. I first really suffered from this problem on Labor Day while I was sitting at work reading an Editorial in the New York Times about how we shuold really have a Labor Week, where noone worked all week. I thought to myself as I sat at work reading this article that really I'd be happy if they just converted Labor Day from "management and highly paid people only get today off day" to, ya know, a day when regular laborers and job holders got the day off. I scrolled to the bottom of the article to look for the link where I could automatically comment on this problem, and there was no such link! OMG! WTF?! GAH! So anyway, yeah. Now I must blog. Jeez.