Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

The topics of conversation will likely include organic natural gardening, delayed justice and whether Jane Hague is really Geddy Lee wearing a blond wig. Tonight’s theme song: Black Water by the Doobie Brothers, of course.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Update: General Wesley Clark stopped by this evening.

Hey…only a “half-glass empty” kind of person would claim that the GOP front-runners are afraid of black voters. They prefer to think of themselves as Powerfully White:

(This and about 50 more of the best audio and video political clips from the week are posted at Hominid Views.)

(Wanna help? Start here.)

Tonight on Countdown Keith Olbermann offered a Special Commentary about President Bush getting his undies in a bunch over that MoveOn.org ad:

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Our host Nick Beaudreot asks that you bring a pin or bumper sticker to help “redecorate” the Republican Street sign kindly donated by Mayor Greg Nickels. If so, Nick might just buy you a pint. If your sticker is pre-1992, it might be worth an entire pitcher.

Other than that, the hot topic for tonight might be about some ad that some organization took out making predictions about some guy. Or it might be about whether the deadly, costly, and colossal fuck-up the Iraq invasion has been so far, will suddenly get all better now that many neighborhoods have undergone ethnic “tidying up.”

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

George Bush…making America sooooo proud:

Other videos from the past week in politics can be found in the Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

No doubt a hot topic for tonight will be the new GAO report suggesting that the Bush administration is cooking the books on sectarian violence in Iraq. (Perhaps another hot topic will be the shameless way that Republicans have blown off the restless leg syndrome constituency….)

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for the dates and times of a chapter near you.

Let’s take a moment on Labor Day, 2007 to remember that America was built into the great nation it is today on the sweat and blood of no-bid contractors.

And now, a Labor Day message from our President:

Here are a few videos to ease you into the new week…

• Bill Moyers takes a look at some of the smaller stories coming out of Iraq:

• The political situation in Iraq takes on a strange new twist as an American right-wing lobbying firms is being paid big bucks to undermine the government of Nuri Al-Malaki and promote Ayad Allawi:
  
• A Ted Nugent video clip was mentioned on The David Goldstein Show this evening. Here is the clip, showing Nugent saying that Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should suck on his machine guns. Ted…still motherfucking insane after all these years. But hey…he just may be the next governor of Michigan.
  

Discuss.

(Link)

…is give war a chance.

A new group of prominent conservatives plans to begin a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign Wednesday to urge members of Congress who may be wavering in their support for the war in Iraq not to “cut and run.”

The group, Freedom’s Watch, is rolling out television, radio and Internet advertisements in more than 20 states and 60 Congressional districts.

Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, the spokesperson for the group, offers their message: “the war in Iraq can be won and Congress must not surrender.”

It is amazing how Fleischer can, in one simple sentence, offer two concepts that are entirely inappropriate for the “war in Iraq.” I won’t even quibble with the fact that Iraq is not truly a war at this point. But Fleischer mentions “winning” and “surrendering.”

When the Bush administration was lying the country into war, they painted an image for us. The U.S. would be welcomed as liberators, the oil money would pay for reconstruction, Iraq would blossom economically following the lifting of the U.N. sanctions, and democracy would take the country (indeed, the entire region) by storm following the toppling of a brutal dictator. And democracy would bring peace to the region.

Instead we see a post-invasion Iraq with unquelled violence both against the occupiers and among numerous ethnic, political, and criminal groups within Iraq. We see broken infrastructure and a dysfunctional Iraqi government that is on the verge of collapse. That original vision of “winning” has been abandoned.

So after a couple years of downgrading expectations in the face of repeated failures, what is a concrete vision for “winning” in Iraq now? Really…what concrete set of goals will define a “win” now?

Secondly, Fleischer mentions the world “surrender.” What the hell does that mean?

Traditionally, “surrendering” implies giving up to another, presumably superior, power. But there is no “superior power” in Iraq. There is no al Qaeda group, Shia or Sunni militia, or ethnic army that we could go and say, “we surrender…you won. What do you want from us?” Because right now, everyone is a loser in Iraq (except for some U.S. contractors and a handful of Iraqis that made off with billions in our cash).

Surrender? Hogwash! We couldn’t surrender if American lives depended on it.

When Republicans say “we cannot surrender,” you know they really mean? They mean that they cannot be humiliated by admitting that the pre-invasion vision was naive and the post-invasion management has been disastrously incompetent.

And so protecting their pride means that a thousand or two additional young Americans have to die in Iraq.

The State of Washington needs some pot advice. Specifically, how much marijuana constitutes a 60 day stash for medical use?

Washington’s current law, passed as a voter initiative in 1998, says folks with certain medical conditions may use marijuana to relieve pain and other problems, if their physicians approve.

A problem is that the law says patients may have a 60-day supply of marijuana, but it doesn’t define how much that would be, according to a bulletin from the Washington State Department of Health.
[…]

To define the 60-day supply and create the report, health officials are to consider research, the advice of experts, the best practices of other states and input from the public.

Here is how you can contribute:

• Come to one of our four public workshops to be held around the state in mid-September (watch the website for more details).
• E-mail us at MedicalMarijuana@doh.wa.gov
• Post your comment…. [on the web site]
• Send your comments to:
  Department of Health
  PO Box 47866
  Olympia, WA 98504-7866
• Fax your comments to (360) 236-4768

But if you do offer your expert opinion, exercise a little discretion in what you reveal about yourself. After all, the federal government still considers it a heinous crime to possess or use pot…even for medical use. It is not clear that the Washington law provides any protection from federal prosecution whatsoever.

Do I sound paranoid? If so, it isn’t for the reason you think (not a user—never have been). The feds have not backed down on prosecution for production or use of marijuana for medical use. Most recently, concerns about federal prosecution of New Mexico state employees is slowing down implementation of that state’s medical marijuana laws:

Gov. Bill Richardson ordered the state Health Department on Friday to resume planning of a medical marijuana program despite the agency’s worries about possible federal prosecution.

However, the governor stopped short of committing to implement a state-licensed production and distribution system for the drug if the potential for federal prosecution remains unchanged.

The department announced earlier this week that it would not implement the law’s provisions for the agency to oversee the production and distribution of marijuana to eligible patients. That decision came after Attorney General Gary King warned that the department and its employees could face federal prosecution for implementing the law, which took effect in July.

So just keep in mind…your emails, faxes and such sent to the State will likely be available as public records….

More information about Washington’s medical marijuana law is available at here.

Update: Lee points out: It’s important to note that the only Democratic candidate who has not publicly stated that he/she will stop using the federal government to interfere with the state medical marijuana laws is Obama. He’s allegedly said it privately to people, but is not on the public record yet.

The bottom line is that if you want to stop the federal government from interfering with our laws, vote for the Democrats (or Ron Paul).

University of Colorado—Boulder law Professor Paul Campos wrote another interesting and provocative opinion piece a few days ago. He begins by pointing out the creepy obsession that many right-wingers still have with the attacks of 11 Sept 2001:

When Stu Bykofsky, a columnist for The Philadelphia Daily News, wrote a column last week in which he openly hoped that America suffers “another 9/11,” he merely had the poor judgment to say what many a right-wing politician and pundit is thinking.

Evidence for this is everywhere: in the fact that Bykofsky was invited to appear on the GOP’s unofficial network, Fox News, to “explain” his comments; in the keen disappointment that ripples throughout the right-wing blogosphere every time the collapse of a bridge or a steam pipe explosion turns out not to have been the work of Scary Brown People Who Hate Our Freedoms; and in predictions such as that made by former Sen. Rick Santorum, that the GOP’s electoral fortunes will improve as soon as there’s another terrorist attack.

Indeed, at this point one can practically see these people wringing their hands in frustration at the apparent inability of “the terrorists” to kill a few Americans somewhere (preferably in a solidly red state, although New York or California would do in a pinch), so as to once again give war a chance.

On a local scale, we saw this same right-wing virtual adrenaline rush with salivation a little over a year ago when an American of Pakistani descent, Naveed Afzal Haq, forced his way into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle and killed one woman and wounded five others.

Matt Rosenberg was quick to label the act one of “terrorism.” He suggested this might be the outcome of…

growing advocacy of “individual terrorism” by jihadist opinion leaders….

Whether he drew inspiration from online jihadist preachers is of interest, but not necessarily crucial to the definition of individual terrorism.

This definition of “individual terrorism” is a right-wing substitute for the left-wing term “hate crime.” But right-wingers feel they get more political mileage out of it by including the term “terrorism.” Why? Because it brings back fond memories of an immediate post-9-11 period when Americans came together and didn’t ask critical questions of their political leaders. George Bush’s approval took a 35% point jump upward to 85%. Congress handed Bush almost everything he wanted, and Americans, in their collective post-9-11 foggy daze, offered no dissent.

The Haq incident initially offered right-wingers an opportunity to sell “give war a chance,” re-establish a fear of brown-skin peoples who practice that funny religion, and renew their offer to protect Americans in exchange for political power (and a few civil rights here and there).

The truth about Haq was a little more complex. The day after the shooting, it was revealed that Haq had recently converted to Christianity, going so far as to being baptized. Furthermore, Haq’s serious mental illness problems were revealed. (I couldn’t resist rewriting the hyperbolic “Islamic terrorist” script into an equally outrageous “Christian terrorist” satire.)

As an aside, the Haq incident resurfaced in the news this week, when Patrick Syring, a 20-year career Foreign Service officer was indicted for harassing and threatening employees of the Arab American Institute with phone messages and emails. Page 4 of the indictment attributes this email to Syring:

From: Pat1425@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006, 12:13 AM
To: James Zogby Helen Samhan, Nidal Ibrahim, Valerie Smith, Rebecca Abou-Chedid
Subject: AAI murders in Seattle on July 28

I condemn James Zogby and the AAI for perpetuating the murder and shootings at the Jewish Federation in Seattle on Friday July 28 (as well as the killings in Israel).

You wicked evil Hezbollah-supporting Arabs should burn in the fires of hell for eternity and beyond. The United States would be safer without you.

God Bless the State of Israel
God Bless America,

Sincerely,
Patrick in Arlington, VA.

Of course, the Arab American Institute had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting. Haq isn’t an Arab. In fact, his family isn’t even from the Middle East. And Haq had renounced Islam in his conversion to Christianity. But I digress.

Campos ends his piece with the controversial point that…

[9-11] didn’t “change everything,” and it didn’t (and doesn’t) justify the Iraq war, indiscriminate spying on Americans, extrajudicial renditions, torture, or any of the other immoral actions that continue to be done in its name.

It’s high time to stop wallowing in our obsession with what is becoming the most overblown and shamelessly exploited event in American history.

I am afraid it will be a long time before the political right can relinquish the “promise of terrorism” for achieving their political aims. But while we’re waiting, can we at least get over this nonsensical fear of carrying liquids onto planes?

Keith Olbermann analyzes Cheney’s change of heart. It seems Cheney was lying to look mainstream in 1994:

Also, the Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza is posted at Hominid Views.

Once again, Rudy stakes out a bold position on illegal immigrants. This time it is about sanctuary (but from 1996). Rudy, in his own words…: