-#5

thanks Roxanne

She shouldn't die for her beliefs at 14

"Only a society that had gone truly rights-mad would declare that a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness being treated for cancer should be able to refuse a potentially life-saving blood transfusion as an act of conscience. No 14-year-old in Canada should be permitted to die for her religious beliefs -- or the beliefs of her parents, which may amount to the same thing."

In Canada, a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that doctors should be allowed to treat the girl according to medical necessity. Obviously, 14 year-olds lack the maturity to make the best decisions on how to protect themselves from serious harm or death. They can be easily pressured and manipulated by misinformed adults. One can only wonder how the Schiavo wingnut cavalry would respond to a similar case. Would the faithful members of the "culture of life" support this kind of judicial intervention? We doubt it. But we also doubt they would be foolish enough to mount the kind of insane demonstration we've recently witnessed to protest the judge's ruling. That would truly expose them as the fanatics they are.

Between commercials, according to an off-air audiotape obtained by investigative comedian Harry Shearer for last Sunday's episode of his weekly radio program, "Le Show," Hannity coached the women on exactly how to respond when liberal co-host Alan Colmes cross-examined them. Go read the rest of the article.

Download | play

It's also a podcast.

Hannity says:

"Just say, 'I'm here to tell what I saw,'" Hannity can be heard instructing his guests. "No matter what the question, 'I'm here to tell you what I saw. I'm here to tell you what I saw.'"

Hannity adds helpfully: "Say, 'I'm not going to be distracted by silliness.' How's that? Does that help you? Look into that camera. Look at me when I'm talking."

On the air, Iyer performs beautifully. "I don't have any opinions or judgments. I was there," she declares

On his radio show, Shearer injected: "Yeah, especially when they do what you tell 'em to do. Very powerful when they follow instructions from the host!"

Bill Maher goes after the ridiculous pharmacists who are now refusing to fill perscriptions on moral grounds.

Video-WMP (checking on video problem)

As I've said before, it's only a matter of time before we have "morals" doctors refusing to treat patients on the basis of religion. Then the patient will not be able to go see another doctor because of HMO restrictions. If Hannity can get quacks to say anything in front of a camera, and Frist is idiotic enough to give mediacal opinions based on four year old video tapes; moral medicine is just around the corner.

via NY Daily News: If the conservative guests on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" sound especially on-message, that's because they're being coached by the best: Sean Hannity himself:

Between commercials, according to an off-air audiotape obtained by investigative comedian Harry Shearer for last Sunday's episode of his weekly radio program, "Le Show," Hannity coached the women on exactly how to respond when liberal co-host Alan Colmes cross-examined them. Go read the rest of the article. It's about those nurses.

We at C&L have obtained a recorded exchange between Hannity and Colmes just the other day. It went something like this:

Hannity to Colmes:

Hannity: When we are on the air you will look weak and pathetic.

Colmes. I will look weak and pathetic.

Hannity: You will constantly fumble through your notes and make bad points.

Colmes: I will constantly fumble through my notes and make bad points.

Hannity: You will not interupt my guests.

Colmes: I will not interupt your guests.

Hannity: You are never allowed to call my guest liars, even when they are lying.

Colmes: I will never call your guest liars, even when they are lying.

Hannity: I am the Big Kahuna.

Colmes: You are the Big Kahuna

Hannity: Howard Dean is shrill.

Colmes: Howard Dean is shrill

Hannity: Hillary Clinton is shrill.

Colmes: Hillary Clinton is shrill.

Hannity: You can go now.

Colmes: I will go now.

Rising Hegemon responds with Douchebaggery Update

Eschaton responds with Punching Bag

They said that C&L exceeded bandwidth limits for the month. They don't even host the videos. Anyway, I actually got somebody on the phone after being told nobody was in yet. I asked if "this is a common custom? You know ...just shutting down an account because people like the site, without giving a warning." " Yes, it is." "I want the account back on line" " We are sorry for the inconvenience. It will take two hours" "Are you crazy?" I said. " Ok, you are back up." Thanks for nothing.

The amount of money because of the overage was around $5.00 They said they took me off the automated list now, so it will never happen again. Yea right..

Frist Likely to Push for Ban on Filibusters

via WaPo: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations in the next few weeks, despite misgivings by some of his fellow Republicans and a possible Democratic backlash that could paralyze the chamber, close associates said yesterday...read on

Moreover, the Star Tribune story linked to above seems to cast considerable doubt on the "missing sand bag" theory:

In the letter, Dayton said that the day before his death Bruce told his girlfriend in a telephone call that he had been unable to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his position adequately.

"He gave his life heroically and importantly, but it's immoral for our command not to provide our soldiers with absolutely everything they need to give them maximum protection: body armor, armored vehicles, sandbags. ... It's immoral if our soldiers are left in any way unequipped and unprotected," Dayton said in an interview.

First it was body armor, then armored vehicles. Now it's "immoral" that our soldiers don't have enough sandbags. Am I missing something, or is this ludicrous on its face? I can understand a soldier in Iraq being short of armor. But sand? Sand is something Iraq has in abundance; it's not exactly a commodity that the Army airlifts there from the Mojave desert.

Moreover, the Star Tribune story linked to above seems to cast considerable doubt on the "missing sand bag" theory:

On Tuesday, the day before he died, he called his girlfriend and said that he was stationed on the rooftop and increasing the height of the sandbag barricade. "He said they didn't have enough sandbags up there," she said softly.

So, the day before he was killed on the roof, Bruce said that he was "increasing the height of the sandbag barricade" because he didn't think it was high enough. No suggestion that he was unable to get his hands on enough sandbags to accomplish this task. No suggestion that there was a shortage of sandbags, only that they didn't have enough on the roof. Then, the next night there was an attack with an RPG, which "hit a sandbag," ricocheted and exploded against a water tower, apparently showering Bruce with shrapnel from above. So apparently there were enough sandbags to deflect the RPG. Would more sandbags have protected Bruce from above? Who knows, but one wouldn't think so.
Sandbags are not a high-tech device. It is up to soldiers in the field to protect themselves. If they want more sandbags, they should get more sandbags, as Cpl. Bruce apparently did.

For Mark Dayton to suggest that the Bush administration somehow "immorally" deprived Bruce of sandbags is an absurdity that would be funny, if war were not a matter of life and death. Thankfully, Dayton will soon be gone from the Senate. His replacement can only be an improvement.

Dear Mr. President:

Last Monday, I attended the funeral of Corporal Travis Bruce in Rochester, Minnesota. Corporal Bruce was killed by a grenade’s explosion, as he stood watch on the roof of a Baghdad police station.

According to his mother, that watch was a regular assignment for Corporal Bruce. His girlfriend said that the day before his death, he spoke with her on the phone and expressed his concern that he had not been able to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his post adequately.

Corporal Bruce died a hero’s death in the service of his country. His courage, to stand a watch on the rooftop of that Baghdad police station while knowing that his fortification was inadequate, was extraordinary. It cost him his life.

I must ask, however, why it is still necessary for an American soldier to perform that duty? As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have asked repeatedly, along with my Republican and Democratic colleagues, about the training of Iraqi forces to replace our Armed Forces in securing their own country. We have been told repeatedly about supposed progress and been given numbers of Iraqi forces ostensibly trained and equipped. When I was most recently in Iraq last December, General George W. Casey and Lieutenant General David Patreaus both stated that 40,000 Iraqi police had received some measure of training.
If that is so, why do American troops still have to perform such basic duties as standing guard on top of Iraqi police stations? If 40,000 Iraqi police cannot assume such elementary responsibilities, what does that indicate about the efficacy of our training programs and their capabilities?

I understand that American forces must continue to secure Iraq, until its own people are able to do so. However, two years after our Armed Forces successfully routed the Iraqi army and toppled Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial rule, the Iraqi forces should be able to assume some of the most basic responsibilities for their our security. When, I ask respectfully, will that begin to occur?

"Personally, I think it doesn't make sense to have sitting targets -- still targets -- on top of a building, on a known target for the enemy to attack," Bruce said Wednesday. "To me, it's like they're sitting out in the open and they're sitting ducks."

According to Dayton, Travis Bruce had told his girlfriend a day before his death that he had not been able to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his post. Bruce said his son had never mentioned that to him, and he said it was probably a "slip of the tongue" by the girlfriend. She could not be reached for comment.

If that is so, why do American troops still have to perform such basic duties as standing guard on top of Iraqi police stations? If 40,000 Iraqi police cannot assume such elementary responsibilities, what does that indicate about the efficacy of our training programs and their capabilities?

I understand that American forces must continue to secure Iraq, until its own people are able to do so. However, two years after our Armed Forces successfully routed the Iraqi army and toppled Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial rule, the Iraqi forces should be able to assume some of the most basic responsibilities for their our security. When, I ask respectfully, will that begin to occur?

"Personally, I think it doesn't make sense to have sitting targets -- still targets -- on top of a building, on a known target for the enemy to attack," Bruce said Wednesday. "To me, it's like they're sitting out in the open and they're sitting ducks."

According to Dayton, Travis Bruce had told his girlfriend a day before his death that he had not been able to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his post. Bruce said his son had never mentioned that to him, and he said it was probably a "slip of the tongue" by the girlfriend. She could not be reached for comment."Iraq is full of sand," he said. "... And if they didn't have enough sandbags, they should have had them up there. They were available."

Bruce said he agreed with Dayton's assessment that the U.S. is lagging in its training of the Iraqis, adding that "there aren't enough of them, and we don't have them trained well enough." He said his son, a military police officer, previously was assigned to provide security for dignitaries and to drive armed security vehicles -- jobs that he said were proper for a military police officer.