When John McCain led the filibuster of the Defense Appropriations Act yesterday, he blocked far more than the DREAM Act and repeal of DADT. Here are just a few of the other blocked provisions, courtesy of Mother Jones.

• No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
• Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.
• Protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation.
• Improvements to Department of Defense domestic violence programs.
• Department of Defense recognition of spouses of members of the Armed Forces.
• Department of Defense recognition of children of members of the Armed Forces.
• Enhancements to the Troops-to-Teachers Program.
• Fiscal year 2011 increase in military basic pay.
• Improving aural protection for members of the Armed Forces.
• Comprehensive policy on neurocognitive assessment by the military health care system.
• Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic emergency assistance.

And those were just some of the progressive provisions. On the conservative side, there are these, and more:

• Prohibition on the use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
• Prohibition on the use of funds to modify or construct facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
• Prohibition on use of funds to give Miranda warnings to Al Qaeda terrorists.

What did they gain with their filibuster? Traction with so-called values voters? They didn't have any problem with them anyway. Denying the Democrats a victory over a 17-year old self-inflicted wound? Making a stand against children of immigrants? What big, brave people they are. Do they seriously think there are no gay Republicans? As one of my Twitter friends remarked earlier, if Ken Mehlman couldn't convince them, no one could.

This was a mean-spirited, cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face exercise in homophobic politics and it's ugly, especially with John McCain leading the charge. The same John McCain, by the way, who said all he needed was for the leadership of the military to come and say the policy should change. And so, they did. Even after testimony from the joint chiefs of staff, McCain didn't adhere to his own conditions for cynical, self-serving political reasons.

I have a question for Senator McCain. Here it is:

enlarge

Well, Senator McCain? Which one is it?

When you die for your country, the grave marker doesn't identify you as gay or straight. Your blood is as red as the guy next to you with the wife and three kids. You deserve to be treated equally. That's all.

One of the most important videos you've never seen is this one, in which Benjamin Netanyahu, 9 years ago -- thinking there is no record -- explains his actually strategy to inflict pain on the Palestinians. He also describes how easy it is to manipulate the US, and how he made sure that the Oslo Accords would mean nothing.

First he says that the plan for the Palestinians is to:

hit them hard. Not just one hit... but many painful [hits], so that the price will be unbearable. The price is not unbearable, now. A total assault on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to a state of panic that everything is collapsing ... fear that everything will collapse... this is what we'll bring them to...

The woman Natanyahu is speaking to wonders if the world won't object to what Israel is doing to the occupied Palestinians (she uses the word occupiers herself. He says the world will say nothing, just that Israel is defending itself. As for the US...

“I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction... Let's suppose that they [the Americans] will say something [i.e. to us Israelis] ... so they say it...” [i.e. so what?]

He then moves on to deal with the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, Israel was to give back land in three phases. However, there was a loophole: if there were settlements or military bases, that land didn't have to be given back. So the question is, who defines what is a settlement or military site?

I received a letter – to me and to Arafat, at the same time ... which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: "I'm not signing." Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron agreement, or rather, ratify it. It had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.

Continue reading »

The Big Picture: Criminal probe into Goldman Sachs

Our Future: Unfree Markets: The last gasp of a (literally) bankrupt ideology

ginandtacos: How to spot an illegal immigrant

Dillsnap Cogitations: This amusing excerpt of White House banter seems especially appropriate right now. Nixon, Ehrlichman, and Haldeman waxing philosophical on the Blacks, the Mexicans, Archie Bunker, the Greeks, the Romans, etc.

Pruning Shears: Attention Peter G. Peterson and our other newly minted paragons of fiscal probity: A virtue just recently embraced is no virtue at all

The Left Coaster: Anthem gets flagged

Your Right Hand Thief: Gulf Coast Recovery Czar, Donald Powell, decides he'd rather bail than follow through on his promise that BUSHCO was "committed to building the best levee system in the world."

Pam's House Blend: Hate the sin, kill the sinner. Seems like old times.

Cogitamus: Your librul media

Iraq Today: As you read these reports, remember that President Bush has admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent military bases.

Simply Left Behind: Flag lapel pins are so last year. Flaunt your patriotism 2008-style!

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: NPR spreading Surge happy talk...Missing: Minorities in Media...Watching America...At NBC, 'expertise' means getting it wrong...Expect the MSM and 'serious' pundits to continue viewing Dems through the eyes of GOP spin and drive-by sliming...Americans believe the Internet has had a positive effect on journalism...The Beast without a brain...Bet you didn't know this

USATODAY

As many as one in five members of the armed services are being preyed on by loan centers set up near military bases that can charge cash-strapped military families interest of 400% or more, a new Pentagon report has found. Steep lending charges have long plagued servicemembers, but the problem has become a more urgent concern to the military as it has struggled to fill its ranks during the Iraq war. That's because debt troubles can keep troops from going overseas...read on

A Conservative Congressman is leading the charge to screw the troops...Think Progress has more...

But one conservative congressman, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY), is trying to gut the amendment. Davis has proposed his own language — praised by the payday lending industry — that sets no real limits on predatory lenders. One of Davis’s aides admitted last week that he consulted on the legislation with “CNG Financial of Mason, Ohio, one of his top campaign donors and owner of national payday lender Check ‘n Go.”

Today may be the last day to stop Davis in his tracks. Call his office now and tell him to stop enabling predatory lenders who are hurting the U.S. military.

Don Wildmon and the American Family Association have a new obsession: U.S. troops’ access to adult materials.

Ten years after Congress banned sales of sexually explicit material on military bases, the Pentagon is under fire for continuing to sell adult fare, such as Penthouse and Playmates In Bed, that it doesn’t consider explicit enough to pull from its stores.

Dozens of religious and anti-pornography groups have complained to Congress and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that a Pentagon board set up to review magazines and films is allowing sales of material that Congress intended to ban.

“They’re saying ‘we’re not selling stuff that’s sexually explicit’ … and we say it’s pornography,” says Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, a Christian anti-pornography group. A letter-writing campaign launched Friday by opponents of the policy aims to convince Congress to “get the Pentagon to obey the law,” he adds.

Let me get this straight. U.S. troops are fighting two wars, neither of which are going well, and the American Family Association’s biggest concern is what kind of magazines the troops can purchase on base? Here’s a radical idea: maybe those who wear the uniform and put their lives on the line for their country should be able to read whatever they want.