Thanks to dKos for my new favorite word: wingnuttery.  I guess I'll have to temporarily retire scumbaggery as my favored adage.  Thankfully, there are stunning displays of said wingnuttery in the news...it's just like buying a new pair of sneakers and stumbling into a pickup game!

I'm really starting to think these guys are bona fide delusional.  I mean, first, the Christian conservative obsession with homosexuality is almost becoming amusing.  It's so off-base and ridiculous, it speaks to a chemical balance (or worse), methinks:  [CNN.com - Christians issue gay warning on SpongeBob video]

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian groups accuse the makers of a video starring SpongeBob SquarePants, Barney and a host of other cartoon characters of promoting homosexuality to children.

The wacky square yellow SpongeBob is one of the stars of a music video due to be sent to 61,000 U.S. schools in March. The makers -- the nonprofit We Are Family Foundation -- say the video is designed to encourage tolerance and diversity.  [...]

Christian groups however have taken exception to the tolerance pledge on the foundation's Web site, which asks people to respect the sexual identity of others along with their abilities, beliefs, culture and race.

"Their inclusion of the reference to 'sexual identity' within their 'tolerance pledge' is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line," James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said in a statement released Thursday.

Well, at least whoever wrote the article has a sense of humor (emphasis mine):

SpongeBob, who lives in a pineapple under the sea, was "outed" by the U.S. media in 2002 after reports that the TV show and its merchandise are popular with gays. His creator, Stephen Hillenburg, said at the time that though SpongeBob was an oddball, he thought of all the characters in the show as asexual.

It is not the first time that children's TV favorites have come under the critical spotlight of the Christian right. In 1999, the Rev. Jerry Falwell described Tinky Winky, the purse-toting purple Teletubbie, as a gay role model.

Veep Cheney, for is part, chipped in to round out the wingnuttery display.  Apparently, it's Saddam's fault the Bush Administration screwed up the war and reconstruction, get it?  A mere 'miscalculation', see?  There are no "mistakes" in this administration, silly.  In the immortal words of Billy Madison, "Awww, horseshit!":  [CNN.com - Cheney blames 'miscalculation' for slow Iraq recovery]

Asked to name his mistakes in planning the war in Iraq, Cheney said he had not anticipated how long it would take the Iraqis to begin running their own country. Not until after Saddam was ousted did the United States realize the extent of the Iraqi leader's brutality in putting down revolt in 1991, Cheney said.

"I think the hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered at the time, including anybody who had the gumption to stand up and challenge him, made the situation tougher than I would have thought," he said on "The Don Imus Show" on the radio.

"I would chalk that one up as a miscalculation, where I thought things would have recovered more quickly," Cheney said.

This wholesale inability to admit mistakes, is just not, well, human.  They're like arrogance machines, it's quite fascinating...err, scary.

But will President Bush and his lackeys (Congressional that is, not the fascists on conservative talk radio) have the same success as they did in the first term in snuffing out all opposition opinion?  Will House Republicans be able to stifle and steamroll Democrats, using their majority status to grossly abuse power as they have for the past two years?  Will the arrogance and unaccountability of the White House finally catch up with its inhabitants?  Will Democrats get sick of being wimps and pushovers, or will they finally grow spines and stand up to the radical social agenda their counterparts across the isle have thrust upon this country?  Only time will tell.  Democrats would be wise to come up with some substantive opposition to Republican initiatives rather than the pansy-ass approach of simply criticizing the Presidents' as they have used for the past four years.

One interesting point for both Democrats and Republicans to consider is the danger of overreaching by a majority party. Only twice since the Civil War has a sitting president's party gained congressional seats in a midterm election (most recently in 1998); in fact, they are traditionally a horror show for the President's party.  While the country may seem to be leaning more conservative, many voters could be turned off by what they may see as an abuse of that majority status, which could result in GOP losses in Congress. 

On the other end of that spectrum, it will be interesting to see how the religious right reacts after once again being abandoned by those to whom they swore allegiance.  This is certainly not a new phenomenon; social conservatives have long been the Charlie Brown to the GOP's Lucy.  They come out in droves every two or four years to give the GOP a formidable base, gain the promise of the party to push their extreme agenda (which for simplicity sake we'll call the elimination of any rights for gays), and then are left to wonder what happened when they are once again ignored.  And it has already begun even before Dubya swears the sacred oath.

From The Washington Post (hat tip: The Daily Kos)   

President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives yesterday for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage." [...]

In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida.

"It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained.

But as sure as they actually believe gay marriage will destroy America, the religious right will be back at the GOP's side in November 2006.  What is the alternative?  Vote for a Democrat?

Though the President will not push the gay marriage issue, the Administration and Congress will push hard to promote more viable aspects of their domestic agenda.  Aside from his ambitious Social Security plan (which seems already like its doomed for failure), we will see an attempt at making the tax cuts permanent, a push for tort reform, and more cuts in domestic spending programs.  In fact there are rumors that Vice President Cheney is heading the domestic agenda.  God help us.

There is always the chance that things could work the opposite of what many expect: that without the re-election sword hanging over his head the President will be more apt to leave the base and press more centralized policy.  There is historical evidence to show that it would not be the first time this happened, I surely am not alone in thinking that is a bit too optimistic.  No, this President will surely take advantage of his Congressional majority and the supposed mandate that came from over 51 million people voting against him to continue to ram his extreme conservative down our throats.  I am certainly hoping that Mr. Bush wastes his new political capital on Social Security, only to suffer the fate of all those before who have grabbed the third rail of American politics.  But even if that happens, the Spin Doctors of Pennsylvania Avenue will work their magic and the President will come out smelling like an asshole.  Pardon me, I meant roses.

In what we hope to be a recurring feature here at the Dogwood Papers, guest contributor Nikki offers her reflections on a life-changing novel about love, life, war, and genocide in Africa.

Sadly, the emphasis finally being placed on this human tragedy by films like Hotel Rwanda and books like A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali is long overdue.  Yet, the healing and learning has to begin sometime, lest it happens once more.

On last night's The Daily Show, Jon Stewart's guest for the evening was one Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners - Christians for Justice and Peace. He was plugging his new book God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. The Barnes and Noble description reads something a little like this:

Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and pro-Republican? And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?

I see my local representative, Marty Meehan, just got back from his trip to Iraq. The purpose of the trip was to assess the situation so he could recommend to President Bush his thoughts on how to proceed. Meehan, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, stated the obvious, "Two years into the occupation and we are going in the wrong direction."  I'm wondering whether it really takes a trip to Iraq to come to that conclusion.

I do like Meehan because has always taken care of Massachusetts' Greater Lowell area and has been instrumental in the revival of Lowell itself, home to two new minor league sports teams, a myriad of shops and bars, the famous cotton "boot mills" and the best breakfast sandwich that goes by the same name. Still, I just don't understand why taxpayer dollars had to go toward bring him there and back again. Here are the recommendations in a nutshell:

1. Continue with elections as scheduled.
2. Phased withdrawal of American troops within 12-16 months down to a "small, mobile force."

Maybe its just me, but this sounds exactly like President Bush's plan. The thing that mostly bothers me is that Meehan thinks a visual display of America's willingness to leave will somehow quell the insurgency. What I wonder however, is whether he realizes that the insurgency isn't just against American troops. More Iraqis die on a daily basis than American soldiers. I find it hard to believe these insurgents are so against a American presence they would be willing to kill their own people in the process. Collateral damage for a just cause is one thing, but its hard to see any justice or proper motive behind their cause. That a withdrawal of the occupier would somehow make all their problems go away, strikes me as unrealistic.

It probably is a good idea to start bringing our boys home after these elections. What size and how long, I don't know. After all, have we even come to a consensus about what are responsibilities are to Iraq beyond these elections? Continue training a less than sufficient security force made up out of Iraqis? This to an end, I hope. Continue in the quagmire of letting our men and women go out on non-combat missions with the knowledge that they could be blown to pieces by a random well placed IED?  If the required force to maintain true security is never going to be here, that is hundreds of thousands of new troops, then maybe we ought to simply pull the proverbial cut and run. But what if the insurgency and anti-Democratic forces increase in power and we're left with one torn up country? Will the effort have been a total loss? What about the families of the slain? Are their sacrifices in vain?

I do not know the answers to these questions, but they ought to be asked because at this point, there simply is no way to know the outcome. We might as well be prepared for the worst.

Taking time off from his rigorous pre-inaugural schedule, the President decided to share some of his godly wisdom with his most captive audience:  preschoolers.  In playing down the two statements of his presidency which have probably cost more lives than he can count, the leader of the free world espoused this nugget of adolescent insight:  "Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean."

So very wise, Obi Wan.  Whatever do you mean? 

'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."  [CNN.com]

The other comment he was referring to is his gutteral response to 9/11, a true sign of a thoughtful and experienced leader, ready for the rigors of the Oval Office:

"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, that I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive."'

Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.'

First of all, did former librarian and educator of America's youth (and SMU marijuana dealer) Laura Bush really say 'Why did you do that for?', but I digress.  Certainly, Mr. President, you aren't admitting error?!?

I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. ... I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something.

Anyway, I lied, or was joking.  These awe-inspiring quotes from 43 were actually given to a pool of 14 major newspaper reporters, not kindergarteners...but what's the difference, really.

The Stop the War Coalition passed a resolution recently saying the resistance should use "any means necessary" - which prompted Mick Rix, a decent trade unionist, to resign from the STWC on the grounds that this clearly constituted support for the murder of civilians. George Galloway has attacked the IFTU as "quislings" and described the tearful descriptions of one of their members of life under Saddam as "a party trick".

Cheers are in order once again today for the vaunted juggernaut that is the Bush Administration.  In a move which equally demonstrates the opposition's inability to land any punches and the Bushies' disdain for the appearance of professionalism, Homeland Security Department and White House officials brushed off accusations of conflicts of interest and ethics violations.

At the time of the creation of the Homeland Security Department, departing Secretary Tom Ridge bedded down with longtime friend and fundraiser David Girard-diCarlo at the lobbyists Arizona mansion.  Coincidentally, I'm sure, Mr. Girard-diCarlo is Chairman of a lobbying firm, Blank Rome, with many clients seeking contracts with the new federal bureaucracy.

Blank Rome has lobbied Ridge's department on behalf of 29 companies, three nonprofit groups and a trade association for the software industry, according to reports the firm filed with Congress.  [CNN.com]

The "coincidences" continue...

The month after the trip, the first of two Ridge's White House aides left the government and went to work for Girard-diCarlo's firm focusing on homeland security issues.

That aide, Mark Holman, has been "the closest governmental and political adviser to Secretary Tom Ridge for over 18 years," a federal contractor proclaimed in promotional material for a seminar series for which Holman was a featured speaker.

A federal conflict-of-interest law barred Holman from lobbying the White House for a year after his departure. The restriction, however, didn't extend to Ridge's new department.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers called it "intolerable" that Ridge's White House aides were free to lobby the Homeland Security Department.

It "mocks the ethics rules. If it's allowed, it reveals a gaping hole in the law," Gillers said.

If I've said it once, I'll say it again.  Why can't the opposition, nay, an unbiased journalist, translate this blatant cronysim into a liability?  How is blind loyalty--to people, not laws; ideology, not facts--still an asset in our federal government?

The Bush Administration, in its continued pursuit of classlessness, has informed Washington, D.C. officials that they must fund the balance of the District's anticipated security costs arising from the upcoming Inauguration with funds previously allocated for homeland security projects.  A little Bush Admin B.S. to demonstrate:

"We think that an appropriate balance of money from [the annual reimbursement] fund and from homeland security grants is the most effective way to cover the additional cost the city incurs," Office of Management and Budget spokesman Chad Kolton said. "We recognize the city has a special burden to bear for many of these events. . . . That's expressly why in the post-9/11 era we are providing additional resources."

Wha?  Huh?  No, see, you aren't providing additional resources, hence the request for them.  I recommend the good folks in our nation's executive branch pick up a little Mom and Pop publication called The Washington Post now and again...it's full of wonder and magic; and facts and reality, to boot!  Here's just a sample (italics mine):

The region has earmarked federal homeland security funds (the funds the Bushies are telling D.C. to spend on the Inauguration) for such priorities as increasing hospital capacity, equipping firefighters with protective gear and building transit system command centers.

According to (D.C. Mayor Anthony) Williams's letter, the District anticipates spending $8.8 million in overtime pay for about 2,000 D.C. police officers; $2.7 million to pay 1,000-plus officers being sent by other jurisdictions across the country; $3 million to construct reviewing stands; and $2.5 million to place public works, health, transportation, fire, emergency management and business services on emergency footing.

Congressional aides said the District sought unsuccessfully last year to boost the annual security reimbursement fund from $15 million to $25 million to pay for inauguration expenses. In contrast, New York City and Boston-area lawmakers were able to obtain $50 million from Congress for each of those two jurisdictions to cover local security costs for the national political conventions.

Gotta love Republican hegemony.

"They like George [H.W.] Bush in the same way they worshiped Ronald Reagan, not b/c of the type of America Reagan created for them but b/c of the type of America he so vividly imagined.  It was a great illusion, as contradictory as Reagan himself becoming the great promoter of the family despite his own life as a divorce and a father whose children hated him, as contradictory as Bush's passing himself off as a down-to-Earth Texan despite an upbringing in the ultra-rich ozone of Greenwich, CT, followed by sojourns at the equally elite Andover and Yale."

Of course, this all misses the point that one of the memos in question, which to his credit has been reversed whatever that means, tried (very unsuccesfully) to define or interpret what the law was regarding the President and the U.S. miltary's reponsibilities with detainess in such a way as to justify torture. So if Gonzales believes certain laws don't apply in situations, he should have no problem following the law now should he.

The general consensus seems to be that the Democrats will lose big time if they filibuster this nomination. That doesn't mean they should just rollover however and accept him unequivocably. Politically, a tough vetting exposing everything we know to the public eye is the best we can hope for. The challenge will be countering the Republican cries of foul, as unjustified as they may be, with clear reasons why Gonzales is questionable at best and its their allegations that are unfounded.

Why is it that people who make mistakes and then never apologize or answer for them get into the Bush Administration? One word: Cronyism. Anyone that has said a good word for the President gets high marks regardless of their record. All you have to do is look at the Bernard Kerik case. Remember, it was Gonzales who was in charge of vetting process on Kerik. You know he had to know about Kerik's former mob ties considering all of the media did within hours of the news breaking. Either that or they didn't look into it good enough because the President really wanted Kerik for the job. As Fenlenium said this morning, this blind loyalty should translate into a liability. Looks like nothing is going to change in the second term.

I love this stuff:

The Ohio fraudsters have made something of a cottage industry in bitching about the front-page posters' lack of Ohio coverage.

Let me return the favor. (read it here)

Michael: You know what I can't figure out? How is it that all these stupid Neanderthal mafia guys can be so good at crime, and smart guys like us can suck so badly at it.

Samir: We're new to it though. Maybe if we had a little more experience...

Indeed Mr. Sullivan, what's not to like!

This provides an excellent opportunity to introduce everyone to the future of The Dogwood Papers. Welcome to Version 3.0!

First off, as you might have noticed, the blog is no longer on the first page. This is due to a technical difficulty for the time being but we might actually keep it that way if it works out. 

Secondly, as before, we'd{mospagebreak} like to ask for your ideas and suggestions for what you would like to see and what you expect out of this site. Seriously, (you guys, seriously) use the comments section at the bottom of this post to add any ideas of things you want to see.

Thirdly, create an account with the site. "Why would I do that," you ask. Well, as a member of The Dogwood Papers, you get to tailor the site to your needs. For all you anonymous stalkers out there, you also get to post comments using a nickname. Most importantly, you get to be a part of community and hopefully an influential one in the future. Please note, that we do not and will not under any circumstances give out your email address or post it on the website. Anytime you contribute, only your chosen nickname gets used. Also, we do not automatically sign up members for our newsletter as that is a separate sign up sheet.You can create an account by either clicking on the login form at the left or the login link at the top.

Finally, regular readers may know we are and have been looking for more people to write for us and with us. We want more contributers to add to the writing team. We know you have some great ideas and we are asking for your help in molding the site for the future. In the spirit of Uncle Sam, "We want you!" You can click here for details.

As always, thanks for visiting the site and thanks for the contributions. Don't forget to chime in with your comments whenever you feel the urge. We also would like to thank those who spread the word about The Dogwood Papers as well. Without all of you, there would be no point in doing this.

Keep on truckin,
The Dogwood Papers Team