"No longer like a toad in these foul cellars will I secret the venom of hatred -- for you shall bring me love!" - Erik
|
Home
|
« Liberal Outrage: October 2006 | Main | Liberal Outrage: December 2006 » Liberal OutrageThe political affiliations of your favorite super-heroes From Dave's Long Box. I agree with them all*, but Batman is the funniest. By fnord12 | November 28, 2006, 4:12 PM | Comics
& Liberal Outrage | Comments (3)| Link The media is so proud of itself for defying the Bush Administration and going ahead with using "civil war" when speaking of Iraq. They're so proud, they can't stop talking about how much they talked about making the terminology switch before actually going ahead with it. They didn't come to this decision lightly, folks. It didn't just happen in a snap decision. No, sir. They reviewd the facts and gave it all very careful consideration. Almost as much consideration as deciding what type of gel to use in their hair. You morons. You're a bunch of loathsome boot-lickers who rarely do more than parrot what you're told. If you had bothered to do your jobs in the first place, mebbe we wouldn't be mired in Iraq now. Mebbe thousands of soldiers wouldn't be dead. Mebbe we would have a lot fewer people willing to blow themselves up just to take a few of us out. So, now that the Democrats control both houses, you're feeling a little brave? You're thinking you come out and give the Bush Administration a raspberry, and we'll forget about the huge pile of shit your manipulation of public perception landed us in? I hate you even more now. By min | November 28, 2006, 1:43 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Some people made a peace symbol out of a Christmas wreath and hung it on their home. They are resisting orders from their Homeowner's Association to remove it. My favorite line from the article is "residents were offended by the posting of the peace symbols 'while our country is at war.'". It's ok to be for peace during peacetime once a war happens you can pretty much go to hell until someone (not you!) decides it's time for the war to be over. My second favorite line is "The peace sign has a lot of negativity associated with it," he said. "It's also an anti-Christ sign. That's how it started." Sure, people who are anti-war are actually Satanists. Satan hates war. Only through war can you be a true follower of the guy who advocated turning the other cheek. Here's something positive, though: In a public letter posted on Pagosa.com on Friday, Jack Lilly, the chairman of the committee wrote, "The Architectural Committee was asked to intervene. The five members met and decided that no message, other than a wish for peace could be inferred in the symbols and saw no violation of the CC&Rs (covenants, codes and restrictions). The Board of Directors has the authority to override the ACC and did so. But that wasn't enough. They demanded that anyone that disagreed with them should be removed from the committee. We all resigned." Although, what's the point of a committee where the people are just removed if they don't agree with Board of Directors? By fnord12 | November 28, 2006, 1:40 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link Documentaries like Super Size Me and Walmart- The High Cost of Low Price are making corporations worried, and some are even changing their policies as a result. Imagine if the news media did half the job they're supposed to do so that these indie filmmakers didn't have to. By fnord12 | November 28, 2006, 1:36 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Ecuador contributes to the trend of South American countries moving to the left. Actually, after our midterm election, i might even just say "American" countries, but we'll wait and see on that. By fnord12 | November 28, 2006, 1:30 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link "Make sure this is accomplished." That's what Rumsfeld wrote on a memo that deliberately authorized violations of the Geneva convention in Abu Ghraib. A lot of Republicans bristle at the concept of international law. With people like Rumsfeld and (ironically, but not coincidentally) UN Ambassador Bolton, it seems their primary purpose is to take advantage of international crises or tragedies by finding courses of action that can't happen because international law is "too restrictive". The goal with a move like this is to get ordinary people who are scared or just plain dumb to agree that we have to break international law in order to fight terrorism, thus creating mass support for anti-UN policies. If the international community doesn't react, it also sets a precedent that the action taken is acceptable. By fnord12 | November 28, 2006, 12:39 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Stealing this entire post from Kos: Several Senate Democratic aides say they're uneasy about the notion of Lieberman's new communications director, Marshall Wittmann, sitting in on their weekly press secretary meetings. That's because Wittmann, a darling of the press who gives great quotes, was a spokesman for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) before going to the Democratic Leadership Council. During his political lifetime, Wittmann has bounced from the left to the right to the middle. Democratic aides say they're just not sure they can trust Wittmann. He is, after all, still a loyal supporter of McCain, the Republicans' potential 2008 frontrunner. Can they rest assured that what they say in their private weekly meetings will stay between them and not get back to the enemy? No. They cannot. But that's the bargain they made with Lieberman. Now Senate Dems will act surprised? We can't say we didn't warn them. Two more years. Once the Dems increase their Senate advantage, they can put Lieberman out to pasture in the backbench. In the meantime, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to freeze Wittmann out. I suppose it would be a good way to feed the other side bad information, and have the real meetings elsewhere. If only they were that smart. By fnord12 | November 27, 2006, 3:42 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Instead of buying your family more sweaters and ties, donate a llama or a water buftalo to a family in need. By fnord12 | November 26, 2006, 2:04 PM | Liberal Outrage
& My stupid life
& Ummm... Other? | Link The Government Accountability Office (GAO) accused the Department of Health and Human Services of allowing incorrect information on sex to be distributed to kids. This distribution of information is part of the publicly-funded "abstinence only" program. Based on that alone, i think most of us are not too surprised about that "incorrect information" thing. What's interesting is how the Dept of HHS attempts to squirm its way out of this accusation. I think this is grounds for instant elimination. Or at the very least, a severe beating. By min | November 20, 2006, 1:38 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Another member joining the Joe "I decide what the people really want" Lieberman is Representative Jim Walsh who is "disappointed" that the voters didn't appreciate his works as much as he felt they ought to have. Greg Sargent of TPM Cafe puts it very nicely: By min | November 20, 2006, 1:25 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link Link: By fnord12 | November 20, 2006, 12:57 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link We are having a video game revival over here. We're a generation behind, but we are tearing through some games. I've just basically given up sleep and have been a zombie at work, but my philosophy has been if i'm going to be miserable i ought to be tired as well. Monsters first, and then get the treasure, dammit! The only bad thing - and i see this a lot in all different types of roleplaying games - is that by the time we got to the end of the game we were super-powerful and there wasn't really a challenge anymore. We had millions of heal potions and raise dead amulets, super-mega attack spells, and even my wizard was killing the bad guys in a couple of hits. After we beat the game on Hard, we unlocked the Nightmare level and we started that up and loaded our characters... and it wasn't much of a Nightmare at all. Blue Valkyrie shouldn't shoot food. Yellow Warrior shouldn't shoot potions. Red Knight shouldn't shoot--- are you people even listening to me? There's a Secret War in my Xbox, and everyone's invited! The only real problem is the upgrade system - sometimes when you go up a level you get a point, and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you use points to upgrade your powers, and sometimes you have to pay money. And some powers you can't upgrade until you are a certain level, which is odd (they should just make it so that it costs enough points that it's restrictive to buy at lower levels, just for consistency). But that's a minor complaint; superheroes don't really "upgrade" their powers very often anyway. Who will be master Baten? Using an X-X-A Combo to Fight the Power! By fnord12 | November 19, 2006, 12:06 PM | Comics
& D&D
& Liberal Outrage
& My stupid life
& Video Games | Link Link. She just keeps saying things about a "level playing field" and "economic fairness" where everyone can "compete equally". And at no point did her nose start to grow. Nor did she choke as she was saying these words. How could anyone be in the room with her while she was saying this stuff without snickering? The idea that Condoleeza Rice could be concerned about anyone competing equally is completely ludicrous. I'd find it laughable if i wasn't so disgusted with her. It's a wonder anyone listens to a word our government says considering the hypocrisy that comes spewing out of their pie holes. Nobody expects her to admit, "We want the U.S. to dominate the world, economically and militarily. Therefore, we will do whatever is in our power to stem China's growth." All i ask is for them to keep their traps shut about the whole thing. Say something meaningless that doesn't exactly address the question. They're good at that. It's all they ever do if they're not vilifying people who disagree with their policies. By min | November 17, 2006, 9:19 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link You know, i guess i'm a hypocrite or something, but i don't really care about the fact that Murtha considered (but didn't actually take) a bribe 26 years ago. I'm interested in stopping the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Murtha was the anti-war candidate (whatever his actual position, that's what he represented) and this guy represented the "moderates". And the democrats in the house voted overwhelmingly for the moderate. Which signals to me, and i hope i'm wrong, that they aren't really interested in stopping the war. The Republicans put Trent Lott back in a leadership position, so i guess it's ok for Republicans to admit that they're racists again, but it's too soon to forgive Murtha for something that may have happened in 1980. (Hey, at least Hoyer supports music education...) By fnord12 | November 16, 2006, 5:16 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link The CIA recently acknowledged the existence of these documents - one signed by Bush authorizing detention facilities to be set up outside of the country, outlining interrogation techniques that may be used and the second from the Justice Department a legal analysis on torture techniques the CIA could use on detainees. In the past, C.I.A. lawyers have sought to avoid any discussion of whether the agency had documents related to its interrogation and detention practices, the A.C.L.U. said. The group added that the agency had said national security would be jeopardized if it were compelled to disclose in any way its involvement in interrogations. In the C.I.A. letter, Mr. McPherson confirmed the existence of the documents but declined to release them, saying that essentially all of their contents were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act because release would damage national security and violate attorney-client privilege. The timing of this acknowledgement is interesting. Does it have anything to do with the results of the mid-term elections? Is the CIA sensing a change in the wind and trying to make sure they aren't the ones left holding the bag? Or is it just because the lawsuit has forced their hand? As it is, they still refuse to release the documents themselves. Knowing them, if they did release it, it would be so completely redacted that it would become a useless piece of paper. I've long wondered why the CIA still obeys the administration. Considering how Bush and Co. totally give the CIA the shaft whenever it's convenient for them, i'm surprised the CIA hasn't turned on them. They are the CIA afterall. I'm sure they've got plenty of dirty laundry on everybody. Especially since Bush stuck them with Mr. Hide-Behind-the-Door after throwing Tenet under the bus. If that's not grounds for mutiny, i don't know what is. By min | November 16, 2006, 11:47 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Remember when Murtha criticized what was going on in Iraq? Remember how happy we were that there was finally a Democrat who was willing to say something? I, at least, thought, 'hey, this Murtha guy is great'. Well, it's still great that he finally came out and said something. But, the man himself is by no means great. Ultimately, six lawmakers went down on corruption charges stemming from the operation, nearly all of them Democrats. Murtha wasn't one of them -- but not, as Murtha implies, because his innocence was ever demonstrated. When O'Neill learned that the special prosecutor, Barrett Prettyman Jr., had set his sights on Murtha, "the Speaker immediately summoned [then-Texas Dem. congressman] Charlie Wilson into his office with an offer he couldn't refuse" -- a seat on the House ethics committee. "[S]hortly after Charlie's arrival the rules of the game changed completely and before [special prosecutor] Prettyman could fully deploy his investigators to move on the Murtha case, he was informed that the committee had concluded there was no justification for an investigation. 'This matter is closed,' proclaimed the newly appointed Ethics Committee chairman Louis Stokes, another of the Speaker's reliables." Prettyman was stunned, Crile said, and resigned his congressional post in protest. Murtha kept his -- and, come Thursday's secret ballot election among his fellow Democrats, may take the top seat in the House. I'll try to not be so naive next time. Sorry about that. By min | November 15, 2006, 3:52 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link We should be so lucky. The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR) lodged a complaint with the German federal prosecutor urging investigations of Mr Rumsfeld, who resigned last week, and other former US officials over alleged abuses in Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay. Under a law enacted by Germany when the international criminal court was created in 2002, the federal prosecutor can investigate and prosecute war crimes regardless of where they are committed or of the nationality of the perpetrators. Not that it would really matter if they did. The U.S. government would simply ignore the ruling just as they ignore any ruling that's not in their favor. They've been charged by the U.N. before. They won't even pay their U.N. dues. What makes you think they're gonna care if you charge their politicians with crimes? By min | November 14, 2006, 12:37 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link How is it that they can make up laws that allow them to snatch people off the streets from around the world and hold them indefinitely, but when it comes time to use the law to say these people have rights, the government gets to say "oh, they don't apply because they're not being held on U.S. soil"? Assholes. It is our shame that this is done in our name. By min | November 14, 2006, 12:29 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link The Democrats do really stupid things. Mebbe they're like Thanos. They think they want to achieve their goals, but something inside them forces them to sabotage their own efforts everytime. (Or at least, that's what i hear about Thanos.) By min | November 10, 2006, 3:30 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (5)| Link They're producing them factory style now. As evidenced by the neocons, the evangelists are very good at organizing. We are in so much deep shit. These kids will be programmed to push the neocon meme. Because they're being groomed for political positions, they'll be able to get that meme out in the media and into government policies. Let's be honest. The Democrats won this midterm election and miraculously won both Houses. Great. But it's pretty common in a midterm election for the power to shift, so how much of it was due to the Democrat's own strategizing and how much was it just that people are fickle? I still harbor doubts that the Dems could win themselves out of a paper hat in most scenarios. And the Leftists and Progressives (as in "not the Democrats") are so factioned that for them to set up any kind of organized response to the fresh batch of neocons set to be pumped out by Patrick Henry College is a far fetched hope. I think we might be doomed. And i have no hope that the norms will wise up and put up some sort of resistance. Most of them have trouble with doors. By min | November 10, 2006, 3:17 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link One hopes that the very least that can come out of this Democratic victory is that Bolton's nomination doesn't go through. With leaders from both parties promising a new bipartisan Washington, Bush began efforts to get two of his most controversial decisions approved before the Democrats take over. Along with Bolton's nomination, Bush said he would like to move forward on legislation to retroactively authorize the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program. Bush said he would like to see action on both issues before year's end. The Democratic-controlled Congress begins its term in January. But Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated in this week's election, said he would block Bolton's nomination. It's nice to see that Chafee won't use his last few months to push through the rest of Bush's agenda. Although, i'm still peeved on the Alito thing. At least he isn't a Republican posing as a Democrat like others we know. At the end of the article, Bush talks about how he hopes the Democratic congress will work together and rise above partisanship. By which, he means, they should rubberstamp and back everything he says they should. Any contrary opinions expressed will be labelled as "partisan". Is he simply arrogrant or simply simple? By min | November 10, 2006, 2:30 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link I've been trying to ignore it because i just didn't want to know what sort of quagmire was forming. More than a week i've been doing my best to pretend it wasn't in the headlines. But they're persistent bastards, so i finally clicked on the link to read today's bright and cheery news on Israel. Can somebody please tell me what the fuck is going on? They're playing chicken with the French and German peacekeeping forces in Lebanon. They missed by just two seconds, she told the lower house of French parliament, citing instances of how Israeli warplanes had been adopting a hostile attitude to French and German forces maintaining peace in the disturbed area. As if the resumption of hostilities between them and Palestine weren't enough. Early on Wednesday, Israeli tanks bombarded a residential district in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, killing at least 18 Palestinians, including eight children, and leaving several dozens injured. Is this part of some larger plan or has everyone completely lost their minds? Again. Granted, Israel feels threatened by its neighbors, who are quite willing to shoot rockets at them. But Israel's not innocent in all of this either. Taking a cue from the U.S. (whose foreign policy and strategy are peerless), i think they've been much more willing to strike "pre-emptively" to protect themselves. Seeing as that turned out so well for us, i can only imagine how much better it will work for Israel. By min | November 9, 2006, 10:45 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Click over to Daily Kos and see his nifty chart at the top of the page. Dems take the House with a gain of 28 seats for a 231 to 204 advantage. They take the governorship with 6 gains and control 28 states to the Republican's 22. And the Senate is now tied 50/50, with two recounts outstanding. Lieberman won, but at least he got kicked out of the party. He's said he'll caucus with the Dems but after the treatment he's received i wouldn't be surprised if he switched sides. The good thing about the Lamont challenge is it forced Lieberman to change a lot of his positions, especially around the war, and also hopefully humbled him a bit. 6 years ago i would have said this wouldn't matter much. Today, i'm not so sure. On the one hand, we know that a lot of the new Democrats that have been elected are right-leaning, and we know that nearly all of them are still under the influence of corporate power. On the other hand, it is important that a lot of ordinary people switched parties or came out of the non-voting woodwork to make this change - even in districts that 6 months ago were considered "safe" red zones. The goal is to keep that pressure on and make sure that politicians know that people are sick of bullshit wars and fake terror alerts and an economy that leaders say is doing well while people are struggling. This election we pushed things from far right to somewhere in the center. Next election let's tip it a little further to the left. By fnord12 | November 8, 2006, 7:42 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (3)| Link Another of our neighbors has moved to the left: The race has generated intense international interest, including a visit by Oliver North, the former White House aide at the heart of the Iran-Contra controversy. That effort to oust Ortega's Moscow-leaning Sandinista regime created a huge scandal in the United States when it became known that Washington secretly sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund and arm the Contra operation. At stake are millions of dollars in potential investments, many from foreign companies drawn to Nicaragua by its cheap labor, low crime rates and decision to join the new Central American Free Trade Agreement. By fnord12 | November 6, 2006, 8:52 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link It would seem that law schools have put out a few bad apples. Lawyers who don't quite understand what their job is really about. Patrick Fitzgerald, Eliot Spitzer, and James Comey to name a few. Well, here's another. And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen's supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip. The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation. Neither the House nor the Senate version contained such a termination clause before the conference, all involved agree. "It's truly a mystery to me," Ms. Collins said. "I looked at what I thought was the final version of the conference report and that provision was not in at that time." It would seem that even the politicians who are paying attention and actually reading the materials they're voting on still don't know what it is they're voting on since last minute provisions can be tacked on without telling anyone. Nice how the government works, isn't it? It's his own fault, really. Bowen should have known that his real job was to cover up any embarassing instances of fraud or misuse of funds. Duh. Get on the ball, dude. Neo-cons don't like honest dealing. By min | November 3, 2006, 9:46 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link WTF is a memory expert? By min | November 3, 2006, 9:37 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link Once again, the complete and total lack of smiting is such a sure sign that there is no God. If He did exist, He would surely have struck down Bush and the rest of the so-called Christians who only pay lip service but do nothing remotely Christian-like in terms of caring for others and having compassion and all the things the New Testament mentions. The latest example: Doctors said the policy change would make it more difficult for such infants, who are U.S. citizens, to get health care in the first year of life. "The federal government told us we have no latitude. All states must change their policies and practices," said Marilyn E. Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Medicaid program. Obtaining such documents can take weeks or months in some states, doctors said. About 4 million babies are born in the United States each year, and Medicaid pays for more than one-third of all births. The number involving illegal immigrant parents is unknown, but is likely to be in the tens of thousands, health experts said. "We're totally opposed to abortion. Every sperm is sacred. You're committing murder when you have an abortion. But once they're out of the womb, they're not our problem anymore. We just care about unborn children. All the ones that make it out of the womb can just go to hell." Also, explain to me why there isn't just a simple document from the hospital that certifies "Yes. We delivered this baby here on US soil"? Cause that's pretty much all you need for the baby to be a citizen. By min | November 3, 2006, 9:17 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link "I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed, but there is an admission of some guilt," Mr Parsley told the station. Mebbe they just like having a "sordid" secret life, and that's why they're so opposed to gay marriage. It just wouldn't be as exciting if it was ok. Between this and the Coulter thing, the week is starting to look up just a tiny bit. By min | November 3, 2006, 8:38 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link When the Political Director of a major media outlet such as ABC News goes out of their way trying to prove they're not a liberal, even going so far as to vow to Sean Hannity that the programming on their stations will not reflect any anti-conservative views for at least 2 weeks, we've got a problem. Glenn Greenwald has a piece up about Halperin and how he basically kept pleading with radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt to change his opinion that Halperin is "very liberal." It's kinda pathetic. It's also kinda mean of Hewitt to keep toying with the guy. I suppose he figures if he keeps Halperin dangling, it will mean Halperin will do more and more to "prove" his conservative-ness, which means more positive exposure in the media for the neo-cons (or absolutely no exposure on their illegal activities). It's a good strategy. They couldn't strategize their way out of a cardboard box, much less Iraq, but they sure know how to get good PR. First, Halperin e-mailed Hewitt today to again try to persuade Hewitt that he is not a liberal. In response, Halperin returned to Hewitt yet again, this time to request that Hewitt allow him to post a statement on Hewitt's blog, in which Halperin expressed how hurt he was that even after he agreed with almost everything Hewitt said during the interview, Hewitt is still calling him a liberal... Apparently, the most traumatizing and horrifying thing that could ever happen to Mark Halperin is for Bush followers like Hugh Hewitt to think he's a liberal. It is self-evidently very important to Halperin -- on an emotional and deeply personal level -- to demonstrate that he is one of them, or at least not one of those liberals. To achieve this, he made an extraordinary vow to Sean Hannity when trying to win Hannity's approval, in which he pledged that the media would spend the next two weeks compensating for all of their anti-conservative sins over the past decades, and now he is engaged in a truly debased and highly emotional crusade to obtain Hugh Hewitt's affection. I really question whether someone who has obviously made it such a high priority to obtain a very personal form of right-wing absolution can possibly exercise appropriate news judgment. If Halperin is willing to expend this much time and energy and shower Hewitt with such gushing praise -- and if he's willing to make such a public spectacle of himself when doing so -- all in order to convince Hewitt that he isn't liberal, won't that goal rather obviously affect Halperin's news coverage? Isn't there something extremely unseemly about the political director of ABC News engaging in such an intense campaign to win the approval of one of the most blindly partisan, extremist Bush followers in the country? The need of journalists to please right-wing extremists and convince them that they are good and fair is very pervasive among the national media, and Halperin's highly emotional interaction with Hewitt is placing a high-powered microscope on how that dynamic works. As ugly as it is, it is highly instructive. By min | November 2, 2006, 11:16 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link I wish, but i won't hold my breath. I know she's a vicious and stupid flake who was pretty enough and mean enough to get on TV, but is she really this stupid? Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson said his office has been looking into the matter for nearly nine months, and he would turn over the case to the state attorney's office by Friday. Anderson said a letter was sent to Coulter on March 27 requesting that she clarify her address for the voting records "or face the possibility of her voter registration being rescinded." Three more letters were sent to Coulter and her attorney, but she has yet to respond with the information requested, Anderson said. I guess once you get away with saying things about killing dissenters for being "traitors" or about widows from the Twin Towers attack "enjoying their husbands' deaths," why wouldn't you think you were invincible? In one sense, she will most likely forever be immortal, because she'll never shut up and people will still be drawn to the hate she spews. Plus, there will always be someone else to take her place if she should go down in flames. I know Michelle Malkin has been working hard to get that promotion. By min | November 2, 2006, 9:21 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link I'm sure there's a conspiracy theory out there to explain this. "I didn't expect to be arrested," he said. "Obviously I touched a post-9/11 nerve." He releases Bush's drunk driving record before the election in 2000 which totally pissed Bush off. Now he's arrested for waving a fake gun at traffic while dressed as Bin Laden. I can almost taste the conspiracy. By min | November 1, 2006, 11:25 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link « Liberal Outrage: October 2006 | Main | Liberal Outrage: December 2006 » |