http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/08/05/19/

BCE place in Toronto.
Smaller version on flickr.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/why-im-rooting-for-jason-taylor-on-dancing-with-the-stars/

I’ve never watched an episode of Dancing with the Stars, but after seeing football great Jason Taylor say this about ending the war with Iraq, I’m rooting for him to win.

Taylor: The boys and girls in Iraq are coming home. I wish I could make that happen, unfortunately I can’t, but we’re hoping for it.

He’s looking to make it in Hollywood. Good luck, Jason.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080518.html

Where did the

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2008/05/jandek-in-ann-a.html

http://xkcd.com/425/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/open-thread-811/

“McCain’s Best Friend” by Darkblack. (click for larger) Open thread below.

http://joshreads.com/?p=1560

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/cls-late-nite-music-club-with-bismillah-khan-2/

Ever since July of 2006 when we first introduced a live snippet from Bismillah Khan, the world’s greatest master of the shenai, people have been hungry for more, especially since Bismillah died, at age 90, a month after our initial post. Bismillah Khan was a living embodiment of Indian spiritual secularism; he was a Muslim who respected and even loved Hinduism. Tonight’s selction is “Thumri in Raga Khamaj,” which we hope helps you feel peace in your soul.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/calling-it-like-it-is/

Dan Froomkin:

What do you call it when White House officials say one thing in public and almost the exact opposite in private?

You might call it lying.

President Bush yesterday took the highly provocative rhetorical step of likening those who support negotiating with our enemies to Nazi appeasers. For most people following the presidential campaign, it was an obvious attack on Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama, who has been particularly critical of Bush’s refusal to talk with leaders who disagree with him.

On the record, White House officials issued disingenuous denials that Bush was talking about Obama. But on background, they admitted as much…read on

Many are saying this:

“making an attack this direct on a domestic political opponent while on foreign soil is generally considered out of bounds.

Has anything ever been out of bounds with this administration? You might say it’s standard operating procedure for a President who attacked a country that didn’t attack us. I’m just saying.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/sen-joe-biden-the-president-had-me-negotiate-with-gaddafi-he-should-fire-gates-and-rice-as-appeasers/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/sen-joe-biden-the-president-had-me-negotiate-with-gaddafi-he-should-fire-gates-and-rice-as-apeasers/

Sen. Joe Biden was on ABC’s THIS WEEK and took President Bush and John McCain to the woodshed over their latest attacks on the entire Democratic Party including Barack Obama over their negotiating in any form with Iran. He busts Bush for being a complete hypocrite. Wow, who knew? Bush asked Biden to negotiate with Gaddafi and he did. And I think it turned out pretty good. And since Gates and Condi want to talk with Iran too, what does Biden think about that? Fire those appeasers now! I’m sure McCain will agree.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounds like you’re calling it hypocrisy.

BIDEN: Well, I should — I’m trying to be more polite, but I shouldn’t be. It was ridiculous. This is president — this is pure, unadulterated politics. And the last point I’ll make — maybe the president doesn’t know — I’ll be a smart guy, here –maybe he doesn’t know what’s going on in his own administration. But as soon as he gets back, he should fire, as appeasers, Gates…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary of defense? BIDEN: … and Rice — secretary of defense and secretary of
state.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why? BIDEN: Because they both — Gates as recently as a week ago –said, we’ve got to sit down and talk with the Iranian directly.

 Download | Play  Download | Play (h/t the very wonderful Heather)

Fill transcript provided by ABC news below the fold

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the substance of what the president
was trying to say? Because John McCain picked up on it. He said
basically, you know, we have a big difference here. Barack Obama
wants unconditional talks with the Iranians. We don’t. Here’s what
Senator McCain said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, unconditional,
and unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a stinking
corpse, and arms terrorist who kills Americans, will not convince Iran
to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama has said that his State
Department, his National Security Council would engage in
unconditional talks with the Iranians.

BIDEN: Let’s put this in perspective. The reason why we’d be in
so much trouble if John McCain were president — and I love him — is
because of what you just heard.

What’s the alternative to talking with a country that’s building
a nuclear weapons, attempting to, that in fact is helping kill
Americans by supporting elements in Iraq that are killing Americans?

You either talk; you go to war; or you maintain the status quo.

Now, let’s talk about talking. President Bush, the White House,
called me, several years ago, told me Air Force Two was waiting for me
at Andrews Air Force Base; would I get on the plane and go meet with
Gadhafi, a real known terrorist, personally, a terrorist — personally
responsible for killing kids at the school I went to, Syracuse
University, blowing up that Pan Am flight.

The president of the United States asked me to go. He cut a deal
with Gadhafi, directly. It was a smart thing to do. He gave up his
nuclear weapons, Gadhafi.

What’s the second thing?

We’re in Korea, right now, George. You want to put the hit list
to the worst guys in the world?

How about Kim Jong Il?

They have proliferated nuclear technology, put us in jeopardy,
and other nations around the world. What is the president of the
United States doing, writing letters saying, “Dear Mr. Chairman” –
referring to him.

They’ve cut a deal. They’ve cut a deal. The president of the
United States of America, last time I was in Iraq, was trying to set
up, and recently asked for a third meeting with the Iranians, to talk
with them about what’s going on in Iraq.

This is sophistry. This is ridiculous.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounds like you’re calling it hypocrisy.

BIDEN: Well, I should — I’m trying to be more polite, but I
shouldn’t be. It was ridiculous. This is president — this is pure,
unadulterated politics.

And the last point I’ll make — maybe the president doesn’t know
– I’ll be a smart guy, here — maybe he doesn’t know what’s going on
in his own administration. But as soon as he gets back, he should
fire, as appeasers, Gates…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary of defense?

BIDEN: … and Rice — secretary of defense and secretary of
state.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why?

BIDEN: Because they both — Gates as recently as a week ago –
said, we’ve got to sit down and talk with the Iranian directly.

I am back. Tough drive. More later. Now, sleep.

post a comment

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/lavalamp.asp

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/snl-john-mccain-appeals-to-voters/

Republican presidential candidate explains some considerations that voters might want to consider in selecting their next president:

 Download | Play  Download | Play (h/t BillW)

Good evening, my fellow Americans. I ask you, what should we be looking for in our next president? Certainly, somebody who is very, very, very old.

But just as important, we will need a leader of courage and principle. Someone who is willing to do what is best for this country. Even when doing so is unpopular. Such as putting an end to runaway government spending and especially, congressional earmarks, those wasteful pork barrel projects sneaked anonymously into bills by members of Congress as a favor to campaign contributors or powerful local interests.

Most of these projects are at best unnecessary, such as $15 million to the US Postal Service for a commemorative stamp honoring Tom Delay’s appellate lawyers. Whose idea was that? Or this bit of pork: $160 million to the Department of Defense for developing a device that can jam gaydar. Now I don’t know if this is anti-gay or pro-gay or if such a device would even work. But I do know this: jamming gaydar is not a federal responsibility. That’s something best left to state and local governments.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/malkin-receives-no-mccain-conference-call-love/

First she gets replaced by Laura Ingraham on The O’Reilly Factor and now this:

The McCain campaign holds weekly blogger conference calls with its candidate. There are many questions I know you’d like asked, but I’ve never been able to ask them because I haven’t been one of the privileged few conservative bloggers allowed into the McCain sanctum to ask those questions for you.

If he’s willing to take questions from hostile liberal bloggers, why not take some from conservative bloggers who represent substantial readerships with dissenting views on how best to make this country “safe, prosperous, and proud?”

TBogg blames this video. I tend to agree.

http://joshreads.com/?p=1559

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/getrichslowly/~3/293038891/

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/?p=1813

This is a guest post from my wife.

I drink a lot of herbal tea, but until recently I hadn’t considered making my own.

When we moved into our house, one of the first things we did was prepare an area in the yard for cane berry crops. We planted blackberries, marionberries, and raspberries. Now, four years later, the canes have grown humongous in Oregon’s favorable climate. They’re so long that we’ve criss-crossed them on their supporting wires, interlacing the thorny vines and creating a delicious green fence.

Most vigorous of the bunch are the raspberry canes. As much as we love the twice-yearly crop of delicately-flavored berries, it’s a continual battle — good-naturedly waged — to keep “volunteers” from sprouting among the grapes, the potato patch, the blueberries, and the lawn itself. They spread by determined underground runners that are fragile enough to break off at surface level with a firm tug, so you never get the actual root.

If you can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em!
Imagine my delight when I discovered raspberry leaves can be dried and made into an herbal tea! I’ve experimented with drying other herbs for tea mixtures, and made tisanes with fresh leaves, but the sheer number of raspberry leaves at my disposal makes me giddy! The tea tastes similar to black tea, but without the caffeine, and maybe with just a suggestion of the fragrance of fresh grass. It does not taste like raspberries!

I simply tug up the young raspberry sprouts (under one foot tall) and let them dry between two window screens, laying flat on the sidewalk for a few days in the sun. (I bought my screens at garage sales.)

After the leaves have dried, steep about half an ounce in water and sweeten with a bit of honey or sugar if you like, or add a splash of lemon juice. I usually use boiling water and steep for 5-10 minutes, but there are proponents for steeping in cold water for several hours and then heating the tea if you want to drink it hot. Supposedly this reduces the tannins extracted from the leaf material. Tannins can make tea taste bitter, but I’ve never noticed bitterness with my homemade raspberry leaf tea.

These leaves, once thoroughly dried, keep well, and should see you through the winter until your next “crop” is available. You can also mix raspberry leaves with other dried herbs. The raspberry leaf tea serves as a great base, and blends well with citrusy herbs such as lemon balm (which also grows like a weed around here) or lemon verbena, or mint-family herbs. Just make sure everything is very dry so it won’t mold in storage.

Moderation in all things
As with any herbal tea, care should be taken not to overdo it. There’s always conflicting advice on the internet, but the general consensus seems to be that this tea should not be drunk during early pregnancy due to its relaxing effect on the uterus.

For the same reason, it is also sometimes recommended to relieve menstrual cramps and labor pains, and herbalists say it alleviates other ailments as well. I can’t vouch for any curative properties: I drink it because it tastes nice, is absolutely free to me, and is my SWEET REVENGE on those persistent prickly raspberry canes.

Edible weeds
We also have chickweed and lamb’s quarters in a few neglected corners of the yard — maybe a salad is in order!

This is another great reason for us to avoid using poisons in your yard and garden. J.D. and I know that even our weeds are organic, should we choose to eat them, and many weeds are edible. Don’t have raspberries in your yard? There are dozens of delicious wild plants that can be harvested and enjoyed, and not just for tea. Surely some grow in your area.

What do you harvest from the wild? Do you make your own teas? Your own salads? What precautions do you take about identification and collection sites? Who did your learn from?

Not sure where to start? Here are a few links to help you get the idea.

• HGTV: Grow your own tea
• Gardens Ablaze: How to make herbal teas
• Yahoo! Health: Make your own herbal tea (video)
• Seeds of Knowledge: The wonderful world of edible weeds
• You Grow Girl: Weeds in your garden? Bite back!

---
Related Articles at Get Rich Slowly:

• The Make Money Fast Hall of Humiliation
• Simple Homemade Chicken Stock Using a Supermarket Rotisserie Chicken
• Yardwork and Financial Setbacks: A Metaphor
• Frugal Easter Egg Decorating Tips
• Frugality in Practice: Neighborhood Exchange

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/friday_squid_bl_109.html

Only $15. Plus shipping, of course.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/05/literally-last-minute-doodle-reminder.html

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/verdict-frog-marching-rove/

 Download | Play  Download | Play (h/t Heather)

Bill W. already posted about Conyers’ statement that he is committed to getting Rove to testify in the Don Siegelman case, even if it means having him arrested. However, this segment from MSNBC’s Verdict, where Catherine Crier explains to host Dan Abrams the process and the seriousness of an Inherent Contempt of Congress charge is was too good not to use, so I asked Heather to make the video for me. Besides, it’s small and petty of me, but I don’t think you can hear “haul Karl Rove to jail” too many times.

Crier: Well here’s the way this plays out. If the full House issues the contempt citation then it’s supposed to go to the Department of Justice and they’re supposed to take it to a Grand Jury. They’re supposed to enforce it. Well they’ve already, the Bush administration says no, uh, there’s Executive authority, we’re saying privilege. They’re not going to enforce it. You might then try the Federal courts. The Federal courts are liable to say it’s a political question. But the Constitution gives the Congress the inherent power to issue contempt and then to prosecute on this.

Abrams: On their own.

Crier: They can send the Sergeant at Arms out into the countryside, arrest, haul somebody in and in days gone by used to literally hold them in the basement of Congress in an impromptu jail and then they could have a trial. That is still their power today.

Full transcript (courtesy of Heather) below the fold.

Abrams: We have got breaking news tonight. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has threatened to have Karl Rove arrested. At issue, whether Rove will testify about the prosecution of AL former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. What role if any did Rove play in bringing down the popular Democrat? Thus far Rove has refused to testify and the committee has given him another week or they say they’ll subpoena him. If he still refuses, Politico.com reporting that John Conyers, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee said today “We’ll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We’d hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested.”

“We’re closing in on Rove.” Conyers said.

Catherine, the Congress has to be getting very serious about this.

Crier: It’s about time.

Abrams: Tell me why.

Crier: I’m serious because we’ve got whether it was the Hariet Miers, there’ve been several individuals if you go back throughout this Bush administration that haven’t responded. Now they’ve got Karl Rove in the Siegelman affair and he has refused repeated offers for compromise to give him an opportunity to testify, and it’s finally to the point where you say either this third branch has power or it has been completely emasculated.

Abrams: Because up to now what they’ve been saying is we’d like you to come in voluntarily uh and testify. So far he’s been saying he will answer questions in writing, will come in and talk but there can’t be a transcript, not under oath, etc., and now it sounds like Congress is getting a little tired of it. This is Congressman Wexler, also a member of this committee on this program last night.

Wexler: And if he refuses to honor the subpoena then the full House of Representatives must hold Mr. Rove in contempt of Congress and then we must ask that Attorney General to enforce the contempt of Congress subpoena or citation.

Abrams: But inherent contempt. What does that mean?

Crier: Well here’s the way this plays out. If the full House issues the contempt citation then it’s supposed to go to the Department of Justice and they’re supposed to take it to a Grand Jury. They’re supposed to enforce it. Well they’ve already, the Bush administration says no, uh, there’s Executive authority, we’re saying privilege. They’re not going to enforce it. You might then try the Federal courts. The Federal courts are liable to say it’s a political question. But the Constitution gives the Congress the inherent power to issue contempt and then to prosecute on this.

Abrams: On their own.

Crier: They can send the Sergeant at Arms out into the countryside, arrest, haul somebody in and in days gone by used to literally hold them in the basement of Congress in an impromptu jail and then they could have a trial. That is still their power today.

Abrams: Unlikely to happen here but it does sound like they’re getting ready to move forward with something here.

Crier: Well unlikely to happen in the sense that they might not jail them in the basement any longer, but at this point and time if you look at, if the DOJ has already basically said we’re not going to do what we’re supposed to do, they must take it to a Grand Jury. Says no, Executive privilege, we’re not going to act. The courts probably won’t and it will be, if they, if the full Congress asserts, if the full House votes, then they will have to try this case themselves, which means issue the arrest warrant and try this.

Abrams: Again final question. Executive privilege, Karl Rove has said that he didn’t talk to anyone in the White House about it so what’s the potential Executive privilege?

Crier: Well he’s making the claim and that assertion I don’t think anywhere. It might be something the Federal court will go with but right now the Department of Justice has given no indication that they will, that they will go out and serve those subpoenas issued by Conyers.

Abrams: Does it surprise you Conyers is using language like arrested?

Crier: At this point..no. I’m a big rule of law, this has nothing to do with politics for me, it is respecting the rule of law, regardless of Democrat or Republican, and at this point in time if they don’t show back bone then there are not three branches of government in this country.

Abrams: And we should say again the subpoena has not been issued yet so we shall see what happens if and when uh the subpoena is issued…uhmmm and I’ll continue to follow this case.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/jim-webb-no-president-in-history-has-vetoed-a-benefits-bill-for-those-who-have-served/

Jim Webb, (who is one of my picks for VP) makes an excellent case for his GI Bill on MTP this morning and calls out the GOP on their negligent behavior and the threatened Bush veto. John McCain and George Bush say they support the troops, but when it comes to stepping up and doing something tangible, they are striking out. How dare they say these benefits are too costly when we’re spending millions of dollars a day to occupy Iraq? And as Webb says, this will be used on the campaign trail. And a watered down substitute by McCain and his pal Graham is not the solution.

 Download | Play  Download | Play

Webb: No president in history has, has vetoed a, a benefits bill for those who’ve served. So on the one hand, we have this rhetoric, which goes to what I was writing saying, “This is the next greatest generation, these guys are so great.” And then we see this president, he’s fine with sending these people over and over again where they’re spending more time in Iraq than they are at home. He’s fine with the notion of stop loss, where we can, we can make people stay in even after enlistments are done. And then we say, “Give them the same benefit that the people in World War II have,” and they say it’s too expensive.

Think Progress has more:

The Pentagon has suggested that Webb’s bill is too generous in conferring benefits to soldiers after “only” two years of service. However, as Webb pointed out, soldiers would still have to finish their enlistment term. What’s more, as a recent CBO report showed, any loss in reenlistment rates is entirely made up for by increased military recruits.

Full transcript via MTP below the fold:

SEN. WEBB: I introduced this G.I. bill my first day in office. The idea was to give to people who’d been serving since 9/11 the same educational benefits, the same right to a first-class future as those who served in World War II. We, we started working hard on this bipartisan, nonpartisan, hopefully; we have now got 58 sponsors in the Senate, 300 sponsors in the House of Representatives, and a, and a good number of the, you know, the thinking Republicans have moved to us.

And now the president says he’s going to veto this bill. No president in history has, has vetoed a, a benefits bill for those who’ve served. So on the one hand, we have this rhetoric, which goes to what I was writing saying, “This is the next greatest generation, these guys are so great.” And then we see this president, he’s fine with sending these people over and over again where they’re spending more time in Iraq than they are at home. He’s fine with the notion of stop loss, where we can, we can make people stay in even after enlistments are done. And then we say, “Give them the same benefit that the people in World War II have,” and they say it’s too expensive. So I think the Republican Party is, you know, is, is on the block here to, to clearly demonstrate that they value military service or suffer the consequences of losing the support of people who’ve, who’ve served.

MR. RUSSERT: The Pentagon, the administration and other editorials across the country have said the problem with the bill is that if, after three years people can leave with full benefits, it’ll be very difficult to retain good soldiers, to have them re-enlist.

SEN. WEBB: Well, I, I would say to them that three years of accumulated service qualify you for the benefits, but you still have to serve your enlistment. I spent five years in the Pentagon–one as a Marine, four as a defense executive. I did manpower issues the whole time; I know how these formulas work. We have, as co-sponsors on this bill, John Warner, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Carl Levin, current chairman of the Armed Services committee; Chairman Akaka of the Veterans committee; Senator Specter, former chairman of the, the Veterans committee; Chuck Hagel, the only senator to have served as a senior official in the Veterans Administration. We know what we’re doing and, and we are not going to harm the military.

What you have is 70 to 75 percent of the ground troops in the, in the Army, in the Marine Corps, have left the service by the end of their first enlistment. And those are the people that are not being taken care of. The Department of Defense does a very good job of taking care of the, the career force, but this large number of people, the overwhelming majority of people who are out of the military, that come in because they love their country, they do a hitch and then they want to get on with their lives, they are not getting the opportunity for a first-class future that they deserve.

MR. RUSSERT: Will this bill, you think, if the president vetoes it, be an issue in the campaign? The presidential campaign?

SEN. WEBB: I, I would say the president really has a choice here and–to, to show how much he values military service. And if he were to veto this bill, I can’t see how it would not become an issue in the campaign. What we want to do is get a bill–and I’ve been, I’ve been trying to keep the politics out of it. I’ve working–been working really hard to keep the politics out of it. We want to get a bill where Democrats and Republicans can come together. And I’ve, I’ve listened to all the veterans’ organizations, I’ve, I’ve listened to other members of Congress and, and made modifications in this bill, and I think it’s a very fair bill.