My jaw just literally dropped as I read the Financial Times' article by Christopher Grimes that blithely asserts, "Though there have been some expressions of solidarity for the striking workers, the union's cause has failed to attract anything close to popular support among New Yorkers."

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!

After firing off an angry e-mail about the disservice caused by being so grotesquely wrong, I continued to scour the news for breaking stories re: TWU members going back to work.

Part of what I found was this poll, which is currently running at 67% in FAVOR of fining strikers.  

bah!!  please go vote!

Perhaps you've seen this by now, the latest "miracle", that the Virgin Mary is crying - but not just crying, she's crying tears of blood.  

Yes, by now, it's everywhere, coverage of this "miracle" - while at the same time, coverage of legitimate news is ignored.  For a great example of the coverage, check out CBS's story about the various speculations regarding why Mary is crying - because of course, she definitely is.  MARY is CRYING.  

Why? Lots of possible reasons are given.  But ALL of them are religious, and absolutely NONE of them are scientific.  

You may have seen this diary a couple days ago, pointing out that the FDA is now taking public comments regarding Plan B, and the drug manufacturer's application to make that medication available over-the-counter.  

As noted in the diary, I e-mailed the FDA and, surprisingly, got a response that was more than simply a "Thank you for taking the time to comment, your input is very important to us" form e-mail, like you usually get.  

The FDA's response follows.  My response to their response?  There is no "there" there.  

I, and I think most (if not all) of us on this forum have had an extremely demoralizing week, watching the tragedy not just unfold, but compound due to truly criminal negligence.

Like me, then, you're probably a little worn out, too.  I don't know about you, but I could use the release of a laugh.  I need to right my own ship with some humor.  I hope this doesn't come across as callous - it's certainly not intended that way.  Just I think everyone could use a little release.

that said, unfortunately, I myself am not much of a jokemeister.  so who can help me?!?!?  (and all the other Kossacks?)  maybe some Bush jokes?  anyone?  something D-O-O?  anyone?

I've been surprised not to see a recommended diary here on Kos about this week's evacuation of the Gaza strip.  Perhaps it is simply because the Israel-Palestine is such a hot-button issue, that personal attacks seem to always ensue in any attempt at rational discussion.  But to break the taboo, we have to break the taboo.  We should be talking about this enormously momentous pullout.  The media certainly is.  But I'm really turned off by what looks to me like a near-universal, very inflammatory telling of this story.  That is, all the stories I've been exposed to in the media.  

(more below)

Trying to bring some levity to this disastrous Plame debacle, by figuring out some details for the inevitable movie.  I'm mapping out some casting plans - I think you'll like my choices, but of course I welcome input.

First, of course, we need a name.  I'm sick to death of _-gate.  Agreeing to call a scandal a "-gate" is to ascribe some amount of redundancy to it, to imply that on some level, it's nothing new.  I think this particular matter is new, so it shouldn't be cheapened with a -gate.  So first, I'll need a name.  Suggestions?  

On to casting (below the fold)...

This week, there's been a big increase in blaming the blogs.  The Gannon/Guckert story has largely diverted into a twin-headed story about (1) the man being a gay prostitute, and (2) blood-thirsty bloggers bringing this fact to light for no reason other than blood thirst.  Then there's the Eason Jordan story.  CJR alleges that it was the bloodthirstiness of the blogs that led to "neither denial nor apology [being] enough", ultimately leading to Jordan's "corporate overlords" forcing him to resign.  

Kevin Drum chimed in, too, characterizing as "scalp-collecting" the blogosphere's circulation and development of these and other stories, which have ultimately led to several individuals being forced to resign, or being fired (though in the case of Guckert, it's difficult to believe that his job at Talon News was bona fide, and if it wasn't, then resigning from it is meaningless).

CJR and Drum lament that these stories seem to demonstrate that the blogosphere is being Used For Ill, Not For Good.  

jump with me...

check out these repulsive bills that have been submitted by the Georgia legislature, which, in the recent election, made a substantial move to the right with the election of a Republican majority.  

The term "patriotic" has started to get under my skin.  Since not long after 9/11, I began (as many Kossacks did) to notice the marked ramping-up of nationalism.  Perhaps it was an understandable response to the horrifying events of that day, but it has not abated or evolved, as I think it should.  

The US government responded to 9/11 in part by stoking both our fear and our nationalism, especially when Bush drew a line in the sand, declaring himself on one side and the "terrorists" on the other.  Since then, it's become crystal clear that if you're not with him, 100% on "his" side, then you're by default on the side of the terrorists.  

He has gotten away with making such hate-filled racist comments by cloaking them with patriotism.  Patriotism is noble, and unassailable.  If you do something out of patriotism, the implication seems to be, any and all ill effects are forgiven.  In essence, Patriotism means never having to say you're say.    

The unassailability of this concept is bugging me.  

It may be kind of a tired sentiment, but today, watching the "debate" in the House over the valorous objection to Ohio's vote, I couldn't help but wonder, what would Clinton do?

Had this voting debacle occurred and put him in office, how would he have reacted?  Surely, surely, and though I am not an enormous fan, surely Clinton would have acknowledged the allegations of problems, and assured voters that steps would be taken to ensure the right of all citizens to vote, and that all their votes would be counted.  I cannot imagine Clinton simply refusing to acknowledge the many complaints.  

(jump, if you're interested)

Wanda freaking rocks.  Hit all our issues - legalize pot and gay marriage, W is a dumb cracker who resembles Yosemite Sam when angry - and was damn funny to boot.  

one of the best parts: two patrons, a couple, with homemade costumes.  the guy had on a homemade cape, all black outfit, and a T-shirt that, hand-lettered, read, "My DICK would be a better VP."  His date, in all white, had on a similarly hand-lettered shirt, reading: "My BUSH would be a better president."

I heart NY.  And Wanda.  

in case no one's posted this yet -
CNN

scroll down to the lower right for: "did Kerry go too far in mentioning Cheney's gay daughter" ("HELL no she was already out and in fact her sexuality is a big part of her work and career" isn't an option)

in last night's debate, Ifell seemed to ask the candidates to basically pledge allegiance to Israel.  this is one of the criticisms of Kerry I've heard from the right before - that he won't stand up for "our friend Israel".  Edwards fell right in line with what seems to be the required thinking, though, and did seem to pledge his allegiance, especially with his Sbarro story.  while I don't discount the story, nor the fact that it is but one horrific example of the brutality in Israel, to leave out Israel's own brutality, including Sharon's outrageous wall, is totally unfair and one-sided.  Although, to Edward's credit, he did then go further and support the two-state solution that, I think, every country in the entire world supports, except of course, the US and Israel.

Even Israelis aren't as monolithic on this issue as US politicians seem to be required to be, for admittance to the political system.  But if we only admit people who think the same on this issue as those who preceded them - that is, if we keep on doing the same thing we've been doing - how can anyone expect that we're ever going to start getting different results?  That this bloody war will ever have the resolution that not just Israel and Palestine, but the rest of the world, so desperately need?

our (Dem) poll numbers are continually on the rise, since the RNC bounce.  why, then, does electoral-vote's vote calculator project a result that gets worse and worse (for Dems), every single day?  today's count is Bush 321, Kerry 200 (yesterday's was closer, but Bush still leading - same thing regressively for days prior).  This goes against ALL the current poll numbers.  What gives?

We've seen from the first debate that one of Bush's 5 talking points that he keeeeeeeeeeps on hammering (no matter the question), is that Kerry keeps changing positions.  He responded effectively at the debate, but imho, we need to keep lobbing bite-sized comebacks at this.  

My suggestion: "My values remain constant, they don't change.  What I care about - safety, security, freedom (fill in this blank) - remains constant.  But necessarily, our strategies sometimes have to change.  Bush refuses to admit the need to do something different, when his strategy isn't working.  But you can't expect to keep doing the same thing, but somehow start getting a different result."

Or something like this.  

Can't wait to see Edwards and Cheney!  

OK, so there is some gratification in that this tidpit did get picked up in Time Magazine (see: How Much U.S. Help?.  But this is bigger than a side story in Time.

If Bush & Co will consider taking steps to "affect" the outcome of ANY election... they'll try to "affect" ANY election!  Meaning, ours.

There's got to be a reason they don't want electronic votes verified.  My theory: if they lose, they'll challenge the election by filing suit on Jan. 16 or so, asking, as part of their lawsuit, for a stay of effectiveness of the election.  Courts are typically friendly to - and, indeed, often require - that the status quo be maintained while the dispute is resolved in court.  This would mean, obviously, keeping Bush in place as preznit while the suit were decided.  And make no mistake that Rove & Co. could prolong the lawsuit dramatically.  In addition, Kerry, if controlled by the DNC as Gore seems to have been, could do the same thing Gore did ("Now is the time for acceptance...").

Paranoia?  Maybe.  But the fact that they have seriously considered affecting ANY democratic election should give everyone pause.  And it's something every voter should be aware of, imho.