Is it just me or has this winter been especially brutal? I’m talking, of course, about North America, but you know, feel free to tell me I’m right about your neck of the woods too. A lot of the blame, at least in the media I’m seeing, is that the infamous El Nino has reared his ugly head again in the Pacific. Essentially this just disrupts natural jet stream patterns and sends weather systems all over the place where they ordinarily aren’t typically found. This lets places like Vancouver get no snow, but Pensacola enjoys the white stuff.

But you know, I don’t think it’s just the weather that is giving this winter a particularly nasty bite.

Politics are always vicious, but it seems especially contentious here in the United States with Democrats and Republicans infamously slugging it out, while meanwhile a seemingly pretty large portion of the population wants to throw them both out on a rail. Sometimes, I don’t disagree. But if that puts me in the same category as the Tea Party assclowns or big mouth Glenn Beck, I’d rather not.

And then there is the never ending cycle of the Twenty-Four Hour News Media.

They’re there to always constantly remind us that just when you thought there may be a glimmer of light at the end of this dark, dark winter, you’re wrong. Quick to rattle off facts about unemployment, terrorism, or domestic crimes, there isn’t a shred of good news to be found. And yet they are playfully ribbing on each other and the subjects at hand right before a few messages from their sponsor.

Before Conan o’ Brian was unceremoniously kicked off his quick stint on The Tonight Show, he called us kids and told us to not be cynical. He said that it doesn’t help anything. It was easy for him to say considering while he did just lose his life long dream in the hosting gig, he did get paid a shit ton of money to go away. But that’s just me being cynical.

And just like this winter, I think we’re sooo tired of being cynical. We need to find ways to free ourselves from the constant drumbeat of desolation pounded out not just by politics and the media, but by the actual environment around us. Yes, it’s really hard when it’s 23 degrees and you can’t feel your left testicle, but you know, even when here locally I had about two days of near 60 degree weather, I missed my opportunity to briefly change things up a bit.

Maybe you did too.

Spring will come, so at least the weather will change. But don’t count on the rest of the stuff doing it, unless you demand it. Not only from THEM but from yourself. I haven’t really been hibernating, but I certainly haven’t been out in the world behaving like the person I really am. Merely a dark winter’s shadow. Let’s see if that can’t be altered.

Because this is what paying for the interwebs would look like if we didn’t have it:

President Obama spoke of economic calamity and war last night in that solemn rite of democracy, the address to the joint session of Congress. And lawmakers watched him with the dignity Americans have come to expect of their leaders: They whipped out their BlackBerrys and began sending text messages like high school kids bored in math class.

“One doesn’t want to sound snarky, but it is nice not to see Cheney up there,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) announced as Obama entered the chamber.

“I did big wooohoo for Justice Ginsberg,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) broadcast, misspelling the name of the ailing Supreme Court justice. McCaskill could be seen applauding with BlackBerry in one hand.

“Capt Sully is here — awesome!” announced Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.), spotting the US Airways pilot in the gallery.

Then there was Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), in whose name this text message was sent at about the time the president spoke of the need to pull the country together: “Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren’t going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour.” A few minutes later, another message came through: “Disregard that last Tweet from a staffer.”

(more at the Washington Post)

(Ed note: As someone who runs two websites complete with comment sections and tag-board, as someone who has a facebook profile and a group for one of the two websites I run, even I have to say enough is enough… I am sick and tired of these motherfucking tweeters on my motherfucking internets!

No. We really don’t care what you are doing EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY WAKING DAY OF YOUR MISERABLE EXCUSE OF YOUR LIFE. If you really were that interesting, you’d need more than 140 characters to tell us.)

*** WaMu fails. J.P. Morgan buys it up.

*** Lots of screaming, even Treasury guy Paulson was on his knees at one point, but no deal was reached in the Big Bank Bailout of 2008™.

*** There are Chinese people in orbit above the earth RIGHT THIS MOMENT!

*** I responded to a personals ad on Craig’s List. We’ll see what happens, if anything. (No, it wasn’t for hot tranny action, but I’m willing to experiment.)

*** Retards think that Clayton State College lost their accreditation when Clayton County schools did. They didn’t.

PITTSBURGH (AP) – Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday called for a summer-long suspension of the federal gasoline tax and several tax cuts as the likely presidential nominee sought to stem the public’s pain from a troubled economy.

Timed for the day millions of Americans filed their tax returns, McCain offered some immediate steps as well as long-term proposals in a broad economic speech. The nation’s financial woes have replaced the Iraq war as the top concern for voters, and McCain, who has said economics is not his strongest suit, felt compelled to address the problems as he looks ahead to the November general election.

“In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties,” McCain told an audience at Carnegie Mellon University. “Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose.”

To help people weather the downturn immediately, McCain urged Congress to institute a “gas-tax holiday” by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. By some estimates, the government would lose about $10 billion in revenue. He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.

Combined, he said, the two proposals would reduce gas prices, which would have a trickle-down effect, and “help to spread relief across the American economy.”

Aides said McCain’s Senate staff was drafting a bill on the proposal. It’s likely to face strong opposition not only from Congress but the states. The federal gasoline tax helps pay for highway projects in nearly every town through a dedicated trust fund. In the past, such proposals for gas tax holidays have not fared well as lawmakers and state and local officials prefer not to see changes in their revenue source.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn’t be illegal.

“The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom,” the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.

Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including “obscene” cartoons and drawings–or face fines of up to $300,000.

That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user’s account be retained for subsequent police inspection.

Before the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2, Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with John Walsh, the host of America’s Most Wanted and Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Allen said the legislation–called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act–will “ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography.”

The SAFE Act represents the latest in Congress’ efforts–some of which have raised free speech and privacy concerns–to crack down on sex offenders and Internet predators. One bill introduced a year ago was even broader and would have forced Web sites and blogs to report illegal images. Another would require sex offenders to supply e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names.

Wednesday’s vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that’s supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.

Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.

This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an “electronic communication service” or “remote computing service” to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s “CyberTipline” and (b) “make a report” to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves. (By the way, “electronic communications service” and “remote computing service” providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.)

The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly “lascivious” poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a “drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting.” (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).

Someone providing a Wi-Fi connection probably won’t have to worry about the SAFE Act’s additional requirement of retaining all the suspect’s personal files if the illegal images are “commingled or interspersed” with other data. But that retention requirement does concern Internet service providers, which would be in a position to comply. So would e-mail service providers, including both Web-based ones and companies that offer POP or IMAP services.

“USISPA has long supported harmonized reporting of child pornography incidents to the (NCMEC). ISPs report over 30,000 incidents a year, and we work closely with NCMEC and law enforcement on the investigation,” Kate Dean, head of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, said on Wednesday. “We remain concerned, however, that industry would be required to retain images of child pornography after reporting them to NCMEC. It seems like the better approach would be to require the private sector to turn over illicit images and not retain copies.”

Failure to comply with the SAFE Act would result in an initial fine of up to $150,000, and fines of up to $300,000 for subsequent offenses. That’s the stick. There’s a carrot as well: anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.

There are two more points worth noting. First, the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It’s not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they’ll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea (and it’s been a popular one in the Senate).

The second point is that Internet providers already are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency. So there’s hardly an emergency, which makes the Democrats’ rush for a vote more inexplicable than usual.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men’s room sex sting.

“I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively,” Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.

Craig had earlier announced he would resign his seat by Sept. 30, but had wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea.

The third-term lawmaker issued his statement not long after Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter relayed word he has selected a replacement for Craig in the event of a resignation.

“He is ready to act should we receive a letter of resignation,” said Jon Hanian, Otter’s spokesman in Boise, in what seemed like a calculated signal that home-state Republicans want Craig to surrender the seat he has held for 17 years.

In his statement, Craig said he will not run for a new term next year.

But in the meantime, he said: “I will continue my effort to clewar my name in the Senate Ethics Committee—something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate.”

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to “find common ground” on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to “start doing some redeployment,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.

“No you’re not, Mr. President,” Ms. Pelosi interjected. “You’re just going back to the presurge level.”

The testy exchange, recounted by three people who attended the session or were briefed on it, provides a peek into how Mr. Bush will try to sell Americans on his Iraq strategy when he addresses the nation at 9 p.m. Thursday. With lawmakers openly skeptical of his troop buildup, Mr. Bush will cast his plan for a gradual, limited withdrawal as a way to bring a divided America together — even as he resists demands from those who want him to move much faster.

The prime-time address will be the eighth by Mr. Bush on Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, the latest iteration of his efforts to sketch what he calls “the way forward.” It will be the first time he has described a plan for troop reductions, a radical departure for a president who has repeatedly defied his critics’ calls to bring the troops home.

Yet as the president outlines his plan, his critics say he is trying to have it both ways. He is, they say, taking credit for a drawdown that has been envisioned since he first announced the current buildup on Jan. 10 — a withdrawal that had to be carried out unless he was willing to take the politically unpalatable step of extending soldiers’ tours further.

The White House declined on Wednesday to preview Mr. Bush’s speech, but one senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid upstaging the president, said the reductions would be heavily conditioned on the situation in Iraq and would fall far short of the rapid withdrawal Democrats want.

Under the plan, at least 130,000 American troops would remain in Iraq next July, down from more than 160,000, decreasing to about the same level as before the buildup began, with any decisions on further withdrawals likely to be postponed until at least next March. The planned drawdowns between now and July 2008 are expected to be of the 30,000 that many assumed the president would suggest after this week’s testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq. But, the senior official said, Mr. Bush’s ultimate goal would be a sustainable force of around 10 combat brigades, down from 20 now, at the end of his presidency, though a large number of support troops would also still be required.

“We want bipartisanship,” said this official, “but not to the point where it sacrifices success.”

Mr. Bush has repeatedly asked Americans to give him another chance in Iraq, and Thursday night will be no different. “His main goal at this critical juncture,” said another senior official, also speaking anonymously, “is to ask Americans to stop and take a fresh look.”

Whether they will take that look remains to be seen. This week’s Congressional testimony from General Petraeus was supposed to be a defining moment in Washington’s debate over the war.

But in fact, as was suggested by the Pelosi-Bush exchange during the White House meeting on Tuesday, very few minds have been changed.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) – A defiant Sen. Larry Craig denied any wrongdoing Tuesday despite his guilty plea this summer in a men’s room police sting, emphatically adding, “I am not gay. I have never been gay.”

Craig, a third-term senator from Idaho, proclaimed his innocence as well as his sexuality less than an hour after Senate leaders from his own Republican Party called for an ethics committee review of his case.

“This is a serious matter,” they said in Washington in a written statement that offered neither support nor criticism of the conservative senator. Issued in the names of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party leader, and several others, the statement said they were examining “other aspects of the case to determine if additional action is required.”

Craig, his wife Suzanne at his side, took no questions in a brief appearance in the capital city of the state he has represented in Congress for more than two decades in the House and then the Senate.

He had “overreacted and made a poor decision” when he was apprehended by an undercover police officer in a men’s room at the Minneapolis airport and later pleaded guilty.

“While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct in the Minneapolis Airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in hopes of making it go away.” He said he kept the information from his friends, family and staff, adding, “I wasn’t eager to share this failure but I should have anyway because I am not gay.”

Nor did he hire a lawyer, Craig said, although he now has retained counsel “to review the matter and advise me on how to proceed.”

“I have brought a cloud over Idaho and for that I seek and ask the people of Idaho to forgive me,” he said.”

His account contrasted sharply with the complaint in the case, in which an undercover officer said that Craig, while occupying a stall in the men’s room, engaged in actions “often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct.”

Craig was read his rights, fingerprinted and required to submit to a mug shot at the time of his arrest.

Police notes also show that on June 22, 11 days after the arrest, Craig returned to the police station and said no one had yet contacted him about his case. “Craig told me that he needs a contact so his lawyer can speak to someone,” wrote the officer who spoke with the senator, Adam Snedker.

The senator signed and dated his guilty plea to a charge of disorderly conduct on Aug. 1, and court papers indicate it was submitted by mail and filed a week later. The court docket said Craig paid $575 in fines and fees and was put on unsupervised probation for a year. A sentence of 10 days in the county workhouse was stayed.

Craig, up for re-election next year, said he would announce his plans next month. If anything, he sounded like a man inclined to seek six more years in the Senate.

“Over the years, I have accomplished a lot for Idaho, and I hope Idahoans will allow me to continue to do that,” he said.

(Ed note: I think they actually had a pretty flimsy case, but he was the dildo who plead guilty to it.)

WASHINGTON (AP) – Alberto Gonzales, the nation’s first Hispanic attorney general, announced his resignation Monday, driven from office after a wrenching standoff with congressional critics over his honesty and competence.

Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his departure over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend for months until accepting his resignation last Friday.

“After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position and I accept his decision,” Bush said from Texas, where he is vacationing.

Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found and confirmed by the Senate, Bush said.

The Republican rebellion against the war in Iraq widened over the weekend as more of the party’s senators voiced dissent from President George W. Bush’s strategy.

Republican unity on Iraq has shattered in recent weeks, amid mounting pessimism about the ability of US forces to bring stability to the country.

Weakening Republican support for the war has left Mr Bush increasingly isolated as congressional Democrats prepare for a fresh barrage of votes aimed at forcing a US withdrawal.

Three more Republican senators have called for a change of course recently, adding to a steady trickle of defections since Richard Lugar became the most senior to break from Mr Bush over the war last month.

“It should be clear to the president that there needs to be a new strategy,” Lamar Alexander of Tennessee told the Los Angeles Times on Saturday.

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire told the same newspaper that efforts to quell the violence in Iraq by increasing US troop numbers “don’t seem to be making a lot of progress” and called for “a clear blueprint” to end the war.

The comments came two days after Pete Domenici of New Mexico, said he could no longer support current strategy.

The three senators are among six Republicans who have voiced support for bipartisan legislation that aims to prepare the ground for US troops to start leaving Iraq by March next year. The measure is among the more moderate of several proposals for troop withdrawal and limits on war spending set for debate in Congress over the next few weeks, as Democrats launch a fresh push to end the war.

The White House has appealed for Republicans to withhold judgment until September, when Gen David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, is scheduled to deliver a progress report to Congress.

But Chuck Hagel, the moderate Republican senator from Nebraska and a longstanding critic of the war, on Sunday warned that the party’s patience was wearing thin.

“If we do not see this administration take some initiatives to make some changes, significant strategic policy changes over the next 90 days, then of course it will be forced on [Mr Bush],” he told NBC’s Meet the Press.

The most urgent calls for a policy change are coming from Republicans facing tough re-election battles in 2008, highlighting concern throughout the party about the impact of the war on next year’s congressional and presidential polls.

Charles Schumer, Democratic senator for New York, said Republicans were “getting hammered” by their constituents over the war, and predicted the trickle of defections would soon turn into a torrent. “I think the dam is about to burst,” he told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. “By September there will be real change forced upon the president by a bipartisan Senate.”

Mr Bush last week re-newed his warning against a hasty exit from Iraq, arguing that a withdrawal “based on politics, not on the advice and recommendations of our military commanders, would not be in our national interest”.

US and coalition casualties in Iraq have increased to an average of about 3.5 a day since Mr Bush took his decision to increase troop numbers in January – the highest sustained rate since the end of the initial invasion in 2003. More than 3,600 US troops have died since the war began.

WASHINGTON – Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

“I fully support our troops” but the measure “fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,” said Clinton, a New York senator.

“Enough is enough,” Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that
President Bush should not get “a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”

Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

On a vote of 80-14, the Senate cleared the measure and sent it to Bush.

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

“This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would “mandate a rigid and artificial deadline” for troop pullouts, and “it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing.”

Democrats accused Bush of ignoring American’s desire to stop the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,350 members of the military.

“The president wants a blank check,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., moments after Bush’s appearance. “The Congress is not going to give it to him.” She said Congress would work with him to find common ground but added that there was “great distance” between them on Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush has an obligation to explain his plan for responsibly ending the war.

“If the president thinks by vetoing this bill, he’ll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken,” Reid said.

Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $124 billion spending bill. Bush will meet with congressional leaders—Democrats and Republicans alike—on Wednesday to discuss a new bill.

Bush said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. “They’ve sent their message, and now it’s time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds,” the president said.

He said the need to act is urgent because without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying or repairing equipment.

“Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better,” Bush said.

“Whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay,” the president said.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.

“It is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days to make its way around the Capitol. But that’s where we are,” said deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president’s threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

“The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq,” said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: “It’s time to bring our troops home from Iraq.”

The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

Across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will “get harder before it gets easier.”