Yes, she's a lesbian. According to her own blog and that of her girlfriend. They both posted this picture on the internet as I understand it. I saw it at her girlfriend's site who also has a gay.com profile (with more Maya pics).

There's been much handwringing in the leftie blogosphere about this picture, and others from the series, and the idea of publicizing Maya's sexuality at all. She is, after all, a 19 year old girl who can't be blamed for being the daughter of a near-psychotically conservative Republican U.S. Senatorial candidate from Maryland Illinois who recently called Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter a "selfish hedonist" because she was gay. Also, she was not outted by anyone other than herself on her own blog. Her Yahoo ID is "dangerousanjul". Indeed.

I too though, thought long and hard before blogging at all on this, and I believe it was finally this passage from Maya's rather moving blog that moved me to go ahead and jump in here:

Basically, this young girl describes having the gift of an education being held hostage from her by her parents because she is gay. I guess that's the "Compassionate Conservativism" we've heard so much about. Or would that be "Family Values"? (See chillinois' excellent chronical of many of today's events for more of those moving passages and other commentary from the 'sphere. The articles at Maya's girlfriend's blog --- who's mother seems to be similarly intolerant/cruel are also an object lesson in shame.)

That Maya has been pointing to her own blog for quite a while via her posts on a Keyes Campaign Message Group strikes me --- for all of my armchair psychiatry --- as a cry for help. Well, if America regains its senses and John Kerry is elected, perhaps as he likes to say "help is on the way".

One may note the suprising number of hard-right Conservatives with homosexuals in their immediate family (prominently Cheney's daughter, Gingrich's sister, now Keyes' daughter) and wonder how it is they manage to justify the hatred --- yes, hatred --- that they perpetuate on a daily basis. Through their words, their deeds, and their passive (and not so passive) tolerance for those that who oppress, deny, belittle, hurt, harm, hate and even advocate the murder of other humans solely on the basis of their sexual identities. All in the name of a few more votes.

Perhaps there is hope in this accidentally ironic thought of Alan Keyes from his recent hateful interview; "In the child, the two [parents] transcend their persons and unite together to become a new individual."

We can only hope.

They're on it. By my count that's about 6 new ads in the last 7 days. Keep firin', boys. The latest are "Doesn't Get It" and "Despicable". Go check 'em out.

The tenor of this whole race is getting absolutely testosteronical as Dubya might say. It's a shame the Bush Campaign has written into the debate rules that the candidates must not approach one another other than to shake hands. Once. Otherwise, this thing could still turn into fisticuffs to determine who is Macho Man Numero Uno. Glad to see Kerry though, necessarily, making up some lost ground on that count. Silly Kerry thought this would be about issues. Glad he's got that ridiculous notion out of the way.

While I look forward to his interview with Bush tonight (and for the next three!), I've had a few "No Spin" items spinning on my brain for a few days that I'd like to toss out.

The spin goes on...

If you've been following the tale of The Washington Times' John McCaslin, we have an update. (If you haven't, read the first item here, and our first update to it here)

McCaslin has now attempted to clarify his previous Correction (which was full of lies) to his original story (which was full of lies) by posting another "Correction" (of a sort) which proceeds to make the case still worse.

Why is it so hard for Republicans to simply say "I made a mistake"? Ya know, kinda the way that awful Dan Rather was able to do when he found problems in his report on the National Guard memos? The wingnuts, of course, continue to insist Rather should resign for his honest mistake while completely ignoring McCaslin/Washington Times' blatant and purposeful lies to smear Kerry. What else is new?

Today McCaslin continues to obfuscate and justify in a story that begins this way:

He then spends the rest of the ink explaining that somehow the quote he made up that was given to him by King was not really so wrong because John Kerry probably felt that way even if he said something completely different at the time.

McCaslin never bothers to mention in his latest waffle --- which manages to out-Clinton even Clinton himself --- that in his original story which quoted Kerry saying that and more (all made up), that he'd admitted to having an actual video tape of the show he was "quoting" from. Apparently he didn't either bother to watch it before quoting from it, or he simply watched and decided to make up whatever he wanted anyway since he erroneously said that "no 'Crossfire' transcripts from 1997 are available". I guess that's what he was hoping.

So for a second day in a row now, McCaslin is blaming Peter King for his own triumphant journalistic failure or outright lie that he'd hoped he wouldn't get busted for.

As we pointed out, the original lie was picked up and run on Drudge (the #1 Website in the world) and dutifully spread from there by the rest of the Attack Monkey Media for at least 24 hours. Drudge has not bothered to run any of the "Corrections". Damage done. Mission still Accomplished.

John McCaslin - jmccaslin@washingtontimes.com (202) 636-3284
Mng. Editor, Francis B. Coombs Jr. - fcoombs@washingtontimes.com
Washington Times - (202) 636-3000

If you look carefully at this screenshot, you may be able to find a subtle hint as to who "The Terrorists" actually support!

That, of course, would be political satire/comedy even though there is plenty to support the general premise of the commentary. What isn't satire nor comedy, is when a sitting "Vice-President" of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and even the "President" himself indicate such a sentiment and/or out-and-out state such a notion as fact when it concerns their opponents. And of course to their enternal shame, they have. Many times.

In case you missed it earlier, for the only known statement by a "terrorist" concerning who they actually support, see this previous item.

(Thanks Brian Duffy of "No Bush in 04" for sending in his detective work!)

A few media items on their way here today...We'll start with the easy one. Finally found ABC News Now on my digital dial (Channel 190 for Los Angelenos in the Adelphia digital 'hood). That would be their new Online and/or Digital Only news operation that began during the Conventions when the Entertainment division thought that Americans were better served by watching "According to Jim" on the free public airwaves instead of learning about the two parties who would be leading the "Free" World for the next four years.

Haven't gotten to watch a whole lot yet, but after the hour or so I did see at 2am last night, so far I can say it a delight! Being able to watch real journalists (well, okay, Sam Donaldson and Jonathan Karl, but you get the idea) talk politics all night long without commercial interruption other than for a few ABC Entertainment plugs was awesome.

I don't think many folks yet get this refreshing alternative to the Cable News spews, but so far, I'm thrilled to have an alternative to the boredom, laziness and Adminstration brown-nosing of CNN, the pedantic schizophrenia of MSNBC, and the out and out Republican Infomercial that is Fox News.

From what I've seen so far, it's a charming mix of the free-form take-all-the-time-ya-need pacing of C-SPAN with the full resources of an actual major news organization that seem to be enjoying themselves without all the pressures of commercial television. We'll see how long it lasts that way...But check it out for yourself if you're lucky enough to pick it up where you are (and lucky enough to be able to figure out where the hell it is! Here's some help!)

Was gone all day today. Which is too bad. Cause there was much going on, and much to blog about. Many many thoughts as this thing is heatin' up and just getting fun.

Tomorrow (later today, I guess) I will tell you how Kerry gets his landslide in one fell policy swoop. I know there are a few heavy-hitters in the Kerry/Dem camp who frequent this blog...so pay attention. 2am now though, so I better call it a night and try to get caught up tomorrow. In the meantime, think about those guys on the right. Nite.

In the buildup to War on Iraq, when the idea was very unpopular amongst Americans just prior to the 2002 Elections, Bush and his surrogates went out of their way to tell the American people that he had no plans for war on his desk...

As we later learned, of course, plans for War on Iraq were being readied at the time by the Pentagon even if they weren't yet "on Bush's desk".

This morning, on ABC's This Week Colin Powell made a careful mid-sentence correction when answering a question about whether there are plans for re-instating the Draft in the U.S.:

In other words, Bush "has no plans for a Draft on his desk."

We report, you decide.

(Fool me twice, shame on me?)

Today Sec. of State Colin Powell said about the Iraq insurgency, "It's getting worse."

A rare moment of honesty from the Bush Administration. Here's the numbers they don't usually enjoy mentioning to the American People...As of 9/26/04:

Attacks by Insurgents per day:
70-80 avg.

U.S. Military Killed in the past Week:
15

U.S. Military Killed from "Mission Accomplished" through hand-over of "Sovereignty":
1.89 per day

U.S. Military Killed from hand-over of "Sovereignty" through Today:
2.34 per day

Total U.S. Military Killed since hand-over of "Sovereignty" (90 days ago):
194

Total UK Military Killed since then:
6

Total U.S. Military Dead since start of War:
1,048

U.S. Military Amputees, Wounded, Injured & Psychologically Disabled,
All now evacuated from Iraq:
27,800 est.

Iraqi Civilians Killed since start of War:
20,900 est.

Iraqi Military Killed (by end of "major hostilities"):
28,000 est.

Total Iraqis Killed (Civilian and Military):
48,900 est.

Population of Iraq:
25 million

Killed in the US on 9/11:
2,973

Population of US:
293 million

Stockpiles of WMD's found in Iraq so far:
0

Sources: Iraq Coalition Casuality Count, U.S. Dept. of Defense, McLaughlin Group

Bush tells O'Reilly in his interview (to be run over three days starting Monday...not spinning at all) that he would do the "Mission Accomplished" thing all over again.

From Reuters:

It brings to mind what John Stewart has been saying lately about Bush. "He drove us into a brick wall...but he didn't blink!"

...More "Republican Jesus" right here, courtesy of Jesus' General.

You may remember the various outrageous and unsupported statements by Cheney, Bush, Hastert and the rest of the Wingnuts suggesting outright that "The Terrorists support John Kerry". (In case you don't, the ad at right was on Drudge a few months ago. Just one of many created to send the message). UPDATE: Another story on this point, just released by AFP

Of course, in none of those cases did any of the irresponsible folks making the claim have a shred of actual evidence to support their smear. They were just smearing for Smear & Fear sake. Anything to win a Presidential election.

It seems obvious to me that Bush has been a terrorist's Dream President as he's effectively done everything they could have hoped for. Even Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that our actions in Iraq are likely "creating terrorists faster than we can kill them".

When it comes to hard evidence one way or another as to whom "The Terrorists" support however, there is only one clear statement from any Terrorist that I know of. And they have firmly endorsed George W. Bush for President as reported by the International Herald Tribune last March just after the Madrid bombings.

The note claiming responsibility for those bombings made "The Terrorists" preference for George W. Bush quite clear:

So shouldn't the ad at right be changed to "1 out of 1 Terrorist Agrees! VOTE BUSH!"? Or should Bush/Cheney change their slogan to "Bush/Cheney - Even the Terrorists Support Us!"?

At least there is actual documented evidence to back up those claims.

(Thanks John Aravosis for the tip)

This is the ad currently appearing on Drudge's site...

Ironic today, if only for this item. Not to mention the countless hundreds of other biased and incorrect reports like the one I pointed to that are featured every single month on Drudge and echoed in the rest of the Right Biased media chamber.

The beat goes on. Anything to win.

For how long now has the White House told us they've "released everything pertaining to Bush's National Guard service"?

From Reuters:

Yes, it was another late-on-Friday-night, too-late-to-make-it-onto-the-Nightly-News coincidence again this week.