I'm pretty sure I'm breaking the rules right now because I'm not on the phone.  But, I'm not 100% sure MoveOn.org has tapped the dkos community as well as they should.  So I, a somewhat anonomous MoveOn member, am letting you know about the Call For Change Campaign.  I should be making phone calls right now, but I know you folks are going to come through for me so this is time well spent.

MoveOn is attempting the largest GOTV capaign in the nation.  We need MoveOn members to sign up to make some phone calls.  From the people I've talked to that scares some of you.  Does it scare you more than the news today?

I've got the goods after the flip.

I'm sure you have all heard about Bill Napoli, the South Dakota legislator, and his opinion on what might be a valid reason for an abortion.  To see just how crazy this man is (he is a legislator mind you) I decided to codify his idea of the law.

For the actual law see here.  For his comments click on Bill Napoli above.

After the break is what Bill Napoli's abortion law would look like.  

This diary is not as long as it should be, but I have to make a diary of it because the 9-11 conspiracy nuts (I'm one) just went main stream.  The Thom Hartman show, a great radio show if you don't listen (heck I can't listen that often) is openly discussing whether 9-11 was a purposeful conspiracy or just extreme incompentence.  Thom's theory (this guy is not a nut job or stupid if you don't know him) is that Bush knew something was going to happen in New York and Washington but didn't know the specifics.

More after the break.

Caution.  This diary contains profanity and much emotion, and is not suitable for children of any age.

As of right now 63% of the dkos voters responding to tlh lib's question "Is this country going to remain safe to live in as a democratic state" have responded "No".  Well f you.  If I may quote my favorite ex-crackhead, "Well allow me to retort".

My Mom's friend sent an email along proporting to be a quick lesson from an economics professor providing a simple tale about income tax.  While it's a cute tale, with Ann Rand as a clear influence, I felt the need to publicly bash it.  After the jump find an income tax "lesson" winger's might try and use with you, and find a kick ass response.  

Seriously.  Frontpaged at the BBC here:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

(I promise I will learn to make the nifty links.)

This is huge.  I have never heard anything like this from a serious high ranking government or ex-government official.  For those not inclined to look at the article he says and I quote:  

"Certainly it is a domestic crime to advocate terror," he added.

"And I would suspect, for whatever it's worth, it's an international crime as well."

This means that some big boys want Cheney to go down.

Today the NYT has an article titled "China Wages Classroom struggle to win friends in Africa".  A small article that illustrates how China is out maneuvering Washington in the never-ending battle to expand each countries power and influence for the benefit of each countries elite.  One of the fascinating aspects of current culture in America is the open acceptance and much greater understanding of "hard power" vs. the lost appreciation for the art of soft power.

While I know that everyone has discussed Ron Suskind's article in the NYT Magazine, there was one line in particular that seems to have been overlooked.  It is near the end, when Suskind is talking about Bush's meeting with the R.N.C. Regents.  He quotes bush as saying "two years, at least, until the midterm.  We have to move quickly, because after that I'll be quacking like a duck."

Read that again.  What the heck does that mean?  In two years President Bush says that he will be quacking like a duck?  To me that means he knows he is going crazy.  What does it mean to you, what could it possibly mean that is remotely normal?

As all of us dkos readers know, the repugs are quite good at using language that connects with people, even as the underlying policy screws them.  Discussing the tax breaks is always tough, as everyone wants money.  So I would use "beggars budget" to describe the current state of the US treasury.  Repeat it over and over, just like they do, "beggar's budget, beggar's budget".  Sounds bad but catchy doesn't it?

"President Bush has America on a beggar's budget.  We beg the Chinese for money to spend.  If we want to cut certain social policies, President Bush should be man enough to cut the spending, then cut the taxes.  Begging foreigners for money is embarrassing and irresponsible.  If America is to be stronger we should stand on our own to feet."

I like beggars budget because of the two, two syllable words beginning with "b" (I forget the term for this, alliteration??"  Also, no one likes a beggar.  No one likes being irresponsible either.  Seeing as the repugs seem so much better at cute phrases, I say we offer the dems some of our own.  They read the site, if they like it, maybe they will take some of our advice.  Heck, maybe one of us will get a job out of it, I sure need one.

I also like the insinuation that Bush is not man enough to cut policies.