
So far I've got:
1) poetry
2) I Ching
3) Runes
4) 2 new red candles
5) a gift
6) kartals
7) something to sit on
I'll post more about it later but right now, gotta go. I have a hundred things to do today.
summer solstice poetry ritual
"Conservatives Look at "Who" and Liberals Look at "What"
Indeed, the terms conservatives and liberals are the wrong terms to use here. They indicate political left and right, but that's not what is at issue here. What we are really talking about here is authoritarianism vs. anti-authoritarianism.
Karl Rove takes this book seriously. He read and studied it because he is determined to crush the progressive net roots, grassroots rise of people powered politics. Crashing the Gate is written by Markos Moulitsas who started DailyKos and Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD.com. I ordered today. If they have a plan, I want to read it.
"Anne at 44 (and Jeralyn) are right I think: The language used by Luskin strongly suggests that Rove got immunity in exchange for his cooperation (it is probably the same deal I have been suggesting was offered to Novak way back when.) Otherwise he never would have testified in the Grand Jury to begin with.
“Does not anticipate seeking charges” means that if Rove testifies at Libby’s trial as expected, and as his agreement no doubt provides for him to testify, (lawyers call it providing “ongoing cooperation”), then all will be well for him. But if he “goes sideways” on Fitz and testifies differently from what is now expected, he could be charged–w/perjury certainly, and his deal to avoid criminal liability in the larger conspiracy could be “off” as he could face charges in that as well.
All told, a very standard deal and not unexpected. The more interesting issue and the reason for optimism now is that he couldn’t have gotten such a deal without having something important to offer Fitz. The “no prosecution” letter pretty much guarantees that he that he made a good deal. Either he offered up Cheney himself, or he offered up Libby to guarantee a conviction so Fitz can roll up Libby to Cheney. Either way, for me, I see Cheney going down and that’s something I can live with!"
Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
"Ever wonder if you're allowed to write, 'I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of the United States, and kill him with my bare hands'?"