Friday, April 28, 2006

We Knew This Was True

Karl Rove calls Dubya in for a meeting. (hat tip to Josh Marshall)

Will Bush Finally Be Impeached?

Granny Geek received an interesting email April 18th defining the terms for impeaching Bush. (click the photo to enlarge it, no pun intended)

Now that we know the FBI is investigating a Republican sex scandal involving prostitutes at the Watergate Hotel (what IS it with Republicans and the Watergate?), will Dubya finally be impeached?

And let's be very clear. This IS a REPUBLICAN sex scandal. Just at Jack Abramoff's illegal activities were purely REPUBLICAN-oriented. Anyone spinning differently is flat out lying. Josh Marshall has complete coverage.

BONUS: Limbaugh reached a PLEA BARGAIN (not a "settlement agreement") and is PAYING A FINE (not "reimbursing") in regards to his drug addiction. The facts in place demonstrate beyond any doubt that RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A DRUG ADDICT.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

We *Heart* Mick Jagger

Reprinted without comment from The Sun:

PRESIDENT George Bush can’t get no satisfaction — after Mick Jagger grabbed his hotel room.

The Rolling Stone splashed out £3,600 a night for the suite days before the US leader tried to book it.

Now Mick, 62, who has been a fierce critic of the Bush-led war in Iraq, is refusing to give it up.

The veteran rocker hired the luxury Royal Suite at the five-star Imperial Hotel in Vienna, Austria, for June when the Stones are due to play a gig in the city.

Bush’s aides then tried to book it to tie in with a summit meeting.

But Mick put his foot down and insisted he was keeping the booking.

A source close to the millionaire singer said last night: “White House officials had wanted to reserve the suite and all the other rooms on the first floor.

“But Mick and the Stones had already booked every one of them.

“Bush’s people seemed to be under the impression that they would just hand over the suites but there was no way Mick was going to do that.”

The classically-designed suite is said to be among the top 100 hotel rooms in the world. It boasts a 7ft 4in bed, chandeliers and oil paintings.

Former presidents Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy and George Bush Snr all stayed there while they were in office.

The hotel last night admitted US secret service agents vetted the accommodation — and confirmed that Bush would no longer be staying there.

An American Embassy official refused to say where he was now staying for “security reasons”.

Mick takes a swipe at Bush, 59, on the latest Stones album A Bigger Bang, savaging his Iraq War policy.

Racism at Dillard's?

That's the accusation from eight black women suing the department store for racial discrimination after reportedly being told Dillard's beauty salons charge black customers more than whites because of the "kinky" nature of "ethnic" hair. It happened in Montgomery, Alabama. Pam Spaulding of Pandagon provides the details. Anyone know if the local Dillard's has this policy?

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Bush Re-Invokes WMDs in Iraq

With his approval ratings continuing to fall, Bush again goes to the well of "national security" in a speech before the Orange County Business Council Monday, April 24, 2006, in Irvine, Calif.

Acknowledging that "It's real important for the President to pay attention to people, what's on their mind . . . ." Bush reminded us of what he's always thinking about:

I wish I could report to you that the war on terror was over. It's not. There is still an enemy that wants to do us harm. And the most important job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people from that harm. That's -- and I think about it all the time.

He naturally invokes 9/11, again, after reminding us he's the Decider:
As you know, well, I make a lot of decisions, and at the core of my decision-making when it comes to protecting America is the lessons learned from September the 11th, 2001. My job is to use the resources of the United States to prevent such an attack from happening again. And the first lesson of September the 11th, 2001 is that we face an enemy that had no regard for innocent life, an enemy which has hijacked a great religion to suit their political needs.

And once you've invoked 9/11, might as well go all the way:
Iraq has -- had weapons of mass destruction and has the knowledge as to how to produce weapons of mass destruction. And the confluence of a terrorist network with weapons of mass destruction is the biggest threat the United States of America faces.

Note the Freudian slip -- "Iraq has" weapons of mass destruction. And despite all those Iraqis we've killed or captured, the ones with "knowledge at to how to produce weapons of mass destruction" still elude us. After three years.

But wait! Bush has a strategy:
But it's very important for the American people to understand that they're trying to run us out of Iraq for a purpose. And the purpose is to be able to have safe haven from which to launch further attacks. And I understand it. And we've got a strategy in place to achieve victory.

And what might that strategy be, President Bush?
Yesterday I went over to Twentynine Palms -- I want to tell you something about the United States military. . . .And I told them, I told them they didn't have to worry about me. I believe we're going to win in Iraq. And a victory in Iraq will be a major blow to the totalitarian vision of bin Laden and his lieutenants -- a major blow. One, it will be a tactical blow. We'll deny them that which they want. But secondly, it will be a major blow because, in the long-term, the best way to defeat an ideology of hatred is with an ideology of hope.

Uh, yeah. But about that strategy?
I based a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an Almighty, and secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free. I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other.

So your strategy to defeat Islamic extremists is to say God told you to go to war with them? To invade their country? And to do all this by lying to the people of the United States? How's that working for you?
You know, it's really important for people to be able to connect the concept of freedom to our security. And it's hard. It's hard, particularly in a day and age when every act of violence is put in your living room. And I know that. I fully understand the challenge I face as the Commander-in-Chief to describe to the American people why the sacrifice is worth it.

Yes, it IS hard to convince the American people to give up their civil liberties, to send their loved ones to die or be maimed, to allow their children and grandchildren to pay for a war based on lies. Maybe that's why your approval ratings are so low.

One other choice comment:
And the United States government, whether you agree with my policy or not, must stand by our troops. When they're in harm's way, they deserve the best pay, the best equipment, and the best possible support.

Which is why Bush has been unable to get armored equipment to the troops even after three years of war, why he has cut veteran's benefits, and why he hasn't attended a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.

But remember -- 9/11 -- weapons of mass destruction -- everybody wants freedom -- support the troops -- it's hard.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Climate Change

The BBC news website has a photo essay of our changing world, including the photo above.

As the climate warms up, mountainous regions may experience lower levels of snowfall.

This image shows Mount Hood in Oregon at the same time in late summer in 1985 and 2002.

But hey, let's keep burning those fossil fuels!


We just discovered a slice of home is now available locally. Sterzing’s Potato Chips are the strangest "regular" potato chips you might ever taste. Sterzing’s taste different than any other chip we’ve tried. They’re a bit greasy and not very salty. Others have said the taste reminds them of french fries. Still others claim they taste like KFC batter.

Whatever. We just know they’re delicious.

The Sterzing's chip recipe is the same today as on the day Barney "B.J." Sterzing cooked up his first batch: potatoes, soybean oil, and salt. And while equipment today is more sophisticated the process is essentially the same one B.J. Sterzing devised more than 60 years ago

As a young entrepreneur, Sterzing hit upon the idea for his hard-to-resist chips in the early 1930s, when he owned and operated a candy company.

He was looking for a product his customers could enjoy during the hot, humid Iowa summers that rendered his chocolate candies more suitable for fondue than anything else. The chips were so well-received that during World War II, when chocolate was scarce since most of it went to U.S. servicemen overseas, the chips became Sterzing's primary product.

For the longest time Sterzing’s were only sold in a limited area in southeast Iowa. The company didn’t want to get too big. New stores might open, but they couldn’t necessarily sell Sterzing’s.

The Kum and Go convenience stores now carry Sterzing’s. They’re relatively cheap, compared to other chips. Do what the bag says, Tri-Some.

Terrorist attacks Worldwide TRIPLED Last Year

And that's not counting the attacks on Coalition Forces in Iraq. Imagine how high it would be if they were counted.

From The Christian Science Monitor:

In a report to be released next week, US government figures will show that the number of terrorist attacks in the world jumped sharply in 2005, totalling more than 10,000 for the first time. That is almost triple the number of terrorist attacks in 2004 -- 3,194
Knight Ridder:
More than half the fatalities from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq, said a counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the data haven't been made public. Roughly 85 percent of the US citizens who died from terrorism during the year died in Iraq. The figures cover only noncombatants and thus don't include combat deaths of US, Iraqi and other coalition soldiers.

College Republicans Grooming the Next Generation of Bigots

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

The College Republicans at Penn State University wanted to enter the debate about the nation's borders by playing a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Game."

People would be invited to "catch" group members wearing orange shirts symbolizing illegal aliens.


"The Constitution allows College Republicans and other student groups to hold expressive events, even ones that may be deemed offensive by some," said Penn State spokesman Tysen Kendig.

Baseballs Rain Down

Mrs. DocLarry and I made another trip to Hammons Field Saturday evening to watch a disappointing Missouri State Bears game. True to form, we were nearly hit by three foul balls. None so close that we had to dive out of the way, as in previous visits to the house John Q built. But close enough to feel concerned.

The Bears lost to the Southern Illinois Salukis, 7 to 2. The Bears did not play well, but the Salukis were assisted by the officiating staff. The home plate umpire in particular did not seem to be consistent in his calls.

MSU batters Nolan Keane and Matt Weglarz watched third strikes cross the plate to start the sixth inning, then MSU head coach Keith Guttin tossed his hat in the air from his third base coaches box and was ejected from the game. That brought several rowdy fans out of their drunken stuper to begin yelling at the umpires, the Saluki batters, and anyone else they could think of. A couple "fans" had not even been watching the game, holding a loud, beer-induced "discussion" near the exit. When they heard boos from the crowd they began yelling obscenities at the umpire.

We're not opposed to fan participation in sporting events, but believe there is no need to become loud and obnoxious over something like a college baseball game. Yes, the umpires were inconsistent. That includes a call or two going in favor of the Bears. Still, we would agree the umps made some really bad calls against the Bears and may have deserved some ribbing from the home crowd. But this went beyond what was acceptable.

These drunken college boys (we watched them consume several beers) had not made any noise until the coach's ejection. The Bears were behind and botched some plays. No noise. The Bears made good plays and scored two runs. No noise. Yes, applause and some cheers were heard. But nothing like that which came forth following the ejection. From then on much noise, including laughing at their shouting, could be heard from these dozen drunken college boys. Frankly, it ruined an otherwise pleasant evening for us.

We doubt these drunken college boys could tell you the final score or why the coach was ejected, or probably any other detail of the game. But they got to yell obscenities in public. Civil discourse, indeed.

More News-Leader Double Standard?

We asked if the Springfield News-Leader exhibited a double standard by naming the suspended Rountree Elementary School principal not charged with anything while not naming the teacher arrested (but not charged) on suspicion of molesting students.

The lead article in Saturday's edition is on the Missouri Department of Social Services Childrens' Division investigation summary which the paper obtained from a parent.

The confidential report clearly demonstrates the Rountree principal received reports of "concerns that a teacher inappropriately touched students...." And since the principal neglected to respond to these reports, as required by law, she has been suspended with pay. The DSS has concluded the principal should have reported the allegations.

Based on that, should the principal have been named in the News-Leader articles? The paper still has not named the teacher. Is this a double standard?

The principal has not been charged with anything. The evidence indicates she was repeatedly told concerns of inappropriate touching, but didn't believe the teacher had done anything. I'm not opposed to the suspension. I'm not even opposed to the principal being named. But I feel like a double standard is being used. Are we certain the principal did something wrong? Are we certain the teacher did not? If the News-Leader's policy is to not name someone until they've been charged, did they violate that policy by naming the principal?

I'm interested in others' opinions on this.

On a semi-related note, I wonder why the News-Leader did not post the complete print-edition story on its Web site, but only the first five paragraphs, less than one-quarter of the full article.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Moving Misinterpretation

So the bud from Des Moines calls today in preparation for a visit next week when he will see Hammons Field for the first time. A HUGE Cardinals fan, he will have to settle for the Missouri State Bears.

My better half mailed him a special section from the News and Leader about the ballpark to inspire a visit. She included a cryptic note about waiting until after May 10th unless he wanted to spend time carrying boxes. (We close on our house May 10th, but won't really be moving that day.)

Back to the phone call. After confirming that the cryptic note referred to an imminent move, the bud inquires if we're "moving somewhere." Couldn't resist replying, "No, we're just rearranging our house."

Maybe you had to be there.

Missed It By That Much

We missed our first anniversary of blogging. "Lost Chord" premiered April 16, 2005 with 14 posts. Obviously, we had a lot to say that first day. Click the archives over there on the right if you want to read what we blogged about that first day. Or click here for our very first post.

You'll note a few changes over the past couple days. More links to blogs via Blogrolling, a couple of pesky ads. Oh, yeah. That photo in the upper right. Strange fellow. Watch out for him.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Rhymes with Stan, Enough to Make a Plan

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Cheney Channels Reagan

Tim Sloan/AFP

Dickie during a press briefing by President Bush and Chinese leader Hu Jintao while Rummy checks out the shine on his new loafers. The veep's people later insisted he was reading his notes.

Double Standard?

The Springfield News-Leader reports today that the Rountree Elementary school principal has been placed on paid administrative leave. The action comes following a Missouri Department of Social Services report indicated sexual abuse and neglect occurred at the school. In March, a teacher was arrested on suspicion of molesting students. The teacher has not been charged.

The News-Leader identifies the principal by name, but has never identified the accused teacher by name. Here's their explanation as to why:

The News-Leader has not named the accused teacher because he has not been charged with a crime. The principal has been named because reporting the change in leadership at Rountree requires identifying the principal.

Exactly how does "reporting the change in leadership at Rountree" require identifying the principal? Why the double standard?

Some readers of Ron Davis' blog objected to the teacher being named when arrested, but not charged. Should the news media name the principal who has been placed on administrative leave? Couldn't the media simply say the "Rountree Elementary principal" as I've done in this post?

Seriously, I'm very curious about this and not trying to mock. I'm open to arguments either way on the naming of the teacher and/or the principal. I don't buy the News-Leader's explanation for naming the principal but not the teacher.

"'Rape' is a Buzzword"

We now know why the South Dakota legislature did not include exceptions for rape or incest in its abortion ban, courtesy of state Rep. Joel Dykstra (R-Lincoln County):

“I think ‘rape and incest’ is a buzzword,” said Rep. Joel Dykstra about not including those conditions in the abortion bill. “It’s a bit of a throwaway line and not everybody who says that really understands what that means. How are you going to define that?"

Yes, according to Joel (Dick-straw) Dykstra one cannot define "rape" or "incest" in legal terms.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

My Father's Eyes

Eric Clapton penned a tune in 1998 in which the British rock superstar sings soulfully about the father he never knew: "How did I get here? When will all my hopes arrive?" He answers four times in a poignant refrain: "When I look in my father's eyes."

That song has been in my head for the past week following a visit from my parents, older sister, and her 11-year-old step-grandson.

All in all it was a pleasant visit. I had not seen my sister in almost 10 years, had not seen my parents in many months, and had never met this step-great-nephew. We enjoyed a night at Hammons Field in which I did NOT nearly get hit by a foul ball (first time THAT'S happened!), a first-ever trip to Incredible Pizza, and some fine dining around Springfield. We also got to show off the house we're buying.

My step-great-nephew is an extremely courteous, well-mannered young man. He quite obviously and unashamedly loves his step-grandmother. He also has a warped sense of humor which resulted in several prank cell phone calls we both quite enjoyed.

But back to that Clapton tune. My father is 78-years-old and has Parkinson's Disease. He is no longer the strong man I loved, and sometimes feared, growing up. My father never mistreated me or my siblings. He and my mother went out of their way to support us in whatever we chose to do. They attended every music concert, sporting event, and play in which any of us participated. They agreed with me when I decided I wanted to play in the band, and when I decided I no longer wanted to participate.

My father was never a tall person, barely reaching 5-feet in height. In high school, my buds often spoke gleefully of finally being taller than their dads. I was taller than my father in 6th grade. Now my father hunches over when he walks. Or rather, when he shuffles.

When we were little kids my father would simultaneously arm wrestle my brother and I, nearly beating us before suddenly losing all strength and allowing us to win. Now, my father's right arm constantly shakes.

Many Sunday's I heard my father's distinct tenor in the church choir. He would sing at many weddings. His voice would remain calm under almost any circumstance and sooth me when I was frightened. Now, he slurs his words.

I've looked into my father's eyes many times in life. I've seen disappointment when I screwed up, forgiveness when I apologized, understanding when I felt lost, pride when I succeeded. I only saw anger once, and that's when some bullies picked on a little kid. Then, forgiveness when they apologized.

My father took care of me when I was growing up. Now he needs me to take care of him. His brain has been attacked and he is no longer able to control his body. When I look into his eyes I see a little bit of fear. My father knows what is happening to him, and knows there's nothing he can do about it. I'm saddened by this revelation.

And yet, I also see the love my father has for his family. I see the pride he has for my accomplishments. I see he still believes in me.

"How did I get here? When will all my hopes arrive? When I look in my father's eyes."

Thank you, Mr. Clapton.

Bush Wants More Nukes

In elementary school in the 60s in small-town Iowa we had what were referred to as "disaster drills." They involved calmly leaving the classroom in single file, going to the basement and into the fallout shelter with every other person in the school building. I'm not sure what we were supposed to do once we all got in the shelter as we there was no room to move about or even sit. The "disaster" for which we were practicing was a nuclear attack.

It always seemed quite silly to me. Even at the tender age of 7 or 8 I knew we had nothing to worry about. I didn't know it was called MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction), but I KNEW the president and the leader of the Soviet Union were too smart to actually ever fire a nuclear weapon as it would mean the death of both countries. Plus, we lived down-wind of Omaha, Nebraska, home of the Strategic Air Command, which was most certainly a primary target. There would be no surviving a nuclear war.

This knowledge did not worry me. I KNEW there would never be a nuclear war. I KNEW it was all rhetoric and posturing. There was a war in Southeast Asia, but it was being fought with conventional weapons. And yes, a couple of boys from that small town in Iowa died in that war. And I knew them. One attended the same church as I, the other was a neighbor with a brother my age.

Then Reagan became president, and for the first time I believed nuclear war was possible. For the first time in my life I believed the president actually wanted to "press the button." Evidently, many elementary school children did as well. Newspapers and networks ran stories about the depression and anxiety that afflicted many children under the age of 12. And many pundits wondered how 7-year-olds could be so in tune with the concept of a nuclear holocaust.

For those of you who grew up during the Cold War, here we go again. For those of you too young to remember it, "you're about to get a taste of the Reagan administration, only dumber."

Many of our nuclear weapons are quite old, the "youngest" one having been built in 1989. So last year, the Bush administration started up the "reliable replacement warhead" (RRW) program, in which aging nuclear weapons would be replaced by more "reliable" ones.

An LA Times story, which received little attention, reports the Bush administration's RRW program is only the tip of the nuclear weapons iceberg:

The Bush administration Wednesday [April 5, 2006] unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the nation's decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.

The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War.

Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it says will no longer be reliable or safe.

Read the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) press release. According to the NNSA, the purpose of the new program is "to establish a smaller, more efficient nuclear weapons complex able to respond to future challenges."

The plan includes a "consolidated plutonium center", where the nation's plutonium would be kept for research, as well as weapon manufacturing purposes. The LA Times article continues:
Under the plan, all of the nation's plutonium would be consolidated into a single facility that could be more effectively and cheaply defended against possible terrorist attacks. The plan would remove the plutonium kept at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by 2014, though transfers of the material could start sooner. In recent years, concern has grown that Livermore, surrounded by residential neighborhoods in the Bay Area, could not repel a terrorist attack.

But the administration blueprint is facing sharp criticism, both from those who say it does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium stores and from those who say restarting bomb production would encourage aspiring nuclear powers across the globe to develop weapons.

So does "take apart old bombs and streamline the system" mean the U.S. will once again participate in nuclear proliferation?
The plan was outlined to Congress on Wednesday by Thomas D'Agostino, head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Energy Department. Though the weapons proposal would restore the capacity to make new bombs, D'Agostino said it was part of a larger effort to accelerate the dismantling of aging bombs left from the Cold War.

D'Agostino acknowledged in an interview that the administration was walking a fine line by modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons program while assuring other nations that it was not seeking a new arms race. The credibility of the contention rests on the U.S. intent to sharply reduce its inventory of weapons.

So, this is a case of the U.S. saying "do as I say, not as I do" to Iran, and North Korea, and Syria, and any other nation that desires a nuclear weapon program.

Time to start building your fallout shelter. Time for elementary school children to once again practice "disaster drills."

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Talent Draws a Crowd

As children, we all learned the saying "Two's company, three's a crowd." Jim Talent found that saying to be true.

Left in Missouri has learned that at two recent campaign stops, the Talent team was only able to scrape together 5 - that's right FIVE - people interested enough in Mr. Talent and his plans for Missouri to come listen to him speak.

The first stop was in Sikeston. When Talent walked in, this is what he saw: two people assembling a 1,000-piece puzze of Big Ben, two old salts chatting about the war, and Shirla, a disgruntled Democrat from Dexter. The director of the center came in to ask if anybody wanted juice, and a woman named Dorothy from the Dept. of Aging in Cape Girardeau watched the goldfish.

At the next stop, in Jackson, again only five seniors showed up, along with a few reporters - including one from The New York Times, and Dorothy.

Two campaign stops, 10 total supporters. Is it bad planning, or do Missourians just not care about Jim Talent?

He's Stupid and Ugly and Nobody Likes Him

We're talking about the president, of course. The latest 50-state SurveyUSA poll shows Bush's approval ratings continuing to tank at 36%. Only four states show approval ratings above 50%: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Nebraska.

Only 36% of Missourians approve of Bush's performance. That's down from 42% one year ago. In Missouri, men are more likely to approve of Bush than women, as are older people. Surprisingly, 55% of Hispanics approve of Bush versus 39% whites and 11% of blacks. And even though 72% of Republicans approve of Bush, only 59% of conservatives do. Folks in the Ozarks provide a 41% approval rating.

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has a slightly higher job approval rating at 37%, making him the 8th lowest-rated governor in the nation. That approval rating is up from 33% one year ago when Blunt was the third least popular governor.

Missourians in March gave Sen. Kit Bond a 53% approval rating and Sen. Jim Talent a 51% approval rating. Bond's numbers are up slightly from one year ago, down slightly from February. Talent, who's running for re-election, has a higher approval rating than one year ago and from February.

And here is the rest of it.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

All the Great Things About Marriage

From mcjoan at DailyKos:
Coloradans for Marriage is a hate group pushing an anti-gay amendment in their state. To support their cause, they've created a list of all the great things about marriage. It's, um, a bit sparse.

Go see for yourself.

Stanley Kurtz Tells Cindy Sheehan Why Her Son Died

Kurtz writes crap at National Review. Today he told Cindy Sheehan and all the families of the 2,377 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq why their deaths were necessary: To prove ours is bigger than Iran's or any other country's.

We need to see peace and democracy in Iraq is icing on the cake. The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others. If the public sees that, it might change its view of what’s important and what success means.

Yes, America sent 2,377 individuals to die, and thousands of others to be maimed, only to "prove" our "resolve against Iran and others." Evidently neocon chickenhawks believe people must die just to show that "we" are the toughest bastards on the block.

Is this what you believe? Is this the America you want?

Monday, April 10, 2006


This week's Street Talk is about race. In part, it describes attitudes held by white people in Springfield and many other places. You can listen to an audio podcast at the Street Talk web site. But this show in particular really needs to be VIEWED for the full impact. It will air on Mediacom Cable channel 14 Wednesday at 6:30 p.m., Thursday at 10:30 p.m., Friday at 8:30 p.m., Saturday at 9:00 p.m., and Sunday at 12:30 p.m.

One might think attitudes had changed after 100 years. One might be wrong. Immigration is the current buzzword for racists. Consider:

A right-wing talk radio host in Arizona advocates murdering illegal immigrants.

Ditto-heads pass along lies about illegal immigrants, and try to play the military card. Problem is, illegal immigrants are dying in Iraq while chickenhawk ditto-heads sit comfortably at home spewing hate.

We likely still have lynchings. Perhaps not as open or as vivid as 100 years ago.

Watch Street Talk. Be shocked. Be ashamed. Be resolved to stop the hate.