If you change the meaning of the words you use

You can make your own reality!

Declare Abu Ghraib was a resort!:

Talk about bad timing! Just as CACI International was ramping up for its book tour -- the company's CEO has penned "Our Good Name," which according to the flap copy is "CACI's story of facing one of the biggest scandals in recent history...and coming out honorably with its head high" -- an Iraqi man has sued CACI, saying that employees tortured him when he was held in Abu Ghraib.

Be emphatic that science is just a theory and therefore malleable!:

Gray proved himself a fine substitute for Johnson, however. When the senators pressed him on why Johnson had gone along with the White House and overruled the recommendation of the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in setting a higher level for smog-forming ozone in the air, Gray wanted everyone to understand that it was "actually a very good example" of the "way in which the uncertainty of science plays an important role in decisions." Gray counseled that "science does not give us a single or precise answer."

But Whitehouse didn't seem to be buying it. "The people that you chose to be the experts unanimously supported this recommendation.... These were the best scientists in the country and you ignored them." Gray responded that Johnson hadn't "ignored" them -- he'd just come to a different conclusion. He did allow, however, that in addition to "scientific considerations," there had been "science policy considerations," which are a "part of moving the scientific process forward." But the EPA wouldn't discuss it's communications with the White House, he said, saying that it was important to keep "discussions with the rest of the federal family" private.

Point fingers! It's Congress' fault Bush has made such a mess of things!:

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday criticized Democrats in Congress for their approach to dealing with the nation's housing crisis and soaring energy prices and called anew for an extension of expiring tax cuts and government wiretapping authority.

Bush met at the White House with Republican leaders of Congress and then gave a critique of the Democrats' strategy for dealing with major problems.

When you are asked a direct question, critique the semantics!:

...Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted his first broad-based television interview, to Lesley Stahl on CBS’s 60 Minutes. There he explained that the torture of detainees does not violate the 8th Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because, according to Scalia, torture is not used as punishment...
[snip]
Scalia’s parsing of the 8th Amendment blindly ignores reports showing that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was about humiliation and punishment, not information-gathering. In 2004, the Washington Post reported MPs involved in the abuse “said detainees were beaten and sexually humiliated as punishment or for fun.” A recent New Yorker profile of one of the soldiers there confirmed that “mostly what interrogators wanted when they asked for ’special treatment’ was punishment: take away his mattress, keep him awake, take away his clothes.”

And when you can't silence the facts, you can just silence the report:

Sanchez writes that he was told by one of the people who'd done the study that when they'd presented their findings to Rumsfeld, he'd "just shut us down" and said "This is not going anywhere." According to Sanchez, the report validated his account that the entire Pentagon leadership knew that he'd had inadequate support when he'd been in command of the U.S. forces in Iraq after the fall of Hussein. It also showed that Gen. Tommy Franks had discarded the original plan, which called for a twelve-to-eighteen-month occupation deployment.

So... when the Democrats have the White House, will the media let these rules still apply? Betcha they won't.

You'll have to put white duct tape all over this post

Because Preznit Bush said there's no global warming and what he says is law:

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - An Environmental Protection Agency chief was given a warning against the potential rejection of California's proposal to enforce it's own carbon emission laws, as doing so would compromise the EPA's credibility, eventually calling for the chief's resignation.

The warning, sent out by Margot Oge, head of the agency's office of transportation and air quality, was directed to EPA Director Stephen Johnson, who was also informed that despite opposing claims, barring California's intentions to enact its own environmental laws had no legal or technical basis.

The documents were among the findings uncovered upon submission of EPA records released Tuesday upon the request of California Sen. Barbara Boxer.

[snip]

The submitted records were in relation to California's ongoing push to enact its own laws regarding greenhouse emission standards, which 16 states have showed intentions of backing up and eventually adopting for their own areas.

[snip]

The LA Times reported that another document showed EPA staff insisting on California's vulnerability to global warming consequences, running counter to Johnson's statement that the state had no "compelling and extraordinary conditions" to earn it its own tailpipe law.

Johnson was accused of making decisions while being swayed by political pressures, an allegation which he denied.

But Johnson is truly a loyal Bushie:

Johnson’s injection of President Bush’s politics into science is notorious. Earlier this year, he censored documents with white duct tape on the EPA’s decision-making process on the California waiver. Asked whether global warming was “a major crisis” facing the world, Johnson replied, “I don’t know what you mean by major crisis.”

Ironically, Boxer said today that the documents revealed an EPA “in crisis.”

Global warming? What global warming? There's no global warming! Ohhhh... THAT global warming...

He'd rather be sued by California than by the auto industries?

WASHINGTON — Environmental Protection Agency head Stephen Johnson was told by staffers that California had a compelling case for the federal Clean Air Act waiver that he later denied and that the agency was likely to lose in court if sued, Sen. Barbara Boxer said Wednesday.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar didn't dispute Boxer's conclusions, based on a Senate committee investigation.

"Her staff has been shown all the information unfiltered," Shradar said. "What this shows is that the administrator was provided a wide range of opinions upon which to make his decision. He feels he made the right decision."

Johnson's denial of the waiver stopped California from moving ahead with its tough laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Sixteen other states were prepared to follow California's lead had the waiver been issued.

Boxer, D-Calif., heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is investigating the EPA's rejection of the waiver. Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can obtain a waiver allowing it to have tougher emission standards than those imposed by the federal government. But once the waiver is granted, other states can adopt similar rules.

[snip]

Investigators were permitted to look at the full documents and take notes from them, however. At a news conference Wednesday, Boxer released excerpts from the notes showing that EPA staffers apparently believed that California had a solid case for the waiver.

The notes quoted Johnson's briefing memo as saying that the agency was likely to be sued regardless of what decision it reached. The memo said that the EPA was "almost certain to win" if a lawsuit was brought by the auto industry because the waiver had been granted and that the EPA was "likely to lose" a suit brought by California if the waiver was denied.

So... ignoring the added pollution to a state fighting a losing battle with a burgeoning driving population, it was easier to side with the auto manufacturers? Really? Nothing to do with supporting corporations over common sense? Nothing to do with Republican indifference to human suffering? How would letting auto makers make more gas guzzling polluting cars help anyone in the end? They'd rather sue the EPA than go back to the designs they had during the 70s when some cars had 30 to 40 mpg ratings?

The next car I buy will be a fuel efficient one. That means car buyers like me will go to Japanese or other foreign cars. Which hurts the US auto industry. Which apparently they are unable to understand.

Just an hilarious side story: We get several paper deliveries up and down our street, The Los Angeles Times and the local Daily Bulletin, a few New York Times. Usually these papers are thrown out of the windows of old cars in the early morning onto our driveways.

But some nut is driving ... a Hummer ... to deliver papers. A HUMMER.

Words fail me...

Barbara Boxer takes the EPA to task

Tell EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to explain why he denied California's waiver request!

Recently, I chaired a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee field hearing in Los Angeles to investigate why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a request from California and 18 other states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Despite our invitation, EPA Administrator Johnson refused to attend the hearing and explain why, over the unanimous recommendations of technical and legal staffers at the agency, he denied California's common-sense waiver request. He has also failed to respond to the Committee's demand that the EPA release all documents pertaining to the agency's decision.

Join 17,030 Americans and email EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson now: Demand that he release all the documents surrounding his decision to reject California's waiver request!