« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »

April 29, 2005

Screwing the middle class (again)

At last night's press conference, Bush announced his plan to cut Social Security benefits for all but those in the "low income" bracket.

The proposal is based on something called the Pozen Plan, named after Bob Pozen.

Kevin Drum has created a "Pozen Plan Chart for Dummies" that gives a basic snapshot of what is to be expected:

The breakdown according to Kevin:

Basically, low income earners ($16K/year) currently get about 49% of their income replaced by Social Security. Under the Pozen plan, this would stay the same. Medium income workers ($36K/year), however, would see their replacement rate fall from 36% to 23% by the year 2100. The replacement rate for higher income workers ($58K/year) would fall to 14% and for maximum income workers ($90K/year) to 9%.

That's a substantial cut in benefits for everyone but the lowest income levels.

What Bush has created is a backdoor tax increase for those in the middle class. We still have to pay the same amount into Social Security but we'll be getting substantially less money.

Those in the $90k bracket and higher have a much smaller percentage of their income going to FICA. Taking less Social Security benefit isnt' the same kind of hardship that it is for the rest of us..who have higher percentages of income going out.

It's just another way to screw the middle class.

The rich have received massive benefits in tax cuts under this Administration. The middle class are getting a major squeeze and this makes it worse.

The right thing to do is raise the FICA cap to $120K and put more of this burden on the wealthy.

Update:Brad DeLong crunches the numbers...and sees an even bigger screw.

Posted by Carla at 02:10 PM |

Steroids = evil!

Sorry, that was the State of the Union 2004 speech, not last night's... torture session, that is, press conference.

Steroids have damaged many athletes, and changed sports for the worse. Let's have an intervention for an old friend, though. Because far and away the most pain has come from the use of steroids by -- capitalism:

War or the threat of war is the ultimate economic stimulus. It’s capitalism on steroids. Prolonged use creates unprecedented growth, but the upside isn’t worth the risks. The steroids metaphor is especially apt—side effects include euphoria, confusion, pathological anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, and even violent, criminal behavior — and users can easily become addicted. Let’s face it: we’re addicted to the money.

Read the rest from Corrente's link here.

Posted by Jeff at 12:32 PM |

Living in the wild, wild west

Our friend Tom Carter has an excellent essay about the whacky new gun laws in Florida.

And while Florida isn't the west...they're certainly making laws reminiscent of the old west days.

Tom notes:

To illustrate, let's say you're a taxi driver somewhere in the Sunshine State. Your fare, a portly old gentleman in lime green slacks and a yellow alligator shirt (remember, this is Florida) thinks the cost of his ride is too high. As you stand on the street beside your cab arguing the point, you notice that he has a cute little designer automatic tucked in the roll of fat under his belt (remember, this is Florida). Seeing his slightly palsied hand tremble in the direction of his piece, under the law you'll now be free to put on your best Robert DeNiro face, shout "You lookin' at me?", pull the two long-barreled .357 magnums from beneath your armpits, and blaze away. Just like you practiced in front of the mirror at home.

Welcome to Florida. Land of hanging chads, forced feeding tubes, hurricanes and the shootout at the OK Corral.

Posted by Carla at 07:13 AM |

April 28, 2005

Elementary my dear...2x2 is 4!

Schoolhouse Rock saved my ass in the third grade!

I ran across this post at Number 2 Pencil via Donna.

The discussion surrounds some parents and teachers believing that many children are unprepared academically when they enter Kindergarten. Specifically many are unable to write their name and don't know all of their alphabet.

Number 2 cites this article in the Chicago Tribune which tells us that many teachers think kids aren't properly prepared and that it's getting worse. Part of the problem according to the article are families that are overscheduled. Young children spend their days riding around in the car or playing Nintendo/computer games instead of coloring, for example.

On the other hand, this piece (also cited by Number 2) suggests that parents are too concerned about readiness for Kinders.

I have a Bachelor's Degree in Elementary Education and Early Childhood Development. I spend my entire work day with children from preschool age to middle school. I'm also in the process of raising two kids of my own.

In my view, parents put way too much pressure on themselves and their young children when it comes to academics. And frankly, so do legislators. Children should enter Kindergarten fully toilet trained. They should be able to interact in group social situations and be able to follow simple directions. Those skills are sufficient to allow Kinders to begin the learning of basic academic skills.

I spoke to a Kindergarten teacher this week who opted to move up to First Grade. She was being pressured to have all of her Kinders reading by the end of the school year. Some of these children don't have the proper brain physiology yet to learn how to read. They simply haven't had enough time to develop. It's like asking a newborn to get up and walk.

High academic standards are extremely important. All of us want our children to have success and to be competitive in the global marketplace. Problems arise however when we start pushing young children to acquire skills that they're not developmentally ready for.

Part of what leads to this pressure, I believe, is mandatory standardized testing. These tests are directly tied to schools and teachers, putting them in the often impossible position of increasing test scores every year. Under No Child Left Behind (a misnomer if there ever was one), the only real gauge of academic success comes from test scores.

Schools have no choice but to spend their year preparing children to take those tests. Even children who don't speak English or who have severe special needs have to meet the standard. Imagine the pressure for students who are English speakers without special needs.

This emphasis on testing also eliminates other crucial areas of academics. For example, there are no history tests (at least not in Oregon). Students spend just a cursory amount of time studying history. Earlier this year my middle school aged son studied the entire Civil War in less than two weeks. The class in which he has history also covers english, reading, spelling, writing, grammar and literature. The Civil War was sandwiched in between those other studies for that 90 minute class. I was appalled.

But what choice does the teacher have? My son was tested for reading, spelling and writing under NCLB. If his scores weren't high (they were), that teacher's job would be on the line.

If we really want to measure academic success we should play down test scores and do more "collection of evidence". Collection of evidence means collecting homework, projects, writing samples, etc that demonstrate a student's ability to do the work.

We must also stop spending so much time teaching students how to take tests. And I don't mean teaching the academics. I mean spending time teaching kids the "tricks" to good test taking. It wastes valuable time that could otherwise go to teaching things like history.

This won't happen of course until testing is no longer tied to schools and teachers. It also won't happen until we decide as a country that our emphasis should be on the whole of academics and not just reading, math, writing and science.

Posted by Carla at 04:17 PM |

And Alabama surges ahead... in reverse

South Carolina embarrassed bass-ackwards states across the land the other day with the domestic-violence "pop her again" misdemeanor - cockfighting-a-felony story. It's here, in case you missed it.

Just to show our competitive nature, Alabama ups the ante.

If our legislature's in session and wasting time on crap like this, you know there's a budget not getting passed. So later this summer our tax dollars get to pay for a special session to try to pass a budget. "Fiscal responsibility? we got to go to war against THOSE EVIL BOOKS!"

Posted by Jeff at 01:59 PM |

Fool me once

Oregon's token Republican of higher office, Senator Gordon Smith, is apparently standing his ground against Bush Administration efforts to slash the Medicaid program.

That's sure how it looked to me on the face of things having read that particular piece.

Then I started digging a little deeper:

Aides for Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore) said that Bush administration officials have accepted the senator's request to create a commission to study Medicaid "in hopes of securing support from him and other moderate Republicans for $10 billion worth of cutbacks" to the program, the... New York Times reports. Demetrios Karoutsos, a spokesperson for Smith, said, "It's our understanding that the administration has agreed, in principle, to a Medicaid commission."

A commission. Presumably to study the effects of cutting back Medicaid?

Not so fast.

According to Smith, it would be "roughly right" that the Medicaid commission would be charged with issuing recommendations by August on how to reduce Medicaid spending by $10 billion over five years (CQ HealthBeat [1], 4/26).

It's the job of the commission to find a way to justify the cutbacks.

Foolish me. Here I thought Smith's stand in March against Medicaid cuts was an act of courage for the citizens of Oregon. Silly Carla. It's a way to buy time until he can find an excuse for the cuts.

The initial news story that I read this morning on this issue infers that Smith is objecting to the cuts. Given Oregon's substantial budget gap, that would make sense. Oregon can't afford to expand Medicaid.

Smith is just trying to cover his ass for the next election. He wants to be able to say that he fought the cuts...and the press is merrily playing along. But in reality, he's once again screwing the taxpayers of Oregon by pushing the burden to the state level.

So much for courage from Smith.

Posted by Carla at 09:07 AM |

Number one with a bullet, so to speak

My informal poll of automotive adornments, from a random sampling of driving around Fun-gomery, AL in the past 4 weeks*:

I needed my camera yesterday for the drive home. I was behind an older woman driver who had the current-day Alabama Holy Trinity of stickers on her rear window: on the left, a big "8" for Dale Jr.; on the right, an Auburn Tigers logo; and in the center (raised slightly higher 'cause Jesus wants it that way) "W: STILL the President". Of course.

Those various white-on-black "W The President" stickers seem to outnumber the Jesus-fish and even football loyalties decorations at the moment. Nothing beats the Ribbonites, though -- saw a truck the other day with 9, counted 'em, NINE, all different, on the tailgate.

No "God is Love". No cross. No Christian school affiliation. But God knows he's a troop-supportin' ribbon-sticker-buyin' Amurkin, damn right!

(*Margin of error = +/- whatever you want it to be -- it's just my un-scientific observation and opinion!)

Posted by Jeff at 07:20 AM |

Billmon! I'm not worthy!

Yeah! what he said! Long but enlightening. Must read.

Posted by Jeff at 07:18 AM |

I owe my soul to the company sto'...

Polaroid shareholders approve sale; retirees to receive $47 each

BOSTON (AP) - Polaroid shareholders on Wednesday approved the company's $426 million sale to a Minnesota-based consumer products company, 3 1/2 years after the instant photography pioneer declared bankruptcy, blaming consumers' shift to digital photography.

Ho hum, another business deal, right? Read on:

More than 4,000 retirees last month began receiving checks for $47 - a one-time payment from a trust fund to compensate retirees for legal expenses.

"It's such a shame, because we got killed," said Peter Bass, a 72-year-old Lexington resident who retired 13 years ago after 35 years at Polaroid. Bass, who used his $47 to take his wife out for pizza, said he's considering searching for work to make ends meet - as are many other Polaroid retirees.

"A lot of them are hurting," he said.

Retirees receive pension payments from a federal agency that took over the company's underfunded plan. Colcord declined to comment on retiree issues.

Meanwhile, executives who joined the company during bankruptcy stand to receive large payouts from the cash value of their stock and options. For example, Chairman Jacques A. Nasser stands to get $12.8 million; J. Michael Pocock, the CEO and president, is due $8.5 million, Polaroid spokesman Colcord said.

Soon to be overheard at McDonald's across America: "Hurry up, you old geezers! I need 3 Happy Meals, stat!"

Posted by Jeff at 06:37 AM |

How's your eternal vigilance going?

Read this from Digby. Okay, feel safer now? Me neither.

Posted by Jeff at 06:35 AM |

April 27, 2005

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound...

...Everybody look what's going down

Responding to the most serious questions we confront as a nation, the Bush administration can routinely be expected to hide, obfuscate and deceive. If credible information indicates that high-ranking government and military officials permitted and even encouraged the horrific abuse of foreign detainees, the administration assures us that a few bad soldiers can be blamed. If honest statistics indicate that the "war on terror" is achieving less than advertised, the administration buries the report in which those numbers are traditionally published.

Twice within a single week, in a telling coincidence, the administration displayed its dogged commitment to concealment. On April 15, the State Department admitted that it plans to withhold the data on terrorist incidents compiled for the annual, Congressionally mandated report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, which the department must release at the end of the month. And on April 22, the Army celebrated the first anniversary of the exposure of the Abu Ghraib scandal by announcing that an internal investigation had "exonerated" four senior officers responsible for military prisons in Iraq, despite previous findings of culpability.? - Joe Conason @ The New York Observer via
WorkingForChange

“The horrors of Abu Ghraib were not simply the acts of individual soldiers,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, in June of 2004. “Abu Ghraib resulted from decisions made by the Bush administration to cast the rules aside.”

Outrageous accusations, you say? Then why did the Bush administration force the UN whistleblower who exposed US Army human rights abuses in Afghanistan out of his job?

Posted by Kevin at 03:51 PM |

Know when to fold 'em...

"I think there is a member, especially on our side, that needs to have the process move forward so he can clear his name," Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said, without naming DeLay.

DeLay, a conservative Texas Republican, exited the meeting by a back door, and refused to talk to reporters, saying, "Where's security?"

DeLay's seen the writing on the wall -- "You guys are taking me to dinner?" -- it's to be his Last Supper. Mixed Biblical metaphors, how appropriate...

Posted by Jeff at 01:49 PM |

I got yer compromise right here, pal.

Yes, the bar can go even lower. Amazing.

Posted by Jeff at 12:40 PM |

Retreat!

For the captains, captains quarters must retreat
Pack the compass, pack the tents, take the bunks

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert informed the press today that the GOP would no longer push the controversial new ethics rules. Those rules would have made it virtually impossible for the House Ethics Committee to investigate the many allegations about Tom DeLay.

You can thank Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for this turn of events. She's led the Democrats in a consistent, on message assault against these rules changes.

My caption for that photo of DeLay:

"I'd better enjoy looking at that seal while I can. My ass is soooo grass!"

Posted by Carla at 11:47 AM |

"Why is being outed considered such a bad thing?"

Buddy Cole continues: "When I find out someone is gay my admiration for them increases ten fold. Well not everyone. I still refuse to believe Liberace was gay. I just don't want him to be. Him and Roy Cohn! It's like being told Satan's a fag. Maybe that's why God's such a homophobe. And Satan's so sexy."

Don't know what reminded me of that old Kids in the Hall bit. Couldn't be this? or this? Nah. Coincidence happens. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Posted by Jeff at 08:34 AM |

I've got your bipartisanship right here.

Republicans are asking Democrats to compromise in the spirit of bipartisanship on Social Security privatization.

Whiners.

They want compromise? The Democrats offered compromise yesterday on Bush's judicial nominations. Bill Frist told them to shove it.

If Frist wants bipartisanship, he can start by ending this bullshit "nuclear option".

The Senate's job is to give advice and consent on judicial nominees. If the Fristians can't get 60 votes for one of these people then the person in question doesn't deserve the job.

It's not as if Bush hasn't been handed 95% of his nominees.

The Republicans want to play scorched earth. They'd best be prepared to have it come back at them.

Posted by Carla at 07:27 AM |

April 26, 2005

Quid of the Pro Quo

Senator Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum has decided that it's time to use his Senatorial powers to rid this nation of a scourge so wretched..so terrible...so absolutely dangerous to our society as to warrant action.

Santorum is introducing a bill to limit the National Weather Service's information that it disseminates to the public.

Yes. Santorum is trying to save us all from the evils of weather.

But not just any weather. He's saving us from free market weather.

Santorum's bill would compel the US Secretary of Commerce to limit the National Weather Service to offering services that private companies don't want to tackle. The exceptions would be "severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property" or information required by law for aviation purposes.

Ironically (Santorum's honest, forthright and nonlying staff says there's no connection) the PA based AccuWeather, a private weather company, has employees that give money to Santorum's campaign.

Of course had Santorum put this legislation into the Senate because of these contributions, that would be ILLEGAL.

I'd like to personally thank the citizens of Pennsylvania for voting this jerk into office. You've shown the rest of us just how stupid one elected official can possibly be. I've learned the lesson. Please vote him the hell out of office at the earliest possible date.

November 2006, to be specific.

Posted by Carla at 02:30 PM |

Bolton's Follies

Today's NYT has a very interesting piece on "Ex-Officials Say Bolton Inflated Syrian Danger."

One wonders how much of Bush's rhetoric towards Syria was influenced by Bolton and like-minded party apparatchek's such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, et al.

If Bolton had a material influence on Bush's rhetoric towards Syria of late, then he's partially responsible for whatever fallout there is from Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon.

Although I didn't address it directly here, Syria's role in ending the Lebanese civil war and bringing about reconciliation between the warring parties is noteworthy.

A somewhat related post I wrote a while back: The Cedar Revolution: Who caused it and where will it lead?

Posted by Kevin at 01:46 PM |

Hi-Ho!

It's off to work I go!

Spring is the busiest time for me at my real life (as opposed to blogging) job. Despite having a slew of ideas and lots of words in my head about those ideas...I'm having trouble stringing enough time together to get them up here on the blog.

So instead I'll direct you to some other good stuff around the 'sphere:

I've been somewhat critical of the big guns of the blogosphere. That said, The Daily Kos has been chock full of fascinating political information of late. Kos' updates on various gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races are worth the click all by themselves. But he's also generating diaries from some of those folks as well. Not to mention the very excellent Armando and Hunter who put up great stuff over there too.

Bitch PhD links to a story that pissed me off. Check it out.

Echinide of the Snake also has a "piss me off" story about the push for corporal punishment from the American Taliban wing of the Republican Party.

Mahablog has a fascinating essay about the free market and the blinders it's created for many.

And finally, Kevin Drum has written this morning about the exact same thing I'd planned to write about if I'd had the time. Harry Reid is kicking ass.

Posted by Carla at 08:42 AM |

April 25, 2005

Slaughterhouse Five

Our theme here at PK is "sacred cows slaughered daily". In the spirit of that theme we're introducing a new weekly segment that we're calling the "Slaughterhouse Five".

(Thanks to Kurt Vonnegut for the idea.)

Each Monday (unless we forget to do it) we'll take nominations for blog posts, columns and/or articles written by rightwing conservatives that are so utterly heinous, so ridiculously ridiculous...so absolutely inane and dishonest..as to be deserving of a slaughtering here at PK.

We'll also be putting up some of our own suggestions for those writers/bloggers who we think merit mention in the Slaughterhouse Five as well.

On Friday, we'll choose five that we think are the best candidates. Then we'll take the weekend to take comments and votes from readers (if any show up) and the following Monday we'll announce the winner. We're hoping to have a nice little email complete with certificate (suitable for framing, of course) to send to each week's winner.

Special props go out to our friend The Heretik who created the graphic for our little project. He has our undying gratitude. And after we've slaughtered our sacred cow each week, he's welcome to join the post slaughter barbecue. As long as he brings beer.

And so dear readers...get your mice (mouses?) at the ready. Nominate your candidate(s) for the Slaughterhouse Five.

Posted by Carla at 12:47 PM |

Camel, meet straw

When even Tony Blair can't stand one of Bush's appointees, you know there's a problem. Via Laura Rozen:

Read the Newsweek piece which is testimony to the fact that the US's most significant ally, Britain, refuses to work with Bolton because of the destructive role he has played in sensitive negotiations to persuade countries like Libya and Iran to abandon their nuclear programs. We already have the principal US negotiators on North Korea coming forward to say Bolton was a dangerous disaster on North Korea -- and the proof is in the pudding. These are substantive policy failures, where the combination of Bolton's inability to work with others who don't share his ideological worldview, and gross misuse of intelligence made him a danger and a hindrance for US policy goals.

There are those no doubt who would consider an individual with Boltonitis a good thing in a potential US ambasaddor. To them I say remember "bring it on"? There's only so much to be gained by using cowboy, bullying tactics. George W. Bush has already worn that particular down to a nub.

Bolton has shown that he has little regard for subordinates and superiors alike. He's responsible for some fairly serious foreign policy failures as well.

With all that's come out about him...he's the new Bernard Kerik.

(hat tip: Washington Monthly)

Posted by Carla at 07:37 AM |

April 24, 2005

Injustice Sunday

The always outstanding Frank Rich lays it all out for those of you who've missed the Justice Sunday War on the Judiciary.

This act of fraud being perpetuated on the constituency continues the GOP gallop off of the cliff. Bill Frist leads the charge..even while trying to distance himself somewhat by making a videotaped rather than personal appearance.

Frank Rich compares the protagonists of this saga to the literary Elmer Gantry. A most obvious comparison.

Charlatans are charlatans...whether by the scathing pen of Sinclair Lewis or behind the wire rimmed countenance of Dr. James Dobson.

Update: Chuck Currie (one of my personal favorites in the blogosphere) has a superb synopsis of the entire circus.

Posted by Carla at 08:19 PM |

Revisiting Ratzinger

A few days ago, I wrote what I figured would be my only post on the ascention of the new Pope.

I guess I lied.

Several commentors took exception to my post, saying I should lay off the "Hitler Youth" situation. Apparently there are those who read my post as a condemnation of Ratzinger's past. On the contrary, that's not at all what I'm doing.

What I attempted to do was to note what I believe to be Ratzinger's lack of personal responsibility for his past actions. Over at Body and Soul, Jeanne pixels what I was trying to say by very deftly comparing Ratzinger to Archbishop Romero.

Jeanne writes:

Reading about Romero, I began to realize why this issue is so important to me, why I can't let the issue of Ratzinger's past go. It's not that I can't forgive a child soldier for what he did. It's that I can't forgive an old man for justifying his conduct by insisting that a person has no choice but to submit to brutal power.

This is what's bothered me as well. It's the justification, not taking responsibility and owning it, that bothers me.

Another excerpt from comments from Matty:

If we could get a moment of candor from W (not to mention your average religious conservative or a run-of-the-mill televangelist like Pat Robertson or Franklin Graham), they'd probably espouse an intense dislike of Catholicism. They think all of us, even a lapsed Catholic like me, are going to burn in hell.

Hey Matty..your wish is their command.

Posted by Carla at 05:46 PM |

April 23, 2005

Eco-evangelism?

The Bush administration has gone a long way towards cementing the public's association of evangelicals with a greedy desire to rape, pillage and plunder natural resources as a means of acquiring material wealth. But, not all evangelicals are so keen to blatently ignore their own religious texts.

Jeff over at sustainablog has a very interesting post up today on The Future of Eco-evangelism which stems from an alternet essay by Dr. Matthew Sleeth, a leading Eco-evangelical.

The notion of Eco-evangelism may seems a bit oxymoronic to many, but not to me. I was raised in an evangelical family by two avid naturalists who taught my brothers and I that one of the greatest ways of communing with God was to observe His handiwork in nature. And by "nature" I don't mean in a park, although those are lovely too. No, I mean nature in it's natural, wild state. They were particularly fond of taking us into wilderness areas. Backpacking into wilderness areas in the Cascade Mountain Range of Oregon and California was a regular part of our summer activities as I was growing up.

Obviously, clear-cutting and strip-mining, while operations which typically create great wealth for the owners of such operations and (in theory) a living wage for their employees, also destroy the natural beauty of any wilderness area. So, to me it has never seemed strange or at odds with my spiritual beliefs to seek to protect at least some of nature's beauty for humanity to marvel at and enjoy.

Posted by Kevin at 08:41 AM |

Happy Birthday!

Today is Kevin's birthday.

He's 41 today (you'll always be older than me, Kev).

Hope your birthday is wonderful..and your next year is even better than this last one.

Posted by Carla at 07:48 AM |

April 22, 2005

An inside look at the War on the Judiciary

LA Times:

An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.

The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.

Weaken the court system by starving funding. And at the behest of fringe, extremist evangelicals. The Christian Mullahs.

"There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session. The tape was provided to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Perkins is an intregal part of Justice Sunday. Along with Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist, the rightwing extremists plan to spend their Sunday telling the American people that those who vote against Bush's judicial nominees hate the Baby Jesus.

And the other Christian Mullah involved in this underhanded and disgusting attempt to undermine our Constitution?

James Dobson:

The leaders present at the March conference, including Perkins and James C. Dobson, founder of the influential group Focus on the Family, have been working with Frist to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations, a legislative tool that has allowed Senate Democrats to stall 10 of President Bush's nominations. Frist is scheduled to appear, via a taped statement, during a satellite broadcast to churches nationwide Sunday that the Family Research Council has organized to build support for the Bush nominees.

The March conference featuring Dobson and Perkins showed that the evangelical leaders, in addition to working to place conservative nominees on the bench, have been trying to find ways to remove certain judges.

Your Republican Congress is working closely with them:

Perkins said that he had attended a meeting with congressional leaders a week earlier where the strategy of stripping funding from certain courts was "prominently" discussed. "What they're thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding them," Perkins said.

Today's GOP Congress: Wiping their asses with the United States Constitution.

These guys are ballsy, I'll give them that. It takes a lot of nerve to so blatantly work to tear down the fundamental precepts that our nation was founded on.

I've posted only small bits of that LA Times piece, incidentally. The whole thing is a must read. It's an inside baseball look at these men whose entire agenda is about forcing Americans to live their way. Their religion or the highway.

Posted by Carla at 11:46 AM |

There goes THAT gold medal.

America is humbled by your genius, Rev. Runar.

C'mon, American wingnuts! We can't let the rest of the world act even crazier and more intolerant than us! Whatever happened to "America - F&*K YEAH!"?!?

(Link updated -- sorry, the freshness date was today!)

Posted by Jeff at 10:53 AM |

Stand back, I'm about to be struck by lightning!

The moral bankruptcy of fundamentalism: Do so-called 'Bible-believers' ever read the Bible? Sean Gonsalves, you rock.

To answer Sean's question, yes, they read it. Then the most extreme ones pick and choose the parts they want. All the rest doesn't matter. Or is open to interpretation. When in doubt, they attack the questioner: "how dare you question the Almighty? or presume to understand the Mind of God?!?"

Posted by Jeff at 08:47 AM |

Most popular stories on CNN

Refreshed every 20 minutes, but here's the headlines this Friday morning:

1 Woman who claimed to find finger in chili arrested
2 Jackson defense scores victories
3 Paula Abdul: I'm 'not addicted to pills'
4 Death penalty affirmed for sniper mastermind John Allen Muhammad
5 Police: Missing 18th-century violin turned in
6 Bush nominates Pace for Joint Chiefs of Staff
7 Police: Teen faked BMW theft to buy Bentley
8 Japanese PM apologizes for war
9 Hastert: Democrats protecting their own
10 Review: 'Interpreter' a terrific thriller

Most neglected and -- how bizarre! -- most important stories of the week to my mind:

1 Patterns of Global Terrorism Report Cancelled
2 US protecting -- Osama's privacy?
3 The silent scream of numbers

And they'll call me a hell-bound cheese-eating non-troop-supporting tree-hugging Communist Anti-Christian surrender monkey traitor. And a Methodist. Wait, I'm wrong -- "librul". That's what they'll say. Means the same thing, takes only 2 syllables, and everyone knows what it really means.

Posted by Jeff at 08:26 AM |

Okay, follow the bouncing falafel!

Fox shouting-head Bill O'Reilly sexually harasses associate producer Andrea Mackris. She sues. Bill or his management see that he will lose, and the longer it drags on the more it will cost, so the best thing is end it quickly.

Mackris' representation says, "We're thinking of a number. And put it this way -- you haven't seen so many zeroes lined up since -- your next book signing! ha ha ha hahahahahahaha!!!!"

Seriously, Bill either has a book on the way or has just put one into rush production in time for Christmas 2005 gift-giving. Why?

Mackris can't reveal the amount she just got, but this might give a clue -- she "recently purchased an Upper West Side condo for $809,500, according to deed-transfer records."

Posted by Jeff at 07:48 AM |

Shift left

Liberal professors aren't pushing college students to the left, The Bush Administration is:

The number of US university students who hold traditional liberal views increased sharply over the past year, pushed by excitement over the 2004 election and dissatisfaction with George W. Bush's foreign policy, according to a Harvard University poll released on Tuesday.

That's the karma principle incarnate.

Students tend to push back against authority. It's part of the growth process. The authority in this country right now is uber conservative..just as it was in the 50s. These conservative attitudes are coming around to bite their own ass.

Lest you think that this isn't a powerful voting block, think again:

Voters aged 18-29 made up 17 per cent of the electorate in the 2004 presidential election. That exceeds the number of voters aged 65 and older, drawing increased attention to the political attitudes of young people.

The largest group of respondents 36 per cent called themselves independent, while 33 per cent said they were Democrats and 28 per cent Republicans.

That second paragraph is making Kevin do backflips. He's all about the the Indy thing. Me...I'm glad to see this part:

The poll used an 11-point questionnaire to assess political attitudes. It found that 43 per cent of college students fell in the liberal category--supportive of health insurance and abortion rights while opposing Mr Bush's foreign policy up 11 percentage points from one year ago.

Excellent.

Posted by Carla at 07:36 AM |

April 21, 2005

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

This is likely going to be my only post on the Pope. I'm not Catholic. Heck, I'm not even Christian. The "Head of the Church" thing really means nothing to me.

The Pope is a figurehead of state, I suppose. But the real power has to do with his religious influence.

I could care less what ideological proclivities the Catholic Church wants to embrace. It's their church..their religion. As far as I'm concerned they can dive right in to whatever whackoness (or nonwhackoness for that matter) that they want. They can get all pruney in it if that's what gets them through the day.

Where I cross swords with Benedict (and did with JP2 as well) is his influence over political lawmakers. The Catholic Church needs to keep it's nose out of American government. It should keep it's nose out of everybody's government but it's own, for that matter.

The problem is, Catholic influence over laws having to do with gay marriage, birth control, end of life issues, etc. has seeped it's sewage into American politics. With a lot of help from their Evangelical Protestant counterparts, Catholic doctrinalists have helped push America into a major political schism.

If the Catholic Church wants to remain in the Dark Ages with it's beliefs...more power to them. But keep it away from me. Stop foisting your backward, bigoted, conservative sludge on those of us who don't want it. This country was founded on a fundamental separation of religion and government for a reason.

I also don't really understand why a religious institution would give their head job to a guy who doesn't much give a crap about personal responsibility. At least for himself. I'm speaking about the former Ratzinger's dalliance with Hitler Youth. Ratzinger claims he had no choice but to be conscripted to join the Hitler Youth.

Ratzinger did have a choice. He could have been a conscientious objector. The Jehovah's Witnesses were, for example.

I'm not grudging Ratzinger for having a youthful indiscretion. Most all of us have them, being human. But Ratzinger should own up to what he did, apologize for it and make recompense. Real leaders take personal responsibility for their actions.

Posted by Carla at 04:10 PM |

Husker Du was right.

Makes No Sense At All

"Walking around with your head in the clouds
Makes no sense at all
Sell yourself short, but you're walking so tall
Makes no sense at all
Is it important? You're yelling so loud
Makes no sense at all
Walking around with your head in the clouds
Makes no sense at all
Makes no difference at all

I don't know why you want to tell me
When I'm right or when you're wrong
It's the same thing, in your mind,
the only time I'm right is when I play along..."

The Rude Pundit sums up David Brooks' (New York Times columnist) assertion that Roe v. Wade is the source of all the political divisiveness of our era.

Um.... right. Back in my graphic design days, I recall monthly columns from assorted Ivory Towers of advertising. These columnists were all giants, or at least thoroughly well-known in the field; one of the timely issues was the idea that graphic designers should be Certified; held to some sort of rigorous standards; with ethical guidelines on pricing. A guild, if you will. Bullshit, if you will.

They were only trying to protect their cozy seats at the top. If companies could hire some college or high school student with a Mac and a color printer to redesign and re-brand their business for $300, why would they pay an agency $50,000? The customer's always right.

So I would say Mr. Brooks has a comfortable chair and can see clearly for miles and miles from his tower window. He just can't really see anything beyond the end of his own nose.

"This whole country's gone to hell in a handbasket, ever since David Lee Roth left Van Halen!" Makes just as much sense.

Posted by Jeff at 01:06 PM |

She blinded me with reality

Following up on a short string of posts we've done on taxation and it's impact on the economy, The Seattle Times brings us Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop's $.02 on the subject: A healthy business climate takes more than tax breaks

Echoing the trend that I noticed when comparing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's annual data on tax revenues as a percentage of GDP and The World Economic Forum's annual report ranking nations in their Global Competetiveness Report, Harrop notes that when comparing individual states with each other there seems to be something of a disconnect between low corporate taxation and the apparent attractiveness of a given state to corporations looking to invest in a state.

Every year, the free-market Pacific Research Institute ranks states on its U.S. Economic Freedom Index. It gives good grades for low wages, liberty to pollute and tax policies that let the rich off the hook. Last year, Kansas was number one.

If Kansas is such a great place for businesses to roam free, why aren't businesses charging in? The institute asserts that gains in a state's economic-freedom score are tied to a rise in per-capita income. That's interesting, but the fact remains that Kansas' average per-capita income, $30,811, is lower than that in all 10 of the bottom-ranking states. Third-from-last Connecticut has the nation's highest, $45,398.

Perhaps companies are looking for something other than servile state governments. Perhaps they want educated workers. And perhaps educated workers want to live in communities where schools don't worry about teaching evolution science. Freedom comes in many forms.

Hands down the best zinger in Harrop's column is this paragraph:

The Pacific Research Institute itself chooses to live in regulation-happy San Francisco. And its "economic freedom" index pans California as the second most "tyrannical" state in America. (New York is apparently worse.) Why would a think tank dedicated to limited government stay in such a sinkhole? Guess life is kind of good in Frisco.

Heh... indeed! That little nugget pretty much destroys The Pacific Research Institute's credibility with me. Nothing turns me off quicker than a flaming hypocrite preaching the same old tired "do as I say, not as I do" line of BS.

Posted by Kevin at 12:03 PM |

Not about the sex -- it's about the lying!

I mean, it's not about the artwork and silk flowers -- it's about the corruption and incompetence:

"The Transportation Security Administration has failed to stop excessive spending, raising concerns of "unethical and possibly illegal activities" by employees who spent $500,000 on artwork and silk plants for a new operations center, according to a government report released yesterday.

Working under a self-imposed deadline in 2003 and with little oversight, some TSA employees spared little expense to outfit the new Transportation Security Operations Center, ignored federal contracting rules and appeared to conceal their spending, according to the inspector general's report. When the center opened in September 2003, it included a 4,200-square-foot gym for 79 employees that cost $350,000; seven kitchens outfitted with numerous appliances, including Sub-Zero refrigerators costing $3,000 each; and large offices -- even for lower-level employees -- equipped with cable television at a cost of $63,099 for three years.

An unidentified manager at the center steered much of the contract work to an unnamed tool company, which was encouraged to provide office supplies and artwork for the facility even though the company had little experience in that business, the report said."

Yep, 9/11 changed everything. Everything but the business-as-usual part. Feeling safer now?

Posted by Jeff at 07:44 AM |

Sen. Voinovich sees the future.

From NorthJersey.com:

"What a surprise this week when a Republican senator on the Foreign Relations Committee refused to take the easy way out and vote for John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. As a result, the vote on this abysmal choice has been postponed until next month.

The Bolton nomination is a grievous error. But it looked like all 10 Republicans on the Senate panel were going to approve him Tuesday when Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio suddenly spoke up. "I have heard enough today," he said, "that I don't feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton."

The committee has been bitterly divided along party lines on the nomination, and its chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., was eager to shut off debate and get to a vote when Mr. Voinovich made his dramatic announcement.

Hurray for Mr. Voinovich.

He actually listened to the arguments of members of the opposing party and then changed his mind based on what was said - something that is virtually unprecedented in today's Congress. Democrats on the committee have raised numerous allegations of abusive behavior by Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Bolton would be a disaster at the United Nations. He would be a bully in a china shop. An ambassadorship calls for skillful and sensitive diplomacy and consensus-building. Mr. Bolton has been described as threatening, rude and vindictive.

The Foreign Relations Committee now has several weeks to investigate some of the many allegations that have surfaced about his behavior. One example: In an open letter to the committee, Melody Townsel, a woman who had a disagreement in dealings with Mr. Bolton on a government project a decade ago, wrote that he "proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel, throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman."

She said he later told others that she was "under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time." The assertion, she said, was false. The woman termed Mr. Bolton's behavior "pathological."

Others have alleged that Mr. Bolton, now an undersecretary of state, manipulated intelligence to support his viewpoints, intimidated intelligence analysts and attacked the credibility of subordinates."

Forgive the long cut/paste. But Sen. Voinovich is clairvoyant. Think about it: Bolton -- "threatening, rude and vindictive"; "generally, behaving like a madman"; "pathological"; "manipulated intelligence to support his viewpoints, intimidated intelligence analysts and attacked the credibility of subordinates."

Clearly, ambassador to the U.N. is beneath a man of this stature.

Posted by Jeff at 05:53 AM |

April 20, 2005

From the "you learn something new every day" files

Media Matters shatters a myth that I shamefully bought into:

In an April 19 USA Today op-ed, Ross K. Baker spread the false -- but often-repeated -- claim that former Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was prohibited from speaking at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he opposed abortion rights. In fact, Casey was denied an opportunity to speak at the convention because he refused to endorse the Clinton-Gore presidential ticket. Furthermore, other Democrats who oppose abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every convention since then.

I've heard this Casey/abortion thing mentioned many times. I never bothered to look it up. Shame on me.

Posted by Carla at 03:45 PM |

Mmmmmmm...Bop!

Over at Running Scared, Jazz gets all vulnerable on us.

Jazz admits that in the car, by himself, when no one else is listening...he gets his freak on to Copacabana by Barry Manilow.

(Jazz..the first step is admitting you have a problem, man)

Jazz goes on to ask his readers about the music they listen to but are embarrassed to admit. I'm going to admit mine here in a moment. But like Jazz, I'm hesitant because I truely AM embarassed at myself.

Okay. Here goes.

It's Wake Me Up Before You Go Go by Wham.

(Yes. The first step is admitting you have a problem.)

So what about you? Have you the courage of Jazz and myself to step forward and admit your song? What music makes you bop in the car by yourself when you're driving around on a sunny day...that you'd be completely embarrassed to share with a passenger?

Posted by Carla at 03:01 PM |

Alabama: where nothin' says lovin' like marryin' yer cousin!

Google search: giant confederate battle flag prattville alabama

Results include lots of historical research references, a couple news items about the Montgomery City Council debating the flag display, etc. But nothing about the story I'm looking for.

Within the last month, our local NBC station ran a bit about Prattville, 8 mi. north, the still-hot White Flight Destination Suburb of choice. Apparently someone has put up one humongous flagpole with a giant Confederate battle flag, and it's highly visible from the interstate. Problem is, it's on private property, and no one's letting out details as to whose it is. Anyway, WSFA actually asked anyone with information about it to contact the station.

This just in: journalism, like Gen. Francisco Franco, is still dead.

Since then, not a peep, not one rebel yell, nothing is what I have heard about it. If it were in a Blue State (and the Terri Schiavo-Old Pope Death Watch-New Pope Smoke Watch marathon hadn't been going on, and on), you might've heard about it. But this is Alabama, after all. And so is this.

And this. College days flashback: Tuscaloosa, 1983-1987. On one of my 1st visits to my future school, I saw a billboard near town with "KKK GAS JEWS" spray-painted on it. I'd never actually seen such a thing.

In front of the bowling alley a van would park for 3 days, maybe a week or so. They'd spread a display of flags, all different states, nations, football-related, etc. And within a week of the van closing shop, someone would put a Nazi flag on the Hillel house, or B'nai B'rith, or one of the mostly-Jewish Greek houses. It would always make the local news. But no arrests were ever reported.

So, the week of the 10-year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, domestic terror, hatred, intimidation, racism, check -- alive and kicking. And Time magazine gives us -- Ann Coulter. As Dave Neiwert says today, how did we get here?

Posted by Jeff at 07:27 AM |

Busy as a 1-legged man at a butt-kickin' contest!

Yeah, right, Jeff -- you been bloggin' your ass off over at Preemptive Karma, so don't give me that.

No, really, Blogger was comatose week before last or whenever, so the old blog had to wait, and... never mind. Job-related involvements. Family illnesses. And through it all I was successfully avoiding the Pope Death Watch, then the ensuing Smoke Watch.

Then today I heard Rick & Bubba (I religiously avoid commercial radio, usually) debating "why Benedict?" One of their staff, thankfully, brought up the fact that Benedict is only negative in American history. Benedict is the patron saint of Europe? Really? I recall St. George - England, etc. but that's all.

How Popes choose their names, FYI.

But then a Catholic caller said, "I saw on Fox News..." and I cringed, "...he chose Benedict 'cause (something to do with) an earlier Benedict and his homily about the 'dictatorship of relativism'..."

From a quick Google:

"With that name, he has symbolically linked himself to St. Benedict of Nursia, the founder of Western monasticism, and Pope Benedict XV, considered by some to be one of the most underrated of modern popes.

The name comes from Latin and means blessed.

St. Benedict, who lived during the sixth century, is the author of the Rule of St. Benedict, the code that guides monastic life to this day and helped keep scholarship and the flame of faith alive during the Dark Ages. St. Benedict also is the patron saint of Europe.

Pope Benedict XV, who served from 1914 to 1922, followed Pius X, whose vigorous fight against modernism - the attempt to reconcile Roman Catholic faith with modern rationality - left the church divided.

In his first encyclical, issued only months after his installation, Benedict XV called a halt to the war between traditionalists and progressives in the church.

He also sought to end what he called the "useless slaughter" of World War I that played out during his papacy."

I'm betting that last bit about peace-making in the church, and anti-war sentiments, gets little or no newstime on any major news report. Anyone got $10 to lose?

They then tried to dissect what that meant. After that I recall yelling at the radio. "Our entire lives as Americans is a giant mess of rationalization and relativism, y'all! Our grossly-comfortable lives are built on cheap goods from slave labor in China!"

Full disclosure: my pants today are Old Navy, most likely sweatshop-made. Hey, a family of 5 has to get by somehow today, right? Whoops, I'm relativism-ing again! off to hell I go!

Most Christians are good people, or are trying to be. If it works for them, good; and it makes the world a better safer place overall, even better. But saying "eliminate all doubt, because the Bible is the only absolute truth" -- that's a different kind of dictatorship.

But most American Christians ain't about to sell their SUVs, give up their 500 satellite channels, and sell or donate all their belongings, and follow Jesus to become fishers of men.

Hell, most of us didn't give one dime to tsunami aid.

Everyone commiserates, oh yeah, but how many people do you know -- how many are you 100% positive -- they sent money to Red Cross/Red Crescent or Doctors without Borders?

So, how will most Americans show they're gung-ho "in the Lord's Ar-Mee, yesSIR!"?

Probably by listening to more talk radio (I do like Rick & Bubba, they're real guys; it's the hate radio shows disguised as talk -- Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. who are beneath contempt). And in the voting booth. Just like before. Expect more of the same drum-beating political divisiveness, turned up past 11 to 12.

The sermon that works for me on a day like this is Marvin Gaye What's Goin' On, start to finish. "Only love can conquer hate", indeed.

Posted by Jeff at 05:47 AM |

April 19, 2005

Shorter Sister

Shakespeare's Sister takes a decidedly negative view of the new Pontiff.

The new head of the world's largest gay hating group is a gay basher who tries to "cure" homosexuals in the years following his Hitler youth marches to the gas chambers.

Go read the long version. It's worth the trip.

Posted by Carla at 04:57 PM |

"It's really just a twisted sort of penis-envy."

Kevin made this comment over at That Colored Fellas Weblog today. I thought it was so good that our readers needed to see it up close and personal.

In it's entirety:

Yeah, I know the popular image among many on the left is that conservatives are nerdy white guys from afluent families. But, the reality is that, from my perspective and based on my own experience, the whole macho warmongering attitude which conservatives portray is a very testosterony kinda thing which instinctively appeals to many decidedly un-nerdy middle-class and lower kids. That was my experience at least. I was a badboy/jock in highschool. Nobody hassled me. LOL

I think that liberal principles are much more intellectual and that it takes a degree of mental maturity to really appreciate their value. That's why conservatives are so keen to slander "academia." It's really just a twisted sort of penis-envy.

That's good stuff.

Posted by Carla at 02:01 PM |

The Party of Lincoln?

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Abraham Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

According to the AFL-CIO's Working Family network, some 57 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could. But when workers try to gain a union voice on the job, employers respond with intimidation, harassment and retaliation. And our labor laws are too weak to stop them.

The Employee Free Choice Act would ensure that when a majority of employees in a workplace decide to form a union, they can do so without the debilitating obstacles employers now use to block their free choice.

Specifically, the Employee Free Choice Act would strengthen protections for workers' freedom to form unions by requiring employers to recognize a union once a majority of workers signed cards authorizing union representation. It also would provide for mediation and arbitration of first-contract disputes and authorize stronger penalties for employers that violate the legal rights of workers seeking to form unions or negotiate first contracts.

Please send a message to your U.S. senators and representative urging them to co-sponsor the Employee Free Choice Act.

I personally am not a big fan of unions, having had mixed experiences as a member of a union. But, I wholeheartedly support the right of workers to form unions when and where they choose.

Posted by Kevin at 12:54 PM |

Rumblings along the San Andreas fault

"If you can fog a mirror, you can get a home loan," said mortgage analyst Ralph DeFranco.

People are scrambling for housing in California, getting in debt up to their eyeballs, and the housing market just goes up and up and up... until the bubble bursts. It's a couple years from popping, but it looks to be comin' just the same.

Posted by Jeff at 11:01 AM |

What does it mean to be a patriot?

Ann Coulter is on the cover of Time Magazine this week. Coulter is so very 2003. I don't get why someone so passe' would make their cover. But it's their magazine..they can pollute it however they choose.

Coulter's stirred a lot of crap in her day. Pretty much all of it about liberals. Here's a few of her gems:

Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy.-Excerpt from Treason, Coulter's love song to McCarthyism.

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." Coulter, Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.--Ann Coulter

What does it really mean to be a patriot? What does "pro-American" really look like?

Tell me in comments what being a patriot means to you.

Posted by Carla at 10:45 AM |

Blank pages, where the newest and most beautiful words are about to be written

The 1st draft, anyway. Read The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. It explains a lot about the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and how our globalised world works today.

"Fittingly, a government devoted to perpetual pre-emptive deconstruction now has a standing office of perpetual pre-emptive reconstruction."

I see a parallel with city planning and development here in Fun-gomery: the developers make their money, then get the hell out, moving on to the next big development. What's left in their wake are huge vacant shopping centers with no practical use, in undesireable locations. What will become of the old WalMart? KMart? Montgomery Mall? Torn down and the land eventually "re-purposed" at taxpayer expense, probably.

In January Condoleezza Rice sparked a small controversy by describing the tsunami as "a wonderful opportunity" that "has paid great dividends for us."

There's some compassionate conservatism and moral values for ya!

Posted by Jeff at 09:59 AM |

April 18, 2005

You like potato(e), I like potahto

You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off

The Arizona Republican Party is trying to woo Quayle to run for governor against Democratic incumbent Janet Napolitano.

But it ain't Dan they want. It's Marilyn.

I don't know that much about Mrs. Quayle. I do know she's a lawyer and an author. I know she used to sport a flip hairdo that was absolutely awful.

I think it's excellent that two women would be vying for the highest state office in Arizona. Even if Marilyn's husband is kind of a putz.

Posted by Carla at 03:18 PM |

Dirty Tricks GOP Style

The RNC set a new fundraising record with today's 1st Quarter fundraising report.

RNC Chair Ken Mehlman says much of it will be spent immediately on voter registration and other grassroots organizing.

Unfortunately for honest upstanding citizens who just want to do their civic duty by registering to vote, that's not necessarily good news.

The GOP has a track record of screwing unsuspecting citizens over when it comes to voter registration drives. Not that this should come as a surprise to anyone. This is the party of Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove after all. What else could we expect from that kind of rogue's gallery?

Posted by Kevin at 12:13 PM |

Another reason why Bolton sucks

Even his own bosses can't trust him.

Wa Po:

John R. Bolton -- who is seeking confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- often blocked then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and, on one occasion, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, from receiving information vital to U.S. strategies on Iran, according to current and former officials who have worked with Bolton.

This guy is supposed to be confirmed to one of the top diplomatic posts around..and he's hid vital information from the people in charge of making key diplomatic decisions.

Apparently Rice doesn't trust him anymore at all:

Publicly, Rice has staunchly defended Bolton's credentials and urged the Senate to quickly confirm him. But privately, officials said, she has kept him out of key discussions on Iran since taking over in January.

So what happens if Bolton is confirmed and then is out of the loop on key discussions about Iran? IRAN?? The country very possibly in our sites for the next invasion mess?

Bolton's confirmation vote with the Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled for tomorrow. Democrats have been working on Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) whose yes vote has been considered shaky. But now Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) is complaining about allegations "piling up" against Bolton, too.

Piling up, indeed.

Bolton has made the claim that the UN doesn't exist. In fact Bolton believes that the top ten floors of the building could be lopped off and no one would notice.

Bolton has been accused of abusing his power with his subordinates.

Former diplomats have come out en masse against Bolton's nomination.

NWPT38

Posted by Carla at 12:10 PM |

Considering the Trust Fund

One of the ways that conservatives have attempted to sell their undermining of Social Security is telling us that the Trust Fund is full of Treasury Bonds that aren't real money.

Jane Galt goes down this primrose path, although not to the point of undermining the system:

In case anyone thought it was in any doubt, I do, in fact, believe that there are bonds, and that the government will note the interest rates on those bonds in its account books. But the failure to understand that there is a difference between IOUs written to yourself, and IOUs written to someone else, strikes me as willfully obtuse.

Willfully obtuse? Hmmm...

Upon even a moment's reflection, it's obvious that the trust fund does not exist in the way that its proponents are claiming -- as a guarantee of benefits -- because the bonds are not obligations to Social Security beneficiaries. They are obligations to the Social Security Administration. And the Social Security administration has no legal obligation to turn the accounting entry representing interest payments from the federal government into cash. According to the supreme court, Americans have no property right in their social security benefits, as they would as creditors of an underfunded private sector pension plan.

I agree that the Treasury Bonds aren't direct IOUs to SS recipients. They're IOU's to the Social Security Administration. But the entire existence of the SSA is to write checks to retirees and others who qualify. If they don't do that...the reason for their existence evaporates. I don't know all of the legalities involved here..but it seems to me that if the Trust Fund isn't used for sending checks when outgoing expenditures exceed revenues, the SSA ceases to exist.

So by that very nature, the Trust Fund is a guarantee of benefits.

Keep in mind as well that those dollars in your pocket aren't real money. They're IOUs as well. They're honored because they're backed up by "real money"...or gold. Just like US Treasury Bonds are backed up as well.

I find it difficult to believe that any conservative truely wants to carry the "Treasury Bonds aren't real money" meme to it's logical conclusion. That conclusion would be that the US will default on the bonds, causing a global financial meltdown.

What was that about willfully obtuse?

Posted by Carla at 11:37 AM |

HOW TO TALK TO A W Believer

I think people are interested in why a W Believer stays one and why some leave, so I thought I would talk to you about it.

I was a W Believer for years. I gave them over two hundred thousand dollars of my own money. In fact, until earlier this year I still considered myself a W Believer.

There is a lot of information that W Faith is destructive. Yet, as you may know, it is almost impossible to talk about these things with a dedicated W Believer. I hope to give you some clues.

You might wonder how I decided to leave. After all, my parents tried to talk me out of it. My sister tried to talk me out of it. My friends tried to talk me out of it. None succeeded.

I wouldn’t listen to anyone who tried to dissuade me from W Faith. I kept myself from reading critical news articles or viewing television shows. I never read critical books. I thought it was all lies anyway. I would have defended W Faith to the death.

So there are a few things you don’t want to do when taking to a W Believer.

Don’t talk to them about the weird stuff. Most W Believers don’t know about it and are trained in the idea that finding out about it too soon will kill them. So just leave that entirely alone. It may freak you out and you may want to share it, but they will think it is a personal attack.

Don’t tell them it is not a religion. A W Believer will instantly tune you out the moment you say that. After all they have subjective experience that is to them completely spiritual and religious in nature. To assert it isn’t is to be calling them a liar and denying their own experience.

W Believers invest a lot of their life and almost all their money in pursuit of the W Faith total freedom. I want you to understand that.

I felt that W Faith had saved my life. That I would otherwise have destroyed myself with drugs or suicide. I felt I had experienced personal insight into the nature of my own being through W Faith. It explained everything to me.

To tell me it isn’t a religion runs counter to my belief, but more importantly, it runs counter to my investment. If it is not a religion, then what did I do with my two hundred thousand dollars and my years of association and all those hours of watching Fox News and reading Drudge? I would have to admit that waste and I’m not going to do that just because you state, “It’s not a religion.”

Don’t tell them W was a con-man and a fraud and a cokehead and that almost nothing he said about himself was true. A W Believer can’t believe that because he has been told that such statements are all lies. That the documents that show these things are fabrications by a
shadowy conspiracy to destroy W and W Faith and thus deny people the total freedom W Faith offers.

You’re in a he-said she-said situation. In fact, without careful research you might be presenting false information that the church has put on the ‘net just so they can show their members how false it all is. So a W Believer will be sure you are now a tool of the conspiracy,
out to destroy W Faith. And they will not listen.

Don’t tell them W Faith doesn’t work. For a W Believer, it does work. They know it. They will be able to point out one or many times where they had a success or it helped them through something or they felt better about themselves. They may have past life memories that convince them of their spiritual nature. They can have experienced wonderful things.

But I’ve been doing some research. And one book is a book called “Hypnotism” written by G.H. Estabrooks in 1943. In chapter three he says: “There is a rule in Hypnotism that everything we get in a trance can also be obtained by means of the posthypnotic suggestion. Also that anything we find in either can be found in autosuggestion...”

So I am coming to believe that almost everything that occurs in W Faith that a W Believer experiences and believes in comes about as the self-suggested result of a kind of auto-hypnosis. Everything that seems to work or be positive is attributed to W Faith, and everything negative is assigned to personal failure or lack of understanding of W Faith. After which there is a long bout of study to correct the matter, which again is a kind of auto-hypnosis.

And any outside challenge to that carefully maintained trance will result in greater and greater resistance.

So how Do you talk to a W Believer?

First, you have to care. You have to care for them. Regardless of what you think about what they believe or do, you have to care.

Throw out any bigotry or intolerance you might have and be a caring person. Listen to them.

Assure them you only want good things for them. Give them a safe place to visit or come to.

Many times W Believers won’t leave the church even though they want to, if they have no safe place or people of unconditional trust to go to.

It is a huge personal event to leave W Faith. You have to somehow come to the decision you were wrong and all that money and time and investment is lost. You have to be willing to lose your friends, maybe even a husband or wife or children. Few people can do that when others are telling them they were wrong. And really, what a person has hypnotized himself into can only be undone by himself.

Tell them that if they want to come and see you, just call and you’ll pay their way. Say “come and see me.” If they call, send them an airplane ticket or go pick them up. And when they show up on your door step, don’t be surprised, be supportive. Don’t eagerly use their leaving to present them with stacks of information critical of W Faith. You can ask them about it, but they have a lot to think about. It can take some time. Give them space. Let them ask for information or let them use the internet to find out for themselves.

If they want to talk, get them talking about it. Have them tell you their experiences, good and bad. Talking helps, especially when the person listening is non-judgmental.

It is the internal conflicts I experienced within W Faith that broke the spell for me. So if I were now talking to a W Believer, I would talk to them about these things:

Get them to explain about the powers of an operating thetan, the higher levels in W Faith. And then ask them if they knew of people on those levels getting sick or getting cancer or dying or just leaving the church. Get them to think how the reality they observe differs from what is promised. Even for people who have been in W Faith for years. Tell them you are confused; if these magnificent powers existed, how then could critics of the church continue to write or
even to exist? Couldn’t a top level W Believer just wish them away?

Get them to describe the ideals of W Faith ethics and justice and how W Believers are supposed to be honest and straightforward. Find out if they know any W Believers who won’t pay back loans, who have trouble with paying their rent, who have done a lot of W Faith but still seem
shady or involved in schemes. If they have been around awhile, they will know some or will have heard of many such things.

Find out if they experienced the misapplication of W Faith justice themselves. Get them to talk about it.

See if they will talk about their feelings that it is “just them” having trouble, but that W Faith really is good. It is very common for people to go for decades wondering privately why they are not getting the promised gains from W Faith while outwardly defending it to the death.

These kinds of questions and getting them to think about what they experienced and observed as compared to what they are taught and led to believe are a key to breaking the kind of spell they are under.

So, I think that you should talk with a W Believer completely non-judgmentally. Get them to talk about what they have observed themselves in fellow W Believers, organizations, management and activities as compared to what they are given to believe from W’s writings and the promises of management. This way you open the door far enough that they will begin to read and compare the stories and experiences of ex-W Believers with their own.

Once that happens, you can help them. But don’t push it on them.

So how do you talk to a W Believer? With care and understanding. They found a reason to be in it. Give them the space and time and resources to find a reason to be out of it.

Read the original HOW TO TALK TO A SCIENTOLOGIST by Michael Tilse.

The changes I made were: replace Scientologist with W Believer; replace Scientology with W Faith; replace study and counseling with watching Fox News and reading Drudge; replace bigamist with cokehead. And a few cuts for brevity. But really that's all... explains a lot, doesn't it?

Posted by Jeff at 06:00 AM |

April 17, 2005

Joe knows BS

Joe Gandleman poses the question of the day (week..month?)

What Do You Do If A Report Shows There Is More Terrorism This Year Than The Year Before?

As Joe makes clear, if you're Bush you eliminate the evidence.

Posted by Carla at 09:12 PM |

Imagine

In my effort to honor National Poetry Month....

It's difficult for me to imagine highlighting lyrical poetry without including the great John Lennon. (So I'm not even going to try)

Imagine

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Posted by Carla at 03:59 PM |

"The Credit Card Congress"

Thus decrees Newsweek's Jonathan Alter:

Last week Congress sent a new personal bankruptcy bill to President Bush's desk, where he will eagerly sign it. The legislation, which is designed to make it much harder and more expensive to get out of debt, is not all bad. With 1.5 million personal bankruptcies a year, some change was necessary. But this bill, like so many others moving through Congress, comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. Worse, it provides for no distinction between those who get unlucky in Las Vegas and those who get cancer.

The law was literally written by the credit-card industry, the same folks whose siren-song targeting of high-risk borrowers caused much of the bankruptcy problem in the first place. Financial services has now surpassed oil and gas as the most powerful lobby in Washington. It's a fitting coincidence of circumstances. First Congress puts a half trillion in budget deficits a year on the plastic for our grandchildren to pay off. Then it sells out the average American to predatory lenders, who have the run of the place. History should remember the 109th as the Credit Card Congress.

And so Alter hands the left a new frame for 109th. Sorta.

Unfortunately, the bankruptcy bill in question had a lot of bipartisan support. It's tipped the scales for me personally against my own Congressman, Democrat David Wu (OR-1).

I have worked on several of Wu's campaigns personally. I even appeared in two ads for him..one print and one television commercial.

When I heard that Wu was in support of this bill, I called his Oregon office and demanded an explanation. Their answer was weak..and later I was sent a follow up form letter.

The form letter states, in a nutshell, that Wu believes too many individuals who really can afford to pay their bills are dodging their responsibilities by filing for bankruptcy. He may have a valid point. But as Alter notes, this bill doesn't differentiate between a person whose had a catastrophic health emergency and a person who lost their money at the track.

Nor does it address the very aggressive predatory credit card lending practices by credit card companies. These companies attract customers with promises of low rates. When all the while, in print so small it can be read only by someone with an electron microscope, the consumer signs an agreement allowing the company to jack up rates at will.

And of course there's absolutely nothing in the bill that addresses bankruptcy for corporations. After all..it's just the individual consumer that's trying to put one over by filing for bankruptcy...right? Sheesh.

And so in the next cycle, I'll most likely support whoever runs against Wu in the primary. And if Wu wins the primary then I'll likely leave that space blank on my ballot.(Unless it's a prochoice, pro civil rights, proconsumer Republican..do they exist?)

I cannot in good conscience support a man who would so easily sell his constituents down the river. Especially one who purports to be on my side.

Posted by Carla at 03:25 PM |

GOP out of touch on tax fairness

Assistant House Majority Whip Mark Green talks about the need to "commit ourselves to creating a fairer, simpler and more honest tax system that lets Americans keep more of their hard-earned money." But, his voting record on taxes conflicts with what the polling data says Americans see as fair. He has consistently voted to give the wealthiest of the wealthy and big corporations big tax breaks... which clearly conflicts with the sentiments expressed by the above-linked polls.

Leading proponents of the alternative (to evolutionary theory) Intelligent Design hypothesis, Discovery Institute got into the act too by lauding Bush's pro-business tax cuts. Here again conflicting with what the polling data says Americans see as fair.

The Tax Policy Center has a thought-provoking review of the 2003 book Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everyone Else, which unflinchingly points out how both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are responsible for the presently unfair tax situation as well as at least partial blame for the currently projected SSI shortfall.

Responsible Wealth is a project of some wealthy folks who materially benefit from the Republican's tax schemes but who disagree with it's inherent unfairness. Definitely worth a few minutes time perusing.

Bottom line: conservative Republicans aren't just out of touch. They know what they're doing. They just don't care about true tax fairness that is fair to the entire citizenry.

Posted by Kevin at 09:03 AM |

April 16, 2005

The cost of dishonesty

Some people still believe Bush is a good, honest guy. For them, I have some absolutely gorgeous beachfront property in Nebraska. Cheap.

The Weekend Australian:

"These documents are additional compelling evidence that the intelligence community did not believe there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, despite public comments by the highest ranking officials in our government to the contrary," Senator Carl Levin said today.

The declassified documents undermine the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's involvement in training al-Qaeda operatives and the likelihood of a meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, Senator Levin said in a statement.

Team Bush knew that the relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq was murky at best before we invaded Iraq. But Bush stood up and repeatedly stated otherwise:

In October 2002, Mr Bush said: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

But a June 2002 CIA report, titled Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, said "the level and extent of this is assistance is not clear".

For those of you keeping score at home, this is what is known as "Bush lying".

The freaks of the rightwing blogosphere have repeatedly opined that Iraq and Al Qaida were incahoots.

And just like with Iraq having WMD, they're wrong.

The problem with these kinds of lies and their perpetuation is the cost: lives.

So far 1553 of them.

Not to mention the thousands of irrepairably wounded.

(hat tip to Talk Left for the Aussie news story.)

Posted by Carla at 08:49 PM |

Guesting

I've picked up a little guest blogging gig over at In Search of Utopia.

It's different from PK. The topics are different and the blog is a lot bigger.

I hope PK readers will come over and write lots of comments on my posts so that they think I'm doing a good job. I hope to trick them into letting me guest blog a lot.

Posted by Carla at 08:48 AM |

April 15, 2005

Six Degrees of Tom DeLay

The DCCC is having a bit of fun with the House Majority Leader.

Check out House of Scandal.

It's very David Horowitz. Only it doesn't have the tinge of outright nutjob stupidity that haunts poor David.

Posted by Carla at 05:49 PM |

Well I won’t back down, no I won’t back down

You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won’t back down

I've mentioned before on this blog that I have a rather healthy antiauthoritarian streak. I believe it's one of the main reasons I'm attracted to debating those whose beliefs differ from my own.

I cut my internet teeth, so to speak, debating in chatrooms and on message boards. I learned (after taking some knocks) how to choose battles. I also learned to love kicking conservative ass.

So when I ran across this blog post, I made the decision to take it on.

Rarely have I come across a group of individuals so fundamentally ill equipped to discuss issues. At all. They couldn't even begin to try. It was the epitome of having a "battle of wits with unarmed men".

It's a silly post gushing over Bush throwing the first pitch at yesterday's Washington National's baseball game.

My comment:

Time to throw out the first pitch....but he can't seem to find Osama Bin Laden?

"It's hard work".

Bah.

This little comment resulted in an avalanche of comments from both the webmistress (SondraK) and her devoted cadre of people with serious compensation issues. Threats, weak intimidation attempts and the webmistress even opened up a new post just for me, by her own admission, to give her commentors a place to attempt (and I mean attempt...talk about lame) to take pot shots at me.

Some examples:

carla:

nice perspective. good luck making it to your junior year at Brown U. i'm not optimistic you'll ever make it.

Go Bears!

Posted by: Tom v G on April 14, 2005 07:34 PM

Then it proceeded to get downright ludicrous:

Tom:

Neato personal attack! How very conservative of you.

Get out of the sandbox much?
Posted by carla at April 14, 2005 08:05 PM

****************************************************************

Carla...YOU STARTED IT! and then CONTINUED it.

How about YOU find Osama....try it, it's hard work. I'll pass your non-personal attack onto every Serviceperson I know. Is that your real e-mail addy? I'm sure you'll get a whole lotta replies 'splaining the hard work our Military does.......and those deployed from other countries doing hard work as well.

BTW...your next off-topic remark will get you a very prominent front page post so EVERYONE can lob personal attacks. We LOVE that here ...that's easy stuff when there's a good target.

GREAT pics, Tom!
Posted by SondraK at April 14, 2005 08:16 PM

*************************************************************

SondraK

LOL I "started it"? Wow..this really is the sandbox.

I pay my taxes so that the government can do it's job when it comes to capturing Osama Bin Laden. That should be your expectation too. Odd that you don't have a problem with the man responsible for killing 3000 people on 9/11 running around loose while your President throws pitches at ball games.

Please do post my comment prominently. Then you can prove to me what I figured already. It isn't about doing what's correct..it's about your little sandbox.
Posted by carla at April 14, 2005 08:50 PM

**************************************************************

Fuck, I live in metro NYC, carla.

Ossama isn't in chains, but I haven't had to bury and mourn a neighbor since we elected a president who can throw a strike, either.

And I wrote a check today with "US Treasury" as the payee.

Quitate, puta.
Posted by danger, etc. at April 14, 2005 09:02 PM

*****************************************************************

So Carla I take it you were a strong supporter of attacking Afghanistan in a swift and timely manner. I agree it is hard work to destroy global jihadism and I personally look forward to you thoughtful insight on how to achieve this goal with will lead to an American victory. So if I understand you correctly we are both on the same page.
Posted by Jr at April 14, 2005 09:02 PM

***************************************************************

Don't piss me off, Carla. You're disparaging each and every member of our Armed Forces. DON'T be a moron..........NO President is responsible for the actual capture of anyone.
I pay allot of taxes, too, for a whole lotta crap, Missy............what don't make anything happen for me either. This , I see is a hopeless argument with you, you just have a bone to pick because you're miserable and want to Bush Bash™. You're not even worth it.
Tah.
Posted by SondraK at April 14, 2005 09:05 PM

************************************************************

danger, etc:

Is "danger" your middle name? LOL In all seriousness...you haven't had to bury a neighbor? Interesting. My neighbors have had to bury several National Guard members since your President took us into Iraq. The families that aren't burying soldiers are busy helping them buy prosthetic arms and legs, wheelchairs and canes...or trying to find them mental health services for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Jr:

I absolutely agreed with going into Afghanistan. I just wish we'd have done it completely and not been distracted by claims of immediate threats from Iraq that didn't exist.

SondraK:

It's you who shouldn't piss me off. It's you and people like you who dishonor and disparage our military with your attitude. How dare you discuss a criminal like bin Laden in such a laissez faire manner.

Bush is absolutely responsible for the capture of Bin Laden. The attack happened on his watch and he promised the American people that he would get him. Are you letting Bush and Osama off the hook?

You're right about one thing. This is a hopeless argument. Unfortunately your side is costing limbs, lives and massive dollars.
Posted by carla at April 14, 2005 09:24 PM

****************************************************************
Carla:

Can we assume that Mr. Kerry would have conjured up a spell, while wearing his lucky Cambodian-loving spook hat, that would have brought OBL out and about?

Having seen him throw assorted balls during his many silly campaign photo ops, I'm doubtful he'd have been at ballgame in DC today. In fact, it's doubtful that we would have seen the glory of January 30th in Iraq; or the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon; Democracy in Afghanistan, or such great breakthroughs in Israel/"Palestinian" issue, or hell, they're even surfin' in Mongolia, and down Doheny Way... with Bushy Bushy blonde hairdo's, surfin' USA.

Cheers.
Posted by Tom v G at April 14, 2005 09:29 PM

******************************************************************
Carla,

You. Have. No. Idea. Who. You. Are. Talking. To.

LAST and final warning. Stay off my fucking blog with ANY personal attacks about what and for whom I do for my Armed Forces.

It takes allot to raise my blood pressure this high and you have.

We'll take this somewhere one on one ANYTIME.
ANYTIME if you want to keep this personal, Missy......

But one more word about my MIL peeps and what we are doing and they'll be sure to give you an earful. And no, you won't get the hits ON YOUR BLOG.

YOU will NOT win. LEAVE THEM OUT OF THIS.
Posted by SondraK at April 14, 2005 09:34 PM

*****************************************************************

Tom:

Kerry never promised to get bin Laden "dead or alive".

If he had...your point might hold water.
Posted by carla at April 14, 2005 09:34 PM

Comments are CLOSED on this post, but open here. Carry on...I'm going to do something I'll be sorry for if I don't step away right now.

Posted by Carla at 04:15 PM |

I'm proud to be an American...

....where at least I know I'm free.

Today is April 15th. Tax day.

This is the single greatest day of the year to remember how incredibly fortunate and blessed we are to be Americans.

We live in the greatest nation on Earth. We have bountiful supplies of resources. We have the best system of government that's been ever been conceived.

And today...we get to write a check to fund our government. We have the priviledge of participating in paying for our military who defend our freedoms. We get to pay for our interstate freeway system. To maintain our infrastructure. We have the great opportunity to give some of our fellow citizens a hand up through hard times.

We pay today to send our young people to school and keep our water and air clean. We maintain our amazing National Parks as well.

I love this day. I'm so honored to live in this country. I am amazed at the opportunities provided to me and to my children through this providence.

I write my check with pride and a grateful heart.

Posted by Carla at 07:09 AM |

April 14, 2005

The Book Meme

Most people who write really love to read. I'm no exception. Hence I was tickled to have a chance to participate in that great internet geek-whore chain letter: The Book Meme. Thanks to TCF for the invite. (By the way TCF, any time you wanna do that Lefty Blogosphere Debate Team....I'm definitely your girl).

You’re stuck in ‘Fahrenheit 451’. Which book would you be?

One of the basic parts of my character is antiauthoritarianism. I've always pushed back against rules and rule makers. Authority is like fingernails on a chalkboard: irritating, chafing. For good or for bad, authority suffocates me.

I would therefore be Lady Chatterly's Lover. DH Lawrence penned the ultimate "in your face" to the authorities and censors of the day. Lady Chatterly resulted in three decades of court battles on obscenity and censorship. (This is probably why it's best that I remain my own boss, incidentally)

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

I've had crushes on several fictional characters. But as the saying goes, you always remember your first. Mine is Laurie from Little Women.

I've always had a thing for sensitive men with a brilliant sense of humor. A little on the geeky side...with sweet dispositions. Laurie's literary disposition is all of those things. He's also very brave and loyal. Two things I find irresistable as well.

What is the last book you bought?

I don't buy books as much as I get them for gifts. People give me books all the time. The last book I actually purchased for myself is Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff. The last book I received as a gift is a signed copy of You Have The Power by Howard Dean (Thanks again, Kev).

What are you currently reading?

I'm currently rereading Make Gentle The Life of this World, the Vision of Robert Kennedy by Maxwell Taylor Kennedy. The book is a series of vignettes and other writings either written by RFK or admired by him. Absolutely inspiring and moving. The book was edited by RFK's son.

Now it's my turn to pass the Book meme torch to fellow bloggers:

Kevin Drum, who is probably as politically well read as anybody. I'm especially curious about what he's currently reading.

David Goldstein because he's incredibly bright, startingly witty and is probably reading something desperately naughty. Or wishes he was.

Sid at New Frames...a fellow Oregon female political blogger. She blogs mostly about local Oregon stuff. Check her out. Well worth the trip.

Posted by Carla at 05:43 PM |

Politics, Religion and Medical Ethics

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitanovetoed a bill which would have allowed pharmacists to refuse to provide abortion-related medications if doing so conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs.

A number of pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for religious/moral reasons over the last few years in Texas, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Illinois and elsewhere.

The former pharmacist in the Wisconsin case cited not wanting to commit a sin as his reason for refusing to fill the valid prescription.

Napolitano isn't the first Governor to act against this troubling trend, either. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued an emergency rule last week requiring pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives "without delay" and established a toll-free number for state residents to report refusals. And that has the wingnuts frothing at the mouth.

GOPUSA carries this alleged news report by CNSNews.com, a wingnut front organization whose president and founder is none other than L. Brent Bozell III, founder and president of the right-wing Media Research Center.

The CNS article touts how Illinois Gov. Blagojevich was on shaky legal ground when he issued the emergency rule. Their source for that opinion? The ACLJ which the article describes as "a conservative civil liberties group." Which isn't completely dishonest. But the whole truth would have been to say that the ACLJ is a Religious Right organization closely linked to the Trinity Broadcasting Network whse president and founder is the alleged homosexual cheater Paul Crouch.

Now... maybe Blagojevich was on shaky legal ground when he issued the rule. I honestly don't know. What I do know is that any time the line of citation on a news story involves interconnected and partisan sources all on one side of the issue... that I have to take their "opinions" with a pinch of salt, as they say.

Suffice to say that Republicans seemingly favor pharmacists being allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions on religious/moral grounds.

On the face of it this seems to be a pro-life/woman's rights issue. But it really isn't. And that's why we all should be concerned about this.

Consider this story from 2001 of a teenager whose parents refused to get her treated for diabetes because of religious beliefs and she ended up dying. Now imagine you live in the middle of nowhere and the nearest single pharmacist is 100 miles away running a pharmacy/grocery store and he or she has just converted to the General Assembly Church of the First Born, a Christian sect that does not believe in medical treatment but instead relies on faith healing. You've got diabetes. You can't live without insulin. But, the only pharmacist around won't fill the damn prescription because of religious/moral beliefs.

Posted by Kevin at 03:01 PM |