« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »

March 31, 2006

Pro-Lifers Compare Abortion with Genocide

Students at the University of Calgary in Canada have been conducting a campaign called Campus for Life Genocide Awareness Project, in which they erect public displays that include large photographs of aborted fetuses alongside photographs of victims of the Holocaust and the 1994 Rwandan genocide – and claim the two are similar.

“In the past, when governments have stripped person-hood status from human beings, genocide has taken place. That’s what happened during the Holocaust, that’s what happened in Rwanda, that’s what happened on the killing fields of Cambodia. In every case, that is wrong. Just like the unborn, that is wrong.”

The reason this rubs me wrong is that the difference between the two is so vast one must wonder whether these pro-lifers really understand what genocide is.

Last night I had a lengthy conversation with a very good friend of mine, a Tutsi man whose sister and mother escaped the Rwandan brutality back in 1994 (in which 800,000 died) after literally a week of running on foot for their lives before reaching safety. My friend had grown up in Rwanda, but had traveled to another country to attend university and ultimately decided to settle outside Rwanda because of rising tensions there. All his friends and family, however, were in Rwanda when the Hutus began massacring their long-time Tutsi enemies. He told me he had a photograph of his middle school class of 32 students. Of the group, only five survived the massacre – and one of them was a Hutu on trial for war crimes as a result of the role he had played in butchering his friends and neighbors.

My friend also has photographs of himself with Paul Rusesabagina, who was an acquaintance of his from school. Paul was the hotel manager who managed to save more than a thousand people in the story memorialized in the film Hotel Rwanda. He said you would never have imagined that Paul would become known across the entire globe as a hero. But circumstances made heros of many during that horror. My friend tells me he knows many heroic stories that will never be told, and that he knew hundreds of Hutu people who were brutally killed for trying to hide or protect Tutsis during that cruel attack.

My friend also knew Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, the Hutu Seventh-Day Adventist pastor who was recently convicted by the War Crimes Tribunal. He said the tragedy of it was that the man, whom he believes was blameless, was trapped by an unimaginable and inhuman set of circumstances. He had always been an arrogant man, and consequently he was not liked by his community. When the massacre began, he literally could do nothing to stop it without sacrificing his own life in the process. But because he was so disliked, the few Tutsis who survived enacted their revenge against him by telling the Tribunal he was complicit in the attacks. But in truth, like so many others, he was forced to stand by helplessly and watch the massacre.

Four years after the genocide the killing continued, though on a smaller scale. 300,000 Rwandan children were growing up in homes headed by other children. There were literally no adults to care for them. The hunger, suffering, exploitation and abuse these children suffered for years after having already survived the trauma of watching their parents, siblings, grandparents, friends, and neighbors being literally hacked to death by each other has left unimaginable scars. Children were even forced to kill other children with hoes. It is no surprise that 12 years later, the hatred between the two tribes cannot be healed; far too much pain has been inflicted by both sides in what has been an ongoing, mutual slaughter spanning decades. Approximately one of every 14 people in the country died in 100 days – to put it in perspective, within a country the size of a small state people died at the rate of three September 11 attacks a day for 100 days. It is an unfathomable thing.

Rwanda, Armenia, Darfur, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Europe (under Hitler), Yugoslavia, Bosnia – despite all the awareness and concern, genocide on a massive scale has continued throughout the world unabated. The numbers of dead overwhelm the soul. I do not understand the evil, just as I do not understand how people can survive such brutality, pick up the pieces of their lives, and move on.

But I do know this. There is no comparison between the utter horror and evil of genocide and the practice of abortion. Absolutely none.

Posted by Becky at 02:45 PM |

"But he had a tremendous singing voice."

While I was taking a break from the Judiciary Committee censure resolution hearings this morning, I found a curious brush war had broken out across the blogosphere.

At AmericaBlog, John Aravosis recounted the story this way:

Nine months ago I wrote a post that got a good amount of attention, it was about the fear of money that some people have on the left. I think it's time for the next installment.

Last night I attended the Radio and Television Correspondents Association annual dinner in Washington, DC. I got invited by a radio-industry friend who had bought a few tables. It's a biggest-of-the-year kind of gala where anyone who's anyone in journalism and politics attends, from Senators to national TV anchors. The president is usually the invited guest, but as Bush was in Mexico, Cheney attended.

I knew, because of past experience with some reading this blog, that when I got back home and posted photos of the event a minority of my readers, but a very vocal minority, would be upset. Why? Because I'd be wearing a tuxedo at a party with famous people.

Da-da-da-dum.

The reaction was quick and furious, and rather vicious. [ . . . ]

There is something seriously wrong here.

I have a good friend in liberal politics who always worked too much. We're talking until midnight every evening. He was working on AIDS policy, civil rights, education, poverty, all the good stuff. But he refused to ever take time to smell the roses, let alone sleep. I remember telling him once "what's the point in fighting for a world you never plan to live in?" I'd ask the same of those who are the first to criticize any time I flower an orchid or visit New York. If you love this country and this world so much, why do you so hate anyone who tries to enjoy it?

That Aravosis went immediately to money (and class) as an explanation for the reaction he got says a lot--more than I wanted to know, really--about the demons he might be dealing with. It was kind of fun to read about him getting ready for the Dinner--fretting about his tux, and so forth. But I'm happy to set that issue aside. Last I looked, the comments on these threads at his site were numbering in the thousands, and several other blogs have posted about it, so those who want to chew on that are getting their chance.

And for the record, I've long said that if you're going to fight the good fight, it'd damn well better be fun. My idea of fun usually doesn't involve tuxedos (at least not on me), it's true, but the principle still applies.

I'm more taken with a somewhat narrower part of this--one that began life as almost a throwaway in his original post-Dinner post, but which probably was what lit the fuse. He posted a photo of himself and Katherine Harris, smiling for the camera:

Yes, me and Katherine Harris. Interestingly, she was very nice, and a friend who knows her quite well says Harris is the nicest, NICEST person you will ever know. Doesn't mean we like her politically, but it amazes me how "nice" so many of the most strident Republicans are in person.

At Hullabaloo, tristero comes close to framing the problem in a way I find more convincing and useful: not about money (or at least it shouldn't be), not about being likable, not about posing for pictures with political enemies (although he keeps coming back to the "kicking Harris in the shins" theme, so draw your own conclusions). It was more about the odd naiveté of Aravosis, a little shocked at meeting a political enemy and finding her capable of charming social behavior.

Why should that be surprising? Even Dick Cheney, we're told, can be a pleasant enough fellow in his off-time, and that's not hard to believe; if, for example, you know you can shoot your friend in the face with a shotgun and make him apologize for it, then yes, I suppose the world probably would strike you as a pretty good place and that probably would show itself in your demeanor from time to time.

Tristero points out--correctly, I think--that at that level of political play even monsters have the ability to switch the pleasantness on and off, simply as a tactical matter, or they never would have made it that far. As Jack Napier once said regarding one of his own political/business rivals:

Now you fellas have said some pretty mean things--some of which were true under that fiend Boss Grissom. He was a thief, and a terrorist. On the other hand, he had a tremendous singing voice.

That's the standard exculpatory expression, really: dreadful at his job, but lovely singing voice.)

The discussion takes an interesting--and probably useful--turn when Aravosis later posts, with not much added comment, another writer discussing Hanna Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: Notes on the Banality of Evil.

Arendt concluded that Eichmann was constitutively incapable of exercising the kind of judgement that would have made his victims' suffering real or apparent for him. It was not the presence of hatred that enabled Eichmann to perpetrate the genocide, but the absence of the imaginative capacities that would have made the human and moral dimensions of his activities tangible for him. Eichmann failed to exercise his capacity of thinking, of having an internal dialogue with himself, which would have permitted self-awareness of the evil nature of his deeds. This amounted to a failure to use self-reflection as a basis for judgement, the faculty that would have required Eichmann to exercise his imagination so as to contemplate the nature of his deeds from the experiential standpoint of his victims.

And now, I think, we're down to cases:

We want our villains to be Darth Vader (in the first film, when he was morally unalloyed): We want them purely evil, not partly so, not even mostly so. It removes troublesome ambiguities about our own motives and actions, and it ennobles us and our struggle against them.

And when it turns out they're not Darth Vader--when it turns out that they're to some extent ordinary people who've simply submitted to the bureaucratic impulse in the extreme, incapable of distinguishing routine filing from horrific crime--when it turns out, for example that they have the knack for charming talk at a formal dinner on in a green room--we risk a feeling of moral vertigo. It makes our own fight against them less certain. It also makes our moral distance from them less comfortably removed; what if it really would only take a nudge to make us like them?

Faced with that possibility, it's less surprising that Aravosis got a truckload of angry comments from the true believers in his community.

Posted by Nothstine at 02:31 PM |

Conservatives pat themselves on the back for being dumbasses

This may be the most assinine thing I've ever seen.

And that's saying something. Especially with me being a political junkie.

Posted by Carla at 01:02 PM |

Dean gets a new convert

King Bill is now on the train:

And Dean has one supremely important new ally who, when he goes public, will almost certainly help with donors. In late February, Dean traveled to Harlem and sat down with former President Bill Clinton, often said to be privately disparaging of Dean.

But as Dean walked Clinton through his 50-state capacity-building project, Clinton became a convert. He vowed to help Dean win the attention of donors.

Clinton should have been on board ages ago. But better late than never. Further, Clinton is a major fundraising draw and is fantastic at generating cash. This can't make the GOP very happy. They had to have been loving this schism.

Speaking of which, Clinton is apparently set to hold a major DNC fundraiser on April 10.

Posted by Carla at 12:51 PM |

Military Chaplains: We don't need no stinkin' Prez order

Wa Po:

An association that represents more than 70 percent of the chaplains in the U.S. military, including many evangelical Christians, is opposing a demand by conservatives in Congress for a presidential order guaranteeing the right of chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus.

The rising calls for an executive order are based on "confusion and misinformation," because Christian chaplains routinely pray in the name of Jesus, in public, thousands of times a week in military chapels around the world, said the Rev. Herman Keizer Jr., chairman of the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces.

During regular noncompulsory worship services, chaplains generally conduct the traditional service from their "home" sect. During command ceremonies/functions, chaplains are generally required to conduct a "nondenominational/inclusive" prayer.

The military currently has two chaplain groups. The smaller, more exclusively evangelical one has been complaining to some members of Congress. The other group is telling Congress they require no intervention by the President on this matter. The spokesperson for the smaller group, Rev. Billy Baugham, says that chaplains have to be able to conduct prayer from their sect at all times.

In other words, they want to pray in Jesus' name at events where all are required to attend.

Its impossible for me to understand why its necessary for these guys to offend other religions on purpose.

Posted by Carla at 08:35 AM |

Another DeLay Aide cops a plea?

First there was Michael Scanlon and now its Tony Rudy.

TPM has a rundown of DeLay's associates here, which includes Scanlon and Rudy. Somebody's gotta keep track of all these jailbirds.

Both Scanlon and Rudy have pled out, which indicates they're giving testimony. The prosecutor's office obviously doesn't air their case by saying who they'll be testifying against--but DeLay and Abramoff are the easy odds on favorites.

Posted by Carla at 08:12 AM |

March 30, 2006

New Study: Prayer Doesn't Help

A new study of more than 1,800 patients undergoing heart bypass surgery has found that prayers for the patients’ recovery had no impact, with some of the prayed-for people actually doing worse than those who were not.

"Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on whether complications occurred (and) patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did receive intercessory prayer," the study said.

There is "no clear explanation" for the latter finding, it added.

There is one catch that puts this conclusion in doubt: most of the patients had friends or relatives who were also praying for them, and those doing the special praying did not know the people they were praying for.

"One caveat is that with so many individuals receiving prayer from friends and family, as well as personal prayer, it may be impossible to disentangle the effects of study prayer from background prayer."

The report’s conclusion makes me angry. Why do a study like this if it hasn’t been designed to answer the primary question?

"Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, and the results of this study do not challenge this belief."

Oh, well. For years I have heard about the other studies that have accounted for these factors and have demonstrated the connection between being prayed for and healing, even if the subject did not know they were being prayed for. Who can argue with a scientific study? I have always seen these other studies as proof of the power of the spiritual connection between people.

A quick look at Wikipedia swept that rug out from under me:

A number of studies have suggested that patients who are being prayed for recover more quickly or more frequently. One such study (Byrd, 1988), with a double-blind design, suggested that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God may have had a statistically significant positive effect on a coronary care unit population. Sicher et al suggested statistically significant benefits to a group being prayed for ten years later (Sicher et al 1998). Another such study was reported by Harris et al 1999. Many similar studies have produced negative results as well, and it has been suggested that given the number of studies some will be favorable by pure chance.

But:

Critics claim that Byrd's 1988 study was not fully double-blinded, and that in the Harris et al 1999 study, patients actually had a longer hospital stay on average if prayed for than if not prayed for, once one discounts the patients in both groups who left before prayers began. Critics also point to a number of studies where no similar effect was found (e.g. O'Laoire 1997). Neither study has presented repeatable results subject to scientific scrutiny.

A 2001 double-blind study of the Mayo Clinic found no significant difference in the recovery rates between people who were (unbeknownst to them) assigned to a group that prayed for them and those who were not (Aviles et al). Similarly, the MANTRA study conducted by Duke University (Krucoff et al 2005) found no differences in outcome of cardiac procedures as a result of prayer.

So I guess we're back to blind faith. And I'm not very good at that.

Posted by Becky at 05:22 PM |

Reading Comprehension Redux

Same song next verse.

'Focus on the Family' Targets The Da Vinci Code:

Web Site Offers Comprehensive, Insightful Rebuttal of Dan Brown's Bestselling Novel.

Um... guys? It's a NOVEL. That means it's not real. It's FICTION.

Not to be outdone,

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property TFP and its America Needs Fatima campaign have collected 60,057 signatures against the upcoming The Da Vinci Code movie.

...

"When the Romans fed innocent Christians to the lions and watched them get torn to shreds, they claimed it was entertainment. Today, persecution against the Faith continues in the form of blasphemy," Ritchie remarked. "The Da Vinci Code attacks the Divinity of Christ, the Gospel, the Papacy and the holy mysteries of the Faith – and yet it too is being called entertainment."

Guys? Seriously... it's NOT REAL. It's fiction!

The Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke, also appreciated the publication (Rejecting The Da Vinci Code): "In a society marked by confusion and error about the most fundamental truths, Rejecting The Da Vinci Code is a light in the darkness. This timely volume helps those who may be deceived by the falsehoods in Dan Brown’s book to adhere to the truth. It is a great gift for our time."

Um... Mr. Archbishop man...? Anyone who honestly can't distinguish between FICTIONAL characters in a FICTIONAL book and... oh I dunno... REAL LIFE, needs a great deal more help than can be found in a silly book stupidly attempting to rebut FICTION.

Posted by Kevin at 03:49 PM |

Shorter Pope Benny

The Catholic Church is the moral authority for the world so we're going to inject ourselves into politics every chance we get.

Pay no attention to those lawsuits behind the curtain.

Posted by Carla at 02:52 PM |

Religious Right in Hiding?

I was absolutely flabbergasted to read the headline of this article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin this morning: "Where is the Religious Right Hiding These Days?"

Ever since emerging from their four year hibernation in 2004 (just in time to reelect President George W. Bush), the Religious Right has returned to its extended state of unconsciousness. Oh, that's right, they did roll out of bed long enough to lobby for Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito. (No doubt, they were given a wake up call by the White House along with an invitation to dinner.) When it comes to numerous volatile issues, however, the Religious Right is once again proving its utter worthlessness!

It doesn't seem to me that the Religious Right has been hiding - far from it. But I do agree with Baldwin on this point:

Do you really believe the Religious Right would sit silently by while a Democratic president tried to explode federal spending the way Bush has done? Do you really believe they would sit back sheepishly while a Democratic president placed American troops under foreign commanders? Do you really believe, that during a time of terrorist activity, the Religious Right would drift off into unconsciousness while a Democratic administration facilitated the biggest growth of illegal immigration ever seen in this country? You know the answer.

However, because President Bush is a Republican and claims to be a Christian, the Religious Right is willing to give him a pass. They should be ashamed of themselves!

It isn't difficult to find other instances of Christians standing by while horrors occurred because the horrors were being perpetrated by "their guy." For instance, one of the men convicted of war crimes following the Rwandan massacre in 1994 was a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor, who lured hundreds of Tutsi Christians to his church for refuge and then helped orchestrate a brutal massacre of them all. In a country that was 95% Christian, the people placed loyalty to tribe and political power above their faith, and 1 in 14 of the country's citizens was butchered. I dare say the majority of massacres we have witnessed throughout history have been due largely to people laying aside their religious principles in the pursuit of power.

We are seeing the same prioritization of politics and party over principle by Christians in this country today. If history is any indication, this will not change. That places the burden squarely on the rest of us to be vocal about our commitment to humanity and decency and our refusal to allow this great country to be destroyed by those who pursue the power to suppress and control the masses over a peaceful coexistence and genuinely loving society.

Posted by Becky at 09:24 AM |

Texas: where you're forced to have a baby before you can get your learner's permit

Over at Blondesense, Jaye has a post about how Texans allow young girls to have babies before they can get their driving learner's permit:

Texas ranks 45th in family planning. Texas also ranks 1st in pregnancies in young women under the age of 13. Department of State Health Services says:

1 of every 11 eighteen-year-olds gets pregnant
1 of every 16 seventeen-year-olds gets pregnant.
1 of every 27 sixteen-year-olds gets pregnant.
1 of every 58 fifteen-year-olds gets pregnant.
1 of every 967 thirteen-year-olds gets pregnant.
1 of every 5,280 twelve-year olds or younger gets pregnant.

There are literally millions of women in Texas who do not have access to abortion, family planning or gynecological health care because their counties do not have family planning or abortion clinics. These women do not have health insurance and if they did there is no guarantee that they can obtain an abortion if the hospitals in their area do not perform abortions.

So we have further reduced Texas women's access to family planning centers. According to a story in the Houston Chronicle, the Texas Legislature has funded so called crisis pregnancy centers while cutting funding to clinics that perform abortions and provide gynecological services.

There does appear to be abortion services in major cities within Texas. But there are vast stretches of rural geography that apparently have no family planning clinics or assistance for the poor.

And at least one study in Texas has shown that their abstinence only sex education has actually yielded an increase in teen sexual activity.

I live in Oregon by choice. I can't think of a better place to raise my kids to be healthy, responsible, informed adults.

Color me a "liberal elitist", but this basackwards idea that refusing to properly educate your populace and then denying them basic healthcare as a punishment for having sex (which is exactly what they're doing) is insanity. Why would anyone CHOOSE to live in Texas under these circumstances?

Posted by Carla at 08:56 AM |

Better Late than Never

Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, seems to have finally figured out what has been obvious to a lot of us for years: Bush is no conservative.

The premise of his article is so obvious to me, in fact, that it is tiresome reading. But I suppose for some it is controversial, considering who is writing it.

Roberts has this to say about Bush:

President Bush passes himself off as a conservative Republican and a born-again Christian. These are disguises behind which Bush hides. Would a Christian invade another country on false pretenses, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and show no remorse or inclination to cease the aggression?

This may be the most insightful thing Roberts has to offer:

Bush bears no resemblance to a political conservative. A political conservative does not confuse government with country. Patriotism means loyalty to country. Bush, however, demands allegiance to his government: "You are with us or against us!" Critics of the Bush administration are branded "unpatriotic" and even "treasonous."

He concludes:

In short, real conservatives believe in conserving the Constitution, government accountability, and civil liberties, and avoiding foreign entanglements. Judging by its behavior and its statements, the Bush administration stands completely outside the conservative tradition.

I think those ideals are probably shared by most Americans, not just conservatives. But anyway, I'm glad to see another Republican speaking out against this un-American administration. It may be late in the game, but it's better than nothing.

Posted by Becky at 07:45 AM |

March 29, 2006

Photo of downtown Baghdad a rightwing fraud?

The picture above is causing quite a little stir in the internets.

Conservative GOP candidate Howard Kooligan is claiming this photo was taken on a recent trip Kooligan took to Iraq. Kooligan has been claiming that Iraq is much more peaceful than the media is portraying.

This caption accompanied the photo:

We took this photo of dowtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism.

I've never been to Iraq or anywhere near that region, so I can't speak to the photos authenticity. But others who are more well traveled than I am are taking some pretty good swipes at it.

So what do you think?

Incidentally, when I tried to lift the picture from Kooligan's website this morning, I couldn't get it to load. I copied and pasted it into a file and its now on PK's host.

Is Kooligan's staff trying to erase evidence now that they're possibly caught?

Update: Kooligan's opponent, Francine Busby..is running up the polling charts with a bullet:

In a Special Primary for the U.S. House of Representatives in California's 50th Congressional District today, 3/28/06, Democrat Francine Busby tops a crowded field of Republicans, but falls just short of the majority needed to avoid a runoff June 6th. With 2 weeks to the 4/11 Primary, Busby is at 45%, trailed by Republican Eric Roach at 14%, Republican Howard Kaloogian at 12%, and Republican Brian Bilbray at 10%. Busby is supported by 85% of Democrats, half of Independents, and 10% of Republicans. Kaloogian and Roach are each supported by 23% of Republicans. The district is heavily Republican and whichever Republican survives the Primary would be favored in a runoff, but the Democrats have a chance to capture the seat if Busby can top 50% in the Primary. Busby gets 53% among female voters. The larger the turnout among women, the better Busby's chances to avoid a runoff. The 50th Congressional seat is vacant; Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned on 11/28/2005.

Update II (7:00 PM Pacific): Kooligan is now apologizing for the photo. But even more interesting..his website seems to be a bit of a sham:

As we now know, the key photograph, purportedly showing a "more calm and stable" Baghdad, is actually of a streetcorner in Istanbul. Funny story: Kaloogian didn't actually take that picture. (His Web page caption read "We took this photo".) In fact, he didn't go to Istanbul; his return trip went through Athens. "Everybody in the group, we all shared pictures," Kaloogian told me. "I'm sorry, I don't know who took it."

What's more, Kaloogian didn't write the caption, either. That was written by the same staffer who chose the snapshot for the Web site, Kaloogian told me in an earlier interview. But the error will be fixed, he said: his campaign plans on replacing the photo with one which was definitely taken in Baghdad.

"You're being really picky on this stuff," Kaloogian told me. "It's not that big a deal. It was a mistake. I'm sorry."

Picky? If you're going to put up a photo to prove that Baghdad is all about peace and the press is rapping it for no good reason--you'd better be sure you've got the goods. Otherwise anything you say against the press for "not reporting the good stuff" is just picky, too. What's going on in Iraq either matters or it doesn't.

Posted by Carla at 07:49 PM |

Lying for Jesus

Denise Kanter of the Morningstar Educational Network has an axe to grind. She believes that good parents homeschool their children and she attempts to cobble together some convincing data to help hone her axe.

Major research firms and universities in America, Canada, and England have arrived at the same conclusion as the new study reported in the Australian Sydney Morning Herald, that "daycare damages babies' brain chemistry and affects their social and emotional development." It was reported, "significant among the reams of research are the so-called cortisol studies, which measured the presence of stress hormones in young babies -- consistently finding levels to be higher in children in long hours of day care." Children in daycares and preschools are not developing properly...

The Australian Sydney Morning Herald piece she references is an article by "parenting guru and psychologist" Steven Biddulph titled Day care is bad for babies.

What Ms. Kanter doesn't say is that Biddulph's own research only covers the first two years of life. So right off the bat Ms. Kanter is pummeling a Straw Man of her own making. And as Catharine Lumby, associate professor of media studies (University of Sydney) and co-author of the forthcoming book Why TV Is Good for Kids, points out, Biddulph's research is of little value if not put into context first.

But even if we ignore Ms. Kanter's blatent misrepresentation of the facts and just accept her argument on it's face... we're still left with the most glaring problem of all: $$$

Look, I'm all for Ms. Kanter being able to raise her kids the way she sees fit, up to, including and beyond homeschooling them if that's what floats her boat. But... the economic realities, as Ms. Lumby pointedly mentions, are that many parents simply can't survive on one income stream. If Ms. Kanter were to also be calling for living wages for employees and more liberal maternity/paternity leave policies in the corporate world, it would be a great deal easier to take her seriously. But she's already shown that she's not above spinning the truth. I see no reason why she would step out of character and actually face any other aspect of the issue honestly.

Posted by Kevin at 02:52 PM |

The War On Christians, Part II

If you're a Christian in the US, and a war is being conducted against you, which of the following can you expect?

1.Inability to hold public/elected office

2.Inability to exercise free speech

3.Inability to worship

4.Inability to have your holy book taught in the public schools

You might think at first blush that its #4. And you'd be wrong:

Decatur High School student Kurt Hughes wouldn't call himself religious. He's never even read the Bible. But he wouldn't mind taking a class on the holy text if it were offered at his high school in Decatur, Ga. After all, "You look at 'The Old Man and the Sea,' 'King Arthur' and even 'The Matrix,' all have biblical allusions," the junior says. "It'd be useful to know exactly what's in it."

The Georgia legislature seems poised to endorse just such a course. Though students in many states enroll in classes related to the Bible, Georgia would become the first to require its Department of Education to put in place a curriculum to teach the history and literature of the Bible. Schools would use the book itself as the classroom textbook. Specifically the bill would establish electives on both the New and Old Testaments.

Fine by me. Its an elective course and as long as they teach the history and the literature, rather than truth--no problem.

But honestly, if this is how seculars and nonChristians are conducting their war against Christians, they're doing a piss poor job.

To my knowledge, most of us don't care what Christians do. Worship to their heart's content for all I care. Just don't force the rest of us to participate and to live by your rules. Every time you do that..you make war on US. And we'll fight you tooth and nail to preserve our liberty and the life we choose to live.

Posted by Carla at 12:23 PM |

Abramoff sentenced

Looks like Jack got 5 years 10 months.

The Hill has the scoop:

Former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 70 months in prison today for fraud stemming from his attempted acquisition of a Florida casino boat chain in 2000.

Abramoff appeared before U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck in Miami to receive the first of two expected federal sentences. He faces another sentencing later in Washington for bribing public officials.

Huck selected a sentence at the low end of a range of 70 to 87 months, which Abramoff agreed to in a plea deal with prosecutors. The judge may have been swayed by more than 250 letters from Abramoff supporters, including one from longtime ally Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) pressing for leniency and citing Abramoff's good works, strong religious faith and commitment to his family.

It probably didn't hurt that Jack seems to be making deals with prosecutors to go after his buddies in DC, too.

More at the Washington Post.

Posted by Carla at 12:03 PM |

Proof Positive that Politicians Think Christians are Stupid – and They’re Right

Tom DeLay is so corrupt that even with Republicans in control of Washington he has still been indicted on money-laundering and conspiracy charges (unlike that habitual money-launderer Grover Norquist, of whose money-laundering I have first hand knowledge). Yet the perennially stupid fundamentalist Christians attending the “War on Christians” conference in Washington yesterday gave him three rapturous standing ovations.

There are those who would say Tom DeLay lost his job as House majority leader because he was indicted by a Texas grand jury for money laundering and conspiracy, or because of his extensive ties to lawbreaking lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But they would be wrong. In fact, the Texas Republican fell from power because he is a Christian.

That, at least, is the view of Rick Scarborough, convener of a conference this week called "The War on Christians."

"I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ," Scarborough said, introducing DeLay on Tuesday. When DeLay finished, the host reminded the politician: "God always does his best work right after a crucifixion."

Jesus Christ.

I am reminded of my experience with Bill Sizemore. Like DeLay, he denies any wrongdoing and claims to be a solid Christian. He has repeatedly claimed that he has been the object of unfair and unwarranted attacks; he also claims to be doing "God's work." And despite everything, Sizemore still has a loyal core of followers who believe he was set up by the evil teachers' unions and me, and that I am a liar. Those demonic forces will do anything to bring a godly man down!

Sizemore himself has written me letters saying he can’t understand why I would do such a thing as to “make up” my testimony against him. With sticky sweetness, he says he is praying for me and hopes that I will someday come to terms with what I did. It is a tactic with which I am, unfortunately, familiar. Back when I was 21, my mom’s boyfriend backed me up against the wall and tried to force me to kiss him while my mom was in the other room – and told me I could run, “but he could run faster.” He later denied it and tried to tell me I had simply “misunderstood.” Sizemore, too, has repeatedly told me I "misunderstood." The thing is, I'm not stupid.

But Christians today seem to be easily convinced that they have simply "misunderstood" what they see “Christian” politicians doing. They are told that it’s all a set-up, that the devil is going around “as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” It’s bullshit, but they buy it anyway. And I'm sorry, but only an idiot could believe crap like this:

Gary Bauer, a Christian activist and former presidential candidate, argued in a speech that the "War on Christians" in America was even emboldening al Qaeda.

It's just plain stupid.

Posted by Becky at 08:42 AM |

March 28, 2006

Do that voo doo you do so well

Gimme!

Hollywood activist SEAN PENN has a plastic doll of conservative US columnist ANN COULTER that he likes to abuse when angry. The Oscar-winner actor has hated Coulter ever since she blacklisted his director father LEO PENN in her book TREASON. And he takes out his frustrations with Coulter, who is a best-selling author, lawyer and television pundit, on the Barble-like doll.

I gotta get me one of these. That's a great idea. I can put it out in the garden and scare the shit out of the critters trying to disturb the seeds.

Posted by Carla at 02:39 PM |

Requirements to be a decent person

More on the topic of atheists and their treatment by the churchly:

Digby has an interesting post up this morning on discrimination against athiests, and it fills in some of the back-story. Money quote:

Despite the ridiculous hype to the contrary, our society dictates that religion is required to be a decent person. If you can't get elected to office as an atheist, why would a court grant you the right to raise children?

Digby's been on something of a roll this week, in fact: Check his post about the liberal clergy in America angling to recapture the initiative from the right-wing fundies.

(Postscript: Is the new format cool or whut? Loads much faster too.)

Posted by Nothstine at 11:59 AM |

Pissed off with a purpose

These kids are learning the power of political exercise at an early age:

Thousands of students walked out of high schools in Los Angeles and across Southern California this morning as protests against restrictions on immigration spread across the city for a fourth day.

School walkouts were reported at schools in San Diego and Orange counties, and in the Santa Clarita Valley in northern Los Angeles County. There were also immigrant rights marches nationwide.

ADVERTISEMENT
In Los Angeles, dozens of schools experienced walkouts, with the major events downtown, where several thousand students converged on City Hall, and on the Westside and in the San Fernando Valley.

At midafternoon, student marchers descended onto the heavily-traveled 101 Freeway near downtown, snarling traffic and creating safety hazards, according to televised reports. The northbound freeway was restricted to one lane. The freeway later reopened after students exited on an off-ramp in Echo Park.

These children are afraid. Anti-immigration rhetoric has reached a fever pitch in this nation..and these kids have a lot to lose. Many of them are American citizens with parents here illegally..who've been here for decades. They stand to have their parents and other family members deported and sent away from them, leaving fractured families.

This isn't just some "ditch school day" for these kids. This is a groundswell of political protest and a backlash.

Posted by Carla at 09:40 AM |

A battle for the soul of the souless

Conservative Christians have been group that's pushed the Republican Party into its current "winner take all" position in government. And now that the bill is coming due for all their help, secular and economic Republicans are feeling the heat:

Economic conservatives and secular Republicans complain their message is being drowned out by Christian conservatives preoccupied with banning abortion and gay marriage and limiting stem-cell research.

On the other side, ``values'' advocates say they have provided the party with crucial support, particularly in 2004, when they mobilized religious conservatives to go to the polls to help re-elect President George W. Bush.

Such concerns are turning long-simmering Republican tensions over the role of religious conservatives into an election-year split in a party already strained by differences on the Iraq war, immigration and government spending.

``There is a great deal of concern about this seeming attempt to couch everything in religious terms,'' said Christine Todd Whitman, the former governor of New Jersey. ``We're not a narrow-minded nation, and at least some of the people trying to define the Republican Party are coming off that way.''

If anything, religious conservatives deserve a greater Republican commitment to their agenda, said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council.

``We had reason for people all across the country to be engaged at unprecedented levels,'' said Perkins, whose group is organizing a ``values voter'' summit in September. ``It made a difference in states that were very closely divided.''

Since the Reagan Administration, the GOP has talked itself into the idea that "getting something for nothing" is not only possible, it can be implemented. Massive tax cuts and continued spending are what Republicans do, borrowing money and putting the nation into massive debt.

Milking Christians for their votes and support is really just an extension of that idea.

Oh sure...they'll throw them a bone every once in a while: ban a few stem cell lines from research, toss money into a gay marriage initiative..stuff like that. But now that Conservative Christians are stealing their thunder and interfering with the echo of the economic sound chamber--GOP leaders are ready to wrangle back the reins.

The Republican Party leadership has allowed their party to be pushed hard to the right in order to please the Tony Perkins and James Dobsons of the organization. But the mile Perkins and Dobson want to take is a far lot more than the inch the economic conservatives are willing to give.

We're watching a battle for the soul of the GOP. Why anyone would want to fight over such a nonexistant piece of real estate is another matter...but power is power, eh?

The Democrats are used to battling each other. Its practically a prerequisite to joining up. But the Republicans are a disciplined, lockstep organization. Independent thought is unwelcome and unmanageable. This is likely to be an ugly, bloody battle.

We're about to see the different factions of orcs go to war over Mordor. Not even Peter Jackson could make this more entertaining.

Posted by Carla at 09:09 AM |

Maybe Something Good Can Come Out of Texas After All

Pastor Jim Rigby of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX has just allowed a proclaimed atheist to join his church. Rigby, as an outspoken liberal, is used to taking flak from his constituents for what he does, but the reaction of his congregation this time has, predictably, been intense. As he describes it:

this wave of mail feels different, more desperate, like people have been backed against a wall.

Rigby and his new atheist fellow church member, Robert Jensen, however, see this as an effort to “build connections.”

Such efforts are crucial in a world where there seems not to be a lot of wood to build the bridges we need. And the shame is, while we fight among ourselves, the world is burning.

Jensen describes his own reasoning thus:

Christianity could do its part to help usher in a period of human history in which people stopped obsessing about how to mark the boundaries of a faith group and instead committed to living those values more fully.

I couldn’t agree more.

Rigby’s article is fascinating to me in that here is a Christian minister who really seems to get it. He sees that too many Christians are too busy defining their faith and meanwhile, the world is burning.

The Book of James argues that merely believing in the existence of God means nothing; he jokes that even the demons believe that. Some of the meanest people I have ever met believed in God. The Nazis marched across Europe with belts reading "God is with us," singing some of the same hymns and reciting some of the same creeds that the church uses today. With a few notable exceptions, the German church hid in liturgy and theology while their brothers and sisters burned. Surely, the holocaust is a permanent rebuttal of that kind of detached creedal Christianity.

Rigby then discusses evolution and the human brain, offering what I see as a plausible explanation for the evil we witness in the world every day (see, for example, this tragic story, The Shooting of Little Akaber):

Our upper brain functions are built on top of a marshy swamp of animal instincts, and we are rational only in spurts. Much of our most important processes are irrational, even more are unconscious altogether. To say we will be purely scientific and objective is an act of imaginary dissociation from the liquid core of our own being. In Sartre's words it is "bad faith".

Advertisers know this swampy core and sell to it. Televangelists know this swampy core and manipulate it. Politicians know this swampy core and appeal to it. While progressives are trying to be purely logical, propagandists are playing that irrational core like a drum.

If there's hope of saving the world from the clutches of propaganda it will not be because we refute it rationally. If we save our world it will be because we learned how to speak about personal meaning in a way that is adaptive to natural processes and compatible with universal human rights. Nothing else will do.

Rigby has much more to share in this lengthy piece, which is an excellent read.

Posted by Becky at 06:35 AM |

March 27, 2006

Christian Missionaries Come to America

This is one of the most ironic things I've seen in a long time: African Christians are sending missionaries to save the U.S. from “demonic forces” that they believe are corrupting society.

These African Pentacostal missionaries believe that for many American Christians, their religion has become “a lifestyle, not a transforming way of life.” They want to rescue us.

Posted by Becky at 05:42 PM |

Stick a needle in their eye

The teen fundy rally in Frisco was already covered here by Becky. But its had me thinking about the expectations of the individuals that participated in it.

Becky notes that Ron Luce, the organizer and leader, considers the entire rally part of the culture war. In Luce's view, Hollywood wants to corrupt the world, presumably in an effort to make money and gain power.

Also presumably, Luce deliberately placed his charges in the belly of the San Francisco beast--the modern day Sodom, I'd imagine--SF being one of the more liberal and gay populated cities in America.

Its deliberately provocative on Luce's part. He got just the reaction he wanted: a strident retort on the part of SF's elected officials. More mannah to feed the notion that the whole liberal world is one giant homo loving, Christian hating, seething sinpot.

In the meantime, hardcore rightwing assholes pony up ridiculous pigeonholing of liberals. I honestly don't know if this is intellectual laziness or a deliberate effort to nod to their masses in a simplistic, easy to chew fashion. Maybe its both. Maybe you have to be intellectually lazy to accept that kind of cud.

Bottom line: Its a big set up by the fundies. They need to be persecuted. They need to be martyrs. Otherwise Fantasy Island doesn't turn out to be quite the neato endgame that Mr. Roark promised. The only way to ensure it is to push themselves on a bunch of people who don't want them and don't believe the way they do.

Posted by Carla at 02:30 PM |

Preview of coming attractions

Makeover time tonight. FYI. Consider yourself teased.

Posted by Jeff at 01:38 PM |

What Would Jesus Do?

The Christian Newswire has a press release from Don Swarthout, President of CRAVE (Christians Reviving America's Values), today titled Stop Illegal Aliens--Close Our Borders.

“America is a nation of laws. We cannot continue to allow the laws of our nation to be broken by people who are free loaders, criminals and drug smugglers. We must get a handle on who is coming into our country.”

While I agree that America certainly is a nation of laws (Bush like Nixon before him seems to think he's exempt...). And I certainly don't condone the breaking of our laws by anyone. I am however troubled by a self-proclaimed Christian leader espousing the rejection of "free loaders."

What Would Jesus Do?

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." - Matthew 25:41-46 (NIV) And then there is the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. Or if Mr. Swarthout doesn't care what Jesus would have done, perhaps he would at least care what the very first "Christians" would do:

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. - Acts 4:32-35 (NIV)

Considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of migrants (illegal and legal alike) coming across our southern border are Christians, how does Mr. Swarthout justify his patently unChristian attitude towards those fellow believers?

Swarthout continues:

“We also need to wake up to the fact that Islamic Muslims want to come into our nation and to kill us. People keep talking about the peaceful Muslims, but so far I have not met any of Muslims who are peaceful. The Muslims are involved in every war being fought anywhere in the world right now. It is time for America to wake up to the GRAVE DANGER that the Muslim World is presenting to the United States of America and to the world in general,” Swarthout continued.

Ah... Swarthout finally gets down to his real reason. Presumably he views being unChristian to the vast Christian majority coming across our southern border to be a small price to pay in order to stick it to the odd Muslim who might slip across.

With all due respect to Mr. Swarthout, if he hasn't met any Muslim's who are peaceful then I would suggest he actually meet a few Muslims. I had a Morrocan friend when I lived on the outskirts of Geneva Switzerland who was both very peaceful and a Muslim.

To my way of looking at it, this entire press release and indeed the sorely misnamed "Christians Reviving America's Values" group just underscores the folly of mixing religion and politics.

Ironically, the glorious past which Swarthout and like-minded conservatives wax fondly for included things like cruelly burning so-called Witches (ie., nonChristians) to death, brutally enslaving black Africans (most of whom accepted Christianity) and treating women, particularly wives, as mere property to be abused (up to and including death) or not as the Christian man saw fit. Gee... sounds a LOT like the "Islamofascists" that Swarthout et al are so keen on fighting. Which just goes to show that the old truism about human behavior which states that we oppose in others the very traits in ourselves which we can't stand to admit to is grounded in reality.

Posted by Kevin at 11:14 AM |

Defending terrorism by ignoring it

Since its not going well in Iraq and the administration/GOP knitting circle is well aware of it..they've gotta find someone to blame.

And since poll numbers are showing that blaming the patriots who've spoken up against the war isn't working--the GOP marketeers have decided its time to shift to a new blame target: the media.

At first it seemed like it might work. Blabberwokies like Howard Kurtz and Wolf Blitzer have done their usual echo chamber bit to help out the GOP spin.

But the individuals in the media who are working in Iraq and those who know what's going on over there are starting to bite back in a hard way.

Its obviously easier for the Republicans to spin away the problems in Iraq instead of facing them. Facing them is good for the Iraqis and important for the US, but would be a bitter political pill. The Republicans are nothing if not shameful about their hold on political power.

Which means of course that the beat will go on in Iraq. And when the "journalists are fat, lazy, sons of bitches who won't leave their cushy Baghdad hotel rooms to investigate all the happy horseshit that Laura Ingraham pretends is going on" fails, there'll be a new target trotted out to cast blame upon.

Update: Howard Kurtz appears to be backing off his initial support of the GOP(except you have go to the bottom of the second page to find it):

The record shows that administration charges that reporters in Iraq are ignoring signs of progress are not true, although most journalists say the dangerous conditions make it difficult to talk to ordinary Iraqis. But sometimes the unrelenting violence has a way of intruding on the news agenda.

While in Baghdad, ABC's Jake Tapper was working on a light feature about an Iraqi station's sitcom. While his cameras were rolling, word came that the manager of the entertainment division had been assassinated. That, of course, became the story.

Until Republicans start facing up to what they've wrought and deal with it, it will continue to go on. No amount of casting blame to others will work now.

Posted by Carla at 09:58 AM |

Should Scalia recuse himself?

[I pushed this up to the top as there are updates. See bottom of post]

I'm no legal scholar and I don't play one on this blog.

But if a Supreme Court Justice offers up an opinion on an issue and is now set to hear a case on that issue, shouldn't he recuse himself?

The Justice candidates claim they can't answer questions regarding specific issues when they're in the Senate Hearing process due the judicial ethics involved--they might have a case come before them regarding those issues and must keep an open mind.

Again, I'm not a legal scholar. But it seems to me that Scalia has no business sitting for the case.

update: TChris at TalkLeft chides Scalia for a lack of judicial ethics on this as well. Ann Althouse doesn't seem to think much of Scalia on this either.

Posted by Carla at 09:41 AM |

Bush knew there was no WMD before we invaded Iraq

No morals. No scruples. No decency:

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Jeez. These guys have absolutely no moral compass. Their excuse for war was nonexistent. They knew it was..so they planned to provoke war by sneaking in some plane and getting Saddam to shoot at it.

This isn't the first time this has been reported. But its the first time its been confirmed by a US source.

The righties went into full court denial when the story broke the first time.

Now they're just going to go straight to bullshit attempts at historical revisionism.

Posted by Carla at 07:53 AM |

Dogging Michael Schiavo

As if Michael Schiavo hasn't dealt with enough wretched, whacko, crackpot ridiculousness, this alleged man of God is still dogging him:

An Open Letter to Michael Schiavo

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, and an eyewitness to Terri Schiavo’s final hours, released the following open letter to Michael Schiavo tonight. Fr. Pavone will read it to a worldwide audience on an internationally broadcast religious service on Sunday morning, March 26.

A year ago this week, I stood by the bedside of the woman you married and promised to love in good times and bad, in sickness and health. She was enduring a very bad time, because she hadn’t been given food or drink in nearly two weeks. And you were the one insisting that she continue to be deprived of food and water, right up to her death. I watched her face for hours on end, right up to moments before her last breath. Her death was not peaceful, nor was it beautiful. If you saw her too, and noticed what her eyes were doing, you know that to describe her last agony as peaceful is a lie.

There's more, but that's all you need to read to get the gist.

The irony is, had Pavone been allowed to give Terri food and water, she'd have choked on it and died.

Terri Schiavo was a human vegetable. If Pavone had a decent bone in his body (not to mention compassion), he'd have owned up to the disaster people like himself made of the Schiavo situation and crawl back under the rock from whence he came.

Posted by Carla at 07:48 AM |

March 26, 2006

Frustration

I have bene trying to publish a piece on Cecilia Fire Thunder, the President of the Oglala Sioux in South Dakota, who is considering opening a Planned Parenthood Clinic on the soveriegn native lands.

But for some reason it won't publish.

So go read about it here because I'm too damn frustrated to keep screwing around publishing it.

Posted by Carla at 07:38 PM |

Marching as to War

25,000 evangelical Christian young people participating in an event named “Battle Cry” got in San Francisco’s face for the weekend, protesting "the virtue terrorism" of popular culture. Teens, protesting on the steps of City Hall and carrying medieval battle-style banners, learned about the “brutal attack” being launched on them by advertiser “terrorists,” and were called on to “go to battle” for their generation.

The event organizer, Ron Luce, says the effort is part of a “culture war” and wants young people to turn their backs on pop culture and instead follow the Bible. Can anyone say “Onward Christian Soldiers”?

Big surprise, Luce’s fundamentalist organization for teens, called “Teen Mania” (fitting, if you ask me) is based in Texas. As I’ve asked myself on a number of occasions lately, I can’t help but wondering, “Can anything good come out of Texas?” Apparently, Texan George W. Bush thinks so – he has appointed Luce to a federal anti-drug abuse commission, as if a fundamentalist Christian knows the first thing about how to communicate with drug users.

That aside, I’m a little concerned about the reported response of San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno. Of the young fundamentalists, he said, “they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco." The Board of Supervisors even passed a resolution calling the fundamentalist and outspoken anti-gay teens’ protest an “act of provocation.”

From childhood I was taught, as a fundamentalist Christian, that a time would come when we would be persecuted and killed by our government for our faith. The language of war being bandied about by Luce and his group certainly sound to me like an expectation of the fulfillment of that prophecy. Fundamentalists are ramping up the rhetoric, pushing Christians to the fringes of literalist, extremist belief in the Bible and the need to codify their interpretation of it in this country.

Meanwhile, money-grubbing entertainment corporations are selling extremely gruesome and graphic violence and irresponsible, heartless sex to impressionable young people on a scale that far exceeds the stuff our parents thought was over the top, like “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” and “Friday the 13th.” The fundamentalist Christian community is blaming this garbage on “liberals” (interestingly, these same people rushed to take their children to see the horrific snuff-film “The Passion of the Christ”) – and nobody is standing up to say, “It ain’t so.”

Perhaps I’m crazy or overreacting, but having just watched “Hotel Rwanda” I can’t help but worry about the hateful war rhetoric that is developing here. People have a frightening ability to get irrationally violent when they feel their way of life is at stake and no other alternative is left to them. So I have to ask this question: Do we want a bloodbath against fundamentalist Christians? If not, then why are we feeding this frenzy of hatred and division?

I say it is the rational free-thinkers that need to be the grown-ups here. We are the ones who recognize that no god will ever appear and magically vanquish evil for us – only human beings can create a peaceful society. So rather than passing inciteful government resolutions and having government officials spout reactionary epithets, behavior that is so easily interpreted by these people as precisely the official suppression and persecution they have expected, we need to start educating people on the facts.

The facts about Christian history and the origins of the Bible are nearly an automatic deterrent to fundamentalism. You don’t have to twist them and you don’t have to wordsmith. They are what they are. And they support rationality.

Posted by Becky at 07:32 PM |

March 25, 2006

Gunning for Lieberman

An old Indie friend emailed me with a request: Write about efforts to unseat Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut:

"Here in Connecticut we are trying to dump Joe Lieberman the little effeminate buddy of our little effeminate president-possibly you could mention anti Lieberman blogs dumpjoe.com or my left nutmeg.com"

How could I turn down that? LOL

Here are the links: DumpJoe and My Left Nutmeg (source of the pic)

(cross posted at Indie Castle)

Posted by Kevin at 01:19 PM |

Ann Coulter’s Convenient Contradictions

If Ann Coulter didn’t feed the hatred of fundamental right wing, furthering the divide between Americans, she might be funny. Her latest column decries the “liberal media’s” use of cooked up polls to try to brainwash people into hating Bush and the Iraq war when they really don’t. Yes, that’s really what she is saying.

The media are constantly telling Americans what they believe: You are dissatisfied ... You are getting more dissatisfied ... You are slowly becoming utterly dissatisfied ... Your dissatisfaction is now reaching a fever pitch!

She lists the many public opinion polls that have been published during the first term of the Bush Presidency and observes:

And then — despite the fact that every single man, woman and child in America opposed the war in Iraq and despised George Bush — a few months later, Bush won re-election against well-respected war hero John Kerry.

Maybe she didn’t hear about the whole voting machine thing.

The most interesting thing about her obvious shilling for the Bush Administration is that back in 1999 she was gloating about a poll that concluded Bill Clinton was the “second-most evil man of the millennium.” Apparently only Hitler edged out Bill Clinton, who came in far ahead of Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Josef Mengle. Hillary Clinton was in sixth place, beating out Saddam Hussein, Alolf Eichmann and Charles Manson. Coulter loved it:

Finally: Here's a poll I can believe.

Interestingly, Coulter discounts scientific polling as liberal propaganda and embraces a poll that was not even close to scientific:

The poll was conducted over the entire month of October on the New York Post's Internet site and received more than 19,000 responses.

Coulter is widely recognized as a very intelligent women, so surely she knows what a scientific poll is. That leaves only one conclusion. She is herself a mouthpiece for Bush Administration propaganda.

Posted by Becky at 10:38 AM |

What are We Doing to Our Soldiers?

Last night my husband and I were out having a few beers when we met the nicest young man. A tall, strong, obviously well-disciplined and polite young man. A man with pain in his eyes.

This man was once a Navy SEAL. He was shot in action. He had been doing very important work for our country. And our country didn't do right by him. We haven't taken care of him. We haven't kept the promises we made to him. He is bitter.

Many people have tried to call attention to this systemic problem, but mainstream America still is not demanding change. How bad has it become that we sink to the level that we tolerate our government "losing" billions in Iraq while our best assets - highly trained, quality young men who are willing to put their lives on the line for the rest of us - are being so neglected that they describe themselves as bitter? It breaks my heart.

Posted by Becky at 09:27 AM |

How is the Easter Bunny "Christian"?

St. Paul, MN has banned the Easter bunny from City Hall out of fear that non-Christians might be offended by it after - get this - no citizens had complained about it.

When I read that my jaw hit the floor. How does the Easter bunny have anything to do with the Christian religion? Answer: It doesn't.

The symbol of the Easter Bunny originated with the pagan festival of Eastre. The goddess, Eastre, was worshipped by the Anglo-Saxons through her earth symbol, the rabbit.

The Germans brought the symbol of the Easter rabbit to America. It was widely ignored by other Christians until shortly after the Civil War. In fact, Easter itself was not widely celebrated in America until after that time.

One Pennsylvania church would probably be surprised to learn that the Easter bunny was being considered a Christian symbol. In 2004, they put on an Easter show for children in which they whipped the Easter bunny and broke eggs.

It's bad enough we have to deal with this nonsense over Santa and Rudolph. These crazy, fanatical responses to innocent holiday symbols feels to me like a war on all the pointless, but fun, traditions that give us a lighthearted break throughout the year. People, lighten up and play a little - or at least allow the rest of us to play!

Posted by Becky at 08:58 AM |

Satan is as Satan does

Which of these guys is really Satan?

The one on the left is Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and host of the daily Christian radio show The Albert Mohler Program. Mohler claimed on Bill O'Reilly's TV Show that Buddhism, Hinduism and Marxism are "demonstrations of Satanic power".

The one on the right is Buddha, who said:

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

One man teaches hate. One man teaches love.

So which one is Satan?

(hat tip:No Blood for Hubris)

Posted by Carla at 08:40 AM |

Charmin-ing the Constitution

The other morning I'm driving to work listening to Thom Hartman on the radio and I hear something so insane that I almost brought my coffee out through my nose.

There is a bill in the House of Representatives that would actually keep the Supreme Court of the United States from ruling against any entity which might somehow seek relief against "an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

Last time I looked, God wasn't the source of this nation's laws. He never has been should never be. We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. People make the laws, people enforce the laws, people interpret the laws.

This push to force God down the throats of every American is anti-Constitution and against the principles of our founders. It spits on the memory of every soldier whose blood has been shed defending this nation. Our ancestors didn't develop this nation so that these Dominionist freaks could turn us into an apocalyptic nightmare.

No wonder they don't care about the enviornment or stewarding the Earth. They don't think any of us will be around anyway. The Rapture is happening any day. Who cares if the poor are getting poorer and the national debt is skyrocketing and war is raging?

Its as if these people never grew out of the toddler stage of maturation. They're in it for what they can get and if you stand in their way, they'll mow you down. If it hurts you, they don't care--because its theirs and they want it now.

They want their God and they'll have it..and so will you. And if you don't want it, too bad. You'll take it and you'll like it or you'll be cast out of society.

The pledge these people made to uphold the Constitution means nothing to them. Its a great big lie in order to put on a show. In fact, they're practically giddy with glee in an effort to wipe the Constitution across their filthy, Dominionist asses.

Now I have to take a shower just to get the stench of thinking about them off of me.

Posted by Carla at 08:36 AM |

March 24, 2006

Anti-Christian Fundamentalism is Dangerous, Too

I would suppose that I am not the only former fundamentalist Christian who, when I first left Christianity behind, didn't let go of the fundamentalist part - meaning I retained my black/white, good/evil, literalist view of the world. It has taken some hard work to move away from that mindset - after all, I was raised to be a fundamentalist from early childhood. It distresses me.

This moving editorial comments on the anti-Christian fundamentalism that is borne out of ignorance of Christianity, having never shared that worldview. It speaks to Christians of their important role in changing the perceptions of the growing number of anti-Christian fundamentalists:

The connection between Christianity and political power is enough to make this believer hang her head. And yet to attack this Christianity as all of Christianity is, of course, an error. It ignores the fact that medieval Christianity was reformed — by Martin Luther and the Church of England, among others. But most of all, it neglects a history that includes someone such as the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who organized the Confessing Church to resist Nazi exclusion laws, joined the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler and paid for it with his life.

Bonhoeffer believed that the heart of what it meant to be a Christian was to act on behalf of the marginalized — the helpless, the sick, the poor, the friendless. He distinguished between what he called "cheap grace," that form of lip service I think we can all identify with, and "costly grace," meaning the kind that gets you into trouble.

If I think of costly grace, I remember the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks; the abolitionists; the Christians of Jubilee 2000 who successfully pressured Britain and the United States to forgive the developing world's crippling debt; the Quakers who protect and advise pacifists; the women and men who work daily in soup kitchens, for living-wage ordinances, against torture at Guantanamo Bay. None of us have done enough, and that is partly why so many people only know about the Christianity that cozies up to power.

The best of the recent critiques of religion suggest that we should lift the taboo against conversation about religion at our dinner tables. I agree. Christians who see the world differently from George W. Bush and James Dobson must find a way to speak up and not only defend but fully describe our faith.

Many more Christians must show the secular world that there is another face to our religion, by following Bonhoeffer's and King's examples. It's a good time for a new Confessing Church.

Posted by Becky at 05:55 PM |

What did the president believe, and when did he believe it?

I imagine almost any American found the scene a little disturbing; the only disagreement might be about why.

On Tuesday, at a rare Q&A session following Bush's latest speech-instead-of-a-policy on Iraq, the lead-off question took an unexpected turn:

My question is that author and former Nixon administration official Kevin Phillips, in his latest book, American Theocracy, discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?

Bush's handlers--and, indeed, life itself--had clearly failed to prepare him to answer this question:

President Bush: Um..uh...er...(laughter from audience and Bush)...um..uh... I....the answer is...I haven't really thought of it that way (heh, heh) (crowd laughs). Here's how I think of it. Um...first, I've heard of that by the way. I..uh.. the...uh..I, I guess...um...I'm more of a practical fellow. I vowed after September 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And...uh...my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.

I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy obviously had to be sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes...uh...into facilities of people, innocent people doing nothing, just sitting there going to work. I also knew this about this war on terror that...uh..that uh....the farther we got away from September 11th the more likely that people would, you know, seek comfort and not think about this global war on terror as a global war on terror. And, that's good, by the way. [ . . . ]

With a couple of typos cleaned up, that's a fairly accurate transcription by Donna at News Hounds (their motto: "We watch FOX so you don't have to.")--certainly, it captures how flummoxed Bush was more accurately than the cleaned-up White House transcript.

Back to the question of why: Why did Bush duck the question? (As you'll see from the rest of the transcript, he follows the lines excerpted above with more boilerplate about 9/11 and the war on terror, protecting Americans, etc. He doesn't address the question any further.)

There are a couple of possible reasons, neither of which is very comforting.

One reason, of course, is that he fumbles most questions he hasn't been prepped for. Not helpful here. Let's skip ahead.

Another reason might be because Karl Rove understands that, since most Americans really don't support the Bush agenda once they get tuned in to it, the best way for the Bushies to communicate with "the base" is through dog-whistle politics, pitched at a frequency that only the true believers can hear.

Take the confirmation hearings of Roberts and Alito--and, for that matter, Thomas--for example: If you followed the hearings on television or in your local paper, you learned that their position on Roe v Wade was not decided, or that it was inappropriate for them to comment on cases they might be facing as sitting justices--or in the case of Thomas, that he'd never even discussed the topic with anyone during his professional career.

But if you got your news from right-wing talk radio, or the televangelists--pitched at a frequency humans can't hear--you knew the one thing you needed to know: Roberts and Alito and Thomas would torpedo Roe at the first opportunity. They would never have been nominated otherwise.

(Digression: Karl Rove refers the hard-core conservative loyalists--mostly Christian fundamentalists, code-word racists, and trust-fund Pioneers who make up almost all of the thirty-some percent approval rating that Junior still clings to--as "the base." Isn't that the English translation of "al qaeda?" Just asking. Back to the topic:)

The reliance on "dog-whistle politics" shows that, deep down inside, these guys know they're pushing policies that most Americans wouldn't support. One way to deal with that problem would be to work hard to educate the American people and win them over to your side. Bush's one experiment with that--Social Security privatization--was enough to convince them to stick with the tried and true: Misrepresent your position and push it through beyond the threshold of hearing.

So, back to the question: Why duck the "prophecy/apocalypse" question? Maybe because, in fact, yes--Bush does buy into that package of beliefs, but he knows that it's not a topic to be discussed on an open frequency. As Sidney Bumenthal points out, Bush is hardly a stranger to apocalyptic Christianity:

[The question following his speech was] certainly not the first time Bush has heard of the apocalyptic preoccupation of much of the religious right, having served as evangelical liaison on his father's 1988 presidential campaign. The Rev Jerry Falwell told Newsweek how he brought Tim LaHaye, then an influential rightwing leader, to meet him; LaHaye's Left Behind novels, dramatizing the rapture, Armageddon and the second coming, have sold tens of millions.

But there's another possibility: Perhaps Bush ducked the question because he really isn't committed to the whole prophecy/apocalypse thing.

We all remember that coy moment in the 2000 debates when Bush declared that "Jesus" was his favorite philosopher. Let's put aside for a moment the fact that the only other philosopher he could have named (let alone quoted) was probably Yogi Berra; let's also pass over the fact that, for a self-proclaimed "born-again," praising Jesus as a philosopher is a bit like praising Moses for his penmanship.

But I've always wondered about Bush's come-to-Jesus moment--that famous story about coming out of a legendary bender on his 40th birthday and swearing off alcohol at the advice of family friend Billy Graham. The conversion experience that replaced spirits with spirituality.

Despite the Bible study classes Bush attended at the time, it's never been terribly clear to me that he's a close student of the Bible (why should the Bible be different than anything else he avoids reading?) Not for our George the careful scrutiny of the text of the Gospels--let alone the books of Daniel and Revelations, where most of the juicy eschatological stuff is to be found. And, of course, setting aside the fact that the boy's just not a reader, and apart from the federal money he shovels into "faith-based initiatives," his public life has been one of deep kinship with the money-changers, never showing much concern for the poor, the afflicted, the meek, the downtrodden, the imprisoned on death row--all that Jesus-y stuff. Rather the opposite, really.

No, the "good parts" of the Bible, for Bush, are the parts that reaffirm that God is speaking to and through him as president. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose. As for the rest--the whole structure of ideas and principles that Christian fundamentalism is based on--one is left to wonder if the congenitally incurious Bush really knows or cares much more about all that than he does about any of the other cognitively complex concepts he's supposed to be working with: disarmament, macroeconomics, energy policy, constitutional law, etc. Best left to Karl "Boy Genius" Rove and the rest of his handlers and front men.

If so, Karl's been more than happy to usher the fundamentalists up to the table, bringing along with them their fringe ideas not only on domestic policy, but foreign policy as well.

It would be totally in keeping with Bush's nature for him to mouth a few religious platitudes, then go for a bike ride while the prophetics and apocalyptics roll up their sleeves and get down to business behind closed doors.

Posted by Nothstine at 03:15 PM |

Washington Post blogger plagiarist resigns

That was quick:

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Domenech is clearly not a Republican politician or he'd have hired one of the GOP PR spinners to go on TV to defend his mess. So in my book, that puts him one notch above the rest of them. At least he had the nads to bow out.

Even Michelle Malkin refuses to defend him.

Posted by Carla at 03:01 PM |

Lesbians Kissing! Send Money Now!

I didn’t see the orgy scene on "Without a Trace" that garnered the 111 CBS TV stations a $3.6 million FCC fine, but it probably would have offended me, as that’s not the most responsible behavior to be promoting to teenagers, to say the least. And I agree with the American Family Association’s concerns about the dangers of promoting promiscuity in children and the need to protect children from pedophile predators.

The group’s latest hullabaloo over a lesbian kissing scene (which it characterizes as “very offensive!”) on the show, however, is just plain silly.

An email the group is currently circulating to Christians is asking them to boycott Ford Motor Company because it sponsored the program. Apparently Ford promised AFA last year that it would stop funding the “homosexual agenda” and has gone back on its word. I have a tough time feeling sorry for any corporation these days, but this is certainly an issue that can get you into hot water no matter what you do.

Call me a cynic, but here’s what I think this is really all about. The AFA email concludes, “If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift?”

Posted by Becky at 10:15 AM |

Apparitions in the Clouds

I love a good conspiracy web site. There is simply no end to the entertainment, chills and thrills available on the Internet, and some conspiracy sites are so detailed that they play wonderful games with your mind – much more fun than any thriller film. So I like to check them out regularly.

Being thoroughly entertained by the whole weather conspiracy thing I got a real kick out of this one this morning – someone has found a “devil” in a satellite image of the clouds.

This brings to mind a number of other sacred images people have captured on film. What always amazes me is how the faithful flock to see or buy these things, and how often they deeply inspire people spiritually. Some of the more famous recent examples include:

The demon in the smoke of the twin towers on 9/11
Jesus on a piece of toast
The fetus in Hurricane Katrina
Virgin Mary concrete wall stain (you can also at this site see Jesus on a fish stick, Jesus on chapatti, Jesus on an oyster, the Arabic word for “God” in a birthmark on a lamb, and more)
Virgin Mary on grilled cheese sandwich

And then, of course, you have the frequent weeping and bleeding statues. Interesting, isn’t it, the things we humans turn to in our endless search for meaning?

Posted by Becky at 08:12 AM |

No burkas in Rhode Island, for now

The American Taliban suffered a setback today when their attempts to blame women for every unwanted pregnancy was thwarted by the State of Rhode Island:

Lawyers at the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union first complained last year that a now-abandoned textbook used by Heritage of Rhode Island taught students that girls should wear clothing that doesn't invite "lustful thoughts" from boys. The book described men as "strong" and "courageous" while women were called "caring."

No word on what Heritage has done with their crates of burkas. Its possible that they were shipped to South Carolina:

"Out of the box from South Carolina, things just didn't translate here," Plante said. "We realized this was going to take a whole working over, but it was a good place to start."

Apparently the American Taliban has better translators there.

Posted by Carla at 07:35 AM |

Do they take your mug shot when you apply for your RNC card?

The new guy that the Post hired to write their conservoblog is apparently a plagiarist.

I wish I could say I'm shocked. But since lying, stealing, cheating and general illegal/unethical behavior is what the Republican Party has now become, its just another day.

Update: So there's quite a laundry list of reasons to think Ben Domenech is a whiny little conservative scumbag. I honestly didn't give a rip about this before. But now its starting to piss me off.

Posted by Carla at 07:33 AM |

March 23, 2006

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

John Cole has had his delusions shattered:

The right wing of the Republican party has sold the libertarian/centrist wing of the party a bill of goods, and the modern ‘conservatives’ are clearly nothing more than statists who, rather than redistributing wealth like their brethern on the left, instead have decided that the state must have excessive rights in order to ‘protect’ us all from whatever the imagined fear du jour might be. Meanwhile, no one is left protecting us from the religionists and the the state itself.

In the new Republican era, only fetuses , tax shelters, and ‘traditional’ marriage deserve protection. According to the actions of the current Republican party, the rest of us need to be wiretapped, monitored, have our homes inspected for whatever reason without warrants, and are incapable of making decisions on our own. My 20 year affair with the Republican party is coming to an end. I am not voting for any Republican in 2006 at any level, and I will be hard pressed to vote for this party in 2008- unless, of course, Cindy Sheehan is the Democratic candidate. These ‘conservatives’ need abut 10-15 years in the wilderness.

You forgot to include guns, John. They get protection.

Other than that--you've pretty much described the Republican Party since the 80s. This isn't new.

Posted by Carla at 09:04 PM |

Another reason not to live in Texas

As if you really needed one.

Posted by Carla at 08:59 PM |

Bible class in public high schools?

This week the Georgia state House passed a bill to allow the teaching of Bible classes in public high schools. I found this interesting because I've been thinking a lot lately about the need for some quality, in-depth education on the Bible in public schools. I don't think the good Georgia Legislature, however, has the same plan in mind that I have.

I hesitate to write this, but after all, we're slaughtering sacred cows daily here, so here goes.

I'd like to see high schoolers get a solid course in the real history of the Bible - who really wrote it (and why), who selected what would be included and what would not (and why), and how it has been changed through the centuries (and why). Perhaps even a bit of study about the psychology of fundamentalism that is based on the literal interpretation of this very human book and the dangers that can result for society.

Although I spent a year desperately searching through Christian apologetics looking for something to reassure me that my faith was well-placed and that the arguments I had found against the reliability of the Bible were wrong, I finally had to conclude that Christianity was a man-made religion and that the Bible was no more inspired by God than any other book.

Perhaps if we teach our high school students to use the brains God gave them and to exercise logical thinking we can begin to rid this country of the hateful extremism that has put our future in so much danger. Of course, I'm not foolish enough to believe that will ever happen. In these turbulent times people are clinging ever-more tightly to the comfort blanket of their ideological foundations and divorcing themselves from the responsibility we all face to fight the growing evil in the world.

Posted by Becky at 01:12 PM |

How the heck did Oregonians pass Measure 37?

While Republican gubernatorial candidates make fools of themselves over proposed post-Measure 37 plans, no one in Oregon is addressing what has really gone wrong with land use planning in Oregon or why Measure 37 passed.

There is no question Oregonians love the wildness of Oregon and want to protect it, which is why McCall's land use plan has been embraced. But like most everything else that's going wrong with America today, what has gone wrong with Oregon's land use planning system generates from a loss of honesty and respect for the citizens.

Like lawyers, the planning community has become obsessed with following the letter of the law and has forgotten the spirit of it. This leads to ridiculous results. They have the ability to use their authority to punish people they don't like and reward those they do - and too many take advantage of that ability. Public meetings law allows for such minimalization of public input that citizens become frustrated at even trying to work through the process to change things. And to top off all of this abuse of trust, there is little concern for the costs that these decisions impose on ordinary Oregonians.

Oregonians support land use planning and want to preserve farm and forest land. But too many have now had their trust abused by a heartless, legalistic system that dehumanizes them. Until we have leadership that demands respect for the citizens, the pressures will continue to build and groups like Oregonians in Action will continue to prosper and succeed.

I recommend that those who are concerned about Measure 37 take the time to cross the aisle and have a real conversation (listening with their hearts) with people who have suffered huge losses, people who have struggled to accomplish the most basic development of their land under local planning regulations, and people who have been the victims of heavy-handed, spiteful local land use decisions. If we can bring trust back to land use planning, I believe we'll be done with Measure-37 style battles.

Posted by Becky at 06:38 AM |

March 22, 2006

A quick dip in the mail bag

Satire seems to have been the theme today:

• Authors Frank and Susan Fuller have a new book out: DECENCY RULES AND REGULATIONS MANUAL, which is a witty spoof of the Department of Homeland Security.

  After years of hard work, DOHD researchers, working closely with faith-based scientists, philosophers, theologians, and lobbyists, have finished work on the manual that will change your lives: The Department of Homeland Decency's Rules and Regulations Manual.

• Freewayblogger has a deliciously dark bit of satire: Declaration of Independence
  "Under Review" by Bush Administration
• A pitch from the publisher's Marketing Director for an intriguing new book by occasional Huffington Post contributor and comedian Henry Hendra: The Messiah of Morris Avenue
  

  In the age of White House and Justice Department prayer circles, it might
  seem like fundamentalist Christians already have a set of keys to the Oval
  Office. But in his satirical new novel, THE MESSIAH OF MORRIS AVENUE,
  humorist Tony Hendra imagines what the U.S. will look like in twenty years
  when the religious right really does run the country. Blasphemy will be a
  crime, Hollywood will have gone Holywood and started passing out "faith
  based" Academy Awards, and President Sparrow will sit in the White House.

Posted by Kevin at 09:15 PM |

The patriarchy strikes again

A middle school teacher has sex multiple times with a 14 year old student and gets caught. What happens?

Debra Lafave got house arrest and probation? I can't believe for a second that if it'd been a male teacher who had sex with a female student that the results would be similar at all.

Meanwhile... my quest to find a financial institution which will lend me any money at all simply because I have a white penis remains fruitless. Maybe I'm not using the correct secret handshake?

Posted by Kevin at 08:44 PM |

Norquist suspected of money laundering - yet again

Last week, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed an Internal Revenue Services complaint against Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. The complaint asks for an investigation into money laundering charges related the the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Sounds eerily similar to Norquist's money-laundering in Oregon for Bill Sizemore (whose Oregon Taxpayers United and associated Oregon Taxpayers United Education Foundation were modeled after Norquist's group). See this article, about half-way down the page for more information. Norquist had even earlier skated on similar charges when he laundered a significant amount of money for the GOP. No surprise - all three incidents have the same MO and rumors of other incidents have swirled around for years.

Neither Norquist nor Sizemore have ever been brought to account for their money laundering scheme. Why? Could it be Norquist's close relationship to the national Republican power structure, as well as other interesting groups?

I wish CREW all the luck in the world, but I won't be holding my breath.


Posted by Becky at 05:50 PM |

Subtle Lies

Yesterday, the President lied to the American people. It wasn't a blatant, outright obvious lie, but it was, in fact a lie. He intentionally mischaracterized the concerns that true patriots have about his illegal wiretapping. From his press conference:


QUESTION: Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program, not to change the bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program.
The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation.
What, sir, do you think the impact of a discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office and to the nation during a time of war and in the context of the election?
BUSH: I think during these difficult times – and they are difficult when we are at war – the American people expect there to be an honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it.
I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for the getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say, the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.
That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
I did notice that, you know, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized – they being at least the minority leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand – I don't want to misquote him – something along the lines that, we killed the Patriot Act.
Now, if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying, We shouldn't give the people on the front line, who are protecting us, the tools necessary to do so.
That's a debate I think the country ought to have.


Bush knows that Democrats do not believe in getting rid of the terrorist spying program. He also knows that Democrats do not want to keep the people on the front line from having the tools they need to fight terrorism. What Democrats - and a whole lot of other people like me (Independent) - want is for the government to follow the law and avoid violating the civil rights of our citizens. The President has failed to secure the requisite post-wiretapping warrants that the law requires. He has acted like a dictator who is not subject to the Constitution.

Bush's lying and political game-playing are so entirely unpresidential, it is really no wonder his approval ratings are so low. Americans do not like being lied to. Americans do not like being manipulated and disrespected. Thus, Americans do not like Mr. Bush. It's really that simple.

Posted by Becky at 08:31 AM |

Welcome to the quagmire, we got fun and games...

In the jungle
Welcome to the jungle
Watch it bring you to your shun n,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees
I wanna watch you bleed


I couldn't stop hearing Axl in my head while reading Max Boot's piece in today's LA Times:

It is sobering to reflect how long even an unsuccessful insurgency can run. Israel has been battling Palestinian guerrillas since the 1940s. Colombia has been battling Marxist guerrillas since the 1960s. Britain battled Irish guerrillas nearly continuously from the mid-19th century until recent years. Even the campaign often cited by experts as a model counterinsurgency — Britain's defeat of a communist uprising in Malaya — took 12 years to succeed, from 1948 to 1960.

Many of us who were against the invasion of Iraq in the first place talked about the potential for this very situation. The historical references to Colombia, Israel the Brit/Irish situation were brought out..and we were called unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers who wanted nothing more than to bash the President.

Yes. That's an "I told you so".

It might have been possible to avoid such a costly and protracted conflict in Iraq if Central Command and the Defense Department had been better prepared for the "post-conflict" phase of operations. But, as we now know, there was a horrifying and inexplicable failure to undertake adequate preparation for running Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The most criticized aspect of this failure — and rightly so — was not sending enough troops to control a population of 25 million. The lack of security allowed the insurgency to flare up and spread like wildfire across the Sunni landscape. Now this rebellion is proving nearly impossible to stamp out. Indeed, it may trigger a wider conflagration as Shiites take up arms to defend their hard-won political gains.

It was entirely possible to avoid a costly and protracted conflict in Iraq, Max.

Don't invade countries that pose no direct threat to the nation, for starters. Don't hire Presidents who carry weird obsessions with dictators and fossil fuels. Don't drown yourself so deeply in the ideological fervor and fear whipped up by faux patriots that you become blind and deaf to those trying to hand you a life preserver.

Is Iraq already in the middle of a civil war? That depends on the meaning of "civil war." Clearly there is increasing internecine violence, and if Iraq isn't already in a civil war, it is heading that way. But bad as the situation is, it could get far, far worse if the U.S. were to withdraw prematurely. At the moment, the presence of about 136,000 U.S. troops is, believe it or not, keeping a lid on the violence and limiting the options of the most extreme elements in both the Sunni and Shiite communities.

The definition of "civil war"? Shades of the Clinton impeachment proceedings...how many ways are there to define "is"?

If the Shias were wearing blue and the Sunni's were wearing gray (while whistling "Dixie"), then could we call it a civil war? Most everything else about this conflict seems to be lined right up under the civil war heading.

Are we making it worse? I don't know. But our presence isn't making it better. Our inability to provide proper security or thwart sabotage of basic services is at the very least not helping. If our troops really are keeping a lid on the extreme elements/major violence..then it seems to me that its a short term lid at best. Its their country. Ultimately we can't decide things for them. It may have to come to a bloody, messy war for them to sort it out.

But still..in the end..Boot tries to create a cushy landing for Bush:

Yet if President Bush has blundered badly — and he has — that does not make him different from any other wartime leader. Think of all the setbacks the U.S. has suffered even in successful conflicts of the past, from the failed invasion of Canada and the loss of New York, Philadelphia and Charlestown in the Revolutionary War to the horrific retreat from the Chosin Reservoir followed by two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War. All were catastrophes of infinitely greater magnitude than anything that has occurred in Iraq, and yet none precluded a satisfactory resolution. We can still triumph in Iraq if we have the patience to outlast the fanatical jihadists and cynical opportunists who want to drive us out. Of course, that's a big if.

The American Revolutionary War was a necessary conflict. It had some major setbacks, to be sure. But it absolutely had to happen. The conflict in Korea is less clearly defined and was initially very damaging to Truman...whose reputation has since recovered. But Truman's vindication came because he didn't mislead us. The Bush Administration has misled us and that doesn't give Presidents much room for recovery. It also magnifies the disastrous nature of Iraq.





Posted by Carla at 07:55 AM |

"V-I-C-T-9/11-O-R-Y!" (pt. 2)

"I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war," Bush said.



"C-A-P-I-T-A-L!
WATCH ME SPEND THAT CAP-I-TAL!
KEEP THEM DOL-LARS ROLL-ING IN!
WE'RE GONNA STAY UNTIL WE ... um.
V-I-E-T-N-- no wait! V-I-C-T-9/11-O-R-Y!"

Got my duct tape, plastic sheeting, powdered milk (make your own Yoohoo with it -- it's great!) and can of tuna. I feel all safe and secure now.

Letterman last night: "President Bush held a press conference this morning, how many of you saw it? (weak scattered applause) Yeah, sounds about right... He said our troops would stay in Iraq till at least 2008. He said we'll disarm Iraq, we're gonna disarm Iran, we might even disarm Dick Cheney!"

Every administration hears what it wants to hear, and disregards the rest: Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details. "Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?"

"But 9/11 changed every--" hold on, you've set off my propaganda/bullshit-detector. Vietnam changed everything.

I was only 4 in 1968. But I've learned enough history to know how big it was when LBJ announced he would not seek re-election, basically leaving Vietnam for others to deal with.

Here's a few events from what's been called an "intensely-turbulent time" in U.S. and world history:

January 5 - Alexander Dubcek elected as the leader of the Czechoslovakian Communist Party - the "Prague Spring" begins.
January 23 - North Korea seizes the USS Pueblo, claiming the ship violated its territorial waters while spying.
January 30 - The Tet Offensive begins, as Viet Cong forces launch a series of surprise attacks across South Vietnam.
January 31 - Viet Cong soldiers attack the US embassy in Saigon.


February 1 - A Viet Cong officer is executed by Nguyen Ngoc Loan a South Vietnamese National Police Chief. The execution was videotaped and photographed and helped sway public opinion against the war.
February 8 - A civil rights protest staged at a white-only bowling alley in Orangeburg, SC is broken up by highway patrolmen leading to the deaths of three college students.
February 16 - In Haleyville, Alabama the first 9-1-1 emergency telephone system goes into service.
February 24 - The Tet Offensive is halted - South Vietnam recaptures Hué.

March 7 - The First Battle of Saigon begins.
March 16 - My Lai massacre: American troops kill scores of women and children.
March 17 - A demonstration in London's Grosvenor Square against US involvement in the Vietnam War leads to violence - 91 police injured, 200 demonstrators arrested.
March 31 - President Lyndon Johnson announces he will not seek re-election.

As more and more American soldiers and civilians were killed in Vietnam, Johnson's popularity declined, particularly in the face of student protests. During these protests, students would often burn their draft cards and chant the line, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids will you kill today?" In what was termed an October surprise, Johnson announced to the nation on March 31, 1968 that he ordered a complete cessation of "all air, naval, and artillery bombardment of North Vietnam" effective November 1 citing progress with the Paris peace talks. And at the end of his speech he shocked the country by telling them he would not run for re-election...

April 4 - Martin Luther King, Jr. assassinated.
April 20 - English politician Enoch Powell makes controversial Rivers of Blood Speech about immigration: "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’."
April 23-April 30 - Student protesters at Columbia University in NYC take over administration buildings and shut down the university.

May - "May of 68" is a symbol of the resistance of that generation. Agitations and strikes in Paris leads many young to believe that a revolution is starting. Student and worker strikes sometimes referred to as the French May nearly bring down the French government.
May 1 - Professor Giorgios Rosas declares independence of his platform nation Isle of the Roses off Rimini, Italy. Italian troops demolish it two months later.

June 3 - Valerie Solanas shoots Andy Warhol as he enters his studio, wounding him.
June 5 - U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy is shot at the Ambassador Hotel in LA by Sirhan Sirhan. Kennedy died from his injuries the next day.
June 8 - James Earl Ray is arrested for the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
June 29 - Pope Paul VI announces an encyclical entitled "Humanae Vitae", condemning birth control.

July 1 - The CIA's Phoenix Program is officially established.

The Phoenix Program was an "assassination campaign" and has received much criticism as an example of human rights atrocities committed by the CIA and the organizations it supports. Indeed, faulty intelligence often led to the murder of innocent civilians, in contravention to the Geneva Conventions... However, fewer than 10% of the casualties attributed to Phoenix operations were actually targeted by program operatives, with most of the remaining casualties being assigned VCI status after they were killed.

July 17 - Saddam Hussein becomes the Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Council in Iraq after a coup d'état.
July 23-July 28 - African American militants led by Fred (Ahmed) Evans engage in a fierce gunfight with police in the Glenville Shootout of Cleveland, OH.
July 26 - South Vietnamese opposition leader Truong Dinh Dzu is sentenced to five years hard labor for advocating the formation of a coalition government as a way to move toward an end to the war.

August 20 - 200,000 Warsaw Pact troops and 5,000 tanks invade Czechoslovakia to end the "Prague Spring" of political liberalization.
August 22-August 30 - Police clash with antiwar protesters in Chicago outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

October 11 - NASA launches Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo mission, with astronauts Wally Schirra, Donn Eisele and Walter Cunningham aboard.
October 14 - The Department of Defense announces that the Army and Marines will be sending about 24,000 troops back to Vietnam for involuntary second tours.
October 16 - Tommie Smith and John Carlos raise their arms in a black power salute after winning the gold and bronze medals for first and third place.
October 31 - Citing progress with the Paris peace talks, President Johnson announces to the nation that he has ordered a complete cessation of "all air, naval, and artillery bombardment of North Vietnam" effective November 1.

November 5 - U.S. presidential election, 1968: In one of the closest elections in US history, Republican challenger Richard M. Nixon defeats VP Hubert Humphrey and American Independent Party candidate George Wallace.
November 11 - Operation Commando Hunt initiated to interdict men and supplies on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, through Laos into South Vietnam. By the end of the operation, 3 million tons of bombs are dropped on Laos, slowing but not seriously disrupting trail operations.
November 26 - USAF 1st Lt. and Bell UH-1F helicopter pilot James Fleming rescues an Army Special Forces unit pinned down by Viet Cong fire, earning a Medal of Honor for his bravery.

December 24 - US spacecraft Apollo 8 enters orbit around the moon. Astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and William Anders become the first humans to see the far side of the moon and planet earth as a whole.

We can play Compare & Contrast between Iraq and Vietnam 'til the troops come home. Bottom line: when you're in a hole, stop digging. In the meantime, stop pissin' down my back and tellin' me it's raining. See how easy that is?

What we're getting now is truly a tale told by an idiot, full of soundbites and self-righteous fury, signifying... whatever.

"I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out."

Pressed on whether that meant a complete withdrawal would not happen during his presidency, Bush said, "I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say."

White House officials worried Bush's remarks would be read as saying there would not be significant troop reductions during his presidency. They pointed to comments Sunday by Gen. George W. Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who said he expected a substantial troop reduction "certainly over the course of 2006 and into 2007."

"GO! FIGHT! WIN!"

Posted by Jeff at 07:05 AM |

March 21, 2006

Understanding Fundamentalism and the Coming Apocalypse

While engaging in my usual daily Internet “research” (also known as surfing), looking for answers to the questions that incessantly pop into my mind all day long, I stumbled across this Web site. What I found was a veritable treasure trove of intellectually stimulating articles on a wide range of topics, including many on my own favorite topics – politics and religion.

In this article, Heather Gray begins with some interesting insights into the origins of Christianity and how learning about it affected her. She then moves into sharing her first-hand observations of the dark side of the Christian influence in the world throughout the past few decades. Reading it, one can't help but wonder how a belief system founded on the loving teachings of Jesus could engage in such cruelty and exploitation – a question I have struggled with for many years. She touches on it, but seems to still be searching for the answer to that question.

I found the answer here in an article by Walter Davis. The problem is fundamentalism and the psychological neurosis it represents. Dr. Davis explains it eloquently:

"Literalism is the linchpin of fundamentalism... It offers the mind a way to shut down... It thereby exorcises the greatest fear: interpretation and its inevitable result, the conflict of interpretations and with it the terror of being forever bereft of dogmatic certitudes."

"Literalism is the first line of defense of a mind that wants to put itself to sleep. ... It is the great protection against a world teeming with complexities. Literalism offers a way out, a way to keep the mind fixed and fixated at its first condition."

Sounds like a lot of right-wing ideologues I know. Dr. Davis continues:

"There is a single text, the Holy Bible. It contains clear, simple direct messages - proclamations – that establish the Truth once and for all. All of life's questions and contingencies are resolved by statements that are beyond change and interpretation. ... one need only point to the appropriate passage and 'Pouf' all doubt and ambiguity about what one should think, believe, or desire on a given situation vanishes. One need no longer wrack one's brain or one's heart or live in the terror that the world exceeds one's grasp."

So how does literalism/fundamentalism result in the evil that Christians too often inflict upon the world? Dr. Davis writes that from childhood, Christians are taught

"the correct posture: the assumption of absolute certitude in which there is and can be no conflict of the heart with what it is told to believe, no possibility of wondering about a God who is capable of the titanic condemnation" of hell. "Literalism protects the heart from everything, even its own deepest urgings."

Dr. Davis was kind enough to respond to my personal email and he tells me the article is part of a book that now available on Amazon.com: Death's Dream Kingdom: The American Psyche since 9-11.

Which segues nicely into the next article I found by Michael Ortiz Hill. It provides a very lucid explanation for the current growing Christian obsession with apocalyptic prophecies and the imminency of the "End Times." In the post-9-11 era, he writes, apocalyptic visions

“bear a ritual intelligence consistent with rites of initiation that are hundreds of thousands of years old. As the soul approaches the incomprehensible it is cut away from the community and "common" sense. Stripped bare it suffers the raw truth of the moment, its conundrums and heart break and witnesses the death and rebirth of the self/planet. The images are contemporary but my initiations as a tribal healer in Africa confirmed that the ritual grammar is ancient: Separation, vision, return. If history is a nightmare the apocalyptic initiation is about waking up from its self-destructive imperative."

About the Christian/Muslim conflict raging across the globe today, Ortiz Hill writes:

“Two honorable and sometimes radiant traditions are led towards the abyss by their lunatic fringe: Each driven to conquer the world for God, each bearing the sword of unassailable righteousness.”

"Cluster bombs dropped into a suburb of Baghdad will deliver the unbelievers to damnation but if the pilot is by chance downed not a small portion of his people are assured that he will rise to heaven. The Jihadi whispering "Allah Akbar" as the plane strikes the World Trade Center knows exactly where he's going on the other side of death and exactly where he delivers his not-quite-human victims. One commandment forever in stone whatever the bloodshed: Thou shall not for a moment recognize any resemblance between thyself and thine enemy."

"Beware the fascination with what is larger than life, this vulgar Passion Play that would crucify the world."

That is a statement that sends chills down my spine.


Posted by Becky at 07:26 PM |

I guess I'm supposed to care about this

The Washington Post has decided that it needs "balance"..so it gave some conservative hack a blog at their site.

Since there isn't a blog for liberals at the Post..apparently we're all supposed to care about it.

Honestly..its not as if the media doesn't go out of its way to placate the conservative shriekosphere. This is just another link in the chain.

Posted by Carla at 04:57 PM |

Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism

The Guardian:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.

Giving his first, wide-ranging, interview at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop was emphatic in his criticism of creationism being taught in the classroom, as is happening in two city academies founded by the evangelical Christian businessman Sir Peter Vardy and several other schools.

"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," he said.

So when the next kick ass natural disaster hits London, Pat Robertson will be on the telly blaming Williams for bringing God's wrath.

This is a Monty Python sketch waiting to happen.

Posted by Carla at 03:48 PM |

Let them pay taxes!

Its time we make these jerks pay taxes:

Weeks after the Internal Revenue Service announced a crackdown on political activities by churches and other tax-exempt organizations, a coalition of nonprofit conservative groups is holding training sessions to enlist Pennsylvania pastors in turning out voters for the November elections. Experts in tax law said the sessions, organized by four groups as the Pennsylvania Pastors Network, could test the promises by the tax agency to step up enforcement of the law that prohibits such activity by exempt organizations.

More than law testing better happen here. These people are flagrantly violating laws allowing churches to maintain tax exempt status.

They're telling parishoners from the pulpit who to vote for. They're organizing GOTV efforts from their churches. If that's what they want to do--then they'd better be prepared to start writing checks to the Internal Revenue Service.

Or they could smarten up and stop endangering this nation by mixing religion and politics.

Posted by Carla at 09:08 AM |

These folks seriously need a designated driver

Carla pointed this fascinating article out to me yesterday evening. Mostly it's a review of a recent study published in the Journal of Research Into Personality about children's personalities and what kinds of political ideology seems to derive from that.

The study itself seems a little iffy to me. But the first three paragraphs of the article really struck me:


Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.


Hmmm... lemme see if I've got this right... Whiny insecure kids who go running to the teacher, a rule-making authority figure, tend to grow up to be conservatives.

Grown up conservatives, when they found out about the study... ran to another group of rule-making authority figures (Congress) and whined.

Doesn't that lend credence to the hypothesis they are objecting to?

Posted by Kevin at 07:49 AM |

Race to the Bottom

Ann Coulter’s latest contribution to the quality programming of her conservative robot fans (Revenge of the Queers) has pushed more than one of my buttons. The editorial addresses the front-page New York Times report that Claude Allen, a top adviser to President Bush, had been caught stealing. Twenty-five times.

In classic Ann Coulter style, she righteously plays the race card (Allen is black) and claims Democrats and the press are gloating over his downfall because he dared to be a black Republican, characterizing their attacks, essentially, as “He’s black, so he’s probably not very smart.” Ann then falls all over herself praising Allen, calling him “talented, intelligent, magnificently conservative,” decrying The New York Times’ failure to mention him more than 11 times when he wasn’t stealing, and chiding former President Clinton for placing no black American any higher in his administration than Betty Currie, his secretary. She concludes, “I’m proud to have this great fellow sinner in our party.” I have to wonder if she would be so kind to Barak Obama if he was found to have committed the “original sin” of theft even once.

Now before you misunderstand where I’m going here, I have some criticism of a pundit on the left on this, too. Trey Ellis, in his gleeful post (“When Black Republicans Go Bad”) on HuffingtonPost.com, has this insightful observation to offer to the public discourse: “There must be something about being a black Republican that drives you a little batty,” and posits, “Maybe black Republicans are like transvestites?” He goes on to say that perhaps Allen had been “in drag so long that he longed desperately to come ‘home.’” Say, what? Is Ellis trying to say that stealing is coming home for a black man?

Both of these pundits have my blood pressure rising rapidly. Can someone please explain to me why it is that black people in this country are not allowed to choose their party affiliation and express their political views like everyone else? Doesn’t the First Amendment allow black people to stand up for their beliefs, even if – and especially when – those views aren’t shared by the majority of other black people?

I expect this sort of idiocy from Republicans – after all, they’ve been trying (quite unsuccessfully) to get lovey-dovey with black America for a long time so they could steal their votes away from Democrats (Coulter claims there wouldn’t be a Democratic party without them). But when Democrats fall into this racist pit it is downright depressing.

Back to Ann Coulter, and what first attracted my eye to her column. It was this one little sentence describing the beginnings of Claude Allen’s political journey: “He became a born-again Christian at college and – the obvious next step – a Republican after college.” Aside from the fact that I personally know many born-again Christians who are registered Democrats, this one sentence says much about the outspoken radical right today. A case could certainly be made that the leadership does not believe in Christianity themselves, but they are certainly engaged in a massive effort to convince Christians that only Republicans can be “true” Christians.

God help us if the majority of American Christians believe them. The legalistic, heartless, fearful version of Christianity they are spreading, worshiping vengeful God who will destroy all who do not believe their version of Christianity with eternal fire after bombarding them with plagues, famine, and war, is entirely contrary to the spirit of the man they claim to worship.

That man was a man of color who stood for freedom and opportunity for all. That man said, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” taught of a certain good Samaritan, and only invoked his miraculous power to perform miracles when they would bring joy to the masses, heal the sick or feed the poor. I don’t believe Ann Coulter and the rest of the robot programmers know that man. They’re simply trading on his good name.


Posted by Becky at 06:06 AM |

March 20, 2006

Newbies!

PK is adding a couple of new writers to our stable of fabulous contributors.

Nothstine is an experienced blogger who I met through the Portland chapter of Drinking Liberally. He has his own blog: Persuasion, Perseverance and Patience. He's got a great wit. He'll be a fab addition to PK.

Becky is new to blogging. She's commented here at PK and shares many of my interests and curiosities. Becky has been involved in politics for many years and has seen a lot of the seamy underbelly of what really goes on. She's a recovering conservative (I don't think she'll mind me casting it that way) and I think will add a new depth to us.

Please play nice with our new contributors. Or at least give them a grace period before you beat them up.

Welcome Nothstine and Becky!

Posted by Carla at 06:17 PM |

If you believe in balanced budgets, competent foreign policy and equal rights for all citizens, you must be a liberal

Poor Andrew Sullivan.

He's having a tough time of it:

So let's recap: I'm in favor of Bush's tax cuts, but want spending cuts to match them; I favor balanced budgets; I favored and favor the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, but want to execute them competently, with enough troops, and in adherence to America's long tradition of humane warfare; I oppose affirmative action and hate crime laws; I favor privatizing social security; I opposed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement; I want more money for defense, specifically more troops; I favor states' rights; I'm a First Amendment nut; I have few problems with gun rights; I would criminalize third trimester abortions; I support marriage rights for everyone, because marriage is a critical institution fostering self-reliance and responsibility. And all of this now makes me part of the "left," equatable with individuals who betrayed their own country for Stalin's Russia. I notice that my correspondent describes conservatism as an "ideology." I think that speaks volumes about what has happened to what was once regarded as the antidote to ideology.

Dear Andrew:

I'm a bleeding heart, true believing, blue state liberal. I believe in balancing budgets and invading Afghanistan after 9/11. I believe in humane warfare and opposed the Medicare prescription drug plan passed by the GOP Congress. I'm a big believer in states rights, especially when it comes to education. I support equal rights (including marriage rights) for all citizens.I would support making third trimester abortions illegal with exceptions for the mother's health.

We disagree on some things: I think social security privatization is a disastrous idea. I think the Department of Defense is a massively wasteful institution that needs to be audited from top to bottom and held accountable, then have its budget trimmed accordingly.

Even using Bush's new math, it looks to me like we agree on a lot more than we disagree.

Embrace your inner liberal. I think its out of the closet.

Love,

Carla


Posted by Carla at 04:55 PM |

You can quote me (3/19/06)

"This should not be political. When I go by the graveyard over there at Arlington, it doesn't say Democrat or Republican, it says American." John Murtha

"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Ayad Allawi

"We are implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq. And a victory in Iraq will make this country more secure and will help lay the foundation of peace for generations to come." G. Bush

"Take my child, and then send me a flag folded up in a triangle?!? You better believe I'd be stickin' that flag up inside o' somebody!" Wanda*, hair stylist, grandmother, with 2 sons now safely home from Iraq and out of service

(*not her real name)

Posted by Jeff at 08:43 AM |

Refusing to be bound and gagged

In a metaphoric (but just as effective) sense...

CBS:

As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

Tell us something we don't already know.

Team Bush's War on Science isn't new. What is new is the fact that this guy is willing to come out and beat the drums against what Bush is up to.

Hanson's efforts to talk about accelerated global warming put the oil-centric Bush team into a panic. If Hanson keeps flapping his gums in the media--the public might actually become informed about the fact that humans do control emissions and effect climate change. Drastically.

Hanson refuses to allow the White House to edit his statements or skew his reporting as they do for other government funded scientists.

I'm wondering how long until Rove fits him with a pair of cement shoes.


Posted by Carla at 07:32 AM |

March 19, 2006

Sunday Snippet



It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive.


Posted by Carla at 03:19 PM |

Angst-ing the anniversary of Iraq

Today's three year anniversary of the Iraq invasion brings its detractors and defendors. But its also exposing the bubbling up of angst and fear of the American citizenry. The nation is worried and upset about the state of things in Iraq and the handling of the war by the Administration.

The President has consistently operated from a position of denial and apparent fantasy, today pledging complete victory. His failure to really awknowledge the problems and make any fundamental tactical changes are really eating away at the public.

In the back of my mind I keep thinking about how we got here. What brought us to this time and place..and why. From my observation it always comes back to oil. We didn't go into Iraq to tackle terrorism or keep Americans safe. We went to Iraq to control a huge oil reserve.

Its interesting to know that folks a lot smarter than myself (and a lot more in the know) have reached that same conclusion:

The American press in the first days of the Iraq war reported extensively on the Pentagon's failure to post American troops in front of the National Museum in Baghdad, which, as a result, was looted of many of its great archaeological treasures. Less widely reported, but to Phillips far more meaningful, was the immediate posting of troops around the Iraqi Oil Ministry, which held the maps and charts that were the key to effective oil production. Phillips fully supports an explanation of the Iraq war that the Bush administration dismisses as conspiracy theory — that its principal purpose was to secure vast oil reserves that would enable the United States to control production and to lower prices. ("Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath," an oil analyst said a couple of years ago. "You can't ask for better than that.") Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, democracy and other public rationales were, Phillips says, simply ruses to disguise the real motivation for the invasion.

The "Phillips" referred to in this piece is Kevin Phillips, former Republican political strategist and author of The Emerging Republican Majority (1969).

Phillips' new book entitled American Theocracy expresses his alarm at his former party. Specifically with Iraq and oil policy, deficit/spending policy and something we tackle a lot here at PK: the rise of influence of the extremely conservative Christian right:

He points in particular to the Southern Baptist Convention, once a scorned seceding minority of the American Baptist Church but now so large that it dominates not just Baptism itself but American Protestantism generally. The Southern Baptist Convention does not speak with one voice, but almost all of its voices, Phillips argues, are to one degree or another highly conservative. On the far right is a still obscure but, Phillips says, rapidly growing group of "Christian Reconstructionists" who believe in a "Taliban-like" reversal of women's rights, who describe the separation of church and state as a "myth" and who call openly for a theocratic government shaped by Christian doctrine. A much larger group of Protestants, perhaps as many as a third of the population, claims to believe in the supposed biblical prophecies of an imminent "rapture" — the return of Jesus to the world and the elevation of believers to heaven.

Prophetic Christians, Phillips writes, often shape their view of politics and the world around signs that charlatan biblical scholars have identified as predictors of the apocalypse — among them a war in Iraq, the Jewish settlement of the whole of biblical Israel, even the rise of terrorism. He convincingly demonstrates that the Bush administration has calculatedly reached out to such believers and encouraged them to see the president's policies as a response to premillennialist thought. He also suggests that the president and other members of his administration may actually believe these things themselves, that religious belief is the basis of policy, not just a tactic for selling it to the public.

I've personally wondered if the President was really a "true believer" in this sense. His stint as Governor of Texas never indicated this that I can tell. But its become evident that Bush has a very single minded focus when it comes to his policy decisions..and it appears heavily influenced by his hard right Christian beliefs.

Democrats and liberals have spent more time discussing values and the nurturing of the Christian left. But honestly, I'm not sure that's the sum total of the needed fix. There are certainly some whose political response germinates from a values discussion. But unless its heavily laced with factual data and information, many on the left will reject it out of hand. There has to be a way to meld these two approaches that will appeal to the spectrum of moderate to left Americans who wholly reject the hard right conservatism of the Republican Party.

There's also a fundamental cultural change that needs to take place. Liberals need to work harder to push their elected leaders to advocate for progressive ideas. Democrats must decide to hold to account the leaders of the Republican Party who've broken both the ethical and legal standards we've set as a nation. The shaky support given to Russ Feingold's censure proposal is one such example of the problems the Democrats face--putting perceived political issues over the right thing to do. It's unacceptable.

The electorate can't move to support a party or a group that isn't willing to stand up for its beliefs.




Posted by Carla at 08:27 AM |

March 18, 2006

How low can he go?

James Carville is credited with saying something to the effect of "when your opponent is sinking, toss him an anvil".

Looks like Bush won't be needing the anvil toss. He's already got an anvil:

A bitterly divided electorate gives President George W. Bush an approval rating of only 36 percent in the latest NEWSWEEK poll, matching the low point in his presidency recorded last November. His image as an effective leader in the war on terror is tarnished, with less than half the public (44 percent) approving of the way he’s handling terrorism and homeland security. Despite a series of presidential speeches meant to bolster support for the war in Iraq, as well as the announcement of a major military offensive when the poll was getting under way, only 29 percent of the people questioned approved Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. Fully 65 percent disapprove.

The anvil of Iraq. She is a heavy one.

There's been a lot of chatter about Bush needing to shake up his staff, too. But John Dickerson explains why that won't lighten Bush's load:

The issues that plague the president cannot be fixed in the period before Bush becomes a true lame duck. There could be some deck-chair shuffling, and some fancy names might be brought in, but such moves would do little to affect the underlying issues. Relations with members of Congress can't be fixed fast enough to improve the chances for legislation Bush is pushing. Passing legislation in an election year is tricky enough. It requires trust and a relationship that's built up over time. Republican members of Congress will join with Bush on issues that are popular, but they're going to take no risks. Fred Thompson couldn't change that.

And then there's Iraq, a problem impervious to bombing, let alone staff changes. A shake-up might give the president a brief honeymoon with the press and the public, but both will last only if identifiable progress occurs in Iraq.

This isn't a staff problem. Its a problem with the people in charge who are making the decisions. And that ultimately rests with Bush. Until he's out--nothing is fixed.

And speaking of "staffing problems", Rumsfeld's attempt to defend the Administration's handling of Iraq is spectacularly horrific.

He babbles on about how terrorists are losing in Iraq while failing to awknowledge the sectarian violence and heightened insurgency. He asks readers to consider that a brutal dictator was overthrown (who Rumsfeld happened to appear rather chummy with on at least one occasion) and a new government in place--but ignores the fact that this new government can't even meet long enough to choose a leader or make any fundamental decisions for the country because of their squabbles.

Rumsfeld also asks readers to consider Iraqis security forces and Iraqi Army battalions, yet fails to awknowledge none of the battalions can fight on their own, without American assistance.

Its like reading a Grimms Fairy Tale where someone whitewashed out the bad guys--leaving major pieces of a complex morality tale out for the sake of not scaring the children.




Posted by Carla at 10:21 PM |

March 17, 2006

Cowboy up!

Looks like we're gonna cowboy up with the Axis of Evil:

Iran and the United States agreed Thursday to hold direct talks on how to halt sectarian violence and restore calm in Iraq, offering the first face-to-face conversation between the sides after months of confrontation over Iran's nuclear program.

Inside the Command Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, announced in Iran's Parliament on Thursday that he would send a team of negotiators to Iraq to meet with American representatives there. But he also suggested in an interview that there would be stiff preconditions.

"I think Iraq is a good testing ground for America to take a harder look at the way it acts," Mr. Larijani said in his office shortly after making the announcement. "If there's a determination in America to take that hard look, then we're prepared to help."

Yeah well...good luck Mr. Larijani. You're going to need it. Neither hurricanes nor body counts nor breaking federal law seems to throw a wrench into the arrogance quotient of the Bush Administration.

It seems unlikely to me that they'll be willing to accept any reproachment from people they see as dark skinned heathens. But if you'd like to become a part of the "Coalition" and send your people to die, they're all set to let you into the fold.

In the meantime, apparently we won't be cowboying up our ports. Despite the fact that the GOP has been hand wringing extensively about Iran delivering a nuclear weapon through ports (since they lack conventional means), the Republican House voted against it.







Posted by Carla at 07:51 AM |

March 16, 2006

Don't listen to the "very smart people"

What the hell do they know, anyway?

That said, I do think there is a tendency on the part of some on the left to criticize conservative politicians on the basis of their religious views. Now, don't misunderstand me. I am not defending conservative politicians, nor do I think it's inappropriate to criticize religious beliefs, especially when they're brought into political debate and certainly when they're extreme. But when it's done with broad brushstrokes--and here I'm thinking of the charge that Bush is trying to turn the country into a theocracy (see: Kevin Phillips, Bill Moyers, and other very smart people)--it can have the effect of sounding anti-religion when that's not what I think it is. There are a lot of reasons to criticize George W. Bush, many of them related to his use and mis-use of religion. But theocracy isn't one of them. Sam Brownback, on the other hand, does actually want to turn the U.S. into a theocracy and should be roundly criticized on that point.

If Bush isn't interested in theocracy, then why associate himself with a guy like this? Or why would he make statements like this?

Those that Bush associates with bring religion into the public arena constantly. Karl Rove uses these people to ramp up political support and GOTV for the President. Exactly how is this not something we should be consistently criticizing?

"Smart people" like Bill Moyers understand these fundamentals. I don't understand why more liberals can't grasp this.

Posted by Carla at 04:57 PM |

Minority Report

Why are the Democrats still the minority, despite the fact that most Americans can't stand Bush and want the Republicans out?

Cuz it takes so long for the Democrats to find their asses in the dark with a flashlight, is my guess.

Example:

American Research Group

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?


3/15/06 Favor Oppose Undecided

All Adults 46% 44% 10%
Voters 48% 43% 9%
Republicans 29% 57% 14%
Democrats 70% 26% 4%
Independents 42% 47% 11%

How many Democrats have signed on to Feingold's censure bill? FOUR

(Kerry, Boxer, Harkin,Menendez)

Pathetic.




Posted by Carla at 04:38 PM |

Scientist wins prestigious religion award

Can science and religion peacefully coexist?

These guys think so (behind the NYT dreadful firewall):

Math Professor Wins a Coveted Religion Award

Continuing a recent trend in which the world's richest religion prize has gone to scientists, John D. Barrow, a British cosmologist whose work has explored the relationship between life and the laws of physics, was named the winner yesterday of the 2006 Templeton Prize for progress or research in spiritual matters.

Barrow won the prize for his work on the anthropic principle which is, as far as I can glean, the theory that in order for humans to observe the universe--conditions must be in place to allow humans to physically exist. Further, the universe must have a set up to allow humans to develop. And finally the principle that once intelligent information comes into existence, it won't die out.

Cosmology is way above my scientific pay grade so to be honest--this whole series of ideas makes my brain hurt. But I do find it interesting that this prestigious religion award is going to a scientist. And according to the Times story, its gone to a scientist for five of the last six years.

Its a British award so maybe this has to do with the fact that the Church of England has coexisted with science for centuries.




Posted by Carla at 10:09 AM |

What a long, strange trip its been

I was right to oppose the Iraq War. All of us who opposed it were right. Those that supported the Iraq War were wrong.

Somebody has to come right out and say it. May as well be me.

Kevin and I weren't blogging at the time of the invasion, so I can't offer up any of our quotes as proof of our opposition. But if you've read Preemptive Karma longer than a week--you've probably caught the drift anyway.

Over at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), they've compiled a little trip down memory lane.

The trip includes quotes attributed to various pundacity and newsers about the Iraq War, weeks after the invasion, declaring that those of us who expressed opposition were wrong. I'd like to take this opportunity to out them as a reminder that they were in fact wrong. And they owe the nation (especially those of us that were right) a humble apology. Not that we're likely to get it. Here are a few of the gemmiest gems:

"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/27/03)

"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington."
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)

"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically." (Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)

"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"
(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war....

"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, "The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated." Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.

"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing." (MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)

"Shouldn't the [Canadian] prime minister and all of us who thought the war was hasty and dangerous and wrongheaded admit that we were wrong? I mean, with the pictures of those Iraqis dancing in the streets, hauling down statues of Saddam Hussein and gushing their thanks to the Americans, isn't it clear that President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair were right all along? If we believe it's a good thing that Hussein's regime has been dismantled, aren't we hypocritical not to acknowledge Bush's superior judgment?... Why can't those of us who thought the war was a bad idea (or, at any rate, a premature one) let it go now and just join in celebrating the victory wrought by our magnificent military forces?" (Washington Post's William Raspberry, 4/14/03)

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?" (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)




Posted by Carla at 06:38 AM |

March 15, 2006

The Patron Saint of Handgunners

When I think of "saints" my mind conjures the image of Raphael-like cherubic paintings. Not unlike this one:



The difference is, the face of this little cherub belongs to St. Gabriel Possenti Society, who is pushing the Catholic Church to declare this man the Patron Saint of Handgunners.

Having been raised in a home where sport shooting and hunting were the norm, I'm not a knee-jerk reactor when it comes to guns, in general.

But given that the Catholic Church articulates itself as a religion strongly against war and very pro-peace, it would seem this organization has an extensive uphill battle.

Not that the Catholic Church hasn't had leaders within their body that ignored the peace thing, but overall they do seem to at least try.

Frankly given the current climate of the nation, gun ownership doesn't seem to be especially in danger. And while I can see why a patron saint might be neato accoutrement while hunting with the Vice President (seriously--even I'd pray if I was going out hunting with that guy), snatching guns isn't exactly on the nation's radar.

What we could really use is a Patron Saint of Civil Rights. Or a Patron Saint of Privacy. Or a Patron Saint of Eliminating the Deficit.

Or maybe a Patron Saint of Bloggers....




Posted by Carla at 09:06 AM |

March 14, 2006

Rockin' Pennsylvania

Gary is on a desperate mission. I figure we've got bandwidth to burn so why not pull his comment up and put it front and center.

Gary in his own words:


Now, I hate to do this, but I am on a desperate mission to pander for support!

Pennsylvania is in danger! Tomorrow the PA House of Representatives will be voting to ADD an Ohio & Texas style “Marriage Protection Amendment” to the states constitution!

Obviously, we in PA have got to do whatever we can to drum up support and work to defeat this repugnant and hateful piece of legislation.

So I am turning to you and your considerable readership for help.

If you are from PA, or know people in PA please direct them to this link so they can tell their representative to vote AGAINST HB2381!

Good luck, Gary.

Posted by Kevin at 07:59 PM |

Silver linings

Former Bush advisor Claude Allen's fall has been spectacularly quick and very public. Family and friends are at a loss as to how to explain what went wrong for him.

On the bright side... he likely has a very bright future as a rightwing talkradio host. If G. Gorden Liddy and Oliver North can make it on rightwing radio after what they did then surely there's a conservative audience eagerly anticipating conservative-scenting smoke being blown up their backsides by Mr. Allen too.

Posted by Kevin at 02:57 PM |

Of mice and men

I posted this in more or less the same basic form as a comment earlier. But as I got to thinking about it I thought maybe it'd be more useful as a post.

I could well be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the seemingly endless gender and race disputes never get resolved because although many words are thrown into action on a moments notice, precious little seems to actually get communicated. I believe regular PK reader Spyder said more or less the same thing in a comment several days ago.

All I am capable of is bringing my own personal history and experience with me to this issue and every other issue. I think if we were honest then we'd all have to admit much the same. So in a sincere effort to understand the other gender's premises and the resulting beliefs/opinions, I'm going to lay out the gist of my earlier comment. The groundrules here are that I don't want any men to comment, and that includes me. That way there won't be any arguing or heated rhetoric which inevitably short-circuits the very communication which seems to be so sorely needed. The only exception will be if a woman poses a question in comment here. But even then, I only want men to address just the specific question.

First let me preface it by saying that these are issues that guys talk about amongst ourselves from time to time. In my experience, the lower the socio-economic background and current status of the guy, the more likely he is to voice frustration in private with "the guys." And I must say that in my own personal experience I have never heard any guys voice disagreement about the perceived inequity of the situation.

Without further ado... my earlier comment.

Here's what I don't understand. In 2004 (the most recent data I found) there was a record 2.5 million millionaires in the United States. Assuming that you would agree that those millioniares represent the overwhelming majority of business/corporate owners in a position to disproportionately weild influence, whether that be politically, economically or socially via the previous two avenues of influence. The most recent overall data, from the 2000 Census (warning: PDF) shows that there were 138.1 million men and 143.4 million women in the United States.

Even assuming that every single one of those 2.5 million millionaires were men, which would be an absurd assumption but let's go with it anyway, that still represents a tiny fraction of men... By comparison, there were 37 million living in poverty in 2004. Even if only 10% of those are men that's still quite a bit more men with virtually no influence then the absurdly assumed men with vast influence (3.7 million versus 2.5 million).

Of course there is also the overarching fact that there are more women then men. Which means that women potentially could determine virtually every election.

There are what... 100 Senators and 500 plus members of Congress versus 138 million men at large?

Women's suffrage was passed in what... 1920? Women surpassed men in sheer percentage of the population in the 1950s and that gap grew for several decades (including that fateful decade when oral contraceptives were being researched and only female versions ever made it to market, as well as the following decade when the ERA amendment failed to be ratified).

I'm having a hard time seeing why all men today are responsible as a gender for the very real historical inequities, and therefore possessing an alleged advantage by virture of our biology, when women had the potential to decide many of these issues in relatively recent history by sheer numbers alone. If 138 million men are somehow culpable, however indirectly, for the influence of the tiny fraction with real economic and political power, then why aren't 143 million women that much more responsible for failing to weild the influence that their sheer numbers alone are capable of? Just at the ballot box alone women can exert enormous influence, via the resulting regulations, tax codes, laws, etc. Not to mention the failure to ensure ratification of the ERA amendment. In fact it seems to me that if all women shared the same gender views and decided to rectify them then they could virtually dictate the immediate future politically, economically and socially just by voting enmasse.

What am I missing?

Posted by Kevin at 12:33 PM |

You say "elitist" like its a bad thing

Guest blogging over at Washington Monthly, Steve Waldman, fumbles around the rhetorical Maypole trying to make the point that most all liberals are godless heathens who look down their noses at religious people:

"Overwhelmingly, the white activists who shaped the Left of the 1960s have remained mired in a culture of hostility toward religion and spirituality. If this were merely a historical curiosity, I'd leave this issue to the cultural historians. But since the Left's hostility to religion and spirituality has become such a major stumbling block to the chances that progressive forces will ever win enough power to actually change the socially and environmentally destructive policies of the West, it becomes important to explore the roots of this hostility."

I had been making a narrower point – that many liberals carry an elitist attitude toward evangelical Christians. Lerner's indictment is far more sweeping. Is he being unfair? I think a distinction should be made between the elites and the rank and file on this. The fact is that most Democrats are religious. But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach.

First of all, props for making the statistical point (after the fact, but still) that there are a great many liberals who are religious. And many that consider themselves "spiritual", too.

I don't quite know what it means that secular liberals "seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach". If it means that liberals tend to take a strong stand toward a separation of church and state--then I would agree. I think many liberals see this as a fundamental issue of civil rights. Everyone should be allowed to have a representation in politics and government regardless of their spiritual (or lack thereof) beliefs.

That's the core, as far as I'm concerned. If someone drags out the "elitist" label and slaps it on this whole notion--well, then color me elitist.

"Elitist" is meant to conjour images of the snooty, buttoned-up snob who ignores the good old fashioned values of the rank and file. In reality, its not the liberals who should be slapped with that label. Its religious conservatives.

From my vantage point, its the religious conservative crowd that are working to foist their beliefs and lifestyles on the rest of us. If we choose not to accept their foisting then we're looked down upon as barbaric infidels deserving of mockery and scorn. (Its our fault that hurricanes show up in Florida and AIDS blew up into an epidemic. Joe McCarthy was right because it would have ended liberalism--you get the picture).

For Christian conservatives, liberals are objects of derision. The Bill O'Reillys, Ann Coulters, Karl Roves and Tony Perkins of the world take delight in bashing liberals, writing or talking about them with utter contempt.

The difference is, liberals are truely willing to examine their beliefs on a regular basis to determine if they are in fact doing something negative or evil toward conservatives. Rarely do we see a reciprocal exercise taking place with conservatives.

If Waldman is really looking to find detrimental examples of "elitism", he should look at where it truely exists: rightwing, Christian conservatism.

Posted by Carla at 09:31 AM |

Ca-Ching!

Every time Pat Robertson flaps his gums around an outrageous statement, I'm convinced his audience members sit down and write him a check.

Yesterday's checks musta been whoppers.

Although its entirely possible that there's a debit clause for projecting.

Posted by Carla at 09:27 AM |

"V-I-C-T-9/11-O-R-Y!"

Bush is giving yet another round of victory-in-Iraq pep rallies. I can name that tune in 3 words.



"GO. FIGHT. GOFIGHT9/11WIN!"

But wait, there's more from Josh Marshall!

Cut-n-Run by any other name would smell as...

President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence. Bush, who until now has resisted concrete timelines as the Iraq war dragged on longer than he expected, outlined the target in the first of a series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory.

Peace out with honor to you, too, Mr. President, you timeline-giving enemy-embolden-er.

THIS wouldn't have anything to do with it, either, of course: Iranian pact with Venezuela stokes fears of uranium sales.

"Hugo Chavez, come on down! You're the next contestant on the Axis of Evil!"

Meanwhile, North Korea is feeling left out and neglected, so they act out to get attention:

North Korea has the right to launch a pre-emptive attack against U.S.-backed South Korean forces because the two Koreas are technically still at war, the communist state's official media said on Tuesday.

Oh yeah, whatever happened to that Dubai/ports deal? Well, cut my legs off and call me Shorty:

Carlyle Group explores acquisition of port operations Private equity firm The Carlyle Group established a team to acquire public-purpose facilities such as ports a day after a United Arab Emirates company said it would transfer newly acquired operations at American ports to a U.S. organization.

Washington, D.C.-based Carlyle Group announced an eight-person team would invest in public-purpose infrastructure projects such as ports, transportation and water facilities, airports, bridges and stadiums. The team will begin work March 13.

The new infrastructure team had been planned for six months, but the Carlyle Group decided Thursday to launch it.

Got my duct tape, plastic sheeting, and can of tuna. I feel all safe and secure now.

Posted by Jeff at 07:06 AM |

March 13, 2006

New GOP logo for 08

Could there be a better logo?

I think not.

(via Ogged guesting at Washington Monthly)

Posted by Carla at 04:43 PM |

Russ Feingold for President

I'm just saying.

Posted by Carla at 04:17 PM |

Cardinal Mahoney's chickens have come home to roost

Cardinal Mahoney in LA is pissed at W:

December 30, 2005

The Honorable
George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

The House of Representatives recently passed a border-security Bill (H.R. 4437) that has enormous implications and ramifications for all of us in this country.

While I am surely in favor of taking appropriate government action to protect the borders of our country, not every action step is feasible or advisable. Apparently, the recently passed House Bill will require of all personnel of Churches and of all non-profit organizations to verify the legal immigration status of every single person served through our various entities.

In effect, priests, ministers, rabbis, and others involved in various Church-related activities will be forced top become "quasi-immigration enforcement officials." The Catholic Church alone offers a vast spectrum of services for all in need, including education, health care, and social services. Our golden rule has always been to serve people in need--not to verify beforehand their immigration status.

But the Bill imposes incredibly penalties upon any person assisting others' through a Church or a social service organization. Up to five years in prison and seizure of assets would accompany serving the poor who later turn out to be here without proper legal documentation.

One could interpret this Bill to suggest that any spiritual and pastoral service given to any person requires proof of legal residence. Are we to stop every person coming to Holy Communion and first ask them to produce proof of legal residence before we can offer them the Body and Blood of Christ?

Speaking for the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, such restrictions are impossible to comply with. The underlying basis for our service to others ,especially to the poor, is the example, words, and actions of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. The 25th chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel does not simply invite us to serve others in the name of Jesus, but offers such service as a requisite to the Kingdom of God:

"Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me."

Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen. I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'" (Matthew 25: 31-46)

This one example in Matthew's Gospel is foundational to our discipleship of Jesus Christ, and all that we do in service to those in need is done in light of our Baptismal commitments.

It is staggering for the federal government to stifle our spiritual and pastoral outreach to the poor, and to impose penalties for doing what our faith demands of us.

Throughout your Presidency, you have encouraged Faith Based Organizations to be strong partners in meeting the needs of the those in our communities. Yet, this Bill will produce the opposite effect.

You must speak out clearly and forcefully in opposition to these repressive---and impossible--aspects of any immigration reform efforts. Your personal leadership is needed to counter such ill-advised efforts.

Thanking you for giving strong leadership in this matter, and with kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

His Eminence
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony
Archbishop of Los Angeles

I think the good Cardinal deserves an answer to his plea. Make the jump to see my version.

Dear Cardinal Mahoney:

I read with interest your recent letter to President Bush, admonishing the House Republicans for passing a bill that would require churches to monitor the immigration status of those who avail themselves of your charitable services.

With all due respect Sir, what did you expect?

Churches have been working to influence government for centuries. Here in the United States, the past 5+ years have been a power play for Christian conservatives. When churches influence politics by allowing religion to influence the vote, it blurs the line between religion and government. That's not to say that churches don't have the "right" to influence politics. They do. But "should" they? I think the answer is most definitely not.

When the Bush Administration established the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, you were a strong and vocal proponent. The federal goverment doesn't give out taxpayer money for free. Eventually the bill will come due.

Or to use a different allegory: the chickens are coming home to roost.

Unless government maintains its distance from churches and vice versa, neither will remain strong for long.

I hope this series of events has taught that very important lesson to the leaders of churches in America.

Sincerely,

Carla

Posted by Carla at 12:28 PM |

Read it and weep.

Lifted whole from Truthout:

Forwarded from Marni Harmony, the minister of a church in Orlando. Joe is one of her parishioners.

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As a young man I was honored to serve our nation as a commissioned officer and helicopter pilot in the US Navy. Before me in WWII, my father defended the country spending two years in the Pacific aboard the USS Hornet (CV-14). We were patriots sworn "to protect and defend". Today I conclude that you have dishonored our service and the Constitution and principles of our oath. My dad was buried with full military honors so I cannot act for him. But for myself, I return enclosed the symbols of my years of service: the shoulder boards of my rank and my Naval Aviator's wings.

Until your administration, I believed it was inconceivable that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive and preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us. Until your administration, I thought it was impossible for our nation to take hundreds of persons into custody without provable charges of any kind, and to "disappear" them into holes like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Until your administration, in my wildest legal fantasy I could not imagine a US Attorney General seeking to justify torture or a President first stating his intent to veto an anti-torture law, and then adding a "signing statement" that he intends to ignore such law as he sees fit. I do not want these things done in my name.

As a citizen, a patriot, a parent and grandparent, a lawyer and law teacher I am left with such a feeling of loss and helplessness. I think of myself as a good American and I ask myself what can I do when I see the face of evil? Illegal and immoral war, torture and confinement for life without trial have never been part of our Constitutional tradition. But my vote has become meaningless because I live in a safe district drawn by your political party. My congressman is unresponsive to my concerns because his time is filled with lobbyists' largess. Protests are limited to your "free speech zones", out of sight of the parade. Even speaking openly is to risk being labeled un-American, pro-terrorist or anti-troops. And I am a disciplined pacifist, so any violent act is out of the question.

Nevertheless, to remain silent is to let you think I approve or support your actions. I do not. So, I am saddened to give up my wings and bars. They were hard won and my parents and wife were as proud as I was when I earned them over forty years ago. But I hate the torture and death you have caused more than I value their symbolism. Giving them up makes me cry for my beloved country.

Joseph W. DuRocher

Posted by Jeff at 10:44 AM |

The one with the capacity for abstract thought

Clooney (in character) then:

Pete: Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit?

Ulysses: Well Pete, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote.

-- O Brother Where Art Thou?, 2000

Clooney now:

"Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the runup to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and Bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bulls—.

"Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, 'We were misled.' It makes me want to shout, 'F— you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.'"

You got my vote, Everett. George. Whichever. Common sense and backbone, what a combination.

Posted by Jeff at 09:51 AM |

March 12, 2006

I'll show you mine if you'll show me your's

My medical insurance's prescription drug plan, thru my employer, doesn't offer any coverage for viagra or any other male sexual enhancing drugs. None, nada, zilch. It does, however, provide coverage for a wide range of oral contraceptives.

I'm curious how many other's out there have similar prescription insurance coverage.

As an aside, the corporate board of directers of my insurance provider (Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield) is heavily dominated by men, with two female board members and ten male board members. Similarly, the corporate executive team is likewise heavily dominated by men with one female executive and the rest being males. And the chief executive of each state-wide subsidiary is male as far as I can discern.

Update: Hmmm... now this is interesting. I'm at work putting in a little overtime on a project and my helper actually pointed this out to me...

It seems that there has been research done on Male Oral Contraceptives since the 1960s. And contrary to popular opinion, research into Female Oral Contraceptives only barely predates the research into a comparable male form. Even more interesting, and equally contrary to popular opinion, female oral contraceptives find their genesis in academic botany research rather than in a deliberate effort to come up with some means of relieving men of the burden of condoms.

Apparently, but not particularly surprising given how very different the male and female reproductive organs function, "(a)ll known substances that inhibit spermatogenesis (such as gossypol) inflict unacceptable side effects (such as permanent sterility), resulting in the male pill's continued unavailability." But all is not necessarily lost. There is apparently a plant which is still in the research phase which might work without the nasty side effects.

Posted by Kevin at 09:53 AM |

Next time I need a little extra to cover the bills...

On eBay, Atheist Puts Own Soul on Auction Block:

A few weeks ago, Hemant Mehta posted an unusual item for sale on eBay: a chance to save his soul.

The DePaul University graduate student promised the winner that for each $10 of the final bid, he would attend an hour of church services. The 23-year-old Mr. Mehta is an atheist, but he says he suspected he had been missing out on something.

"Perhaps being around a group of people who will show me 'the way' could do what no one else has done before," Mr. Mehta wrote in his eBay sales pitch. "This is possibly the best chance anyone has of changing me."

Evangelists bid, eager to save a sinner. Atheists bid, hoping to keep Mr. Mehta in their fold. When the auction stopped on Feb. 3 after 41 bids, the buyer was Jim Henderson, a former evangelical minister from Seattle, whose $504 bid prevailed.

I'm completely smitten by this story. After winning, Henderson hatched a deal with Mehta. Henderson asked to change the deal in order to have Mehta attend 10-15 of Henderson's sermons and then write a critique.

Henderson is an evangelical who rejects the current strain of conservative political movements. He wants to see Christianity move toward inclusion and helping people.

You'd think he was trying to follow the actual examples of Christ.

I think its fascinating that Mehta decided that his soul would be considered a commodity. Its a very clever fundraising scheme. But it would be especially interesting to see if Mehta undergoes a conversion. Or if Henderson does.

Posted by Carla at 08:26 AM |

March 11, 2006

I think I can, I think I can...



Posted by Carla at 02:17 PM |

Saturday Snippet



Cheese Gromit! Cheese!

Posted by Carla at 02:05 PM |

March 10, 2006

Culture of corruption

Here's a story which dovetails neatly with Carla's post below about Gail Norton's impending resignation and the possible ethical reasons behind it.

Corrente notes the NYT piece about the Indian chief who just happened to get an audience in 2001 with Bush Inc. just days after having given $25K to a conservative lobbying group as Jack Abramoff had directed them to do.

Corrente sums it up succinctly:


The whole Republican party is a criminal enterprise, rotten from top to bottom. The real question is, what isn’t corrupt with these guys?


Indeed!

Posted by Kevin at 12:59 PM |

Just one more....

Okay..in a shameless plug for Preemptive Karma..please consider heading over and voting for us for a Koufax Award!

You can vote for us here. We're nominated for Best Group Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Recognition.

Yeah..I'm pushing this a little hard. But I love this blog. It would mean a lot for it to get a special recognition.

Thanks!

Posted by Carla at 12:21 PM |

Two Americas, and we live in the Up-is-Down one.

So, it's one o' them e-lection years? That explains why this story won't get no play: Madrid Bombings Show No al-Qaida Ties.

You'd think this could be presented as progress in the War on Terra. Or maybe that's just crazy-talk!

Politicians are throwing each other under the Jesus-Bus, just so they can wave Pro-Life banners to their constituents from the windows. Red white and blue follies are one thing, but this is truly surreal. And not in a good way.

This, of course, is still one of the best ads I've ever seen.

Finally, here's something none of the Enron robber baron scumbags thought of. Don't just polish your appearance -- become a preacher!

Although the Scrush, beg pardon -- the Right Reverend Scrushy -- did check on their court case:

Scrushy Drops in on Enron Trial in Texas

HOUSTON - At least one person in the crowd packing the fraud and conspiracy trial of Enron Corp.‘s former chief executives can see things from their point of view — fired HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

Scrushy was acquitted last year of criminal charges stemming from a $2.7 billion accounting fraud at the Birmingham, Ala., medical services company. He spent five months in a federal courtroom and listened to five of his former CFOs testify against him.

"I wanted to hear for myself what was going on," Scrushy said. "I wouldn‘t believe anything that man (Fastow) said. This is horrible that there are people who would do something like this to a company."

Clearly, God has now answered Dick's prayers and given him cojones the size of basketballs. Only in Amurka®!

Posted by Jeff at 11:33 AM |

Yeah...we know how you feel



We've seen your approval ratings, too.

By the way, did you know that you have a buncha dudes checking out your ass?

Posted by Carla at 11:07 AM |

Breaking: Interior Sec. Gail Norton to resign

KCRA TV(Sacramento):

The Associated Press has learned that Interior Secretary Gale Norton is quitting her job.

A top government official and a source familiar with her decision told the AP she will announce the resignation Friday.

In more than five years in the Bush Cabinet, Norton has been a key Bush administration point person on natural resources and the environment.

Yup. If you're looking for the persons responsible for the enviornmental rape perpetuated by the Bush Administration, Norton is the implementor.

But is she quitting because she's become tired of pillaging the nation's national treasures?

Not likely:

Norton's tenure was also marked by repeated ethical controversies. Norton cleared her top deputy, former lobbyist J. Steven Griles, after her inspector general said his conduct showed that the department's ethics system was "a train wreck waiting to happen." Griles is now under investigation for allegations that he did the bidding of convicted Indian casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Norton is still supporting him.

Abramoff also funneled more than $500,000 to one of Norton's former political aides, Italia Federici, to gain access to her department, which makes key decisions about which tribes can open casinos. Norton said she had no qualms about Federici's activities.

Norton's BLM director Kathleen Clarke remained after apparently violating her recusals from a Utah land-swap that investigators said would have shortchanged the federal government. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said the deal involved a "jaw-dropping ... apparent cover-up" within Norton's department.

A Bush crony up to her bony little neck in corruption.

When they start telling you on the internets and the TV that Norton resigned to "spend more time with her family" or to "pursue other projects", don't believe them for a minute.

Posted by Carla at 10:50 AM |

Oh the snowflakes outside are frightful...

Living in western Oregon, our temperate climate doesn't yield much in the way of snow. Every once in a great while we'll get a small amount in January or February. So when it happens in March, its an event.

Yesterday we awoke to snow on the ground. My children displayed the typical glee of kids thrilling to an unusual event (not to mention a 2 hour start delay for school). It snowed off and on throughout the day. Massive white, wet flakes that melted as they touched the ground.

My 12 year old daughter was duly impressed with the show. When I picked her up from the bus stop yesterday we had quite a conversation about it:

Daughter: Mom did you see it snowing today?

Me: Yes I did. The snowflakes were huge, weren't they?

D: I saw them from the hallway window at school!

Me: That must have been exciting.

D: It was! It looked like a bunch of seagulls had blown up over the school and all their feathers were floating to the ground!

Me:(laughing) Wow. I hadn't really thought about it that way. Honestly, that's kind of gross.

D: Well, they really did look like big, white feathers. Didn't you think?

Me: Yeah. But I think you're watching too much TV.

This weekend I think we'll make a trip to the library. Blown up seagulls? Yikes!

Posted by Carla at 09:11 AM |

March 09, 2006

Mea Culpa

In a couple of recent post's comment threads (here and here) about reproductive rights the rhetoric got charged. And I am as responsible for that as anyone, perhaps more so. It's an issue about which I feel passionately and have very definite views. But, that passion and those views probably seem to have come out of nowhere to most of our readers. So, perhaps a bit of background is in order.

The Passion

For whatever reason I didn't adapt to puberty very well. Oh sure, the hormones began raging in me just like they did in all of my peers. And God knows I found girls deliciously attractive. Some of them seemed to feel the same way about me. But, it didn't take me very long to realize that I seemed to have an emotional/mental quirk that few of my peers seemed to have. My quirk was really rooted in the way that I viewed the female gender... most certainly stemming from my perceptions of my own mother, who was and is exceptionally intelligent, strong, "liberated" and always insisted on being respected as an individual with thoughts and desires of her own. My father has always been a very manly man and no intellectual slouch himself. But she was clearly his intellectual superior, IMHO, and he treated her with the utmost of respect.

For post-puberty Kevin, respect was paramount in my mind when it came to those deliciously attractive girls. Nothing was to be taken for granted. Girls were my equal in every way, regardless of the biological differences that had recently become so painfully obvious to me. In short, it simply never occurred to me to grant them any less of a fundamental respect than my parents had modeled for me at home. And in my mind that meant that I absolutely had to take their thoughts and feelings into consideration, particularly in the realm of romance. It was like an internal compulsion over which I had no control, and which I frankly never even considered trying to control or moderate. It was and remains... default mode for me.

The one example that sticks out in my memory the sharpest and which I think might help explain this quirk of mine was an incident when I was in 7th grade in a very small rural school. One day I heard thru the grapevine that Mike, the most popular boy in the school and an 8th grader, and Amy, the cutest girl in the school by virtually everyone guy's definition (she had a very Bo Derek look... which surely dates me. LOL) and also an 8th grader had crawled under the stage in the gym during recess and "made out." Now, I've always had a reasonably high EQ and have always been a people-watcher. So, I was certain that Amy didn't particularly like Mike. She certainly didn't seem attracted to him in the boyfriend/girlfriend sense. So in my mind it seemed like an obvious case of her having gone along with Mike's desire because he was popular. That offended me. Very deeply in fact. I didn't think she should have put out for any other reason than because she genuinely wanted to. More to the point, I thought that it had been fundamentally disrespectful of Mike to have pressured her into doing it. I never forgot that incident or how I processed it in my mind. Of course I may have misread the situation. She may actually have found Mike very desirable. But, that's of little consequence here. My reaction to it is.

I never lost that respect quirk. And from that initial mental processing of the adventures of Mike and Amy until the present I always felt that this quirk put me out of step with the majority of my male peers. While I desired any kind of physical intimacy with an attractive girl as badly as any boy ever had, I would never pressure a girl to be physicaly intimate with me. In fact it actually became somewhat of a "problem" for me a bit later on in life. What I mean by that is that there was more than one girl who liked my but who lost interest because I never "made a move" on her. What they didn't understand was that it wasn't a lack of desire, but rather that I fundamentally had to know that any advances were explicitly wanted and welcome before I would even dream of pursuing physical intimacy. And coy subtle hints simply didn't suffice. It had to be explicit before I was sure of it, and I had to be sure of it to go any further. Instead they misinterpreted my lack of advances as lack of physical desire and ended the budding relationship before it really got started. At the time it confused me greatly, but I understand it now.

So my passion is that I start from a default mode of respect and I require respect in return. Equality is, in my mind, merely a facet of respect. I am about nothing if not as perfect of an equality as any circumstance allows. I try mightily to live by the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And when another person violates that without cause (ie. disrespects me) I react emotionally, regardless of whether the slight was real or perceived. For me, intellectually processing it always follows my emotional reaction, never preceeds it. Which I must admit can sometimes be a liability.

And for any who might be thinking that maybe this guy was one of those nerdy guys who was spurned by girls and never learned how to cope with that, nothing could be further from the truth. I was actually extremely popular growing up. Somewhat less so when I got to High School, though. But, even there I was popular and never had any shortage of eligible girls who wanted my attention. But the truth of the matter is that none of that really mattered to me at those ages. It was just the way things had always been and I really was never able to put any of it into perspective until I was much older and watched my girls go thru school and not be as popular as I had been. Between that and talking to same-age peers who had not been popular in school really helped me begin to grasp how easy life had been for me in school.

The Views

What almost none of you could have known is that men's reproductive rights has been a particular interest of mine for several years.

In late 2000 I joined the AOL Senate Simulation. Which is where I first met Carla, Donald (a commenter here and writer at Indie Castle) and a couple other blog writers listed on our blogrolls - one of whom I'm pretty sure wants to remain anonymous in the context of the Senate SIM, so I'm not going to name names beyond Carla and Donald.

Near the end of my two year stint playing a pretend Senator I decided to try my hand at crafting a Bill and trying to shepard it thru the political process of the SIM to a hoped for signiture into law by the SIM President. I crafted two Bills and both ended up being signed into SIM law. One of them dealt squarely with the issue of men's reproductive rights. You can read a brief write-up about it as well as the linked copy of the actual SIM Bill here.

The thing that genuinely surprised me about that experience was that I got the stiffest resistance from the very group I thought would be most receptive - Liberals/Progressives. Even more surprising was the fact that it was the Liberal men who fought me tooth and nail trying to get my Bill thru committee. It certainly wasn't every Liberal player nor every Liberal guy, but it was a very vocal minority. There were probably an equal percentage of Conservatives who weren't receptive to my Bill. But they didn't fight me... at all! They just didn't vote for it.

A couple years later, after I'd left the SIM, I went thru a period where I became a frequent poster on one of the myriad AOL message boards. This one was focused on the single parent and custody issues and was totally dominated by women, most of whom were very outspoken feminists and abortion rights supporters. There were a couple or so other guys who were regulars on the board. But we were the definite minority, and I was the only one with custody of my kids. Being a single dad I have long found that single mom's best understood what my daily life was like, and vice versa. So anway I chimed in with the never ending stream of opinions that is my existance in this physical reality (:::grins:::). One day I decided to post the above link to my SIM Bill and see what happened. What ensued was basically the same as what I'd experienced in the SIM game. I was called a mysogynist and roundly dismissed as having any grasp of the issues at play or their importance.

All of the preceeding is "baggage" that I brought with me to the two recent posts and the resulting conversations. I'm big enough to admit that I probably saw slights where none existed because I was expecting a repeat of my past experiences. For any who were offended, you have my sincere apology. I hope this post has put it all into a more understandable context. And for those who dismiss the importance of men's reproductive rights... please reconsider and remember the Golden Rule. If you want me to respect your inalienable rights, respect my inalienable rights

In summary, I am passionate about equality, or at least my perception of equality. It is definitely one of my hot button issues! I see lack of equality as a fundamental miscarriage of justice... for better or for worse.

With that I'm going to wrap this up for any who may have read this far. LOL

Posted by Kevin at 06:50 PM |

The Devil went down to Georgia...and Louisiana and Tennessee and Kansas and Indiana and Nebraska...

When I read John Cole's exhortation of the current GOP amalgam of fiscal and social conservatives, I started getting all Charlie Daniels on myself.

The Republican Party sold its soul in order to win. Their deal with the Devil has sent them down a path of unethical, immoral and illegal behavior from which they will take generations to recover. Unfortunately because of their complete grip on power, the nation is waning as well. The GOP hasn't just sold their own soul. They've bartered out the soul of the nation.

But as a commentor on John's post notes:

I believe the old saying is: “If you sup with the devil, you better have a long spoon.”

Well here’s a more recent saying: “There is no spoon.”

It’s not we didn’t warn you. Fiscal conservatives made a bargin with the Christo-fascists so they could ascend to power. Now the bill has come due.

I'm not so sure the "bill has come due" yet, mostly because the Democrats have demonstrated themselves to be just inept enough at campaigning to to keep much of the electorate at bay. But he is right that the GOP built themselves up on a nonexistent foundation.

And when they fall, the crash will be thunderous.

I just hope they do it before they bring the whole country to its knees.




Posted by Carla at 04:48 PM |

Out of the mouths of babes

Another ray of hope:

As public schools cope with conflicts over homosexuality, they can now get some tips from an unlikely pair: conservative Christians and gay advocates.

Leaders of those groups have agreed on guidelines for how educators, parents and teachers should deal with any aspect of school life involving sexual orientation.

Unveiled on Thursday, the guidance is meant to be a First Amendment framework for finding common ground — essentially, a way to get people talking instead of screaming at each other.

Kevin and I have been arguing in comments over the burdens and rights of women vs men when it comes to reproductive issues and parent's rights. In our passion to impress points on one another I think we both sometimes talked past each other. Being entrenched in your own POV is very easy to do.

With these passionate beliefs and the desire to express them comes that feeling of ultimate "rightness" which can be hard to shake. While the groups cited in this story probably have those feelings too, they're at least looking for ways to model civil discourse. And maybe they'll find ways to accumulate some common ground in the end.

That's one of the things I most enjoy about Kevin--his ability to look for common ground with people. He's genuinely brilliant at it. Its something I consistently struggle with. And with this one particular topic its been difficult for us to find it.

I hope I can continue to learn from him--even when we don't agree. Its certainly made me a more thoughtful person, I think.

Posted by Carla at 12:45 PM |

Field Museum opts for truth, justice and the American way

Via Shakes Sis, I see that Chicago's Field Museum is giving the pro-science crowd a shout out:

On Friday, Chicago's renowned Field Museum will become the latest institution to combat creationism with a new permanent exhibit detailing the process of evolution.

At a preview of the exhibit earlier this week, the Field's president said museums need to lead the defense of evolution because they don't face the same level of "intimidation" as schools.

John McCarter also warned that the United States is in danger of losing its position as a technological leader because efforts to add the religiously-based theory of intelligent design to school curriculums is undermining the culture of scientific inquiry.

The Field Museum was already one of the premier places in the US to view the evolution of the Earth. Now they'll take up the mantle that the American Taliban has tried to erase from the school system: science inquiry with evolution.

I have a feeling it won't be long before some rightwing media group tries to organize a boycott of the Field and attempts to undermine their funding. But as long as there are some people out there brave enough to stand up to this bullying--there's still some hope.

Posted by Carla at 12:35 PM |

The one that nearly got away

In all the hoopla over abortion bans, both passed and proposed, this little nugget touching on Alabama's current legislative session almost escaped my notice:

When Would Jesus Bolt?
Meet Randy Brinson, the advance guard of evangelicals leaving the GOP.

Amy Sullivan lays it out; long but worth your time. Hat tip to Doc's Political Parlor & Home of Lawn Mower Repair.

Posted by Jeff at 11:40 AM |

Remember your oath

This is so good that it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Baltimore Sun:

Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Republican who represents Harford and Cecil counties, engaged in an impassioned debate with Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor from American University, over the influence of the Bible on modern law.

"As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God - that is my belief," she said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals."

Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers' guiding principle.

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," he said.

Now THAT is framing, baby.

Every single time a legislator or other elected official prattles on about America's religious standards and ideas..and how we must adhere to them--that must be the response.

Its been so easy for the fringe Christian right to inscinuate themselves into the fabric of our electoral processes.

I love how Raskin cuts through the bullshit..laying it out perfectly. This nation wasn't founded on Christian principles or ethics or ideas. It was founded upon law. This is about standing up for our Constitution and our Democratic Republic.

Lawmakers who put their Bible above our Constitution when it comes to governance must be held accountable at the ballot box. They endanger the very fabric of what this nation was build upon.




Posted by Carla at 11:28 AM |

March 08, 2006

Shorter South Dakota

Bill Napoli(R-Rapid City):

Unless you're a religious virgin or can undergo a divine hymen renewal project, you'd better plan to marry your rapist and raise yourself a happy family.

Posted by Carla at 07:19 PM |

Not that history is always a guide, but its interesting anyway.

The Hill:

Dem pollster Mark Mellman writes, "each new poll elicits excitement among" Dems, while "deepening" GOP depression. If the nat'l political environment "alone determines electoral outcomes," '06 "is shaping up as a banner year" for Dems. Putting "today's numbers in historical context" shows "a major wave building." Dems lost 54 House seats in '94 when Pres. Bill Clinton's approval rating was at 38%, while Bush's approval rating is currently at 38%. Dems lost 29 seats in '50 when Pres. Harry Truman's rating was 39%, and GOPers lost 26 seats in '82 when Ronald Reagan was at 42%. Since "the advent of polling, no president with an approval rating below" 50% has "lost fewer than the 15 seats" Dems need to retake the House

Posted by Carla at 05:06 PM |

PK Update

Sheelzebub has withdrawn to focus what little spare time she can find these days (gawd, who can't identify with that?!) on her Pinko Feminist Hellcat blog.

We at PK sincerely appreciate what she brought to this group and will miss seeing her name emblazened on our pages here.

Please visit her at her main digs and give her some PK lovin'.

Posted by Kevin at 01:16 PM |

It's about damn time!

The Oregonian is carrying an AP piece about a first-of-it's-kind court case seeking to grant prospective fathers the legal right to opt out of legal parenthood.


The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly." (emphasis supplied)


The plaintiff expects to lose the case.


"What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."


I expect he will lose. And probably on the merits of his case. (the circumstances surrounding how I first became a father would have made a better case, IMO) But, it will be very interesting to see how "Pro-Choice" activists react. Are they truly dedicated to the concept of reproductive choice? Or do they only support "choice" for women while a man is relegated to the legal subhuman status of merely being a workhorse representing a convenient source of funds to pay for the child... should the women choose to have it?


Posted by Kevin at 12:59 PM |

The Man Who Would Be King

What to do with a President who tries to make himself King?

Ray McGovern stumps for impeachment of George W. Bush:

The die is now cast. The president has placed himself above the law, just as he did in authorizing torture. On the eavesdropping issue, the case is clear cut. The president has thrown down the gauntlet, saying, in effect: I did it; I continue to do it; I dare you to try to stop me; I don’t care what the law says. The founders wrote into the Constitution an orderly process to deal with a president or other high official who starts acting as though he is above the law—a political process that obviates the need for an insurrection or coup. It is called impeachment.

I haven't written much about impeaching Bush..mostly because I've felt it a little heavy handed. And not especially realistic given that the House isn't likely to turn over to the Dems, even in 06.

But perhaps its time the Republicans started to look at this too. They certainly wouldn't want a Democratic president claiming the sorts of powers Bush has grabbed--and thumbing their nose at Congress when they're back out of power.

Eight Congresspersons have attached their name to a bill requesting an investigation into impeachable offenses by Bush. All Democratic, of course. But there are some Republicans who've started to rattle the impeachment cage.

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr has spoken out against the NSA wiretapping, accusing Bush of violating the Constitution. While I can no longer locate Barr's piece at the Atlanta Journal Constitution recommending the election of a Democratic Congress to reign in the President, a Kos diary excerpting it can be found here.
Congressman Ron Paul is predicting Bush's impeachment, stating that the US is sliding dangerously close to a dictatorship.

Four towns in Vermont are pushing for Bush's impeachment as well. A Republican running for Congress in Vermont is using impeachment of Bush as part of his platform:

Dennis Morrisseau, 62, of West Pawlet, plans to seek the Republican nomination to run for U.S. House of Representatives. The seat is being vacated by Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., who plans a run for the U.S. Senate.

A central part of his platform, Morrisseau said, will be bringing articles of impeachment against Bush.

Now that the "I-word" has made it into the lexicon of the mainstream media, more Republicans will be forced to sit up and consider it.

A girl can dream, anyway.

Posted by Carla at 07:20 AM |

Ain't no 'moral' about this story!

"I don't pay attention to ads, they don't affect me. I drink what I like." -- guy drinking a Bud Lite, wearing a brand-new Bud Lite cap

I'm a long-suffering (but still easily-amused) veteran of advertising and marketing. Things like this make me spray coffee. You have been warned.

Boston Legal, last night. Political spin-doctor is helping unscrupulous lawyer William Shatner "brand" his client, a guy who electrified his house after multiple burglaries and then bragged about roasting a would-be robber, paralyzing the guy.

And the spin-doctor comes up with: "Here's the American flag banner, of course your client's face will be here instead of Jimmy Stewart's, and this should be behind you every minute you're on camera; Joe Smith: American Homeowner. I used the same font as the 'Mission Accomplished' banner (Americans are comfortable with that font)..."

Media circus ensues. Branding happens. Prosecutor asks the jury candidates what they think, have they heard about this on the news, and one after another they say: "American Homeowner. Protecting his own. I'd do the same thing... American Homeowner..." Case never even goes to trial.

Lesson (ain't no 'moral' about this story!): "There are no facts, not anymore; just good fiction and bad fiction."

Can't tell the art from the life, these days. Maybe artifice is the better word. But anytime I hear spin-doctoring talk, all about fonts, branding, logos, and other buzzword-laden ("proactive!") discussion I flashback to the old days, the agony and the ecstasy, the total absurdity that somehow GOT RESULTS YOU COULD SELL.

Someone poetically-inclined oughta write something like that, y'know, about the entire world is like... a stage. Or something.

Even More Outrageous Spin (warning: for those about to spew):

Microsoft is the hippest hottest poppin'est lockin'est -- getcha groove on, get with the scene, it's hammer time. And other we-couldn't-be-cool-if-we-were-butt-naked-in-Antarctica phrases.

Wal-Mart's Blogging Blunder. Lowering the bar, every day!

The good folks at CENTCOM are trying to get all buddy-buddy with bloggers. You know, web-LOG, like, an online journal diary thingie? Whose hearts and minds are we trying to win, again? "Oh, cool! If I enlist now, I get 3 free downloads from iTunes!"

Posted by Jeff at 06:53 AM |

March 07, 2006

Yes. He really is this stupid.

AP:

Rep. Tom DeLay, whose association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has left him politically vulnerable, is spending Texas' primary night Tuesday at a fundraiser hosted by two Washington lobbyists.

DeLay faces three opponents in the Republican primary. For the first time in the 22 years he's held office, he is up against a serious challenge after being forced out of his job as House majority leader amid corruption and campaign finance scandals.

The fundraiser is being held by lobbyists Bill Paxon and Susan Molinari, both former members of Congress from New York. The event will raise money for DeLay's re-election campaign.

Shorter DeLay: Shove your ethics up your ass.




Posted by Carla at 11:04 AM |

US Envoy to Iraq: hindsight is such a bitch

The day that the US invasion began in Iraq, I watched the initial bombings on TV in a teacher's lounge during a break at work. I remember thinking that we were opening up the gates of Hell...and that this mistake was going to take years to unravel and put right.

The top US envoy to Iraq now sees Pandora's Box I saw three years ago:

The top U.S. envoy to Iraq said Monday that the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime had opened a "Pandora's box" of volatile ethnic and sectarian tensions that could engulf the region in all-out war if America pulled out of the country too soon.

In remarks that were among the frankest and bleakest public assessments of the Iraq situation by a high-level American official, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the "potential is there" for sectarian violence to become full-blown civil war.

For now, Iraq has pulled back from that prospect after the wave of sectarian reprisals that followed the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, he said. But "if another incident [occurs], Iraq is really vulnerable to it at this time, in my judgment," Khalilzad said in an interview with The Times.

Abandoning Iraq in the way the U.S. disengaged from civil wars in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Somalia could have dramatic global repercussions, he said.

"We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" Khalilzad said. "The way forward, in my view, is an effort to build bridges across [Iraq's] communities."

I don't see how we can build those bridges now. We've undermined our ability long ago to win over the Iraqi people.

The lack of planning for post invasion Iraq has hemmed us in. We can certainly stay and hope we'll get the place somewhat stabilized before we bug out, but since we're part of the destabilization problem, that doesn't seem especially plausible.

Professor Juan Cole's latest reports from Iraq outline a total and complete mess:

The Iraqi general in charge of Baghdad security was killed by a sniper on Monday. I suppose it doesn't need underlining that this is very bad news for Baghdad security. The assassinated commander, himself a Sunni Arab who led men during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, was almost certainly the victim of an inside job. The Iraqi military is deeply infiltrated by guerrilla supporters

Obviously the US military can't trust the Iraqi military because of the infiltrations. What I don't understand is...how in the heck the infiltrations were allowed to happen in the first place? How could we be so unprepared to deal with something THIS basic?

This mess is magnified with the infighting among the different religious and ethnic factions as to who should be the Prime Minister. They're so fractured that noone can step forward to take the helm.

Theocratic democracy: a contradiction in terms brought to you by your Bush Administration.

And to think that so many of us saw this sort of thing coming on Invasion Day.

Posted by Carla at 10:09 AM |

March 06, 2006

Everything old is new again

Maha is reporting that the Bush Team is ramping up their pitch to go after Iran.

Iran says the evidence against them is fabricated. Bush's people can't seem to decide if they're going the diplomatic route or the war route. They've got different reps saying different things.

As Maha wonders...who whose really in charge? Guess we'll see.

Fasten your seatbelts. Its looking like it might be time to destablize another Middle Eastern nation.

Posted by Carla at 12:00 PM |

Campaigning for their hearts and minds... literally.

Culture Campaign, "exists to help church and para-church organizations reenlist believers into the culture war one believer at a time." As part of that goal Culture Campaign has just unveiled their new online voter guide for the upcoming Illinois primary election.


"This (online voter guide) has the potential to change the political landscape here in Illinois. Candidate positions on the important moral issues of the day will be easily accessible." said Sandy Rios, President of Culture Campaign and FOX News contributor.


So being the curious sort I decided to check out this voter guide. In particular I was curious about the vaunted "important moral issues of the day" aspect, especially since it comes from an overtly "Christian" organization. Implicit in that fact is the notion that these are important Christian moral issues of the day.


First of all the voter guide requires one to plug in both a street address and a zip code so that the results can be customized for voters in a particular district. So I tracked down an address and zip code in Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R Ill-14) district.

It quickly became apparent that the way this voter guide works is that Culture Campaign formulated a questionaire for each election and asked each candidate to respond just to the issues CC raised in this questionaire. Mind you these are allegedly the "important moral issues of the day."

Hastert is up for re-election so I focused on that race. CC posed three questions to the candidates (Hastert is unopposed but two Dems are vying in the primary for the right to challenge him). Well... they apparently posed more than three questions, but only three made it to the voter's guide. So presumably these three are THE "important (Christian) moral issues of the day" in Culture Campaign's estimation.




• Q: 1. Abortion in military medical facilities (2005 - hostile amendment to H.R. 1815): Support, Oppose, or Undecided?


• Q: 3. Adding "sexual orientation" to federal "Hate Crime" laws (2005 - H.R. 259): Support, Oppose, or Undecided?


• Q: 6. Federal legislation making it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion if this is done to evade a state parental involvement law (2005 - H.R. 748 - Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act): Support, Oppose, or Undecided?



That's it! Abortion in military facilities, sexual orientation and minor's access to abortion. Those are apparently the burning "Christian" moral issues of the day.

Apparently tax cuts for the wealthy (Matthew 19:21) and cutting funding for the needy (Matthew 25:34) in light of the growing chasm between the "have's" and the "have not's" in America isn't an "important (Christian) moral issue of the day."

Interestingly enough... Illinois ranks dead last among 8 midwest states on poverty, with nearly 12.5% of it's citizens living at or below the absurdly low federal poverty level and 29% struggle to pay bills on twice that income. 41.5% are either struggling or not making it and that's not an important moral issue of the day for Christians? Democratic hopeful John Laesch explicitly puts it into "moral" terms.

Apparently waging a war of aggression (Matthew 5:9, 6:38&39) isn't an "important (Christian) moral issue of the day" either, despite what Jesus said. But then again Jesus put helping the needy into moral terms too.

One thing I did find interesting is that Culture Campaign asked state level candidates about "Legislation to expand gambling in Illinois (adding slot machines or casinos)" but didn't ask that of the Congressional candidates. Which is interesting in light of Congressman Hastert, allegedly at the request of Jack Abrahmoff, co-signiture of a 2003 letter endorsing a view of gambling law benefiting the Coushattas Indian tribe's desire to block gambling competition by another tribe. So gambling is apparently an "important (Christian) moral issue of the day" only for state level candidates.

The list could go on of course. Jesus taught a lot of things that don't appear to be considered "important moral issues of the day" by the allegedly "Christian" Culture Campaign. Not that you're likely to hear about any of that from a rightwing Church.

Posted by Kevin at 09:43 AM |

WalMart to sell morning after pill

Another defeat for the American Taliban:

Officials of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced Friday the company will reverse its earlier policy and stock emergency contraception pills in all of its pharmacies effective March 20, saying the giant retailer could not justify being the country’s only major pharmacy chain not to carry the morning-after pill.

The announcement comes after Massachusetts last month ordered the world’s largest retailer to stock the so-called Plan B pill, following a lawsuit by three Boston women against Wal-Mart.

WalMart might be socially conservative in many respects, but they're not stupid. They know that they'll lose customers if they're the only place not selling a product.

The "news" story on this from the Christian Newswire Service is hilarious:


Wal-Mart Caves in to Pro-Abortion Extremists on 'Morning After Pill'

Contact: Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International (LDI), 540-631-0380, ext. 22, ldi@fightpp.org

WASHINGTON, Mar. 6 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Douglas R. Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI), today blasted executives of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for the decision to "turn their backs on American families" by reneging on a promise to not carry the so-called "Morning After Pill" (also known as "emergency contraception," "emergency birth control," or "Plan B").

On Friday, March 3, 2006, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced it had caved in to the demands of pro-abortion extremists. Beginning on March 20, the deadly drug will be carried in all of its pharmacies. The company is currently required to sell the product only in Illinois and Massachusetts, though New York and Connecticut are expected to deny corporate officials and pharmacists their "right to choose" in the near future.

Ron Chomiuk, Wal-Mart's vice president of Pharmacy, blamed the corporate cowardice on state policymakers. "We expect more states to require us to sell emergency contraceptives [EC] in the months ahead," he said in a company press release. "Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it." Chomiuk said the decision was made after "careful consideration" and in the belief that the company is "doing what is best for the business."

The pro-abortion goliath Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) issued a statement gloating over Wal-Mart's announcement. PPFA led the effort to pressure Wal-Mart to stock and fill prescriptions for "emergency" birth control. "Wal-Mart's decision to stock EC will help women...prevent unintended pregnancy and that's a positive step for the health of women and families," PPFA boss Cecile Richards said.

Doug Scott's piece here borders on hysteria. Its also "news" the same way that Bill O'Reilly's programming is "news". Lots of opinion with a few skewd facts thrown in for seasoning.

The irony for WalMart would be if groups associated with people like Scott decide to boycott WalMart while WalMart is also being boycotted by labor groups and community organizations who don't want them.

Posted by Carla at 07:07 AM |

March 05, 2006

Shock and Awe

Sitting around in my jammies tonight--I was gloating to myself that I had managed to do such a stellar job on my Oscar picks. I had managed to pick 18 out of 23 correct.

And then came Best Picture.

I was just sure it would be Brokeback Mountain. And damn me..it was Crash.

Coulda knocked me over with a feather.

(Now back to your regularly scheduled blog reading)

Posted by Carla at 09:06 PM |

Preemptive Karma--Koufax us!

Preemptive Karma was honored this year with a Koufax nomination in two categories:

Blog Most Deserving of Wider Recognition and Best Group Blog.

Koufax Awards are the big deal of the liberal blogosphere..and really it IS an honor just to be nominated. But like many awards, its a bigger deal to win.

Preemptive Karma is a labor of love. Its wonderful to have the opportunity for the fruits of our labor be some blogosphere kudos.

It would mean a lot to us if you'd take a couple of minutes to click on the links and vote for us in one or both of the categories.

Update: Oops! My bad. Please cast your vote here! (Don't forget to mention the categories:

Best Group Blog: Preemptive Karma
Blog Most Deserving of Wider Recognition: Preemptive Karma

Or whichever blog you think deserves to win)

Posted by Carla at 04:43 PM |

Church of Reality demands exception to S. Dakota abortion law

This is one way to get noticed:

The decision of the State of South Dakota to ban all abortions puts a substantial burden on the sincerely held beliefs of the Church of Reality which believes that a woman has an absolute right to an early term abortion without any outside restrictions. The right of a woman to control her own reproduction is vital to the advancement of society which is necessary to advance the cause of exploring reality the way it really is.

This law violates several of the Sacred Principles including but not limited to, the Principle of Freedom, Principle of Privacy, Principle of Positive Evolution, Principle of Inclusiveness, Principle of Compassion, Principle of Environmentalism, Principle of Personal Responsibility and the Principle of Wisdom. We cannot grow as a society where the government can command our women to bear children against their will. We are a fiercely independent and individualistic religion that places great sanctity on the value of personal choice which includes one of the most personal of all decisions, the decision of bearing children.

Wow.

I'm digging these guys. Any spiritual organization that wants its members to be "fiercely independent and individualistic" gets kudos from me. Sheep need not apply.

But here's where they make the sale:

For thousands of years women have suffered persecution as second class beings and have been forced into a state of oppression based on religious doctrine. The Church of Reality takes the position that the human race will be far better off by helping women become fully equal in status to men. In order to accomplish sexual equality women need to be empowered. We hold that the rights of women have intrinsic value and that society is diminished when women are denied the ability to make their own life decisions and to control their own destiny.

Oh yeah...preach to me!





Posted by Carla at 04:28 PM |

Another book to add to my Jesus reading collection

Instead of finding the roots to his former faith, Bart Ehrman crumbled the core of the one he was living in:

Once he was a seminarian and graduate of the Moody Bible Institute, a pillar of conservative Christianity. Its doctrine states that the Bible "is a divine revelation, the original autographs of which were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit."

But after three decades of research into that divine revelation, Ehrman became an agnostic. What he found in the ancient papyri of the scriptorium was not the greatest story ever told, but the crumbling dust of his own faith.

The dust crumbled away for me a long time ago. But I've never completely understood why--or why isn't hasn't crumbled for others.

I think Ehrman's book might be a piece of that puzzle.

When I set out on this effort to look into the history of Christianity and the Bible, I asked myself why I was doing it. Did I want ammunition to argue against the religion that I believed tried to squelch my intellect? Was I seeking revenge against a faith that I felt so damaged by?

In all honesty, I think I can't dismiss that possibility. I do think that a part of me wants to have the knowledge stored--to use it someday to verify to my family and friends that I was right in walking away and that they're silly not to.

But it's not the paramount or primary reasoning for this search.

I want to understand myself. I want clarification on the unraveling of my early belief system. And I want validation that on an intellectual and reasonable level--that I've done the right thing.

Its weird to want intellectual validation on a spiritual matter. But I don't care. I suppose because I feel the spiritual validation is already settled for me. But it gnaws at my need for academic understanding.

And so I keep on learning and studying.

Posted by Carla at 11:19 AM |

March 03, 2006

Duke Cunningham's briber about to roll over?

A DC political operative has told me that Brent Wilkes, one of the individuals charged with bribing Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, has struck a deal with prosecutors to testify.

Wilkes will implicate four more Republicans for possible criminal activity: Richard Pombo,John Doolittle,Duncan Hunter, and Jerry Lewis.

The operative says that they are "highly certain" that this information is accurate. This hasn't hit any media outlets as far as I know..so I have no way of second sourcing it.

The same source is also indicating that Republican Congressman Tom DeLay will step down if he wins his primary. This would allow for the RNC to appoint someone new to his seat to run against the Democrat in November.

Stay tuned.

Posted by Carla at 03:53 PM |

Redundant

Blue Parrot:

I was going to take a pot shot at photo radar for this column, then I stumbled across Ann Coulter's diatribe on the Oscars. Her rant is designed not to amuse or inform, but to offend. The column is racist, homophobic and facist.

"Ann Coulter" is a synonym for racist, homophobic and fascist. Get with the program, dude.

Posted by Carla at 12:00 PM |

Newsworthy via TomPaine.com

Just a quick rundown of several hot news stories on the TomPaine.com: Newsworthy section:




• Bush knew that the intel he and Cheney were citing visa vis Iraq were questionable before he ordered the invasion. In fact the preponderance of evidence showed that Saddam was most likely to attack the United States, either directly or indirectly thru a terrorist group, only if he were attacked.


• Secret Pentagon intelligence agency tied to the "Duke" Cunningham official corruption probe. The most glaring example is a $6 million data storage system which actually only cost about $600,000 (1/10 of the contract price) and has languished in a warehouse because it's not even compatible with the system it was designed for.


• Bush's much vaunted Health Savings Accounts would prove to be a massive boon to America's wealthiest and healthiest citizens. In other words, those who need it the most would get the least benefit. Not that anyone should be surprised by that.



Posted by Kevin at 10:05 AM |

The "center" isn't the place for the Fourth Estate

The media in the US has taken a beating by the right for being lanted "liberal" and a beating from the left for being slanted "conservative".

Which means they're somewhere in the middle.

Is being biased to the middle a negative? Not if you're one of those self-identifying pretend "centrists". But if you're in a search for actual news, its not a net positive:

The bias of the center plays out in several ways. Politicians are always praised for making gestures to the center, no matter how hollow, from Bill Clinton's meaningless attack on Sister Souljah to George W. Bush's empty "compassionate conservativism," while consistent adherence to political priniciples that are either conservative or liberal are viewed as the height of folly.

Look at the case of John McCain, the media's preferred candidate for president. There are indeed some admirable things about the Arizona Republican -- his military service, and his strength in taking what he learned as a POW and making a moral stand against tortune. But McCain is also an enthusiastic supporter of the most amoral military gambit in moden U.S. history, in Iraq; a pol who winks at the media on abortion while maintaining an anti-abortion record; and a leading advocate for campaign finance reform, but only after he was caught red-handed in one of the biggest campaign-finance abuses in modern Senate history.

We would call someone like John McCain "maddingly inconsistent."

But most in the media call that "a maverick politician who tells it like is."

Go figure.

Make no mistake: "Bias of the center" is out-and-out bias. It assumes that there are only two sides to every story, a right and a left, and that both are always wrong in a way that only a blending of the two can be right. In reality, there are three sides to American politics, a right, a left, and a center. So then, is bias of the center really bias?

Of course it is.

The left and the right are not equally wrong on every issue. They're not equally correct, either. The alleged "center" is an attempt to mix these two unequal rights and wrongs...to what end? Crossing of fingers and hoping the mix is correct?

There is also now a serious conflation of "news" and "punditry", probably due to the 24 hour news cycle. Brit Hume is not a news reporter, he's a pundit. David Gregory should not be asked to punditize his news stories, he's a reporter. Mixing the two has done a profound disservice to the nation's ability to get the news.

Its also seriously undermined the ability of the news to be reported:

The Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal in the same sense that Watergate was a Republican scandal. Richard Nixon, after all, was a Republican. Jack Abramoff, after all, is a Republican. Having said that, we're all in favor of reporters looking into why a Democrat, Harry Reid, got money from a few Abramoff clients. Because when you read the results, you'll see it proves...that the Jack Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal.

We have an even harder time explaining how the largest newspaper in Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Inquirer, has handled serious allegations of wrongdoing involving a Pennsylbania senator who also happens to be a Republican, Rick Santorum. Our articles appearing in American Prospect and the Inquirer's spunky cousin and news rival, the Daily News, found that Santorum had received a mortgage from a friendly private bank that doesn't make loans to the general public (unless they are one of the bank's "affluent" investors, which the senator isn't.)

First, as we wrote about last week, an Inquirer reporter fished through the mortgage info that Santorum's Democratic rival, Bob Casey Jr., had voluntered in the wake of the scandal, in order to catch a red herring. You see, board members at the bank where Casey got his mortgage were campaign contributors. Too bad that has nothing to do with the story, as we explain here.

The "center" is not where the truth always lies. In fact I don't think the "center" is where the truth lies very much at all. But the media has been so brow beaten into thinking they have to report everything with equal intensity (unless its Fox--they'll gloss over pretty much everything negative for Republicans), that the public has little in the way of reporting perspective.

Not being able to count on the Fourth Estate is a major danger to a Democratic Republic.




Posted by Carla at 06:58 AM |

Save the kitties!

I almost spit my pop when I saw this:



Lifted from here.

LMAO

Posted by Carla at 06:14 AM |

March 02, 2006

Mr. Cass gets his panties in a wad

Dr. Gary Cass, Executive Director of the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, sent a letter with 61,000 signitures complaining about Brokeback Mountain being nominated for eight Oscars.

His real beef with the Academy is revealed by his statement, “We can't give Hollywood a free pass as it pushes the homosexual agenda on our nation, while casting Christian-themed films aside.”

So the Chronicals of Narnia only got three Oscar nominations to Brokeback Mountain's eight. The Oscars are for all movie categories, not just "christian-themed" ones. If Mr Cass can't handle that then he is perfectly free to start his own awards.

Oh but there already is just such an award. It's called the Crown Award. And guess what... Brokeback Mountain didn't get a single nomination!

So let's see if I've got this straight, Mr. Cass. The Academy is bad for "casting Christian-themed films aside," even though Chronicles of Narnia wasn't "cast aside" by anyone's definition of the phrase, but it's perfectly acceptable for the Crowns to diss Brokeback Mountain, which didn't even get a paltry three nominations? Oh the horror!

I see how you are. Your real beef isn't that Hollywood is pushing an agenda on America. In fact it is patently obvious that you're just pissed 'cause it's not pushing your agenda on America... and even there your accusations fail to square with reality.

Posted by Kevin at 06:00 PM |

Divine retribution?

Oh that karma...she is a bitch:

Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, criticized by some evangelicals for comments about Venezuela's president and Israel's prime minister, lost a bid for re-election to the National Religious Broadcasters' board of directors. Robertson, founder of the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, was one of 38 candidates for 33 board seats during the NRB's recent convention. The group represents mostly evangelical radio and TV broadcasters.

NRB President Frank Wright said there was no broad effort to distance the group from Robertson. But "there was broad dismay with some of Pat's comments and a feeling they were not helpful to Christian broadcasters in general," he said in Wednesday's Washington Post.

Apparently there's only so much crazy shit one guy can spout off before even the other crazies can no longer deal.




Posted by Carla at 04:25 PM |

All your wombs are belong to us

South Dakota started it off with their draconian abortion banning. Now Mississippi wants a seat on the bandwagon, too. It won't be long now -- it's an election year, for FSM's sake! -- before my home-state Alabama will be waving their Bibles frantically, trying to hitch a ride on the Holy Pro-Life SUV.

They got this "punish illegal immigrants" charge going, anyway: Panel OKs bill on seizing illegal immigrants' property.

Alarmist? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm hopeful it's almost all political grandstanding, and common sense will prevail.

So, anyway, how are womens' rights in other recently-"liberated" countries? Read it and weep.

Posted by Jeff at 12:25 PM |

A veteran from "the greatest generation" speaks out

In a new essay at The Independent Voter Peter G. Cohen, a WWII veteran and Vietnam peace activist, looks at the post-9/11 world, President Bush and military spending and asks the obvious: What Kind of Country do We Want?

Posted by Kevin at 08:47 AM |

Lessons from the School of Arrogance

If only Jazz could have related this story to the neocon wingnuttery prior to our invasion of Iraq:

I received a rather telling lesson, however, a few years ago while working with a contractor who had moved here from Pakistan and who was a devout, traditional Muslim. He was a nice guy and quite sharp at his job. About a year after he began working with us, he announced that he was getting married. When we asked who the lucky lady was, he informed us that he didn't know yet - his mother was selecting candidates. Some months later, sure enough, he flew back home and married a woman who he'd never even heard of until he met her in his mother's living room. He brought her back here to live with him in the United States.

Some of the women I work with got a chance to meet her at a lunch one day. This was a rare event, as it seems she hardly ever went out, and was always covered in full dress. She began telling some of the women about the difficulty she and her husband were encountering with her pregnancy (which we didn't even know about) because they were having and extremely hard time finding a doctor for her who would be "acceptable" for them. The doctor would have to be a female, and if at all possible, a Muslim. In Upstate New York, that's no easy feat. She was missing out on what would normally be considered vital, mandatory pre-natal care because her husband couldn't find a doctor who could be allowed to see her in a state of undress.

Two of the women told me that they had determined that something had to be done and she needed to have her eyes opened up. They decided to ask our friend if they could pop in to visit his wife during the day for tea and he agreed. When they returned, they told us the results of their efforts to "Americanize" and "liberate" this woman. With a shocked look on their faces, they informed us that our friend's wife had taken great offense at their suggestions and wound up asking them to leave. She told them to "mind their own business" and warned them strongly not to judge her or her husband's life and beliefs. From a Western perspective, she clearly seemed to be oppressed, possibly even in physical danger because of it. To her way of thinking, she was following the laws of her God and her society and resented any intrusions attempting to "correct" the situation.

What an amazing lesson in humility.

Its not always ours to judge. Going into societies and trying to "fix" them by converting them to democracy or Christianity or other western ideas can be utterly devastating and completely unwanted.

Its not as if history hasn't tried to teach us this lesson in the past. Native Americans here in the continental US and native Hawaiians both have seen much or all of their history and cultural destroyed by people who came in to "tame the savages".

Forcing Iraqis to live in a democratic style of government is no different.

Posted by Carla at 08:10 AM |

March 01, 2006

Vaccination Vexation

If Jesus is actually up in Heaven right now making his list and checking it twice, I'm thinking the Family Research Council "braintrust" might want to get their weenie roasting sticks prepped.

According to David Batstone at Sojourner's, the Tony Perkins Gang is sorely vexed:

A little-known debate is smoldering at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that may burst soon into a major fire. Two pharmaceutical companies - Merck and GlaxoSmithKline - have designed a cervical cancer vaccine. In clinical trials the Merck drug, Gardasil, is proving to be up to 100% effective in fighting the dominant strain of the virus causing cervical cancer. The pharmaceutical companies and a growing movement of public health advocates want all girls to be inoculated with the vaccine as they presently are for other high-risk viruses.

The Family Research Council is leading a charge of Religious Right groups to halt any such national inoculation program. Their resistance is driven by fear more than common sense. The human papilloma virus (HPV) that generates cervical cancer is most typically passed along through genital contact with others. So as long as an individual does not engage in sexual intercourse, he or she should be shielded from the virus. The Religious Right bloc concludes that offering a vaccine for HPV would undercut their promotion of sexual abstinence for adolescents.

All manner of plagues and pestilence must be available to the FRC in order for them to browbeat people into abstinence. Therefore vaccines that keep young women from getting cervical cancer cannot be a part of their regular vaccination routine.

This is like a bad flashback from my churching days as a girl. Our preacher used to tell us about Hell from the pulpit, threatening us with eternal suffering if we didn't tow the Baptist line. Rarely were we to come to God because of His love and goodness. We were to come to God because the alternative was frightful and tortuous.

FRC is using the same tactic.

Don't have sex before marriage or you'll get cervical CANCER and die a painful and wretched death.

The absence of loving guidance for adolescents is revealing. They'd rather threaten their children with death--quicker, easier and a lot less sweat equity involved than really taking the time to build solid, loving relationships.





Posted by Carla at 06:54 PM |

Keeping our tools sharpened for future use

It's never too soon to start -- kicking (or keeping) weeds out of your lawn, or crooks out of the White House.
Jeb Bush Asked to Explain Cruise Ship Deal

2008 is not so far away. So there's no time like the present to start preventing any more Human Shrubbery from planting itself in the Oval Office.

Trent Lott can relate, and might even add something about "be nice and don't step on people on your way up, 'cause you'll meet 'em all again on your way down."

Posted by Jeff at 01:41 PM |

Best blog post title ever

Somebody alert Wampum.

Posted by Carla at 07:47 AM |