« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
April 30, 2006
It's The Answer We've Been Looking For: "Mojo"
Josh Bolten, the new Chief of Staff for President Bush, says the Bush Administration just needs to get its "mojo back".
"We've taken advice from a lot of folks that we ought to put the president out more in ways that the American people can see what he's really like," Bolten said on "Fox News Sunday."But he said that does not mean the president's policies are going to get an overhaul. "I don't think we need to change, but we do need to refresh and re-energize," Bolten said.
No change in policy - just an effort to get the President's mojo back. I like it. This could work.
Ugh.
Posted by Becky at 08:31 PM | | TrackBack
United Methodists Should Discipline Bush/Cheney
Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D., a hospital chaplain, a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, writes today that the United Methodist Church, of which both President Bush and Vice President Cheney are members, has an obligation to bring disciplinary action against the men for war crimes.
Evidence continues to mount that Bush, a United Methodist, deliberately used his religious faith to deceive the American people in the run-up to his administration's pre-meditated war against non-threatening, sanctions-weakened, defenseless Iraq. He then continued using his faith in "the ways of Providence" to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He has violated a long-cherished United Methodist Book of Discipline social principle: that "war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ . . . [and] we insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute between or among them." (pages 123, 124, 2004)
Rev. Alberts details the ways in which Bush and Cheney have violated the principles of the church and calls on the church to "object with boldness":
When will these United Methodist bishops really begin to "object with boldness" against the "governing powers" who have violated the gospel's "message of self-emptying love?" The "governing powers," who have also violated United Methodism's insistence that "the first moral duty . . . is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute between [nations]," are these bishops' own church members: President Bush and Vice President Cheney! Furthermore, the "rush toward military action based on misleading information "was not an act of "the United States Administration" but of the Bush administration. And contrary to the opinions of certain "military professionals," the present "quagmire" is not believed to be about making "mistakes" in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but about committing war crimes.If these 95 United Methodist bishops really believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq is "unjust and immoral," their next bold step should be presenting a resolution to their own Council of Bishops, calling for the censure of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The Council should also recommend to the Church's Jurisdictional Council that, in accordance with the Book of Discipline, these two "professing member[s] . . . be charged with the following offenses: . . . (b) crime . . . and (c) disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church." ("Chargeable Offenses," p. 719) And local churches, Annual Conferences, the Methodist Federation for Social Action and its Conference chapters, and other related agencies across United Methodism could also initiate resolutions censuring Bush and Cheney, which might include calls for impeachment proceedings.
Let's hope the Church takes Rev, Alberts' advice.
Posted by Becky at 03:26 PM | | TrackBack
Dishonest Atkinson Campaigning to Christians?
This morning I received the following forwarded email from a Christian friend:
Hi Friends,Many of you know I have been working with Christian / political causes over the past year and I am writing now to tell you about someone who can make a difference for Christ and Country in the season to come. I have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know Senator Jason Atkinson and his campaign for the republican nomination for Governor of Oregon. More important than "republican" or "democrat"--Jason is a rock solid CHRISTIAN, who is poised to take Oregon back for Christ! PLEASE take a look at his website and consider voting for Jason and spreading the word within your sphere of influence. Our Lord is a miracle worker! Join me in praying for a miracle--a Christian in the Governor's mansion!
Please do all you can to support him...first, by forwarding this email to every Christian in your address book. His poll numbers are skyrocketing and if you hear him speak, you will know why. A very recent poll shows Jason in the lead among the 3 Republican candidates. Watch him on TV TONIGHT and see for yourself. This is the man the Christian community should be supporting right now. Our God is not a God of compromise. It is our solemn duty to vote our values. Catch Jason on LIVE TV debating his fellow Republican opponents on KGW Northwest, News Channel 8 from 7-8pm.
Please call and email your friends regarding Jason Atkinson. www.atkinsonforgovernor.com
God Bless,
Wendi WatsonIf the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do? Psalm 11:3
I'm not publishing this here to make fun of Christians. Rather, I'm posting it because this email makes me wonder whether Jason Atkinson is making promises to the Christian community that he isn't sharing with the rest of us (such as the promise to "take Oregon back for Christ!"), and doing it in a way that appears to be a spontaneous letter sent by a Christian woman, fairly recently turned activist, to her friends.
Spontaneous email campaigns like this are, so far as I have ever seen, very rare. And as it turns out, this email is an inside job. Not only is the writing style that of a campaign hack, but the writer states that Atkinson's "poll numbers are skyrocketing" when none of the candidates or the media have published poll numbers. Additionally, the encouragement to "watch him on TV TONIGHT" and "catch Jason on LIVE TV" smacks of an insider-campaign.
But the dead giveaway that this piece comes from the Atkinson campaign itself is the fact that it comes from Wendi Watson. Wendi works as a public relations consultant for Spirit Media, a Christian campaign consulting firm. According to the firm's Web site:
Wendi comes to the team with more than 10 years experience in strategic public relations, marketing communications, speaker placement, and event production and she holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Speech Communication. Wendi’s rich experience includes management of speaker programs for high technology clients such as Intel and National Semiconductor. Presently, Watson enjoys writing and giving specialized attention to a few pet clients. She believes her philosophy of “customer service-beyond expectation” keeps her clients happy and loyal.
Reading the letter, would the average Christian realize the email message they had received was a paid campaign piece, or would they have thought a fellow Christian had spontaneously sent them a personal endorsement (note her TEN YEARS of experience, not ONE)? I think the latter. But why doesn't the letter state who paid for it? Could it be that the plan here is to say Wendi wrote the letter out of the goodness of her heart? It will be interesting to see whether Atkinson reports having paid Sprit Media or list's Wendi's email as an in-kind campaign contribution.
Posted by Becky at 11:40 AM | | TrackBack
Media Dishonesty Rears Its Ugly Head
I don't happen to be a believer in the whole "liberal media bias" charge constantly leveled by Republicans. I've seen just as much of what could be called "conservative media bias." I've concluded that media bias is a combination of laziness, deference to advertisers, and a desire to sell more newspapers (or win more viewers).
But every once in awhile, the combination of these three factors screams "liberal bias" to conservatives hungry for proof of their view of the media. The coverage of Rush Limbaugh's arrest yesterday was one of those cases.
Many news outlets (including the Washington Post) played up Rush's arrest without explaining that it was part of a deal that was actually a win for Rush. Take this one, for example: Rush Limbaugh arrested for prescription fraud:
Rush Limbaugh was arrested Friday on prescription drug charges, law enforcement officials said. Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities on a warrant issued by the state attorney's office, said agency spokeswoman Teri Barbera. The conservative radio commentator came into the jail at about 4 p.m. with his attorney Roy Black and was released an hour later on $3,000 bail, Barbera said. The warrant was for fraud to conceal information to obtain prescription, Barbera said.
That was the entire text of the story. Is it any wonder that when I first heard it, I thought he had been busted again? And I wasn't the only one. At least one blogger fell for it, posting: Extra! Extra! Rush busted again.
The LA Times, at least, said it like it is (perhaps they value their reputation a little more than other papers?):
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh was booked on drug charges in Florida on Friday, and his lawyer said that Limbaugh had agreed to a deal enabling him to avoid prosecution in the prescription abuse case if he continued treatment for addiction problems and avoided any other run-ins with the law. … Black said that the deal with prosecutors called for the fraud charge to be dropped in 18 months if Limbaugh complied with all court guidelines, and that Limbaugh would pay $30,000 to defray the state's investigation costs and $30 a month for "supervision" of his treatment.
I certainly don't defend Rush's arrogance about drug use while he was himself a drug addict, nor do I defend the fact that his wealth enabled him to get off when others would have gone to prison. But when our press is dishonest with us on something like this, we have to wonder what else they're slanting – and why.
Posted by Becky at 11:05 AM | | TrackBack
Colbert "Unhinged".
Steven Colbert can be a little grating at times, but this week he's on one helluva roll.
First was his scathing take down of Bill Kristol. And now his balls-to-the-wall dissasembling of Dear Leader at the White House Correspondents Dinner:
Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,” he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.”
Colbert told Bush he could end the problem of protests by retired generals by refusing to let them retire. He compared Bush to Rocky Balboa in the “Rocky” movies, always getting punched in the face—“and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world.”
Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, just three tables away from Karl Rove, and that he had brought " Valerie Plame." Then, worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, "Uh, I mean... he brought Joseph Wilson's wife." He might have "dodged the bullet," he said, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't there.
Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops” on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, melting glaciers and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face. He advised the crowd, "if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail. "
Crooks and Liars has the video.
Paul over at Shakes Sis watched it live. Colbert looks to have shocked the crowd. The President couldn't duck out of the room fast enough.
The wingnutjabbers are crowing that Colbert "bombed" because he didn't get the uproarious laughter that Bush's own sketch garnered earlier in the evening. It demonstrates just how out of touch the right is. What they witnessed was brilliant, unvarnished satire in which edgy irony is used to make a statement.
We'll probably never see Bush's sketch again. But Colbert's will be played over and over for years to come. Last evening he conducted a master class on satire--while shoving the truth down the throat of the President and the DC press who are absent from it the other 364 days of the year.
Posted by Carla at 07:43 AM | | TrackBack
April 29, 2006
Big Oil Profits Trump National Security
The irony of the Republicans' response to rising oil company profits and gas prices begs for an explanation. They readily recognize that oil is a national security issue due to the fact that our entire economy relies on it. Because of this, they are willing to set aside American principles about the circumstances under which we will declare war on another country in order to preserve our access to oil. Protecting the country's oil supply is, to these people, unquestionably worth the loss of 2400 young Americans' lives, terrible injuries to thousands more, the deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, the sparking of a civil war, and all the dangers associated with our use of depleted uranium, not to mention our loss of standing in the world.
But interfering with oil company profits to protect the access of Americans to affordable gasoline so we can keep our economy moving? That goes too far. Big Oil profits trump national security.
Thanks to some Republicans who actually care about their constituents, Congress has considered some pretty good options:
Among the Republican proposals offered this week as gas topped $3 a gallon: mandating more fuel-efficient cars, investigating oil companies and revoking federal tax breaks and subsidies for the oil industry.
Unfortunately, they are leaning toward some not-so-good ones:
Republicans also proposed several initiatives popular with their base of supporters, such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. ... Several Republican lawmakers proposed giving Americans $100 checks to ease the pain of higher gasoline prices.
Naturally, the ever-annoying talking heads scoffed at the Republicans proposing the good options:
"It just embarrasses me that Republicans are leading the effort, and it's just pure election-year politics," said Rush Limbaugh, the influential conservative talk-show host."Oil hit $75 a barrel recently and apparently transformed the Republicans into Democrats," commentator R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. said in The American Spectator, a conservative periodical.
But I think Senator Chuck Schumer of New York summed it up best:
"High gas prices are going to be the final nail in the GOP coffin this election year. Every time drivers fill their cars up, they get a stark reminder how this Republican Congress takes a 'see no evil, hear no evil' approach to the oil industry as gas prices set new records. It's time for the American consumer to have a Congress that works hand in hand with them and not with the oil executives."
Posted by Becky at 03:03 PM | | TrackBack
Perp walk
Now that they don't have Tom DeLay to kick around anymore, the liberal media is picking on poor Bob Ney.
Just because a guy is up to his armpits in the Jack Abramoff GOP corruption scandal doesn't mean he's corrupt. It just means he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sure he didn't mean anything by it.
(Feeling Tony Snow'd yet?)
Posted by Carla at 08:22 AM | | TrackBack
Party on, Congressman!
GOP Congressman John Sweeney (NY-20) is just a frat boy at heart:
A congressman from upstate New York found himself on the defensive Friday over a series of photographs that surfaced showing him at a college fraternity party a week earlier.Democrats seized on the photographs in an attempt to embarrass the congressman, John E. Sweeney, a Republican from the Albany region who attended a party on April 21 at the Alpha Delta Phi house at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y.
His visit was initially reported by the Union College student newspaper, the Concordiensis, which said that witnesses described the congressman as being "inquisitive and engaging" and "acting openly intoxicated."
The clincher for this piece are the photos:
More here.
Sweeney's people are claiming he wasn't drunk and had only a half of a glass of wine at dinner. Which sounds a lot like the "Cheney defense" when Cheney shot his buddy while hunting.
Sweeney is looking awfully bleary-eyed in these photos for a guy claiming to be sober.
Posted by Carla at 07:40 AM | | TrackBack
April 28, 2006
Bush Passes Duty Off to Activists
President Bush today, after meeting with numerous people of faith, said that "genocide in Sudan is unacceptable" and urged Americans to participate in anti-genocide rallies to "to send a message to the Sudanese government that the genocide must stop."
Some of us remember that back in 2001, in response to the failures of the Clinton Administration to stop the Rwandan genocide, Bush said, "Not on my watch." In September of 2004, the White House demanded that the Sudanese government quit ignoring a July 30, 2004 UN Security Council Resolution calling on that government to disarm the militias implementing the killings. In that statement, the White House declared that genocide was occurring. Yet the killing continues to this day, with the Sudanese government clearly convinced it will never face repercussions. In short, the United States is looking rather impotent at the moment.
A university student named Eric Reeves has some interesting things to say about the reasons for this and I recommend reading his entire post:
Notably, after the President spoke in February, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter declared it was "‘premature to speculate’ on potential increases in US troops” (Washington Post, February 17, 2006). Privately, Bush administration officials make clear there is no intention of sending US troops to Darfur. The Pentagon comment comported precisely with a statement by US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack following a meeting several days earlier between Bush and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan: "‘It's really premature to speculate about what the needs would be in terms of logistics, in terms of airlift, in terms of actual troops. And certainly in that regard, premature to speculate on what the US contribution might be’" (Reuters [Washington, DC], February 13, 2006).
The United States is a signatory on a UN agreement to stop and punish genocide, and the President is obligated to pursue that fully. If the UN, NATO, and the US are so ineffective in their three-year effort to stop the slaughter that the Sudanese government laughs in their faces, what makes the President think that rallying American citizens are going to be able to change its policy? Those organizing the rallies are trying to get the President to take action, not the Sudanese government. In fact, on their Web site they are asking people to tell the President to use "the power of your office to support a stronger multi-national force to protect the civilians of Darfur."
Unfortunately, Bush has chosen to shirk his duty by passing the responsibility off to activists, telling them in effect, "You send a message to the Sudanese government." I think Eric Reeves sums it up well:
You are trying to respond to genocide in Darfur on the cheap, Mr. Bush---and the effect is only to make any meaningful response less likely.
Posted by Becky at 01:37 PM | | TrackBack
Good Karma/Bad Karma
A couple of news stories today demonstrate very clearly the difference between decent Americans and not-so decent ones.
Good Karma:
Following the stabbing death of Anna Svidersky last week while working at Val and Matt Hadwin's McDonald's in Vancouver, the Hadwins felt so deeply for the suffering of her family that they made a huge personal sacrifice to help them. They decided to give every penny that came in their door yesterday to Anna's family. And that was gross dollars, not net dollars, meaning they personally absorbed the costs of all the food sold – nearly 40% of the sales price. The community was so touched by the generosity of the Hadwins and the loss of the Sviderskys that they flooded to the McDonald's all day, and the restaurant ran out of food two hours before closing.
The Hadwins … had hoped to raise $10,000. But by 9 p.m., about $75,000 had been collected at the fundraiser for the family of Svidersky.
Other McDonald's restaurants also pitched in:
Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald's matched each dollar spent at the Andresen McDonald's with $1.50, and owner-operators of McDonald's in Oregon and Southwest Washington chipped in another 25 cents for every $1 spent.
These great Americans, however, are being ill-served by some really horrible people in the media and in government.
Bad Karma:
Bill O'Reilly has once again demonstrated his poor listening skills, lack of fairness, and closed-minded imbalance.
And House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is third in line for the presidency (if both Bush and Cheney were removed from office, he'd be President), has demonstrated that his concern for the environment is all for show.
What goes around comes around. I expect the Hadwins and all those generous Americans who supported their gift to Anna's family will find something wonderful come their way. Their actions have lifted the spirits of literally millions of people. Meanwhile, we're all watching Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Hastert slide downward into well-deserved disgrace.
Posted by Becky at 09:34 AM | | TrackBack
Shut up! Or Else…
As Slate points out, the retired generals who have been criticizing Donald Rumsfeld could, under Military law, be court-martialed for doing so.
One of the assumptions surrounding the recent criticism of Rumsfeld is that the retired generals, unlike active-duty officers, are free to criticize the defense secretary without fear of reprisal. Surprisingly, this assumption is untrue. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, one of the many activities deemed punishable by court-martial is "contempt toward officials." This code of laws applies not just to active-duty officers but to retired ones, too. It's right there in Article 2, Section (a) (5): Persons subject to the UCMJ include "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay."The key phrase is "entitled to pay." If you resign from the military, and thus give up all retirement pay and benefits, you're free from the clutches of military law. But if you retire and thus keep getting paid 50 percent to 75 percent of your peak active-duty salary (plus cost-of-living adjustments pegged to the consumer price index), you're still in the cage.
That's not all. The Financial Times today is reporting that the CIA is now warning its former employees that unless they want to lose their pensions, they'd better zip up those lips.
The Central Intelligence Agency has warned former employees not to have unapproved contacts with reporters, as part of a mounting campaign by the administration to crack down on officials who leak information on national security issues.A former official said the CIA recently warned several retired employees who have consulting contracts with the agency that they could lose their pensions by talking to reporters without permission.
…
The attempt to silence former employees extends beyond those who still have consulting contracts. Larry Johnson, a former CIA official who blogs at www.TPMCafe.com, said he recently received a “threatening” letter reminding him about his confidentiality agreements.
Mr Johnson – who has criticised the White House for not aggressively investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, a former covert operative, said it was the first such letter he had received despite regularly commenting in the media on intelligence matters since his retirement in 1989. He said other former employees also received letters.
He said the CIA was also “very forceful” in intimidating a retired official who maintains ties to the agency after he signed a letter criticising the administration over the Plame leak.
Posted by Becky at 08:38 AM | | TrackBack
The Slippery Slope to Hell
MEDIA ADVISORY, April 28 /Christian Wire Service/ -- “A person’s religious freedom doesn’t end when he opens the door to his business,” states Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life. “Michigan’s representatives have taken an important step toward guaranteeing freedom of conscience for those providing health insurance in that state.”Fr. Pavone’s statement follows the passage by the Michigan House of Representatives of measures that would allow a health maintenance organization or health insurer to refuse to cover abortion or other procedures.
“It is ironic that for some supporters of abortion, there are certain arenas where ‘freedom of choice’ definitely does not belong,” notes Fr. Pavone. “I’m glad that Michigan legislators are wiser.”
Funny how these rightwing freaks are so selective about where and when they think that "freedom of choice" matters, with or without religious being a factor.
Lots of devoutly religious folks strenuously object to their tax dollars being spent on wars of aggression or padding the pockets of Haliburton, Big Oil or defense contractors. Why isn't their "freedom of choice" important to Pavone?
That issue aside, the problem with Pavone's idea here is that it's a slippery slope. Once the road to allowing religion to trump medical professionalism is paved it opens a pandora's box that would allow any religious fringe to impose their own dictates, no matter how absurd, upon society. Imagine a Jehovah's Witness being in charge of the local Blood Bank, for example. I wonder how much Pavone would like to be taken to a Jehovah's Witness-run hospital for emergency surgery? You can bet that he'd have a profound problem with having their religious particularities censoring his medical care.
Posted by Kevin at 08:31 AM | | TrackBack
"Remain calm. AAAAHHHH!"
Would've posted this sooner, but between Movable Type's moody behavior, and helping state colleges work on hurricane evacuation plans -- no, really! and especially now since FEMA's headed for the scrap heap -- we've been delayed.
Home, around dinner time Tuesday night; kids talking all at once, hungry, want to EAT NOW; Dana trying to satisfy them; and me, hurrying to cover up my broken rear windshield before the rain started. NBC news is on, and I overhear bits: "Zarqawi... new tape... why show his face now?"
I laughed out loud, and immediately thought of this.
Why now? Digby's answer.
Why now? Nothing to take your mind off $4.00/gallon gas like the relief that today you weren't killed in a terr'ist attack, huh?
Why now? $100?!? Woohoo, maybe I'll drive to WalMart and spend the couple dollars left over on duct tape and plastic sheeting. It'll keep my mind off Exxon's stock dropping 2%; I get so depressed worrying about those folks. But at least we can all feel safe and secure, knowing our ports and tank parts plants are all in good trustworthy hands.
Posted by Jeff at 06:52 AM | | TrackBack
April 27, 2006
So much for GOPers being fiscal conservatives
Lawmakers Scramble to Ease Gas-Price Pain
Senate Republicans proposed a $100 rebate check for millions of taxpayers Thursday to counter high gasoline costs, but linked the assistance to drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, assuring the measure would face stiff opposition from most Democrats.
WTF???
1. They want to give taxpayer funds back to us while Big Oil continues to reap massive profits at the pump AND from the preferential tax cuts given by these same effing Congressional Republicans?
2. The budget deficit is how many trillion dollars? Yet Frist & Co. want to just hand out money like it's toilet paper?
3. Who in the hell is going to foot the bill if Frist & Co are successful?
Forget the ANWAR part. This deal stinks on it's own disgusting lack of merit. If the Dems get sucked into debating ANWAR on this then it'll prove that the Old Guard is still running the show as incompetently as ever before.
Posted by Kevin at 04:04 PM | | TrackBack
Granny Peace Brigade on the loose
The Granny Peace Brigade was acquitted of all charges today.
Judge Neil Ross said the evidence showed, "there was no blockage of pedestrian traffic and anyone who wanted to enter the recruiting center could do so."
Earlier this week the grannies were offered a plea deal where all charges would be dropped if they stayed out of trouble for six months. The grannies refused the last-minute attempt by the prosecution to save face.
A few rightwing blogs tried to make some hay out of the situation prior to todays ruling. Most of the wingers were cognizant of the fact that dissing grannies would make for bad PR. But, a feckless few were undeterred.
One named Lee attempted to take noted civil rights lawyer and defense attorney for the grannies, Norman Siegel, to task:
I wonder if Normal Siegel would be saying the same thing about pro-life protesters who blocked the entrance to an abortion clinic. Somehow I doubt it. Blocking the entrance to a recruiter is a patriotic expression of love of country, but blocking an abortion clinic? Well, that’s just crazy.I hope the old bags spend a few months rotting in the clink.
Thing is, the grannies didn't block access, as Judge Ross noted. Which is a very different situation from the well known anti-abortion tactic of trying to physically prevent any access to medical facilities they are protesting.
Posted by Kevin at 03:39 PM | | TrackBack
Wyden leading filibuster on oil tax breaks!!
Senator Wyden is currently holding the floor in filibuster, in order to gain a vote on his amendment to eliminate royalty relief (ie subsidies) for oil companies whenever the price of a barrel exceeds $50 $55. Not only the GOP leadership, but certain corporate-beholden Democrats do not relish such a vote. Good on Wyden for making the stand now, as the oil companies release their 1Q profit statements and nearly everyone in the country sees a '3' at the front of the price of gas in their area.
Oregon's other senator is oddly cypher-like on this issue. To put some pressure on Smith:
Washington, DC Office
404 Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202.224.3753
Fax: 202.228.3997
Portland, OR Office
One World Trade Center
121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1250
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: 503.326.3386
Fax: 503.326.2900
Pendleton, OR Office
Jager Building
116 South Main Street, Suite 3
Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone: 541.278.1129
Fax: 541.278.4109
Medford, OR Office
Security Plaza
1175 East Main, Suite 2D
Medford, OR 97504
Phone: 541.608.9102
Fax: 541.608.9104
Eugene, OR Office
Federal Building
211 East 7th Avenue, Room 202
Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.465.6750
Fax: 541.465.6808
Bend, OR Office
Jamison Building
131 NW Hawthorne Avenue, Suite 208
Bend, OR 97701
Phone: 541.318.1298
Fax: 541.318.1396
Posted by Carla at 11:59 AM | | TrackBack
Genocide Coming to the U.S.?
The Anti-Defamation League is calling attention to the impact that the recent immigration rallies are having on hate groups around the country. It is terrifyingly reminiscent of the activity leading up to the genocide we have witnessed in other countries in recent years.
The report lists numerous examples of hateful language and hate crimes. One in particular freaks me out – it uses exactly the same terminology for Mexicans that was used to incite the Rwandan genocide: "cockroaches." I don't believe that is a coincidence.
Aryan Nations faction leader August Kreis in October 2005 claimed on his Web site that "this infestation of cockroaches need deportation or extermination!" If legal means of "stopping this rising tide" were not enough, "then these brown squat monsters should begin to turn up dead all across Amerika…We now have another game animal to add to our list of available targets for our favorite pastime, hunting, and we'll declare permanent OPEN SEASON on these dirty wetbacks! From what I have heard through the grapevine the Skinheads and Klans across the country are more than prepared for this type of action. I say let's play by state and see which state can claim the most kills and let the jewsmedia whores keep score!"
The report also includes numerous quotes from New Jersey radio talk show host Hal Turner:
* October 31, 2005: "Slowly but surely we are headed toward the solution that I have been advocating for years: KILL ILLEGAL ALIENS AS THEY CROSS INTO THE U.S. When the stench of rotting corpses gets bad enough, the rest will stay away."* October 11, 2005: "For years I have been publicly advocating on my radio show and this web site, that Mexican illegal aliens be SHOT DEAD as they cross into the U.S. illegally…I plant the seeds verbally and the seeds grow in the minds of others…I am proud to advocate even MORE killings!"
* July 15, 2005: "I once again advocate EXTREME VIOLENCE against Mexicans…Once they're dead, their heads should be cut off and put on pike poles as a warning to others."
* May 15, 2005: "I advocate extreme violence against illegal aliens…I think it would be terrific to trap them by their ankles in steel bear traps then beat them to death when you return and find them in the trap…Oh, if any American sides with the illegals—like a bigmouth politician or a politically correct, ass-kissing local sheriff, lawyers, judges, or the like—it would be a real public service to kill them too!"
Is it any wonder that horrid crimes like this are occurring? I am very concerned about illegal immigration and what causes it, but I also know many Mexicans, both legal and illegal, and they are – to a person – decent human beings who work hard and love this country, not cockroaches.
Posted by Becky at 11:56 AM | | TrackBack
Naked Jesus and Homosexuals Send Baptists Fleeing
WorldNet Daily is just full of plums today:
1. Baptists are working on a resolution telling churches to urge their members to pull their children out of public schools.
"If you approve of a school system that is indoctrinating children with cultural Marxism and dogmatic Darwinism, devoting increasing time and resources to instructing children in the colorful folkways of homosexuality, and preparing them for a future as hewers of wood and drawers of water, by all means continue talking about 'reform' and children as missionaries. Responsible Christians, however, will plan so that no child is left behind."
2. The Catholic League is calling on the Oregon Legislature and Governor Kulongoski to protest the publication in the U of O student newspaper The Insurgent of 12 provocative cartoons of Jesus in response to a rival student newspaper's publication of Muhammad cartoons.
"The March edition of the Insurgent ... was one of the most obscene assaults on Christianity I have ever seen," [William Donohue, president of the Catholic League] said in a statement. "To make sure that the persons I wrote to understand how vile this attack was, I sent a photocopy of the two most offensive graphics: one was a depiction of a naked Jesus on the cross with an erection; the other, titled 'Resurrection,' showed a naked Jesus kissing another naked man, both sporting erections."
The Oregon Daily Emerald editor offered this explanation for the publication of the cartoons:
"The Insurgent editorial indicates a desire to show Americans why the original cartoons were so offensive to the Muslim world. According to the editorial, 'What is "not a big deal" in the US (sic) is apparently a humongous big deal to others. Why should we assume it would not be?'"However, printing home-grown cartoons depicting Jesus on a cross/pogo stick or Jesus on a cross/hangliding apparatus are not inflammatory in the same manner as the anti-Islam cartoons, and therefore fail to produce the intended empathy from Christians to Muslims."
3. Christian students around the country today are celebrating the "Day of Truth," an event to counter "homosexual activism."
ADF President, CEO, and General Counsel Alan Sears sees the "Day of Truth" as an opportunity to express a different perspective than the "Day of Silence," promoted by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Educational Network.
4. You can buy a wonderful book at WorldNet Daily for your children: Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed.
This full-color illustrated book is a fun way for parents to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. Written in simple text, readers can follow along with Tommy and Lou as they open a lemonade stand to earn money for a swing set. But when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade, the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland.
It's aimed at 4-8 year olds, many of whom are probably homeschooled Baptists with parents who are completely paranoid about the corrupting influences of all those homosexual activists and naked Jesus cartoonists in public schools.
Posted by Becky at 09:41 AM | | TrackBack
Manipulated out
The new movie Flight 93 opens this Friday. When I first saw the previews on TV--I found them a little disturbing. It felt like someone was picking at a scab that I thought had healed.
A lot of people lost personal friends and loved ones on 9/11. I didn't. The conventional wisdom seems to be that if someone close to you didn't die then you don't have the same kind of stake in what took place. I believe that this is the reason that so many of us really haven't healed. We didn't lose a loved one..but we lost our country. Or at least what we thought was our country.
Which brings me to this morning's Wall Street Journal Featured Opinion Article by David Beamer, father of Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer.
Beamer lost his child on September 11. Its a painful, gut-wrenching kind of loss, I'm sure. But Beamer allowed himself to be used this morning to proffer old, misleading rhetoric. He's set up to stir the coals of national grief because his son became the poster child for part of our tragedy:
There are those who question the timing of this project and the painful memories it evokes. Clearly, the film portrays the reality of the attack on our homeland and its terrible consequences. Often we attend movies to escape reality and fantasize a bit. In this case and at this time, it is appropriate to get a dose of reality about this war and the real enemy we face. It is not too soon for this story to be told, seen and heard. But it is too soon for us to become complacent. It is too soon for us to think of this war in only national terms. We need to be mindful that this enemy, who made those holes in our landscape and caused the deaths of some 3,000 of our fellow free people, has a vision to personally kill or convert each and every one of us. This film reminds us that this war is personal. This enemy is on a fanatical mission to take away our lives and liberty--the liberty that has been secured for us by those whose names are on those walls in Battery Park and so many other walls and stones throughout this nation. This enemy seeks to take away the free will that our Creator has endowed in us. Patrick Henry got it right some 231 years ago. Living without liberty is not living at all.
These passages tie my stomach into knots.
A dose of reality? As if those who've lost loved ones in Iraq haven't had those doses? The nightly reminders on the news of the deaths of our soldiers and Iraqis/Afghanis aren't doses of reality? The families pictured on the local news, burying their loved ones don't count? The constant manipulation from the Bush Administration and the newspeak pundit corps aren't enough?
The enemy that we faced on 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. This underhanded and sneaky attempt to tug at the heart strings of those who would feel compassion for the Beamers is so manipulative that I can scarcely articulate it.
I'm very sorry for David Beamer's loss...but is he sorry for mine? We lost much of our national soul on 9/11. The Bush Administration has worked to manipulate that loss with fear and nationalism. Our citizens have demonstrated that they're willing to abandon freedom and give up liberty--both for ourselves and for those who had nothing to do with flying planes into buildings that day.
I want people to see Flight 93, too. But I hope they view it with disgust at our leaders. The perpetrators aren't brought to justice. The deaths of our countrymen have been used to manipulate our society into a needless war. The basic foundations of freedom have been eroded to shift power to society's wealthy and elite--while taking it from the rest of us.
I'm weary of the manipulations and exhausted by the rhetoric. I'm an American who just wants her country back. Stop trying to tug at my heartstrings.
Posted by Carla at 08:56 AM | | TrackBack
Dredging up Trash on the Drudge Report
I read the Drudge Report every day because I find it fascinating what conservatives think are important headlines. Increasingly, the right is focusing on garbage instead of real news. For example, today Drudge featured these headlines:
Disturbing Girl Fight Caught on Tape; Distributed on MYSPACE...
Florida woman sees lightning kill friend...
Border Birth: Illegal Immigrant Uses Nail Clippers...
Police Search For Man Accused of Bestiality with Horse; Surveillance Tape Released...
Teen swears by mud diet...
Suspended priest arrested in sex assault...
Interestingly, these were not featured on the site:
Senate Panel Recommends Abolishing FEMA
GOP Senators Spurn Bush's Order to Cut Bill
Blast At Italian Base In Iraq Kills 3
Bulgarians Protest Base Deal With U.S.
1 in 5 pay more in Medicare Rx plan
I'm only writing about this because it is such a common occurrence. It concerns me that some of the most popular conservative information sources (include Fox News in this) focus so heavily on tripe and avoid the more difficult stories. It speaks volumes about the perception these people have of the American people. They feed us nothing but trash and then claim that's all we'll eat.
Posted by Becky at 06:32 AM | | TrackBack
April 26, 2006
Grover Norquist can kiss my lilly white liberal ass
When conservatives get their way and the US government is completely bankrupted, THEN can we finally drown Grover Norquist in the bathtub?
I can't quite wrap my brain around the idea of constantly allowing anti-government types to take the reins of governance. These guys don't want government around and they're doing everything they can to make government no longer work for anyone at any time.
Becky asked earlier today what readers think of the notion of the "haves" having an obligation to support the "have nots" in society. Norquist clearly believes that the "haves" should gather up their cash and assets and in true Dickensonian style social stratification.
In essence, Norquist is for creating an American style caste system, where wealth is concentrated with the upper class. The American Dream is lost because those in poverty or even the middle class won't be able to pay for the better education. Or perhaps to pay for any education at all. Under Norquist's ideals, public education would be virtually eliminated.
Conservatism is a push for feudalism.
It boils down to values. Norquist values a society in which great wealth is concentrated at the top..and only by the most heroic and miraculous means can individuals step up to that level. Certainly not the average American.
Progressives believe that society works for all people and they need only take advantage of it to move themselves forward. With hard work and societal support, every person can achieve and do well for themselves.
By the way, if you feel I've been just a little too mean to poor Grover...read this and then get over it.
Posted by Carla at 02:43 PM | | TrackBack
Bush Approval Ratings Linked to Gas Prices
This site has a very sobering graph that clearly links President Bush's ratings directly to gas prices.
Not to the Iraq War. Not to prisoner abuse and torture. Not to the numerous scandals that have occurred since he took office. Not to the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. Not to his failure to capture Osama bin Laden.
No, if this chart is correct, it would appear that the American people only care about the money they have to spend on gas. Now that is depressing.
Posted by Becky at 12:11 PM | | TrackBack
It's Duck and Cover Time
Lee Russ at Watching the Watchers offers some comedic observations about Republicans sudden efforts to distance themselves from the President.
That's right, if you can't change the public's opinion about our fearless leader, you can always convince the public that you share that opinion. So Bush becomes like the demented old uncle who you lock in the basement when "normal folks" come for a visit: no such person lives in this family, no sir!
Posted by Becky at 12:09 PM | | TrackBack
18 Rich Families Seeking Estate Tax Repeal
It appears that the effort to permanently get rid of the estate tax is being funded by 18 of the wealthiest families in America in an effort to save themselves $71.6 billion. These families include the founders of Wal-Mart, Gallo wineries, Nordstrom's, Campbell Soup Co., Mars candy company, and Cox media chain.
This year, all assets under $2 million for individuals and under $4 million for couples are exempt from estate taxes. Current tax law will boost those exemptions to $3.5 million and $7 million in 2009, eliminate the estate tax in 2010, and reimpose it in 2011 with a $1 million exemption.
Sen. George Voinovich is seeking a compromise that would set the exemption at $3.5 million and adjust it for inflation. This would exempt the vast majority of Americans from paying the tax.
Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform says 68 percent of Americans want the tax eliminated. He says estate taxes affect a broad range of people and dismissed the report's contention that it only affects the super rich as "tired rhetoric of hate and envy."
I understand Norquist's argument and the whole underlying philosophy even though I have come to mostly disagree with it. What it comes down to really is the question of whether the "haves" owe any obligation to financially support the rest of society, and whether the "have nots," by virtue of their status as members of society, have any right to benefit from the wealth of other members of society. It's a fascinating issue and I'd like to hear what you think about it.
Posted by Becky at 12:04 PM | | TrackBack
Lefty blog readers rule
Chris Bowers at MyDD gives his take on the Blogads readership survey. Bearing in mind that it’s a self-selected sample, not a random one, he still draws some interesting conclusions.
His main point is that a lot of stereotypes about the readership of the progressive/Democratic blog world are off track.
As Atrios fair-mindedly sums it all up:
I don't care all that much whether we're "very highly educated, highly politically active, quite well-to-do, voracious consumers of media, not very young" or "drooling, rabid, anti-social, uneducated, teenage extremists" but the former happens to be the truth.
One trend worth singling out: Although the gender gap is closing slightly, blog readership on the left side of the dial is still roughly 2-to-1 male ("still a sausage fest," as Bowers puts it).
Posted by Nothstine at 11:42 AM | | TrackBack
On a wing and a prayer
High gas prices got you down?
WASHINGTON, April 26 /Christian Wire Service/ --
Clergy in the nation's capital and across the country pray for lower gas prices. Event planned for Thursday, April 27, 2006 from 12:00 Noon to 2:00PM, on Pennsylvania Avenue between North Carolina Avenue and 4th Street SE, and on Pray Live www.praylive.com, 1-888-PRAYLIVE.
Hmmm...
Blessed are those who pray for lower gas prices for their fuel costs will go down - Jesus?
I guess it beats the "jaw-boning" that Bush promised he'd try during the 2000 campaign. Both approaches are likely equally effective.
I'm surprised some charlatan hasn't tried turning water into gas. I can see it now... "C'mon folks... fill your tanks with water, make a small donation to my church and by the power of the holy spirit I'll turn it into high-octane premium fuel!"
Posted by Kevin at 11:16 AM | | TrackBack
April 25, 2006
All We Want is the Truth
A year after having submitted a bill calling for a federal investigation into whether depleted uranium is harming our troops, and then seeing the bill go nowhere due to lack of Republican support, Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington has just announced the start of an online petition to convince members of Congress to sign on and support the bill.
Last year, when McDermott introduced the bill, he challenged the credibility of Pentagon statements about DU:
The Pentagon says there is no evidence that DU is harmful; yet the Pentagon also says soldiers should wear protective gear, including special clothing and a respirator, using DU. An Iraqi child has no protective gear. The Iraqi people have no respirators. If DU is so safe, why do American soldiers need to wear protective clothing in the first place?
McDermott says that use of DU in Iraq has already resulted in a 600% increase in childhood leukemia and birth defects in that country. Much as I hate to think Osama bin Laden has any credibility at all, perhaps this is why, in his latest tape, he called our use of DU in Iraq "a malicious crusade against Muslims" and blamed it for the deaths of more than a million children.
Daniel Colbert, an opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily, writes:
Major Doug Rokke, a Ph.D. in health physics and an eyewitness of the harm done by depleted uranium in the Gulf War… was asked by the military to ensure that depleted uranium was not harmful. He is now an outspoken critic of the policy, and has insisted that "uranium munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity."
Meanwhile, Italian soldiers returning from the Balkans, where we also have used DU, are dying from cancer at unusually high rates and the Italian Defense Ministry believes their deaths are linked to DU exposure.
Colbert points out the hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue:
[T]he bill seems to have had trouble gaining support from the Republican Party. Of the 39 co-sponsors of the bill, only one is a Republican. This fact shows the hypocrisy present within the Republican Party. Why is the party which opposes abortion not opposing a policy which has harmful effects on fetuses? Moreover, why does the party which claims to support the military refuse to question a policy which may be slowly killing American soldiers? It is clear that the Republicans will not allow concerns about the health of civilians and military personnel to interfere with a more effective way of killing.
I urge you to participate in this online petition of Congress by visiting this site and sending a message to your local Republican Representatives. Tell them we simply want to know if there is any truth to the claims that DU is dangerous. We owe our soldiers that much, at least.
Posted by Becky at 04:27 PM | | TrackBack
Why Bush has Muddled Iraq War Justification
BuzzFlash has posted an interesting interview with Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. The interview explains quite a lot about how Tim LaHaye's Left Behind books have helped President Bush craft a justification for war in the Middle East that has gained the support of the religious right.
45 percent of American Christians, according to Newsweek, believe in the end times and Armageddon. Among Republican voters, my guess is is probably more like 55%. This becomes an enormously important backdrop for Bush policymaking. I think we can say that, in the Middle East and so forth, a lot of the policy there may have been concerned with oil. It may have been concerned with geopolitics. But to sound right to the born agains and the Evangelicals, Pentecostals and fundamentalists, you've got to make the fight in Iraq a fight between good and evil, not between petroleum and the lack of it, and not all kinds of geopolitical strategy, but things that concern religion. That's got it all muddled, because it can't describe itself honestly.
Why has President Bush felt so compelled to appeal to this group of people rather than be straight with us about the reasons for war? Phillips traces it back to when Bush's father lost the Iowa primary to Pat Robertson in 1988 because he had brushed off the Christian contingent of the party. It became Junior's job to act as a liaison to the Christian right. And he has never forgotten their political importance.
Posted by Becky at 12:02 PM | | TrackBack
Shorter Brian Bilbray
Yes the NRCC attack ad against Francine Busby smears her good name in a total lie --but it benefits me and since its not the worst ad I've ever seen, Busby can suck on it for all I care.
Posted by Carla at 11:29 AM | | TrackBack
Shorter John Doolittle
It's okay if I'm crooked, I'm a Mormon!
Posted by Carla at 11:25 AM | | TrackBack
Shine a Little Light on 'em and See if they Scamper
David Reinhard on Sunday wrote a follow-up to an earlier editorial, in which he suggested Loren Parks ought to run for governor and "cut out the middleman" – Kevin Mannix. Reinhard's new column takes Parks to task for his independent radio spots attacking Ron Saxton.
I find the ads, which feature Greg Clapper and the Story Lady, quite hilarious, but I agree with Reinhard:
Parks' ads are beneath contempt. They're low and dishonest and classic guilt by association. Anyone who would traffic in such muck doesn't deserve to be governor.
Reinhard points out very clearly why the ads are dishonest about Saxton's ties to Goldschmidt:
[Saxton's] professional and/or social ties to Goldschmidt were far less substantial than Parks and Clapper suggest. And his political ties were non-existent.The ad says Saxton held his 2002 campaign kickoff at "his good friend Neil Goldschmidt's home and made his good friend Neil's wife his campaign treasurer." Well, the home was also the home of Neil's wife, Diana, a longtime Republican who's helped Gordon Smith and other Republicans. She hosted Saxton's kickoff, though she was not his campaign treasurer. Neil backed Ted Kulongoski that year and skipped the Saxton soiree at his and Diana's home.
And regarding the ad's claim that Goldschmidt's "brother got a big job with a big buyout that cost taxpayers over half a million bucks," Reinhart has this to say:
Saxton didn't hire Steve Goldschmidt. Superintendent Ben Canada did.
It's very convenient for Mannix to be able to hide behind the excuse that these ads are being run independent of his campaign and that he has no control over them. So let's give Mannix the benefit of the doubt here and assume he didn't know about the Parks-funded campaign. Based on the fact that he has not condemned the ads we are left with two choices:
EITHER 1. In Mannix's mind, these negative and dishonest ads are an acceptable approach to campaigning.
OR 2. Mannix is a weenie who is "owned" by Parks and who is incapable of telling the man to back off from this negative and dishonest approach to campaigning.
I don't have any intention of voting for Ron Saxton if he wins the Republican primary, and this isn't intended as any endorsement of him. I'm simply pointing out that Kevin Mannix appears to have entirely succumbed to the worst of the corrupting influence of the Republican Party. I hope Republican voters who are afraid of Saxton's "liberal" tendencies won't reward this garbage by voting for Mannix, particularly when they have another conservative choice in Jason Atkinson.
Posted by Becky at 09:46 AM | | TrackBack
Nutjobs add sinister side to debate
There's a quandry out there for those loquacious purveyors of anti-immigration rhetoric: what to do when the stirred coals of hatred begin to manifest themselves as threats of violence:
After Rep. Terrance Carroll joked that Colorado should build a wall to keep the Minutemen out, he received a barrage of angry e-mails from Minuteman supporters. But one anonymous message warning him that he was "SOOOO lucky lynching and firing squad for treason aren't available punishments anymore" was creepy enough to spur an investigation by the State Patrol last week.Similarly, Denver's Mexican Consul General Juan Marcos Gutierrez-Gonzalez regularly receives profane, hateful voice mails and e-mails from anti-immigrant activists. But a caller threatening to stalk him and his family went too far.
"We alerted the proper authorities," Gutierrez-Gonzalez said.
Protection was provided, but the effort to intimidate continues.
Sen. Ken Salazar's office notified the police when a white supremacist website rallied anti-immigrant activists to attack lawmakers who support any path toward citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Among the tactics suggested: "Fire-bomb their district offices as a warning, then their private homes if they go ahead with the plan;" "park several Timothy McVeigh-type truck bombs next to the House and Senate office buildings and detonate them;" and "pull a fire alarm in the U.S. Capitol and machine gun them to death as they evacuate."
I'm not terribly shocked that this is a facet of the immigration debate. There's a wide racist swath to this discussion. When legislators such as Rep.Tom Tancredo (CO-6) lay the bulk of the blame of US economic and social woes on the backs of illegals, it doesn't take much to whip the white supremacist crowd into a frenzy. But more than that, it sets up a nice recruitment tool for them.
Tancredo has tried to distance himself from the Klan-style groups that use his rhetoric to pad their memberships. But his unwillingness to look at the whole of the immigration issue is what stokes these guys. As long as Tancredo continues to be irresponsible and stupid with his words--irresponsible and stupid white supremacists (yeah I know: redundant) will continue to associate themselves with him. He's a means to their end.
The Minuteman aren't about protecting borders. They're about giving white supremacists a legal way to beat the crap out of brown people. As Dave Neiwert writes so often, they're eliminationists. And they won't settle for anything else.
Posted by Carla at 09:30 AM | | TrackBack
Oldies but goldies pt.2
Here's another of my all-time favorite posts of the last two years. This one is from not quite a year ago and was my response to a rightwinger's attempt to go PC on a new thesaurus for supposedly having an anti-conservative bias.
Reading Comprehension 101:
Evan Coyne Maloney of Brain Terminal is a fuddy-duddy... er... conservative film maker who the New York Sun apparently calls "A Conservative Answer to Michael Moore". Given the high esteem in which Michael Moore is held by red necks, what follows probably shouldn't surprise anyone.
The bitter-ender Evan put up a post a few days ago, possibly at the urging of, that fossilized Queen of Snark, Cao (Evan credits the impetus for the post to a reader's suggestion), taking Roget's Thesaurus to task for their " New Millennium" Thesaurus's treatment of the words "liberal" and "conservative."
It seems Evan is unhappy with Roget's and compiles a couple lists to illustrate his beef:
...a reader suggested checking out Roget's synonyms for liberal. There are three different entries; here are the highlights:advanced, altruistic, avant-garde, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, broad-minded, charitable, enlightened, exuberant, flexible, free, generous, good Joe, handsome, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, intelligent, interested, kind, left, lenient, magnanimous, open-hearted, philanthropic, rational, reasonable, Santa Claus, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, understanding, unprejudiced
And...
Compare that verbal fellatio with this, from the word conservative:
bitter-ender, fearful, fogyish, fossil, fuddy-duddy, inflexible, obstructionist, old fogy, reactionary, red-neck, stick-in-the-mud, timid, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, white bread
Hmmm... Well, first of all, in their section titled How to Use a Thesaurus, Roget's publisher, Lexico Publishing Group, LLC, states the obvious, "Get to know the features of your thesaurus. By understanding the parts of the entries and any changes in typography, you will grasp the nuances of the reference book's text" (emphasis supplied). The very next line again states the obvious, "You will soon recognize that few words are exactly interchangeable." And again a little bit later, "Remember that no two words mean exactly the same thing. No two words are directly interchangeable. It is the subtle nuance and flavor of particular words that give the English language its rich and varied texture. We turn to a thesaurus to find different, more expressive ways of speaking and writing, but we must turn to a dictionary, a sophisticated semantic tool, to determine meaning."
Left unsaid, probably because anyone who needs it explained to them is probably incapable of using a Thesaurus correctly, is the fact that a Thesaurus is merely a compilation of popularly used alternate words. It is not a dictionary. Which obviously means that the editors of a Thesaurus don't sit down in a smoke-filled room with blank paper and pens to create a Thesaurus from scratch, replete with their own political biases.
Further, in the "How to" section, Lexico clearly points out that the search results are ranked by how commonly they are used. So if we go back and look at the Roget's results we see that the second grouping of "liberal" synonyms are words that are used less commonly than those in the first group, and those in the third group would be used even less commonly.
Now take a closer look at the second grouping of synonyms. Unlike the first and third groupings where the antonym is "conservative," the second group's antonym is "strict." Obviously that means that those synonyms were improperly compared to "conservative" by Evan and those rightwing blogs who referenced his story.
So then when we take another look at Evan's compilation of synonyms for "liberal" we see that many of them don't even belong there!
advanced,altruistic, avant-garde,beneficent,benevolent,bighearted,bounteous,bountiful, broad-minded,charitable, enlightened,exuberant, flexible,free,generous,good Joe,handsome, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, intelligent, interested,kind, left, lenient, magnanimous,open-hearted,philanthropic, rational, reasonable,Santa Claus, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, understanding, unprejudiced
Quite a difference, huh. Out of 38 words in Evan's list nearly half of them don't even belong there. Suddenly reactionary doesn't seem so out of place as a synonym of "conservative."
Posted by Kevin at 07:59 AM | | TrackBack
Looks Like Snow
All indications are that Tony Snow, former speech writer for the first President Bush back in 1991, will accept the position as Press Secretary, replacing Scott McClellan.
I happen to think he's perfect for the job. First, having been a political analyst on Fox News for years now and the host of a radio talk show, he has all the blind righties eating out of his hand. Second, his horrible, scratchy voice is unbearable to listen to, so people like me will have an excuse to tune out the White House even more.
Most important, however, is where Scott McClellan was a terrible liar – he never did it well – Tony Snow has been lying for Bush for years. And years. All with a nice, friendly smile and not a bit of discomfort.
Here are a few of Tony Snows lies – the ones that have pissed me off the most:
Suggested Democrats objected to Bush's warrantless spying because they think the "government should not be able to listen to Al Qaeda"Claimed that Carter and Bush both authorized warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens
Deemed Gitmo "the most humane prisoner-of-war facility in history"
Clearly, the only change will be the skill with which the White House lies to us.
Posted by Becky at 06:26 AM | | TrackBack
April 24, 2006
Its time for evangelical churches to start paying taxes
Its time for the IRS to start revoking religious tax exempt privileges. If religious entities and leaders are going to continue to meddle ass-deep in politics, then its time for them to start paying for the government they so vociferously peddle.
Especially since they've thrown off all semblance of separation from government and are now actively working with elected representatives to pass an anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendment:
About 50 prominent religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half-dozen archbishops, have signed a petition in support of a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.Organizers of the petition said it was in part an effort to revive the groundswell of opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004. The signers include many influential evangelical Protestants, a few rabbis and an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But both the organizers and gay rights groups said what was striking about the petition was the direct involvement by high-ranking Roman Catholic officials, including 16 bishops. Although the church has long opposed same-sex unions, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had previously endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment banning such unions, it was evangelical Protestants who generally led the charge when the amendment was debated in 2004.
These religious leaders are intoxicated by the power of government and its enforcement capability.
These evangelicals want to control what people do and say. And government is their enforcement tool.
I say its high time these institutions have to pony up the cash to pay for their use of the government. And no loopholes either. They made this bed, let them lie in it.
Posted by Carla at 02:24 PM | | TrackBack
Let's Talk About Sex
Ralph Davenport, a Republican State Representative in South Carolina, has put forward a lot of interesting ideas in his time. In March, 2003, he introduced a bill that would have allowed parents to home-school their children and required the school to send the parents 100% of the money the school would have spent to educate those children. He also sponsored a pro-life bill that would have given due process and equal protection rights to the fetus at the moment of fertilization. One of my favorites of the bills he has sponsored is one that has been approved by the South Carolina Legislature's House Ways and Means Property Tax Subcommittee to build a 6-foot-tall statue of a fetus on the lawn of the State House as a memorial to aborted fetuses.
Don't ask me what that has to do with property taxes. I have no idea.
You may be wondering why I am writing about Ralph Davenport. The reason is he is now proposing a bill that would make the sale of sex toys a felony in South Carolina, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
To be fair, four other states already ban the sale of these "patently offensive" items which Davenport believes lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Those states are Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and – big surprise – Texas. No wonder Laura Bush looks so uptight.
If you ask me, this is an attack on women. I mean, come on – most sex toys are aimed at increasing women's pleasure.
The sad thing is, women actually suffer quite a lot of sexual dysfunction, and for a variety of reasons. 48% of women suffer at least one form, and 23% of us suffer from more than one form of it. Common causes include having had a hysterectomy (1/3 of women have them by age 60), body image problems (caused by aging, weight gain, stretch marks, post-childbirth imperfections, mastectomy, health issues), childhood sexual abuse, feelings equating sex with submission, high blood pressure (more than half of women over 50 have it), hormone imbalances, and a variety of injuries.
If the Mayo Clinic can be trusted, vibrators can be very helpful at relieving sexual dysfunction in women. But in Ralph Davenport's world, none of this matters. I guess women should be content to just do their wifely duty, regardless of their own lack of enjoyment, and be happy they have a man around to take care of them in exchange for home schooling his ten children, cleaning his house, ironing his suits, and cooking his meals. She certainly should NOT expect her husband to spring the twenty bucks for a vibrator and spend any time helping her find a little pleasure to ease the burdens of life.
Posted by Becky at 01:22 PM | | TrackBack
The ACLU Hates Christians...
In honor of our upcoming two year blogoversary (05/01/06) I've decided to repost some of my favorite posts of the last two years.
This one is perhaps my single favorite. It stemmed from a Randi Rhodes show I listened to and decided to research for myself. The resulting piece was posted on December 18, 2004.
Without further ado: The ACLU Hates Christians...
...or so the Religious Right would have us believe. Some go even further and assert that the ACLU hates God. Ironically, many of their anti-ACLU rants are overflowing with hatred and profanity.
So, are they right? Does the ACLU hate Christians? Is the ACLU trying to wipe any reference to the JudeoChristian God from the public consciousness?
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
ACLU sides with Rev. Falwell in court case
Preachers, ACLU are allies in Vegas
Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of Baptist minister
ACLU Washington Defends Christian Preacher's Right to Free Speech
ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages
ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways
Those are just a small sampling of cases that I was able to find links to. Obviously neither the ACLU nor any other group has the unlimited server space to post every single such case. Suffice to say that this small listing is more than enough to disprove the lies of the Religious Right.
There are, however, some cases which might explain why the Religious Right is so opposed to the ACLU:
Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program. Note the ACLU's attempt to defend this man's religious liberty.
Eleven-Year-Old Muslim Girl Harassed After Declining Bible From School Principal. Note the ACLU's attempt to defend this little girl's religious liberty.
ACLU of Oklahoma Files Federal Lawsuit on Behalf of Student Accused of "Hexing" a Teacher. Um, anyone remember the Salem Witch trials?
These, of course, are an even smaller sampling of such cases. There are more which I could have linked to.
The ACLU and Religious Liberty by Margaret Crosby. This is a very succinct and brief essay on why and how the ACLU fights for the Separation of Church and State. It's not about an anti-Christian bias, or even an anti-religious bias. It's about equality under the law and about protecting the rights of every single citizen to believe and practice their own spiritual beliefs without undue interference by the government.
Update Just ran across this lovely piece of disinformation. What's instructive about it is how uncritically the author just accepts wholesale lies and half-truths.
Posted by Kevin at 08:40 AM | | TrackBack
April 23, 2006
Is there a therapist in the house?
Michelle Malkin and her merry band of trolls appear to have taken seriously a suggestion I made here and here. She'd gotten her knickers in a wad over the proposed Flight 93 memorial near Shanksville, Pa. She's clearly terrified of the lunar cycle which causes the Moon to appear to be a crescent shape which in Ms. Malkin's mind automatically means it's somehow connected to Islam. And of course that then becomes tantamount to an overt endorsement of Muslim terrorists in her mind.
I know that they say that it's not nice to tease the mentally or emotionally disturbed. But, I couldn't help myself...
So... um..., Michelle, Do you figure that God is actually Allah? I mean... He must be. Otherwise, how do you explain the repeated cycle of pure Islamic symbolism that has barraged planet Earth since the Moon came into existence?I'm telling you, Michelle... I really think it's deliberate.
God must be Allah and, Michelle, I think that it is your patriotic duty to warn your readers to keep their children inside well-lit rooms with curtains firmly shut during the weeks when Allah is broadcasting that evil, diabolical, America-hating crescent Moon for all humanity to see.
Oh... and while you're at it you might wanna have a chat with Dear Leader about his proposed new focus for NASA. I say to hell with Mars! We gotta obliterate that damn crescent Moon ASAP!
And... well... see for yourself.
Posted by Kevin at 11:59 PM | | TrackBack
Time for Heresy
Bill Moyers gave a breathtaking speech last week at the Wake Forest Divinity School.
Moyers lays out how Big Money became aligned with right wing politicians and fundamentalist religious leaders, and then exposes the trail of victims left behind by Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Phylis Schlafly, and yes, James Dobson.
Moyers lays out many great accomplishments true Christians have achieved in the name of Jesus and says it is time for Christians to challenge the charlatans - to commit heresy.
For the greatest heretic of all is Jesus of Nazareth, who drove the money changers from the temple in Jerusalem as we must now drive the money changers from the temples of democracy.
You've just got to read it.
Posted by Becky at 07:42 PM | | TrackBack
Republican Faux-Environmentalists' Taxpayer-Funded Web Site
Anyone who is concerned about the use of scarce tax dollars won't want to miss the taxpayer-funded House Republicans' Earth Day Web site. Then be sure to head over to Raw Story and read their take on it.
Posted by Becky at 07:19 PM | | TrackBack
Sunday Gardenwhore blogging: Oregon Garden Edition
I spent most of yesterday at the Oregon Garden doing all sorts of Earth Day type stuff. Some new folks have taken over down there, bailing the place out of financial dire straights. They're working on making it a more year round plant friendly place.
They had some gorgeous camelias:
I'm going to post more photos of the Garden over at Loaded Orygun. Come on over check it out.
Posted by Carla at 03:14 PM | | TrackBack
James Dobson Doesn't Care about the Missing Frogs
That wonderful friend of the Neocons, The Washington Post, reports that James Dobson and other evangelical Christian leaders are playing defense against the recently formed Evangelical Climate Initiative, another group of Christian leaders that has called for environmental responsibility in the face of impending climate disaster.
Dobson and the others, in naming their new group, have taken up the habit of the Bush Administration, which christens its various initiatives with names that sound great, but actually do the opposite. In this case, the name of the group working to continue not caring for the environment is "The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance."
[The group] has launched an education campaign to try to persuade pastors and churchgoers that dire predictions about global warming are overblown.
The only two reasons I can think of that these people would come out swinging against the Evangelical Climate Initiative are these:
1. They don't want the public to figure out that there are other kinds of Christians out there – liberal Christians.
2. They are really Christians in name only (CINOs), and in reality are political operatives for the corporate polluters and oil friends of the Bush Administration.
Posted by Becky at 11:18 AM | | TrackBack
James Dobson: Liar
Melanie at Fox Hounds tells how, following the publication in the Christian Science Monitor of a brief interview with Howard Dean, Fox News came to the rescue of the Neoncondimentalist Christian community.
In the interview, the Monitor asked Dean about "religion and politics." Dean gave a one sentence answer:The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics.
Thursday afternoon, on Your World w/Neil Cavuto, in a segment titled, "Did Howard Dean Threaten the Entire Religious Community?" Fox gave radical cleric James Dobson six full minutes … to spin Dean's comment into the stratosphere and to claim that he doesn't get involved in politics. For visual effects, Fox went to a split screen and aired video and muted audio of the 2004 "Dean scream" and tossed in a graphic during Cavuto's introduction that read: "Unholy Threat?"
Meanwhile, James Dobson is very involved in politics and is encouraging pastors everywhere to engage in political action from the pulpit:
In a letter to all of the 43,600-plus Southern Baptist churches, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and Focus on the Family Action asked pastors to help in seeking passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment, S.J. Res. 1. The letter was sent as the Senate moves toward what is expected to be a vote on the proposal in early June.The amendment, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, is intended to protect the institution against continuing legal efforts to sanction “homosexual marriage.” So far, only Massachusetts has legalized “same-sex marriage,” but supreme courts in New Jersey, New York and Washington could legitimize such unions before the end of 2006, according to a recent analysis by the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
In their letter, ERLC President Richard Land and FOFA chairman James Dobson told Southern Baptist pastors their assistance is needed to protect the family. Land and Dobson, two of the leaders in the campaign to enact a marriage amendment, urged them to “involve your congregation ... in the battle to preserve the biblical definition of marriage in the face” of attacks from “radical liberal groups and homosexual activists.”
Many senators have not announced their positions on the amendment, Land and Dobson said. “Your involvement will help ensure that each senator receives tangible evidence” of his constituents’ support for protecting marriage, they wrote the pastors. Their goal is to surpass a million postcards sent to senators’ state offices, Land and Dobson said.
The mailing, which was sent April 12, included sample postcards. Pastors also are encouraged to order sheets of postcards without charge for members of their congregations to use.
In addition, Land and Dobson asked pastors to mention the effort from the pulpit, “if God should lead you to do so.”
Doesn't one of the Ten Commandments these people want posted everywhere say something about lying?
Posted by Becky at 11:10 AM | | TrackBack
Music to soothe the savage beast
Music has a way of reaching hearts and souls in ways that words alone sometimes can't.
This morning when I treked over to Swede and Czech blog, I listened to Pink's new song "Dear Mr. President". If you haven't heard the song..click on the link and take a listen. Its amazing.
If you haven't seen Pink perform it live..its well worth watching and hearing again. It moved me to tears.
Posted by Carla at 09:45 AM | | TrackBack
the answer to life, the universe and everything
- 42
It's also how old I am today.
Posted by Kevin at 08:45 AM | | TrackBack
Same shit, new day
You'd think with tanking approval ratings and a overwhelming sense of national unease increasing, Bush would at least have the courtesy to not come on the radio with recycled bullshit:
Americans are asking about our progress toward victory in the war on terror. I have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because I know the character of the people who wear our Nation's uniform. On Sunday, I will attend church and have lunch with Marine Corps and Navy personnel and their families at the Twentynine Palms base. I will tell them how honored I am to be their Commander in Chief and express the gratitude of all Americans for their service in the cause of freedom.
Since September the 11th, 2001, the men and women of our military have overthrown a cruel regime in Afghanistan, captured or killed many al Qaeda terrorists, liberated Iraq, and made America more secure from terrorist dangers. We're fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. By taking the fight to the terrorists and bringing liberty and hope to a troubled region, our courageous troops are making the world a safer place.
We've heard this speech a thousand times. It might have worked in the first term. It might have even carried him over a rough patch at the end of last year. But now its just so blatantly an attempt to butter over his massive domestic and foreign policy failures.
While he's tossing McClellan and Card out on their asses..maybe he should be tossing his speech writers, too.
They really need some new material.
Posted by Carla at 08:16 AM | | TrackBack
April 22, 2006
Where are all the Frogs?
When I read this article today, my heart jumped:
Here in the burbs just north of Philadelphia, there used to be a lot of frogs--bull frogs, leopard frogs, spring peepers--and also toads of assorted sizes. Just down the road from me there is a small pocket park with a vernal pond/swamp in one corner. When we moved here in 1997, I walked by in early spring and it was so full of spring peepers, those little inch-long tree frogs that make a single loud peep over and over in search of a mate, that you could hardly distinguish one from the next.A year later, I went back and just heard sporadic peeps.
In years since, there have been no sounds from that location. The peepers are gone.
The reason this article so affected me is that the timing and the complete disappearance noted by Dave Lindorff were identical to the disappearance of the frogs from my own backyard when I lived in Woodburn.
When we first moved in, back in 1997, we had frogs galore. Every night as we sat at our dinner table with the lights on, the little frogs, scores of them, would cover the window. Our boys, who were 2 and 4 at the time, would laugh with delight as they watched the frogs snap their long tongues out to catch the insects that were attracted to our dining room light. By 1999, we only had a couple of frogs on the window at night, and after 2000 we never saw them again. I have often wondered what happened to them.
Apparently, the sudden, dramatic decline in frogs is happening all over the world. Could it be the decrease in the ozone layer, allowing ultraviolet radiation to sterilize the eggs? After all, we've seen a sudden increase in human skin cancers as a result of it. Or is it pollution? I have long heard that frogs are a sort of environmental canary, that their sensitivity is an early warning sign to humans that something is wrong.
The suddenness of the amphibian decline should have us really worried.It could well be that the end to life on earth will not come gradually over a century or over several centuries, but more the way it happens in a goldfish bowl: one day your fish is swimming happily around in clear water. The next, you find it floating belly-up in a cloudy, stinking pool.
We should be listening to the peepers ... if we can find any.
Posted by Becky at 05:44 PM | | TrackBack
Charlie Sheen Screws Himself
Charlie Sheen has really done it this time. He took on the Bush Administration by cogently arguing against the government's line on 9/11, and now he's gone and given the eager Neocons a reason to discredit him.
Why this is a surprise is beyond me. Since when has Charlie Sheen ever had any self-control, whether in his sex life, with his temper, or anywhere else? But any effectiveness he ever had in spreading the truth about 9/11 is finished. There won't be a rightie out there who will accept a word he says on the matter ever again.
Posted by Becky at 05:23 PM | | TrackBack
Evil Naiveté
In an editorial entitled "The Most Evil People in the World,” Doug Soderstrom gives what many non-Christian progressives (and I dare say even some Christian ones) might see as a rational view of fundamentalist Christians today. I urge you all to read it because it is frightening – both because of the truth in it and because of the dangerous misperceptions in it.
Soderstrom provides a laundry list of evils that fundamentalist Christians have tolerated and even embraced. But probably the truest statement in the piece is this:
The riddle of why such folks, who look upon themselves as being so very good while having behaved so terribly bad, can be understood by realizing that fundamentalists suffer from an axiomatic inability to face who they have, in fact, become. In having followed the dictum to be “in” the world, but certainly not “of” the world, they began to set themselves apart, to disengage from the rest of the world, effectively creating an inner sanctum, a world of their own, an imprisoned partition separating them from the rest of humanity. And, of course, all of such in order to protect themselves from being contaminated by an outer world of sin.
Here is where I believe Soderstrom doesn't seem to get the point of his own observations. While the evil deeds he cites have occurred and fundamentalist Christians have supported the leaders who perpetrated them, trusting that the evil is actually God's will, I truly do not believe that the general population of fundamentalist Christians has ever really grasped the truth. They have been taught since childhood to believe what they are told, unquestioningly, and to disregard their own observations. They are so separated from the world and so brainwashed that many of them are incurably naïve, disassociated from reality, and trusting. If you laid the facts out before them, they would believe you were an agent of Satan using clever deceptions to try to undermine their faith. I swear to God the fundamentalist Christians I know are not evil people.
This site, written by fundamentalist Christians who are not naïve, offers the following response to Soderstrom's article:
[We have] long warned that President Bush could conceivably set Fundamentalist Christians up to be persecuted by a future administration. You see, since Mr. Bush has claimed to be a Fundamentalist Christian, since too many Evangelical pastors have erroneously led their flock to believe Mr. Bush is a fine Christian, and since many in the Mass Media have repeatedly claimed that Bush's aggressive foreign policy is the result of his understanding of Biblical prophecy, if the President is brought down by a combination of scandals, he could so discredit real Christianity that we could be persecuted by Mr. Bush's successor.…
[W]e have been well aware over the years that people in foreign lands do equate Bush's policies with Christian Fundamentalists. When President Bush is accused of genocide in the spreading of Depleted Uranium throughout the Middle East, Christian Fundamentalists stand in the dock of public opinion with him! When the President is accused of extensively torturing prisoners since 9/11, Christian Fundamentalists stand in the dock with him. In fact, in every scandalous issue facing President Bush right now, Christian Fundamentalists are smeared with the same broad brush.
And, the fact that we do hold a high standard of life and morality makes the matter worse, because we are branded as hypocrites of the highest degree!
The evil these people are tolerating, and the support they give to those engaging in it, is unquestionably dangerous. But so is the fostering of outright hatred that could very easily turn into open persecution. The reason this frightens me so much is that I don't see a way out. You cannot change the fundamentalist mind, and increasingly these people are pulling their children out of public schools so as to avoid "evil indoctrination," thereby removing any opportunity to break through to the next generation with the truth. The best we can do is to focus our attention on religious leaders who seek to enforce fundamentalism via government policy.
Never has it been more important to retain a strong wall between church and state. It is the only thing standing in the way of an enormous backlash that could result in outright persecution of fundamentalist Christians.
Posted by Becky at 04:54 PM | | TrackBack
April 21, 2006
October surprise
As the 2006 midterm campaigns begin to clear the primaries hurdle and look ahead to the fall election, it's as natural as can be--as natural as a young man's fancy turning to thoughts of love in the spring--for members of the Bush dynasty to start thinking about "October surprises."
"October surprise" rumors are a Bush family political signature--like popping off the radar screen here in the states and suddenly appearing in the Middle East.
John Dean caps an essay delving into presidential psychological types with the conclusion that Bush's type (the same, in the taxonomy he's working with, as Wilson's, Hoover's, and Nixon's) tends to (over-)react rather badly when they've lost their popularity, they're faced with criticism they don't want to hear, and their pet projects are in the tank: They start taking Hail-Mary risks.
What might Bush and his enablers do?
Dean has some suggestions--most pretty improbable to my mind, for one reason or another, at least until he gets near the end of his list (emphasis added):
As the 2006 midterm elections approach, [Bush] can be expected to take further risks. If anyone doubts that Bush, Cheney, Rove and their confidants are planning an "October Surprise" to prevent the Republicans from losing control of Congress, then he or she has not been observing this presidency very closely.What will that surprise be? It's the most closely held secret of the Administration.
How risky will it be? Bush is a whatever-it-takes risk-taker, the consequences be damned.
One possibility is that Dick Cheney will resign as Vice President for "health reasons," and become a senior counselor to the president. And Bush will name a new vice president - a choice geared to increase his popularity, as well as someone electable in 2008. It would give his sinking administration a new face, and new life.
The immensely popular Rudy Giuliani seems the most likely pick, if Giuliani is willing. (A better option for Giuliani might be to hold off, and tacitly position himself as the Republican anti-Bush in 2008.) But Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Bill Frist, and more are possibilities.
Bush's second and more likely, surprise could be in the area of national security: If he could achieve a Great Powers coalition (of Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and so on) presenting a united-front "no nukes" stance to Iran, it would be his first diplomatic coup and a political triumph.
But more likely, Bush may mount a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - hoping to rev up his popularity. (It's a risky strategy: A unilateral hit on Iran may both trigger devastating Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks in Iraq, with high death tolls, and increase international dislike of Bush for his bypass of the U.N. But as an active/negative President, Bush hardly shies away from risk.) Another rabbit-out-of-the-hat possibility: the capture of Osama bin Laden.
If there is no "October Surprise," I would be shocked. And if it is not a high-risk undertaking, it would be a first. Without such a gambit, and the public always falls for them, Bush is going to lose control of Congress. Should that happen, his presidency will have effectively ended, and he will spend the last two years of it defending all the mistakes he has made during the first six, and covering up the errors of his ways.
(An "active/negative" president, in this system, is one who naturally prefers taking action to being passive, and who fundamentally dislikes the work that's actually involved in being a president. Ronald Reagan, by comparison, would be classed as a passive/positive president. And so on.)
As I said, most of those scenarios seem pretty unlikely to me: Cheney would never give up power as long as he had a breath in his body; the homophobic fundamentalist wing of the GOP would never tolerate a gay-friendly Veep; and even if we hadn't already pissed off most of the other "great powers," Team Bush simply doesn't "do" grand alliances (he adopts lapdogs, but he doesn't do alliances). Even capturing Osama might not lend much oomph to the Republicans anymore--the bounce Bush got in the polls from digging up Saddam wasn't much and only lasted for a short time. (Of course, if it's late enough in October, it only would only need to last a short time. And we shouldn't forget that whatever-it-is will come in the middle of a already-underway storm of Swift Boating, leaks, negative ads, push polls, whisper campaigns, poisonous talk radio, and ginned-up wedge issues.)
But that leaves the terrifying option that we've all been thinking about for some time anyway: Is the Bush administration craven enough, cynical enough--desperate enough--to launch an air war against Iran this fall to protect the Republican majority in Congress? Just to wag the dog?
That's if, of course, the war against Iran hasn't already started--unburdened by pissant little details like congressional oversight, citizen awareness, or constitutional authority?
Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.
Check out Dean's article and see what you think. October surprise likely? What variant?
Posted by Nothstine at 08:08 PM | | TrackBack
You know you've had a bad day when you've got 12 nails in your skull
Oy:
An Oregon man who put a nail gun to his head and pulled the trigger twelve times survived a first-of-its-kind surgery at a Portland hospital.An X-ray shows the nails lodged in the man's head.
The man went to a hospital complaining of a “small headache” the day after he tried to kill himself with the nail gun, authorities said, and doctors didn’t even see the nails at first.But once X-rays were taken of the man’s head, doctors quickly realized it was critical to get him into surgery fast, and the patient was flown to Oregon Health and Science University for specialized treatment.
There, doctors said they peeled back the patient’s face and removed the nails with pliers and a high-speed drill.
Ewwwwww.
When the surgeon has to use multiple power tools to fix you up, that's not good.
And a "small headache"? How very understated.
(via The iStanton Weekly)
Posted by Carla at 04:08 PM | | TrackBack
Shorter Krauthammer
Those traitorous, unpatriotic leaders of the US military who've studied war at length have no fucking idea what they're talking about when it comes to running a war. They should leave that to a guy who used to be Navy pilot and Reservist 40 years ago and has spent most of his life in cushy civilian positions.
Posted by Carla at 11:12 AM | | TrackBack
Teaching Evil to School Children
The School Board in Gwinnett County, Georgia will be spending the next two weeks deciding whether to ban Harry Potter books from school libraries after some parents complained the books are "anti-Christian." The problem is, according to the parents, is that the books teach "witchcraft, demons, murder, evil, evil and more evil."
Never mind that Christian parents love for their children to read The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings, both of which are full of magic, witches, murder, and evil.
Of course, these parents admit they haven't actually read the Harry Potter books. If they had, they would know that the books are all about resisting evil, fighting for good, being a true friend, and taking responsibility. All good moral values, right?
The offended Christian parents want to replace Harry Potter with the Left Behind series. As John Sugg editorializes:
[T]he violence in them borders on pornography. … I’d counsel that the Jesus I know would not, as LaHaye depicts, return to become the greatest and most sadistic mass murderer in the world’s history.
Interesting how twisted people's logic can become.
Posted by Becky at 10:14 AM | | TrackBack
Thirty-Three
President Bush can't be too happy that his job approval rating has hit 33%. At least he still has 66% of Republicans approving (only 11% of Democrats approve). This is all very interesting because last July, a Rasmussen Report poll found that 33% of Americans believed things would get better in Iraq (which, coincidentally, is located on the 33rd degree latitude line) over the subsequent six months (of course, they didn't). Could it be the same 33% of Americans?
33% might seem truly awful, but it could also mean the President is headed for some good times. I mean, Frodo Baggins was 33 when he started his adventure in the Lord of the Rings, and he saved Middle Earth! And Jesus was 33 when he made everything right again on the cross, paving the way to save our Earth. Here's another one: Osama bin Laden was 33 when President Bush, Sr. went after Iraq the first time for invading Kuwait! And look what he has accomplished. And then there's the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – which were ordered by our 33rd President.
I would imagine that Bush's 33% support comes largely from those who love the number 33, such as auto racing fans (who probably know that every Indy 500 race starts with 33 cars), Enron moguls (such as Ken Lay, who bought the 33rd floor of his condominium and lived in condo #33), bankers (who must know that the gold standard was abandoned in 1933), and Halliburton executives (Halliburton's first quarter net income just rose 33%).
Those not likely to be supporting Bush are the ones concerned about the 33 developing countries struggling to catch up with the United States, the 33 states that conduct private name-based reporting of AIDS victims, or those Katrina victims who were scattered across 33 states. If you are in this group, likely you would prefer to trash this Administration and try again with someone new. If so, you'll be happy to know that Glad sells 33 gallon trash bags in quantities of 33.
Posted by Becky at 09:29 AM | | TrackBack
April 20, 2006
"Show up, shut up and push your green button"
The Oregon legislature posted the shortest special session on record today - 6 hours. And top politicians congratulated themselves on their accomplishment. But, what exactly happened?
According to the 6:00 KGW coverage, one lobbyist summed up today's special session as, "show up, shut up and push your green button." The 5:00 coverage showed footage of one lawmaker complaining that they were being asked to vote on bills that they hadn't even read.
This is frought with ironies because the lawmaker complaining is a Republican and they've never shown any qualms about Republicans in Congress ramming thru bills that nobody has had a chance to read yet. But, this wasn't a case of Oregon GOP politicos ramming bills down the throats of Dems. This was both Democrat and Republican leaders of the Oregon legislature deliberately ramming these bills thru before the lawmakers expected to pass judgement had even read them.
How did these Dem and GOP politicos accomplish this? Leadership appointed themselves to the only committee to hear the bills... approving all five in 15 minutes. Only after they'd rubberstamped the bills that they had hammered out, and thus were intimately familiar with, did they bring them before the joint session and forced them thru there.
What I want to know is why Democrats who have complained bitterly about Congressional Republicans ramming bills thru can turn a blind eye to members of their own party doing the same back here in Oregon?
Why should we citizens, regardless of party affiliation, be okay with our elected representatives being forced to represent us by voting for legislation that they haven't even read?
Posted by Kevin at 06:02 PM | | TrackBack
Buyers remorse
Looks like our country is having a major case of buyer's remorse.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry.
Posted by Carla at 04:07 PM | | TrackBack
Military Has PsyOped Americans
I read the Drudge Report every day, so how the hell did I miss this?
The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Whoa! Everyone knows Zarqawi is like the most dangerous guy in the world, outside of Osama bin Laden, right? Maybe not!
The propaganda campaign has specifically targeted the "U.S. Home Audience," and has included "leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist." That's right, despite U.S. military policy not to "psyop Americans," that is exactly what has happened:
U.S. psychological operations soldiers produced a video disc that not only was widely disseminated inside Iraq, but also was "seen on Fox News."
Fox News? Say it isn't so. There's even documentation to back all this up:
The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. "Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response," one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: "Media operations," "Special Ops (626)" (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein's government) and "PSYOP," the U.S. military term for propaganda work.One internal briefing, produced by the U.S. military headquarters in Iraq, said that Kimmitt had concluded that, "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date."
Pretty much nothing gets me more angry than being lied to. Especially when the lies provide cover for things like the attack on Fallujah (which was supposedly a battle against Zarqawi's network), multiple airstrikes (supposedly on Zarqawi's network), and the entire response to the "insurgency" in Iraq (which is supposedly led by Zarquawi). The results of these actions, which have been justified by a lie, have been thousands of civilian deaths (and given the die-hards reason to believe the Iraq war was somehow related to 9/11).
Was there a good reason for all that bloodshed? Well, here's why I freaking HATE liars: the answer is I DON'T KNOW! And maybe none of us ever will.
Posted by Becky at 01:09 PM | | TrackBack
The Funny, Funny Governor's Race
KATU today is belatedly running a story about Kevin Mannix's questionable campaign money management. Though the article is mostly a boring, brief rehash of what we've known for two weeks now, I thought the comments by the three Republican gubernatorial candidates at the end were quite entertaining.
Mannix completely sidesteps the concerns about Loren Parks's contributions to his own law firm (i.e., him) and his other efforts to move money into his own pocket, referring only to why Parks supports his ballot initiatives:
"Well, the funny thing is, he lives in Nevada, and I've known him for 12 years," Mannix said. "And most of the time he's worked with me on my anti-crime measures and anti-tax measures. He believes in my fight against crime, my fight against taxes, and my fight against government red tape."
Yes, Kevin, that really is funny. Ron Saxton, whose campaign was obviously behind the leak of the story to The Oregonian, offers this hilarious comment:
Saxton said simply, "I have no comment on it."
Jason Atkinson, in a most amusing display of talking-points mastery, plays on the bunk that the liberal Oregonian was just trying to pick the next governor for us (as opposed to trying to sell newspapers):
Atkinson said, "I’m not going to have the agenda of a newspaper set the agenda of the governor’s race."
Not to be left out of the comedic activity, Stephen Engelberg, a managing editor of The Oregonian, said something so silly I laughed out loud:
Countering the accusation the paper published the article before the primary to somehow influence the race, Engelberg said, "Like any article, you publish them when they’re ready."
Yeah, like they would have published it a year ago. Oh, how I love the campaign season. It's just one big laugh after another.
Posted by Becky at 11:35 AM | | TrackBack
Painful Questions
For those who don't know this about me, I was until fairly recently a Republican. Having become entirely disillusioned with the party's abandonment of the principles I believe in and the pervasive corruption I observed, I withdrew from the party and began to work to understand what is happening to this country. This has strained and even broken a number of relationships due to the widening gulf of understanding between me and people I love and respect. I cannot understand why they will not open their eyes and acknowledge things have gone very wrong. They cannot understand how I can be taken in by the propaganda of the left.
Ellis Weiner at the Huffington Post today stirred up the pain for me again. Weiner asks a question I ask all too often: "Where are the Good Republicans?"
Where are the fiscal grownups who think that an 8.38 trillion-dollar national debt is maybe several trillion too much? Where are the sincere Christians for whom torture and internment camps and tax cuts for the rich are emphatically not WJWD? Where are the sensible businesspeople who think that the Katrina debacle, the Iraq debacle, and the Medicare debacle give evidence of an administration whose heart isn't in it and whose brain is out to lunch? Where are the rational, traditionalist adults for whom the manipulation of science should be anathema? Where are the vaunted "patriots" of the right who suspect that a president who thinks he can do whatever he wants isn't a president any more, but something else? Where, on the right, are the actually compassionate and the actually conservative?
I have not found any of these people and I cannot understand why. I know a lot of Republicans who are really, truly good people. I love them to death. They are good family people who work hard and are honest. How can they tolerate what is going on in their name? I simply do not get it. Weiner thinks these Republicans are out there, but they are in hiding.
They're cowering in abject terror, or going to work and playing with the kids and sitting around reading the paper and watching TV, in their Park Avenue duplexes and Miami Beach condos and gated Sunbelt communities and all the other perfectly nice, or at least adequate, houses and apartments all over these now still somewhat United States. They're out there, they know better, and they're silent.In which case, shame on them--not only for their passive complicity with the lies, criminality, and corruption of the first Bush term, but for electing him to do it all again for a second. Because he has done it all again, and now it looks like he wants to do it all again again in Iran. The invisibility, inaudibility, and tacit go-along-ability of responsible, moderate Republicans have become almost as contemptible as the high crimes and low misdemeanors of our megalomaniacal Boy King and his sneering vizier.
I wish I could believe they are out there, but I'm not running across any of them. If any of these good Republicans are reading this, I hope you will take Weiner's advice:
[T]he atmosphere on the right has been polluted beyond description by the neo-con empire fantasists, the corporate-lobbyist cabal, and the Krackpot Kristians. But that's everyone's problem--especially yours--and not anyone's excuse. I call on you to do what firemen and bomb squads do: throw on a gas mask, jump into a HAZMAT suit, and wade on back in here and help clean up this mess.
Please.
Posted by Becky at 09:52 AM | | TrackBack
Advertisers To Go Too Far?
I love good advertising. I love creative billboards. I love entertaining commercials. I love beautiful print ads. I love well-designed logos, signage, and point of purchase displays. I think the advertising industry employs some of the best, most creative artists in the world.
I also appreciate the fact that we have free radio and television because advertising defrays the costs of bringing programming to the people. But despite that, I think this is going too far: Philips has invented a device that can prohibit people from changing channels during commercials or fast-forwarding past them on their TiVo.
The secret, according to a new patent filing, is to take advantage of Multimedia Home Platform - the technology behind interactive television in many countries around the world. MHP software now comes built into most modern digital TV receivers and recorders. It looks for digital flags buried in a broadcast, and displays messages on screen that let the viewer call up extra features, such as additional footage or information about a programme.Philips suggests adding flags to commercial breaks to stop a viewer from changing channels until the adverts are over. The flags could also be recognised by digital video recorders, which would then disable the fast forward control while the ads are playing.
One of the great joys of TiVo is being able to watch an hour-long program in 40 minutes and not have to sit through ads of pasty white hairy fat slobs eating Kraft Microwavable Mac 'n Cheese or hairless musclemen working out on a Bowflex (OK, maybe those aren't so bad). Sometimes we don't fast forward through ads – such as when they are either entertaining or giving us information we actually want (like a movie promo).
Philips' patent acknowledges that this may be "greatly resented by viewers" who could initially think their equipment has gone wrong. So it suggests the new system could throw up a warning on screen when it is enforcing advert viewing. The patent also suggests that the system could offer viewers the chance to pay a fee interactively to go back to skipping adverts.
This is as despicable as efforts to create two lanes on the Internet – a slow one for those who don't pay extra, and a fast one for those who can afford to shell out the bucks. Even understanding the economic principles behind these efforts, it still feels wrong to me. Does that make me selfish?
Posted by Becky at 09:49 AM | | TrackBack
Noose tightening on Rove?
Just as the news broke Wednesday about Scott McClellan resigning as White House press secretary and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove shedding some of his policy duties, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case and introduced additional evidence against Rove, attorneys and other US officials close to the investigation said.The grand jury session in federal court in Washington, DC, sources close to the case said, was the first time this year that Fitzgerald told the jurors that he would soon present them with a list of criminal charges he intends to file against Rove in hopes of having the grand jury return a multi-count indictment against Rove.
If anybody deserves a karmic whiplash, its Rove.
Posted by Carla at 09:24 AM | | TrackBack
In which Michelle Malkin discovers that karma is in fact a bitch
When Michelle Malkin posted names, email addresses and phone numbers of college students who protested Bush policies on her website--even after knowing full well that these students were recieving hate mail and death threats from her readers--she published them again. The righties came to Malkin's defense claiming that press releases are fair game.
As Roxanne made mention the other day, press releases have names and contact information on them for follow ups and interviews, etc. Its not to abuse the releasers by pushing readers to contact them and threaten them.
That would, of course, be unethical and immoral. But it didn't stop Malkin.
The push back against Malkin from the left has been hard. And its making her supporters cry like whiney babies:
Whether or not you care for Michelle Malkin’s political positions, you should be honest enough to admit that this crusade to try to intimidate her and her family—a crusade being waged by mostly anonymous cowards who no person in the blogosphere, left OR right, should encourage or countenance—is both disgraceful and, in the long run, dangerous. Not only that, but the pretext upon which it is based—the reprinting of a press release (which last I checked was INTENDED to be disseminated, and was in fact, as of yesterday, still available in its entirety on a number of leftwing sites)—is so laughable as to be insulting to anyone with even a spark of electricity traveling across his or her grey matter.So. I am now calling for the very public condemnation and ostracizing of those who would post satellite photos and personal addresses of a their political opponents on the web. I am also calling for the public condemnation and ostracizing of those hyperpartisan bloggers / media figures who condone or applaud such actions.
This is disingenuous to the point of being a complete joke. The "logic" here is its perfectly acceptable to print phone/email information from a press release for the purposes of intimidation...but the moment you print an address you've crossed the line.
No one should be publishing other people's personal information without their permission. None of it. Period. I have no respect for anyone who's publishing Malkin's personal information.
But this consistent rightwing exercise in parsing out BS because their side experienced blowback is so typically irresponsible and whiney.
Malkin screwed up. She won't own it and Goldstein making excuses for her. Grow some stones and learn to accept that what goes around comes around, Jeff. Malkin is getting hers.
Either condemn them all or don't bother to show up.
Posted by Carla at 07:16 AM | | TrackBack
April 19, 2006
America is going to hell in a handbasket
I am an unapologetic Foodie. So I can be excused for a somewhat myopic view of the intrinsic value of good food. And as a foodie it pains me greatly to have to report that America is clearly going to hell in a handbasket.
Forget gays getting married. Forget brown-skinned folks coming across our southern border. Forget those poor misunderstood, constantly disrespected, warmongering NeoCons. America is going to hell in a handbasket because...
A recent Pew Research Center survey of over 2,000 adult Americans found that only 39 percent enjoy eating "a great deal." (That is, they enjoy the act of eating, not eating a lot.) - slashfood
WTF!?!
I dunno who or what is to blame for this. But, I damn well am ready to declare a preemptive war on whomever is responsible. I mean, what the hell is the point of even living if eating nourishment is unpleasant? Why bother?
I was raised vegetarian and even there I found culinary enjoyment. Although I must say that "Peanut butter Casserole" should be a crime against nature. But southern style candied yams? Don't tell me you have to be raised a carnivore to enjoy that bit of nirvana! Home-made granola ain't bad either. Oh, and my mom's home-made blackberry turnovers? OMG... there's nothing better. Hot buttered corn-on-the-cob or a beefsteak tomato plank between a couple slices of bread slathered in mayo with salt and pepper... Oh yeah. I know well the pleasures of vegetarian eating.
Once I was on my own I promptly converted to the carnivore lifestyle and haven't regretted it for one second. Why? Because chili ain't chili without meat! Oh and southern fried chicken? OMG that is tasty!!! Actually it was a sneak preview of southern fried chicken when I was ten years old that convinced me that I was going to become a carnivore as soon as I was on my own.
I can't imagine what a dull life this would be if I didn't enjoy eating good food. Why even bother? So no... I see this downturn in culinary pleasure-taking as an insideous plot to subvert America from within. And we must commit every resource to fighting it.
I wonder if Haliburton could turn things around if we gave them enough $$$ with no strings attached? Is there nothing they can't do?
Posted by Kevin at 08:59 PM | | TrackBack
Apparently we're supposed to have tolerance for people who behave badly
Maybe if I claim to be a journalist and then proceed to do every possible unethical and immoral unjournalistic behavior out there..whiny crybaby righties will stand up for me by saying "we must tolerate her because she's a woman and a minority", too:
New GOP slogan: Tolerate bad behavior because she's got boobs and plays the race card!
Posted by Carla at 08:54 PM | | TrackBack
Big Tobacco "Killing Our Enemies"
Heading out to lunch today, I briefly listened to my (a-hem) favorite talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. It took about one minute for him to reaffirm his (a-hem) favored place in my heart. Responding to a caller complaining about increasing smoking rates, Rush said, "Big Tobacco's making their money by killing our enemies."
In light of Rush's immense wisdom, I thought it might be helpful to take a look at which "enemies" are being targeted by Big Tobcacco, that ever-faithful friend of America:
1. Women in China, women in South Africa, and children in developing countries
2. Everyone in Africa, Brazil, Turkey, China, India, and Indonesia
3. Romanians, Poles, Mexicans, Tunisians, Turks, and all Africans
Funny, I don't see anyone from the "Axis of Evil" on the list. Nor do I see any terrorist countries. I guess this is just another example of what Al Franken is always pointing out: Rush just pulls stuff out of his butt.
Posted by Becky at 01:02 PM | | TrackBack
Election Season's Big Tent
I was very surprised the other day when I found out that Mr. Maverick – John McCain – will be speaking at Jerry Falwel's Liberty University. But then McCain has been compromising himself a bit lately, schmoozing up to the Bush Administration and all.
Enter Rudy Giuliani. Now I'm really confused.
Just days after a religious conservative questioned Rudolph Giuliani's views, ex-Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed said the former New York City mayor will headline a fundraiser for him next month.
See, I thought Giuliani stood for everything Ralph Reed opposes – you know, choice and equality. Why would he do this? Maybe for the same reason McCain is cozying up to those he philosophically opposes:
The appearance with Reed could help Giuliani reach out to religious conservatives who would be critical in a GOP primary.
Giuliani is also helping out the infamous Senator Rick Santorum with his campaign. Yes, the guy who doesn't believe the right to privacy is in the Constitution. And the same guy who equated homosexuality with incest.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,"
Oh, yes, and bestiality.
In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.
Republicans have long said their party is a "big tent." That tent, however, always seems to get a lot smaller once the elections are over.
Posted by Becky at 10:48 AM | | TrackBack
Breaking news: Religious oppression in Kansas schools
Surely the Kansas Board of Education, famous for injecting theology back into the science classroom, will intervene!
Wait--they did?
Oh. Oh dear. Oh my.
Uhm--never mind.
On the up-side, the State of Oregon may be underfunding its public education, but at least that underfunded educational system remains firmly planted in the 21st century, not the 14th.
Posted by Nothstine at 09:58 AM | | TrackBack
I'd Rather Pay More for Gas
Apparently, Steve Forbes sees war against Iran as not only inevitable, but necessary to bring down gas prices. From his appearance on Fox News this weekend:
FORBES: Well, it’s interesting. And about $15 a barrel on the price of oil today is worry about Iran, that crisis.HOST: So, without Iran, the price of oil would be $15 less per barrel is what you’re saying.
FORBES: Yes, it would. There is real uncertainty, huge producer. But the bottom line with Iran is, when we have the confrontation, which we will have, we can really deal with that crisis. Then the price of oil will come down. The longer we let it fester, the higher the price of oil will stay.
Gee, let me think. We can either mortgage our greatgrandchildren's future to pay for a war in Iran (we've already mortgaged the futures of our children and grandchildren) OR we can pay more at the pump.
I'll go with the pump.
Posted by Becky at 09:44 AM | | TrackBack
Hell is for Children
We've unleashed hell:
Separate groups of gunmen entered two primary schools in Baghdad on Wednesday and beheaded two teachers in front of their students, the Ministry of State for National Security said....
A ministry official said he believed the attacks were aimed at "intimidating pupils and disrupting learning."
Posted by Becky at 09:41 AM | | TrackBack
Believe It
Tom Paine writes:
No one individual is more responsible for the conservative unity of the past few years than Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, who has spent decades building and riding herd on what he calls the “leave-us-alone coalition.” But Norquist, it turns out, was knee-deep in the corrupt schemes of his old friend Jack Abramoff. Among other things, Norquist served as a money launderer between Abramoff and former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed in a fight pitting one casino-owning Indian tribe against another. Abramoff had his Indian clients donate to ATR, and Norquist in turn passed the money to the Alabama Christian Coalition, which was fighting a casino plan with Reed’s help. Of course, Norquist took his own cut—“I need to give Grover something for helping, so the first transfer will be a bit lighter,” Abramoff wrote in an email to Reed.
Norquist may never face the music for this. After all, we're seeing a Court let Tom DeLay off the hook for conspiracy. These guys are pretty clever at making sure there isn't enough proof to nail them. It's one thing to know what they're up to – and quite another to be able to prove it in a court of law.
But this much I DO know. Norquist followed the same MO in laundering money for Abramoff as he did laundering it for Oregon Taxpayers United. Exactly the same. Even down to keeping a cut for himself. Interestingly, Sizemore was a bit smarter than Abramoff – he never put the scheme in writing.
Posted by Becky at 09:39 AM | | TrackBack
Same job, new paycheck
Tony Snow looks to be on the short list for replacing Scott McClellan as the White House spokesperson.
So he'd be doing the same job he has now..only he'd be getting his paycheck directly from the taxpayers instead of the laundered GOP money that comes from FOX.
Posted by Carla at 07:54 AM | | TrackBack
April 18, 2006
They really believe this crap
Send-A-Brick asks people to send a brick to their Senators and Representatives. The point is to let Congress know "that we want our borders secured before any other action is taken on illegal immigration." Each brick representing of course the building blocks of the wall they want built.
The front page argues:
Please Send A Brick to your Congressmen today and let them know that you want a comprehensive border security plan that includes:- A security wall along the entire southern border
- Better technology for customs and border operations
- More funding and personnel for our Border Patrol
- An overall increased security presence on our southern border....
We are tired of open borders, uncontrolled immigration, terrorist infiltration, the spread of pandemic diseases, criminal alien gangs and all the other horrors that can arise due to our defenseless borders and unenforced immigration laws.
Interestingly enough, they only want the southern border secured. Because of course everyone knows that dangerous terrorists would prefer to physically trek across deserts and dodge rightwing vigilantes rather than just drive across our northern border with the other nice white folks. And pandemic diseases? They prefer the tortureous southern route too. As apparently do criminal alien gangs and all the other horrors that can arise due to our defenseless borders.
Who knew?
Posted by Kevin at 08:06 PM | | TrackBack
DU Denial Must Stop
I know far too many people who simply reject the notion that depleted uranium weapons are dangerously radioactive. They're "depleted," don't you know? And why would our government do that? They think I'm crazy for believing what I read on "conspiracy-theorist" web sites.
I'm losing my patience with them. So I contacted one prominent DU author about it recently asking for any reputable data available online. I learned that Prominent British reporter Robert Fisk maintains a web site devoted to the horror of DU.
Robert Fisk (born 1946, Maidstone, Kent) is a British journalist, currently Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent.Described by the New York Times as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain", he has over thirty years of experience in international reporting, dating from 1970s Belfast and Portugal's 1974 Carnation Revolution, the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War, and encompassing the 1979 Iranian revolution, the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, 1991 Persian Gulf War, and 2003 Invasion of Iraq. He is the world's most-decorated foreign correspondent, having received numerous awards including the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year award seven times. Fisk speaks good vernacular Arabic, and is one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden (three times between 1994 and 1997).
...
Fisk received Amnesty International UK Press Awards in 1998 for his reports from Algeria and again in 2000 for his articles on NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. He received the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year seven times, and twice won its "Reporter of the Year" award (The Times, December 15 1987, "Times reporter wins award").
Unfortunately, the right has managed to demonize Robert Fisk; therefore, those who don't accept that their government would do such a thing still won't believe it. But I do. Go check his site out for yourself. But be warned. You'll need a box of kleenex.
Posted by Becky at 06:37 PM | | TrackBack
No [White] Child Left Behind
The test scores of nearly two million children, most of whom are members of minority groups, are being omitted by states from the reports they submit to the federal government under the No Child Left Behind Act.
The very Rumsfeldesque response of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings:
"Is it too many? You bet. Are there things we need to do to look at that, batten down the hatches, make sure those kids are part of the system? You bet."
Regardless of where you stand on No Child Left Behind, this stinks. The Act was intended to make sure all children counted, and that schools that did not meet the needs of all children faced consequences. Now, in an effort to make schools look better, the very kids most in need of help aren’t being counted, painting a false picture of teaching successes.
It’s nearly unforgivable that the federal government didn’t see fit to send funding along with its educational mandate, and it's made worse by the fact that schools are buckling under pressure. Meanwhile, President Bush talks the talk on ensuring minority children are properly educated, while allowing exemptions right and left that undermine the intent of the law.
If schools reported the truth, large numbers of schools might well fail, but that would send a pretty clear message to Congress that the schools need adequate funding to successfully educate children, particularly those who are disadvantaged. Instead, all that’s being done is the schools are telling Congress everything is hunky-dory while our broken system continues to leave minority children behind.
Posted by Becky at 06:06 PM | | TrackBack
Creepy
What kind of weird and twisted freaks decided this would be an appropriate activity to do with young girls?
HINOJOSA: LAST FRIDAY NIGHT, YOUNG GIRLS FROM AROUND SOUTH DAKOTA CAME TO SIOUX FALLS FOR A SPRING BALL. THIS ONE IS CALLED "THE PURITY BALL" IT'S A YEARLY EVENT RUN BY LESLEE UNRUH'S ABSTINENCE CLEARINGHOUSE.THE IDEA IS THAT THESE YOUNG WOMEN COME WITH THEIR FATHERS. TO CELEBRATE THEIR SEXUAL PURITY.
Maybe if these were 14-17 year olds I could see it. But as Digby notes, some of these look to be no more than seven.
Imagine your sweet little seven year old all dressed up in her party/church dress, reading this:
I pledge to remain sexually pure...until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. ... I know that God requires this of me.. that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.
Yeesh.
The other shoe on this foot however is what appears to be a complete lack of "purity responsibility" on the part of boys. Nowhere on the Purity Ball sponsorship site can I find a Ball or a pledge for young boys.
Odd how its set up to put the purity onus on the girls, eh?
(NOT)
Posted by Carla at 03:49 PM | | TrackBack
Bernstein on Bush and the Congress: "The system has thus far failed"
I haven't found Nixon analogies to be very helpful in the task of getting a handle on the offenses by the Bush administration, and trying to identify partisan (and, if such a thing is even still possible, bipartisan) courses of action to restore the rule of law and our constitutional liberties in Washington.
Nixon analogies tend to produce an effect similar to, though usually less extreme than, that described by Godwin's Law: They're an indication that discussion has degraded to a point where we're learning more about the state of the commenter's glands than we are about the topic at hand.
That being said, though, if you're going to throw domestic wiretapping, obstruction of justice, constitutional offenses committed in the name of national security, and a President saddled with an increasingly unpopular and evidently unsuccessful war into the same pot and ask what Congress can and should be doing about it--well, it's not going to be long before the N-word has to be brought up.
There is a small group of people who can speak to the Nixon analogy with authority. John Dean is certainly one. Daniel Ellsberg is another, albeit from a different angle.
Carl Bernstein is another. You remember Bernstein--he's the one of the pair of Washington Post reporters who broke most of the Watergate story who didn't go on to become corrupted by his own access to power.
His Vanity Fair piece on "raising the worse-than-Watergate question"--its unequivocal title: "Senate Hearings on Bush, Now"--lays out three factors that may combine to make the Nixonian parallels more relevant in the next six months:
First, the American public is becoming more aware of, and dissatisfied with, the dishonesty and incompetence of the Bush administration. Second, for whatever reason, some Congressional Republicans are looking for ways to separate themselves from the stink of the White House. And third, the impending November midterm elections are significantly raising the stakes for all concerned--both the risk to individual political careers and the possibility of one or both houses of Congress changing hands.
The roadblock to a serious inquiry to date has been a Republican majority that fears the results, and a Democratic minority more interested in retribution and grandstanding than the national weal. There are indications, however, that by November voters may be far more discerning than they were in the last round of congressional elections, and that Republicans especially are getting the message. Indeed many are talking privately about their lack of confidence in Bush and what to do about him.It took the Senate Watergate Committee less than six months to do its essential work. When Sam Ervin's gavel fell to close the first phase of public televised hearings on August 7, 1973, the basic facts of Nixon's conspiracy - and the White House horrors - were engraved on the nation's consciousness. The testimony of the president's men themselves - under oath and motivated perhaps in part by a real threat of being charged with perjury - left little doubt about what happened in a criminal and unconstitutional presidency.
On February 6, 1974, the House voted 410 to 4 to empower its Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation of the president. On July 27, 1974, the first of three articles of impeachment was approved, with support from 6 of the 17 Republicans (and 21 Democrats) on the committee. Two more articles were approved on July 29 and 30. On August 8, facing certain conviction in a Senate trial, Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became president.
In Watergate, Republicans were the ones who finally told Richard Nixon, "Enough." They were the ones who cast the most critical votes for articles of impeachment, ensuring that Nixon would be judged with nonpartisan fairness. After the vote, the Republican congressional leadership - led by the great conservative senator Barry Goldwater - marched en masse to the White House to tell the criminal president that he had to go. And if he didn't, the leadership would recommend his conviction in the Senate and urge all their Republican colleagues to do the same.
In the case of George W. Bush, important conservative and Republican voices have, finally, begun speaking out in the past few weeks. William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the modern conservative movement and, with Goldwater, perhaps its most revered figure, said last month: "It's important that we acknowledge in the inner counsels of state that [the war in Iraq] has failed so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure." And "Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq.… If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of this jam." And "The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geo-strategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country."
Bernstein also makes the point--my phrasing here, not his--that launching bipartisan hearings before the November elections should appeal not only to principled and high-minded Republicans (if there are any of those left in the Senate), but also to the most cynical ass-coverers of the lot.
Karl Rove and other White House strategists are betting (with odds in their fav8or) that Republicans on Capitol Hill are extremely unlikely to take the high road before November and endorse any kind of serious investigation into Bush's presidency - a gamble that may increase the risk of losing Republican majorities in either or both houses of Congress, and even further undermine the future of the Bush presidency. Already in the White House, there is talk of a nightmare scenario in which the Democrats successfully make the November congressional elections a referendum on impeachment - and win back a majority in the House, and maybe the Senate too.But voting now to create a Senate investigation - chaired by a Republican - could work to the advantage both of the truth and of Republican candidates eager to put distance between themselves and the White House.
The calculations of politicians about their electoral futures should pale in comparison to the urgency of examining perhaps the most disastrous five years of decision-making of any modern American presidency.
Put simply: If hearings--real, subpoena-powered hearings--are going to happen anyway, it's better for the Republicans if they start it themselves before the November elections, while they're still in control, and when they can simultaneously claim a fig leaf of statesmanship and use the hearings to uncouple their fates from their politically poison President, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming, to their electoral embarrassment, by the Democrats if they regain control of one branch of Congress this fall.
If the harm that Bush and his cronies have caused America, its people, its goals, and its standing, is going to be set right, says Bernstein, it has to come from the Congress, and--willing or not--it has to involve the Republicans in Congress.
Give it a read.
Posted by Nothstine at 01:28 PM | | TrackBack
News? or Not News?
Don't be distracted by the bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran sideshow (imagine Bush and Ahmadinejad texting: W: my missile's bigger than your missile Ahmadinejad: MY missile's a HEATSEEKER!!!).
See if you can guess which story ISN'T on the Google News main page:
Duke suspects had privileged upbringings
Tom to eat Katie's placenta
Aruba Detains Teen in Holloway Case
Rumsfeld: I won't quit
Oil hits record above $72 on Iran fears
US to watch for gas price-gouging: Bush
Fans flock to Scary Movie 4
VP a major beneficiary of Hurricane Katrina tax relief act
Posted by Jeff at 01:22 PM | | TrackBack
Get this straight: BUSH is the decider, not you
In a press conference today, President Bush reiterated his support for Rumsfeld, saying:
"I'm the decider and I decide what's best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
It reminded me of the now infamous Bush quote on Iraq:
You said we're headed to war in Iraq — I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you.
Apparently, the rest of us do not have a say in the Bush dictatorship. He, and only he, gets to make the decisions. Bush has made a number of other similar statements in the past that are also worth noting:
The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law.I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.
I've not made up our mind about military action.
I refuse to have future Presidents, or this President, deal with a Senate trying to tell me through micro-managing the process how best to secure the homeland.
Mr. President, you seem to misunderstand your role here. You serve at OUR pleasure. You are not a dictator. Even if it would be a "heck of a lot easier."
Posted by Becky at 12:38 PM | | TrackBack
Christianity and Liberalism...the wedge that makes the GOP heart go pitter pat
In case you had any doubts that conservatives were going to stop pimping to Christians in an effort to pad their voter roles, Doug Giles steps up to disabuse you:
Can a Christian be a liberal? Short answer: no. There is no way a Christian can buy into neo-liberal ideology and be faithful to the bigger-than-Dallas teachings of the scripture and expect to continue enjoying his hard-won religious liberties. For the "Christian" to lean politically to the left means that he must blow off huge chunks of the Bible and replace the scripture with the make-believe notions of postmodernism's malleable "Christ." Only after torturing the scripture can the Christian then fit liberalism into his supposed relationship with God.
If you only buy into the Old Testament and completely ignore Christ's teachings, Giles is dead on correct. But the moment Christ begins to teach his followers about how they are to conduct themselves and what's important to Him, Giles' argument whithers away like the dead leaves of autumn.
Jesus' biggest agenda item was lifting up the poor and downtrodden in society. The conservative GOP powerbase is diametrically opposed to those efforts, especially when it comes from liberals. Christ spoke out against war and those who make it. He also paid his taxes and gave quite an eloquent reminder to his followers to do so.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Claiming that only conservatives can be Christian is like claiming an apple can only be sour.
Christians are being used and tossed aside like old tissue paper. Dishonest brokers like Giles work to skew Christianity into an ugly, anger-filled group of victims. Giles thumps his reader across the skull with grandiose paranoid tripe about secularism--as if all us nonChristians are on the march to force Christians to turn in their crosses and no longer worship.
This sad and unfortunate man has to go unhinged just to hold his point together. We "moonbats" are looking pretty calm and zen..rather Christlike I'd say...in comparison.
Posted by Carla at 11:03 AM | | TrackBack
We're all that and a bag of chips
Ignore Bloggers at your peril!
Posted by Carla at 11:01 AM | | TrackBack
The Washington Times: Tool of Haters
It is fairly well known that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon owns the Washington Times and United Press International (UPI). Moon's gift of the Washington Times to Republicans has cost Moon $2 billion dollars since 1982 to keep it afloat, making Moon a VIP on the right.
Moon also happens to be extremely homophobic.
Rev. Moon delivered a speech in 2004-JAN at the Cheong Pyeong Heaven and Earth Training Center. He allegedly said, in part: "There will be a purge on God's orders, and evil will be eliminated like shadows. Gays will be eliminated, the 3 Israels will unite. If not then they will be burned. We do not know what kind of world God will bring but this is what happens. It will be greater than the communist purge but at God's orders."
So it should come as no surprise that today's issue of the Washington Times is the only news outlet running an optimistic story about the efforts by Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage (AFM) to convince Congress to pass an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.
Republican Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana all support the amendment and were elected in 2004 in place of Democrats who voted against it. Mr. Daniels said his strategy is to keep inching along and holding votes until the measure is eventually approved."You're going to see our momentum continue to grow, and it's going to reflect Washington catching up with the rest of the country," he said, citing the 40 states that have approved either laws or state amendments defending marriage, as well as seven more states expected to follow suit soon.
His group's national strategy -- assembling a liberal-conservative coalition uniting black, white and Latino religious and community leaders who strongly support traditional marriage and the amendment -- has worked so well that they're replicating it in 16 key states, he said. AFM wouldn't list the states, but the plan is to train coalition leaders and send them back to the states to build the local coalitions.
With all that in mind, consider this. I do not remember hearing much, if anything about Republicans speaking out against the rabidly anti-gay Fred Phelps, and I even spent a good deal of time this morning trying to find anything like that. I did find a few Christian statements about his tactics, but nothing condemning his beliefs. However, it appears that Republicans finally have found a sufficient reason to attack him. Phelps has turned his attention to holding anti-gay protests outside our soldiers' funerals, thanking God for their deaths on behalf of a country that supports the rights of homosexuals. Republicans are not outraged because Phelps hates gays, but because he is being disrespectful of our fallen soldiers.
Let's summarize here. The Reverend Moon's newspaper is pressing for an anti-gay marriage amendment. He is a GOP VIP. Moon donated $250,000 to Bush's 2004 campaign. The President has voiced his support for an anti-gay marriage amendment, which is being promoted by Republicans (and a few loony Moonie Democrats). Republicans will not speak out against even the most hateful anti-gay activity unless it occurs at military funerals. And they've said nothing at all about the Reverend Moon's prophecy that a genocide against homosexuals is planned.
This is critical stuff, people. We cannot allow people who suppport or are able to be bought by the Reverend Moon to continue to gain control of America's domestic policy. It's high time we take a good look at who this Moon guy really is.
Posted by Becky at 09:27 AM | | TrackBack
Baiting karma
When what goes around comes around to Michelle Malkin, the shit is going to hit the fan. Big time.
Ezra:
Right now, the dark-haired, lashy, Ann Coulter understudy is happily wrapped in one of her typical controversies: a crew of students at UC Santa Cruz, my alma mater, protested some military recruiters, and Malkin got hold of a press release with their personal contact information -- a poorly conceived inclusion on the students' part, but then, these are undergraduates, not trained media flacks. Rather than calling and speaking to them herself, which is what members of the press are supposed to use such releases for, Malkin their personal information on her website, prompting her hordes of orcish mouth-breathers to brandish their pitchforks and inundate the unsuspecting students with death threats (some of which you can read here). When the students frantically called Malkin, asking that she remove their numbers, she posted their contact information again.
Malkin's inability to muster up even basic scruples here is astounding--especially for a woman of her age. Anyone with even a rudimentary set of life experiences and maturity would know better than to put other people's lives in danger this way.
Those who are threatening these students may be little more than keyboard cowards, hiding behind their pixels in an effort to compensate for a case of shriveled dick syndrome. But it only takes one whacko to do serious damage.
There's something fundamentally wrong with an individual who would deliberately put the lives of others in danger like this. Some innate screw is in need of tightening.
But then again, that's what karma is for...tightening screws..or putting the screws..to those who deserve them.
Update: Malkin makes a weak attempt to go on the offensive against those chastizing her irresponsibility. But in her typically uncreative way...she goes right for the Luntz playbook. She must still have the "unhinged" memo sitting on her desk from the weekend.
Luntz needs to churn these memos out faster so these assholes can at least circulate different adjectives.
Posted by Carla at 12:49 AM | | TrackBack
April 17, 2006
Wingers defend Duke Lacrosse players..on the wrong side again?
I've been reading the top hits over at Memeorandum regarding the Duke Lacrosse/rape case. There's been joy in righty blogosphere Mudville--rejoicing in an apparent lack of indictments against players from Duke.
Not so fast, kids.
The AP is reporting that two Duke Lacrosse players are indicted:
A grand jury issued sealed indictments Monday against two members of the Duke University lacrosse team in connection with allegations that a stripper was raped last month at a team party, a source close to the case told The Associated Press. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity because the grand jury proceedings are secret, said he did not know which players were indicted or what charges they faced.
Now its entirely possible that the young woman in question made up the rape story. But its also entirely possible that she was raped. The right has attempted to put up a hardcore defense of these players.
I don't get why this alleged rape victim was automatically presumed to be lying while the men are automatically assumed to be telling the truth.
I certainly haven't assumed that either side is telling the truth..but I will say this: false claims of rape are not especially common. And while it might be fun to drag Tawana Brawley out to make a point..statistically it doesn't happen very often.
Posted by Carla at 05:58 PM | | TrackBack
Wackadoodle Wealthy Republican Backers
While anticipating the rumored Willamette Week story due out Wednesday about Kevin Mannix and his bizarre sugar daddy, Loren Parks, I thought to myself how very odd it is that the Republican party is also supported by another wackadoodle character, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. The similarity between Parks and Moon go beyond the fact that both are wealthy, strange Republican donors. Apparently, the Reverend Moon also has a very tweaked obsession with sex.
The Reverend Moon, who owns the Washington Times and controls the supply of fresh fish for America's sushi industry, among other things, is warning Americans that if they do not have sex according to his procedures and in certain precise positions they will be surrendering their "love organs" to Satan.
Among the instructions the Reverend has for newlyweds is this:
After the act of love both spouses should wipe their sexual areas with the Holy Handkerchief. Hang the handkerchief[s] to dry naturally and keep them eternally. They must be kept individually labeled and should never be laundered and mixed up.
Before that point, of course, the wife must have been purged of Satan via a paddling. The three-day honeymoon ceremony is to be conducted in a holy place, such as in one of his churches, and the "acts of love" performed in front of a picture of the Reverend Moon and his wife, while wearing Holy Gowns. The instructions are explicit and detailed – and disgusting.
Like Loren Parks, the Reverend Moon appears to be a bit of a misogynist:
- Women are a "line of prostitutes," who should be punished for selfishness. "The concave organ [vagina] should be sealed with concrete."- "The women are the problem in history," he said in 2004. "Women who don't want to have children should cut away their breasts, bottoms and love organ because the purpose for those was first for the children. If they don't fulfill that purpose, then they are not needed."
- "Woman's sexual organ is like the open mouth of a snake filled with poison," he said in 1996.
Moon is most certainly a dangerous guy with disconcerting links to everyone from Jerry Falwell to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagon to both Presidents Bush to Tim LaHaye to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. He claims God is helping him set up a final battle involving the U.S., Russia, China, North and South Korea, and Japan with the ultimate goal of a one world government, based in Korea, and a one-world language – Korean. I recommend further reading on his bizarre statements, history and future plans at this, this and this site.
I don't believe Loren Parks is dangerous in the way the Reverend Moon is dangerous, but I do find the Republican Party's attractiveness to such individuals to be curious indeed.
Posted by Becky at 01:27 PM | | TrackBack
Now, this is how you play Connect the Dots!
It's out of the news spin-cycle now, but SSquirrel did some digging worthy of his nickname regarding the Duke-lacrosse team and their "college hijinks" story.
Posted by Jeff at 10:39 AM | | TrackBack
Simon & Garfunkel -- take it away!
Every man hears what he wants to hear:
Cullman residents protest illegal immigrationIn response to recent waves of demonstrations by Hispanic immigrants, several hundred people gathered Saturday in Cullman to protest illegal immigration.
"The taxpayers are having to support them," said Horace Ward of Cullman. Ward stood along the street in front of the Cullman County Courthouse, holding a sign that said, "Illegals cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year." Cars honked as they passed the rally.
"I think we need to shut the borders," Ward said. "For all the money we're spending in Iraq, we could build a fence."
Cullman Police Chief Kenny Culpepper and Cullman County Sheriff Tyler Roden observed the rally and estimated the crowd at 300 to 400. Demonstrators waved U.S. flags and held up signs with slogans such as, "Secure our borders," and "Remember 9/11."
"I expected a lot more people," said June Lawrimore of Falkville, who said she's concerned about the loss of jobs for U.S. citizens and the burden on taxpayers because of illegal immigrants with no insurance.
She said one of her friends was killed in an accident when he was hit by a car driven by an illegal immigrant with no insurance. Her friend's wife was pregnant. The immigrant was fined only $75, she said.
Lawrimore said she's planning a follow-up rally in Decatur.
"My husband's a construction worker and he's in competition with illegal immigrants," she said. "They don't want to pay his $20 an hour when they can pay $6."
And disregards the rest:
Tracy Dennis of Hayden said she does construction site cleanup and just lost a contract to three illegal immigrants who underbid her on a job. "They break the law every day and nothing happens to them," she said. "I think they need to go home."Cullman police thwarted a small attempt at a counter-protest.
Omar Rivera Santos, a 21-year-old Mexican who has been living in the United States about seven years, drove a pickup truck past the rally, with his common-law American wife and two teens waving Mexican flags from the bed of the truck.
Cullman police pulled him over, gave a lecture about the safety of children riding in the back of a truck with no safety restraints, and ticketed him for not having car insurance or an Alabama drivers license.
His wife, Rebecca Farr, said Rivera works for a Goldenrod chicken-processing plant as a chicken catcher. "We're trying to get him legal," she said. "Since 9/11, it's almost impossible."
She said protesters were misleading people when they say immigrants don't pay taxes. She pulled out her husband's check stub to prove income taxes and Social Security taxes had been deducted.
She noted her husband also pays sales taxes, and said he deserves respect for working hard to support her, their 4-year-old daughter, and two children she has from a previous relationship.
"It's just a matter of respecting your fellow humans," Farr said.
Hispanic rallies calling for federal efforts to legalize the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States drew 3,000 protesters in downtown Birmingham on April 9 and 5,000 in Albertville the following day, and hundreds of thousands in larger cities such as Los Angeles and Dallas.
Posted by Jeff at 10:34 AM | | TrackBack
Male Sports Culture or Pop Culture?
From CWS:
….
In trying to explain why the alleged incident occurred, more than one news article pointed a long finger at the “male sports culture.” Having experienced the “male sports culture” first hand in high school and at an all-male college (Dartmouth, 1967-1971), I can somewhat understand why. But I also think it is a mistake to blame “male sports culture” as such for the many sexual assaults involving athletes, because to a significant extent “male sports culture” simply reflects the values and lifestyles of “popular culture.”For example, “popular culture” (TV, films, music videos, video/computer games, etc.) has helped make stripping more visible and even “acceptable” in some circles. How else do we explain the spectacle of a young female college student agreeing to strip for a group of male college athletes so that they can get sexually aroused and she can pay her bills?
….
But contrary to the “harmless fun” that stripping appears to be, when seen through the distorted “lens” of popular culture, stripping in real life is not so pleasant…In upholding a New York alcohol beverage control law that banned nudity in bars, the Supreme Court in NYS Liquor Authority v. Bellanca observed: “Common sense indicates that any form of nudity coupled with alcohol in a public place begets undesirable behavior.”
….
It is not my purpose to absolve “male athletic culture” or athletes of responsibility for misconduct; but if the underlying problem is “male athletic culture” as such, then widespread sexual misconduct should have been occurring all along, including in the 1960s when I played high school and college football….I therefore think there is a larger problem here – namely, a pervasive popular culture that eroticizes, glamorizes, and celebrates sexual immorality of all kinds, including unlawful sexual behaviors…When young men on school athletic teams, or on spring break, or in Battle Creek, or on Wall Street pay to have young women in public or private places engage in indecent and lewd behaviors for their sexual pleasure, we shouldn’t be surprised when the results are boorishness, promiscuity, indecent exposure, prostitution, sexual harassment, and even sexual assaults.
….
Do you agree?
Posted by Kevin at 10:21 AM | | TrackBack
Monday morning smack
This being tax deadline day, we're bound to read lots of whining and hand wringing about finances from conservatives.
I can't think of a better way to start the week than reading an official smackdown of conservative economic rhetoric on tax day.
Posted by Carla at 07:56 AM | | TrackBack
April 16, 2006
Oh No! Saxton Gave Money to Wyden!
Republicans are talking about a hilarious new radio ad by Loren Parks's good friend Greg Clapper. The ad looks to discredit Ron Saxton for being too friendly with Democrats. The funniest part of all is when the "story lady" goes ballistic because - Oh My God! - Ron Saxton has given money to Democrats!
Incidentally, Ron Wyden, recipient of some of Saxton's largesse, happens to be my absolute favorite politician at the moment. I don't always agree with him, but I trust him, and that's the most important thing of all.
Posted by Becky at 07:46 PM | | TrackBack
Lowest Presidential approval rating in recorded Rassmussen history
39%
Now its only April...so there's still time to get the ratings up before the midterms in November. Get ready for nukes in Iran.
(via Pam)
Posted by Carla at 04:55 PM | | TrackBack
Listening to the Voice of God
British broadcaster Dominik Diamond traveled to the Philippines to be crucified on Good Friday for a television documentary, but at the last minute, after watching nine Filipinos be whipped and nailed to their crosses, Diamond changed his mind, saying tearfully in front of thousands of onlookers that God told him not to do it.
“God wanted me only to pray at the foot of my cross,” he sobbed, sinking to his knees and praying as local people and tourists started to boo.
This is no ordinary Easter celebration. One of the participants has been crucified “every year since 1988 to show his gratitude to God for saving him when he fell out of a window.” The shocking celebration also includes this:
Men dress in white robes and flagellate themselves with glass-tipped paddles and bamboo whips, in penitence for their sins.
I think I’ll stick with coloring boiled eggs.
I have always been morbidly fascinated with the psychology that leads people to engage in self-flagellation and painful forms of penance because it isn’t something I have ever wanted to do, and I’m curious about things I don’t understand. In various forms, self-harm has appeared throughout the world for at least centuries, as a part of religious ceremony, battle frenzy, and protest. Though we often think of it as part of the barbaric past, it is also significant in the modern world – and many examples exist even in the West. Some of the more common reasons for it include a desire to obtain an altered state of consciousness, in part through the release of endorphins, or as a means of distracting the mind from psychological pain.
For Diamond to chicken out of crucifixion as he did is completely understandable, especially considering the reason he had planned to do it. Diamond says he has been having a crisis of faith and was doing it in order to restore his faith in God. His reasons did not match up with any of the common psychological reasons for self-harm, which is, in my opinion, why it did not feel right when the time came.
I do not doubt that Diamond believed God had spoken to him. According to a 1994 survey, 36% of Americans believe they have “heard” God speak to them, 11% actually hearing an audible voice.
I believe Diamond did not hear from “God” as he perceives “God,” but in a manner of speaking, he could be right. David James Duncan, whose new book is on my must-read list, explains what I mean. Referring to Jesus’s ow words that “The kingdom of God is within you,” he says of televangelists:
“What that means is that these people are not going to beat Christianity into you no matter how they try,” he said. “They're not going to scare Christ into you. Whatever you want to call it, it's already in you. You don't have to send your money to some pinhead on TV to find the divinity of the world. You just have to open your heart and look inside.”
Which brings me to the conclusion that the voice of God that people hear inside them is their own inner voice. Sometimes it is rational, as in the case of Diamond, and sometimes it is not, as when President Bush told Palestinian leaders that God had told him to “end the tyranny in Iraq.” In Diamond's case, he simply accepted the truth he already innately knew to be true: crucifixion was not what he needed and was not going to help him in his quest for truth.
Posted by Becky at 03:59 PM | | TrackBack
Who deleted the rest of the commandments?
This morning's edition of Meet The Press was about religion in America. Which of course was a nod to today being Easter Sunday.
One exchange on religion and politics really stuck out to me as I watched the program. Sister Chittister (who also wrote the seminal Is Kerry a good Catholic?) responded to a question by Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: Sister Joan, do you agree with Jon Meacham that Democrats have lost their way in terms of their ability to articulate spiritual and religious issues? And should the Democrats adopt the Sermon on the Mount, Beatitudes, as a way of connecting with the American voter?
SISTER CHITTISTER: Well, the Beatitudes are my standard of life. I happen to agree with both Jon (Meacham, managing editor, Newsweek magazine, and author, "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation") and, and Rabbi Lerner (author, "The Left Hand Of God: Taking Back Our Country From the Religious Right"). I, I think that what is happened is, yes, the Democrats have lost an, an aura of spiritual awareness, no doubt about that. At the same time, I don’t see the religious right as any more religious. They have, indeed, chosen a few of these new scientific issues (abortion, stem cell research, etc.), and they are defining that as religion. I’m saying, who deleted the rest of the commandments? How is it that you can do—that, that, that, that you can simply absorb corporate greed, political greed? That, that you can sit by and say nothing about a doctrine of preemptive war that is already been proven wrong before it, it’s even, even become old? How, how can you do those things and not find that moral?
Sister Chittister asks a profoundly important question here. Who deleted the rest of the Ten Commandments? The religious right pick out one (thou shalt not kill), put a hypocritical spin on it (more about that later) and virtually ignore the rest of the Commandments.
In Christian theology it is uniformly accepted that Jesus' Two Great Commandments (Matthew 22:37-40) sum up the Ten Commandments, with the greatest commandment, Love God, summing up the first four of the ten commandments and the second one, love your neighbor, summing up the remaining six of the ten commandments. Jesus then went on to say that "all of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
So how do the religious right justify singling out one commandment, removing it from it's context, and then smacking folks over the head with it?
Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, convert from Lutheranism to Catholicism and a leading member of the religious right (who promptly attempted to highjack Pope John Paul II's Ecclesia in America) attempts to rebut Sister Chittister by citing a technicality:
REV. NEUHAUS: But, you know, Sister, capital punishment and abortion are not at the same level of teaching weight.
To which Sister Chittister agreed, but questioned why. Why aren't they given the same weight?
SISTER CHITTISTER: Because either, either life is of value or it’s not of value. Are we saying get them all born, but you can kill them anytime afterwards and it won’t mean as much? I doubt that.
Neuhaus had no answer. Which underscores the hypocrisy of the religious right. They're more than happy to pontificate about moral issues as long as nobody asks any inconvenient questions. Especially questions which reveal the patent hypocrisy of the religious right, as Sister Chittister's question did.
Posted by Kevin at 11:46 AM | | TrackBack
Toppling Saddam's statue, part II
The first liberation of Baghdad apparently didn't stick, so we're gonna do it again.
I wonder what sort of symbol the Bush Administration will schlep in front of the TV cameras this time?
Posted by Carla at 08:47 AM | | TrackBack
Immigration and eliminationism
Illegal immigration is a complex problem with lots of facets involving millions of people. Historically there's been little political will to address illegal immigration...and in my view rightfully so. This nation was built (literally and figuratively) on immigration. I'm the great great great grandaughter of Irish, Scottish and French immigrants who helped start the tradition of coming to the US to escape an oppressive, desperate land in order to work hard and take care of their families.
The debate heating up in the US is, in my view, the latest in a series of Republican efforts to blow up a problem to massive scale--and use that problem to energize a sector of their base when its time to vote.
In some quarters, this has brought out what Dave Neiwert at Orcinus blog calls "eliminationists". Dave correctly points out that this group is unjustly creating an entire new class of criminals:
Stressing that these immigrants' status as "illegal" begs the whole question of whether the laws on the books are adequate or just. They just create a whole class of criminals out of people who come here to work, and the latter has always been the driving force in immigration throughout our history.But the nativists don't care. They like simple solutions. It's easier to blame the poverty-stricken pawns in this economic game, and take their anger out on them, than to deal with the core problems. What they're interested in is a scapegoat. After all, that's what they do.
Constantly shouting "illegals!" furthers the nativists' aims by separating these people from the rest of us: they're non-citizens, and thus by extension almost non-entities. Perhaps even non-human.
Dehumanizing groups of people is the beginning of the justification of injustice toward them. If they're monsters..its okay to lock them up like cattle or round them up and expel them. Possibly separating them from their families, even though they've been here working for decades.
There are legitimate issues surrounding illegal immigration. As Chuck Butcher has pointed out numerous times, its hurting American jobs and wages. And despite the fact that illegals work and pay taxes, they do place a burden on social infrastructure. After all, these folks are working for a pittance. They can't generate massive tax revenue because they're not paid enough. While the focus of the current immigration brouhaha is on illegals coming in from Mexico and other point south who come here to work, the issue of people coming into the country illegally to do harm is one of security.
The notion of rounding these individuals up and shoo-ing them over a Great Wall of China style fence being patrolled by fatigue clad, itchy trigger finger "Minuteman project" whackos is not only a visual joke, its exactly what these eliminationists want to see happen.
There is little discussion about why these people come here. That would require generating empathy for the dehumanized. But if we're to solve the problems surrounding illegal immigration we have to address the root issues that bring them here.
The largest issue is money. People coming in from Mexico can make much more money working the US than they can at home ($5 an hour instead of $5 per day for example). They're willing to work extremely difficult and labor intensive jobs for these wages while many Americans can't and won't.
NAFTA has made one of Mexico's main crops--corn--virtually impossible for Mexican farmers to grow and make money. Cheaper, subsidized grown US corn has been dumped into their markets and the Mexicans can't compete. So they give up and come to the US to work.
The Mexican government is rife with corruption and does little to assist its people and its economy.
None of this is addressed by the Bush Administration. Its rarely talked about in the media and certainly not by conservatives who don't want to regulate businesses or levy fines against those who hire illegal workers for cheap labor.
Its all about dumping their version of human refuse over the border.
1. Its immoral and 2. It won't work.
Posted by Carla at 08:23 AM | | TrackBack
April 15, 2006
Righty Hit Parade of the Day
Today's theme on the rightie hit parade:
"All Liberals are mean spirited, hate-filled, unhinged shrill monsters that America must shun."
I noticed most of them used the word "unhinged" as the buzzword label. Nice touch. I'm betting that one came right out of the Frank Lutz playbook.
I see they made sure Joe Klein got the memo, although I'm not sure if he managed to use "unhinged". Maybe he isn't in tight enough with Luntz yet.
Posted by Carla at 09:43 PM | | TrackBack
GOP runs to the home base--god, gays and abortion
They're dividers, not uniters:
Social Issues Top GOP Pre-Election AgendaWASHINGTON - Protection of marriage amendment? Check. Anti-flag burning legislation? Check. New abortion limits? Check.
Between now and the November elections, Republicans are penciling in plans to take action on social issues important to religious conservatives, the foundation of the GOP base, as they defend their congressional majority.
Of course they are.
They sure as hell can't run on anything they actually DO when it comes to governance, because frankly they suck ass at it. But they can steal rights from gays and women--and put Betsy Ross out of business.
At least they're consistent.
Posted by Carla at 09:39 PM | | TrackBack
Shall we play a game?
When the movie War Games came out in 1983, the US and USSR were at the end of the Cold War and discovering that nuclear war makes no sense. No one wins because everybody gets (literally) burned.
I was thinking about that today when reading this piece on Iran's claim that they'll kick US ass if we attack them.
The Iranians are essentially responding to the US' ratched rhetoric on the US of nukes against Iran.
Everything old is new again. The only thing that makes sense here is The Far Side:
Posted by Carla at 02:09 PM | | TrackBack
The conservoblogs go apeshit over Mary Scott O'Connor
Mary Scott O'Connor is a pissed off liberal. If you've ever read her stuff at My Left Wing you already knew this. But for those who haven't seen Mary's outrage, the Post has a full frontal page piece on her today. Interesting stuff.
Typically, the reaction from the rightwing blogosphere is a whiny version of how dare she be outraged at poor W?
Hugh Hewitt is practically hysterical:
The left has become disfigured because the excess that dominates the lefty blogs is absorbed by rank-and-file activists and encouraged by the Democratic Party leadership, which embraces, posts at and praises the blogs that are among the angriest and most vulgar/profane/hate-filled.The collapse of the left's ability to engage in politics will continue and in fact accelerate unless and until the leaders of the Democratic Party rebuke the party's activist base and its spokesmen, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
False premise much?
Perhaps Hugh's red state colored glasses don't afford him the view of the latest polling of his President and his Party, but things ain't looking so rosey for the right at the moment. Hugh's group is very good at marketing themselves..and even with that their numbers are in the toilet.
Over at The Jawa Report, they're so twisted up that they don't recognize their own abcessing passion:
Also unfortunately, writer David Finkel can't resist shading the truth (this is, after all, the Washington Post):Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack.
Translation: now that the liberal mainstream media deathgrip on "the truth" has been loosened by talk radio, Fox News, and the right lobe of the blogosphere, liberals find that they can't handle the truth
The truth is that anger and frustration can create a passion for change. The right used to have it..but they've gone so far over the cliff that its now the left who has that anger and passion. The right is a pus-filled, infected sore on the ass of the nation...and they're starting to get nervous about it. The reaction by the right to this Post piece demonstrates this.
The lamest response comes from this blogger, who says:
Okay, does this sound totally rational to you? If you were a moderate and were reading this blogger would you be convinced by the logic and reasonableness of her arguments? Or would you be more likely to agree with Michelle Malkin that these people have become Unhinged?
Anybody who cites Michelle Malkin's pieces as an example of the false premise of lefty unhingement is smacking under such a weight of irony. It'd be chuckle worthy if it was just NOT so damn pathetic.
Posted by Carla at 01:15 PM | | TrackBack
Karmic (anti) Feminism
My overdeveloped sense of justice has a tendency to get its back up when I see people write or talk smack about feminism. Why are social, political and economic equality for women such a tough thing for conservatives? The reverence toward the anti-feminist movement (especially when its espoused by some vaginally endowed homo sapien) is practically spiritual.
Earlier this week, Nothstine emailed me a Salon.com book review of To Hell With All That by anti-feminist guru Caitlin Flanagan. Flanagan is your typical conservative hypocrite who handwrings about women staying home and taking care of their kids..while she hires a nanny for her own:
Everyone knows Caitlin Flanagan isn't a stay-at-home mother, she's an accomplished writer who plays a stay-at-home mom in magazines and on TV. Right? Part of why I've never gotten upset about Flanagan's pro-hearth and home shtick is that I've seen it as just that, shtick. I'd read enough to know she had a full-time nanny when her twin sons were infants and she was trying to be a novelist; then she wrote about modern womanhood and family life for the Atlantic Monthly after they hit preschool; now, with her boys in grade school, she's got a great gig at the New Yorker. So how is she not a career woman who's also a mom?
She is a career woman who's also a mom. But she's carved a niche out for herself that taps into some sort of hypocritical, self-loathing, guilt-tripping that butters her bread. Flanagan is also a hack, using her battle with breast cancer to tell all us feminists that while she doesn't do the "hearth and home" gig so much, the rest of us should. The reviewer is a good liberal, though. It took her awhile to get to the place where she could write about it:
It's mostly a lightly reworked compilation of her New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly essays from the last few years, but dressed up with a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger introduction blaming feminism for causing women "heartache," and a truly below-the-belt conclusion, on how surviving breast cancer confirmed Flanagan's conviction that traditional marriage and motherhood is best. I put the book aside for almost two months because even though I'm tough, I'm not tough enough to kick someone with cancer, and Flanagan deserves a kick for the dishonest and divisive gloss these new essays give the book, and her whole career. But I guess I learned something new about myself in this process: Apparently I am tough enough to kick someone with cancer, but only after feeling bad about it for a while.
I'm clearly not as good a liberal. It took me only three days instead of two months.
The part of the review that slayed me (and Nothstine) was this:
My inner superstitious Irish Catholic girl winces at the hubris of Flanagan's crediting her care for her family with her husband's willingness to nurse her through cancer. I immediately thought of Jackie Gingrich,Newt's first wife, who was served with divorce papers by her cheating husband while in the hospital after cancer surgery. Did Jackie Gingrich fail to deposit enough in their marital bank account? Of course not. All over the world, there are feminists with cancer being cared for by loving husbands, girlfriends, siblings, children; sadly, there are also traditional wives who've been abandoned by their husbands at the first sign of illness; there are good men being treated badly by bad women, and bad women being treated well by good men. In short, there's every kind of blessing in the world alongside every kind of heartbreak, and all I know for sure is that to credit your own behavior for what is essentially good luck and someone else's kindness is asking for what's called karma, and not the good kind.
I don't think I'd go so far as to put a louse of a spouse under the category of "luck". We make choices about who we decide to wed and have kids with and luck of the draw isn't really what its all about. But trying to cast all feminists as those who couldn't possibly have partners who'd care for them during a grave illness is cheap theatrical rhetorical bullshit.
Its also, as the reviewer of Flanagan's book mentions, a really good way to sow bad karma.
Of course in my view, Flanagan was probably well on her way to filling the bad karma bank account when she hypocritically beat down on career moms, while being one herself.
Perhaps with this book she's just sealed the deal.
Posted by Carla at 09:51 AM |
April 14, 2006
"Objectionable content" bugs
It seems our attempts to combat comment spam may blocking legit comments.
Several folks have come forward to say that a few times they've hit the "post" button in comments and been hit with a message saying something to the effect that their comment wasn't posted due to "objectionable content".
Rest assured that we're not doing this on purpose. It appears there's some sort of bad ass issue with our Moveable Type Blacklist. We've tried to set it up to block just certain domains, but every once in a while it hits that content thing and goes apeshit on us.
We apologize for any frustration that its causing our commentors. We're working on it.
Posted by Carla at 04:00 PM | | TrackBack
Nailing Rummy
Goddam I wish I could write like this:
It's obvious why so many of Rummy's enemies are crawling out of the woodwork now -- they're hoping to improve the odds that the field marshall wil be swept away by the same broom that removed Andy Card and that is said to be hovering over the posteriors of McClellan and John Snow.My advice would be: Fuggetaboutit. The chances that Dick Cheney will fire his old boss and ideological comrade in crime are only slightly higher than the chances that Rumsfeld's removal would lead to even a minor improvement in the situation in Iraq. It's almost like asking Cheney to fire himself.
To be honest, I think the pair of them would get rid of Junior before they would ever consider stepping down. This absolute determination to hold on to office at all costs may seem bizarre, considering how old and sick these guys are -- and how much shit is coming down on their heads every day -- but it's just the way these things work.
Billmon then goes on to nutshell the rest of the post with a superbly remembered Masterpiece Theatre recollection.
Best writer in the blogosphere.
Posted by Carla at 02:20 PM | | TrackBack
Easter Egg Capitalism
Easter time is always interesting when you have children. If you are paying attention, you will notice that it is about much more than coloring eggs, eating ham, and hunting for goodies. It's also about practicing capitalism.
Every year I have watched with interest the way my children have handled the post-egg-hunt divvying up of the goods. I have tried to intervene to keep things fair. I have tried various approaches to the hunt in order to avoid squabbles. It has all been in vain. My children are little capitalists, and there isn't anything to be done about it.
Early on, I tried hiding some eggs in very easy places and others in more difficult places and instructed my older son to leave the easier ones for his brother. It didn't matter. A two-year-old will pick up an egg and sit down to eat it, completely oblivious to the fact that his older brother is taking advantage of his egg-hunting ignorance and running madly around the yard gathering up all the rest of them.
The next year I went around with the younger one, pointing eggs out and encouraging him. Still, it didn't matter. The older one followed right along, grabbing them up before his little brother could.
I gave up on that approach the following Easter and let them find whatever they found. I then made them divvy up the eggs so they each had the same amount, over the loud protests of the older one that it was unfair. This time, the older one engaged the younger one in trades. Knowing the type of candy his little brother most liked, he offered to trade each of those precious morsels for two others of his brother's, and soon he had far more candy. When the younger one had finished all his, the older one gleefully ate his candy in front of the younger one, who loudly protested about how unfair it was.
Having had enough of that, the next year I had them dump all the candy into the same basket for both of them to share. The younger brother, having finally wised up to the ways of his big brother, ate the candy as fast as he could, not because he enjoyed it, but because that ensured he had more of it than his brother, who thought the whole thing was quite unfair.
In light of the Easter egg capitalism demonstrated by my boys, I quite enjoyed reading Don Henry Ford Jr.'s delightful explanation of capitalism, and I think it best explains why, despite all its warts, I am a firm believer in our capitalist system:
Just about all left-leaning sites I read refer to capitalism as the enemy, the worst and greatest evil we face in this world. I don’t see it that way.Is it good? No. Is it fair? No.
Communism and socialism, in theory, sound like good systems, more in line with the teachings of Christ. However, unless everyone involved is committed to making them work and plays by the rules, the reality once applied to this world becomes a dysfunctional disaster for all except a chosen few.For a refresher on the phenomenon, read Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Capitalism operates on the premise that people are greedy and self-serving and therefore motivated by the chance for personal gain.
Sucks, no?
I long for a world where things are fair, where workers get paid justly and no one goes hungry or without shelter. I don’t find this in my country. But I don’t find it anywhere else either.
Humans, by and large, are despicable creatures and find a way to beat whatever system is in place for their own advantage at the expense of others. This is no theory. It’s a fact.
Capitalism is a more honest reflection of humans and their nature. This world we inhabit is not nice. Beyond that. It’s hostile. Capitalists didn’t unilaterally make it that way. They just accept that as fact.
In it’s unbridled form, capitalism becomes anarchy (survival of the fittest, smartest, strongest, meanest, most deceptive, etc.). Anyone with a conscience soon finds the consequences of this unacceptable. So capitalism in its purest form does not exist in any major government on this planet.
The most successful nations on this earth use hybrid forms of government that incorporate capitalism and then are modified with social and communistic principles to look after those that lose in the game.
All men are created equal. Don’t know who first quoted that lie but a lie it is.
Men and women, like other mammals, vary greatly in their abilities. Some are leaders, some need direction. Some are gifted. Some are not. Competition best identifies who is suited to lead and who is suited to act in a supporting role. Don’t perform in either arena and your ass is out to pasture.
As a doting mom who doesn't ever want her children to be unhappy or experience discomfort, I would love for things to always be fair for my children and for all their needs to be met. But despite all my best efforts, I realize this is futile. Many of us feel the same way about society at large.
But whether we're talking Easter candy or the American marketplace, life is tough, people are selfish, and there is no perfect world. I believe the best we humans can do is try to protect those who can't make it on their own (a great liberal tradition that helps to abate the dark side of pure capitalism), prosecute those who economically victimize others (another great liberal tradition) and otherwise let capitalism work for us. It's who we are and I believe it serves our interests better than any other system ever devised by man.
Posted by Becky at 11:35 AM | | TrackBack
What Good are Rifles if There's Nothing Left to Hunt?
As I've written before, I'm a hunter and I love the Oregon outdoors. I married an avid hunter, and my father was a world-class hunter who made and sold hand-crafted custom longbows of the highest quality. All the hunters I've ever known have been Republicans, if for no other reason than to protect their gun rights.
So I was surprised to see this article in Field and Stream arguing that the energy policies of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are destroying hunting and fishing federal lands.
National energy policy has been a top priority for the Bush Administration, with meetings between Cheney and the energy industry beginning less than two weeks after Bush took office. Using numerous executive orders, the policy has pushed wildlife preservation far down the list of priorities in the management of federal lands. Big game, upland birds, and fisheries are paying the price for the prioritization of drilling, construction of roads and pipelines, and other energy-related activities that are industrializing the wild. And it doesn't end there:
Most disturbingly, Congress is now debating a national energy bill that would codify the policy, making it the law of the land rather than an executive order. Subsequent administrations—be they Republican or Democratic—would be unable to institute a more balanced management plan for our western lands without resorting to new congressional legislation.
Anyone who has ever read about the damage that occurred in California's Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge due to dumping of wastewater, and the lengthy battle citizens engaged in to stop it, should be sickened by this:
Roads and pipelines aren’t the only way energy development is making wildlife more vulnerable. Wherever there are coal seams, CBM [coalbed methane] is trapped on the surface of the coal by water pressure. Pumping out the groundwater releases the methane, which rises to the surface, where it’s collected. However, each well discharges about 16,000 gallons of salinized water per day—43 million gallons per month for the Powder River Basin alone. Not only are underground aquifers being rapidly depleted, but the discharged water must be put someplace. It’s been spread over the landscape; it’s emptied into rivers; it’s collected in infiltration pits. The salinized water kills forage for wildlife and livestock, and it pollutes waterways. Art Hayes Jr., whose family has ranched on the Tongue River since 1884, told me that the salinity level in the Tongue has gone up fivefold seasonally since a CBM company, Fidelity Exploration, began dumping water directly into the river. Both a tailwater fishery for rainbow and brown trout and a warmwater fishery for smallmouth bass and walleyes have been jeopardized. As president of the Tongue River Water Users Association, Hayes says that he’s spent countless days trying to get CBM development done “halfway sanely”—to no avail.
I applaud the reasonable conclusion of this alarming article and hope the Republican readers of Field and Stream will contact their representatives in Washington to demand that Bush's executive orders NOT be codified:
Despite our dismay at seeing western landscapes transformed in this way, none of us—hunter, angler, wildlife watcher—can discount the need for energy. We use it in our vehicles; we use it to heat our homes and cook our meals. Clearly, something must be done to secure supplies. But only 3 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas lies under domestic soils, while we used 25 percent of the global total in 2002. In other words, our energy security can never result from more drilling in our public wildernesses. Of course, the worldwide quest for fuel damages the environment wherever it is unleashed. As Doug Grann, the president and CEO of Wildlife Forever, the conservation arm of the North American Hunting and Fishing Club, points out, we cannot sacrifice the wildlife and wild country of this planet while doing nothing to develop alternative fuels and improving the fuel efficiency of our cars, factories, and homes.
Posted by Becky at 08:51 AM | | TrackBack
The American Taliban Pageant!
Its time once again for the American Taliban Pageant. Pam's got the list of the Top 20 American Taliban members, vying for this year's crown.
It was difficult for me to settle on just one, but I'm going with Tony Perkins. He's got that beauty pageant smile and carefully manicured hair. And for the talent portion, Perkins paid former Klan honcho David Duke $82K for his mailing list.
Who would you choose for first runner up to take Tony's crown in case he can't perform his duties?
Posted by Carla at 07:05 AM | | TrackBack
"V-I-C-T-9/11-O-R-Y!" (pt. 3)
"DONNIE, DONNIE, HE'S OUR MAN!
HE'S GOT A PLAN TO NUKE I-RAN!
Lemme hear ya say:
BOOOOOOOOOM! LIBERATED!
BOOOOOOOOOM! LIBERATED!
BOOOOOOOOOM! RE-ELECTED...! um.
BOMB-BOMB-BOMB, BOMB-BOMB-IRAN -- ever'body!
BOMB-BOMB-BOMB, BOMB-BOMB-IRAN...!"
Rumsfeld 'doing a fine job'Washington - US President George W Bush has full confidence in embattled secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld despite calls from several retired generals for his resignation, the White House said on Thursday.
"Yes, the president believes secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," said White House spokesperson Scott McClellan when asked if Bush still had confidence in the defence secretary.
On Wednesday a fourth retired general called for Rumsfeld's resignation, the latest demand from senior military figures for new leadership and fresh thinking on Iraq.
Rumsfeld has led the Pentagon "during two wars, wars that resulted in the liberation" of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, McClellan said.
"The secretary has also overseen the transformation of the military so that we are better prepared to confront the threats that we face in the 21st century," he said.
"GO! FIGHT! WIN!"
Posted by Jeff at 06:26 AM | | TrackBack
April 13, 2006
Nice Christians Declare War
I ran across this very hopeful, sweet post this afternoon and thought it should be brought to the attention of those who may not be "true believers," but who are concerned about rumors of Christian efforts to impose a theocracy. In very innocent terms, it has what feels to me to be a rather diabolical message, though I would bet the author, Coach Dave Daubenmire, does not see it that way:
Our only hope is for America to return to Christ.All of the talk about spreading democracy to the world is a pipe dream. As I have watched Iraq institute a government based on the laws of Islam, I can’t help but chuckle at the folly, even though it is not a laughing matter. There will never be peace in Iraq, unless they welcome the Prince of Peace.
His misconceptions about the history of the U.S. are predictable:
I believe that the latter part of the 20th century will be seen as the greatest squandering of an inheritance in the history of the world.… Our parents inherited from their fore-fathers the greatest experiment in self-government ever devised, and it was based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
For those of you who don't know who Coach Daubenmire is, he is the coach who was sued in 1999 by the ACLU for praying with his high school sports teams. At public school.
Now he is head of Minutemen United, a militaristic sounding retake-America-for-Christ kind of group. You can buy some wonderfully upbeat bumper stickers at the site that say, "If America is to leave God, it will NOT be on MY watch."
Coach Daubenmire is calling his troops to action:
The battle lines are drawn, the war for America rages, and the Churches are the new MIA’s. Is there peace in America today? No Jesus, No Peace.
A special event is being planned for all Christian soldiers on April 18, 2006. In an invitation to Danbury pastors on March 20, he wrote:
In 1801 the then President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the then Baptist Church of Danbury on Clapboard Ridge Rd. mentioning "The Wall of Separation of Church and State" . It was meant to mean that Government could not interfere with or favor one church over another but that God could be involved in government. Today it has sadly been misinterpreted to mean all mention of God in government is forbidden because Satan has wanted it that way.We believe that IT IS TIME to turn the Spiritual tide BACK TO THE TRUTH of the intent of the founding fathers. It started here in Danbury and the change back should start here in Danbury. What better time than the anniversary of Paul Reveres ride? Instead of "The British are coming" the call is "Get the Devil Out of Here!"
I know many good Christians who believe this way. It is a real tragedy that they cannot understand how dangerous it is to try to impose their literalist belief system on this great country, thereby depriving the rest of us of our freedoms and making us, as they are, naively vulnerable to the swan song of lying politicians like George W. Bush and company.
Posted by Becky at 03:49 PM | | TrackBack
Clueless
I can't understand why some people don't get Howard Dean.
Why would the Dems want a traditional party chair when the only thing that served to do was hand the Dems a shitload of losses?
Posted by Carla at 03:09 PM | | TrackBack
Republicans Block Fiscal Responsibility
Everyone knows Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, right? Well, at least that's what Republicans believe. IF Fox News would report this story, however, that might all change.
For weeks, the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative Members, had been negotiating a spending outline with the House leadership. But when they finally struck a deal last week, [Committee Chairman Jerry] Lewis refused to go along and threatened to defeat the budget on the House floor if Speaker Denny Hastert brought it up. ... GOP leaders gave up and left town for Easter recess without a vote on their budget blueprint for 2007.
Mr. Lewis is developing quite the reputation as "one of the GOP's spenders-in-chief":
When President Bush recently asked Congress to pass a modified line-item veto, among the first to complain was Mr. Lewis. … Mr. Lewis is opposed to any budget reform that would give the President more leverage to limit his ability to spend tax dollars like there's no tomorrow.
What modest reforms did Republicans hope to pass, only to run into the Lewis roadblock? Some of the more positive reforms included:
Jeff Flake of Arizona wanted each spending "earmark" to be identified along with the Member who requested it, so perhaps lawmakers might be shamed into using tax dollars more responsibly. He assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that a legislative body that has allowed these pork projects to quadruple in the past five years is still capable of being embarrassed.Another important reform would have addressed the "supplemental" spending shell game on Capitol Hill, whereby initial spending requests that fall within the limits of a budget blueprint are inevitably augmented by so-called "emergency" spending. And since this "emergency" spending falls outside the budget framework, the sky's the limit. The proposed reform would have set criteria for what constitutes an emergency, established a rainy day fund for when one occurs, and required a House Budget Committee vote to increase spending beyond the amount in the reserve.
This failure may, if anyone on the right hears about it, add fuel to the anti-Republican fire that is beginning to spread into the ranks of the right wing:
A category five political storm is building in GOP precincts around the country, and it is going to blow Republicans right out of the majority in November if they don't soon give their supporters some reason to re-elect them.
Without major media coverage, however, we can only hope.
Posted by Becky at 12:30 PM | | TrackBack
We will get the terrorists where they live..unless we can get them to attack Iran for us
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."-- George W. Bush, 9/20/01
According to all three intelligence sources, military and intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world – including US civilian and military casualties – Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran strike.“They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” one intelligence source said
Our tax dollars are being used to fund a terrorist insurgent organization as it sets up an invasion of Iran. This is a group that has attacked and killed a lot of people, including Americans. And they're doing pretty much whatever they want, with the American people able to do nothing about it.
Our government is aiding and abetting terrorists.
This isn't the first time Rumsfeld has decided to lie with dogs.
If we're trying to defeat hardliners in Iran by funding terrorist organizations to create problems and chaos..this seems like the opposite way to do it. Professor Juan Cole notes that Iranian hardliners are hovering at a 15% popularity rating among Iranians.
It looks to me like we're giving Iranians reasons to turn to their anti-American hard-liners. After all..we're saber rattling to attack them over having enriched enough uranium to make glow-in-the-dark Mickey Mouse watches, not bombs.
Posted by Carla at 11:38 AM | | TrackBack
More Muhammad Cartoon Fallout
Inspired by the Danish Muhammad cartoon fiasco, a new 8-part series on Danish television, "Adam and Asmaa," has tried to "dissect the misunderstandings between Islam and the West." On the show, co-hosts Adam and Asmaa debate immigration, Islam and integration with various guests.
But a most amazing thing has happened (amazing to me, anyway). Because Asmaa, a devout Muslim woman, wears a headscarf during the show, several groups are outraged and want the show canceled unless the headscarf disappears.
Why, you might ask, would so many people be so offended that a devout Muslim woman on a talk show is wearing a headscarf?
"Religion should remain private," Vibeke Manniche recently told Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper. "That's why a headscarf doesn't belong on a TV host on public television."
Manniche heads the Women for Freedom Association.
"The choice of Asmaa as a co-host is an insult to Danish and Muslim women," said Manniche. "She sends the message that an honorable woman can't go out unless she's covered up."
Even Denmark's minister for social affairs and gender equality, Eva Kjaer Hansen, is jumping into this bizarre fray:
"I want to remind DR that its employees should not serve as missionaries."
Asmaa disagrees:
"You can still be strong and independent even with a piece of fabric over your head," she argues. But the piece of fabric and her pro-Islamic views have earned Hamid the label of a fundamentalist. Hamid sees that as a glib response. "I have a hard time accepting that just because you wear a headscarf you are labeled a fundamentalist. That's too simplistic. I have no ties to fanatic circles."
All I can say is I hope the anti-fundamentalist furor that is stirring in the United States doesn't get this carried away. It's one thing to expect fundamentalists to refrain from efforts to impose their beliefs on the rest of us via our legal and governmental systems. It's quite another to suppress the peaceful public expression of a belief system.
Posted by Becky at 10:08 AM | | TrackBack
Sticks and Stones
Christians in Germany are irritated over disrespectful cartoon images being published by MTV this week. The full-page cartoon advertisements depict Jesus, having come down from the cross, wearing a crown of thorns and watching television, with a tagline that reads, "Laughing rather than hanging around."
This pre-Easter advertisement promises even more offense to come:
The ad promotes MTV's plan to broadcast a cartoon lampooning the pope and Vatican hierarchy. The series, Popetown, was considered too controversial to be aired in Britain, and it caused an uproar in the one country where it has appeared, New Zealand.
Joachim Herrmann of the Christian Social Union party believes MTV would perhaps not have attacked the faith of Muslims.
"It is not acceptable that the Christian faith in particular is dragged into the dirt just because it is easier and less dangerous," he said, calling for MTV to pull both the series and the "tasteless" ads.
Christians have gone on the defense. The German Bishop's Conference is trying to talk MTV management out of airing the cartoons, saying it is simply "a provocation for Germany's Christians just a few days before Good Friday and Easter." Munich Archbishop Cardinal Friedrich Wetter has called the cartoons deeply hurtful to Christians. Verse One (a Christian magazine), who thought the world had agreed "that media should show consideration for the religious feelings of believers" after the whole Mohammad cartoon mess, is protesting online and boycotting the program. The Catholic Bishops Conference is calling on Catholics to boycott television stations owned by the broadcaster and companies advertising on those channels.
MTV describes its new cartoon this way:
"Banned from TV, damned by the church, and brought to you in devilishly uncensored form."
The show does sound pretty disrespectful:
The series portrays the pope as an uncontrollable, infantile character who pogo-sticks around a Vatican populated by corrupt, money-grabbing cardinals.
Still, despite the in-your-face tone of the show, I think these paranoid Christians need to cool off. Nothing is so sacred these days that it can't be lampooned. The world is too big and too full of different ideas to try to homogenize humor.
Besides, the Catholic church practically begged for this type of disrespectful treatment when it stood by while thousands of little boys were molested by priests and refused to take appropriate punitive action against the offenders. It's a little hard to feel sorry for them now.
Posted by Becky at 09:39 AM | | TrackBack
Preemptive Karma 3.0
I just want to draw everyone's attention to the fabutastic job Jeff has done remodeling Preemptive Karma. Except for the basic layout which continues from the previous versions (which were partly my handiwork and partly that of a former coworker who, like Jeff, is a whiz with graphic design) and the cool header font, everything you see here is the direct result of Jeff's creative genius and hard work.
Keep an eye on the header. Right now it's Tax Time and the header reflects that, but it'll change with the seasons. There's a base header graphic which will probably be up most of the time, but Jeff also has a variety of seasonally appropriate custom headers which will be slipped in from time to time. He's the only one who knows what they'll look like before they go up. So, keep an eye on it and let us know what you think.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't take advantage of the opportunity to plug Jeff's other blog: red hair & black leather.
Thanks for the amazing job you've done here, Jeff!
Posted by Kevin at 09:25 AM | | TrackBack
Mobile bio-weapons labs found in Iraq?
Posted by Jeff at 07:56 AM | | TrackBack
Saving us, one library at a time.
Free speech vs double secret terrorism fighting. It ought to be a no-brainer. Free speech is part of the Constitution. The Patriot Act is the seminal piece of legislation set to undermine the privacy rights of American citizens.
But we live in an age where just under half of our citizens now believe that the government has to save us from being afraid. Even though we have taped evidence that we are a tough assed people, perfectly capable of saving ourselves, many of us are willing to allow the government to take away our rights if they give lip service to keeping us safe from terrorism.
In the name of saving us, the Bush Administration has 30,000 letter each year to libraries, demanding patron records and email information.
The libraries have been fighting the demands and have been trying to go public. The government has been forcing them to keep quiet--but yesterday they relented after years of battling with libraries.
Apparently the government backing off has to do with, at least in part, a major screw up by the government:
The government was also under pressure to drop its fight after mistakenly disclosing in court records the very information it was fighting to keep secret. Government lawyers failed to redact all of their references to the Library Connection in court filings, leading to the disclosure of the group's identity in The New York Times and other newspapers.
Trickle down incompetence.
Posted by Carla at 07:42 AM | | TrackBack
April 12, 2006
Boogeymen
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year (emphasis Carla--that date would have been prior to the Iraq invasion) told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.GlobalSecurity.org, December 16, 2003Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.
Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.
The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.
Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update1) April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, which is defying United Nations Security Council demands to cease its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of centrifuges at its Natanz plant, a U.S. State Department official said.Bloomberg.com, April 12, 2006
Posted by Carla at 04:35 PM | | TrackBack
TMI..the White House "ick" threshold has been reached
I've been off at work all day indoctrinating children to the glorious people's revolutionary blue-state loving cause. When I get home and sit down to see what's-what in the world... I get an email linking me to a Kos Diary discussing what scuttlebut dictates is an Administration employee dishing out some icky scoop on the powers that be:
I was going to post this in the "Expose the big lie" thread but after I wrote it I thought it was interesting enough to merit a thread of its own. This is all good information, personally verified or witnessed by none other than me, but I will not answer any questions about it or go into any detail other than what I've already typed out. I may reply with more information or anecdotes if I see fit, but I've pretty much already scraped the barrel of my experiences.These are some facts I have witnessed and learned through my employment. Take it at face value, believe it or don't believe it, because I'm not providing corroborating pictures, details, or evidence beyond my own testimony.
Homeland security buys in bulk and at great premium millions of dollars of useless personal appliances from China, such as rice cookers, nose hair trimmers, massage wands, and heating pads, boxes them up, and buries them in railroad shipping containers in the Arizona desert for no reason whatsoever other than to spend its budget and prevent sub-agencies from getting the funds. I suspect that the money goes to a middleman in order to secretly siphon funds into foreign organizations which we can't support over the table, but this is just me trying to find a justification for this massive and intentional government waste.
Donald Rumsfeld needs to wear iced underwear because of some medical condition, and he has his secret service detail hold his spares. He was recently getting uncontrollable long-term erections and had to change up his medical treatments. The underwear and the erections is why he uses a standing desk, not because he is some super-man. He also wears nylon stockings, not because he's gay, but to control some vascular problem with his legs which causes him intense pain.
President Bush uses anti-depressant medication, a lot of it, at a stupendous dosage, and he is hiding it from the American public. This is the real reason he stopped drinking. Because of the dosage, he is also impotent.
There's more at the diary. A lot more. It ranges pretty much like the stuff above...from weird to icky to scary.
Who knows if any of its true. But its bizarre, nonetheless.
Posted by Carla at 04:17 PM | | TrackBack
Late-Comer to Concept of Universal Health Care
The concept of universal health care has been one that for years I have rejected because I believed overall care would deteriorate. In fact, for years it seemed to me to be a no-brainer that universal health care was a bad idea, so much so that I couldn't understand why people would even push for it.
I have finally changed my mind.
It didn't happen automatically when I lost my health care insurance. And amazingly it didn't happen when my insurer (intentionally?) screwed up and then had to restart the application process for my COBRA paperwork, so that in order to bring my account current and once again utilize my coverage I was required to pay all at once for the five prior months' coverage I wasn't allowed to utilize while I waited for the paperwork. I couldn't afford it, and was left with no choice but to walk away. Still, I didn't support universal health care insurance.
I changed my mind when I realized this morning that due to pre-existing conditions I wouldn't be likely to ever be approved for decent health insurance again. Like many (if not most) middle-aged and older adults, I have pre-existing conditions that insurance companies don't like. They don't care that I can self-manage the conditions – I have them; therefore, I am unworthy.
Suddenly, it has occurred to me that the ONLY way I'll ever have health insurance again is if I have access to a health coverage plan that can't turn me down. I sincerely doubt the private sector will ever offer such a plan. I'm just amazed I didn't get that until now.
Posted by Becky at 01:14 PM | | TrackBack
Everyone's Talking Armageddon
It seems everywhere I turn lately someone's got an editorial or book out talking about George W. Bush, the fundamentalist Christian movement, and Armageddon.
Bob Burnett, on Huffington Post, has this to say:
Whether the President actually is a Christian is controversial. Where I live, we judge people by what they do, rather than what they say. Judged by this conduct, Bush certainly isn't like the Christians I know. … But there are a bunch of American Christians that believe the end of the world is coming soon, right after Bill O'Reilly goes off the air. Apparently, they are the same Christians who have absolute confidence in Dubya; that chant, "He's doin' a heckuva job."
And Hughes for America offers some quotable quotes:
- People who believe the End Times are upon us should never be given the means to bring them about.- If you think you're headed to heaven in short order, what good are the rest of us to you? Or the environment? Or diplomacy? What good is moderation and bridge building when your president can bring about the end of the world, which, to you, is a good thing?
- The key difference between Bush and his supporters, sadly, is that the End Timer-in-Chief has his finger on the nuclear trigger - and seems poised to pull it.
Then, of course, we have Kevin Phillips's new book "American Theocracy."
And here's one that looks like a must read: Divine Destruction: Dominion Theology and American Environmental Policy, by Stephenie Hendricks. Buzzflash has a fascinating interview with Stephanie today that you must not miss. In it, she explains the dominionist theology that is behind much of the anti-environment, anti-health, pro-war craziness that has baffled so many of us and reveals several Bush Administration officials who subscribe to this theology. She also reveals the role of Armageddon author Tim LaHaye in the vast right-wing conspiracy. Here are a few excerpts, but generally, you just have to go read the interview for yourself:
- Dominionists and other extremist Christians are in the Administration. Chip Berlet, an analyst on theocracy, estimates that there are over 3,000 graduates of Regent College, which is Pat Robertson’s school, serving as civil servants in our federal government today. These are the people that shape policy, laws, and so forth, who are being led by fundamentalist Christians with a corporate agenda like Tim LaHaye.-We have to realize that there are right-wing fundamentalists who interpret the Bible a different way. And they’re having a holy war in Washington right now.
- Tim LaHaye is a strategic conservative corporate player. He wrote those books to sway the popular Christian culture into believing in end of times. He’s a founder of the Federalist Society. Karl Rove was just boasting a month ago that the Federalist Society put John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, and they’re going to get one more. The Federalist Society is ripping apart our judiciary to put anti-environmental law in. LaHaye’s a founder of the Council on National Policy, which is a think tank that’s fueling Bolton in the U.N. And LaHaye is leading Jesus tours over to Israel. There’s a great Craig Unger article in Vanity Fair on it – he accompanied Tim LaHaye to Israel.
- I would argue that most of those people, Dick Cheney included, don’t give a rat’s ass about Christianity or about the Bible, or about any of that stuff. They do like the fact that they’re working in tandem with Tim LaHaye and Ralph Reed, and James Dobson, to control big chunks of the voting blocs through these popular culture strategies that they’ve developed. I think these people are so amoral that they wouldn’t understand a spiritual, religious concept – they consider themselves above that.
- [K]ey powerful people have shrewdly manipulated popular culture on a couple of levels to get a big voting bloc in to keep their corporate representatives in Congress, and to get them on the Supreme Court – to basically take over all three branches. Whether they themselves believe in the religious ideology, or they’re exploiting it, I don’t know if we’re ever going to know that.
Posted by Becky at 09:14 AM | | TrackBack
Norquist to Copyright "K Street Project"
Looks like Grover Norquist is tucking tail and running from something after his unwarranted braggadocio backfired. But he is utilizing a very interesting means in order to save face.
Now that Grover Norquist's "K Street Project" is on the receiving end of a whole lot of bad publicity, he has decided to claim the term is being misapplied to unethical practices having nothing to do with his actual K Street Project. Those practices are the efforts by Republicans to pressure lobbying firms and other groups to hire Republican staffers.
His project is a branch of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), which he heads. He says the project is an innocuous list of job openings for Washington lobbyists and a database of lobbyists’ political ties and federal campaign contributions.The lists are circulated among high-level conservatives, with critics calling the efforts an improper “whitelisting” and “blacklisting” of potential hires.
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) disagrees with Norquist's attempt to own the term:
“There has to be an understanding that this is an approach rather than an entity. The K Street Project is a title that was an approach that was given during the ’94 takeover. I don’t see how you can marry the two,” Boehner spokesman Kevin Madden said Tuesday of Norquist’s K Street Project and the term’s broader meaning.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agrees the distinction Norquist is attempting to draw is ridiculous:
“Republicans can call it anything they want,” said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider. “It doesn’t change the fact that every single Republican is responsible for enabling and benefiting from a K Street Project that puts their cronies ahead of the American people.“The whole concept makes me laugh,” Crider said of Norquist’s trademark efforts. “The House Republicans don’t want us to be able to use the phrase ‘culture of corruption.’ Norquist doesn’t want us to be able to use the phrase ‘K Street Project.’ Again, it doesn’t change the reality.”
Looks to me as if now that trouble has erupted, Norquist is attempting to distance himself from something for which he used to claim credit, and likely his role never did live up to his own hype:
Republicans with intimate knowledge of how the K Street Project operated under DeLay attempted to distance themselves from Norquist, arguing that he was the one who hyped it from the beginning. In actuality, they said, the project as they knew it was more of a low-key job bank for staffers ready to move off the Hill than a high-pressure attempt to dictate who got top lobbying jobs and who didn’t.“Did we ask Grover for his list, and did he willingly share it? Yes,” a former GOP leadership staffer said. “But Grover’s list was totally outdated and inaccurate, and if we ever hired anyone from the list … Grover took credit for it inside the [conservative] circle.”
Posted by Becky at 08:55 AM | | TrackBack
April 11, 2006
A primer on how to start from a false premise and stretch it into a zillion hits
Which side is the national media on?Is the US military allowed to have an information warfare strategy? Or is every effort we make to assist the Iraqis secure their country and win some hearts and minds to be exposed, ridiculed and countered by the media? I have stood on the tiny coral outcrop called Ie Shima where Ernie Pyle, the GIs best friend, died near the end of WWII. With him may have died the last time the press and the military felt like they were on the same team.
Its not the press' job to be on the "team". Its their job to report the facts.
But if you write up shit like this..the rightwingers lap it up..and it gets you your own little headline on Memeorandum. Plus you get all sorts of referrals from the hacktackular rightwing blog losers....
Posted by Carla at 10:01 PM | | TrackBack
A revolution of the apparatus
Digby has a thorough--depressing, but thorough--run-down of why the Bush administration's flagrant dishonesty about the Iraq war, then and now, might quickly box him into a corner now that he's begun rattling his saber (or whatever Freudian metaphor you prefer) in Iran's direction:
There can be no doubt that Iran believes we are planning a strike and there is every reason to fear that Bush's threats will push them to make decisions that will force the US into the corner that Fallows predicts. The only question is, as Sy Hersh reports, whether the military will go along this time.It's come to this: One of the slender threads upon which Americans who oppose Bush's dreams of war in the middle east are left hanging their hopes is the possibility of a strike by the generals.
Posted by Nothstine at 12:24 PM | | TrackBack
Fear and loathing in Jesusland
Here's yet another for the You'd Have to Live Here to Understand File:
Sweep rumor feeds on immigrant fearWhile thousands nationwide took to the streets, some illegal immigrants in the tri-county area went into hiding because they feared being deported.
Rumors of an immigration raid Saturday and Sunday led to adults not going to their jobs and kids skipping playtime. Families opted out of church and put off grocery shopping.
"People were really concerned, and that did contribute to create a climate of fear," said the Rev. Mario Aman, director of Hispanic Ministries at Frazer Memorial United Methodist Church in Montgomery. "People did not go to work. People were shy of going to Wal-Mart and places like that, even Sunday services."
(snip)
An immigration raid early last week is what touched off the rumors about a sweep over the weekend, said those who work closely with the local Hispanic community.
"These arrests are making law-abiding people with no documentation very nervous thinking they are going to be rooted out of their homes," said Pamela Long, who ministers to Hispanics at Christ the Redeemer Episcopal Church.
Immigrants always are dealing with the fear of being arrested, particularly while driving, said Mary Bauer, who heads the Immigrant Justice Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
"Immigrants really feel like they will be targeted because of their ethnicity, and that's borne out by the number of people we talk to who get stopped for no apparent reason other than being brown," Bauer said.
Montgomery attorney Boyd Campbell also heard about the immigration raid April 3 and 4.
"It happens about once a year," he said. "Last week it was not big by immigration sweep standards. Montgomery is a small city, and Alabama has a very tiny Hispanic population.
Memo to the Chamber of Commerce -- forget the "Imagine A Greater Montgomery" slogan. "Montgomery, Alabama: Remember Your Place" would at least be more accurate. Meanwhile, in N. Alabama:
5,000 march in AlbertvilleALBERTVILLE - Several thousand chanting Hispanic immigrants streamed through the streets of Albertville on Monday, joining a national protest against legislation that would block citizenship for people like them.
"Illegal aliens are not criminals" and "God bless America," protesters chanted at the city's Neighborhood Recreation Center on West McKinney Avenue. The immigrants met at the park after a three-mile march through downtown.
Some carried American flags and signs including "Sweet Home Alabama" and "We Pay Taxes Too."
Albertville police officers, who watched the demonstration and directed traffic, put the crowd at 5,000, said police spokesman Sgt. Jamie Smith.
"We were on pins and needles going into it," Smith said. "But it went really, really well."
Some residents encouraged the marchers with thumbs up gestures - others weren't so supportive.
"Speak English so I can understand you," Margie Williams repeatedly told marchers as they filed past her house chanting "Si se puede!"
Marchers began saying that slogan in English - "Yes we can" - in response to Williams.
Donald Justice, who has lived in Albertville for 62 years, leaned against a lamp post with a sign that read "All You Mexican (sic) Go Home to Mexico."
"They are draining our welfare system," Justice said.
[ insert photo of Mr. Justice, or possibly not, here ]
Jose Contreras, 35, of Albertville, one of the event's organizers, said about half of those at the rally were illegal immigrants who are hard-working people trying only to feed and raise their families.
"They take whatever jobs are offered to them," he said. "They're getting the jobs nobody wants."
Contreras moved from the Dominican Republic in 1990. He owns and operates Tienda El Sol Mexican grocery on Alabama 205 in Albertville.
Contreras said most of those at the rally work in local poultry plants. Because many of them are here illegally, he said, employers can make them work harder than non-immigrant workers.
Illegal immigrants will work twice as hard because they do not want to be deported, he said. "They have no choice."
Another organizer, Joe Castillo, 57, of Attalla, who works as a counselor at the Career Center in Albertville, said the protesters want lawmakers to know they "are not criminals."
"They may be illegal, but they still pay taxes," he said. "They're contributing a lot to the economy."
Posted by Jeff at 11:42 AM | | TrackBack
1st, pick your music
May I recommend John Lennon "Imagine" or the Band "Tears of Rage"?
Then read Pro-life nation by Jack Hitt.
Posted by Jeff at 11:21 AM | | TrackBack
Someone Help Us Before It’s Too Late
The immigration protests of the past couple of weeks have been jaw-dropping. I am absolutely amazed at the tremendous numbers of people who are coming out for these events. Anyone who loves democracy and free speech as I do has to be both riveted and even giddy over this massive display of people power, particularly in the face of potential arrest and deportation.
But I am also absolutely distressed by it at the same time. I can’t help but wonder why it is that we aren’t seeing anywhere near this level of protest by American citizens over the outrages that have occurred under the leadership of this president? I was heartened this morning to see that I am not the only one who feels this way.
To me, it is a shame that so many American citizens seem to have lost the passion of their beliefs. Our country is literally going to hell in a handbasket and nobody takes to the streets, nobody organizes a rally/march/sit-in/walkout, etc.
I feel hypocritical to even write on this subject because I haven’t attended a rally or protest in years. Like most all Americans I have my reasons, all of which are very reasonable. I feel frozen, fearful to the bone about what is happening to my country and unable to do a damned thing about it. We desperately need a charismatic leader who can crystallize the message and inspire people for just one day to step out of the rat race and tell that bastard in the White House that we don’t want to go to war against Iran.
Someone, please help us before it’s too late.
Posted by Becky at 09:38 AM | | TrackBack
Christians Sue for Anti-Gay Free Speech
Ruth Malhotra, a student at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has filed a lawsuit claiming her right to religious expression is being violated by the Institute’s ban on discrimination against homosexuals. As I understand it, her complaint is that she is not being allowed to speak out against homosexuality on campus.
I’m very curious where the ACLU would come down on this one. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court has been pretty clear that when it comes to speech, the government ought to back off. In its 1971 decision, Cohen v. California, the Court considered the case of a man who, in a protest against the Vietnam War, was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words “Fuck the draft” printed on it. The Court overturned his 30 day prison sentence, saying, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric” and rejected the state’s role as “guardians of public morality.”
As truly abhorrent as Malhotra’s speech is, we have to ask ourselves about whether we are willing to tape over someone’s mouth because we don’t like what they have to say, and particularly on that bastion of free speech that is the college campus. Speech is a heck of a lot different than action – if Malhotra thinks she or any other Christian ought to be able to deny a homosexual of his or her rights, that is another matter.
I oppose efforts to overturn diversity training and anti-discrimination policies, and without a doubt groups that are working to that end are also supporting Malhotra’s effort to overturn anti-speech policies. That is not sufficient reason, however, to set aside the First Amendment.
As I understand it, the First Amendment allows Christians to wear anti-gay T-shirts, denounce Gay Pride Month, or otherwise say whatever they want to say. Along with that freedom comes responsibility – this outspoken intolerance has repercussions, and those who engage in it have no legitimate reason to complain if people exercise their own constitutional rights in response by exercising some free speech of their own or ostracizing those who speak out against homosexuality. Unfortunately, this basic understanding seems to have been overlooked in the Malhotra case:
"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.
I contend that the First Amendment would allow that person to be as outspoken as they liked about their opinion. And the fact that many people actually feel that way, but are reluctant to admit it, tells me that we don’t need a law to protect us from horrible speech. Anyone who advocates racism or sexism is ostracized. I don’t doubt that we’re heading to a time when the same will be true about homosexuality.
Posted by Becky at 09:09 AM |
April 10, 2006
Just regular guys
I met Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (Daily Kos) and Jerome Armstrong (co-founder MYDD) this afternoon. They were in Portland along with Kari Chisolm (Blue Oregon) and others to put on an event for state legislative candidate Rob Brading. Over the weekend Markos and Jerome also did a book signing at Powells for their new book Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics.
Before the scheduled event for Rob Brading there was an informal get-together downstairs in the McMenamin's Kennedy School Courtyard restaurant of about a dozen or so bloggers, including Kari, Markos and Jerome. Carla and I joined in the round... er... elbow-shaped table discussion which was nothing more momentus than just shooting the breeze. Nothing formal at all. Just a handful of bloggers talking politics, blogs and whatever else came up. Mostly one-on-one or in small groups, except for the initial introductions that is.
Being a life-long people watcher I found the whole experience interesting. Markos' blog gets something like a million hits per day. Jerome's is in the top tier at over 25k per day. So you might expect a certain primadonna aspect that often comes with notoriety of being big-time bloggers and acclaimed authors. But, nothing could be further from the truth.
Markos has a very warm and genuine smile. Almost infectious, really. Nothing even remotely fake or forced about it. And when he talks to you he looks you right in the eye and gives you his full attention.
Jerome was quieter. Although they both have endured a rigorous schedule and were likely both experiencing varying degrees of exhaustion at the time. I noticed that Jerome really listened, though. You could almost see the wheels turning in his head as he visibly considered what he was hearing. And, like Markos, he was very attentive and sincere.
All in all they're just regular guys like me.
I respect that.
Posted by Kevin at 10:24 PM |
Wa Po: Bush and GOP in poll ratings toilet
Wow:
The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing, down three percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. Sixty percent disapprove of his performance. With less than seven months remaining before the midterm elections, Bush's political troubles already appear to be casting a long shadow over them. Barely a third of registered voters, 35 percent, approve of the way the Republican-led Congress is doing its job -- the lowest level of support in nine years.The negative judgments about the president and the congressional majority reflect the breadth of the GOP's difficulties and suggest that the problems of each may be mutually reinforcing. Although the numbers do not represent a precipitous decline over recent surveys, the fact that they have stayed at low levels over recent months indicates that the GOP is confronting some fundamental obstacles with public opinion rather than a patch of bad luck.
A majority of registered voters, 55 percent, say they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in their House district, while 40 percent support the Republican candidate. That is the largest share of the electorate favoring Democrats in Post-ABC polls since the mid-1980s.
The election is still seven months away..a lifetime for political polling. But this definitely bodes well for the good guys.
Posted by Carla at 10:13 PM |
How Speech and Debate saved my son
Raising children is the most challenging and surprising thing I've ever done. You never know what will spark them..what will motivate them to success.
Nothstine sent me this Salon story via email today, which I think provoked a reaction he wouldn't have expected. It made me cry.
My son has had a really tough time in school over the years. He started off okay in Kindergarten, entering school already knowing how to read and count. But he couldn't write his name and he had trouble holding a pencil correctly. He also had a lot of trouble socially. By the time he finished second grade, his teacher was tutoring him a couple of days after school in spelling and writing. He was starting to feel ostracized from his classmates. And at the end of fifth grade, he was ready to stop going to school.
So his dad and I had him tested. He scored at the 98th percentile for verbal intelligence. This was nobody's dummy. But we already knew that. Something was happening inside my boy's brain that made him learn differently and kept him from seeing the body language social cues from others.
So the pediatrician conducted a battery of tests. My son was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder. After months of fighting the doctor on medicating my child, I acquiesed since nothing else was working.
After that, it was like somebody turned on a light inside him. He could concentrate. He started to learn better. He was still terribly disorganized but at least he could write his assignments down and have a prayer of finishing them.
He was still struggling socially, however. He just couldn't understand the social cues and how to interact with his peers. He was thin skinned. Teasing bothered him and he couldn't shake it off.
In 7th grade he decided to sign up for an after school Speech and Debate class being run through the local Parks and Recreation District.
It just a few hours a week, but it motivated my previously unmotivated son to dive into research materials, learn to take notes and work competitively to speak in front of others. He absolutely loved it and continued with the after school program through 8th grade. He still had social problems, but his grades improved.
This year he started high school. He joined the Speech and Debate team as soon as he was permitted. He knew he had to maintain a 3.0 (the school requires a 2.5--his dad and I tacked on the extra .5) to participate so it pushed him even harder to keep his grades up.
But my son had found his niche. His passion for speech and debate had been whetted by the after school program, but now he was on a real team that attends real tournaments. Even as a freshman, he could earn spots to debate the best debators from around the state. And later as we discovered, some of the best debators in the nation.
All of a sudden, he has a wide circle of friends: most all debators. They're teaching him, literally, how to read social cues and create/interpret body language..to help hone his skills. He's learned to adapt those skills to his every day social life..and with that has been able to overcome (to a great degree) his previous problems developing friendships.
Last Friday, he competed at an event debating Lincoln-Douglas Policy. He had to debate against another boy from his team..one who's excelled and beat him all year long. At the end of the debate, the boys didn't know the outcome. They had to wait until Saturday for the awards ceremony.
I didn't attend the awards ceremony because I wasn't feeling well on Saturday. So when my son walked through the door Saturday night with the blue ribbon for First Place pinned to his chest...I couldn't help but have tears in my eyes. I'm so proud of him. And this year because of this program, he's learned to be proud of himself.
Posted by Carla at 01:38 PM |
DU Danger: It’s not Just the Radiation
For those doubting Thomases who rejected depleted uranium fears because our government would never use something so dangerous, a new study out of Northern Arizona University has made an important discovery: uranium is damaging to humans for much more than just its radiation. As a heavy metal, it could damage DNA and cause mutations leading to cancer even if it wasn’t radioactive (though it is, in fact, both toxic and radioactive).
That’s right. All those hundreds of tons of perfectly harmless depleted uranium particles blowing through the Middle East and into Europe really can cause cancer. Could it be that widespread reports of an epidemic of birth defects, unexplained illnesses and cancer throughout Iraq and amongst our troops are true?
The research team has found:
[W]hen cells are exposed to uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells can mutate, the uranium altering the cell's DNA code. The end result can be that the affected DNA can produce a different protein or wrong amounts of protein, affecting cell growth, some of which can metastasize into cancer cells.
The implications are widespread and should be carefully examined.
Their findings have far-reaching implications for people living near abandoned mine tailings in the Four Corners area of the Southwest and for war-torn countries and the military, which uses depleted uranium for anti-tank weapons, tank armor and ammunition rounds. Depleted uranium is what is left over when most of the highly radioactive isotopes of uranium are removed.
Interestingly, the only media outlet reporting this story is UPI. Will the AP or Fox News report it so that Bush’s supporters or apologists will believe the truth about DU? Maybe when enough DU dust has blown over our own country that some of these conservatives begin to notice their non-smoking children are dying of lung cancer and their grandchildren are being born with gross deformities. Maybe.
Posted by Becky at 01:36 PM |
Who Would Say Something Like That?
The other day I made the mistake of mentioning to one of my conservative friends that Bush had told his biographer before he was elected that a war in Iraq would give him political capital that he could use to advance his agenda. My friend was livid. “How can you believe that? Who would say something like that?”
I decided it wasn’t worth it to continue the conversation. Like many such conversations I’ve had with this individual, I knew that as soon as I cited my source it would be all over. Because if it’s not an AP article, or on Fox News, it didn’t happen.
Well, it did happen.
“He was thinking about invading