« 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.